[Closed] David Cameron - smart or big scaredy pants?

[quote=athgray ]Scotroutes. Are you trying to promote the ethnic diversity of the population in Scotland?
Eh?

I'm merely helping to answer a question posed on this forum

slightly bigger now

At the end of June last year the population stood at 5,313,600 - up 18,200 since the last census on 27 March 2011

The net in-flow of 14,300 more people coming to Scotland from overseas

although the details of how many are on the electoral roll are missing

If people from Flanders that wish to separate from Belgium are in Edinburgh to show support for Scots that wish to break up from the UK, am I stupid to assume that these groups may feel close ties? I don't think so.

But you did start the diversion into "scots feeling closer ties to flanders"...

that will be me,

I might be questioning the links to European far right nationalist organisations

or can anyone have an official presence at "Yes" demonstrations?

I originally said that the Yes campaign conducted a well organised rally in Edinburgh and made no mention of the nationality of the participants. Big_n_daft talked about Belgium and Flanders. I took from that there is a sense of kinship between elements of the Yes campaign and the movement for Flanders independence. I admit, a cause I don't know a great deal about.

athgray - Member

If people from Flanders that wish to separate from Belgium are in Edinburgh to show support for Scots that wish to break up from the UK, am I stupid to assume that these groups may feel close ties?

No, but that is not what you said.

athgray - Member

It saddens me that people in Scotland feel so distanced from working people in Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and even London, that they feel closer ties to Flanders, Iceland and Norway.

You have me Northwind. I did say both however I firmly believe both. They don't contradict each other.
Put it this way, our Dear Leader has done such a good job of portraying the UK as a subjugating force with it's boot on Scotland's face, that in the run up to the vote next year my car would be safer parked in many areas in Scotland with a Norwegian or Icelandic flag in the window, than it would with a Union Jack. Sad state of affairs that!

wobbliscott - Member
All politicians spout BS and dodgy statistics. To say that Salmond is a good debater doesn't mean that what he's debating is right or wrong - he's just clever at debating. People need to see through the BS and make their own mind up. The question is will I get a vote given I have a Scottish mother? In theory if Scotland was already an independent nation i'd have dual nationality, so should get a vote shouldn't I?

Nah, the way it's going to work is spot on, residents get will a vote regardless of nationality. If ye want a vote, move up and claim residency.

Back to the OP great choice not to debate Salmond, he needs to be debating the leader of the No campaign and put his point across to the people of Scotland - ie those living there and nobody else.

On the actual debate what will this new scotland excel in? What will be it's economic powerhouse to provide for the free sweets to everyone policies? What is to stop people just moving up for a few years to take advantage of all the freebies?

[quote=mikewsmith ]Back to the OP great choice not to debate Salmond, he needs to be debating [i]the leader of the No campaign[/i]
Do you know who that is? Do you know who the leader of the Yes campaign is? I've seen neither mentioned in this thread.

Each of the three main UK parties has said they would offer more devolved responsibilities in the event of a No vote. Is it not right that the electorate should be provide with information on what these would be? Whose role is it to do that?

Well AS seems to be banging the drum loudest and called for it to happen so I'd put him up there for the Yes lot, as for the No that may be their problem ask this lot http://bettertogether.net/pages/about

Do you know who that is? Do you know who the leader of the Yes campaign is? I've seen neither mentioned in this thread.

As Cameron says, it makes sense that whoever they are they at least have a vote in the referendum.

It seems a bit of an anachronism to ask someone who doesn't even have a vote to make the case for or against the proposal.

The key issue for me though isn't Scottish independence, it's about not been governed over by a party who I have no connection too - and never have.

Due to culture/inclination/thinking etc those north of the border are more social democratic, therefore I'll be voting yes on those grounds.

Will we be better/worse/same off in the short/medium/long term - who knows. But at least we'll be following a path I (mostly) agree with.

