Coffee House

It’s not up to Cameron whether he survives a ‘Yes’ vote in Scotland

8 May 2014

4:54 PM

8 May 2014

4:54 PM

David Cameron may well have privately resolved that there is no cause for him to step down if Scotland votes for independence in a few months’ time, as per James Chapman’s scoop today. But the problem is that it is not in the Prime Minister’s gift to make that decision. He may well say that he isn’t going to resign, but that would have no effect on the number of letters that would be sent to 1922 Committee chairman Graham Brady demanding a leadership contest.

It’s not as though the Tory party will reel from the shock of Scotland leaving, then wait to see what the Prime Minister says and then if he says he’s staying, they all get back to their day jobs. The referendum is the single event that his swing MPs all mention when asked what could seriously trip the Prime Minister up in their estimation between now and 2015. Just saying you are not going to resign does not stop the letters flooding in.

[Alt-Text]


Whether those letters are sent or not in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote does depend to some extent on the standing the Prime Minister enjoys with his party, but would be foolish to assume that even daily bacon butty breakfasts at Number 10 would entirely cushion the blow to Cameron’s authority if the Union were rent asunder on his watch.

It’s also worth noting that some of the most serious blows to the PM’s authority didn’t leave him quite as bruised as many expected. The worst blow was Parliament rejecting the Prime Minister’s motion on Syria, which many thought would be curtains for him, or at least leave him wounded and weakened. It did no such thing. So it is difficult to make any confident predictions about where a ‘Yes’ vote would really leave the Prime Minister, save that he will not be the one who decides whether he does stay or go. It will be his party.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.



Show comments
  • komment

    When
    David Cameron declared the choice for the Scots would be, Take us or Leave us’
    he was not speaking with the bravado of an arrogant posh-boy English Tory. I
    would suggest he was overcome with an overwhelming sense of pragmatism.

    He understood the reality that no majority of
    Westminster MPs would vote to transfer the substantial and radical powers away
    from the centre, the very powers that Scotland wanted and some would say needed
    if it were to thrive as a fairer and more just society.

    He could not deliver on Devo-Max, the solution
    favoured by the majority of Scots. He also knew that New Labour could not
    deliver this either. The options therefore had been preordained, Independence
    or the Status Quo.

    What has followed since is a debate on the
    different perspectives of an Independent Scotland that very quickly exposed the
    stereotypes, prejudices and bigotry felt by many on both sides of the
    border, all of which give the lie to the claim of social and cultural
    cohesion across these islands.

    It was at this point that the perceived
    arrogance of the Unionists kicked in as they embarked on Project Fear, a
    campaign that alienated many in Scotland with its negative, patronizing and
    condescending style that predicated the Scottish voters were too stupid to
    engage in a serious debate on their future. ‘Whiesht and do what your told’ was
    the Unionist mantra.

    Having failed to frighten the voters, the
    political parties are now engaged in a damage limitation exercise, each
    promising more powers to Holy rood. The question being asked by the Scots is,
    if these as yet unidentified or guaranteed powers are available now, why was
    the option of Devo-Max not on the ballot paper from day one? The answer is they
    could not and still cannot be guaranteed or delivered for the reasons I gave
    earlier. The claim that more powers are guaranteed is a blatant lie. Is this
    the truth Joann Lamont promised us at the Scottish Labour Conference?

    The NO campaign has failed and continues to
    fail, it is in disarray, there is internecine strife between the parties, blame
    is being appropriated, there is no common alternative proposals that could even
    start to form a credible alternative to Independence within the same timescale.
    A YES vote on Sept 18 means a guarantee
    of Independence in March 2016, a NO vote would be a leap of faith into the unknown,
    one that places trust in the hands of the same group of politicians who, by their
    rhetoric, have demonstrated they are unfit partners with NO vision for Scotland,
    a continuance of the status quo rejected by the overwhelming majority of Scots
    in 2011.

    I see no reason for David Cameron
    to resign over a YES vote, the Better Together supporters must share much of he
    blame.

  • remy arimas

    Cameron now is smiling and making brave face, but for people in rUK he would responsible for United Kingdom crash, they would remember his arrogance and his blunders:
    Scottish independence could already have been sidelined had David Cameron allowed Scots residing everywhere in the UK to have a vote; or had he insisted that more than a simple majority would be needed to secure change; or had he even allowed – as the Scottish National Party government in Edinburgh itself first demanded – that “devo max”(the greatest possible autonomy within the UK) be included as option. Instead, he insisted on holding a single-question referendum, albeit one to be held at a time of Edinburgh’s choosing and with votes being granted for the first time to 16-year-olds, as the SNP demanded.
    Scotland got only one and unique chance to get away from greedy British elite in London.
    I vote YES.

  • AdH2011

    Why would Cameron resign or be forced out? – is he personally responsible for forcing Scotland to ‘see sense’ and stay in the union? This is Scotland’s decision to make when all is said and done, if they want to go it alone then so be it. The rest of the UK can negotiate the best deal for it afterwards

  • Iain Hill

    Could no one have foreseen this? Blinded by arrogance and entitlement? It was open to recent governments to radically restructure and reform the UK so that it became less of an 18C state and started to represent all of its people and not just a number of elites. Or is that too much to ask of people accustomed to manipulate the state in their own interests?

