[Closed] Why wont he debate the potential end of the Union?

Still an ongoing situation, that, no final decisions made.

True, but I'm unconvinced the UN will step in when there's a written constitution setting out exactly what steps need to be taken to break up Spain, and the Catalan vote won't be sufficient to trigger it. Spain has its problems, but it's hardly Sri Lanka and the Tamils or Russia and Chechnya.

Out of interest, and a bit of [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i]: how big does a sub-population need to be to force the UN to act? If, say, Skye decided it wanted to be independant would the government be forced to act?

I have no idea tbh- the principle is based on "peoples" rather than nations, states or governments but that's nicely wooly

I would imagine a sub-population would need to be big enough to avoid the government boosting the existing population with new "residents" to skew any vote. Skye has a population of only 10,000 so wouldn't be difficult to rig a vote to suit the government trying to hold onto it.

I've just read that one of Carmichaels "20 reasons to say no" was the strength of Britains sporting teams - like the British [s]and Irish[/s] Lions. There'll be a few players from the Republic of Ireland that might take issue with that 😆

But while we maintain a strong pride in our teams for football, rugby and so much more we also maintain an enormous pride in the sporting clout that we represent together.

Whether that’s the British Lions, or next month’s Winter Olympics, or of course, our astonishing achievements in the London 2012 Olympic Games.

I would imagine a sub-population would need to be big enough to avoid the government boosting the existing population with new "residents" to skew any vote.

The real limitation is the viability of the unit: there's never going to be a Tooting Liberation Front because not enough Tootingers would want to see Tooting as an independent state.

#FFT

Back to original question; if Camerons excuse is that it's a debate for the residents of Scotland, why is William [s]Mc[/s]Hague up in Glasgow today to lecture us about the pitfalls of independence?

Back to original question; if Camerons excuse is that it's a debate for the residents of Scotland, why is William [s]Mc[/s]Hague up in Glasgow today to lecture us about the pitfalls of independence?

'Cos he's a lying politician (is there any other sort) and we all know it's just a handy excuse to avoid this turning into Scotland vs. the service-cutting Southern toffs?

I see no problem with support or comments for either side from where ever they come. I have no issue with support shown towards independence from similar movements in other countries, as was seen in a march in Edinburgh for example. Why should a UK politician not be allowed to voice a view? I thought that was a corner stone of democracy. I am sure plenty of after dinner speakers from around the world will be used to promote independence over the coming year. Sir Sean perhaps to name but one.
A Tory politician ffs, not too many will listen anyway.
If the vote in Scotland is No I understand there will be a large portion of the populace not happy with this. We need to progress to ensure people do not feel further disenfranchised. I also hope that if the vote is Yes then the voice of those that to some degree feel a connection with the UK will not be lost amongst an air of triumphalism.

I would like to see Cameron debate Salmond, and have now come to the belief he may not be hammered as much as people think. I agree he is scared though, but in reality a TV debate will probably have little effect

Cameron would have to be a blundering idiot to debate with Salmond for the obvious reason.

Fingers crossed.

I wonder if there's a bigger issue? The independence of Scotland is not the case of a territory seceding from a parent country.

The UK came into being by an agreement between 2 sovereign countries, England and its territories and colonies, and Scotland. It was an international treaty, not the acquisition of Scotland by England (or vice versa).

Come the divorce there won't be a Scotland and the UK, it will be Scotland and England again.

England will not be the UK, although they will try and spin it that way. It wasn't before, so it can't be after.

So all the dire things that the Better Together campaign say will happen to an independent Scotland (eg having to reapply to EU, NATO, etc) will also be the case for England.

If I'm right, I can see why Cameron wouldn't want to discuss it publicly just yet. He's not stupid.

epicyclo, you can't seriously make the point that rUK would be so affected that it would have to reapply to the EU or NATO without giving rUK a vote in the referendum?

I believe EU membership would happen relatively quickly for Scotland following a Yes vote but conditions may not be as favourable as some would hope. May be difficult to maintain Scotland should receive UK rebate despite larger farming sector than rUK for example.

Would you expect Scotland to have to renegotiate it's membership of EU again if say Orkney and Shetland wished to go it alone with their wealth of natural resources?

[quote=athgray ]epicyclo, you can't seriously make the point that rUK would be so affected that it would have to reapply to the EU or NATO without giving rUK a vote in the referendum?
rUK would certainly have to do some renegotiation with the EU over things like budget rebate, contributions, representation etc. Losing 9% of it's population must have some effect?