Funny thing is, nationality wise I've never described myself as English, but British. And tbh I think of myself as a 'Yorkshireman' first, and a Brit second.

And that won't change if we go independent.

The census showed the proportion of the Scottish population born in Scotland was 83%, with 9% born in England, 0.7% in Northern Ireland and 0.3% in Wales.
Of those not born in the UK, 15% were born in Poland, 6% in India and a further 6% in the Republic of Ireland.

I make it a little over 3.5 million Scottish voters.

Do you know who that is? Do you know who the leader of the Yes campaign is? I've seen neither mentioned in this thread.

How many also think Toad Face is the leader of the yes campaign?

The key issue for me though isn't Scottish independence, it's about not been governed over by a party who I have no connection too - and never have.

Plus 1

I'm glad to you didn't role out the "scots never decide an election line" description, that always disappoints me despite saying virtually the same thing.

The key issue for me though isn't Scottish independence, it's about not been governed over by a party who I have no connection too - and never have.

But you are happy to be ruled by European, including ironically English, Conservatives Parties, which you have no connection with ?

The EU, which the SNP is staking Scotland's future on, has [i]always[/i] been under the control of Conservatives, why else do you think the EU issues directives which demand, for example, that member states privatise their postal services ?

And the power of the EU with regards to laws which deeply affect member states isn't diminishing, on the contrary, it's increasing, so it's hardly an issue which can be brushed under the carpet.

This is the political make up of the EU after the last European elections, which believe or not saw a slight swing to the left :

[img] [/img]

Pale blue is Conservative, dark blue is more right-wing anti-federalists, yellow is pro-European neoliberals, red is Social Democrats, and grey is a hung election result.

So if, quote : [i]"Due to culture/inclination/thinking etc those north of the border are more social democratic"[/i] is the main issue, then making Scotland even more dependent on the EU and its growing power, due to cutting ties with the rest of the UK, makes little sense.

And btw the EU has a fair few far-right elected politicians, something which Scotland has also never voted for.

Put it this way, our Dear Leader has done such a good job of portraying the UK as a subjugating force with it's boot on Scotland's face, that in the run up to the vote next year my car would be safer parked in many areas in Scotland with a Norwegian or Icelandic flag in the window, than it would with a Union Jack. Sad state of affairs that!

"Many areas"? Hmm. Some areas, maybe, and that's not a new thing, it's the old sectarian divide. Nothing to do with Salmond, nothing to do with independence, everything to do with Catholic vs Protestant.

But you are happy to be ruled by European, including ironically English, Conservatives Parties, which you have no connection with ?

Yes, because that's by choice. Most people in Scotland believe in stronger ties with Europe, but at present our choice to stay in Europe is in danger of being destroyed by the UK's majority decision to have less to do with Europe.

It's very simple - Scotland should be able to make decisions about Scotland. If that's to give more control to Europe, fine, but it's still a decision made in Scotland by the people who live here, not imposed on us by our larger neighbour.

It's very simple - Scotland should be able to make decisions about Scotland. If that's to give more control to Europe, fine

🙂 What brilliant doublespeak, are you a politician ?

You're complaining that Scotland has too little control over the political makeup of the UK government, so you want to place your faith instead on an EU in which Scotland has even less, considerably less, control over its political makeup.

Here e_l, I'll make is simple for you - power devolved is power retained.

Only we're not talking about devolution we're talking about independence, allegedly - it's a funny sort of independence when you want your laws dictated to you by the EU.

There has been a history of sectarianism, however I feel that animosity towards all aspects of the UK is on the rise in Scotland, fanned by rhetoric of the powers that be. I notice not much reply to Jim Sillars assessment of a totalitarian leadership of a dumb party in Scotland. Closer to Russia than you may imagine.
I would not be at all surprised if moves were made to ban the Union Jack following a yes vote, and sadly nationalists would not bat an eye.