  • Tony_E

    If Scotland does choose independence, I expect to see a very strong position taken by the English public to ensure that the terms of leaving (especially as regards Debt, monetary backstop and return of joined civil service provision to England and Wales) are not detrimental to the English.

    They will want a very hard negotiator in No10. This does not favour either Cameron or Miliband. So I would expect to see an internal Tory move towards a tough negotiator, an old fashioned Conservative hard man, to ensure that Scotland has no further role in wider UK politics (and has little or no role in electing the government it wishes to negotiate with if at all possible).

    I suspect that Cameron would actually fall on his sword anyway, should the Union be broken – that was the impression coming from Downing Street up until this week, and I don’t suspect that position has changed at all, despite the press this week.

    • rjbh

      Im sure you will find Scotland has a much stronger hand than you seem to think.

      • Inverted Meniscus

        I am pretty sure it doesn’t. 8.7% of the population versus 91.3% of the population. $2.4 trillion nominal GDP versus $235 billion nominal GDP. Are you suggesting that the wishes of less than 10% of the population are going to prevail over the needs of more than 90%? You obviously have no experience of negotiation. There will be no currency union for example because the UK taxpayer can see no advantage in underwriting the debt of a foreign country.

      • sadmaninagame

        I don’t think it has, no. But I expect it’ll take loans from Russia in order to tide it over if it’s unable to raise debt in the City.

    • Blindsideflanker

      The English public might take a pretty strong negotiating position against the Scots, but that is unlikely to be a view represented in the British political establishment. We, English people should expect to be well and truly screwed in any independence negotiation.

      • Barakzai

        Agreed. If Adams and McGuinness could so easily screw the ‘naive eejit’ Blair (aided by those other eejits,’Babe’ Mowlem and the oily Hain), I’m sure Westminster’s finest, from either cloth, hold no fears for the SNP negotiators between September and 2016. We’ll hear the phrase ‘it’s the right thing to do’ ad nauseum, of course.

  • Bonkim

    Syria vote was a mistake for Parliament – hundreds of thousands have died because of Western inaction to get Assad out.

    • Tony_E

      It was a mistake because it tied the hands of the Western powers to influence the outcome in Syria. However, the West should not have been acting to ‘get Assad out’ in the first place – as the West’s intellectually challenged intervention in the middle east has caused a great deal more bloodshed than it has saved.

      There will be much worse to come, whatever we do now, and will not be restricted to the borders of Syria.

      • Bonkim

        Shows one or two cannot strong arm the rest of the world regardless of the merits of the cause. The post WW2 consensus on international law and order is breaking down as also the power of the few to control outcomes. Not that threat of military intervention or actual intervention has succeeded anywhere – Israel/Palestine, Central Africa, Rwanda, Egypt, North Africa, Middle East – Syria, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, burma, Ukraine, etc, etc, those that want to break the rules do so and will get away with it.

        It is a downward slide from now on. The UN has become a fire-fighter and humanitarian aid Agency after the events.

        International politics from now on will depend on interactions between power Blocks – only now there are many such – not just the Western Block and the USSR as was the case post WW2.

        Best thing for us is to keep away and not pontificate unless our interests are threatened. The British Empire is no more and we don’t have many gun-boats left. In fact the roots of Scottish Independence – steady decline of UK on the world’s stage post Empire and now uncertainty about its role in Europe.

  • Doggie Roussel

    Am I alone in being completely unable to understand what point Isabel Hardman is trying to make as well as regarding her whole article as completely inconsequential?

  • Holly

    I doubt that they are going to rush headlong into sacking Cameron so close to the General Election, but you never know with some of the mardy back bencher’s these days.
    Now, after the General Election, if Cameron needs to go into a coalition with some other party, it will be better for Cameron to simply resign.

  • FF42

    Leaving the Union will be extremely expensive for Scotland. If we vote yes it is presumably because people don’t realise just how costly it will be. That’s hardly David Cameron’s fault. We will just have to make the best of it.

    • Smithersjones2013

      That’s hardly David Cameron’s fault.

      Well isn’t it his governments job to explain the risks that independence would bring and if those risks are not properly recognised whose fault is it other than the government’s and ultimately the head of that government?

      Whichever way you slice it it would be an immense failure of government given they have immense resources that should have been brought to bare. Cameron has to be culpable as head of the UK Government he’s not the only one whose head should role but role it should in such circumstances.

      • FF42

        I believe in people taking responsibility for their own actions. The referendum is for Scots. If we do wilful things like vote to leave the Union and abandon the UK market , with inevitable increases in unemployment and poverty, that’s our fault, not David Cameron’s

        • Inverted Meniscus

          Blimey the SNP cybernat nutters will be after you! They cannot have people running around these blogs and being honest.

