Whoa, there, not so fast. Saying that he abrogated any obligation or responsibility is not the same as saying he sacrificed his right to have any input at all. You appear to be treating the two as if they are synonymous propositions, creating a false dichotomy, and thereby inferring a contradiction where none exists.
That's exactly what it does mean.
abrogation
abrəˈgeɪʃ(ə)n
noun formal
the repeal or abolition of a law, right, or agreement.
You need to either use English more carefully or just stop contradicting your own statements. It is fairly clearly the latter but I'm sure you'll now argue it was just your mistake and you choose your words unwisely.
David Cameron owes Scotland this debate, he also owes us an explanation as to why he chose to put together a Labour led team in Better Together, why its being led by Alistair Darling, Gordon Browns chancellor, and why has Gordon Brown been asked to get involved.
David Cameron from 2007
For me, there is no question: 300 years of shared history has made both countries stronger and richer.
So lets hear it then
The wrong response, often reflected in the rhetoric of Gordon Brown, is to try to cow or bully Scotland into remaining part of the UK through fear of the economic consequences of going it alone.
So why Labour? Why Darling? Why Brown? Why Project Fear? On your watch
This will not work. First, supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.
So in total agreement with Alex Salmond then? What's to debate?
Second, this aggressive, negative tactic is one reason why people north of the border feel so disaffected with British politics. Instead, we need to continue to make the positive case for a united Britain by ensuring that the Union remains relevant to all English and Scottish people.
So why the aggressive negative campaign then? What positive case? Where are you? Come and make the positive case then.
Instead of these ludicrous entreaties, and telling Scotland she would be economically weak if the Union broke up, we should explain what we would all lose - politically, culturally and historically.
Why are we being told how weak we would be? The oils running out, Scotlands volatile economy. Danger from invasion, border controls, passports to visit family? What are these things we'd lose? Come and tell us.
I am convinced that with the right approach we can make the Union between England and Scotland stronger than ever.
Really? Do tell. You were so full of positivity in 2007 when you were in opposition. Your our Prime Minister now so lets be having you. You can talk the talk now its time to walk the walk. Or are you going to remain under your rock.
Who says David Cameron should debate a positive case for the union? HE DID IN 2007.
"First Minister Alex Salmond has confirmed he has accepted an invitation from STV to take part in a televised referendum debate with the leader of the anti-independence campaign, Alistair Darling.
In a statement issued this evening, Mr Salmond revealed he had agreed to appear in a televised debate on August 5th.
However the SNP leader reaffirmed his intention to press UK Prime Minister for a head-to-head prior to the independence referendum on September 18th."
It boils down to one thing; if Cameron thought he could win a debate with Salmond he wouldn't think twice about doing it.
That cuts both ways: one could equally say that if Salmond didn't think that he could win a debate against the occupant of Downing Street, he wouldn't have issued the challenge in the first place, and might well refuse such a challenge if it were issued.
As I said earlier: The clamour for Cameron to debate with Salmond appears to be all coming from one side... and one would have to be a bit naive to think that it wasn't because they sensed some political advantage in it.
It has nothing to do with respecting the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement...
That statement is over-egging the pudding somewhat. The point about the Edinburgh Agreement has been in response to the attempts to characterise the situation as being a case of Holyrood vs. Whitehall - where it could be more fairly characterised as primarily a discussion between Scottish residents to determine the future status of Scotland.
A consequence of this is that anyone from outside Scotland who enters the fray is leaving themselves wide open to charges of attempting to lecture the Scots about what's best for them.
I don't think too many people would welcome entering a debate with that kind of handicap.
abrogation
abrəˈgeɪʃ(ə)n
noun formal
the repeal or abolition of a law, right, or agreement.
You need to either use English more carefully
I think you need to look further than the first definition that crops up in a Google search and trying to misapply it before criticizing someone else for their use of English.
"To abrogate" can also mean "to end or cancel (something) in a formal and official way", or "to treat as nonexistent" (e.g. "abrogating their responsibilities").
As such, the word works just fine: "abrogating an obligation or responsibility" (i.e. denying that one has an obligation or responsibility to play a leading role in the defense of the Union) is not synonymous with abrogating a right to have some input in that discussion.
or just stop contradicting your own statements.
As above, and previously, I have not done so.
It is fairly clearly the latter
Again, it is very clear that I have not done so.
but I'm sure you'll now argue it was just your mistake and you choose your words unwisely.
I stand by my words, I see no need to qualify them in this instance, and your objection doesn't hold water.
That cuts both ways: one could equally say that if Salmond didn't think that he could win a debate against the occupant of Downing Street, he wouldn't have issued the challenge in the first place, and might well refuse such a challenge if it were issued.
