I see that the SNP has "reacted with fury" to proposals to limit voting on English matters in the House of Commons to English MPs, thus solving the West Lothian question.
They acccuse Cameron of breaking up the Union. That did amuse me a bit, considering the SNP want independence for Scotland, which might be seen by some as also breaking up the Union. So it's OK if they do it, but no-one else is allowed to?
Peter Wishart, SNP, said,"Never before has there been an assault on the rights of Members of Parliament in this house.
"This lot are doing their best to ensure Scotland becomes an independent nation. This is going to make the whole movement to independence even more irresistable. (sic)" (tinyurl.com/ppw3732 - The Telegraph)
Is this guy even listening to himself?
And it apparently didn't cross their small minds that in the devolved Scottish parliament, English MPs don't have a vote.
This seems such a threadbare argument, accompanied by its synthetic outrage, that it ought by rights to bring derision upon the party.
Last edited by: Observer on Thu 2 Jul 15 at 13:16
|
>> in the devolved Scottish parliament, English
>> MPs don't have a vote.
>>
The same as Scottish MPs don't have a vote in the devolved Welsh or NI parliaments either.
The English have chosen not to have a devolved parliament, prefering to settle all their affairs under the UK parliament. The famous question arises because of this asymetry.
|
>> The English have chosen not to have a devolved parliament
I don't recall being asked.
|
>> >> The English have chosen not to have a devolved parliament
>>
>> I don't recall being asked.
>>
"Devolution referendums in Northern England were proposed under provisions of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003. Initially, three referendums were planned, but only one took place. The votes concerned the question of devolving limited political powers from the UK Parliament to elected regional assemblies in North East England, North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber respectively.
On 4 November 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal by 77.9% on a turnout of 49%, which halted the government's proposed referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber which were postponed and then dropped."
Loosely translated as "The English have chosen not to have a devolved parliament"
|
Those were clearly not referenda on an English parliament.
Those oop north were never asked and I still don't recall being asked. And the majority of the English population is south of Mansfield.
|
** SORRY FOR THE LONG POST **
Though it is costly, England will need its own Parliament to get back into balance with the devolution settlement.
Using the House of Commons for two purposes has a large potential problem.
Consider this potential, and entirely possible, UK election result (650 total seats).
Conservative 294
Labour 265
SNP 56
LibDem 12
Green 1
PC (Welsh Nat) 3
(Total parties labelling themselves "Progressive" = 337)
UKIP 1
Northern Irish Parties 18
The "progressives " need only an informal coalition (The so called "Confidence & Supply" situation) to keep the Tories out. In practice, since they agree on so much anyway, they would be able to get most UK wide legislation through the house easily.
*BUT*
If we have "EVEL" then for a bill affecting only England & Wales (such as an Education bill) then the government would not have a majority for its own legislation!
This is because the number of MPs from England & Wales (given the above result) would be
Conservative 293
Labour 264
LibDem 11
Green 1
PC 1
UKIP 1
(Total non-conservative = 278)
The conservatives would be able to block anything the government tried to introduce, but have no admin structure - such as that provided by a separate assembly would have - to properly introduce their own bills.
|
>> ** SORRY FOR THE LONG POST **
>>
>> Though it is costly, England will need its own Parliament to get back into balance
>> with the devolution settlement.
>> Using the House of Commons for two purposes has a large potential problem.
>> Consider this potential, and entirely possible, UK election result (650 total seats).
Thanks. I've been banging that drum for a while. We need a cross party constitutional convention to sort this stuff out.
|
|
What we need to is to realise we live on a small Island.To get on with each other and make live prosperous for all.
|
>> What we need to is to realise we live on a small Island.To get on
>> with each other and make live prosperous for all.
>>
+1
|
>> Thanks. I've been banging that drum for a while. We need a cross party constitutional
>> convention to sort this stuff out.
>>
Why? Has that worked in the past? From my reading it doesn't matter who's in charge the UK does have a record of swinging violently from one side to the other. There is no happy medium.
|
EVEL motion postponed after revolt by Tories and Unionists:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/09/english-votes-english-laws-plan-revised-conservatives-dup
Grayling appears to be as hopeless in his current role as he was in his previous one.
|
>> Grayling appears to be as hopeless in his current role as he was in his
>> previous one.
thought you would be pleased, it was after all a stupid idea, and a very bad way of implementing what should be real constitutional reform through a back door lash up.
The proper way of course is to introduce an english parliament for devolved english affairs, with the house of commons being moved to an "upper tier" for national UK matters. We could then dump the house of lords.
|
>> thought you would be pleased, it was after all a stupid idea, and a very
>> bad way of implementing what should be real constitutional reform through a back door lash
>> up.
I am pleased for exactly that reason. Just can't resist sniggering a Grayling's discomfort.
As long as they try and behave as if they'd won a landslide there will be humiliations of this sort on a weekly basis.
|
>> As long as they try and behave as if they'd won a landslide there will
>> be humiliations of this sort on a weekly basis.