        • nae a belger

          FF42 – I believe in people taking responsibility too. That’s why I support secession.
          No longer can the Labour Unionists run their fiefdoms like rotten boroughs then fling the blame on Westminster.
          No – if we screw up then it’s our own fault. If we do well it’s our own hard work and enterprise.
          How can it be wilful to vote to stand on your own two feet?
          To say you want to run your own affairs?
          I want to be friends with our neighbours but I don’t want them to run my house.

    • Andy

      If you vote yes it will be because you have been seduced by that snake oil salesman. And I think you might find you have been sold a pig in a poke. Many will vote Yes merely because of anti-English racism, carefully stoked by the NatFascists. If you vote No the status quo will not be an option. We English, having been so abused, want our own Parliament and to be able to govern ourselves without 59 Scottish MPs meddling in our affairs.

    • Inverted Meniscus

      A refreshingly realistic and honest appraisal. The transition costs, studiously avoided by the dissembling Salmond, will be enormous and solely for the account of the Scottish taxpayer. That one is not negotiable in my opinion.

    • Maidmarrion

      it isn’t all about money besides I’m sure you are well aware of the facts and figures which come from the UK Government proving Scotland’s ability to take care of her own. Why even Mr Cameron has stated that Scotland is more than capable of standing on her own economically.
      No illegal Westminster /Washington wars to pursue .
      No Trident and its radio active leaks to tolerate .
      No more MoD pollution in the Solway and Dalgety Bay – the clean up bill for the MoD will be astronomical.
      The young , the old , the infirm and the vulnerable looked after by our education system and a thriving NHS – all of which could be paid for with ease if the money wasn’t wasted on WMDs and illegal wars.
      I find it amusing to read comments about Scotland from those who know so little about what is happening here yet seem so keen to tell us how we are a bunch of bigoted , anti English , scrounging, drunken subsidy junkies while professing how they couldn’t care a stuff if Scotland secedes or not.
      The most wonderful thing about independence for Scotland is the catalyst it becomes for change elsewhere in the UK – I really can’t understand why anyone south of the border would not raise a huge cheer for that alone!

  • Robert_Eve

    No Scottish MPs sounds like a real plus to me!!

  • Smithersjones2013

    Should you blame the “billy no mates” Tories for being disliked intensely by ever increasing numbers of the population and the majority of Scots? Not intrisically but being the Prime Minister who lost the Union is a sufficient constitutional disaster (and a whole lot of expense to the taxpayer) to really make it mandatory that Cameron goes. To attempt to cling to power in the aftermath would only invite opprobrium from the media, the gloating SNP and a large portion of the English electorate. The idea that a loser Prime Minister should commence negotiations with Salmond on England’s behalf is not something we should contemplate. The Tories would have to select a new leader for the sake of the country.

    However he should not be alone given that it is Labour who have led the unionist campaign and Miliband as leader will have presided over the most serious damage to the English Labour party’s prospects in the history of the party. Miliband should go as well.

  • HookesLaw

    Mrs Thatcher and the poll tax in Scotland might be more the point Ms Hardman and it was labour who set the independence ball rolling by setting up not only devolution but a devolution which did nor work for either Scotland or the UK.
    Its the Scots that gave the Nationalists a majority in the Scottish Parliament. Any Yes vote, which is still unlikely, is certainly not Cameron’s sole fault – you may as well blame Miliband whose party allegedly has a good following in Scotland.

    • southerner

      Well that would be right were it not for the fact that Camerloon called the referendum, despite no requirement or manifesto commitment nor pressure to do so, and then staked his reputation on defending the union.

      He will resign he says if he fails to deliver a referendum on Europe but not if the Union is broken up. There you have his priorities.

      I know you love the guy, everything he does, says, or breathes, but surely just for once you could look at an issue through something other than your socialist Camerloon glasses.

      • Wessex Man

        Yes but last time around he promised a referendum on membership of the EU. He can’t be trusted to run a whelk stall!

    • Blindsideflanker

      The Scots were getting the Rate revaluation a year before the rest of the country, that is why the Community Charge was started in Scotland first, and it should be said with the enthusiasm of the Scottish Conservative MPs.

      The abject failure of the Conservatives to argue their case, and Labour playing to nationalistic identity politics , which they have lost control of, is what has got us to where we are today.

      • Andy

        The problem was Rate revaluation was written into Scots Law, where is was not in England. When the revaluation was done the Scots were up in arms, hence a solution needed to be found. The Community Charge was the solution which was dreamt up, and actually it had the merit of taxing every adult, not just houses. It was a much fairer system than the rates or the Council Tax is.

        • Blindsideflanker

          Agreed, even some Labour councils, swamped by immigrants living many to a house, wish the Community Charge had been kept , for the Council tax doesn’t adjust funds to population.

    • Doggie Roussel

      Usual badly written garbage from the Spectator’s in house socialist…

  • you_kid

    It’s too late now for this. The game’s up.
    Magna Carta centralist ineptocrats have long artificially raised their hard asset base to compensate for a 10% loss of Scottish backing of the Bank of England.
    Boo-hoos all round now? We prepared the plebiscite a year back – did anyone want to know then?

    • HookesLaw

      Do you deliberately try to write giibberish?

