Can a unionist PM who loses Scotland survive for long?

12346

Comments

  • LenkaLenka Posts: 1,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    The party leader most in danger of losing their job in the event of a Yes will be Johann Lamont of Scottish Labour who will have failed to deliver the votes for many of the party's members and supporters in Scotland.

    With the Conservatives and Lib Dems being solidly Unionist it will be Labour voters who will decide this referendum.


    I agree, surely the Labour voters if they wanted would stay with the Union and vote no, but all the polls I see on the news show that they too want independence.

    As for Cameron leaving, well I don't think he should, he at least gave the referendum and kept his word. What chance did we have when the Lisbon Treaty was signed?
  • LenkaLenka Posts: 1,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Turk wrote: »
    As others have said I don't think Cameron should resign in the event of Scottish independence. We're less than a year away from the general election now and I think after more than four years of being PM he's at least earned the right to face the UK electorate again. If the Scots vote for independence it should be the voters in rUK who decide whether he stays as PM or not.
    That's what I think SHOULD happen but I still think he'll end up having to resign as a lot of Tory backbenchers have already said they'd mount a leadership challenge in the event of Scottish independence. I think it would be a shame though if he went for that reason before he's even had the chance to see if he can win second spell as PM. I say all this as someone who isn't too enthused about Cameron that much.

    I agree, but can you tell me why you put 'r' in front of UK, am I missing something?
  • BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,514
    Forum Member
    Lenka wrote: »
    I agree, but can you tell me why you put 'r' in front of UK, am I missing something?

    I took it to be forum shorthand for "Rest of UK"
  • ZeusZeus Posts: 10,459
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think the pressure on David Cameron to resign will be immense in the event of a yes vote. He will be the Prime Minister that lost Scotland. The leader under whom the country cracked apart. The man who took the "Great" out of "Great Britain." It will be seen as failure of the highest order.

    Now whether he will or not is a different question. I suspect our PM is less in the mold of Lord Carrington, and more likely subscribes to the philosophy of Shaun Wright: It doesn't really matter what happens when you're in charge, so long as you can sell it.
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    Lenka wrote: »
    I agree, but can you tell me why you put 'r' in front of UK, am I missing something?
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    I took it to be forum shorthand for "Rest of UK"
    BanglaRoad is correct. I meant it as "Rest of UK". 'rUK' is used often on DS forum threads talking about Scottish independence and in some parts of other media. Just earlier I was watching Newsnight and they used that same shorthand term as well, though they took the 'rUK' to stand for "Residual UK" which I found quite interesting as a name!
  • LenkaLenka Posts: 1,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Turk wrote: »
    BanglaRoad is correct. I meant it as "Rest of UK". 'rUK' is used often on DS forum threads talking about Scottish independence and in some parts of other media. Just earlier I was watching Newsnight and they used that same shorthand term as well, though they took the 'rUK' to stand for "Residual UK" which I found quite interesting as a name!

    Thank you, I now understand, also thank you BanglaRoad. I am still learning and catching up with some of the politics and must admit to being baffled by some of the really caustic remarks I am seeing.

    Surely we should be pleased for Scotland whatever the result, it is after all their decision and thus must be respected.

    The bit I don't get is why people are getting het up about England having their own parliament, that chap on Newsnight from Wales was saying England do not need it and the Tory was asking why not, if Scotland, NI and Wales have their own then why can England not make decisions which affect only England.
  • BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,514
    Forum Member
    The Turk wrote: »
    BanglaRoad is correct. I meant it as "Rest of UK". 'rUK' is used often on DS forum threads talking about Scottish independence and in some parts of other media. Just earlier I was watching Newsnight and they used that same shorthand term as well, though they took the 'rUK' to stand for "Residual UK" which I found quite interesting as a name!

    Saw that on Newsnight too Turk and I thought that the Former UK was rather apt Bet Cameron will be muttering something similar when he has to go to the Palace and tell Lizzie that those pesky Jocks have done a runner:D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,283
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    yes i think cameron would survive, especially if he gets a good deal for the rest of the union and doesn't let scotland and salmond have their cake and eat it.

    also it will make it harder for labour to regain power without the scotties. if truth be known there will be a few tory mp's not giving a fig if scotland go independent.

    i think come the 2015 election the tory's will win the election outright.

    all we have to do now is get rid of the welsh. :D
  • BanglaRoadBanglaRoad Posts: 57,514
    Forum Member
    yes i think cameron would survive, especially if he gets a good deal for the rest of the union and doesn't let scotland and salmond have their cake and eat it.

    also it will make it harder for labour to regain power without the scotties. if truth be known there will be a few tory mp's not giving a fig if scotland go independent.

