Monday, May 18, 2015

SNP are right to reconsider their stance (or non-stance) on English fox-hunting

The parliamentary arithmetic on the fox-hunting ban in England and Wales is not entirely clear, but one thing that does seem certain is that if the SNP stick to their original plan to abstain en masse, repeal is inevitable.  If, on the other hand, they break their self-denying ordinance on genuinely non-Scottish issues, and if the bulk of them vote against repeal, things will get very tight.  In theory, there are already enough declared Tory dissenters to tip the balance, but unfortunately Northern Ireland MPs are likely to break heavily for repeal, and there are also pro-hunting MPs on the Labour and Lib Dem benches (most famously Kate Hoey).

I'm relieved that the SNP are at least reconsidering their position, and to be honest I can't quite understand how they ended up where they are.  Yes, fox-hunting is a clear-cut example of an English and Welsh only issue with no direct knock-on effects for Scotland at all, but it's also a classic issue of conscience that is customarily decided on a free vote.  So why on earth should the SNP be the only party to impose a three-line whip?  Individual MPs are perfectly capable of weighing up whether the principle of not voting on non-Scottish matters is more important than the opportunity to prevent widescale animal cruelty.

Of course Tory MPs will hiss and stamp their feet about the SNP "breaking their word", but nobody who actually matters will give a monkey's - SNP voters are far more likely to feel let down if the party needlessly sits on its hands as the values of a civilised society are rolled back.  In any case, making the idiocy of the British constitution a pain-free experience for Tory MPs is no part of the SNP's mission in life.

As I understand it, the current English Votes for English Laws proposals would not affect something like the fox-hunting vote, because English MPs would only be given a veto over changes to the status quo.  The theory is that to go any further would compromise the integrity of the UK Parliament.  So if there's a clamour for something to be done after the "outrage" of the SNP voting on fox-hunting, that can only lead to the Union's integrity being undermined.  I'd say we should all be intensely relaxed about that prospect.

45 comments:

  1. Thanks for helping me resolve my moral dilemma with this via the use of informed logic. Morality and logic, unfortunately not often to be found used in the same context.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Principles are something you stick with, regardless of circumstance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People were saying things like that on the thread about the Lords. I'm beginning to wonder if we're a political party or a church.

      Real politics is messier than that - of course circumstances matter. In any case, I'd say the prevention of unnecessary suffering for sentient beings is also a rather important principle.

      Delete
    2. "Of course Tory MPs will hiss and stamp their feet about the SNP "breaking their word", but nobody who actually matters will give a monkey's"

      Indeed. It 's also pretty fucking telling that the out of touch twits at the top of the tory party chose foxhunting to try and appease their lunatic right-wingers so early on.

      They had also best get used to it because with that small a majority and all the promises the Cameron gave them about a return to the nasty party tory 'red-meat' policies they certainly won't be satisfied with just one token issue like this.

      It also didn't work the last time the coward Cameron and Osbrowne tried it because the tory rebellions on the EU and other issues came so frequently in the last parliament precisely because Cameron kept caving in and trying to placate the lunatic wing of his party. Almost 100 of them voted for an EU referendum remember despite the fop imposing a three line whip on them. Pointless posturing as Cameron then caved in to them and the kippers fairly soon afterwards and promised one. That's the kind of thing the tory backbenchers tend to notice and remember. So when the excuses start about the 'renegotiation' posturing being the dampest of damp squibs expect a massive revolt and the IN/OUT split in the tory party to become a gaping chasm as Cameron reprises his John Major impersonation.


      "Real politics is messier than that - of course circumstances matter."

      Very true. The tories never used to give a crap about the WLQ and EV4EL and most of them weren't bright enough to read the McKay commission or even notice that Cameron had completely bottled the issue not that long ago. So it will at least be very funny watching them stamp their little feet and have a tantrum like a bunch of toddlers as they join in with the dumbest of the right-wing tabloids in shrieking and whining about scottish MPs doing something they are perfectly entitled to do.

      Let's face it, that petulant resentment of scottish MPs is going to be the default position of the idiot tabloids and most of the tory and Labour party from now on anyway. It's not as if the westminster bubble twits were in any danger of grasping scottish politics before all this with their hilarious praise of the uber-Blairite Murphy and the historic record breaking SNP landslide.

      There are still more pandas than tory MPs, and now more pandas than Labour MPs and lib dem MPs in scotland for those who still don't get it.