[quote=athgray ]There has been a history of sectarianism, however I feel that animosity towards all aspects of the UK is on the rise in Scotland,
Really, I can't say I've noticed any and I've seen nothing in crime statistics to support your assertion.

As for Jim Sillars, his rantings can safely be ignored as those of a failed/deposed politician.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]Only we're not talking about devolution we're talking about independence, allegedly - it's a funny sort of independence when you want your laws dictated to you by the EU.
Power can be devolved both ways. Are you suggesting that the UK is no longer an independent country when it still has the right to leave the EU at any time?

I would not be at all surprised if moves were made to ban the Union Jack following a yes vote, and sadly nationalists would not bat an eye.

Ban it? From what? Walk down Sauchiehall Street any day and Union flags are everywhere, on advertising, on shopping bags, on t-shirts, everywhere. Are you seriously suggesting that there will be roving bands of ScotNats tearing them down, fining businesses, arresting people?

I think it is quite interesting that it is pretty much inconceivable that the No campaign would be able to hold a rally like the Yes campaign just has. In the same way, wandering about, you see the odd Yes poster but none in support of the Union.

Really, I can't say I've noticed any and I've seen nothing in crime statistics to support your assertion.

Me neither, and let's face it I should be on the receiving end.

Are you suggesting that the UK is no longer an independent country when it still has the right to leave the EU at any time?

I'm certainly suggesting that the UK has surrendered a considerable amount of its sovereign power and is no longer fully independent as it previously was.

The claim that the UK is independent because "it still has the right to leave the EU at any time" is quite frankly bizarre.

Using that same logic you could claim that Scotland is at the present time independent, since Scotland's right to leave the union has now been clearly established.

Scotroutes - the UK has fought hard to establish degees of independence in may aspects - €, Schengen, the rebate etc. Why was Salmon economical with the truth about a cornerstone of his policy (we have legal advice, err, sorry we have no legal device etc) - automatic membership of the EU?

Why? because the detail is pretty unpalatable. Lets just take the Euro. Scotland would take some time to meet to required convergence criteria and would have to implement pretty drastic cuts in the budget deficit and a significant reduction in the debt ratio. But Ben would be happy with that as at least you are making our own decisions. The closest analogy seem to be Turkeys voting for Chrismas. Bad outcome but at least we were able to vote for it!?!? No wonder the majority of Scots are sensible enough to recognise where there best interests lie.

(and forget getting a share of the eu rebate!)

If ever there was a case, of "be careful what you wish for."

The rise of a party to majority government in Scotland who regularly use animosity towards the UK as a tool, leads me to believe this mirrors a similar mentality amongst the populace.

Jim Sillars used to be a deputy leader and mentor to Salmond. Married to a prominent SNP politician and supporter of the Yes camp. I reckon his assessment may hold more weight than many.

To answer you ben, I did not say that enforcing such a ban would be practicable, however I do not think peoples idiocy will be a bar to them trying.

The rise of a party to majority government in Scotland who regularly use animosity towards the UK as a tool, leads me to believe this mirrors a similar mentality amongst the populace.

I think you're confusing animosity towards the UK as a political construct with animosity towards the people of England.

imnotverygood - Member
I think it is quite interesting that it is pretty much inconceivable that the No campaign would be able to hold a rally like the Yes campaign just has. In the same way, wandering about, you see the odd Yes poster but none in support of the Union

...quietly ignoring the evidence of the polls. How often do you get demonstrations about the status quo?!?

[b]" What do want?"[/b]
" What we've got!"
[b]"Why do we want it?"[/b]
" Because it works!"
[b]" When do we want it?"[/b]
" We have it now!"
[b]" Why are we shouting?"[/b]
".............................. "

Err. That's my point.

😳 Excuse me! I mis-read the post. 😳

Should have said INVG +1 then!

A yes vote for independence doesn't mean the SNP and Salmond will be in power long term if a successful yes vote.

A general election would be called after a yes result and then people would have a chance to vote for any party they wanted.

