New Covid law 26/4/2021

[Moriarty]

......

4) Energetically campaign to be included in the Scottish COVID Enquiry, stating they want the enquiry to look at the legality of banning travel without interaction. So that it can’t happen again.

5......

I must admit that currently I'd have little faith in MS representation at such an inquiry - given the expectation that the next Scottish Government will be broadly the same as the current then you would still have a part publicly funded body which might feel inhibited to be critical of the actions of ScotGov for fear of funding loss.

Nonetheless I suspect the post hoc analysis will admit that stopping folks exercising outdoors was counterproductive and should be avoided in future....that's what the F + M post hoc analysis said and here we are again.

...and yes, I might transfer my subs to a proper Mountaineering Union that doesn't promote Word Mincing as a core principle along with today's update on how to deposit logs in the woods.

[Sunset tripper]

If you are experienced mountaineer in Scotland, having had your representative organisation spectacularly fail you, the the only logical conclusion is that their is now no point to membership. I won’t be rejoining
.

I would be interested to hear from MS, with some details of how they lobbied on our behalf before considering my membership. I suspect a pragmatic approach was taken, but personally I would have liked to have seen more overt campaigning.

I am not a member of MS but I disagree that not being a member means I don't have a valid gripe. If MS sent their guidance to their members privately fair enough, but they don't. It is online as guidance for all and is even linked from the government covid stuff.

MS don't represent me but it is suggested on their website it is guidance for all walkers mountaineers etc.

Personally I think MS are politically naive, when the big parking charges were being announced at Arrocher they said their members would be happy to pay £3 or £4 but £9 was too much. Therefore giving the green light for all parking areas to possibly charge £4 with MS blessing. of course the charges at Arrocher enivitably went up to £9 regardless.

Their other campaigns which they were vocal about recently ie Glen Etive and the Kings House fell on deaf ears.

I doubt any of this will affect their membership figures significantly if at all. I think most people who are members now are in it for a few quid off here and there and the other membership benefits - I don't know the latest stuff on offer.

Any lobbying carried out overtly or covertly appears to have no impact.

[Moriarty]

I am not a member of MS but I disagree that not being a member means I don't have a valid gripe. If MS sent their guidance to their members privately fair enough, but they don't. It is online as guidance for all and is even linked from the government covid stuff.

MS don't represent me but it is suggested on their website it is guidance for all walkers mountaineers etc.

Personally I think MS are politically naive, when the big parking charges were being announced at Arrocher they said their members would be happy to pay £3 or £4 but £9 was too much. Therefore giving the green light for all parking areas to possibly charge £4 with MS blessing. of course the charges at Arrocher enivitably went up to £9 regardless.

Their other campaigns which they were vocal about recently ie Glen Etive and the Kings House fell on deaf ears.

I doubt any of this will affect their membership figures significantly if at all. I think most people who are members now are in it for a few quid off here and there and the other membership benefits - I don't know the latest stuff on offer.

Any lobbying carried out overtly or covertly appears to have no impact.

Well, you've somewhat misrepresented my point, I said that non-members had little valid grounds to criticise the approach to government of the organisation. If you're not a member of an representative body then you can make your own representations, if you care enough. You remain at liberty to have an opinion on that, and on published guidelines and interpretation of the Law, and to express it online, regardless of your real world contribution or input. Social media is just hot air after all.

As for political naivety, well you seem to have bemoaned a passive approach to parking fees, then pointed out that an active opposition had no effect on hydro. Demanding everything you want is delivered to you at someone else's expense only usually works if you're negotiating from a position of strength. Very easy to snipe from the sidelines, a bit like football forums where gasbags will bemoan Pep Guardiola's tactical naivety.

I have a lot of sympathy for those in MS, I have no doubt that they are trying and that they have a lot more insight into the realpolitik of the situations. As a member, I'd have liked to have seen a bit more fire and anger, but acknowledge that might well have been fully counterproductive.

As for the guidance and interpretation of the Public Health legislation, I think they have been studiously accurate. I don't expect to be encouraged to bend or break the law by publicly funded bodies, if I feel it's necessary to do so I'll decide that myself without asking for the validation of others.

[Scraggygoat]

I too wanted and would have supported more vociferous campaigning. They deliberately didn’t represent their membership by all possible means, choosing to ignore the levers that were most likely to be successful a) juidicial review and b) challenging openly the unscientific restrictions on movement without interaction.

Also despite being a representative organisation they deliberately didn’t canvas the members as to how to proceed. If the membership wanted to go down all guns blazing, it was their job to do it!

As a long standing hill goer, given the precedent has been made clear and they are going to roll over and let the government tickle their tummy rather than risk funding, given that they currently show no signs of wanting to get stuck into post COVID access issues and are only telling us how to behave, what’s the point of membership?

I know how to wipe my bottom outdoors, that snow blows with the wind, that the red needle points north (normally), I’ve been walking in a straight line and counting since I was a toddler, the changing of the clocks isn’t a surprise.........I have no interest in climbing competitions, I don’t believe ML training is a required for personal competence.....so what is the point of the organisation for the type of individuals that founded them in the first place?

I’m firmly of the opinion that they became part of the problem, rather than the solution.

[Moriarty]

.....so what is the point of the organisation for the type of individuals that founded them in the first place?

It's a very fair question. Don't think I have an answer.

[al78]

.....so what is the point of the organisation for the type of individuals that founded them in the first place?

You get a nice glossy magazine?

[Sunset tripper]

Well, you've somewhat misrepresented my point, I said that non-members had little valid grounds to criticise the approach to government of the organisation. If you're not a member of an representative body then you can make your own representations, if you care enough. You remain at liberty to have an opinion on that, and on published guidelines and interpretation of the Law, and to express it online, regardless of your real world contribution or input. Social media is just hot air after all.

Your not getting it.

The scottish government covid stuff links you to Mountaineering Scotland. It is advice for all, not just members. I have no need for MS to represent me but if they are going to give me advice which they do via the government link the least they could do is take the positives from it.
Anyone who has taken a bit of interest in the subject knows it was perfectly legal and was of negligible covid risk to travel around your LA area for hill walking etc. but MS refused to say it to their members, or their non members who are given their take on it any whether they like it or not.
Lochaber lifted folk of Creag Meagaidh and basically said all was fine legally earlier this year. I doubt if these folk lived at the bottom of Creag Meagaidh.

As for the guidance and interpretation of the Public Health legislation, I think they have been studiously accurate. I don't expect to be encouraged to bend or break the law by publicly funded bodies, if I feel it's necessary to do so I'll decide that myself without asking for the validation of others.

It's debatable if it was accurate but it was high on the side of caution, while the world was opening up around them.

Who was asking to be encouraged to break the law or bend it?
Travelling in your LA area for recreation ie. hill walking, munro bagging was perfectly legal though the government guidance was obscure and trying to cover many angles.

Good for you that you made your own decision, but I'm sure some folk would have liked the reassurance of the body that is representing them.

Regarding your take on social media I take it you are only representing yourself.