I would suggest that the 'yes" campaign could be a little smarter in exploiting the issue of the likes of Hague and Alexander marketing the latest "Scottish Analysis" reports (quite interesting stuff all on the government website that negates the idea that the UK government has not provided clear analysis etc, but that's another point).

Ahead of Mr Hague’s speech, Yes Scotland’s published 10 main reasons why Scotland’s place in the world will be boosted with a Yes vote.

1. With a Yes vote, Scotland will be able to speak with its own voice on the world stage and make sure the interests of our people are properly represented – [b]not by Tory governments we didn’t elect.[/b]

etc.....

Ok a valid point but tactically naive as it highlights the desire to centre the debate as an anti-Tory issue. Tone that down and re-focus the point and the pressure may mount on Cameron. Otherwise, he is unlikely to fall for such a tactical trap and IMO nor should he.

Seems fair to renegotiate scotroutes, but not reapply. If however rUK does not wish to renegotiate terms, what options are realistically available to the EU?

I hope that this would not be the straw that breaks the camels back, and would see rUK come out of EU. This scenario I don't feel is in either the interest of EU rUK or an iScotland.

If rich Scotland has been funding a poorer neighbour for so long, could rUK not negotiate better terms on some aspects of membership?

Well just poured myself a wee dram, toasted my friends north off the border ( :wink:) and settling down to watch QT.

(I hope the panel are better that last week. Nadine Dorries and UKIP, Aaargh. At least Chukka made an interesting slip that made it worth watching!!)

Come the divorce there won't be a Scotland and the UK, it will be Scotland and England again.

Why is it not true Konabunny? What would the position of Northern Ireland and Wales be?

The White Paper rightly acknowledges that there is no direct precedent for a territory of a Member State to secede from that Member State while simultaneously seeking continuity in its EU rights and obligations. At best, there are more or less plausible arguments and analogies. [b]The dominant legal view – as illustrated in the Boyle and Crawford legal opinion for the UK government – is one that gives preference in continuity to the rights and obligations of the entity which would be the successor state to the United Kingdom, with the seceding entity treated as an entirely new state in international law. In other words, post-independence, the ‘United Kingdom’ would retain its EU membership, with Scotland having to seek EU membership on its own account. [/b]The idea that the treaties would cease to apply to the territory of a seceding entity has also been supported by the European Commission President in a letter to the chair of the House of Lords economics committee.

[i]Kenneth A. Armstrong, Professor of European law, University of Cambridge
[/i]

Not surprisingly, this interpretation is contested in the White Paper.

Same source!!! A bit of a trend here????

"Why is it not true Konabunny? What would the position of Northern Ireland and Wales be?"

The UK will still exist. It will be smaller.

konabunny - Member
"Why is it not true Konabunny? What would the position of Northern Ireland and Wales be?"

The UK will still exist. It will be smaller.

Two countries made a partnership agreement in 1703. Those countries were the Kingdom of England with its territories, and the Kingdom of Scotland. The UK is the name given to the partnership.

If the Union is dissolved, surely both parties return to their previous status.

England is not the UK, and never has been the UK.

Ergo, split the UK and you have England, its territories, and Scotland, not rUK and Scotland.

Any membership provisions of the various international treaties that have to be revised because of the split will have to be the same for both parties.

Two countries made a partnership agreement in 1703

Those countries were the Kingdom of England with its territories, and the Kingdom of Scotland. The UK is the name given to the partnership. .

If the Union is dissolved, surely both parties return to their previous status.

England is not the UK, and never has been the UK.

Ergo, split the UK and you have England, its territories, and Scotland, not rUK and Scotland.

Any membership provisions of the various international treaties that have to be revised because of the split will have to be the same for both parties.

Wales is a country too, won't somebody think of the Welsh

Don't worry, no-one ever does unless they need a cheap lazy joke.

*goes googling

irelanst - Member
Two countries made a partnership agreement in 1703
[b]1707[/b]

Correct, sorry - typo

If the Union is dissolved, surely both parties return to their previous status.
[b]Scotland is voting to leave the Union, not dissolve it.[/b]

There were only 2 parties to the Union, if one leaves, surely that is it dissolved.

Ergo, split the UK and you have England, its territories, and Scotland, not rUK and Scotland.
[b]Nobody is proposing to split the Union, Ireland left the UK and yet it still exists.[/b]

At the Union Ireland was owned by England, no longer a sovereign nation, had no representation in parliament, and was not a party to the Union. Thus Ireland is not a comparable case.