>>
They still did rather better in the GE than your rabble did ISTR !
Last edited by: Skip on Thu 9 Jul 15 at 21:23
|
Once/if EVEL is passed then the Tories DO have a landslide in England
They won 319 seats (on only 41.0% of the vote, but that's the system).
All other parties combined have only 214 seats.
For laws affecting England & Wales, the Tories have 330 seats, and all other parties have 233 seats.
Labour have a hill to climb. Just watch them shoot themselves in the foot and elect Corby or Burnham as leader before attempting that climb.
|
>> Those were clearly not referenda on an English parliament.>>
>> Those oop north were never asked and I still don't recall being asked. And the
>> majority of the English population is south of Mansfield.
>>
The intention of proceeding with further English devolution was dropped in the face of massive apathy and a clear rejection of the idea from the the regions that had been asked so far.
That is the English Paradox - devolution to Scotland, Wales and NI cannot be fair unless England has devolution too, but in practice the English resent any government, and especially the prospect of another tier seviced by another layer of well-paid bureaucrats doing non-jobs.
It might have been better to have had universal devolution of more powers to local authorities, rather than the creation of regional parliaments and assemblies.
Then Manchester, Cornwall, etc could have been treated fairly, without needing to increase the risk to the entity of the UK posed by the likes of the SNP.
But it's too late now, we've let the genii out of the bottle.
|
>> The intention of proceeding with further English devolution was dropped in the face of massive
>> apathy and a clear rejection of the idea from the the regions that had been asked so far.
>>
But the point is that the English never were, and never have been asked if they wanted an English Government/parliament/assembly.
Some regions of England were asked if they wanted a regional form of local government and with a wonderful display of apathy, they yawned and said "Nah, mate. Don't bother".
|
>> But the point is that the English never were, and never have been asked if
>> they wanted an English Government/parliament/assembly.
>>
True, not as a whole entity. But that's another problem - England is disproportionately big compared with the other regions, so any single English assembly is just going to be 90% of the UK. Hence the attempt to create more English regions. That's a non-starter too, because with very few exceptions (Cornwall?) there is no tradition of regional independence in England remotely comparable with Scotland Wales or NI.
But I do think that there is a fundamental principle that UK MPs have a right to speak and vote on all non-devolved matters. That's what the Union is all about. So much as I dislike them, I think the SNP does have a valid constitutional point, and curiously, is actually voicing Unionist sympathies in opposing the restriction on Scottish MPs' voting rights.
|
>> But I do think that there is a fundamental principle that UK MPs have a
>> right to speak and vote on all non-devolved matters.
I agree - they do. But they SHOULD NOT on devolved matters, and the problem is that THEY DO.
If Scotland (via its devolved Assembly) has the sovereign right to decide on Education matters in Scotland then the same rights, respective to their countries, should be enjoyed by the English, Welsh and Northern Irish WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANYONE ELSE IN THE UNION.
We can't have two classes of citizen, and that is what we have now.
|
>> If Scotland (via its devolved Assembly) has the sovereign right to decide on Education matters
>> in Scotland then the same rights, respective to their countries, should be enjoyed by the
>> English, Welsh and Northern Irish WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANYONE ELSE IN THE UNION.
>>
>
That's a very good argument for English devolution. But at present the English devolution is handled by Westminster MPs wearing two hats as it were. Until the two are separated, any Westminster MP should have the right to vote on any matter that has not been devolved elsewhere.
That's exactly the same principle that allows Lancastrian MPs to vote on Yorkshire matters, Devonshire on Cornish, London on Birmingham, etc. (Or for that matter, Glasgow MPs on Shetland affairs)
Remember that "Scotland" is not a single electoral entity. There are Scottish MSPs, who sit in Edinburgh and deal only with devolved matters, and there are Westminster MPs for Scottish constituencies who vote only on UK matters. A Scottish Westminster MP has no more rights in Scotland than does an MP from Norfolk or Durham. It's easy to forget that these are different MPs, elected to different parliaments.
Restricting MPs' rights to vote on matters in regions not their own is a recipe for breaking up the Union. It is ironic that many Conservative supposed Unionists cannot see this, but that Scottish MPs can.
|
>> That's a very good argument for English devolution. But at present the English devolution is
>> handled by Westminster MPs wearing two hats as it were. Until the two are separated,
>> any Westminster MP should have the right to vote on any matter that has not
>> been devolved elsewhere.
>> That's exactly the same principle that allows Lancastrian MPs to vote on Yorkshire matters, Devonshire
>> on Cornish, London on Birmingham, etc. (Or for that matter, Glasgow MPs on Shetland affairs)
No it isn't. In your example, yes, "...allows Lancastrian MPs to vote on Yorkshire matters" but crucially Yorkshire MPs have the reciprocal right to vote on Lancastrian matters
Whereas with our asymetric devolution setup ....... .
