 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Why is David Cameron adamant that he wont debate with Alex Salmond about the future of Scotland and the United Kingdom. He is the prime minister yet keeps saying it should be the leader of the No campaign. Doesn't he see it as important?
It's a mater for Scotland. It's too easy for Salmond to portray a debate as Scotland v England so why would Cameron agree to be part of that
right attitude in my opinion.. this is a matter for the eligble voters to debate. call me dave has a right to an opinion but the loon salmond just wants a fight on the telly he feels he can win on an england v scotland card. he s having more difficulty promoting a scotland vs scotland debate..
Because letting Salmond portray a vote for independence as an anti-tory vote would be a massive error.
As above, it's those who have an actual say in the outcome who need to be involved in any debate.
No point in Cameron getting involved in it really.
As much as I can't stick cameron, he has got it right on this one.
As others have said it would fall right into that little weasel's plans for trying to twist it into an anti tory vote
Good to see Salmond hasn't pulled the wool over every ones eyes.
There's also the not insignificant point that if the Scottish MP's leave Westminster, the rest of the U.K. Will be almost assured to elect majority Tory governments for the next generation, especially as the population ages.
Cameron may be having to publicly defend the union but the strategists at Tory HQ must be relishing the prospect of a whole pile of labour and SNP voters heading off into the horizon.
Basically, he wants to continue to comment on independence, without ever having to actually directly face those he's commenting on. He says there are other people who should speak for Scotland yet he has no such scruples when it comes to leading Scotland, a country that has categorically rejected his party since the 50s.
I can't fault him for evading a debate, it'd be a tactical error, and realistically why would you volunteer to enter a fight you can't win? But I will fault him for refusing the challenge but expecting to still have a partisan voice.
People say this isn't an England vs Scotland debate, and that's correct- it's a Scotland vs UK debate. A vote for change is implicitly a vote against the status quo, which is what Cameron as UK Prime Minister represents.
And the democratic and moral issues posed by rule from England by a party that could never dream of democratic support in Scotland are front and central to this debate. It's not a case of "twisting" this to be an anti-Tory issue... It's always been largely that. I'm not a huge Salmond fan but at least we voted for the ****.
My Yes vote is partly a vote for Scotland but it's also partly a vote against Westminster in general and Tory rule in particular, I despair of British politics and since we can't fix that, we have to take the only option we have, which is to turn our backs on it and do better here. As the national parliament lurches to the right it draws ever further from what our voters desire- this isn't a gap that's closing or shows any signs of.
So to characterise it as a simple scottish matter is, well, absurd tbh.
Because he's feart of being humiliated by a superior debater and politician live on the telly.
He would much rather snipe from the sidelines like the coward he is.
There's also the not insignificant point that if the Scottish MP's leave Westminster, the rest of the U.K. Will be almost assured to elect majority Tory governments for the next generation, especially as the population ages.
"Without Scotland, Labour would still have won in 1997 (with a majority of 139, down from 179), in 2001 (129, down from 167) and in 2005 (43, down from 66). "
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/01/scotland-labour-majority-win
Good to see Salmond hasn't pulled the wool over every ones eyes.
+1
On this one Cameron has made the right call.
It's not as us vs them thing, it's up to the Scots to make their own mind up.
He would much rather snipe from the sidelines like the coward he is.
He's barely commented on it.
South of the border it's not that big a deal, why would he want to make it a big deal at the risk of being accused of being overly bothered about the issues of 8% of the UK population as opposed to the other 92% who don't live in Scotland, when it looks like the No's will win anyway.
rene59 - Member
Because he's feart of being humiliated by a superior.....politician live on the telly.
So superior that he launches a 167 page (if I remember correctly) of almost total gobbledygook and can't answer basic questions?????
It's not CMD role to debate....
He knows it would be bad for the better together campaign...
It would be tactically naive....