      Delete
    3. People were saying things like that on the thread about the Lords. I'm beginning to wonder if we're a political party or a church.

      The Lords is a different matter. What you were proposing there was giving credibility to an undemocratic institution in exchange for (as far as I could see) no likely return.

      If the SNP voting on foxhunting means the difference between retention and repeal, then of course they should do it.

      Delete
    4. Principles are something you stick with, regardless of circumstance.

      Does this apply regardless of the magnitude of the issue? Suppose the Commons were holding a vote on slaughtering disabled children at birth in England and Wales, and the SNP held the balance on the issue - would it still be "unprincipled" for them to vote against it?

      Delete
    5. "What you were proposing there was giving credibility to an undemocratic institution in exchange for (as far as I could see) no likely return."

      I don't even know what that means. The Lords passes laws that we must and do obey. How can we confer more credibility on it than we already give it?

      Delete
  3. Dear James

    Thank you for this information. I have just written via "Write to Them" to Brendan O'Hara to vote against fox hunting. I did not campaign for the SNP for it to abstain, very much so when SNP can importantly show unity and make a fuss to rattle the Cameron bunch. They can make a difference on this issue. It is also a very important issue. Thank you James!

    Neil
    Argyll

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought It was not right for Charles Kennedy to vote for the same sex marriage bill at Westminster and I think it wrong for the Scottish MPs to vote on Fox Hunting in England and Wales.

    If England and Wales voted in a party that chooses to do these things, that is their choice. If they are not happy with it, then it is up to them to do something about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree with the SNP stance in its entirety. It seems to me that their position about not voting on English only matters is wholly undemocratic. Westminster is the parliament of the UK. There are no scottish mp's: there are only MP's who sit for scottish constituencies. That is not word play, it is a fact.

      The SNP have accepted a narrative that Westminster is, at least in part, the english parliament. That fundamental misunderstanding is quite widespread in England, and it is fostered by MSM, for reasons which have nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with divide and rule. It is based on the absurd "West Lothian question": and I think we should have asked ourselves long ago why it is that a question can be taken as an answer. Rhetorical flourish is no way to proceed and it is crazy to allow it to stand as an answer by accepting the smuggled assumption it contains.

      If the english electorate wishes to have control over english only matters then they need to vote for an english parliament: they will have my full support. But the SNP should not allow them to continue to imagine they already have one. It is pandering to the idea that we are part of greater england, Westminster and the media campaigned to oppose Scottish independence: but it seems they do not accept the implications of that. It would only be good if the english electorate could be brought to recognise that there are benefits for them of creating an english parliament and that the argument is not confined to questions cost, and distaste for more politicians, which are the only things I hear discussed within that polity.

      I understand that the SNP have been trying to appear reasonable: but they are demonised anyway so appeasement is not working. MP's are MP's, and should behave as such. That means voting on every issue which is determined within Westminster: those issues which should not be determined there should be decided elsewhere, and that is in the hands of the english. That is the way to resolve this constitutionally and logically. If, as seems to be the case, there is no support for the establishment of an english parliament, that is indeed wholly a matter for the english voters. But they should take responsibility for the real consequences of that: at present they don't and that does have knock on effects for Scotland, for the issues which are "wholly english" are not agreed, and the confusion is likely to lead to ongoing division and acrimony, far beyond a clear cut issue like fox hunting

      In the current debate I also believe that fox hunting is a matter of conscience, and there should be no party position: it should be a free vote. It demonstrates the points I have outlined, and it is as good a place as any to start addressing the constitutional facts. We might as well do it on this issue, as anywhere

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. The affected party - the foxes - certainly did not vote for the Tories.

      Delete
  5. There will of course be some foxes that move back and forth across the border. A fox with cubs in a den in Berwickshire could end up ripped to pieces in Northumberland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon I think you have hit the nail on the head there and given the SNP the perfect loophole! As others have said it's a moral rather than political issue but this argument gives them a reason why it's not an English only bill!!

      Delete
    2. I suppose if a fox crosses the border to take advantage of more liberal alcohol licensing laws then that is the risk it takes.

      Delete
  6. Borders and Nationalities are a human conceit, one that foxes don't share.

    I hope the SNP reconsider and vote against the repeal of this bill. Nicola Sturgeon said that they would be a positive, progressive influence on the UK. Angus Robertson said that the SNP will be the 'real opposition to the Tories' in Westminster.