An MP who represents a seat in Scotland DOES HAVE the ability to vote on legislation which affects only England in Education, Health etc
HOWEVER
An MP who represents a seat in England DOES NOT HAVE ability to vote on legislation which affects only Scotland in Education, Health etc
For a fuller discussion see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question
Note that all EVEL is trying to do is to save the tax payer some money by making Westminster fill two purposes, rather than introduce an extra tier of government(and extra costs) by having a full English parliament.
Last edited by: Londoner on Sun 12 Jul 15 at 04:51
|
>> Note that all EVEL is trying to do is to save the tax payer some
>> money by making Westminster fill two purposes, rather than introduce an extra tier of government(and
>> extra costs) by having a full English parliament.
Major difference is that Westminster is FPTP with Members elected on UK wide manifesto. The devolved assemblies are elected by PR on a territorial manifesto. It can make a difference as comparison of Scottish election results between Holyrood and Westminster in last decade amply demonstrates.
Defining and 'English' law is not as straightforward as it seems either. Even those clauses dealing with say health or education in England can have an effect in Scotland due to effect of funding formulae etc.
None of that means we should stick to the status quo. It's clearly broken and not really fit for purpose. But constitutional change should be effected openly by primary legislation (probably with extensive pre legislative scrutiny) not rushed through via 'standing orders'.
This sort of legislation is ideally suited to start as a bill in the Lords.
|
>>
>> This sort of legislation is ideally suited to start as a bill in the Lords.
>>
That's not a bad idea at all! :-)
Trying to make the HofC do two jobs with these EVEL proposals is getting facical, but equally I don't think that the current constitutional settlement is just and equitable to the proper governance(*) of England.
(*) "governance" - get him! Who does he think he is, using old-fashioned words like that.
|
>> but crucially Yorkshire MPs have the reciprocal right to vote on Lancastrian matters
>>
As does an England MP on Scottish matters that have not been devolved.
That's the point - the asymetry in the degree of devolution.
All Westminster MPs have a right to vote on anything that has not been devolved elsewhere.
The argument should be whether England wants devolution or not. If yes, then get on with it. If not, then don't complain and start trying to fudge things by crying EVEL.
We said (pretended?) we wanted the Scots in the Union. Being in the Union means having a vote on union matters.
|
>> Being in the Union means having a vote on union matters.
>>
Not matters that will not apply in Scotland.
This is not new, it should have been sorted out years ago when powers were devolved to a Scottish assembly. It isn't easy but it's not hard either, and trying to pretend that MPs who represent Scottish constituencies should have full rights to vote on laws their constituents will not have to live with is a nonsense.
England does not want devolution for England, that much has been clear all along but neither to most voters in England want Scottish MP's to vote on matters that do not affect their constituents.
If one message was clear in the GE it was that Scotland making laws for England is not a positive message south of the border.
|
>> and trying
>> to pretend that MPs who represent Scottish constituencies should have full rights to vote on
>> laws their constituents will not have to live with is a nonsense.
But they do have to live with any UK laws that have not been devolved in Scotland. And if a UK law has not been similarly devolved in England, then it is a union matter, not an English one.
|
How do you want this phrased Cliff? If laws apply in the whole UK all UK MP's get a vote
If laws do not apply in Scotland, ie if the Scottish parliament has responsibility for such matters in Scotland then Scottish MP's do not get a vote on them as they only apply in the rest of the UK.
Anything else is just wrong, undemocratic, and unfair.
The issue should have been resolved years ago and should be resolved in the short term.
|
They could of course adopt a convention that they simply abstain on matters which do not materially affect Scotland and when control for Scotland itself is devolved.
Perhaps if politicians were relied upon to act honourably, they might start doing it. On second thoughts, that's a carp idea.
|
>> They could of course adopt a convention that they simply abstain on matters which do
>> not materially affect Scotland and when control for Scotland itself is devolved.
They could have been doing that for years, have they?
|
>> >> They could of course adopt a convention that they simply abstain on matters which
>> do
>> >> not materially affect Scotland and when control for Scotland itself is devolved.
>>
>> They could have been doing that for years, have they?
>>
>>
Yes - that was SNP policy for years. Having got a lot more MPs (enough to feel that they can now really make an impact on the Westminster parliament) they have reversed this policy completely.
|
>> And if a UK law has not been similarly devolved in England, then
>> it is a union matter, not an English one.
>>
Sorry, that went out the window when Scottish Devolution started IMHO. When laws on (eg) education only apply to (eg) Scotland then the laws on that for the rest of the country are off limits to Scots MPs. Anything else is patently wrong in principle.
The status of the union has been affected and we cannot and should not pretend otherwise.
It is not an easy question but it is solvable.
All Mr Cameron has proved so far is what many of us knew already he has good principles but he is a political numpty when it comes to the capability of getting things through.
|
The urgent need to put the West Lothian question to bed is further illustrated by today's news that the SNP, having said they would not vote on the fox-hunting law amendment (which affects England and Wales only), then said they would vote against it in spite against the Government for introducing EVEL, thus re-inforcing the perception that such legislation is absolutely necessary. The Government has now withdrawn the proposed fox-hunting legislation.
Is it just me, or are the SNP not making idiots of themselves - again?