Was in Edinburgh on Thursday. Cabbie from the airport (no vote) was very agitated that Celtic were still not allowed to join the Premier/championship league. How can you have two Welsh clubs and not a Scottish one. "We are all part of Britain" was his basic line, and not a bad argument. I hadn't realise that debate was still raging. All the folk I met were in the better together campaign (well they were all in the financial sector!!!!) but getting worried by the lack of momentum and the bigger uncertain voters. I would be nervous about the positive momentum from commonwealth games and the Ryder Cup as well. I reckon there will be a late surge for yes, but probably not enough. Too many savvy Scots. 😉
Northwind.
The fact your vote is partly for Scotland and partly a vote against westminster is entirely why cmd isn't getting involved.
Your vote should be entirely for Scotland not against something else.
If you believe in Scotland then vote for it rather than some daft anti vote.
Let's face it if you do get independence then being anti westminster isn't going to matter a thing other than trying to find someone else to blame if it goes wrong.
Cameron doesn't need to bother or worry about Scottish independence; it isn't going to happen, with the vote being at worst 40% for - 60% against. He just needs to stand far away and watch Salmond and the SNP implode after the vote.
Cabbie from the airport (no vote) was very agitated that Celtic were still not allowed to join the Premier/championship league. How can you have two Welsh clubs and not a Scottish one. "We are all part of Britain" was his basic line, and not a bad argument.
What have football leagues got to do with the referendum on whether Scotland should be an independent country?
Just cause Salmond is a better debater than Cameron doesn't mean that he's right. No doubt Salmond would win a debate against Cameron - he's got nothing else to occupy him or spend his time preparing for. Cameron has a tad more on his plate. If the Scots want independence then its unto them to decide, Cameron appointed a team to put the case for the UK forward to the Scottish people - its upto them to do that and not for Cameron to get involved and undermine them.
It was the cabbie's idea. His line was we are British! we fight together....why do we not play football together. TBF he was also a shareholder in Celtic which may also explain his motivation. He was arguing that English clubs like Norwich etc were scared of the competition and were discriminating against Scottish team. Despite this sense of injustice (!!) he was still no voter.
I will admit that it is of only of lateral relevance to the OPs point 😉
Northwind.
The fact your vote is partly for Scotland and partly a vote against westminster is entirely why cmd isn't getting involved.
Your vote should be entirely for Scotland not against something else.
Every vote for something is a vote against the alternatives. It's just semantics to claim otherwise. I can rephrase my statement to something like "I believe Scotland's politics are better for us than Westminster's" if you like, but that's exactly the same thing phrased differently.
You can't vote for independence without voting against the UK. So clearly you can't debate independence without considering the UK, and you can't consider what we'll do better and what independence will do for us, without considering what the UK does worse or what the UK will do for us. Obviously.
ohnohesback - MemberCameron doesn't need to bother or worry about Scottish independence
You might think so but he's worried enough to try and buy No votes with defence contracts. Not that he's involved in the debate, oh no.
No that's fine, it just seems to fit in with most I have read.
a large part of the pro/yes campaign is to try and make it anti westminster rather than be just pro Scotland.
Entirely fair game but seems a bit daft to then criticise cmd for refusing to get drawn in.
It is up to Scotland to decide and totally sensible for the UK pm to stay out of it.
Because he knows Salmond will make the debate an argument about Cameron, Tories and cuts. And Salmond will always win that debate.
By not playing that version of the game, Camerom avoids looking a prat and can quite rightly point out that the debate is about Scotlands future with or without whichever bunch of incompetent privately educated morons is in charge at Westminster.
So on the one hand he wants to win the hearts of the Scots and on the other he doesn't need to worry or bother with us. Well seeing how it's not a big deal south of the border let's just forget about him engaging in the debate properly. It's not like he's the Prime Minister of the UK now is it. I mean why bother when he can just chip in from the sidelines whenever he wants with his usual contempt.
He should make his mind up. Either he is part of the debate in which case he should engage in it properly, or he is out of it and he should shut up.
Personally, I don't reckon its Cameron whose feart
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottish-independence-referendum
Those surveys are great.
I love the fact the only one to give a lead by for the yes vote is sponsored by the snp
So elections come and go every 4-5 years ago, so that's sort of define's a politician's time-frame.
