Lefty unionist posters appear to be critical of Cameron's speech but light on what he (or Ed ) should have said...
I think a lot of people have been consistent in saying he should probably keep schtum.
Why? He's the PM FFS. As SO said, if the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can't say what he wants on a political issue of this importance, then we should be at the stage where it might be better to let the Scots go their own way.
Because I think saying nothing is the best thing he can do for his side.
Then the Union is finished. Cameron's problem seems to be that he is a Tory and has an English accent. If this makes anything he says about Scotland a disaster for the No side, the whole referendum debate is one that is based on prejudice and nothing more.
Are Scots voters really so parochial that they dismiss anything an English Tory might say or instinctively distrust it so much that they migrate to the alternative view? The Scots I know are not like that, but maybe they are a minority.
Forget the posh Etonian stuff, that's just cyberworld & tabloid argy bargy. Cameron's leading a coalition of parties that came third and fourth in Scotland at the last GE, that's pursuing policies that go down like a lead balloon in Scotland, and he's tiptoeing round a party (UKIP) that has absolutely no traction in Scotland. Do you really think in these circumstances William Hague, David Davis or Michael Howard would be making their case more successfully up here?
I would think David Cameron making a speech on Scottish Independence goes down as well with pro Indy's as Barosso making a speech about Britain staying in the EU would with UKIP supporters.
I would also imagine pro Independence Scots would consider giving England a say in it akin to the whole of the EU being able to vote in our In/Out Referendum, should it happen.
Personally have no opinion on it, if I were a jock Id probably want out. I don't know anyone English who cares, and have never asked my one Scottish mate what he thinks. He is a lefty atheist that supports Celtic, so does that mean Pro Indy?!
I trust everyone has enjoyed Google's sly dig today at Russia?
Did you watch This Week last night?
John Amaechi made a video about Russia's attitude,e and what he thought the atheletes should do in response, that Portillo called "one of the best films we have ever had on the programme"
I watch very little TV so I didn't catch this, unfortunately. I shall try to track it down.
As long as the data includes gender, date of birth and post code they might just as well include the full name, address and national insurance number. Data aggregation techniques will enable any competent agency or company to match the health records to individuals in probably 90% of cases.
Quite. I was broadly in favour of the idea until I heard the level of detail that was proposed, which is unacceptable. Surely supplying simply a year of birth and the initial part of the postcode (e.g. NW1) ought to be sufficient for research purposes.
Lefty unionist posters appear to be critical of Cameron's speech but light on what he (or Ed ) should have said...
I think a lot of people have been consistent in saying he should probably keep schtum.
Why? He's the PM FFS. As SO said, if the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can't say what he wants on a political issue of this importance, then we should be at the stage where it might be better to let the Scots go their own way.
Because I think saying nothing is the best thing he can do for his side.
This isn't a football game (as much as it seems sometime). What he said was of value, and no doubt plenty will disagree with it.
It seems winning the 'game' has become more important than making the right decision, whichever way that decision goes.
Thanks for that, I've just lost the bloody game now.
Ed Miliband isn't leading a party that came third or fourth in Scotland UD, but do you really think he would have said anything different if he had made the speech?
I've heard the highland clearances called 'pogroms' by one high profile SNP supporter.
Nasty repression after 1745?
Is that it ?!?!
1. You mean the poll tax that eventually all the UK faced ? 2. Much of the clearances were undertaken by Scottish landlords and Scottish peers. 3. A civil war is by its very nature extremely unpleasant but by 1760 the Hanovarian settlement was complete and accepted.
The fact is Scotland has flourished since the Union. The Scottish Enlightenment, Scottish Industrial strength in the 19th and early 20th century and Scottish culture have been at the forefront of much of what has been great about the UK and our wider influence in the world.
So I say thank you to the Union. Long may it and Scotland prosper within it .... and we will because Scots will vote No in the referendum.
A turnover tax is not completely bonkers, but may need careful design, and abolition of corporation tax. It is potentially a way of getting companies like Starbucks and Amazon to pay to this country, in the way that WHSmiths and Costa coffee (Whitbread) do. Some careful thought could tap a source of income and level the playing field so as not to keep company profits off shore.
I am with you on this, Dr. Sox. If we call it an income tax for companies it becomes a lot easier to understand. Companies are a legal construction enabling things other than individuals to enter into contracts etc.. They are in effect legal people. Now when you and I get assessed for income tax we are not allowed to pay only on the profits and not the expenses (save in limited situations). For example HurstLlama is not allowed to deduct the cost of his food, accommodation, travelling to the office, clothing, heating, investment in his son's education and all those other things that involve being a trading member of the UK but a company can.
Furthermore a company can do its business in the UK, using all the advantages that that brings (access to the rule of law, property rights) and infrastructure that enable the business to carry on (e.g. Amazon without motorways wouldn't work) and yet register its office somewhere else for tax purposes and enjoy the benefits by pay bugger all towards them.
A company income tax would be simple to calculate, easy to collect, hard to evade and would affect everyone who does business here equally. Much better and fairer than the current corporation tax rules, which few understand and those that do make a living advising others how to evade them.