(On a personal note, I am against any watering-down of the present legislation on fox-hunting, but that is not the point.)
|
Just remember, however nice the little Scottish lady comes across on telly, she wants an independent Scotland, preferably sooner rather than later. She is playing to an audience of her own supporters, nobody else matters.
|
>> Just remember, however nice the little Scottish lady comes across on telly, she wants an
>> independent Scotland, preferably sooner rather than later. She is playing to an audience of her
>> own supporters, nobody else matters.
>>
On the contrary, whether intended or not, she comes over to English voters of a leftish persuasion as thoroughly rational and reasonable. The party leader we wish we had.
|
>>she comes over to English voters of a leftish persuasion as thoroughly rational and reasonable. The party leader we wish we had.
I expect you'll be seeing this lass in charge in your dotage:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZAmhB55_-k
|
Brompton:>> On the contrary, whether intended or not, she comes over to English voters of a
>> leftish persuasion as thoroughly rational and reasonable. The party leader we wish we had.
Seriously, Brompton? On the doorsteps of Hampstead and Kilburn the voters who said 'I am a life-long Labour voter; for the first time I shall vote Conservative as I'm terrified of what the Scot Nats will do to the country' were legion.
(For NoFM2R's benefit, 'legion' means numerous. And it is another biblical reference to the time when Christ cured a madman, by driving out the demons into a herd of pigs. Christ asked the demon his name, the demons (sic, plural) said 'My name is Legion for we are many.')
|
>> 'I am a life-long Labour voter; for the first time I shall vote Conservative as I'm terrified of what the Scot Nats will do to the country'
So the Conservative fear campaign worked well then.
"I'll vote Tory to stop a party similar to the party I always vote for getting in".
Retards :-)
|
or perhaps it just illustrates how incompetent the alternative option were perceived to be and the fear that they would have been completely out thought and manipulated by the SNP.
|
Never thought of you as naive Bromp, even if I agreed with her politics she still strikes me as a nasty piece of work in many ways, did you see her expression at times both during the GE campaign and during the referendum last year.
She is not alone in this but no way would I want to have her as my party leader.
|
>> Never thought of you as naive Bromp,
On TV and in the Holyrood chamber she presents as an articulate and convincing speaker. Unlike most in here, I'm starting from a left leaning persuasion so on general political matters, as opposed to the specifics of independence, she's saying stuff I broadly agree with. Clearly she's a winner with her own public having obtained something far closer to 50% of the popular vote than any UK party leader since at least the fifties. If she was a Labour politician and on the leadership slate she'd get my vote.
I'm well aware of her reputation as a 'nippy sweetie' but she's hardly unique amongst politicians (of either gender) in displaying characteristics of that nature.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 15 Jul 15 at 14:05
|
>> If she was a Labour politician and on the leadership slate she'd get my vote.
Not mine. She's a two-bit shyster.
"With her cynical foxhunting vote, Sturgeon has joined the Westminster club"
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/foxhunting-vote-sturgeon-westminster
Neither she, nor the SNP have any real principles. The only thing they care about is Independence for Scotland.
This is why the SNP have gone from centre-right "Tartan Tories" to a "Progressive" party. There was more chance of achieving their independence objective by replacing Labour, rather than the Tories.
All four of the Labour leadership candidates are poor, IMHO. I'd vote Kendall - she's the only one who realises why labour lost the election. The others are just "continuity Miliband" (or worse).
|
>>With her cynical foxhunting vote
There are cross-border fox hunts.
Also Cameron has been running about trying to pretend he is not in a similar position to Major in '92.
He is wrong.
|
>> There are cross-border fox hunts.
>>
So would it not have been sensible for the law on both sides of the border to be the same?
I have no personal view either way on fox hunting, I do not believe many city/town dwellers know enough to have a balanced view on the subject.
|
>> >> There are cross-border fox hunts.
>> >>
>> So would it not have been sensible for the law on both sides of the
>> border to be the same?
Like the drink driving limits you mean?
|
>> This is why the SNP have gone from centre-right "Tartan Tories" to a "Progressive" party.
That journey wasn't some sort of Salmond/Sturgeon conspiracy. It started at least 40 years ago with Margo MacDonald winning the labour seat of Govan.
|
>> That journey wasn't some sort of Salmond/Sturgeon conspiracy. It started at least 40 years
>> ago with Margo MacDonald winning the labour seat of Govan.
>>
It started with the discovery of oil and the "it's Scotland's oil" slogans of the sixties and seventies, and the thoughts among some there that it would make 5 million people a lot richer than it would make 55 million people.
It has carried on with opportunistic shifting between left, right and anti English ever since, they have backed whoever suited their agenda.
|
>>It has carried on with opportunistic shifting between left, right and anti English ever since, they have backed whoever suited their agenda.
Unlike the other major parties then?
Blair in 1997 was the spitting image of Foot in '83.
Major in '92 was basically Maggie in drag.
Lib Dems haven't changed in 30 years.
Pfft.
|
>> Not mine. She's a two-bit shyster.