A vote about independence really shouldn't be debated by politicians working on such short political time-scales.
It was the cabbie's idea. His line was we are British! we fight together....why do we not play football together.
You should have asked him how often he thought Celtic would be in the Champion's League if they had to finish in the top 4 in the Premier League to qualify.
"We are all part of Britain" was his basic line, and not a bad argument.
We're all part of Europe as well but we don't want to be governed by them.
We're all part of Europe as well but we don't want to be governed by them.
Speak for yourself, some of us think it would be much better!
Union or not everyone in Europe/UK is in the deep poo poo with EU bureaucratic maggots governing all.
Yes, yes, the EU argument is we are a big family ... yeah right ... leave me alone. 🙄
It will take at least 3 generations to make sense of this idealistic bureaucratic zombie maggot and by the time everyone understand it, it will be out of fashion again in favour of smaller nation rather than US of EU.
Debate or not it is just career politicians looking out for themselves.
They are all full of zombie maggot ideologies.
CMD has said that it's a matter for the people of Scotland to decide. An admirable stance - if only he'd stick to his principles and not try to influence the debate from the sidelines (e.g. his New Years speech).
He has also admitted that he won't debate against Alex Salmond as he is too unpopular in Scotland.
As for making it an argument against "Tory" cuts, have we all forgotten that Ed Balls has committed to basically the levels of "austerity"?
Labour/LibDem/Tory - three cheeks of the same arse.
Salmond always says independence is about Scotland, not the SNP ie a yes or no vote. Therefore the debate should be between the leaders of the yes and no campaigns. Salmond is just trying to score cheap political points. Can't stand the man.
Was in Edinburgh on Thursday. Cabbie from the airport (no vote) was very agitated that Celtic were still not allowed to join the Premier/championship league. How can you have two Welsh clubs and not a Scottish one. "We are all part of Britain" was his basic line, and not a bad argument
On well, if a cabbie said that it must be the thoughts of the country. What a load of shite, and don't listen to football fans they only chase the money (ie the premiership) and bear in mind that your average Celtic fan would rather die in hell than be classed as 'British' this is a club that refuses the union flag at its ground. And before anyone says I'm biased, the other lot are just as bad. Choosing to ignore their proud Scottish roots to be some kind of bastion of Britain.
Both now give me the ****in boak.
CMD has absolutely nothing to gain from a debate, as we all wouldn't tote Tory up here, and Salmond would rip him a new arse, fine well he knows. I'm with Northwind, Salmond isn't ideal by any stretch, but we voted for him, not the muppets in Westminster.
Bit what people have to realise, and what the slippy bastard himself has to point out - a vote for independence is NOT a vote for the SNP or indeed for wee eck.
Whatever peoples choices are, they have to vote on what is put forward, not fear of change or apathy, or false promises.
cant stand the man
And therein lies the problem. We now vote not on policy, but on an X factor style popularity vote. What a ****in joke.
Druidh - 3 cheeks of the same arse - best one I've heard in awhile, chapeau!
And therein lies the problem. We now vote not on policy, but on an X factor style popularity vote. What a **** joke
Not true. I'm voting No because I firmly believe that's what is best for myself, my family, my friends and my countries (both Scotland and Britain). Disliking Salmond has nothing to do with it. There are some pro-independence people I have loads of respect for although still disagreeing with them. Salmond however is nothing more than a publicity seeking egotist more interested in picking fights than doing what is best for Scotland.
As I said though, my decision to vote no is nothing to do with personalities therefore your X Factor comments don't apply to me. That said, your point is, generally speaking, a quite valid one and I actually agree with you.
Celtic aren't good enough for the Premiership and the Welsh clubs have played their way up through the lower leagues.
I must say Northwind has put my own thoughts into words
much better than I've been able to so far. Agree 100%.
I think the argument is that Celtic/Rangers [i]would[/i] be good enough to compete at the top end of the Premiership is they had access to the same sort of funding other EPL teams have from Sky etc.
