Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

GeorgeHowell

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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




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

No doubt this is because they anticipate that a Labour government would return to its client state policy and continue to subsidise Scotland with English money in the attempt to buy its votes.

Shakethedisease

I guess it doesn't matter why...just what it would mean voting wise.

The survey, undertaken by polling company Panelbase also shows that if the Tories win the 2015 general election the yes vote dramatically overtakes (52 percent) no votes (40 percent), into a commanding lead of 12 percent.
No votes retain a lead of just 4 percent if Labour succeed in the general election showing that either outcome will be good news for the pro-independence parties.
Published in today's Sunday Times the poll will be disturbing for the BetterTogether campaign as the momentum swings away from the anti-independence parties.

It's an interesting poll, and a little different from the usual 'do you support independence yes/no' polls that seem to come out weekly either with the Unionists trumpeting a slide or the SNP trumpeting a rise.

Rather independence than Tories once again at the helm..less so re Labour regaining power. Almost exactly reflects any conversations and opinions I've had/heard regarding this recently. I've said this before, ( in the other epic thread ), but it's the Tories and how they look like doing in the next General Election which will be the single most important factor in swinging votes from No to Yes in 2014. This poll indicates a very large and potential majority 'yes' swing..

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

What a complete waste of time and money.

Still, at least this will put the issue to rest once and for all. Have the referendum, and when it fails, let's all move on to more important things.

zagubov

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What a complete waste of time and money.

Still, at least this will put the issue to rest once and for all. Have the referendum, and when it fails, let's all move on to more important things.

Well they do say there's only three types of people in the world.
1) Scots and
2) people that wish they were Scots.:beer:

headcone

zagubov wrote: »

Well they do say there's only three types of people in the world.
1) Scots and
2) people that wish they were Scots.:beer:

You forgot about the Scots who wished they were Irish.

zagubov

headcone wrote: »

You forgot about the Scots who wished they were Irish.

Nah, they're still just Scots!:beer:

headcone

Even those Dressed in a Tricolor?

Loughton_Monkey

I have always thought that the Sturgeon woman was a couple of notches behind on the evolutionary spectrum. I have always felt that she's "not too tighly wrapped."

But I stumbled across some figures she spouted that don't add up:

Scotland's deputy first minister has announced a £33m welfare fund to help the country's most vulnerable people.

Nicola Sturgeon told the SNP conference the scheme would include crisis payments for those who could not afford to feed their children.
Ms Sturgeon also said £45m would be spent on building 1,200 new houses and protecting 800 jobs.

And she accused Labour and the Tories of writing Scots off as "subsidy junkies".

Ahead of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, Ms Sturgeon also argued for people to vote "yes".

Ms Sturgeon told delegates in Perth that the £24m Social Fund, due to pass from Westminster to Holyrood next April, would be topped up with £9m to help an extra 100,000 people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20017882

Leaving aside the fact that she's quite clearly proving Scotland to be "subsidy junkies" while in the same breath trying to say they're not, how does she think she can build any house for £37,500, let alone 1,200 of them!

Similarly, the extra £9m into the 'social fund' claims to help an extrra 100,000 people. So £90 per person actually 'helps' does it?

If Scottish people feel 'uncomfortable' in life generally, then I think they should look first at the ignorant leaders they voted in to run their country rather than any dependence upon UK as their main cause.

Little roly-poly Salmon is bad enough, but surely this woman should be stuffed and shoved behind a glass case in some museum.

IveSeenTheLight

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

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.

Subsidising........ that's debatable.
There are those that argue we put in more than we get out, despite if we maybe get more than other areas of the UK.

Still your point begs the question, would the poeple of Scotland vote No if they think that they would then be worse of under a UK government

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Subsidising........ that's debatable.
There are those that argue we put in more than we get out, despite if we maybe get more than other areas of the UK.

Still your point begs the question, would the poeple of Scotland vote No if they think that they would then be worse of under a UK government

the idea that either (i) english people will be better off as they won't have to subsidise the scots and (ii) scottish people will be better off because they will get to keep all the oil revenue are both total bollox.

even if the figures are technically true for either claim, what will actually happen is a bunch of politicians will come along and waste all the money on nonsense, and normal people will carry on paying the same amount of tax and receiving the same levels of public services in return - i.e. they will see no perceptable change in their life whatsoever, apart from a fat man in a suit on tv going on a lot about how much better everything is now.