As I said earlier: The clamour for Cameron to debate with Salmond appears to be all coming from one side... and one would have to be a bit naive to think that it wasn't because they sensed some political advantage in it.
Of course there is political advantage that is why Cameron against it. It's nothing to do with the Edinburgh agreement or any respect for this being a discussion for the people of Scotland etc. They've been very relaxed about spreading hugely biased misinformation to the people of Scotland. They've sent Osborne up to rule out a currency union etc.
That statement is over-egging the pudding somewhat. The point about the Edinburgh Agreement has been in response to the attempts to characterise the situation as being a case of Holyrood vs. Whitehall - where it could be more fairly characterised as primarily a discussion between Scottish residents to determine the future status of Scotland.
It is a case of Holyrood vs. Westminster. Holyrood is making the case that we'd be better of governing ourselves from Wesmtinster while Westminster and Unionist politicians are arguing that we're better off being governed by Westminster. That is what it comes down to.
A consequence of this is that anyone from outside Scotland who enters the fray is leaving themselves wide open to charges of attempting to lecture the Scots about what's best for them.
I don't think too many people would welcome entering a debate with that kind of handicap.
If they think we should vote for them to govern us it's reasonable to expect them to tell us why. They don't want enter a debate with that handicap but the only reason for that is because they think it would harm them. There's no respect or real desire to ensure a balanced debate where Scots could make a truly informed decision.
Of course there is political advantage that is why Cameron against it.
Let's be fair here: if Salmond is simply seeking political advantage, there is no good reason for anyone else to accommodate him.
It's nothing to do with the Edinburgh agreement or any respect for this being a discussion for the people of Scotland etc.
I disagree. As I said, and you acknowledge, not being from Scotland is a handicap when it leaves you wide open to accusations of lecturing the people of Scotland about what's best for them.
They've been very relaxed about spreading hugely biased misinformation to the people of Scotland.
I'm not sure what you're referring to there.
They've sent Osborne up to rule out a currency union etc.
As I recall, Osborne, Alexander and Balls have all ruled that out.
It is a case of Holyrood vs. Westminster. Holyrood is making the case that we'd be better of governing ourselves from Wesmtinster while Westminster and Unionist politicians are arguing that we're better off being governed by Westminster. That is what it comes down to.
Hang on. Firstly, it's not just "Holyrood" but nationalists across Scotland, led chiefly by Yes Scotland who are making the case for Scottish independence, and as you acknowledge it is Unionist politicians (and presumably other Unionists who aren't politicians) led chiefly by Better Together (and not just Westminster) who are making the case for the Union. So it clearly isn't "Holyrood vs. Westminster" - that's an oversimplification that just happens to fit the narrative you wish to present here.
If they think we should vote for them to govern us it's reasonable to expect them to tell us why.
As I understand it, thanks to the information helpfully provided by Dare_Allan, Whitehall is doing just that, in its own way. It doesn't have to be done in the context of a one-on-one debate between two individuals.
They don't want enter a debate with that handicap but the only reason for that is because they think it would harm them.
You're really making a meal out of this. That's pretty much what a handicap is, by definition - something that hampers your chances of winning.
There's no respect or real desire to ensure a balanced debate where Scots could make a truly informed decision.
Non sequitur. There is nothing Cameron could say that would make anyone any better informed than if some other figure, such as Alistair Darling, said it.
One group of French Nobles with essentially a French culture against another group of French descended nobles with the almost exact same culture. Bruce is a French name, as is Wallace so where do you think these people came from originally and where do you think their culture originated? France perhaps?
Wallace is from the same origin as Welsh which hints at the same kind of link as the name Clyde has to Clwyd. So not really as French as you'd like him to be. More of a native briton, breton, brython. Gaelic/Gaulic.
The Bruce was of Norman descent and it might interest you to know that a very large part of the origin of the Normans was Hiberno-Norse, Gallo-Norse and Anglo-Norse from the Dane-Law. In other words the descendants of Scots/Irish and Norwegians, as well as some from the isles, and also Danes from around Jorvik. Coincidentally the Anglo-Saxons were split with the Angles making it as far north as Edinburgh in Scotland but only as far west as Falkirk whilst the Saxons were concentrated in Kent, Sussex and Wessex. They never made it as far as Wales or the south west of England.
More to the point there's only one ancestor of his in the Bruce line who was born in England. Prior to that you're talking about Earl Einar Rognvaldsson of Orkney who was born in Norway around 852.
So basically Robert the Bruce was of Norwegian decent.
Let's be fair here: if Salmond is simply seeking political advantage, there is no good reason for anyone else to accommodate him.