    This is your chance to step up and show it. I didn't vote for you, but you'll rise up in my estimation if you put the welfare of animals (who don't get a vote) above any fears of a political row.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If the SNP does vote on the bill - whatever way - then it becomes totally hypocritical for them to call Cameron's governance of Scotland illegitimate.

    SNP politicians should avoid hypocrisy at all costs - that is what makes them appear 'all the same'.

    We can't go through this bloody charade every time some pressure group in England have an axe to grind. A clear statement has to be made right now - NO IMPACT ON SCOTLAND, NO PARTICIPATION BY SNP. End of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it's not our job to save the people of England and Wales from themselves. And if they have to actually suffer the consequences, then maybe they'll STOP VOTING TORY!

      Delete
    2. Pretty sure foxes don't vote, and they're the ones who will be suffering the consequences.

      Still, I'm sure that while they're being ripped apart by a pack of dogs, they will console themselves with the thought that they're helping to make a political point on your behalf.

      Delete
  8. If the SNP allows a free vote on this but then whips on all other purely English and Welsh matters, how would you counter the following: "You care more for the foxes of England than the poor of England. You have your Parliament and it gives you some protection. You can help protect the poor of England from Tory wickedness, yet don't. Do you really hate the English that much? Because I don't think the ordinary Scots voter does."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't. Your MPs are sitting in Westminster, not Holyrood. They were elected to a UK parliament as UK MPs representing the residents of their respective regions on legislation put before that body.

      I'm a resident of Gordon. I don't expect my MP to ignore anything that happens outside Gordon any more than I would expect him to ignore anything that happens outside Scotland.

      If something bad is happening in this country be it to an animal or a person, I'd expect my MP to take a stand. What I don't want is some kind of good samaritan situation where my MP turns his head to the side and says 'not my problem' when he has the power to intervene.

      Until such times as they enact EVEL, the SNP MPs have this power. They may not like it, but they stood for election knowing it would be given to them. So they can use it, or they can turn their heads.

      I know which one of those choices I consider to be the actions of a progressive, socially just political party.

      Delete
    2. The SNP stood on a very clear platform of not voting on purely English matters. You (and I) might wish they had not, but they did. Nicola repeatedly said as much during the campaign, the only point of qualification being that some things that night appear English-only in fact have knock-on effects via Barnett. They can't, and won't, just rip that up now. So, you would have to counter the point or, I suppose, just ignore it if you thought that was adequate. My view is that it would be a very damning and damaging point.

      Delete
    3. I would agree with your initial point, although I would put their position as one of tradition and principle, as it is not official SNP policy nor was it in their manifesto (as ever I am open to correction on either point).

      Previously it didn't really matter of course, as SNP votes were highly unlikely to swing the balance either way. In this parliament it is a very different situation, and I would suggest that your tradition has been overtaken by events.

      So I guess you have a choice between your principles and your morals. You can make a difference here. But will you? Or should you?

      I know where I stand. Clearly others feel differently.

      Delete
    4. I imagine we're all in agreement about the morality of fox hunting and the reasonableness of voting on certain English-only matters, as a generality and out of context. But what if doing so amounts to you having misled the electorate because you said, in the manifesto or at senior leadership level during the campaign, that you would not? Principles cut both ways: do you go back on your word to voters? Are we not different to those who do that?

      Delete
    5. I would suggest there are levels of principle, and when there is a conflict, a choice has to be made.

      I don't punch people in the face, on principle. But if I saw some drunk guy kicking seven bells out of his girlfriend on the street, I'd flatten him, be it my business or not.

      You have a principle of not interfering in laws that don't apply to you. I can understand that. But you also have a principle of being a socially just, morally decent centre-left party that doesn't abandon those in need, especially when in this case, they have no voice of their own.

      So I would offer up that your second principle trumps your first one, in this instance. And I would expect any decent person (especially the type of person you are trying to attract to turn your 45% into 50%+) would appreciate the distinction.

      I would also think you may wish to support your allies in Wales, who will be affected by this issue and do not have the numbers to stop it. I'm pretty sure they'd appreciate the backup on this one.

      Delete
  9. Last September we are assured that we had were equal partners in this family of unions, and that our voice would be heard. That trumps the previous policy of abstaining on some matters but not others so we should be making our voice heard loud and clear, and then voting, on every subject raised.