    i think come the 2015 election the tory's will win the election outright.

    all we have to do now is get rid of the welsh. :D

    Every "talking head" I have heard on this subject reckon the Cameron's jaiket is on a shoogly peg Translated from Jockish that means he is on very shaky ground as he is after all the leader of the UNIONIST party
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    Lenka wrote: »
    Thank you, I now understand, also thank you BanglaRoad. I am still learning and catching up with some of the politics and must admit to being baffled by some of the really caustic remarks I am seeing.
    That's ok. We all start off as novices on politics as in any other subject. The only way to learn about anything you don't understand is to ask questions as you did. Some FMs will make the more caustic remarks you've noticed. It happens so you just roll with it and you'll get used to it.
    Lenka wrote: »
    Surely we should be pleased for Scotland whatever the result, it is after all their decision and thus must be respected. QUOTE]
    I've had many clashes with Scottish FMs on the consequences of their devolution but I agree with you on this issue. its a matter for Scottish people alone.
  • geemonkeegeemonkee Posts: 2,720
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The manner in which he oversaw the potential break-up of the Union would also be scrutinised. Not allowing to have "Devo-Max" was a huge error in judgement on his part, compounded by leaving it very late (after a sizeable amount of votes has been cast) to realise the error and then try to offer Devo-Max. The polls have been showing a trend of moving towards the Yes camp for the last month and still nothing. He's been caught napping on the job and shown complacency. Not traits you would hope to see in the top minister of the UK.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    Bluescope wrote: »
    One very important point to make is the revenue from the oil is based on Scotland as part of the UK. That is profit is generated by a large degree by income over costs. If Scotland do leave it will also leave sterling and the costs will rise. In simple terms the profit margins on tax revenue will drop not just oil but across all revenue sources.

    It does not matter how many resources you have it is about the bottom line your GDP. The scale of economics come into play here Scotland is not that big in world terms. You GDP is related to the population the more people you have the higher GDP the less risk it is to lend money.

    Scotland wont leave sterling its a bluff by the no camp.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Scotland wont leave sterling its a bluff by the no camp.

    But Scotland doesn't get to decide if there is a currency union, that would require the agreement of the Westminster government, and you'd suspect goodwill maybe a little thin on the ground at Westminster in the event of a yes vote.

    How on earth they'd sell it to the Tory/UKIP voters in south east England, I do not know.
  • HildaonplutoHildaonpluto Posts: 37,696
    Forum Member
    JCR wrote: »
    But Scotland doesn't get to decide if there is a currency union, that would require the agreement of the Westminster government, and you'd suspect goodwill maybe a little thin on the ground at Westminster in the event of a yes vote.

    How on earth they'd sell it to the Tory/UKIP voters in south east England, I do not know.

    It would be irrational and harmful to their own self interests not to.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It would be irrational and harmful to their own self interests not to.

    It's possible, but it's downright nuts to suggest Salmond would get everything his own way. He wouldn't.

    I suspect SNP would have to do a u-turn on Trident, or at least kick the issue of nukes into the long grass so it becomes a problem for a future Prime Minister of Scotland.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,546
    Forum Member
    yes i think cameron would survive, especially if he gets a good deal for the rest of the union and doesn't let scotland and salmond have their cake and eat it.

    also it will make it harder for labour to regain power without the scotties. if truth be known there will be a few tory mp's not giving a fig if scotland go independent.

    i think come the 2015 election the tory's will win the election outright.

    all we have to do now is get rid of the welsh. :D

    Why do you want to get rid of the Welsh?
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JCR wrote: »
    It's possible, but it's downright nuts to suggest Salmond would get everything his own way. He wouldn't.

    I suspect SNP would have to do a u-turn on Trident, or at least kick the issue of nukes into the long grass so it becomes a problem for a future Prime Minister of Scotland.

    In terms of Trident there would be a lot of pressure from NATO and the US specifically to extend the life of Faslane as long as possible. It could be part of the treaty which allows Scotland to join NATO that the UK has a 20 (?) year lease on the base.