You're not talking about being fair your trying to find ways to let Cameron off the hook. If the UK is worth saving let the head of the UK government tell us why.
I disagree. As I said, and you acknowledge, not being from Scotland is a handicap when it leaves you wide open to accusations of lecturing the people of Scotland about what's best for them.
Wrong. It's not about not being from Scotland it's about being an unpopular Tory politician who the majority of Scots voted against. His presence highlights the lack of democracy the union has to offer Scotland and it is that Cameron fears. He is symbolic of the fact that being the UK means having governments the majority of Scots don't want imposed onto them regardless of how they vote.
As I recall, Osborne, Alexander and Balls have all ruled that out.
Which rules out all this English people have to stay out of the debate because they're at a handicap. Osborne and Balls are quite happy to but in when it suits them to do so.
H
ang on. Firstly, it's not just "Holyrood" but nationalists across Scotland, led chiefly by Yes Scotland who are making the case for Scottish independence, and as you acknowledge it is Unionist politicians (and presumably other Unionists who aren't politicians) led chiefly by Better Together (and not just Westminster) who are making the case for the Union. So it clearly isn't "Holyrood vs. Westminster" - that's an oversimplification that just happens to fit the narrative you wish to present here.
Nothing to do with fitting the narrative it's a fact. Yes there are campaigns for independence and the union but this debate is about a battle for power between Holyrood and Westminster for control of Scotland.
As I understand it, thanks to the information helpfully provided by Dare_Allan, Whitehall is doing just that, in its own way. It doesn't have to be done in the context of a one-on-one debate between two individuals.
It doesn't have to be and it's unlikely to be. That doesn't change the fact it should happen when there is such demand from voters in Scotland. It doesn't change the fact we should criticise Cameron for being unable to debate Salmond.
Non sequitur. There is nothing Cameron could say that would make anyone any better informed than if some other figure, such as Alistair Darling, said it.
Nonsense. Cameron is the leader of the UK and as such is in a unique position to inform Scots of what a future within the UK could hold for us.
or you realise that anti-independence is as ridiculous a stance as anti-feminist, anti-racist or anti-freedom.
As ridiculous a stance as being anti-Catholic or anti-Christian like yourself, you sad narrow minded clown.
I'm fairly much pro-independence myself, but hypocritical clowns like yourself talking about tolerance and freedom is just completely pretentious, given your bigoted and vile views on religion.
You're not talking about being fair your trying to find ways to let Cameron off the hook.
There never was a hook for him to be on. It is an obvious trap, and Cameron is right to avoid it. You aren't being fair if you don't acknowledge that it is a trap, and Cameron would have been a fool to fall for it.
If the UK is worth saving let the head of the UK government tell us why.
The UK Government is, apparently, in the process of doing so. It does not need the Prime Minister to do that by way of a debate with the First Minister.
Wrong.
Well, let's see.
It's not about not being from Scotland, it's about being an unpopular Tory politician who the majority of Scots voted against. His presence highlights the lack of democracy the union has to offer Scotland and it is that Cameron fears. He is symbolic of the fact that being the UK means having governments the majority of Scots don't want imposed onto them regardless of how they vote.
I think we can pretty much dispense with the rest of the discussion, because everything you need to know about the Yes camp's insistence on having Cameron debate with Salmond is right here.
It's clearly nothing whatsoever to do with the vacuous notion that Cameron is somehow in a supposedly unique position to inform the Scottish public, or having some sort of obligation to defend the union or put forward a positive case for it. That's just a smokescreen.
It's also clearly nothing whatsoever to do with it being about Holyrood vs. Whitehall, because that's a smokescreen, too. anndra_w says that "this debate" is about a "battle for power" between two institutions - I hope the people of Scotland take it more seriously than that, and if the future of Scotland is about doing things differently, the last thing it needs is a pissing contest.
And it's nothing whatsoever to do with any perceived demand for such a debate - when the demand is apparently all from one side. That, too, is a smokescreen.
The Yes camp's - or at least anndra_w's, though I'll be amazed if it isn't widely shared - reasoning pretty much goes like this - and it's pretty much in alignment with what I said earlier, and for which I was criticized for making assumptions: "If we can get Cameron to do this, we can point at him and say 'Look, there's an unpopular Tory politician, symbolic of the democratic deficit in the UK and the imposition of Governments against whom the majority of residents of Scotland voted'." You've already acknowledged elsewhere that not being from Scotland is a handicap, too.
In other words, it is a deliberate ploy to overshadow any substantive points that might actually be made in such a debate - as if such a debate is likely to be that much more informative than any of the other campaign information that's being put out, which is probably unlikely.
