How to Make an Arse of Yourself by David Cameron [UK politics: Scottish independence]

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
Call Me Dave was at it again today. In Scotland to meet Alex Salmond and try and talk the Scots out of voting for independence.

And what pearl of wisdom does he come out with?

'I promise to hand more power to Scotland if you all promise not to vote for independence.'

And he thinks the Scots won't see the logical fail in that?

Uh huh.......
 

AVS

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
529
Reaction score
73
Location
Beacon and mountain, river and road.
Not particularly unreasonable. Opinion polls show a majority in favour of continuing the UK. A significant minority want independence. Therefore in aggregate Scotland might want more local powers.
The same offer should be made to England, Wales and NI. A federal structure might sort it all out.
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
Ermmm.... I think you missed my point. Which is most likely my fault for not explaining it.

Surely the best way for the Scots to get more power in their parliament is to vote for independence? And if they do, it won't matter a rat's ass what Call Me Dave has to say about it.

It was just his sheer arrogance in thinking he can pull the wool again that made me laugh.

I'm sure the Scots will do what's best for them. No matter what Dave promises.
 

AVS

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
529
Reaction score
73
Location
Beacon and mountain, river and road.
Voting for independence and breaking up the UK would give Scotland more powers. But many Scots do not want to break up the UK, but they might want more local powers.

I struggle to see what is arrogant about the PM of the UK arguing for the continuance of the UK, it seems logical he should do so.
 

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
Ah well, I got a laugh out of it even if no-one else did.

Not that I generally have much sympathy for Cameron, but on this one he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He is the PM of the United Kingdom, so it's his job to speak up for its benefits. On the other hand, he's a Tory so everything he says is likely to be counterproductive, but that's his party's fault for destroying their own Scottish electoral base.
 

xhouseboy

In the Yellow Woods
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
1,512
Reaction score
324
Call Me Dave was at it again today. In Scotland to meet Alex Salmond and try and talk the Scots out of voting for independence.

And what pearl of wisdom does he come out with?

'I promise to hand more power to Scotland if you all promise not to vote for independence.'

And he thinks the Scots won't see the logical fail in that?

Uh huh.......

I'm a Scot, and I don't see the logical fail in it. In fact, to the contrary, it actually sounds more like a canny political move in an attempt to pull the rug out from beneath Salmond's Devo Max option, which is just really a way of saving face and ensuring the Nats don't lose too much credibility should the vote swing too far against them.

I want the straight yes or no option. Devo Max can come later, if it comes at all. But Salmond wants all his dice loaded for this one.

Interesting article in today's Scotsman.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsma...p_plan_to_save_snp_says_jim_sillars_1_2116798
 

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
I'm a Scot, and I don't see the logical fail in it. In fact, to the contrary, it actually sounds more like a canny political move in an attempt to pull the rug out from beneath Salmond's Devo Max option, which is just really a way of saving face and ensuring the Nats don't lose too much credibility should the vote swing too far against them.

I want the straight yes or no option. Devo Max can come later, if it comes at all. But Salmond wants all his dice loaded for this one.

Interesting article in today's Scotsman.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsma...p_plan_to_save_snp_says_jim_sillars_1_2116798

I'm just trying to keep up at all, as we aren't talking about this on our news at all, basically.

...Mr Sillars also appears to support recent comments both by the Liberal Democrat Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and Tory leader Mr Cameron that any further changes to the devolved settlement would have to be agreed by the whole of the UK. He says: “If there is to be a devo-max question, for it to be capable of being delivered, there must be a Westminster government white paper and a written guarantee that if the Scots vote for the version set out, it will be delivered by the only parliament than can do so – Westminster.”
Is this above the option that gives the local powers folks in Scotland want?

And this can't be on the table by itself and be legal? There must be a referendum on independence as the only question? Or there must be a referendum on independence first, in any case?

If the Scots only get to have their population vote yes or no on independence, and otherwise the British government decides what happens, then I certainly see what Miranda is saying!

OTOH, independence is clearly a huge responsibility, so something less extreme is probably what I'd lean toward (not that y'all asked ;) ).

Mostly, I'm just trying to understand it all :)
 

agent.grey

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
67
Reaction score
5
Location
Scotland
The problem with having Devo Max on the same ballot as Independence is that it complicates things further.

There has been very little public debate, even inside Scotland, about exactly what putting your mark next to Independence will sign Scotland up to. Given the lack of clarity on this option, adding another system that will be somehow more devolved than now, but not actually independent, gets pretty murky.

The first example of the lack of clarity that comes to my mind is currency. Until recently I had assumed an independent Scotland would use the Euro (or as an unlikely second option, its own currency).
It now appears we would use Sterling, just like now. And apparently the rest of the UK (who we just left) will be fine with that... once we get around to asking them.
 

