Hunting in England & Wales and Scottish votes
MPs are due to vote next week on whether the law on hunting with dogs in England and Wales should be brought into line with that in Scotland.
There will be a free vote on this measure, and later in the parliament on whether the Hunting Act should be completely repealed.
Which raises an interesting issue.
In my opinion, since matters relating to hunting have been devolved in Scotland to the Scottish parliament, neither measure will affect Scotland and it is unreasonable for MPs representing Scottish constituencies to vote on either measure.
It would be strongly resented by whichever side loses what is expected to be a very close vote if the issue of whether the Hunting Act in England and Wales is repealed were determined by the votes of MPs for Scottish constituencies for whom the matter is determined by the Scottish parliament. That would be bad enough.
But the case against MPs for Scots constituencies doing anything other than abstaining in the Hunting vote next week is overwhelming.
How would it look to rural communities in England if the proposal to bring the law in England into line with that in Scotland were defeated by the votes of MPs from Scotland?
Those Scots MPs would effectively be saying that the law which is right for their own constituents is not restrictive enough for England.
That would be particularly outrageous, but I can see that opponents of hunting in England and Wales would also be entitled to be extremely annoyed if a law changing the rules on hunting in England and Wales in a way they did not like were passed with the help of MPs representing Scots constituencies to which that law did not apply.
I therefore hope that MPs representing Scottish constituencies have the sense to keep out of it because that is the sort of thing which could do further damage to relations between England and Scotland.
Included in a largely low-key draft order are concessions for “research and observation” relating to pest control and the overall health of the fox population, with evaluations of diseased and injured foxes.
There has been a last minute suggestion by hunt opponents looking for a wrecking tactic that the amendment providing for "research and observation" can be put forward as a reason why the vote supposedly does affect Scotland. The argument is that the result of the research might allegedly encourage hunting in England and subsequently in Scotland. That sounds like a preposterously contrived and spurious argument to me, but if there is any possibility that it might affect the result, perhaps the least worst solution is to drop the clauses which are being used to argue for such a justification.
There will be a free vote on this measure, and later in the parliament on whether the Hunting Act should be completely repealed.
Which raises an interesting issue.
In my opinion, since matters relating to hunting have been devolved in Scotland to the Scottish parliament, neither measure will affect Scotland and it is unreasonable for MPs representing Scottish constituencies to vote on either measure.
It would be strongly resented by whichever side loses what is expected to be a very close vote if the issue of whether the Hunting Act in England and Wales is repealed were determined by the votes of MPs for Scottish constituencies for whom the matter is determined by the Scottish parliament. That would be bad enough.
But the case against MPs for Scots constituencies doing anything other than abstaining in the Hunting vote next week is overwhelming.
How would it look to rural communities in England if the proposal to bring the law in England into line with that in Scotland were defeated by the votes of MPs from Scotland?
Those Scots MPs would effectively be saying that the law which is right for their own constituents is not restrictive enough for England.
That would be particularly outrageous, but I can see that opponents of hunting in England and Wales would also be entitled to be extremely annoyed if a law changing the rules on hunting in England and Wales in a way they did not like were passed with the help of MPs representing Scots constituencies to which that law did not apply.
I therefore hope that MPs representing Scottish constituencies have the sense to keep out of it because that is the sort of thing which could do further damage to relations between England and Scotland.
Included in a largely low-key draft order are concessions for “research and observation” relating to pest control and the overall health of the fox population, with evaluations of diseased and injured foxes.
There has been a last minute suggestion by hunt opponents looking for a wrecking tactic that the amendment providing for "research and observation" can be put forward as a reason why the vote supposedly does affect Scotland. The argument is that the result of the research might allegedly encourage hunting in England and subsequently in Scotland. That sounds like a preposterously contrived and spurious argument to me, but if there is any possibility that it might affect the result, perhaps the least worst solution is to drop the clauses which are being used to argue for such a justification.
Comments
I know what you are getting at here, but it doesn't follow, specifically because of the constitutional anomaly which is the main thrust of your blog. We cannot assume that Scotland's Westminster MPs agree with the laws which apply in Scotland, partly because they have no say whatsoever over such laws. They may very well prefer to see the English law (or something similar) apply in Scotland, but have no way of advancing that cause except by contacting their MSPs.
But given that their party has formed the government in Scotland for eight years with an overall majority for the last four, and that there is no possibility whatsoever that they would have made this switch in policy without the agreement of the leader of their party who is also the head of that Scottish government, in these particular circumstances that argument does not hold water.
Come on, Quentin, although it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they will now suddenly decide to toughen the law on hunting in Scotland to provide a retrospective fig-leaf of justification for their actions, you know every bit as well as I do that if the SNP had had the tiniest scintilla of concern about whether the hunting laws in Scotland were working properly, they could and probably would have changed them.
Where I think we are in agreement is that this whole situation provides a strong argument for the correction of the constitutional anomaly. Indeed, one might almost think the SNP were trying to provoke the Conservatives into taking stronger action to correct that anomaly. I would not bet against the proposals on EVEL which come back following the present consultation actually being stronger than the ones which were originally tabled.
However, it does not logically follow, therefore no Scot can charge individual hypocrisy against her or his MP.
WHY did the SNP decide, corporately, and not just as a preference of its individual members, to take a stand on this issue?
I think it is because they have identified it as an issue on which some Conservatives have very strong views. By being deliberately provocative, they hope to engender an overreaction by the "English" that will undermine the Union - which is, of course, the SNP's raison d'etre.
In my view, an English Parliament would be just such an overreaction and would lead, in the fairly short term, to the end of the Union.
A full-blown English parliament would be such an over-reaction and I agree that it would be a mistake. So would giving in to any wish for revenge by, for example, giving fewer powers to the Scottish parliament than would otherwise have been planned.
Devolving slightly more power over issues which have been devolved in Scotland to an English, or English and Welsh, Grand Committee would have to be done carefully - and not in anger - to avoid starting down the same road, but at the same time it would also be only fair.
I'm not going to get into a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" logic-chopping session about precisely how hypocritical individual members of the SNP have been. It is beyond dispute that they have broken the principle they proclaimed before the election about whether they were going to take part in such votes, and as they let it be known that it was a unanimous decision it is reasonable to draw conclusions about the extent to which the word the SNP group can Westminster can be trusted.
I don't think it is unreasonable to draw attention to the additional disconnect between their newly-adopted Westminster position and the Scottish law which their party as the Scottish government has left in place.