>> "With her cynical foxhunting vote, Sturgeon has joined the Westminster club"
>> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/foxhunting-vote-sturgeon-westminster
The proposed change to dog numbers didn't fulfil his manifesto commitment which was a free vote on real of the hunting ban. Neither is the number of dogs permitted to 'flush' foxes a matter of great fiscal, social or political impact or of concern to the mass of people. OTOH it des matter to Dave's 'set' around his constituency.
The SNP are just playing a bit of end of term politics. Tweaking Cameron's tail to remind him that for all his party's posturing he hasn't won a landslide and that his most damaging opponents may be seated behind him.
|
>> The SNP are just playing a bit of end of term politics. Tweaking Cameron's tail
>> to remind him that for all his party's posturing he hasn't won a landslide and
>> that his most damaging opponents may be seated behind him.
>>
And playing it very badly. In February Sturgeon went on TV and specifically ruled out the SNP members voting against fox hunting bills pertaining to England. Now (July), she did a 180 degree U-turn.
She fell into the Tory trap. 24 hours later the Government announced that they would be rebooting EV4EL, with a vote in the Autumn, citing the perfidiousness of the SNP.
SNP done up like an Arbroath Smokie.
Last edited by: Londoner on Wed 15 Jul 15 at 16:59
|
>>SNP done up like an Arbroath Smokie
And continuing that logic the Union becomes broken and England gets enforced devolution.
|
>> And continuing that logic the Union becomes broken and England gets enforced devolution.
>>
I fear that you might be right. I am pro-Scotland, pro-Union but I fear that it may be inevitable.
"In 1995, Robertson said that "Devolution will kill Nationalism stone dead" while he was Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland" (1)
Rather than kill Nationalism, it seems to have started the ball rolling towards an inevitable break up as powers get devolved to the Scottish Assembly.
(1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Robertson,_Baron_Robertson_of_Port_Ellen
|
>>Rather than kill Nationalism, it seems to have started the ball rolling towards an inevitable break up as powers get devolved to the Scottish Assembly.
I don't think the issue is Nationalism/anti-English sentiment as such - the absolute ineffectiveness of Miliband helped to push longstanding 'unionist' Labour voters to the SNP as Labour had nothing to offer on the UK stage.
What has been unexpected (at least in my mind) is how well the SNP have governed Holyrood - they are far less wasteful than their Labour/LibDem predecessors, their capital projects haven't been such a mess (compared the bulding of Holyrood and Edinburgh trams which were Labour backed, with the new Forth Bridge and Borders Railway projects).
No government is perfect, but some are less crap than others: SNP have appeared (at least in my eyes) to have done a less crap job than Labour (+Libs).
|
>> No government is perfect, but some are less crap than others: SNP have appeared (at
>> least in my eyes) to have done a less crap job than Labour (+Libs).
>>
My thumb.
Fair points, with supporting data to back them up.
My favourite type of post.
|
>> No government is perfect, but some are less crap than others: SNP have appeared (at
>> least in my eyes) to have done a less crap job than Labour (+Libs).
>>
In capital project terms you have a point but some of my caledonian mates are less complimentary about the health service and education, both school and university based.
However we're meeting up at a wedding reception tomorrow evening so we'll put the world to rights then :-)
|
>>In capital project terms you have a point but some of my caledonian mates are less complimentary about the health service and education, both school and university based.
Unavoidable over the past 5 years - have they done a better job than in England/Wales/NI?
I don't know, although I obviously have first-hand experience in the NHS - I have GP mates in England and it sounds truly awful there, compared to simply crappy here.
Ultimately despite the political posturing, the SNP have lived within their means (no real choice I guess!)
If I was about to embark on my medical studies again I can assure you I'd not even think about heading sarf - 9 grand a year fees for 5/6 years would be a difficult pill to swallow - not sure if your Caledonian mates factored that in with their complaints.
|
>> The SNP are just playing a bit of end of term politics. Tweaking Cameron's tail
>> to remind him that for all his party's posturing he hasn't won a landslide and
>> that his most damaging opponents may be seated behind him.
They may not have won a landslide this time but they almost certainly will in 5 years time after Labour, sorry meant the unions elect another loony leftie. I can't believe that they still can't see "it", are they really so deluded ?
|
|
Double post - poxy tablet !
Last edited by: Skip on Wed 15 Jul 15 at 17:36
|
The original fox hunting ban was a disgrace, a spiteful populist piece of legislation by the Blair government. There was a load of stuff from sentimentalist animal rights twozzers saying how pretty foxes were and so on. The great unwashed supported it in great numbers because they had been persuaded that it was an animal cruelty question, and because they were allowed to believe it was essentially a posh people's pursuit.
Obviously fox hunting isn't everyone's cup of tea (personally I find horses alarming) and no sane person enjoys the spectacle of suffering as such. But surely the spectacle alone, quite apart from the peripheral stuff with horses, hounds, whippers-in and all the rest of it, is worth preserving for its own sake? The people who do it do it for love, so to speak (I don't think anyone makes a lot of money out of it). And its opponents do what they do out of cold, ignorant, empty-headed hatred.
