The brinksmanship of SNP MPs over the vote to change fox-hunting rules at Westminster may prove to be counter-productive.
The attraction to his opponents of inflicting a humiliating defeat on David Cameron over a manifesto pledge is easy to see. The vote to relax the ban on hunting with dog packs could well be lost if Labour, who are opposing the measure, and rebel Tories are joined by the SNP members. But without the Scottish contingent, it will almost certainly succeed.
Anti-fox-hunting campaigners have put pressure on the party's 56 MPs to vote against the changes planned by the Conservative government.
The SNP traditionally operates according to the self-denying ordinance which sees MPs abstain on matters affecting only England.
Yet if they choose not to abstain this time, SNP MPs will be intervening in a vote which many see as very much affecting England only.
David Cameron has not opted for a straightforward repeal of the fox-hunting ban in England, but instead proposes to make changes to the existing Hunting Act. There are arguments that some of the changes to the Hunting Act which are proposed - relating to 'loopholes' allowing hunting for the purposes of research and observation - might undermine the effect of the law in Scotland by encouraging Scottish hunts to take a similar route.
But this seems pretty spurious. It is certainly hard to see the Barnett consequentials of a partial repeal of England's fox hunting ban.
This matters because there almost certainly will be battles ahead over what constitute 'English laws, and to what extent decisions in England that affect budgets in Scotland can possibly be seen as purely English votes.
The English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) debate could not be much more current, with the Government having only just conceded the need for more discussion, postponing a vote on its hugely controversial plans until the autumn.
This would seem to be a strange time to stoke resentment over an issue for which Scotland already has its own law.
Prior to the recent UK general election Nicola Sturgeon was clear. The SNP at Westminster whatever its representation, would be constructive, not obstructive. She reiterated that intention after her party's historic landslide. Reneging on the self-denying ordinance at this point would seem to be entirely contrary to that approach.
It may be that the SNP leadership feels it is necessary to show that their MPs will play hardball too, if Mr Cameron chooses to do so over EVEL and the limited greater powers on offer to Scotland.
But to thwart the intention of English MPs over fox-hunting, despite the temptation of defeating the government - and even if in principle SNP MPs disapprove of the proposals - would be a mistake.
It would be to fuel confrontation when diplomacy is what is required, playing politics in a short term and clumsy way.
The prime minister's official spokesman has indicated that the SNP would have to justify to its voters why MPs were voting on matters not affecting them. But the real challenge would be to justify this to English voters. An inability to do so might have malign consequences for the outcome of more weighty debates to come.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article