Far from being, as anndra_w protests, "in a unique position to inform Scots of what a future within the UK could hold for us", what the Yes campaign hopes is that Cameron's mere presence will be an advertisement for the Yes campaign, irrespective of anything Cameron has to say.
Got an early flight so I'm not going to continue wasting more to arguing with you about something that is perfectly obvious. You're talking absolute mince on this one. Most Scots want him to debate and make his case. You can defend him until your blue roon aboot the coupon with as many big words as you can think up but you cannot escape that he should still have the balls to face Salmond and answer to the people he's fighting to control. He'd do it if he thought he could win it but he knows he'll get pumped and is too feart. End of.
Got an early flight so I'm not going to continue wasting more to arguing with you about something that is perfectly obvious. You're talking absolute mince on this one. Most Scots want him to debate and make his case. You can defend him until your blue roon aboot the coupon with as many big words as you can think up but you cannot escape that he should still have the balls to face Salmond and answer to the people he's fighting to control. He'd do it if he thought he could win it but he knows he'll get pumped and is too feart. End of.
I'm getting a little fed up with this tit-for-tat bollocks, from both sides.
I am a Scot, I have a vote and I am the geniune undecided that you have to convince in the next few months.
Stop trying to bullshit me and start trying to use fact to convince me. The first side that acusses the other of lies, or underhand tactics will automatically lose my vote. Present me with fact, verifiable fact and verifiable fact only.
Got an early flight so I'm not going to continue wasting more to arguing with you about something that is perfectly obvious. You're talking absolute mince on this one.
I'll interpret that as "I strongly disagree with you". I can see that you are unreceptive to any dissent from your view, even though a fair number of your own statements support quite a bit of what I have said.
Most Scots want him to debate and make his case.
The evidence for which appears to be a single SNP-commissioned poll back in January. The only people I ever see making a big deal out of it are proponents of independence. Can anyone point to a single Unionist who is as vocal in wanting such a debate?
he should still have the balls to face Salmond and answer to the people he's fighting to control. He'd do it if he thought he could win it but he knows he'll get pumped and is too feart. End of.
Cameron is not Duke Leto Atriedes. He is not under any obligation to blunder stupidly into what is clearly a blatant trap, to the benefit of the SNP and Yes Scotland.
I'm getting a little fed up with this tit-for-tat bollocks, from both sides.
I am a Scot, I have a vote and I am the geniune undecided that you have to convince in the next few months.
Stop trying to bullshit me and start trying to use fact to convince me. The first side that acusses the other of lies, or underhand tactics will automatically lose my vote. Present me with fact, verifiable fact and verifiable fact only.
I've never even spoken to you never mind attempted to BS you. I have no intention of trying to persuade you to vote yes with a tone and language like that.
I'll interpret that as "I strongly disagree with you". I can see that you are unreceptive to any dissent from your view, even though a fair number of your own statements support quite a bit of what I have said.
The evidence for which appears to be a single SNP-commissioned poll back in January. The only people I ever see making a big deal out of it are proponents of independence. Can anyone point to a single Unionist who is as vocal in wanting such a debate?
Cameron is not Duke Leto Atriedes. He is not under any obligation to blunder stupidly into what is clearly a blatant trap, to the benefit of the SNP and Yes Scotland.
I've never even spoken to you never mind attempted to BS you. I have no intention of trying to persuade you to vote yes with a tone and language like that.
No you dismiss it if you don't give it's due as an culture no less distinct and no less valid than any other culture. The sentiment behind these words is that Scotlands culture isn't really a culture in it's own right. There is no greater way to undermine a nation and it's culture, the substance of who we are as a people, than to call into question whether their culture, their heritage really exists at all.
Again a dismissal of Scottishness. Why can't you just say it: Scots culture is so void of unique and original traits that it can't really be described as a culture in it's own right.
That we share more, culturally, with the people of England, Ireland, Wales and to a slightly lesser degree Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America than other countries is arguable but I don't think the majority of Scots would say we share one identity, one culture, one heritage, and one nationality. To do so is to denigrate Scottishness and therefore Scotland.
Acknowledging that you have your own culture is normal. We may be like others in certain ways but we're also different in our own way as well. We're a nation. Again to dismiss this fact or attempt to play it down is not something that you would expect from someone who's feels, at heart, Scottish.
This is true but achievements do not a society or nation make. It runs much deeper than that.
When you say our nation you mean Scots thriving in Westminster's manufactured nation, Great Britain. You stand against thriving as Scots for Scotland. You stand against Scotland taking it's place in the world.