I think there would be significant changes to all major political parties in Scotland on the run up to such an election, how they are made up and where they reposition themselves on the political spectrum.

I imagine this will involve the creation of new parties and I believe the break up of the SNP would follow in time. Parties such as Labour and the LibDems will be free from the whip of a larger UK party and new policies they propose would be able to reflect the political leaning of the Scottish electorate.

For me this is a real chance, possibly the last in my lifetime, to change the shape of the future. To move away from the obsession of trying to be a major player in world politics, trying to hold onto any last strips of influence and power. To move away from a culture of evermore greed at the top, where big business and political policy makers go hand in hand.

I see an opportunity to create a system where the focus is on the people who live here, how to better their lives and the places they live in. Not to screw them over time after time. Will it happen? - who knows, but for me it is worth taking the chance.

To move away from the obsession of trying to be a major player in world politics, trying to hold onto any last strips of influence and power.

The UK is a major player in world politics, it's not a question of an "obsession of trying to be". The UK has sixth largest economy in the world, it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and is a member of the G7 group of countries. It's plainly dishonest to claim that the UK isn't a major player in world politics.

.

I see an opportunity to create a system where the focus is on the people who live here, how to better their lives and the places they live in. Not to screw them over time after time. Will it happen? - who knows, but for me it is worth taking the chance.

If you are going to offer revolutionary change, which you clearly are, then it's important to have very clear goals and a very clearly defined strategy, rather than the "who knows" proposition.

The UK is a major player in world politics, it's not a question of an "obsession of trying to be". The UK has sixth largest economy in the world, it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and is a member of the G7 group of countries. It's plainly dishonest to claim that the UK isn't a major player in world politics.

Sixth largest this, top 7 that, member of such and such, aye sure it's not an obsession. There are a few genuine major players in the world, the UK ain't one of them. Nothing dishonest about that.

If you are going to offer revolutionary change, which you clearly are, then it's important to have very clear goals and a very clearly defined strategy, rather than the "who knows" proposition.

You are mistaken, there are goals and strategies out there. Sure, not as detailed as they could be. That could only happen if opposing sides worked together to put out the accurate data, statistics and information required so people could make a more informed choice. But that ain't going to happen anytime soon is it? The period between a yes vote in a referendum and a general election would see a wider range of proposals put out there as politicians and parties from the no campaign would be fighting for their continuing existence. How can I know what these policies will be? Currently they won't enter into this part of the discussion being part of the opposition no campaign.

Sixth largest this, top 7 that, member of such and such, aye sure it's not an obsession.

No, it's not simply an obsession, it's a fact. The UK is a major player in world politics. And it's remarkably disingenuous of you to dismiss being the sixth largest economy in the world, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a member of the G7 group of countries, as meaningless.

Is this level of dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts typical of the Yes campaign strategy ? Living in London I can't tell, but it would certainly help to explain why according to the polls the Yes campaign is doing so badly.

And it's remarkably disingenuous of you to dismiss being the sixth largest economy in the world, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and a member of the G7 group of countries, as meaningless.

To most people, it is meaningless. How does any of that benefit us? The economy is being skewed more and more towards London-centric financial services, the only reason we're on the Security Council is we are willing to spend £100bn+ on weapons of mass destruction, and being a "major player" means we send our young men off to die in foreign wars.

Do you think the people of Norway, Belgium or New Zealand look at the UK and think "I wish we had that"?

How does any of that benefit us?

That's a completely different issue. By all means make the claim that the people of Scotland don't benefit from the fact that the UK is a major player in world politics, if that's your opinion. But don't falsely claim that the UK isn't a major player, when it clearly is.

Well I don't think the UK is a major player, I think it likes to think it still is. It is a bit player yes, not saying it ain't but not a major one.

Saying that it is or isn't is not a fact it is expressing an opinion. Ours differ.

Of course it's not an opinion, it's a fact that the UK is a major player in world politics.