      • you_kid

        I forgot to add the obvious bit. Cameron is a goner in any case:

        1- he loses Scotland and will not be reelected. No PM would be, impossible.
        2- he holds on to Scotland – extra Labour seats deliver the job to Red Ed.

        The game’s up. Cameron is out in any case.

        • Doggie Roussel

          Yes… a classic Catch 22… Independent Scotland and Cameron is forever shot of 50 + Labour voting MPs…

          The gutless Scots voting NO, afraid to lose the English Milch cow, he will be staring down the barrel of a Labour landslide win in 2015…

          It’s all good forrra a laff !

          • Inverted Meniscus

            Except that we will soon have North Korea on our doorstep.

          • Wessex Man

            it’s all win win really!

      • Inverted Meniscus

        Yes. Incomprehensible gibberish is his first and only language. He uses it as Dalai Guavara, dado Trunking and all the rest of his gibberish fluent sock puppets. All comments are designed to make him look clever but only succeed in confirming his idiocy.

        • you_kid

          NICK CHUZZLEWITZ! Welcome, lad. How’s the bankstering going? Time’s they are a changin’, n’est-ce pas?

          • Inverted Meniscus

            Bizarre. Utterly bizarre.

        • Wessex Man

          yeah but you have to admit that Hooky asking the question is really amusing!

      • Doggie Roussel

        Or even gibberish… Ass…e !

      • Inverted Meniscus

        Yes he does. The more unintelligible the better. This idiot is convinced it makes him look sophisticated and ‘in the know’ as opposed to the reality of being a gibberish spouting idiot.

  • XH558

    They will have to prise his cold dead fingers from No. 10’s doorknob.

    • saffrin

      With any luck.

    • Doggie Roussel

      Or even his own…

  • mk_one

    Considering that Scotland leaving the UK is the best guarantee of almost permanent Conservative government for England and Wales (how many times has England and Wales voted for a Labour majority since the war? 1997 and 2001 only?) the sensible option for the Conservative backbenchers is to embrace the loss of Scotland and all it’s Labour and Lib Dem MPs, buy the PM a drink, and look forward to a majority once again. But then one rarely expects logical behaviour from the Conservative backbenchers…

    • Smithersjones2013

      You are way off base. The only times that the way Scotland has voted has been decisive in a General Election is 1964 & 1974

      In 2005 (when the Tories ‘won’ the popular vote in England) for example Labour won 92 more seats in England than the Tories (286-194).

      What it does do is make it far more possible for the Tories to actually win a majority (which currently due to the imbalance in the political landscape would require a Tory landslide in vote terms) if Scotland no longer are part of the union.

      • Andy

        In 2010 we English elected a Conservative government. I fail to see why the LibDems have got any say whatsoever in any policy area which is devolved. Similarly I fail to understand what right, moral or otherwise, any Fascist Labour Party and LibDem who sit for a Scottish seat has to vote on any matter that is devolved. These are matters ONLY for English MPs.

        • Alexsandr

          if its nae in scotland, then the west lothian question has to be addressed.

          • komment

            A yes vote will make the West Lothian question redundant.

  • Keith D

    The No campaign has been an unmitigated disaster. Defensive, on the back foot from day one and completely devoid of any positive vision for the UK to remain as is.

    Dave has to shoulder some of that culpability. Its astonishing its not a landslide.

    • HookesLaw

      Is Dave a Scottish MP? The vote is a matter for Scotland and the Scots.

      • Smithersjones2013

        You are even more pathetic than usual. Fancy being the Prime Minister that lost the Union. Its as bad as being the Prime Minister who sold the country out to Brussels. Oh wait a minute he was a Tory too

        Of course on the other side of it, it is that does make Tory chances of winning an election decisively sometimes in the short to medium term more likely.

        That said its a good job the SNP want to keep Good Queen Bess else a yes vote could have been followed up with Cameron being escorted to the Bloody Tower with HM shoutiing “Will no one rid me of this incompetent politician? Ooorffft with his head!”

      • Keith D

        Last I heard he was UK PM. Last I heard Scotland was still a part of it?
        He cant vote, neither can I, but Better Together is a joke.
        Tell me in honesty that the Govt of the day isn’t culpable for that.
        Do get real.

        • Wessex Man

          Don’t expect any of that nonsense of Hooky dealing in honesty!

    • Holly

      I reckon Cameron has secretly wanted a ‘yes’ vote from the start.
      I’ve said so all along.

      • the viceroy’s gin

        No, he’s a pure socialist, and wants everybody shackled to the EUSSR, including the jocks.

    • Inverted Meniscus

      And yet the No side remains ahead in the polls.

      • komment

        That i because the pollsters predictions are behind the curve of voters intentions. It’s known as pollster’s lag.

        • Inverted Meniscus

          Nice to see the cybernat nutters arriving in force. All semblance of reality will soon be a distant memory with poll deficits actually being poll leads, a currency union will be a godsend to UK taxpayers, ludicrous economic predictions etc etc. Sit back everybody and enjoy their madness.

  • toco10

    If we who live in England get to run our own affairs absent Scotland then Cameron deserves a pat on the back.The problem the Scots have is if they do not support independence then never again can they complain about the dastardly English running their lives from Westminster.