Committed to Scotland means believing in Scotland. Supporting your local community is admirable but that's different from standing up and being committed to the idea of Scotland as a nation. You oppose Scotland as a nation in it's own right and you back Britain. That's fine. You're not scared that we're too poor, you don't think we're too stupid and you know we're not too wee you just do not believe it. It what way you can say that at you're core, in your heart of hearts your not British first and foremost I do not know. I can't understand Scots who feel that strong Britishness but if they stand up and say it I can at least respect they have feelings and identity that may be different to my own at the same time it's how they feel and that I can understand. I struggle to understand how someone can claim to genuinely have respect Scotland while at the same time at every opportunity you have backed up all of the posters who have put us down. You've even supported people removing their money from Scotland if we become independent. How can you do that?
Your indifference to the democratic deficit says to me that your are completely indifferent about real democracy for the people of Scotland. Self determination for Scots isn't important to you.
I don't believe for one minute that your daft enough to think there is a snowballs chance in hell of a federal UK. You know as well as I do not one of the unionist parties are offering anything that comes close to federalism. The idea that you would push for it after your last statement about our so called democratic advantage says to me that your insincere and I think that applies to the much of this post.
I'm sorry but in the main your argument seems to be that a Scotland is nothing like the rest of the UK because were, er Scottish.
You don't seem to grasp the actual idea that culturally the differences between us and the rest of the UK are less than the similarities. I don't dispute a separate Scots culture and never have, I do dispute the fact that we are so different from the rest of the UK which I don't believe is true.
Also, please don't lecture me on how Scottish I am yet again or because I'm not committed to independence I'm not committed to Scotland, we've been through this several times and it gets tiresome. You have to just accept that the majority of Scots voters reject the idea of independence no matter how little you think of them for doing so.
Also,I have never once put Scotland down here. I have argued that independence for us right now with the current plan is wrong and contains far too many risks for our economy. You might think that disagreeing with separation is putting Scotland down, but if don't.
Your view has been, and continues to be that any Scot who opposes independence is less Scottish than you and it shows through in your posts where you seem to take the moral high ground in trying to prove why Scottish is best. I happen to disagree with you and think that being that nationalistic is not healthy for any state.
It boils down to one thing; if Cameron thought he could win a debate with Salmond he wouldn't think twice about doing it. It has nothing to do with respecting the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement and everything to do with the fact he knows he would come out of it looking foolish.
Of course he would as he can't possibly know as much detail as Salmond, isn't a Scot and represents a party that's been unpopular with the majority of Scots for years.
If you were cameron would you HONESTLY have a debate with Salmond?
I'm all for debates but would you really want a debate where Salmond just made remarks about Tory toffs and such for 2 hours?
Wallace is from the same origin as Welsh which hints at the same kind of link as the name Clyde has to Clwyd. So not really as French as you'd like him to be. More of a native briton, breton, brython. Gaelic/Gaulic.
The Bruce was of Norman descent and it might interest you to know that a very large part of the origin of the Normans was Hiberno-Norse, Gallo-Norse and Anglo-Norse from the Dane-Law. In other words the descendants of Scots/Irish and Norwegians, as well as some from the isles, and also Danes from around Jorvik. Coincidentally the Anglo-Saxons were split with the Angles making it as far north as Edinburgh in Scotland but only as far west as Falkirk whilst the Saxons were concentrated in Kent, Sussex and Wessex. They never made it as far as Wales or the south west of England.
More to the point there's only one ancestor of his in the Bruce line who was born in England. Prior to that you're talking about Earl Einar Rognvaldsson of Orkney who was born in Norway around 852.
So basically Robert the Bruce was of Norwegian decent.
Thanks for all of that extra information which proves the point I was trying to make even more that were not so different from each other as some would like us think.
I concentrated on Bannockburn as my example as it's the anniversary this weekend. I would agree that various Scandanavians founded Normandy and that by 1066 they were pretty much integrated into French society as to be distinct from the original Norse.
So the Bruce was of Norwegian, French and English descent if we take it progressively.
If you go back far enough I'm sure we were all one group of people wandering around a savannah somewhere in Africa.
Although I would question some of those ancestors and dates, the Church of the Latter Day Saints isn't always the best source for these things.
Got an early flight so I'm not going to continue wasting more to arguing with you about something that is perfectly obvious. You're talking absolute mince on this one. Most Scots want him to debate and make his case. You can defend him until your blue roon aboot the coupon with as many big words as you can think up but you cannot escape that he should still have the balls to face Salmond and answer to the people he's fighting to control. He'd do it if he thought he could win it but he knows he'll get pumped and is too feart. End of.
I used to think you were intelligent and had well thought out posts and were a wee bit different from the usual crowd of bullying Yes supporters here (most of whom seem to get themselves banned eventually).
