DaveP (20th February 2014)
DaveP (20th February 2014)
Why should Cameron debate? As has been made painfully clear this is a vote on the future of Scotland, not the future of the United Kingdom. This referendum is between the people of Scotland and the political parties of the Scottish Assembly.
Once again you can't say that this is a Scottish issue and rUK cannot vote and then expect the political parties of rUK to get involved in a formal debate on the issue, where quite honestly Cameron would be mullered one way or the other.
If this referendum was on the future of the entire United Kingdom where every citizen had a vote, then yes the Westminster leaders should be out debating this US style (ugh), but it's not.
The whole setup is remarkably screwed up. It's a Scottish issue, but really it's not as it involves everyone in the UK. Who campaigns for the Union? Scottish MPs? Should the Westminster elite get involved as it directly affects the entire Union, or should they stay away as the referendum is setup for the Scots? If Westminster leaders get involved are they campaigning for the Union and the rUK citizens who do not have a say or are they (as I'm sure would be portrayed north of the border) once again interfering in sovereign Scottish affairs?
This whole mess could have been handled far better.
Last edited by Trapper; 20th February 2014 at 07:46 PM.
Last edited by ZeroHour; 20th February 2014 at 08:00 PM.
Ok it's a while ago and from the Torygraph, but the language of Salmond:
Alex Salmond wants David Cameron to make 'anti-Scottish' case in TV debate - Telegraph
“articulate a case against Scotland” - whatever Cameron said would be soundbite nirvana for the SNP. Given that sort of language, would you?
Last edited by Trapper; 20th February 2014 at 08:01 PM.
Last edited by ZeroHour; 20th February 2014 at 08:05 PM.
It would be a powerful anti-Union message though. English Toff PM making an anti-Scottish can go it alone stance. However he would phrase the pro-Union argument it would come back to that.
It's not being a chicken. It's like trying to debate Ed Balls. You get nowhere, he just keeps banging on about the same thing until everyone wants to punch him.
Edit - And I'm a Labour man! And I still want to deck Ed Balls!
Purely out of interest it would have been very interesting to see this entire debate when Gordon was PM (hell or even Blair). Scottish independence from a Union led by two Scots?
Sadly Roberto there would be an attempt by the SNP to turn pro-Union into anti-Scottish as referenced above.
My main beef with all of this is if Scotland leaves then there is no Great Britain as a political entity (yes we keep Union of the Crowns - until Queenie dies anyway) and henceforth no United Kingdom. This would in principle be a massive change for every British citizen. For a start would we still be "British" without Great Britain? It would have massive unforeseen impacts on our international relations - would we keep our seat at the UN Security council for example? A referendum of such scope to the entire political makeup of the country for the past 300 years should be open to all citizens.
witch (21st February 2014)
I'm not really sure how to take your post then as all of your previous posts had said the same thing;
As far as I can gather (someone correct me if I'm wrong):...We paid for part of everything that makes up the uk and we are entitled to it, this is not a case of we have to buy our own everything because we are handing back all we have paid for before. Not sure how it can't work this way...
Immovable things which fall within Scotland's borders such as property and recourses become Scotland's
Movable assets get shared by population/GDP
Things like the Pound and EU membership remain the rUK's
Therefore just because you have paid for something doesn't mean it's yours. The UK as a whole could argue it's "paid" for the oil fields...
And to answer one of your previous questions, the reason why you can't find Salmond saying you won't take the debt is because it was Sturgeon who said it.
UK parties 'ganging up' to bully Scots into rejecting independence, says SNP | Politics | theguardian.com
[If Scotland doesn't get the pound...] This would be an absurd position for any Westminster government to be in. It would cost their own businesses hundreds of millions of pounds in transaction costs, it would blow a massive hole in their balance of payments, it would leave them having to pick up the entirety of UK debt.
Last edited by j17sparky; 21st February 2014 at 12:51 AM.
Salmond not wanting to take any debt? from May last year. This why the Bank of England had to step in and take on responsibility for all debt as the markets were starting to go a bit mental over it and would have caused the UK problems and a new independent Scotland even more.
The problem is you can't easily separate Salmond from an independent Scotland as he has been the leading figure and is the head of the campaign. He is the one making claims and trying to lay down the law about how things are going to be.
nephilim (21st February 2014)
Just noticed something... Are all SNP people named after fish? :-D
Its actually quite awesome.
I apologise for my childishness.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)