If you think being a major player in world politics is meaningless for the overwhelming majority of British people, and the Scottish people in particular, then fine, argue that point - I would probably agree with you.

But there's really no point in denying the truth because you simply can't be arsed to argue a point.

You don't appear to have properly thought through your argument for Scottish independence, so it's hardly surprising that you also appear to have not properly thought through the consequences of Scottish independence.

I think he's mixing up superpowers and major powers.

Do you think the people of Norway, Belgium or New Zealand look at the UK and think "I wish we had that"?

The Spanish do, certainly. What makes you think the people of Norway, Belgium or New Zealand wouldn't like to have more influence on the world stage?

The people of Norway, Belgium and New Zealand have exactly the same influence on the world stage that we do.

Sod all.

So the sixth largest economy in the world has "sod all" influence on the world stage ? 🙄

No, the people of that economy have sod all influence.

EDITED I think piemonster's comment was probably the best.
.........

No, the people of that economy have sod all influence.

Or any economy for that matter.

Are you deliberately not reading what I say? UK politicians have a reasonable amount of influence, sure - though not as much as they'd like to think probably. But they're a minority coalition - even when they weren't (e.g. Blair) they weren't representative of the majority of the population.

So the views and opinions of most people in the UK have little influence on international affairs.

Of course it's not an opinion, it's a fact that the UK is a major player in world politics.

I think he's mixing up superpowers and major powers.

Well I guess it's how you define a major player. I would say UK is at best hanging on to third tier on the world stage as long as they stay within the EU. Nowhere did I say they didn't play a part, I just don't see the UK as a major player. Sitting at the top you have the USA who for the time being have no equal, below them Russia and China - these two are major players, only one of the three is a superpower.

UK is simply not on a par with these top countries. Whilst part of the EU then along with India, Brazil, Japan the UK has some world influence. Taken out of the EU then they would drop down even more.

That however is just my opinion, yours may be different even if you like to think you speak only in facts.

Not that it has that much to do with Dave not wanting a chat with Salmon.

The views and opinions of the UK population towards Syria had a huge influence on how the situation played out both at Westminster and around the World. Did you miss that Ben?

athgray - Member
The views and opinions of the UK population towards Syria had a huge influence on how the situation played out both at Westminster and around the World. Did you miss that Ben?

more to do with putin playing obama like a fiddle, no?

Many people involved, however you can't deny Britain were one of the main players as the situation was developing.

b r - Member

Funny thing is, nationality wise I've never described myself as English, but British. And tbh I think of myself as a 'Yorkshireman' first, and a Brit second.

And that won't change [s]if[/s] [b]when[/b] we go independent.

so moving along from the How big is your diplomatic penis part...

If Scotland becomes independent but then has a delay in joining the EU would that mean any of the new scottish citizens would not be able to work in England without getting work Visa's and vice versa?

May depend on when Scottish citizenship would start. To add to the mix, UK citizenship may be offered depending on how the UK perceives Scottish policy following a yes vote.

mikewsmith - Member

If Scotland becomes independent but then has a delay in joining the EU

FWIW, nobody seems to think this is likely... The UK government hired Professor James Crawford to attack the Yes campaign's timeline, he responded that the timeline was "entirely realistic"

That however is just my opinion, yours may be different even if you like to think you speak only in facts.

It has nothing to do with my opinion, the UK has the sixth largest economy in the world, that's not my opinion, it's a fact. The UK is a member of the G7 group of countries, that's not my opinion, it's a fact. The UK is a member of the UN Security Council, that's not my opinion, it's a fact.

None of it has anything to do with my opinion.

And yes, those examples I give shows that the UK is a major player in world politics, it might not be the top dog, no one said it was, but it is still a major player.

mikewsmith - Member

If Scotland becomes independent but then has a delay in joining the EU would that mean any of the new scottish citizens would not be able to work in England without getting work Visa's and vice versa?

One [i]might[/i] suggest he had a reason for not asking.....