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
I

And this can't be on the table by itself and be legal? There must be a referendum on independence as the only question? Or there must be a referendum on independence first, in any case?

Well, there's legal and then there's practical politics. The Scottish Parliament has no ability to declare itself independent, no ability to claim powers for itself from Westminster, and no power to create a legally-binding referendum on either option (opinions differ about whether it can theoretically hold a non-binding referendum, but probably could in practice, since they're the ones with the ballot boxes).

But the last Scottish Parliamentary Elections returned a Nationalist government which explicitly mentioned holding an independence referendum in its manifesto. So it has a mandate to hold one, and Westminster. No mention was made of devo max, so the Nats' case is much weaker there. If they want it so much, they should have said so at the time. They probably never thought they'd win power outright, and so didn't put much thought into what they would do if they won the election and then lost an independence referendum. Now that the independence referendum is a reality (thanks to the Westminster Parliament passing an Act allowing it), the Nats have to give serious consideration to devo max, which they want if they can't be independent.

In the end, there'll probably be a devo max referendum, but it won't be held until a while after the independence referendum. And rightly so, because they're two different things.
 

xhouseboy

In the Yellow Woods
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
1,512
Reaction score
324
If the Scots only get to have their population vote yes or no on independence, and otherwise the British government decides what happens, then I certainly see what Miranda is saying!

The SNP has always banged the drum for full independence - it's their reason for existing. Now that they're going to get their referendum, and polls have shown that there isn't too great a demand for this but there is a taste for further devolved powers, the SNP are setting themselves up as the champions of Devo Max.

But they haven't the power to deliver on it, and they're well aware of this.

What Cameron appears to be saying is that Westminster can and will deliver on it if it's what Scotland wants. But first off let's see if, in a straight vote for independence, Scotland wishes to remain a part of the UK.

In my opinion Salmond would lose a simple yes/no referendum vote and Devo Max is no more than political posturing to ensure that his party still retain credibility at the top table when - and if there's been a no vote - Westminster then deals with this issue.

Otherwise, to come out on the wrong side of the independence referendum, and then see Westminster deal with devo max, kind of sidelines the SNP.
 

Brindle MacWuff

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
319
Reaction score
37
Very amusing, dear Mirandashell, I liked that very much. And may I also point out that in "Call me Dave's" argument, he has one fatal weakness.

We can spot a posh, patronising Tory twat from 400 miles away.

Alex "Who ate all the pies? Oops, I did" Salmond will not be worried by this.

I'm certainly not. Cameron is as welcome in Scotland as party poppers at a Wee Free church service.
 

reiver33

Monolithic
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
967
Reaction score
94
Location
Dumfries, south-west Scotland
I don't see the SNP losing a simple 'yes/no' ballot as damaging their credability - if nothing else it will provide a true indication of support for independence. Its the nationalist aspect of the party, as a distinctly more socialist administration than Westminster, that attracts support. 'National Socialism'. now that has quite a ring to it...
 

Brindle MacWuff

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
319
Reaction score
37
Brindle, me old mate!

How the devil are you?

Doin' fine, m'dearie, been away so back to AW for a blether. I see the craic is still as fun, especially when we're having a go at git-face Cameron.

And now? Tea, and some millionaire shortie. ooooohhhhhhhhhh yum.

Seemingly, Walkers Shortbread (Shortie makes to Herr Maj) are doing wee Scottie dogs with their feet dipped in chocolate. they're going to be called Muddy Boots! got to get me some of that!
 

Brindle MacWuff

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
319
Reaction score
37
I don't see the SNP losing a simple 'yes/no' ballot as damaging their credability - if nothing else it will provide a true indication of support for independence. Its the nationalist aspect of the party, as a distinctly more socialist administration than Westminster, that attracts support. 'National Socialism'. now that has quite a ring to it...


hee hee! National Socialism! Yes, quite catchy! I'm not too worried on the simple yes/no vote, as long as we get all the facts out in the open, take time to consider them, and then make up our mind. Then, I'd be good for a yes/no.

The problem for me is, there are no hard facts out there. Apart from the Barnett Formula, which is so misleading, but it works for the tories, as they say they are being generous to Scotland, but so much more expenditure on England is hidden. Simple, the figures are not accurate, and we need lots more info.

For example, the Tories can say that Scotland pays n£ in tax, made up of, income tax, companies registered in Scotland, etc. But what about, for example, Tesco? if they are registered in England, then all the VAT generated in Scotland goes to Westminster. And so on for all the other British companies.