    • Blindsideflanker

      Oh don’t worry, being an independent country won’t stop the Scots blaming us. Before the 1707 Union, they blamed us for the failure of their Darien colonial venture, and they blamed us for not rescuing their sorry hides from Darien. They seemed to think that having the same monarch obligated England to them.

      • HookesLaw

        If you are reduced to going back to 1707 then you are in as bad a way as them.

        • Blindsideflanker

          Well that was when Scotland was last an independent country, so I think fair to point out the attitudes that prevailed.

          • Keith D

            Nope, even less fair than saying Germany is full of moustachieod Austrians called Adolph.
            Get a grip.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              …it isn’t?

          • Andy

            Well sort of independent. From 1603 the King ruled and he did so by sending orders and instructions to the Scottish Privy Council, but a number of areas of policy (foreign affairs was one) were for the King alone and as such it was the Privy Council in Westminster who decided what would be what.

            • CraigStrachan

              Yes, it’s true that in 1603 a Scottish king went south to take over England.

      • Keith D

        Do grow up. This is 2014.

        • telemachus

          Nonetheless
          If you listen to Salmond he is inclined to heap all perceived woes on the English, Liverpool style
          The only good thing that would come from a vote to dissolve the Union is that he actually will not credibly be able to continue that as the population reel from the withdrawal of the positive economic benefits that we, the English, currently fund

          • Andy

            The other good thing is we get rid of 41 Fascist Labour Party MPs. A glorious prospect.

            • Iain Hill

              Poor!

          • Keith D

            Good news for me. I dont listen to Salmond.

            • telemachus

              Problem is too many do
              And the Better Together lot have weak boring leadership

              • Inverted Meniscus

                You mean Darling and Brown.

                • telemachus

                  Darling
                  If Brown were leading we would be motoring

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  No we would be facing another massive structural deficit.

                • telemachus

                  You folks should get down on your knees in thanks for the magnificent modernisation of education and health
                  If not for Lehman you would be

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  Telling the same lies over and over again will not make any of that rubbish true.

          • Jeanne Tomlin

            You have obviously never even listened to one of Mr. Salmond’s speeches. Utter bosh.

            • Inverted Meniscus

              Agreed. He does talk utter bosh. My favourite is when he talks about a Currency union with the UK. Completely dishonest drivel. What could be more attractive to UK taxpayers than underwriting the debt of a foreign country?

              • telemachus

                But if they have our currency, we have effective control

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  No you blithering idiot. They can use Sterling whether we like it or not because it is a freely tradable currency. A currency union means that we have to underwrite their debt without be able to limit how much they borrow and for how long. Why would we expose our taxpayers to an open ended financial suicide pact? You really are the nations idiot.

                • telemachus

                  Sorry son
                  If they use our currency we de facto control their economy
                  We would set their interest rates
                  We would exert a fairly tight control on their tax and spending policies if we underwrite their debt
                  We would put all this in the inititial fiscal sustainability agreement
                  Please read an economic textbook before gain saying telemachus

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  You really are a bit out of your depth here. Any country in the world can adopt Sterling whilst retaining the right to set their own interest rates etc. They would not however enjoy UK Treasury support or retain the BOE as lender of last resort. Agreeing to allow the UK to control their fiscal, monetary and expenditure policies would not be independence for which they are supposedly voting. Also, can you imagine how they would react if we were constantly thwarting their spending plans and controlling their tax rates? I am a fully qualified economist and suggest you pass your textbook to Ed Balls – the ignorant sack of excrement could probably use it.

                • telemachus

                  Son
                  Scotland will require a currency union with us and to underpin a fiscal sustainability agreement
                  Strike one
                  We will control their interest rates
                  Strike two
                  *
                  You clearly learned your economics at the Scunthorpe Business School

                • ButcombeMan

                  Slinging around insults Tele does nothing for your case, there happens to be something in what you say, the economies are so intertwined that the UK will have to help bail out a fiscally incontinent Scotland. Currency Union or not. The sooner they join the Euro the better but even in that event we would get asked to help.

                  Scotland’s problem will be capital and business flight.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  Why should we care about bailing out a foregn country? Why should British taxpayers underwrite any newly issued Scottish public debt as part of currency union without absolute control of Scotland’s fiscal, monetary and spending policies? There is simply no credible argument for putting UK taxpayers at risk. The ridiculous Salmond suggested that a CU was vital in order to manage cross border foreign exchange risks. Ludicrous, this is a commercial risk managed every day by any competent corporate treasurer.

                • ButcombeMan

                  You misunderstand. I am not advocating a CU with Scotland in the event of secession.

                  I am vehemently against it.

                  I am recognising the political & economic reality, we would help bail out a bankrupt Scotland for the same reasons we helped Ireland.

                  Salmond knows this. He also knows Scotland cannot afford his promises and an independent Scotland would quickly lose both capital/jobs (latter especially in financial services). and lose talented people, as it has always done.

