Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

Gracchus_Babeuf

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I would have thought Cameron would be firmly behind the Salmon guy in promoting full independence for Scotland.

1. He would go down in history as the last PM of the UK as we know it now.

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

3. It would plug the financial gap [drain] that we are told exists in the revenue stream north of the border.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638

I suspect allowing all the 16/17 year olds in will swing the vote in favour of independence - not least so they don't have to pay university fees [until, of course, Scotland works out it can't afford it].

I think, however, Cameron has made one big mistake in not insisting on a seperate currency. Surely, Scotland has the potential to be to the £ what Greece is to the €.

Cameron has to voice public opposition to Scottish independence, but privately he must be keen on the idea. After all, he is the PM of the UK, and constitutionally reports to the Queen, so he can hardly advocate the break-up of the nation and retain any credibility, can he?

Anyway, this is all very academic as opinion polls consistently show a majority against independence in Scotland. Personally, I don't believe it will happen.

Gracchus_Babeuf

One interesting issue that hasn't been mentioned is what happens to Berwick-upon-Tweed in the case of Scottish independence? The local team plays in the Scottish league and the town itself appears to be quite evenly split in its loyalties. Maybe a case for a plebiscite?

Loughton_Monkey

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

One interesting issue that hasn't been mentioned is what happens to Berwick-upon-Tweed in the case of Scottish independence? The local team plays in the Scottish league and the town itself appears to be quite evenly split in its loyalties. Maybe a case for a plebiscite?

OK, OK, we're not all deeply in love with the Scots, but let's not start calling them plebs. At least not until they're independent.

As for Berwick-upon-Tweed, then geographically they are English whether they like it or not. You cannot control your country of birth. It's up to any of them - if they wish - to hand back their current passport, put on their kilts, and go and ask that nice Mr Salmon to give them a new Scottish Passport if he is so inclined.

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I would have thought Cameron would be firmly behind the Salmon guy in promoting full independence for Scotland.

The trouble with the scottish independance thing is that it seemingly only want's half independance. It doesn't want to be independant on several aspects that it does not wish to run. For instance, it still want's to use the BOE. It still wants to use many public services. It would also want to peg it's currency to our, and keep it's links to us, so that if the doodah hit's the fan, we have no choice but to rescue it.

Couple of examples....Scotland would still want to use what would be deemed as "Our" (for anyone living outside of Scotland) border controls....army etc etc.

That's a huge risk for the rest of us, for little, or no gain.

richbeth

Generali wrote: »

It's because Cameron, along with most Tories, is a Unionist

Whether he personally is a Unionist or not I' think you got it pretty close. The reason he's for the Union is that a large number of the Tory party are and he needs to be seen to support it. The next election could be very close and he'll need every vote he can get.

In private he may well be hoping for independence as it would make political life a lot easier for the next Tory leader.
RB

pop_gun

England send 1 million barrels of north sea oil to america a day. No doubt to preserve our 'special' relationship. All scotland has to do is triple the amount and sell the remain barrels in dollars. That would satisfy the conditions for U.S. military protection.

All the talk of taking the reserves by force, wilt under these conditions.

I hate the blatant hyprocrisy and condescending tone of my fellow countrymen when this topic is raised.

Loughton_Monkey

pop_gun wrote: »

....All scotland has to do is triple the amount and sell the remain barrels in dollars. That would satisfy the conditions for U.S. military protection.....

And where do you get the idea that Scotland will have any oil?

As anyone knows, the 'licence' for that huge segment of the North Sea is 100% in the gift of the United Kingdom - a body which the Scots are likely to leave.

That portion of oil landed in Aberdeen will, I am sure, earn 'reasonable' revenues for Aberdeen, but if they overcharge, then we can land it at Berwick just the same.

Does Scotland have any companies with the same knowledge and technology as, say BP, to drill for and secure any oil that may reside in any area for which Scotland may be invited to tender for their own licence to drill?

I think Roly-Poly Alec Salmon better stick to Salmon farming and deer poaching, plus selling a bit of tartan or tweed to the Americans. Best to stick to what you know....

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

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

Could you remind me of any single instance since WW2 that sending the troops in anywhere instead of politicians has ever achieved any long-term goal whatsoever?:)

Loughton_Monkey

zagubov wrote: »

Could you remind me of any single instance since WW2 that sending the troops in anywhere instead of politicians has ever achieved any long-term goal whatsoever?:)

Falklands.

ruggedtoast

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.

There is no precedent for the scenario you are describing.

Scotland is likely to find out the hard way quite how little the US or the EU will care about it's secession arrangements, let alone the rest of the world. 2 minutes watching CNN should disabuse you of any notion that the UN has any interest in countries being unfair to one another.

The vast majority of the planet will neither know nor care that the UK no longer includes the bit at the top, although suddenly all these aide de camps are going to be getting messages asking to put an extra seat out in global summits for Scottish politicians they have never heard of.

Scotland won't even be in the EU, and in any case no countries are going to go toe to toe with England in it's own back yard unless there is something significantly lucrative in it for them.

So now we have a scenario where an "independent" Scotland has the queen as head of state, the pound as a currency, the BBC as its main tv channel, an open border with England so they can come and go as they please, and half their oil revenues going to pay off Russia to stand up for them in summits.

Its a cold harsh world out there if you are small. Scotland has been cosseted for 300 years by being part of the UK, stewing in bitterness and resentment, a cold hard dose of reality may very well do them some good.