Most sane and decent people find the sight of a hunt quite cheering I would say. And don't forget, cunning old foxy is an ace at doubling back and staying downwind. He quite often gets away (I've seen him do it too).
|
>> Is it just me, or are the SNP not making idiots of themselves - again?
No they are not, they are in effect laying seeds for independence. One of the factors they need for independence is an England willing to dump them. So they start to interfere in english matters creating the desire to get rid of them.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 14 Jul 15 at 14:50
|
"... they are in effect laying seeds for independence. One of the factors they need for independence is an England willing to dump them. So they start to interfere in english matters creating the desire to get rid of them."
Possibly that's it.
However, enough animosity from England will only ensure that the terms of any future Scottish independence are extremely ungenerous, e.g. in matters of national debt, defence spending, government pensions, currency, the need for passports etc.
I would have thought that this is short-sighted, to say the least.
Last edited by: Observer on Tue 14 Jul 15 at 15:01
|
>> "... they are in effect laying seeds for independence. One of the factors they need
>> for independence is an England willing to dump them. So they start to interfere in
>> english matters creating the desire to get rid of them."
>>
>> Possibly that's it.
>>
>> However, enough animosity from England will only ensure that the terms of any future Scottish
>> independence are extremely ungenerous,
Let them eat Greece! (The Scots WANT to be part of the E.U.)
|
>> (The Scots WANT to be part of the E.U.)
>>
But they do not want austerity
Work that out
|
"(The Scots WANT to be part of the E.U.)
>>
But they do not want austerity"
The Greeks ARE part of the EU, they are bankrupt and they do not want austerity.
Work THAT out.
|
>> (On a personal note, I am against any watering-down of the present legislation on fox-hunting,
>> but that is not the point.)
I care not about which way they legislate, yay or nay, but the way its been done at the moment is unintelligible and unenforceable. I can't legally gather a pack of hounds and riders together with the intent to go out and hunt foxes, but I can gather together a pack of hounds and riders, go for a ride in the country where foxes live and kill one with the dogs if we accidentally happen across one. Hunting in general I can legally hunt for hares using two dogs to put the hares to flight and kill it with my bird of prey, but not go out with no bird of prey and put the hares to flight with one dog which then kills it.
Hunting laws are a mess. The only unambiguous legislation you can enact and enforce is: all hunting for anything by any means BANNED, or all hunting for anything with any means ALLOWED
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 14 Jul 15 at 14:58
|
>> Hunting laws are a mess. The only unambiguous legislation you can enact and enforce is:
>> all hunting for anything by any means BANNED, or all hunting for anything with any
>> means ALLOWED
Another twist is way a fox hunt is pursued in different parts of the country.
The public tend to think in terms of 'posh' people riding to hounds across fenced fields - like Cameron's cronies.
In upland areas it was quite different. The hounds were turned loose on the fell with men on foot accompanying them.
|
Even in the putatively posh south east there are hunt followers of all sorts and levels.
I'm not ashamed of seeming to be an apologist for fox hunting. I see it as an old ruthless cynical country thing.
Until you've seen them at close quarters you don't know how formidable foxhounds are. Expressionless brutes, you wouldn't want to be up an alley with them. They are very distinct from proper civilised dogs although they look harmless with their white tails and stuff.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 14 Jul 15 at 19:17
|
>> Until you've seen them at close quarters you don't know how formidable foxhounds are. Expressionless
>> brutes, you wouldn't want to be up an alley with them. They are very distinct
>> from proper civilised dogs although they look harmless with their white tails and stuff.
For all it being anthropomorphic nonsense Richard Adams's 'The Plague Dogs' gives an insight into that proposition.
|
>> distinct from proper civilised dogs although they look harmless with their white tails and stuff.
But: they're kept in check by the hunt people until unleashed on some doomed quarry. Unfriendly brutes they are, but they aren't allowed to eat you or your child and they know it.
|
A plea for education, here, from a townie.
1. Are fox numbers a problem - do the numbers need to be controlled?
2. If they ARE a problem, then what is the most humane way to control the numbers?
Have DEFRA or anyone else done any proper studies on this?
(It can't be hunting them with with horses & hounds, surely?)
|
a. They are a problem if it affects you, not sure on the numbers. I know many round here keep birds in the garden, they are bothered by them.
b. I know most round here that are killed are by shotgun, more in the winter when the shoots are on.
|
>> A plea for education, here, from a townie.
>>
>> 1. Are fox numbers a problem - do the numbers need to be controlled?
>>
>> 2. If they ARE a problem, then what is the most humane way to control
>> the numbers?
>> Have DEFRA or anyone else done any proper studies on this?
>> (It can't be hunting them with with horses & hounds, surely?)
>>
I'm no expert, but 'yes' sometimes they need to be controlled, to some they are just vermin.
Foxes can be very destructive, in that when they seek prey they'll often go for overkill, e.g. if one gets in your hen house, they'll kill all the birds, not just the one they take with them.