                  Independent Scotland will have to pay more than the UK for debt, rates there will rise, An independent Scotland will be a basket case within 20 years.

                  rUK will also be affected.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  Agreed. Apologies.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  You really are the nation’s most ludicrous idiot. Villages all over the land are begging for the presence of you, the idiot supreme. Of course Scotland wants a currency union in order that they can spend what they like with the UK taxpayer picking up the tab when it all goes horribly wrong. I studied at an institution that would not employ you as a cleaner.

              • Jeanne Tomlin

                Don’t blame the nonsense you hear from WM politicians on Mr. Salmond.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  They are right about a currency union however and it is Salmond who is dissembling and talking nonsense. Indeed some might call his stance downright dishonest.

                • Wessex Man

                  Never mind, Gavin McCrone, who Alex Salmond always quotes about oil revenue has had another fantastic idea, that Scotland revert to the Merk, for the information of Jeanne Tomlin, although I expect she already knows being such a scholer of Scottish History, was a unit of currency of Scotland prior to the Act of Union with we wicked English.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  No that cybernat Anglophobe nutter thinks the Merk is a decent German car.

        • Wessex Man

          Quite hilarious, the vile abuse pushed by quite a few Scot Nats has been amazing to view these last few years. Much of it through sheer ignorance of their own history aka Jean Tomlin, whose History lessons seemed to have passed her by and you suddenly want to censor a quite mild Blidsideflanker’s comment.

          • Keith D

            I dont think entrenched positions help my cause. Particularly when they’re based on historical events. The Cybernats are a strange lot for sure, but so are those down here who are just as keen to wave off Scotland.
            Theres nothing sudden about it, I want the Union to remain, always have done.

            • Wessex Man

              You may well do, but after all the bitterness that’s mostly and I do say mostly comes from Cybernats because quite a bit is now coming from south of the border, I am more than happy to see the breakup of the Union.

              • Keith D

                So we let the loudest, and usually dumbest, determine our futures ? Not for me.

      • Jeanne Tomlin

        Have you ever READ England’s Alien Act of 1705? Do you know even the slightest thing about history or did someone just tell you the name Darien and you’ve been parroting it ever since?

        • Inverted Meniscus

          The Darien scheme was the definitive Scottish success story then?

          • Jeanne Tomlin

            Capable of reading the comment?

            • Inverted Meniscus

              Yes. Thankfully I am not an ignorant Anglophobe like yourself.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Have you ever read the Act of Security 1704 which was the catalyst for it?

          • Jeanne Tomlin

            I’ve read both but Scotland never had the ability to drive England into bankruptcy by denying it markets and seizing mass amounts of Scottish owned property.

            • Colonel Mustard

              Yes, but then you are a notorious Anglophobe so hardly objective!

              • Jeanne Tomlin

                Why thank you. I was not aware of being so well known as to be ‘notorious’. Anglophobe or not, the Alien Act imposed an embargo that was nearly world-wide on Scottish exports and mandated seizure of Scottish owned property in England. That is simply what it did. All you have to do is read it for yourself.

                The Scottish Act of Security of 1704 was nothing more than a reaction to the attempt of the Parliament of England’s Act of Settlement 1701 to force a monarch on Scotland that was not of their choosing after the English Parliament settled on Electress Sophia of Hanover as successor to Queen Anne without so much as even consulting the Scottish Parliament..

                • Colonel Mustard

                  The notorious bit is not as important as the Anglophobe bit (which you apparently admit) when considering the merits of your comments .

                  I wasn’t comparing them. I simply stated that the one was the catalyst for the other. Rightly or wrongly 1705 was in retaliation to 1704 but you characterised it in isolation.

                  1701 should be seen in the context of pre-Union and a history of warfare between the two nations but that particular squabbling went on until the ’45. It is probably better to view it all from this distance objectively rather than in the context of modern nationalist aspirations. Of course your narrative of a bullying England is an established meme much prized by Hollywood and Mel Gibson so as you are also a writer of fiction it does not surprise me.

                • telemachus

                  Sorry to butt in
                  The interesting thing about all this period is the take over and harmonious synthesis of our institutions by the Hanoverian Germans
                  We see this time and again through our history
                  The influx and synthesis to greatness

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Do stop your mischievous trolling of provocation. If you really knew anything about this period you would understand that the Hanoverian succession was far from being a “harmonious synthesis”. It created many issues not least a complexity of foreign policy in Europe and the Jacobite question which would ultimately lead to even more bad blood between English and Scots.

                  You cannot determine the future through a rose-tinted soviet propaganda poster fantasy of what you would like to happen. That epitomises what is wrong with Labour. They always arrogantly presume that what they intend must be what transpires. History teaches otherwise.

                • telemachus

                  Forget parochial issues
                  The Hanoverians ushered in the most successful period of British history
                  During this period Britain first led and then conquered the world
                  As to Scotland it became an integral part of this conquest
                  As to Europe we successively won and won again, latterly with the help of the fruits of that Empire made possible after the Hanoverian synthesis

                • Colonel Mustard

                  The Hanoverians lost America.

                • Jeanne Tomlin

                  If you consider bloody conquest a good thing then I suppose you could look at it that way. Personally I do not admire stealing, rape and murder.