As for the Yes/No debate, I'd love to see Alistair Darling take on Dennis Canavan 🙂
I think the argument is that Celtic/Rangers would be good enough to compete at the top end of the Premiership is they had access to the same sort of funding other EPL teams have from Sky etc.
Which I agree with 100% Colin,but it's a moot point, they want to remember that they are Scottish clubs, not English.
Kennyp - fair do's.
Speak for yourself, some of us think it would be much better!
Really? Had a look at how well France, Spain, Greece, etc are doing currently? Especially France.
It's a mater for Scotland. It's too easy for Salmond to portray a debate as Scotland v England so why would Cameron agree to be part of that
Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK, not England. He has responsibilities for Scotland: in fact, those very same responsibilities that would be removed from his office if secession took place. This is a major issue taking place on his turf.
The idea that Cameron shouldn't get involved because it's none of his business or a "question for the Scots" is just utter gash.
CMD "keeping his nose out of it"
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/camerons-plea-to-putin-help-me-stop-salmond.23138182
The Tass report, by one of the agency's correspondents, hit the Russian language news wires on Hogmanay.Its opening paragraph reads: "Great Britain is extremely interested in the support of Russia, as holder of the G8 presidency, in two vital areas in 2014: the Afghan pull-out and the Scottish independence referendum."
In the traditional style of a Russian news wire report, this assertion was then attributed to a "representative" in the Prime Minister's office who was speaking anonymously.
The journalist then added a direct quote from the unnamed source talking of "two main issues whose resolution requires international formats, albeit of different modalities".
The Cameron Government insider then, according to the report, added: "Those are the withdrawal of combat units from Afghanistan by the end of the 2014 and September's referendum on Scottish independence.
"We believe that the G8 could become one of the main political platforms where London will find backing."
The journalist added that although the referendum might "look like a UK domestic matter", it had, according to his UK Government source, the potential to "send shockwaves across the whole of Europe".
The Herald story is rubbish - idk why they are so snotty about unidentified sources when the UK papers do it all the time.
The ITAR-Tass story - if it exists - is fabricated. 31 Dec is silly season in Russia - no-one in media, politics or business gets anything done between western and Orthodox Christmases.
Yep, Cameron is the Prime Minister of the UK. His mandate is to run the UK whatever form that may take. If one part of the UK wants to pull out then that's their prerogative and Cameron is quite right in appointing a team to manage the debate. This is not a Salmond vs Cameron thing. Its far more important and shouldn't be reduced to a battle of two personalities. The UK government is no different to any other company organisation. It works exactly the same. Its like the CEO of the company I work for getting involved in a local company sector meeting. He just wouldn't do that - that's why he employs other people and teams - to manage their own sector. All the CEO does is to set the objectives and the targets consistent with his or her overall strategic vision, and its upto the sector management teams to deliver. Cameron has set his stall out in letting the referendum go ahead due to normal democratic process and he's appointed the best people to argue the pro-UK position (in his opinion at least) so he's set his stall out. Its called delegation.
I'm sure Salmond could beat Cameron in a debate technically, but that doesn't mean he's right or representing the pro-independance point of view accurately. These dabates are over-rated in my view and often are reduced to a battle of statistics and that is when the vast majority of people switch off - because as we all know 99.99% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Actually Salmonds apparent desperation to engage directly with Cameron actually reflects badly on him in my view. He's struggling to convince people on the actual facts and answer the hard 'what if' questions and just saying "We'll sort all that out once we've got the vote, it'll be OK, trust me" so now he just wants to resort to trying to humiliating the PM in a nonsense showcase of a debate that'll add nothing to the debate. This is a taste of what independent Scottish politics has to look forward to - US style Showbiz politics. That's not the sort of Politics I personally want to see in a UK that includes or excludes Scotland.
It may have escaped your notice but live TV debates between the party leaders are already a feature of UK politics, so this is nothing peculiar to Scottish politics.
already a feature of UK politics
Only in the last blink of an eye in relative terms. An unwelcome feature too.
Salmond would rip him a new arse and fine well he knows it. Ask binners, he loves Salmond. 😀
Yep - I reckon binners has a man-crush on Eck
In the last major TV debate between three party leaders, one Man stood out shining like a "bright yellow" beacon of hope.....then look what happened.........