In reality, it's the old, infirm or lame foxes that are the most nuisance to humans, because they cannot get their natural prey so easily, so will more readily go for your chickens or lambs.
The hunt rarely caught a fox and unsurprisingly if or when they did, it would be the old, infirm etc one..which is the one you'd want to dispatch first anyway.
The hunt used to be a big part of the rural social scene, people would follow it and the pageant of it was as much as the actual chase.
You'd go to the meet, mix with all the village that's turned out, admire the horses and everyone in their finery, then try and follow them to a degree, pre-empting where you'd think they'd gone.
All a bit of fun, with the serious angle of ridding the parish of the odd troublesome fox...the fit and healthy ones can usually easily leg it.
The alternatives of killing foxes i.e. poison, shooting, trapping aren't overly humane either, are they?
|
>> The public tend to think in terms of 'posh' people riding to hounds across fenced
>> fields - like Cameron's cronies.
... which is of course total tosh.
The local hunt master near here is a lady who is also the local barmaid. She has her own horses and a small bit of land, but is otherwise of fairly modest means.
It is as much a working class tradition in the countryside as it ever is middle or upper class.
|
>> >> The public tend to think in terms of 'posh' people riding to hounds across
>> fenced
>> >> fields - like Cameron's cronies.
>>
>> ... which is of course total tosh.
It may be a caricature but like all the best caricatures there's a grain of truth in it - see Cameron's 'set'.
Horses are an expensive business, winter fodder and/or grazing, stabling, vets and farriers bills etc. The Master of your local hunt may not be titled aristocracy but she isn't keeping them just on earnings as a barmaid (a min wage job surely).
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 15 Jul 15 at 16:51
|
It may be a caricature but like all the best caricatures there's a grain of
>> truth in it - see Cameron's 'set'.
>>
>> Horses are an expensive business, winter fodder and/or grazing, stabling, vets and farriers bills etc.
>> The Master of your local hunt may not be titled aristocracy but she isn't keeping
>> them just on earnings as a barmaid (a min wage job surely).
>>
It's more subtle than that, the media are sticking to a narrative of only the very wealthly are involved with killing foxes because they think it sells newspapers (and probably does). In reality they are an outlier group of a much more mixed bag of people. No-one denies they excist but their numbers are infered by the media to be larger than it is.
|
HEARTLESS TOFFS SMEAR BLOOD ON FACE OF TERRIFIED FOUR-YEAR-OLD
Mother heard to shout: 'Stop that damned blubbing, Ponsonby-Smythe!'
|
>> The Master of your local hunt may not be titled aristocracy but she isn't keeping
>> them just on earnings as a barmaid (a min wage job surely).
>>
You'd be surprised.
There's a heck of a lot of horsey people around here (I am most certainly not).
Here are are few examples:
1, When I met my wife, we let her house out here in Devon and she moved up to London with me... the people we first put in there paid 2 months rent then stopped paying. He was a van driver on a take home of £850 per month, she did part-time cleaning work... when we found out they had 2 horses, we turfed them out sharpish.
2, My sister, who has stables and a number of horses, installed CCTV at them. A person who used to rent one of her stables, turned up one weekend and stole all her rubber mats (mats the horses stand on in the stables, about £400 each). She recognised him from the CCTV and he got nicked. He regularly does things like that because he hasn't got a pot to wee in... and yet has a pony for his daughter.
3. My brother has a local garage. He has customers who have several horses but whom cannot afford the bills for their ancient 4x4's.
4, Two kids at a local school... on a risk type register...family have absolutely nowt, nothing, zilch...yet they do have FIVE ponies (who are admittedly neglected). They were getting the sodding bus to the ponies with buckets of water because they couldn't afford to fix the car!
If you think about it, it's no different to the rest of society, only instead of the car on the 'never never' or a monster flat screen t.v....in the countryside it's a horse.
Horse past times are not just for the rich, far from it.
The barmaid isn't overly well off at all.
|
Horses used to be farm animals and quite a lot of farmers still have them. That's what it's like round here up to a point. They don't really need them any more, they're just used to having them around and they're a bit more intelligent than sheep or cattle (of course they also tend to get excitable ideas which isn't so good...).
I'm scared of the things, big strong and stupid as they are. But I know half a dozen people who can talk to them and who love them in that harsh horsy way. My middle daughter adores the brutes and looks very good on one.
|
When laws on (eg)
>> education only apply to (eg) Scotland then the laws on that for the rest of
>> the country are off limits to Scots MPs.
There are plenty of laws that only apply to certain areas, but that doesn't stop the rest of us having a legitimate say.
National Parks, Heathrow runway, HS2, etc.
If you sign up to a democratic association, such as the UK, then you get a vote on everything under the remit of that organisation, even if it doesn't affect your area.
|
>>If you sign up to a democratic association, such as the UK, then you get a vote on everything under the remit of that organisation, even if it doesn't affect your area.
But when you take certain decisions out of the remit of the national democratic organisation, it changes the rules.