                • Wessex Man

                  As I said previously, a sad Cybernat Nutter!

                • Jeanne Tomlin

                  Wessex Man is calling me names. I must be doing something right.

                • Wessex Man

                  You’ve never done anything right, you twist history to suit your agressive agenda of Nationalism and seek to paint we English as smoe sort of agressor race, do keep up and grow up.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Is your view of our nation history seen through a mirror of modern liberal guilt rather than a glass, darkly? Do you admire suttee or thugee or the Ashanti mountain of skulls (now excised from history books lest we offend)? How about the death of a thousand cuts? Barbary pirates plaguing the Med? Are you one of those who believes India was a country when the British arrived there? Do you understand what the British were doing in Borneo in the first place or the rate of population growth in those “stolen” places like Singapore and Hong Kong when people flocked there from neighbouring kingdoms of infinitely worse oppression to enjoy British justice and the opportunity to trade in peace and order? Do you appreciate the differing Arab perceptions of Palestine governed by the British and Syria under France (and I mean under) during the mandates? Do you have an understanding of how French behaviour in Syria contributed more to the current problems in the Middle East than the British ever did in Palestine? Do you know how and why the Arab Legion and the Kingdom of Jordan arose? Have you ever compared colonial governance in Malaya to the systems operating in French Indo-China, the Dutch East Indies or the Belgian Congo?

                  I’m not suggesting it was all sweetness and light. But it wasn’t all bad either. History is nuanced. Except for people like you.

                  And lets not pretend that one of the most pioneering and successful contingents in the race for Empire was not Scottish. Jardine Matheson anyone?

                • Jeanne Tomlin

                  Not bothering to deny a silly accusation isn’t the same as admitting it.

                  It doesn’t matter what they used as an excuse for the embargo against Scotland. The embargo existed and had much to do with the economic failures in Scotland. People who use Darien as a stick to beat Scotland prefer to pretend that it didn’t exist.

                  Historically, you have to look at what was happening in the larger context of England at war with France and Scotland’s traditional alliance with that country. That is a much more plausible explanation for the aggressive English stance. The English government was determined to end having a potential enemy on their northern border.

                  It is all very well for you to accuse me of having a ‘narrative of a bullying England’ but can you tell me how many countries England attacked and invaded before the Union? How much of its history was spent at war with one or another of its neighbors? How many did it invade and either conquer or try to conquer? Like it or not, historically England was an aggressor nation. If you take this personally, that isn’t my problem.

                  In order to be an “anglophobe” I would have to dislike or hate English people which would be foolish. That is quite different from bothering to pretend admiration for the history of their aggressive government. But I don’t bother to try to defend myself against silly personal attacks.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  “But I don’t bother to try to defend myself against silly personal attacks.”

                  Well, you just have. And to describe England as an ‘aggressor nation’ in an age of dynastic warfare is ridiculous. Which nation, for example, initiated hostilities and crossed the border with an army in 1327, 1346, 1385 and 1513?

                  Clue: It wasn’t England.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  She doesn’t do honesty I am afraid.

                • Jeanne Tomlin

                  Exactly what in my post was dishonest? That England made a habit of invading its neighbors? How many times did England invade Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Ever hear of the 100 Years War? It wasn’t started by France.

                  It doesn’t make any difference in the current political situation, but it would be nice for you to be honest about the history.

                • Wessex Man

                  I did warn earlier that this particular CyberNat nutter loves to abuse we English for any problem that Scotland has ever had.

                • Jeanne Tomlin

                  Why thank you, Wessex Man. I am glad to be told that the Alien Act of 1705 didn’t exist. I just made it up. 😉

                  Telling the truth is sooo abusive. How mean of me.

                • Wessex Man

                  I didn’t say that the Alien Act didn’t exist, I said you are a Cybernat nutter, which is true, in fact telling the truth about you is so liberating, thank you.

                • Jeanne Tomlin

                  And pointing out what a troll you are is liberating as well.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  The utterly fatuous suggestion that the English have a monopoly on military aggression as if it is somehow a genetic feature is typically dishonest of a cybernat nutter like yourself. As the Colonel pointed out but you fail to acknowledge, their are plenty of examples of Scotland as the aggressor nation.

                • Jeanne Tomlin

                  In response to English aggression and never with the intent of conquest. But if you want to believe that the English monarchy was peace loving and non-aggressive, you go right ahead.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  I did not actually write that I want to believe the English monarchy was peace loving and non-aggressive. I was making a point about the imperatives for dynastic warfare in the Middle Ages which you seem to want to colour in the context of current politics. “England bad Scotland good” is simplistic to say the least. “Aggressor nation” is just anachronistic in the context of mediaeval dynastic rivalry and warfare.

                  The Middle Ages was aggressive per se. The very epitome of manhood was skill at arms and in warfare. And the latter was to avoid battle where possible and instead to harry and ravage the countryside which the Scots were just as adept at as the English. England did not have a monopoly on that and the Bruce was hardly a saint. You say you don’t hate the English but I’m afraid your grotesque cartoon of history where the English are always the villains suggests just that.