Surely on this issue you can understand the logic of Cameron avoiding such a debate?
Comments
That's exactly what it does mean.
abrogation
abrəˈgeɪʃ(ə)n
noun formal
the repeal or abolition of a law, right, or agreement.
You need to either use English more carefully or just stop contradicting your own statements. It is fairly clearly the latter but I'm sure you'll now argue it was just your mistake and you choose your words unwisely.
David Cameron owes Scotland this debate, he also owes us an explanation as to why he chose to put together a Labour led team in Better Together, why its being led by Alistair Darling, Gordon Browns chancellor, and why has Gordon Brown been asked to get involved.
For me, there is no question: 300 years of shared history has made both countries stronger and richer.
So lets hear it then
The wrong response, often reflected in the rhetoric of Gordon Brown, is to try to cow or bully Scotland into remaining part of the UK through fear of the economic consequences of going it alone.
So why Labour? Why Darling? Why Brown? Why Project Fear? On your watch
This will not work. First, supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.
So in total agreement with Alex Salmond then? What's to debate?
Second, this aggressive, negative tactic is one reason why people north of the border feel so disaffected with British politics. Instead, we need to continue to make the positive case for a united Britain by ensuring that the Union remains relevant to all English and Scottish people.
So why the aggressive negative campaign then? What positive case? Where are you? Come and make the positive case then.
Instead of these ludicrous entreaties, and telling Scotland she would be economically weak if the Union broke up, we should explain what we would all lose - politically, culturally and historically.
Why are we being told how weak we would be? The oils running out, Scotlands volatile economy. Danger from invasion, border controls, passports to visit family? What are these things we'd lose? Come and tell us.
I am convinced that with the right approach we can make the Union between England and Scotland stronger than ever.
Really? Do tell. You were so full of positivity in 2007 when you were in opposition. Your our Prime Minister now so lets be having you. You can talk the talk now its time to walk the walk. Or are you going to remain under your rock.
Who says David Cameron should debate a positive case for the union? HE DID IN 2007.
Salmond accepts STV invite to debate Darling
"First Minister Alex Salmond has confirmed he has accepted an invitation from STV to take part in a televised referendum debate with the leader of the anti-independence campaign, Alistair Darling.
In a statement issued this evening, Mr Salmond revealed he had agreed to appear in a televised debate on August 5th.
However the SNP leader reaffirmed his intention to press UK Prime Minister for a head-to-head prior to the independence referendum on September 18th."
That cuts both ways: one could equally say that if Salmond didn't think that he could win a debate against the occupant of Downing Street, he wouldn't have issued the challenge in the first place, and might well refuse such a challenge if it were issued.
As I said earlier: The clamour for Cameron to debate with Salmond appears to be all coming from one side... and one would have to be a bit naive to think that it wasn't because they sensed some political advantage in it.
That statement is over-egging the pudding somewhat. The point about the Edinburgh Agreement has been in response to the attempts to characterise the situation as being a case of Holyrood vs. Whitehall - where it could be more fairly characterised as primarily a discussion between Scottish residents to determine the future status of Scotland.
A consequence of this is that anyone from outside Scotland who enters the fray is leaving themselves wide open to charges of attempting to lecture the Scots about what's best for them.
I don't think too many people would welcome entering a debate with that kind of handicap.
No it doesn't.
I think you need to look further than the first definition that crops up in a Google search and trying to misapply it before criticizing someone else for their use of English.
"To abrogate" can also mean "to end or cancel (something) in a formal and official way", or "to treat as nonexistent" (e.g. "abrogating their responsibilities").
As such, the word works just fine: "abrogating an obligation or responsibility" (i.e. denying that one has an obligation or responsibility to play a leading role in the defense of the Union) is not synonymous with abrogating a right to have some input in that discussion.
As above, and previously, I have not done so.
Again, it is very clear that I have not done so.
I stand by my words, I see no need to qualify them in this instance, and your objection doesn't hold water.
Can has retraction nao plzkthx?
Of course there is political advantage that is why Cameron against it. It's nothing to do with the Edinburgh agreement or any respect for this being a discussion for the people of Scotland etc. They've been very relaxed about spreading hugely biased misinformation to the people of Scotland. They've sent Osborne up to rule out a currency union etc.
It is a case of Holyrood vs. Westminster. Holyrood is making the case that we'd be better of governing ourselves from Wesmtinster while Westminster and Unionist politicians are arguing that we're better off being governed by Westminster. That is what it comes down to.
If they think we should vote for them to govern us it's reasonable to expect them to tell us why. They don't want enter a debate with that handicap but the only reason for that is because they think it would harm them. There's no respect or real desire to ensure a balanced debate where Scots could make a truly informed decision.
