Options
Cameron will have to resign if Scotland votes for independence says Tories
David Cameron will have to resign if Scotland votes for independence, according to some Tories
Senior Tories warn he could go down in history as PM who lost the union
Privately many Tories believe his position will be untenable if voters back independence.
A minister said: ‘It would be very difficult because he would go down in history as the Prime Minister who lost the union.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595963/Will-Cameron-resign-Scottish-independence-Pressure-PM-Tories-demand-Scots-banned-general-election.html#ixzz2xprn0trA
Worrying times for Cameron.
On course for defeat at the general election... if he makes it that far.
If the Tories poll position doesn't improve between now and near the election, I wouldn't be totally surprised (if the Scotland vote for independence) if something like this was used as an excuse to out him.
Senior Tories warn he could go down in history as PM who lost the union
Privately many Tories believe his position will be untenable if voters back independence.
A minister said: ‘It would be very difficult because he would go down in history as the Prime Minister who lost the union.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595963/Will-Cameron-resign-Scottish-independence-Pressure-PM-Tories-demand-Scots-banned-general-election.html#ixzz2xprn0trA
Worrying times for Cameron.
On course for defeat at the general election... if he makes it that far.
If the Tories poll position doesn't improve between now and near the election, I wouldn't be totally surprised (if the Scotland vote for independence) if something like this was used as an excuse to out him.
0
Comments
On the other hand if Scotland votes for independence it makes the job of the Conservatives easier, since they got more seats in England and Wales than Labour. So at least as much Labour need the Scottish to vote against Independence.
That said what is known as the West Lothian Question although known about for years only gained an urgency when a certain Anthony Blair decided that his government would offer the devolved assemblies.
Common misconception. Labour have never needed Scotland in order to form governments. Scotland simply needs England to share its views if Scotland wants a Labour government.
Eh? That makes no sense.
They might not need them but 41 Labour seats lost in Scotland against 1 Conservative will be a hammer blow.
On the other hand he might be cheered as a hero for ridding our Parliament of the 41 present Labour M.P.s representing Scottish constituencies.
Only in your dreams Jol and only if you ignore historical polling trends prior to the election - right now everyone is talking about Labour losing. Kudos for being the one person in the country who isn't.
However, on the issue of Cameron resigning, I would hope if Scotland votes for independence he would do so immediately. I'm totally in agreement that his position would be untenable.
'Everyone' is talking about Labour losing the election.' Are they? If you look at the betting markets, reflective of the people who'll put cold hard cash on the line, it doesn't reflect that at all. They still give Labour a better chance than the Tories.
Really?
Who are favourites in the betting to get the most seats?
Few if any governments increase their number of seats after a term in office so I cant see the tories winning a majority and I cant see the Lib Dems electorally surviving another Tory coalition -I think it would be political suicide.
As would the leaders of all political parties that have formally supported Better Together.
Yes, really. There have been any number of articles about Labour's polling number tumbling, dissension in Labour's ranks and Labour on course to lose. And as you know full well, I couldn't give a stuff about the current betting or the mid-term polls. They're only relevant in terms of how they track against themselves and are not indicative of the final outcome.
As you will come to see....
Only mentioned in the right wing press curiously. I wonder why that is?
Because the left wing press are in denial mode?
How so? Scotland (for whatever reason) largely votes Labour in UK GEs. However, unless England (the largest voting block) also shows a majority desire for a Labour government, we don't get one. Historically, when Labour have got into government, it has been because they managed to get a majority based on English votes, and they would have still formed a government even with Scotland removed from the equation.
Or perhaps the right wing press is in denial mode? You can get generous odds on the Tories in seat betting markets, why aren't people going for it?
If you look at Obama's re-election in the States it's clear the Republicans were expecting to win. The polls said otherwise but they were watching Fox News etc who were telling them a different story.
If the Tories can't get a lead of 3% over Labour, Cameron's chances of staying PM are very slim. Of course the Scottish referendum could blow the whole picture out of the water, so who knows. But Labour are favourites still.
Ironic that an improving Tory party in England, which he (cameron) needs to win to next election, could see him lose Scotland/The Union, but that in turn would lose him his job in England giving someone, maybe Boris, an easy opportunity at being PM?
It might be quite a scary thought for a lot of Scots if they were to say no and it strengthening his position going into 2015. But then again why should he take the blame or the credit for anything as the 'better together' campaign is Alistair Darling's baby?
Clement Attlee was PM in 1947 when India gained independence. He didn't resign but he lost the next election to Churchill. However, there was an awful lot going on around that time and after the 2nd WW keeping India probably wasn't a vote winning issue.
Lord North was PM during the American revolution and he's generally regarded as one of the worst PMs ever. Politicians had for a generation considered how to deal with the Irish problem, so it was no surprise when it went independent. As for India, it was part of the British Empire which was no longer affordable after world war 2. I think a lot of people could see by then that having 100,000 Brits ruling 300 million Indians was not really sustainable.