Any membership provisions of the various international treaties that have to be revised because of the split will have to be the same for both parties.
[b]It won’t, there are precedents for this.[/b]

I am not aware of any precedents where 2 equal sovereign nations dissolve/terminate a partnership.

I believe the precedents apply to territories splitting from a superior state, eg a conquered country getting self determination.

Scotland was not a territory of England so how can those precedents apply?

If they are precedents for new states, then both England and Scotland will be new states, and both should be treated equally by the EU, NATO, etc.

You're confusing yourself because you think that there are multiple states within the UK. There aren't. There is a single state called the UK.

If they are precedents for new states, then both England and Scotland will be new states, and both should be treated equally by the EU, NATO, etc.

No. Scotland will secede from the UK giving two states. Those will be Scotland and the UK. Typical SNP thinking they can dictate the rest of the UK has to change because of them.

Oh, and I'm Scottish and proud of it. However I'm also British and proud of it. I see no sense in breaking up a hugely successful union. Thankfully the majority of my countrymen agree.

I see no sense in breaking up a hugely successful union.

CMD is debating the future of the union but he is doing it by proxy in Scotland at least because he does not want the no campaign to be seen as a tory campaign.

Gordimhor. Your last post is correct. The No campaign is not a Tory one.

I do wonder though how your solution of 'something new' is intended to help some of the poorest 20% in Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester? The truth is you don't care, so no need to quote those statistics.

What is the difference between nationalists and conservatives? One group is intent on redistribition of UK wealth amongst the few in a selfish 'I am alright Jack' manner, and the other are conservatives.

Seems totally hypocritical to me that Salmond and the Yes campaign want a debate with Cameron? Surely Scottish independence means the exact opposite of this? And therein lies the fundamental problem with an independent Scotland.

I think you only have to look at their policies to see which party is more likely to redistribute some of the national wealth. Which party came up with the bedroom tax and which came up with a massive increase in child benefit?
Secondly athgray I don't think you read my last post. 😉
CMD is heavily involved in the debate already he just doesnt want to admit it.

But surely the UK prime minister should argue the UK case and the Scottish first minister that for Scotland. Funny that Hague And spineless Danny are waging in.

Seems totally hypocritical to me that Salmond and the Yes campaign want a debate with Cameron? Surely Scottish independence means the exact opposite of this? And therein lies the fundamental problem with an independent Scotland.

I have no idea what your last sentence means. I wonder if you do.

his failure to articulate illustrates the lack of interest shown by Westminster (and Tories in particular) toward Scottish issues.

He has articulated his view clearly as have the leaders of all the main parties. In his/their opinion Scottish issues are best dealt with in the context of the UK. It's very simple. As a Scotophile, I agree with him.

The rest is now tactics and the gloves are off. The weasel's is here to represent [s]his own interest [/s] sorry, the interests of those who seek full independence and he will use every tactic in the book to [s]get his own way[/s] ensure a yes vote. And so he should. He is a master of the dark arts and manipulation as the book of dreams shows with the Farrage/Starkey/galloway bullying approach of shouting down dissenters when exposed. A naked weasel is not a pretty sight. Good for CMD, the correct tactics at this stage.

If his BS is not in the best interests if Scotland then so be it. But as inthe case this week when it affects the rUK then we should meet fire with fire. He hides behind the Westminster bully tag because that is exactly his approach. Over the past 12 months his bluff has been called time and again and he has been repeatedly exposed. So it's his turn to fight dirty and make this an anti Tory-toff campaign. And why not, that is a winning card for him.

This is now the real thing, Good on the UK leaders for fighting correctly. It's dirty and will get dirtier as the vote gets nearer. It's time to stop the pretence, there is a guy who will do harm to Scotland and to the rUK if left alone. He's played his cards in the book of dreams and very early. The wise man holds back and uses his trumps at the right time.

Ding, ding.....

Oh oh. THM has finally lost it. Reverting to hyperbole and personal insult shows there is no substantive, reasoned argument.

I'll ask again: would Alex Salmond seek to have this debate with a Labour or LibDem PM?

We have had plenty of rationale argument and for the most part that is how it will continue.

But AS has crossed the boundaries this week. So let's take the fight to him properly. He's exposed and trying to fight dirty. We should counter appropriately.

[quote=scotroutes ]
I'll ask again: would Alex Salmond seek to have this debate with a Labour or LibDem PM?

I have no idea, ask him. But frankly I don't care. He is fighting for Scottish interests in a (largely/partly) zero-sum game. Good for him. If the TV debate plays into his hands then it's simple, don't do it.