    NATO aren't just going to open their arms and welcome Scotland in without some give and take. The alliance already carries too many countries which don't fully play their part.
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    Lenka wrote: »
    The bit I don't get is why people are getting het up about England having their own parliament, that chap on Newsnight from Wales was saying England do not need it and the Tory was asking why not, if Scotland, NI and Wales have their own then why can England not make decisions which affect only England.
    I've had to put up with a lot of people thinking England doesn't need a parliament, that we should just leave things as they are just because of England's size, as if it excuses Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs voting on issues which should only be of concern to people living in England but to be fair to Peter Hain who you mention what he was suggesting was that England was better off with an assembly in each English region thus bringing devolved government and therefore power closer to the English. Its a view worth listening to as an option alongside others including an English parliament.
  • The TurkThe Turk Posts: 5,148
    Forum Member
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    Saw that on Newsnight too Turk and I thought that the Former UK was rather apt Bet Cameron will be muttering something similar when he has to go to the Palace and tell Lizzie that those pesky Jocks have done a runner:D
    Oh yeah I saw that too!:D I tell you what though, if the Scots do separate from us it'll be Queen Lizzie who'll tell Cameron to go and "Former UK" himself.:o
  • Mike_1101Mike_1101 Posts: 8,012
    Forum Member
    [QUOTE=The Turk;74733450]I've had to put up with a lot of people thinking England doesn't need a parliament, that we should just leave things as they are just because of England's size, as if it excuses Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs voting on issues which should only be of concern to people living in England but to be fair to Peter Hain who you mention what he was suggesting was that England was better off with an assembly in each English region thus bringing devolved government and therefore power closer to the English. Its a view worth listening to as an option alongside others including an English parliament.[/QUOTE]

    I think the calls for an english parliament will continue to grow, especially if Scotland votes NO. The costs of "buying them off" will become apparent in future years and cause increasing resentment among those not allowed a say. If Scotland votes "YES", Westminster will be a de-facto "English Parliament" anyway, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies.

    I suspect a "NO" vote would turn out to be a pyhrric victory for the BT supporters when it becomes clear that everyone in the present UK has been tricked. There would be another scottish referendum and next time the SNP and their supporters will know what is coming.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,546
    Forum Member
    Mike_1101 wrote: »
    If Scotland votes "YES", Westminster will be a de-facto "English Parliament" anyway, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies.
    But that's the situation now. Westminster acts as the "English Parliament" already, and that will still be unsatisfactory if Scotland leaves.
  • CRTHDCRTHD Posts: 7,602
    Forum Member
    Jol44 wrote: »
    The Tories respect for democracy is a total joke.

    They did all they could to deny a democratic vote on PR, refusing to allow the public an option to vote on such.

    The UK got to vote on PR.

    If anyone is dis-respective of the democratic process, it is the promise-reneging Liberals!
  • CRTHDCRTHD Posts: 7,602
    Forum Member
    Jol44 wrote: »
    David Cameron the chump PM who destroyed several hundred years of UK.

    The limp leader.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LostFool
    Errr.. it was a Conservative PM who supported Scotland's right to have a referendum and signed the Edinburgh Agreement. If he didn't respect democracy then he could have just refused. He is also promising an EU referendum which is something that Labour isn't.
    Like he had a choice. He didn't make the decision in anything bar a technicality, it was made for him.
    Jol44 wrote: »
    Like he had a choice. He didn't make the decision in anything bar a technicality, it was made for him.

    You want it both ways don't you? It was his fault, yet he didn't have any choice.

    Make your mind up.

    Anyone really interested knows that it was the Blair gov who started the ball rolling.
  • CRTHDCRTHD Posts: 7,602
    Forum Member
    tgsh2006 wrote: »
    People suggesting Cameron would not need to resign if there is a YES vote really don't understand the Tory Party.

    Should he go? In my view yes! DC is PM of the UK.

    He allowed a nationalist party to dictate the terms and question of the referendum (something he did not have to do as the constitution is reserved to Westminster).

    Any PM of the UK (whatever party) who goes onto preside over the breakup of the Union has a duty to resign. If he does not resign then he will be pushed, and quite rightly so!

    Whilst I for one would be more than happy if Cameron did resign as I also (as suggested earlier) believe that he is far too socially liberal and pro-€urope and would prefer a more traditional Tory leader, but I can't see how this is a resigning matter for him, just on the basis of it happened on his watch. He simply had no choice in allowing the Scots to have their say.

    Labour are far more culpable for the break-up. Blair started the process, despite a warning from John Major of the likely outcome.

    Oh and by the way he did not allow Salmond to dictate the question on the referendum.
  • CRTHDCRTHD Posts: 7,602
    Forum Member
    The Turk wrote: »
    Agreed. I forgot about that. The Scots can still vote in 2015. Nonetheless, if Scots have voted for independence then they'll surely not be bothered by that general election and will probably not turn out in large numbers anyway as it would be become an irrelevant election for everyone in Scotland.

    We live in hope but I think it's far more likely that the Scots will come out to vote in force, just to lumber us with another *84574RD# Labour shower!
Sign In or Register to comment.