Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

zagubov

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Like most things in politics there's probably no one simple answer. I would guess that at least some, if not all, of the following apply :-

Politicians never want their power base diminished, only the other way round (look at the EU)

Even though some predict a perpetual Conservative government in a Scotland-less UK, it probably wouldn't happen. All parties in this country when in power for more than a couple of terms make such a c o c k -up of everything that people will go almost anywhere for a change. Being a realist Cameron realises this.

The civil service which hates change and always wants to maintain and manage the status quo, however distasteful, will be advising and lobbying like mad to prevent Scottish independence.

Extricating Scotland would not be a simple and straightforward business, and Cameron like most politicians can do without that headache if he gets another term. They would try to drive a hard bargain and he won't want to risk being accused of selling out if he gave ground.

And independent Scotland could be a thorn in the side, especially with an SNP government stirring up anti-British sentiment. Better to have them on the inside p*****g out, than vice-versa.

If the Scots vote No then it provides the opportunity to stop subsidising them so much, and to solve the West Lothian question. Both would be very popular among English voters.

All (well, mostsly) true! Stopping "subsisdising" them would be the easiest but as that's made up anyway.:D

System

pqrdef wrote: »

It's exactly what happened. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, created by the Union in 1801, ceased to exist and was replaced by two new sovereign states.

So why is everyone talking about repealing the Act of Union if there isn't one? If your argument is correct Scottish independence legislation would involve repealing the act of 1922, even though that act was about Ireland, not Scotland.

Angry_Bear

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

So why is everyone talking about repealing the Act of Union if there isn't one? If your argument is correct Scottish independence legislation would involve repealing the act of 1922, even though that act was about Ireland, not Scotland.

According to Wiki (so it must be true), the relevant Acts of Union are the 1707 acts which created Great Britain by joining England - at the time defined to include Wales - and Scotland.

chris_m

kabayiri wrote: »

He also gave the impression that independence would provide the opportunity to get rid of Nuclear subs on Scottish soil.

I don't think any of them are on Scottish soil, it makes submerging a tad tricky - as discovered by HMS Astute two years ago this coming Monday. Now that was on technically Scottish soil. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Fella

sss555s wrote: »

Wow! You really do think in the SE you are so much worth your double economy.

Ok so Tesco's office is based in the SE but they make their money from stores from all over the UK. Their head office could in reality be anywhere. This doesn't really mean the SE office is paying all the corp tax even if the cheque is sent from there!

We are all UK residents and paying equally to have a well run country. Germany being the dominant economy in Europe is a totally different thing as to the SE thinking they are a separate state of the UK :rotfl:

It has been nothing more than greed and corruption of successive governments that has created this short sighted situation. The house I could have purchased in London 22 years age when I bought my house will be now worth double the value of my current one, the same applies to most outside the SE. That's not serving the UK.

You sound like you'd rather cut loose the rest of England, Wales, Scotland and NI as your working so hard to pay for them. Imagine how rich you'd be without all the dead weight!

Well until you woke up and realised were all paying for the SE mess.

The UK will never be any better under the current model. It has reached it's peak and blown the lot in some ways. Course, the governments will keep this cosy "i'm alright jack" situation whilst taking their chance to fill their pockets in their short careers.

It's supposed to be the UK government.

Wake up!! There is life north of the SE.

So as I asked before. Why is Cameron wanting to keep the Scots on board?

Yawn. I'm talking simple facts. You're talking a mixture of innaccurate nonsense & also trying to turn it into some kind of north versus south thing.

kabayiri

chris_m wrote: »

I don't think any of them are on Scottish soil, it makes submerging a tad tricky - as discovered by HMS Astute two years ago this coming Monday. Now that was on technically Scottish soil. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Indeed it was

Don't worry. When the money runs out to keep them in the water, some of these subs will literally be on Scottish soil, in dry dock!

Loughton_Monkey

Angry_Bear wrote: »

According to Wiki (so it must be true), the relevant Acts of Union are the 1707 acts which created Great Britain by joining England - at the time defined to include Wales - and Scotland.

I wonder if they will keep the name Scotland for ever.

It would be more appropriate to call it "North Britain" and we can be known as "South Britain". Eventually, North Britain will be so poor and get so insular, due to mismanagement by their almighty great leader Kim Jung Salmon.

Much fun will be had on a daily basis when their 20,000 troops hurl verbal abuse and slogans through megaphones at our own 250,000 troops along the border.

chris_m

kabayiri wrote: »

Originally Posted by chris_m
I don't think any of them are on Scottish soil, it makes submerging a tad tricky - as discovered by HMS Astute two years ago this coming Monday. Now that was on technically Scottish soil.

Indeed it was

And a particularly nice piece of Scottish soil too - I was up there myself only last week.

Had to chuckle to myself at another news story last week too. They had to suspend work on the next Astute-class subs to be launched - because the assembly facility was flooded, a bit ironic considering they are supposed to go underwater :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

zagubov

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I wonder if they will keep the name Scotland for ever.

It would be more appropriate to call it "North Britain" and we can be known as "South Britain". Eventually, North Britain will be so poor and get so insular, due to mismanagement by their almighty great leader Kim Jung Salmon.

Much fun will be had on a daily basis when their 20,000 troops hurl verbal abuse and slogans through megaphones at our own 250,000 troops along the border.

Ah, got me thinking instead of North Yemen and the larger poor one-party South Yemen the poorest country in the Old World, as was.

Shakethedisease

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

All this talk is empty rhetoric - there is no way that Scotland will vote for independence. It is simply not possible. It cannot happen and it will not happen.

I guess that depends on how well the Tories seem to be doing in 2014..

A majority of Scots would vote for independence if they thought the Conservatives would win the 2015 general election, a new poll has shown.

The results, from the Panelbase survey published by the Sunday Times, show the threat of a Tory-led government turns a 37 per cent minority for independence into a 52 per cent majority....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d088070e-1ac5-11e2-b480-00144feabdc0.html#axzz29wIZ1FNc