                • Jeanne Tomlin

                  No one ever portrayed the Bruce as a saint and the Scots were quite good at ravaging the countryside. That is hardly the point since the Scots never tried to conquer England but the English tried repeatedly to conquer Scotland.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  “That is hardly the point since the Scots never tried to conquer England”

                  Are you for real? Why on earth do you think the Battle of Flodden was fought (as just one example)?

                • Jeanne Tomlin

                  Certainly not as a defence against England being conquered. No Scottish incursion was ever intended as conquest. The concept is laughable and one that I have yet to see any serious historian make.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  It was still an act of invasion and therefore of aggression whatever the end game. Which undermines your bizarre hypothesis that England was always the aggressor.

                • Jeanne Tomlin

                  Where did I say that no other country was ever aggressive? I am absolutely sure I said no such thing. Both in a medieval context and a modern one, other nations have been aggressive. That doesn’t lessen the rather spectacular history of invasion and conquest of first England and then Britain. Only the aggressive tendencies of the US can match it.

                  However, I dispute that the purpose of an invasion is irrelevant. The purpose of a miliary incursion makes a huge difference.

                • Wessex Man

                  erm, what were they doing in England in 1513 for instance, while our Henry was fighting the good fight against the pesky French yet again. Lucky for us that our second eleven saw off your invader King, well actually he died along with most of his army.

                  Remember Flodden Field!!

    • Realpolitik/ fruitcake/ racist

      Do you remember the fuss made about a UKIP candidate being on a poster?

      labour just did the same thing with a dozen people, yet you don’t hear about it in the MSM

      http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Hackney-Labour-Line-Up-Paid-Politicians-As-Public

      • Wessex Man

        Just Google convicted, disgraced, banned Lib/dem, Tory, Lab Councillors and view with wonder, wonder why Denibigh is still standing after the bombing campaign by one of them who was detained at her majesty’s pleasure for 18 years in December, ah the wonder of it all.

        • Realpolitik/ fruitcake/ racist
          • Wessex Man

            Only when very bored and don’t get the chance to get bored nowdays, what with The euro elections, the Scottish Referendum and coping with the massive increase in my party’s membership!

            • Realpolitik/ fruitcake/ racist

              UKIP?

              It’s a good pro-UKIP paper, with James Delingpole as editor, (applied to become a UKIP candidate but was considered too radical)

              • Wessex Man

                He was like the tide ebbing and flowing, I don’t particularly like him and I don’t particulary care if that upsets anyone.

                • Realpolitik/ fruitcake/ racist

                  I quite like him, I’m a libertarian with socialist ideas about people who are ‘disabled’ – I mean that in the most literal sense, they are not able.

    • John Dalton

      Having just watched Question Time and endured Grant Shapps’s smug and petulant whitterings it’s no surprise to me that the Tories are disappearing down the pan – and I speak as a former Tory voter. They simply are not credible.

      What was quite remarkable (though utterly predictable) was watching all the main parties attack Farage with all the usual howling bullying nonsense and seeing him bat it right back at them. They just don’t get why UKIP’s popularity is soaring and the more they smear and bully the more they do UKIP’s work for them.

  • Blindsideflanker

    Cameron has disbarred himself, he said he didn’t want to be PM of England.

    • Fergus Pickering

      But he would grit his teeth and bear it doubtless.

  • Rhoda Klapp8

    Even I would not blame Cameron for the result of a free vote in Scotland. He need not resign for that. On the issue of lies and broken promises, however…

    • Blindsideflanker

      That we have got to a referendum is Labour’s fault, to have lost the referendum will be down to Cameron and his abject lack of vision for the country.

      • Wessex Man

        well it all depends on if you believe that a Yes vote is a loss, I certainly don’t.

    • you_kid

      No, Rhoda you got this one wrong. The official line is he has to resign.

      • monty61

        Indeed.

    • John Dalton

      I agree with the thrust of this piece and I will shed no tears if Cameron has to go. He’s done nothing meaningful on any of the burning issues that really matter. He’s been a PR-focussed centre-ground Blair clone at the exact time when the Conservatives needed firm, principalled, conservative leadership and he’s insulted and alienated conservative voters in their hundreds of thousands as witnessed by the collapse in membership.

      • HookesLaw

        No you have no evidence for that.
        On the contrary with Heath Education Pension and Welfare and Local Govt reform we see things that are far from PR related.
        If the govt were more PR obsessed its rating might be better.
        You spout the usual inventions to preserve your fantasies.

        • John Dalton

          Sorry who are you? Let’s see what happens in the election shall we.

          • Wessex Man

            Hooky would still be singing his praises if Call me Dave was sat in a Tank surging through the Scottish Border after the Yes Campaign won! how hang on a minute, Call me Dave would sent some spotty squaddie of twenty!

    • JoeDM

      He will have presided over the splitting up of the UK !!!!
      I can imagine only one worse scenario – defeat in a major war.

      It is very much a resigining issue. If he is an honourable man, he will do the right thing.

      • HookesLaw

        Cobblers – Devolution from Labour created the opportunity for a nationalist majority in a Scottish parliament. Without that there was no mechanism of an independence vote.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here