Let's be fair here: if Salmond is simply seeking political advantage, there is no good reason for anyone else to accommodate him.
I disagree. As I said, and you acknowledge, not being from Scotland is a handicap when it leaves you wide open to accusations of lecturing the people of Scotland about what's best for them.
I'm not sure what you're referring to there.
As I recall, Osborne, Alexander and Balls have all ruled that out.
Hang on. Firstly, it's not just "Holyrood" but nationalists across Scotland, led chiefly by Yes Scotland who are making the case for Scottish independence, and as you acknowledge it is Unionist politicians (and presumably other Unionists who aren't politicians) led chiefly by Better Together (and not just Westminster) who are making the case for the Union. So it clearly isn't "Holyrood vs. Westminster" - that's an oversimplification that just happens to fit the narrative you wish to present here.
As I understand it, thanks to the information helpfully provided by Dare_Allan, Whitehall is doing just that, in its own way. It doesn't have to be done in the context of a one-on-one debate between two individuals.
You're really making a meal out of this. That's pretty much what a handicap is, by definition - something that hampers your chances of winning.
Non sequitur. There is nothing Cameron could say that would make anyone any better informed than if some other figure, such as Alistair Darling, said it.
Wallace is from the same origin as Welsh which hints at the same kind of link as the name Clyde has to Clwyd. So not really as French as you'd like him to be. More of a native briton, breton, brython. Gaelic/Gaulic.
The Bruce was of Norman descent and it might interest you to know that a very large part of the origin of the Normans was Hiberno-Norse, Gallo-Norse and Anglo-Norse from the Dane-Law. In other words the descendants of Scots/Irish and Norwegians, as well as some from the isles, and also Danes from around Jorvik. Coincidentally the Anglo-Saxons were split with the Angles making it as far north as Edinburgh in Scotland but only as far west as Falkirk whilst the Saxons were concentrated in Kent, Sussex and Wessex. They never made it as far as Wales or the south west of England.
Not particularly French and if you care to follow his male ancestry ( http://www.geneal.net/3561.htm ) you'll find his name was from a viking from Orkney, (http://www.geneal.net/3561.htm) Brusi SIGURDSSON.
More to the point there's only one ancestor of his in the Bruce line who was born in England. Prior to that you're talking about Earl Einar Rognvaldsson of Orkney who was born in Norway around 852.
So basically Robert the Bruce was of Norwegian decent.
"Indyref Debate 240614 in Abbeyview Dunfermline. With Tommy Sheridan and Willie Rennie"
You're not talking about being fair your trying to find ways to let Cameron off the hook. If the UK is worth saving let the head of the UK government tell us why.
Wrong. It's not about not being from Scotland it's about being an unpopular Tory politician who the majority of Scots voted against. His presence highlights the lack of democracy the union has to offer Scotland and it is that Cameron fears. He is symbolic of the fact that being the UK means having governments the majority of Scots don't want imposed onto them regardless of how they vote.
Which rules out all this English people have to stay out of the debate because they're at a handicap. Osborne and Balls are quite happy to but in when it suits them to do so.
H
Nothing to do with fitting the narrative it's a fact. Yes there are campaigns for independence and the union but this debate is about a battle for power between Holyrood and Westminster for control of Scotland.
It doesn't have to be and it's unlikely to be. That doesn't change the fact it should happen when there is such demand from voters in Scotland. It doesn't change the fact we should criticise Cameron for being unable to debate Salmond.
Nonsense. Cameron is the leader of the UK and as such is in a unique position to inform Scots of what a future within the UK could hold for us.
As ridiculous a stance as being anti-Catholic or anti-Christian like yourself, you sad narrow minded clown.
I'm fairly much pro-independence myself, but hypocritical clowns like yourself talking about tolerance and freedom is just completely pretentious, given your bigoted and vile views on religion.
There never was a hook for him to be on. It is an obvious trap, and Cameron is right to avoid it. You aren't being fair if you don't acknowledge that it is a trap, and Cameron would have been a fool to fall for it.
The UK Government is, apparently, in the process of doing so. It does not need the Prime Minister to do that by way of a debate with the First Minister.
Well, let's see.
I think we can pretty much dispense with the rest of the discussion, because everything you need to know about the Yes camp's insistence on having Cameron debate with Salmond is right here.
It's clearly nothing whatsoever to do with the vacuous notion that Cameron is somehow in a supposedly unique position to inform the Scottish public, or having some sort of obligation to defend the union or put forward a positive case for it. That's just a smokescreen.