If memory serves until 1964 companies paid an income tax, then the government of the day introduced an additional tax on profits. The two eventually got morphed together into corporation tax. I would argue that the world has changed since the sixties and our tax regime for companies needs to change too.
Livingstone's turnover tax is not totally barking. He has the seed of a very good idea.
Mr. Taffys, the Poll Tax was hardly industrial slaughter.
OK Maybe not an apology, but I still think the sometimes sad history of relations between the two countries could have been touched on in some way.
To be fair - if anyone is going start apologising, the former colonies of the British Empire (in which the Scots played an enthusiastic part) should be top of the list - but I'm not one for apologising for things done decades before my grand parents were born.....
Anthony Wells says that using Populus’s old weightings today’s figures would have been [change to actual] Con 32 [-1], Lab 37 [+1], Lib Dem 11 [+2], UKIP 12 [-3]
Cameron's problem seems to be that he is a Tory and has an English accent.
Did you read the transcript CarlottaVance posted? Read it in a George Galloway voice if you like. It'll still sound like he's trying to lose on purpose.
It reads to me like an entirely legitimate explanation from a senior Conservative and Unionist politician as to why he is a passionate supporter of the Union. I don't agree with all of it, of course; but there's a lot in there that I do agree with - solidarity, collaboration etc. If people were arguing against the substance, I would not have a problem. But they are not. The issue seems to be the fact that Cameron is an English Tory and de facto despicable, and that because of this Scots will automatically veer towards the point of view that is opposite to his own.
Mr. Taffys, bah. That'd be as daft as me expecting an apology for the last Scottish invasion. The past should be learnt about, and learnt from, but clinging desperately to ancient grievances and expecting pity and compensation thereof is bloody daft.
A turnover tax is not completely bonkers, but may need careful design, and abolition of corporation tax. It is potentially a way of getting companies like Starbucks and Amazon to pay to this country, in the way that WHSmiths and Costa coffee (Whitbread) do. Some careful thought could tap a source of income and level the playing field so as not to keep company profits off shore.
I am with you on this, Dr. Sox. If we call it an income tax for companies it becomes a lot easier to understand. Companies are a legal construction enabling things other than individuals to enter into contracts etc.. They are in effect legal people. Now when you and I get assessed for income tax we are not allowed to pay only on the profits and not the expenses (save in limited situations). For example HurstLlama is not allowed to deduct the cost of his food, accommodation, travelling to the office, clothing, heating, investment in his son's education and all those other things that involve being a trading member of the UK but a company can.
Furthermore a company can do its business in the UK, using all the advantages that that brings (access to the rule of law, property rights) and infrastructure that enable the business to carry on (e.g. Amazon without motorways wouldn't work) and yet register its office somewhere else for tax purposes and enjoy the benefits by pay bugger all towards them.
A company income tax would be simple to calculate, easy to collect, hard to evade and would affect everyone who does business here equally. Much better and fairer than the current corporation tax rules, which few understand and those that do make a living advising others how to evade them.
If memory serves until 1964 companies paid an income tax, then the government of the day introduced an additional tax on profits. The two eventually got morphed together into corporation tax. I would argue that the world has changed since the sixties and our tax regime for companies needs to change too.
Livingstone's turnover tax is not totally barking. He has the seed of a very good idea.
It'd cripple low margin, high volume outfits. How on earth would it be framed ? I forsee alot of contra entries into the daybooks if this comes about...
Cameron appealing for English people who want Scotland to stay to call up people in Scotland and tell them.
This is where we find out Salmond is five moves ahead of him. He's going to appeal for English people who want Scotland to leave to call them up and tell them that instead. Preparing for this moment has been the goal of the SNP's grassroots internet strategy all along.
I wouldnt say that - 'no' has a pretty healthy lead right now.
Well, let's hope that continues as it would imply that the Scots are not as prejudiced as some on the Yes side believe that they may be.
I really wouldn't call it prejudice.
The desire for self determination, rather than being ruled by a bunch of Southern English Tories governing for Southern English Tories, seems perfectly rational to me.
I am all for self-determination and, as I have said on here before a few times, if I were living in Scotland I would struggle not to vote yes; but not because the PM was a Tory and had an English accent.
And the highland clearances were mostly by Scottish Lairds, often former Clan leaders in the highlands. That at least is how my Scottish Ross ancestors left for better prospects elsewhere, initially in Edinburgh, then further afield. In 1745 many Scots sided with the Hanoverians, or remained neutral.
This is a referendum of the heart, values and emotions. Logic and sense will have little part to play on either side, much as the EU debate is framed.
Also, I suspect Brummies would be happy to have the parliament, but the East Midlands would be better. Chesterfield would be a good spot.
Mr. Taffys, the Poll Tax was hardly industrial slaughter.
As for the highland clearances, I wonder if I should be nursing a grievance about the Harrying of the North...
I think not. If others want to cling to grudges through the centuries that's up to them, but I think it's petty foolishness. It's that kind of past grievance which have made Ireland and the Middle East rather bloodier than they needed to be. Meanwhile, Britain and Germany, whilst remembering the Second World War, have managed not to cling to angry memories so much despite the greater scale and recency of the war in question.