Mr A can vote on the application of X to Mr B.
But Mr B cannot vote on the application of X to Mr A.
Odd, surely.
|
>> If you sign up to a democratic association, such as the UK, then you get
>> a vote on everything under the remit of that organisation, even if it doesn't affect
>> your area.
>>
You are ignoring devolution, the specific removal of certain matters from UK control.
In my opinion, in fairness then if you have devolved authority over say, the NHS, in your part of the UK then you should not be voting on the NHS for other parts of the country, to do so is unfair
|
A couple of points on hunting.
Zero wrote: Hunting in general I can legally hunt for hares using two dogs to put the hares to flight and kill it with my bird of prey,
You may, in fact, legally go out with as many dogs as you like if you are using a bird of prey to hunt any creature you like. The restriction to two dogs applies if you intend to shoot the creature.
You may also go out with as many dogs as you like if you are hunting a 'wounded' hare, whatever that means. No idea what the draftsman intended there.
And you may go out with as many dogs as you like if you are hunting a rabbit; no need for guns or birds of prey. Likewise a rat.
But let your dog chase a mouse or a squirrel and you break the law.
AC wrote:Until you've seen them at close quarters you don't know how formidable foxhounds are. Expressionless brutes, you wouldn't want to be up an alley with them. They are very distinct from proper civilised dogs although they look harmless with their white tails and stuff.
Twaddle! What utter rot. Formidable if you are a fox; they spend the first nine months of their life living with families, playing with babies etc. They are at least as gentle as any other dog. I have never been bitten by a hound, but I have been bitten by Labradors; hateful things.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 15 Jul 15 at 11:46
|
>> I have never been bitten by a hound, but
>> I have been bitten by Labradors;
Clearly intelligent discerning creatures those labs.
|
>> Twaddle! What utter rot. Formidable if you are a fox; they spend the first nine
>> months of their life living with families, playing with babies etc.
Theses animals also spent the first 9 months of their lives with a family as pets
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUQzGnoYVBQ
When training goes wrong!
Foxhounds have few nice redeeming features as a breed, and once acclimatised in the kennels and the pack are really not very nice animals at all. They are bred for a job, a single quality is required. One they perform well, everything else - not.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 15 Jul 15 at 12:21
|
Do these rumblings about the disintegration of the union seem to be more posture than true feeling to others, as they do to me?
We all know the celtic fringes like to stay sprauncy and troublesome, it's their nature and their best way of keeping their end up over the overbearing and supercilious English. But a slide into hermetic nationalisms and kaput union... me don't tink so bro. Who stands to gain FFS?
|
|
Next you'll be inviting Eire back into the fold, AC ;-)
|
>> Next you'll be inviting Eire back into the fold
Jays and they'd only be welcome, sure... but I'm afraid they have found a better, more affordable arrangement.
Are we too expensive? Please don't discuss.
:o}
|
>>and once acclimatised in the kennels and the pack are really not very nice animals at all.
And your experience with foxhounds is exactly what? (My own includes three years of feeding, mucking out and walking out a pack most days.)
|
I don't doubt that there are domesticated, child-friendly foxhounds.
What I was saying, and Zero seems to be saying it too, is that in a working pack they seem to be cold, forbidding, slightly alarming animals. No doubt fox-hunting people can spot their friendly, sunny side. But I can't.
|
No 1 has been working with the hounds since she was 6 and riding with the hunt since she was 11. I've been around them on and off all my life.
Load of nonsense being spoken about the hounds. They are vwry boisterous and may well knock things/people over when they are excited.
But they are perfectly friendly and love being stroked as much as any other dog. A bit excited when waiting, but that's it. Unless your a small furry animal in the wrong place at the wrong time of course
I don't hunt myself and don't like it. No 1 loves it and always has. So i sit on the fence about the laws.
There are bigger issues IMO.
|
Of course even an honest dog with none of that pack-bred coldness can be far from reassuring at close quarters.
Met a few times a North London junkyard dog, name of Bruno. Bruno was a big rawboned dead-hard mongrel whose mode of approach to strangers who were sitting down was to ram his snout into their crotches.
Ay chihuahua!
|
>> >>and once acclimatised in the kennels and the pack are really not very nice animals
>> at all.
>>
>> And your experience with foxhounds is exactly what? (My own includes three years of feeding,
>> mucking out and walking out a pack most days.)
Clearly your idea of nice animals is different to mine, as its your insights into dog psychology, now tell me again how you managed to get bitten by a guide dog?
|
I'm sorry, but bitten by a guide dog????
What on earth did you do?
|
|
Me nothing? I wasn't the one bitten. Ask the kennel maid.
|
Just watched that Mhairi Black's maiden effort in Westminster. Terrific girl I thought.
I was going to rabbit on about her gruff delivery and hormone balance and what an epicene species we are, but it's a can of worms so I didn't.
Barring the ever-threatening disasters, we'll be seeing more of her I think. She doesn't have the look of a nine days' wonder. But what do I know?
|
English votes for English laws - Cliff Pope