It's also clearly nothing whatsoever to do with it being about Holyrood vs. Whitehall, because that's a smokescreen, too. anndra_w says that "this debate" is about a "battle for power" between two institutions - I hope the people of Scotland take it more seriously than that, and if the future of Scotland is about doing things differently, the last thing it needs is a pissing contest.
And it's nothing whatsoever to do with any perceived demand for such a debate - when the demand is apparently all from one side. That, too, is a smokescreen.
The Yes camp's - or at least anndra_w's, though I'll be amazed if it isn't widely shared - reasoning pretty much goes like this - and it's pretty much in alignment with what I said earlier, and for which I was criticized for making assumptions: "If we can get Cameron to do this, we can point at him and say 'Look, there's an unpopular Tory politician, symbolic of the democratic deficit in the UK and the imposition of Governments against whom the majority of residents of Scotland voted'." You've already acknowledged elsewhere that not being from Scotland is a handicap, too.
In other words, it is a deliberate ploy to overshadow any substantive points that might actually be made in such a debate - as if such a debate is likely to be that much more informative than any of the other campaign information that's being put out, which is probably unlikely.
Far from being, as anndra_w protests, "in a unique position to inform Scots of what a future within the UK could hold for us", what the Yes campaign hopes is that Cameron's mere presence will be an advertisement for the Yes campaign, irrespective of anything Cameron has to say.
Any further commentary would be superfluous.
I'm getting a little fed up with this tit-for-tat bollocks, from both sides.
I am a Scot, I have a vote and I am the geniune undecided that you have to convince in the next few months.
Stop trying to bullshit me and start trying to use fact to convince me. The first side that acusses the other of lies, or underhand tactics will automatically lose my vote. Present me with fact, verifiable fact and verifiable fact only.
I'll interpret that as "I strongly disagree with you".
The evidence for which appears to be a single SNP-commissioned poll back in January. The only people I ever see making a big deal out of it are proponents of independence. Can anyone point to a single Unionist who is as vocal in wanting such a debate?
Cameron is not Duke Leto Atriedes. He is not under any obligation to blunder stupidly into what is clearly a blatant trap, to the benefit of the SNP and Yes Scotland.
Have a pleasant holiday.
I've never even spoken to you never mind attempted to BS you. I have no intention of trying to persuade you to vote yes with a tone and language like that.
You've gone too far! ;-)
Heh, have a good one
That will be a No to independance then.
I'm sorry but in the main your argument seems to be that a Scotland is nothing like the rest of the UK because were, er Scottish.
You don't seem to grasp the actual idea that culturally the differences between us and the rest of the UK are less than the similarities. I don't dispute a separate Scots culture and never have, I do dispute the fact that we are so different from the rest of the UK which I don't believe is true.
Also, please don't lecture me on how Scottish I am yet again or because I'm not committed to independence I'm not committed to Scotland, we've been through this several times and it gets tiresome. You have to just accept that the majority of Scots voters reject the idea of independence no matter how little you think of them for doing so.
Also,I have never once put Scotland down here. I have argued that independence for us right now with the current plan is wrong and contains far too many risks for our economy. You might think that disagreeing with separation is putting Scotland down, but if don't.
Your view has been, and continues to be that any Scot who opposes independence is less Scottish than you and it shows through in your posts where you seem to take the moral high ground in trying to prove why Scottish is best. I happen to disagree with you and think that being that nationalistic is not healthy for any state.
I wish we had the rollyeyes smilie here.
Are there unreal Scottish Gay people who are for independence, or just real ones.
If you happen to be lesbian and a NO voter does that mean your not real?
What next?
Of course he would as he can't possibly know as much detail as Salmond, isn't a Scot and represents a party that's been unpopular with the majority of Scots for years.
If you were cameron would you HONESTLY have a debate with Salmond?
I'm all for debates but would you really want a debate where Salmond just made remarks about Tory toffs and such for 2 hours?
Thanks for all of that extra information which proves the point I was trying to make even more that were not so different from each other as some would like us think.
I concentrated on Bannockburn as my example as it's the anniversary this weekend. I would agree that various Scandanavians founded Normandy and that by 1066 they were pretty much integrated into French society as to be distinct from the original Norse.
So the Bruce was of Norwegian, French and English descent if we take it progressively.
If you go back far enough I'm sure we were all one group of people wandering around a savannah somewhere in Africa.
Although I would question some of those ancestors and dates, the Church of the Latter Day Saints isn't always the best source for these things.
I used to think you were intelligent and had well thought out posts and were a wee bit different from the usual crowd of bullying Yes supporters here (most of whom seem to get themselves banned eventually).
Surely on this issue you can understand the logic of Cameron avoiding such a debate?
Enjoy your holiday.
Evidence?