Salmond's choice of words says it all....he's starting to worry and get frustrated and sees Tory bashing as an escape card. There is no need for anyone to fall for his traps, least of all Cameron.
Are you suggesting that he wouldn't be so keen to take on Miliband or Clegg - or are you lumping them in with "Tory"s?
FWIW, there has been a push for this debate for some time so it's nothing to do with "starting to worry and get frustrated"
The only reason CMD is not agreeing to a TV debate is because he thinks it would go badly for him and for better together. Trying to claim that he is keeping out of it because it's a matter for Scots to decide is condescending and untrue.
Mr Cameron said in The Independent "But this is not a debate between me and him. The debate should be between people in Scotland who want to stay and people in Scotland who want to go."
Yet the stories continue to gush from Conservative central office/ Westminster.
No I am recalling how Clegg was seen as a new brilliant light and a refreshing choice based on the first TV debate. Sadly, that impression proved somewhat short-lived. (My first para)
I am aware that AS has been trying to trap CMD for ages. But the arrogance and fear jibes simply highlight how frustrated AS is getting with the lack of traction. CMD is wise to ignore it.
Cameron's not stupid and so will avoid a debate. Salmond's not stupid and would love to make it a nasty Tory vs. lovely Scots debate. The former is a better politician than many on here think, and has outmaneuvered the latter. Again.
Rather than ask why Cameron has declined: Ask yourself why Salmond has pushed the idea: That's why Cameron has refused. Why do what your opponent wants you to do? I don't hear many neutral voices crying out for CMD's intervention up here in Scotland.
[quote=teamhurtmore ]I am aware that AS has been trying to trap CMD for ages. But the arrogance and fear jibes simply highlight how frustrated AS is getting with the lack of traction. CMD is wise to ignore it.
[quote=mogrim ]Salmond's not stupid and would love to make it a nasty Tory vs. lovely Scots debate. [quote=scotroutes ]Are you suggesting that he wouldn't be so keen to take on Miliband or Clegg
I'm sure Salmond could beat Cameron in a debate technically
Face it, Salmonds idea of a debate on the future of the union is more akin to this than any form of adult discussion
It was Better Together who claimed that Scotland would have no postal service after independence,that food would be more expensive,mobile phone roaming charges would be higher and that China would take the pandas back. Given that record they shouldnt get into debates with Rab either.
Don't forget the "fact" that iScotland wouldn't get the BBC
[/i]Cameron has set his stall out in letting the referendum go ahead [i]due to normal democratic process
This is the stuff that's donkey toss - suggesting that Cameron's disinterest in debating Salmond is due to some sort of democratic or constitutional principle. It's not.
Better Together, an organisation whose main tactic in pursuing a no vote was nick-named Project Fear by it's own members. Disinformation is their specialty. Sad that they have no positive contribution to make to the debate, always negative.
Cameron is a chick chick chick chick chicken! His refusal to go up against Salmond is nothing to do with him being democratic. A clear majority in a recent UK poll wants to see the debate. Maybe we will see Putin coming over as his proxy after Cameron's SOS call to the G8 President.
If Cameron thought he would look good in a debate, he'd be there.
Given he knows he won't, he'll be nowhere close to Salmond, in fact he's probably taking out an injunction against wee Alec coming within 200 yards of him.
Is Cameron a coward? Yes
Is he smart not to meet Alec? Yes
Will Alec try to find another way yo make capital out of it? Yes
Perhaps Cameron is keeping it all in perspective? It's not like the lights go out the minute Scotland leaves. I would guess that it has a very small affect, if any, on England, Wales and NI. Businesses will continue to do business between the countries etc.
Nah. The lights only go out when wee Alec orders the cross border interconnectors to be opened.
Serious, well semi, question.
Celtic v Rangers, if you accept the republican/loyalist view of Northern Ireland, is there any sectarian bias in the Scottish independence campaign?
Three Welsh clubs in the English leagues, not two.
mogrim - MemberThe former is a better politician than many on here think, and has outmaneuvered the latter. Again.
