Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

Loughton_Monkey

kabayiri wrote: »

How can Cameron adopt a pro Union stance without canvassing the populace of England; Wales and NI ?

I think he's keeping this up his sleeve.

On the offchance they don't vote for independence, we'll have a referendum here to kick them out anyway.

I assume Balmoral will go on the market soon. Hope that nice little Roly Poly Mr Salmon can afford the deposit on it.

paddyrg

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I'm not surprised. In 150 years, it will be India sending food-aid to the UK. All our kids will be studying Urdu at university and working in call centres for Tata, Hero, Hindalco, Sun Pharmaceuticals....

I know this is tongue in cheek, but there is a lot of truth to this. Push come to shove, do you want over a billion people on your side, or against you?

Andy_L

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

2. It would ensure that the elections for the remainder of the UK would always vote in a Conservative government.

If you look at the result of the last Labour wins they would have had a majority ignoring Scotland. A lower majority which might have made life entertaining with stroppy backbenchers having more influence, but Blair/Brown would have still been PM

Generali

Andy_L wrote: »

If you look at the result of the last Labour wins they would have had a majority ignoring Scotland. A lower majority which might have made life entertaining with stroppy backbenchers having more influence, but Blair/Brown would have still been PM

Right enough but would the have been a major party still, not having won an election since Atlee?

N1AK

The biggest issue with Scottish independence, should it be voted for, is the devils in the detail. Scotland will argue for complete ownership of North Sea reserves, to take as little national debt as possible and keep the pound. It is in what is left of the UK's interest to hold on to at least some share of the reserves (that we have helped protect and develop), to pass over a share of debt proportional to population and remove them from sterling.

How will the settlement be decided? The reserves alone are worth a staggering amount of money. Losing it all will be brutal to the UK economy but likely better than what would happen to Scotland if they don't get the majority of it.

Think about the Scottish civil service workers and the massive pension liability. How would Scotland handle it if UK public sector work is moved South of the border but pension liabilities for the workers let go were shared with Scotland. That's a huge drop in employment, income and increase in expense rolled up together.

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

How will the settlement be decided?

Might is right is generally the way, a bit like when a lorry is joining the motorway.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Might is right is generally the way, a bit like when a lorry is joining the motorway.

I'm not so sure that a settlement based on force is viable. Salmond has shown himself to be very adept at positioning himself as the 'reasonable' party in negotiations, even when he objectively isn't. If Scotland votes for independence I expect to see them very carefully managing how the negotiations are seen outside of the UK.

If it looks like the rest of the UK is trying to unfairly punish Scotland for democratically choosing to leave the Union I can see both the US and EU putting considerable pressure on us to the point where acquiescing to a more favourable solution, from Scotlands perspective, is reached.

The UK has a lot more to lose by not having insisted that the terms of separation are agreed prior to the vote.

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

I'm not so sure that a settlement based on force is viable. Salmond has shown himself to be very adept at positioning himself as the 'reasonable' party in negotiations, even when he objectively isn't. If Scotland votes for independence I expect to see them very carefully managing how the negotiations are seen outside of the UK.

If it looks like the rest of the UK is trying to unfairly punish Scotland for democratically choosing to leave the Union I can see both the US and EU putting considerable pressure on us to the point where acquiescing to a more favourable solution, from Scotlands perspective, is reached.

The UK has a lot more to lose by not having insisted that the terms of separation are agreed prior to the vote.

What's fair?

An Israeli gets 10x more water than a Palestinian on average (according to a mate of mine, no idea if that's right).
The average GDP/head in Europe is way more than in Africa.

I see no mandate for shipping water to Palestine or cash to Africa so why would the English, Welsh and (some of the) Irish be nice to Scottish people that wanted to live in a separate country? My attitude would be, 'fine, do your thing but don't expect the tiniest thing from me. I will take all that I can and then some'.

I would expect my Government to do the same thing on my behalf.

FTBFun

Anyone remember this thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3723317

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

What's fair?

My attitude would be, 'fine, do your thing but don't expect the tiniest thing from me. I will take all that I can and then some'.

I would expect my Government to do the same thing on my behalf.

And you're entitled to whatever attitude you like but that doesn't make it a viable strategy for the government to implement. Generally being 'unreasonable' works until a breaking point. Often you can end up with a better end result by negotiating for it. Once Scotland has voted for independence it would be very difficult for the UK to try and keep complete control of the oil reserves (I'd go as far as to say effectively impossible).

We'd be better off agreeing the settlement prior to the vote. Failing that we need to ensure that our position is equitable enough that Scotland can't use it to gain international support for their own position. As novel as the idea of gunboat diplomacy is it simply won't work.