Now, I ain't got a problem with that, but all these figures (and more) need to be laid out before we can have the full facts to make a choice. And that will take a few years. So I don't want a quick vote.

oh, my tea has gone cold. bugger.
 

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
Now, I ain't got a problem with that, but all these figures (and more) need to be laid out before we can have the full facts to make a choice. And that will take a few years. So I don't want a quick vote.

You won't get the full figures, because if Scotland goes independent, the exact terms will be hammered out by treaties which will continue to be signed several years after independence, as happened (for instance) with the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Generally, though, you'll be OK-ish, though poverty in the Central Belt and declining oil revenues will probably ensure some sticky times. But if you don't find a way to ensure that the English continue to carry joint responsibility for the liabilities of RBS and HBOS, your economy will be completely fucked the first time the banking industry takes a nosedive.
 

AVS

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
529
Reaction score
73
Location
Beacon and mountain, river and road.
HBOS and RBS would probably make sure (or be forced to make sure) their domicile remains British (or whatever we would call what remained). One main reason, 90% (at least) of the bailout was paid for by the rest of Britain.
 

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
HBOS and RBS would probably make sure (or be forced to make sure) their domicile remains British

Who is going to make them? They're Scottish companies, registered in Scotland, have headquarters in Scotland and issue Scottish banknotes. At some point, the English voter is likely to notice that taking RBS and HBOS is a hospital pass. I don't Scotland will get the opportunity to cherrypick the bits of its industry and shovel the basketcases south of the border.


One main reason, 90% (at least) of the bailout was paid for by the rest of Britain.

The bailout is dead money now, and the banks are still in a horrible condition.

(or whatever we would call what remained).

This is a good question. Personally, I can't see the UK existing once Scotland goes. A union of England, Wales and Northern Ireland makes no sense.
 

AVS

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
529
Reaction score
73
Location
Beacon and mountain, river and road.
But the bailout money might not always be dead. I'm sure an equitable arrangement would be made with Scotland. As to making them, well HBOS is part of Lloyds. 83% of RBS is owned by the British govt. Split it and Scotland would own 8.3% and the rest of the UK 75% (near enough). The shareholders own the company and decide whether it's British or Scottish.

As to what we'd call what remained it's a toughie. Perhaps England might choose to go it alone at that point. I hope it doesn't come to that.
 

Priene

Out to lunch
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
6,422
Reaction score
879
But the bailout money might not always be dead. I'm sure an equitable arrangement would be made with Scotland. As to making them, well HBOS is part of Lloyds. 83% of RBS is owned by the British govt. Split it and Scotland would own 8.3% and the rest of the UK 75% (near enough). The shareholders own the company and decide whether it's British or Scottish.

Depends how you define 'equitable'. This presupposes that an English politician will be in a position to be so generous. Since English politics doesn't exist at the moment, it's hard to know what form it would take post-referendum, but I doubt the English are going to be in a generous mood.

Now it is true that HBOS is part of Lloyds Banking Group, which is based in England. But that's only been true since 2009, when HBOS's Scottish carcass was amalgamated into the still-standing English Lloyds-TSB by a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer. It's highly unlikely that the English would feel the liabilities of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland should be their responsibility. How this would manifest itself I have no idea, since a virile English nationalism has not existed for many years. But I think Salmond's vision of England and Scotland divvying up the debts of Scotland's financial system 9:1 in Scotland's favour is highly unlikely. If they want independence, the Scots are going to need to think long and hard about the risks involved. They might want to fly over to Dublin or Reykjavik for a chat.



As to what we'd call what remained it's a toughie. Perhaps England might choose to go it alone at that point. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Czechoslovakia died when the Czechs called an end to it. I imagine the same would happen with Britain and England.

EDIT: It's also necessary to make a distinction between bank ownership and liability for future losses. The problem with the banks is the amount they may need in funding in the future. Let's say RBS is divided 9:1 in England's favour. Since the RBS is a limited company, that means England's losses (as shareholder) are limited to the amount it put in. If RBS went bust, it's shares would be worthless, in other words. But in the case of banks, they can't be allowed to go under, since the whole financial system is likely to follow - witness the devastation caused by allowed Lehman Brothers to topple. England's government would be within its right to divest itself of its hold in RBS on day 1, so it would have no further say or ownership in the company, which would still be registered in Scotland. Let's say that two years down the line, the RBS is again in trouble - why should England be responsible for the debts of a company it no longer owned and which wasn't registered in England?
 
Last edited:

waylander

Who's going for a beer?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
8,279
Reaction score
1,567
Age
65
Location
London, UK
It is a week away, the opinion polls have tightened like a duck's a##e but some fundamental questions have not been answered - like what would an independent Scotland use for a currency?