Eh. Salmond presented him with a challenge with 2 bad outcomes, Cameron succesfully chose the less bad choice but Salmond is still merrily making political capital from it. If this is what it looks like when Cameron outmaneovres Salmond, I'd love to see the alternative!
Cameron also realises that he might have to actually comment on some of the terms of any break up, you know instead of suggesting we will end up eating our young in Winter a la Better together.
Celtic v Rangers, if you accept the republican/loyalist view of Northern Ireland, is there any sectarian bias in the Scottish independence campaign?
I have no idea what your first two phrases mean.
Has there been any suggestion of religious affiliation being significant in the independence campaign? Scotland is about 17% Catholic, the UK is about 9% Catholic. Scotland would probably end up without an established church.
Has there been any suggestion of religious affiliation being significant in the independence campaign? Scotland is about 17% Catholic, the UK is about 9% Catholic. Scotland would probably end up without an established church.
I know there hasn't which is why I am asking.
Celtic and Hib's are traditionally Catholic teams, Rangers and Hearts Protestant.
I am aware that there has always been tension, but never more than kicking crap out of a few on a Saturday night after the footie.
Just curious if there is a loyalist/republican - protestant/catholic parallel to Ireland? Or is it Highlands v Central belt, or again indifferent? Or whether the devolution vote is separate from ideas of identity?
Eh. Salmond presented him with a challenge with 2 bad outcomes, Cameron succesfully chose the less bad choice but Salmond is still merrily making political capital from it. If this is what it looks like when Cameron outmaneovres Salmond, I'd love to see the alternative!
Cameron gave Salmond the referendum Alec didn't want: no (unwinnable) devo-max option, just a simple (and potentially winnable) yes/no. He then set up a local group to run the campaign and give him a justifiable excuse to avoid having a direct debate. So yes, he outmaneuvered him, twice.
[quote=mogrim ]
Cameron gave Salmond the referendum Alec didn't want: no (unwinnable) devo-max option, just a simple (and potentially winnable) yes/no.
History has just been re-written 😆
Sectarian voting has not been a major force in Scotland for 60 years AFAIK. The conservative and unionist party used to harvest protestant votes in the West of Scotland, but you're going back to the 1950s there.I know there hasn't which is why I am asking.Celtic and Hib's are traditionally Catholic teams, Rangers and Hearts Protestant.
I am aware that there has always been tension, but never more than kicking crap out of a few on a Saturday night after the footie.
Just curious if there is a loyalist/republican - protestant/catholic parallel to Ireland? Or is it Highlands v Central belt, or again indifferent? Or whether the devolution vote is separate from ideas of identity?
Sectarian voting has not been a major force in Scotland for 60 years AFAIK. The conservative and unionist party used to harvest protestant votes in the West of Scotland, but you're going back to the 1950s there.
Thanks,
I guess the last thing anyone needs is a group of whoever looses deciding the Irish approach is the way forward! It doesn't take many!!!
meibion glyndwr anyone.
The vast majority of the Rangers support will vote no, As they love the tub thumping rule britannia stuff.
Celtic support, I'm not so sure there is a majority either way, they certainly wouldn't want to be thought of as being pro union though, that's for sure.
History has just been re-written
Really? How? Cameron didn't have to allow a referendum, he could have ignored the SNP's demands indefinitely. He's taken a gamble - he thinks he can win a yes/no referendum, and by doing so seriously dent the SNP's power.
Did Cameron give a referendum?
Did Cameron give a referendum?
Basically, yes. The UK government transferred the necessary authority to the Scottish parliament.
I am aware that there has always been tension, but never more than kicking crap out of a few on a Saturday night after the footie.
A little worse than that - there have been murders: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/may/15/gender.uk
A little worse than that - there have been murders: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/may/15/gender.uk
That was a long time ago now, it's much better these days but I still wouldnt want to end up in the wrong colours in certain parts of Glasgow. Mostly these days it's a few violent drunken fights in the streets and a rise in domestic abuse cases after old firms games, but we won't be seeing many of those for a while.