    The unionists changed the rules, not the SNP. Now they will have to accept the results of their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. James, it's not a matter of being a sanctimonious "church", unwilling to soil our lily-white hands with realpolitik. What has sickened people for many years, and has contributed to the general disillusionment with politics and politicians that has led to the steady erosion in turnout at elections, is that the UK political parties wouldn't recognise a principle if it bit them on the bum.

    The SNP must build on the trust they have won at Holyrood. We do not approve of an unelected second chamber on principle. Even if it might give a short term advantage to be there, it would make us look hypocritical. The vast numbers of Unionist placemen there would stifle us in any case.

    We want the border to be a border, so we can act like it is. What the English do is up to them, if it does not impinge on us. I agree with Anon at 8.58.

    If foxes are a genuine problem (and sometimes they are), then, as with any other animal that needs culling, it should be done humanely with rifles. That is what we do in Scotland. What other countries do is up to them.

    Since the Conservative government has nailed its colours to this mast, it is up to the people of England to vote them out, or, if they feel they must vote Conservative, to support Conservative candidates who are willing to oppose fox hunting with packs of hounds.

    We must prove that we mean what we say. Do not ever trade priceless trust for short-term gain.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've changed my view on this, largely thanks to Fiona's post above. Previously I held to the pre-referendum "English issue, don't vote" tenet. Now that we have been invited to "lead not leave the UK" , I think that as long as the SNP has consistent policy across the board, they should vote on all issues in every forum from Council to European parliament. Policy should be made in and for Scotland, but applied everywhere.

    So for example they should support no tuition fees in Scotland and in UK. Where issues are slightly different they should pick the stance that is closest to the stance at Holyrood and apply that to every forum where they have representation.

    In the fox-hunting case, although it does not apply in Scotland, they should vote as though it did - ie. if they would oppose fox-hunting in Scotland (if it were in question) they should oppose it in England. If (when?) Cameron brings forth some horrendous piece of legislation for England in one of the devolved areas, SNP should oppose since SNP would be against imposing it on Scotland.

    One of the biggest complaints about the WLQ was when Labour MPs for Scottish constituencies would vote to impose a policy on England that their party had voted otherwise, in Holyrood. As long as the SNP do not do that, then there can be no rational grounds for complaint.

    That there will be complaint on irrational grounds is a given, whatever the SNP do, in whatever forum to which they are elected.

    Sue Varley

    ReplyDelete
  12. I do see the point that Fiona and Sue are making, and there is a lot of sense in it. The Unionists insist that we are part of the UK, so there is a strong argument for saying that our MPs should act like it. However, it is equally true that the SNP stated clearly that they would not vote on matters not affecting Scotland. That is the trust issue I mentioned above.

    I am tempted by the thought that it is a free vote, and MPs would be voting as individuals, not along party lines, but I fear it is a slippery slope.

    By ostentatiously not voting on purely English matters (where such can actually be identified), SNP MPs are reinforcing the view that the two countries are, in fact, separate polities. It is a bit like the New Zealand approach - act as if you are more and more independent, and you wake up one day and find that your are. That is certainly the narrative I believe we should be fostering.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I disagree. Stick to principles!
    And note this article from February 2015 (highlighted by George Wallis) where the First Minister gives the fox-hunting example!
    twitter.com/george_wallis/status/600226571673272320

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That she specificially gave that example is undeniably a problem for the party if they now go back on it. That still doesn't make it right to allow people to torture animals to death.

      Delete
  14. The SNP is not responsible for the people of England voting Tory and the UK left should not expect to be bailed out by the SNP every time the UK government tries to enact a piece of legislation it doesn't like. It is YOUR job to defeat the Tories in England. The fact that you failed to do so (and in such spectacular fashion) shows you need to up your own game.
    And where were you when we needed you during the referendum? Lined up with the Tories to campaign for a NO vote.
    The SNP needs to keep its election promises to the Scottish people and that includes not voting on purely English matters. If we fail to do so we will rightly lose support in future elections.
    Give in on this issue and, before long, the unionists, including the Labour Party, will be rolling back our Scottish government's legislation, including our own fox-hunting ban.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what about the Welsh?

      Stuff 'em?