[quote=teamhurtmore ]I have no idea,
So why argue it's an anti-Tory, anti-toff thing? Do you seriously think that Alex Salmond wouldn't want to take on [i]any[/i] UK PM regardless of party or background? The only person that's focussing on these characteristics of the current PM is you. Is it because you're trying to paint the argument in a certain light - one that gives credence to your own prejudices and opinions?

And therein lies the fundamental problem with an independent Scotland

I have no idea what your last sentence means. I wonder if you do.

It means that Alex 'power trip' Salmond seems to keep asking the UK if they can hold his hand throughout the whole process by giving continual feedback (and providing him much needed publicity) - rather than just getting on with doing it. Can see the same thing continuing to happen if Scotland goes independent since the rest of the UK will remain holding all of the trump cards.

Quit the hand holding, state your case, take the vote, make your mind up, YES or NO, get on with it, stop whinging, simple 🙂

I have already posted the yes campaigns announcement from two days ago. What is there first point? How many parties does it mention in that point? How often does AS preface any reference to the government or current policies with the adjective Tory?

Correctly, from a tactical viewpoint, they want to exploit the perception that the Tories are all about cuts etc. this is a natural vote winner whether true or not. As mentioned several times (and to copy a trend) CMD should not fall for the obvious trap.

1. With a Yes vote, Scotland will be able to speak with its own voice on the world stage and make sure the interests of our people are properly represented – [b]not by Tory governments [/b]we didn’t elect.

To answer the question about asking the Lib Dems, first he needs to realise that they are actually part of our coalition government , however inconvenient that admission might be.

In the past 48 hours, we had Alexander (LD) and Hague (C) delivering the conclusions of a UK (coalition) government's latest Scottish analysis. Alexander presented much of the detail. And the reaction from Sturgeon: "an example of the same old hypocritical Tories lecturing Scotland on why we shouldn’t be taking decisions ourselves".

Have I missed Alexander's actual (as opposed to "in effect"!) desertion to the Tories??? Sensibly she focused on Hague and his party and will continue to do so. Sensibly, the better together campaign will do the opposite.

Interesting that in the 2010 General Election then the voting as a whole in Scotland was as follows:

Labour - 42%
Lib Dems - 19%
SNP - 19%
Conservative - 17%

So almost as many Scots voted Conservative in 2010 as they did SNP?

Interesting also that there has been a Labour government in the UK for 13 years between 1997 and 2010.

So the Scots seem to have had what they wanted for the last 13 years, but as soon as one general election result goes not quite as they'd have liked then they throw all the toys out of the pram?

THM, they're just saying what everyone thinks there, including yourself I am sure, we have a Tory government in all but name, executing Tory policy almost without exception. It is perhaps the saddest thing about the current state of affairs, that so many people voted for one thing and their elected representatives have delivered something so different.

rebel12 - Member

Interesting that in the 2010 General Election then the voting as a whole in Scotland was as follows:

Labour - 42%
Lib Dems - 19%
SNP - 19%
Conservative - 17%

So almost as many Scots voted Conservative in 2010 as they did SNP?

Interesting also that there has been a Labour government in the UK for 13 years between 1997 and 2010.

So the Scots seem to have had what they wanted for the last 13 years, but as soon as one general election result goes not quite as they'd have liked then they throw all the toys out of the pram?

For the first, we have an SNP government. We vote labour for the UK parliament and SNP for the scottish parliament, simple. Makes no sense to vote for the SNP in the UK general election as even if every Scottish voted SNP they would remain a minority. (especially given the way that FPTP disadvantaged the SNP- at their highest point they took 1/3d of votes and just 1/6th of seats)

For the latter, that's an excellent selective timescale there, THM will approve 😉 It's now almost 60 years since Scotland voted Conservative, and yet we've had a Conservative government almost half that time. That's quite a long way from "one general election result" eh.

This can be diluted into an anti-Tory position. But it's a wee bit more subtle than that. The reality is, our voting trends demonstrate that as a whole Scotland's politics are markedly different from the UK, we are consistently far more left leaning, and that gap seems to be growing. The wider picture is "We do not approve of how this country is run, and our votes do little to change that" I think it's fair to say we'd feel the same if situations were reversed we'd voted against Labour for 60 years and got them for 30.

Now, consider the dissatisfaction many people have in England- we have a coalition government in which the leading party was voted in with a minority. That's a vote for them, yes, but a very qualified and limited one. That could, you'd think, suggest some restraint and some consideration of their lack of appeal, but instead they've acted like they have total support rather than being the most succesful losers. That's unappealing even in the country that voted them in with such reservations. Now extend that to the country that voted them out.