      Delete
  15. As far as I'm aware, far from fighting the election on a "we won't vote on English-only matters" platform, Nicola was quite clear that this long-standing principle was up for review. She explicitly signalled that since England was so damn keen for us not to go, and to be full participants in the UK (even to "lead" the UK according to Cameron), SNP MPs might decide to do just that.

    I think there are some pretty smart people gaming various scenarios at the moment and deciding what to do. If repeal will happen by a margin of more than 56 votes, is there any point in voting? What sort of a message would it send? Would that message be positive for long-term SNP strategy or not?

    On the other hand, if the 56 could genuinely secure the continuation of the ban, this is fraught with delicious possibilities. You wanted us, England, and you've got us. How do you like it now? And on a topic where the SNP vote would be clearly principled and in accordance with animal welfare.

    I'm not going to second-guess the SNP Westminster group's decision. There are seven people there far more wise in the ways of Westminster than I am. But I don't think there's any sacrosanct principle at stake. I think that principle ended with the 2015 election, and that was made pretty clear.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "By ostentatiously not voting on purely English matters (where such can actually be identified), SNP MPs are reinforcing the view that the two countries are, in fact, separate polities. It is a bit like the New Zealand approach - act as if you are more and more independent, and you wake up one day and find that your are. That is certainly the narrative I believe we should be fostering."

    Absolutely. And this is why I disagree with Fiona and agree with FergusMac - in general. But should there be exceptions when it comes to matters of principle that transcend national boundaries? I'm inclined to go along with the free vote of conscience approach.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rolfe, I had not realised that Nicola had withdrawn the "self-denying ordinance", if that twitter statement is correct. That does rather undermine my trust point (though not on the House of Lords).

    I still think that it is a good idea to emphasise the differences between the views held in the two countries, and to highlight the ludicrous internal contradictions of the half-baked asymmetrical devolution system imposed by our inept former Imperial Masters of the Labour Party. I also believe that we should assume as much independence as we can, and act with much of the dignity of a nation state. An excellent example was the renaming of the Scottish Executive (Cringe!) as the "Scottish Government".

    I am, however, gey swiert to go against the views of the First Minister - I have a great deal of confidence in her and her advisers!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Perhaps the SNP should say that they will abstain from the bill only if assurances are given that a fox hunting ban will remain in place within so many miles of the border. This would protect against any fox hunts straying over into Scotland.

    As this offer would probably be rejected it would then give the SNP an excuse for voting against repealing the ban.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Firstly I consider Fox Hunting, as in Tory Toffs going hooray around the countryside on horses with packs of baying hounds in tow an abomination. I hope the SNP does vote against its reintroduction to England though as anything that gets up the noses of the Brit Nat Tories is to be welcomed. Tally ho!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Watch out. Julian Fellowes will be along to complain about your prejudice against that long-oppressed underclass, the landed gentry.

      Delete
  20. The Border Hunt country stretches from the River Rede in the south to Jedburgh in the north, covering hill and open moorland which straddles the Scottish/English border.

    ReplyDelete
  21. On principle I would have sided with the 'it's devolved so the SNP should not vote on it' stance.

    However, I understand it affects Wales right now so is not an 'English only' matter.

    Also, it does affect Scotland. For example, Scotland could be used to breed dogs used in English hunts. Scottish foxes could stray into England where they are killed by English hunts. English hunt dogs could stray into Scotland as they chased a fox. English hunters could stray into Scotland. English foxes, to avoid dog packs, might migrate into Scotland, affecting Scotland's fox population.

    Anyway, you could certainly say it's not an England only thing if you really wanted too before even going near the morals of tearing helpless animals with the intelligence of domestic cats/dogs apart for fun.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's for the English to decide.

    Why shoot yourself in the foot. Like we need that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye, remember last September when every single English politician honourably resisted piling in with propoganda, fake data, threats etc. We won't do that, they said, its for the Scots to decide.

      Except they didn't say that, did they.

      I couldnt care less what the hoorays do with their foxes but an opposition MP is there to make the government's life as difficult as possible. That is their job.

      Particularly when that bunch of shysters are ruling over us courtesy of 36.9% of votes.

      Default position is oppose everything until you have a proposition that benefits YOUR constituents. Stick to this simple principle and your integrity cannot be questioned.

      AM.

      Delete
  23. Reads like calls from folks to save the English and their foxes from themselves....I voted SNP for them to get me independence, if England votes Tory then hell mend em.

    ReplyDelete