Mr. Observer, I agree with you entirely. If an English PM making a speech is so offensive to the Scots it helps Yes, then the union is over.
Mr. Taffys, I suspect you're right about that. The SNP's policy of exacerbating tensions and pissing off the English so that independence is more popular south than north of the border has worked well at fraying the fabric of the union. I suspect it won't help promote bilateral trade after separation (if it occurs), however.
Cameron appealing for English people who want Scotland to stay to call up people in Scotland and tell them.
This is where we find out Salmond is five moves ahead of him. He's going to appeal for English people who want Scotland to leave to call them up and tell them that instead. Preparing for this moment has been the goal of the SNP's grassroots internet strategy all along.
Let them have it. But Independence means cutting *all* ties.
Anthony Wells says that using Populus’s old weightings today’s figures would have been [change to actual] Con 32 [-1], Lab 37 [+1], Lib Dem 11 [+2], UKIP 12 [-3]
I would not argue much with that , I would have had Lab at 38 and UKIP at 11, the difference with Anthony coming about by rounding UKIP down 3.5 to 11 or 12 and Labour similarly plus 1.5 to 37 or 38 .
I am all for self-determination and, as I have said on here before a few times, if I were living in Scotland I would struggle not to vote yes; but not because the PM was a Tory and had an English accent.
But avoiding being governed by Tories from London is a significant argument for some people who will be voting.
Ed Miliband isn't leading a party that came third or fourth in Scotland UD, but do you really think he would have said anything different if he had made the speech?
I dare say there would be similarities with a lot more spirit of '45 and NHS stuff, but I'd hope additionally Miliband would have the confidence to put his views up to be challenged i.e. in a debate.
In case anyone believes the 'prejudice' is only on one side, feel free to peruse some of the comments (1700 & rising) on the BBC site's report of Cameron's speech.
Cameron appealing for English people who want Scotland to stay to call up people in Scotland and tell them.
This is where we find out Salmond is five moves ahead of him. He's going to appeal for English people who want Scotland to leave to call them up and tell them that instead. Preparing for this moment has been the goal of the SNP's grassroots internet strategy all along.
Let them have it. But Independence means cutting *all* ties.
I wouldnt say that - 'no' has a pretty healthy lead right now.
Well, let's hope that continues as it would imply that the Scots are not as prejudiced as some on the Yes side believe that they may be.
I really wouldn't call it prejudice.
The desire for self determination, rather than being ruled by a bunch of Southern English Tories governing for Southern English Tories, seems perfectly rational to me.
You haven't really got the hang of this democracy thing have you ? The Southern Tories as you like to call them were "ruled" by Scots and Northern Labourites for 13 years and took it on the chin. The "Southern Tories" still don't rule as they're in coalition. Your argument seems to be a government is only valid if you agree with it.
“I can absolutely guarantee that neither myself nor Mr Salmond will politicise the Commonwealth Games in the way that David Cameron is politicising the Olympics. “Now let me be very clear I had no objection at all to David Cameron supporting Team GB and draping himself in the union cack at the Olympics. “I will be supporting team Scotland in the Commonwealth Game, that is very, very different to using a speech in the Olympic Park to try to politicise sport.”
Yet, as usual, the SNP are being breathtakingly hypocritical. Their Deputy Leader has been out this morning saying that “to politicise any sporting occasion is shameful”.....this sentiment completely flies in the face of how the SNP behaved during the 2012 Olympics. Remember Alex Salmond calling for people to cheer on “Scolympians” rather than Team GB? Remember the £400,000 spent on a pseudo-Scottish Embassy? Attacking Cameron for politicising a uniquely unifying British moment is cheap – but it’s also barefaced cheek from the Scottish Nats.
I am all for self-determination and, as I have said on here before a few times, if I were living in Scotland I would struggle not to vote yes; but not because the PM was a Tory and had an English accent.
But avoiding being governed by Tories from London is a significant argument for some people who will be voting.
So are you saying the Tories should move to Manchester and all would be ok ?
Given the EPP is the majority party in the EU is it ok to be governed by Tories from Brussels ?
Mr. Me, the English Parliament could be located elsewhere (probably Birmingham, which would be nobody's first choice but a reasonable compromise).
If we are to have an English Parliament then there are only two possible locations, Winchester and York. Of the two I would favour Winchester as being the historically accurate spot. However, it is rather a nice city of which I am quite fond and I would hate to inflict on it all the MEngPs and their ghastly placemen and hangers on.
Dr. Sox's idea of the East-Midlands fails I think on two counts, historical significance and the place is a dump.
Mr. Divvie, that's a flawed comparison. If you want to respond to my views on Scotland, England, the UK and why Hannibal is so obviously superior to Caesar I'm happy to engage with you. If you want to invite me to a formal debate in a public forum I shall decline.
I wouldnt say that - 'no' has a pretty healthy lead right now.
Well, let's hope that continues as it would imply that the Scots are not as prejudiced as some on the Yes side believe that they may be.
I really wouldn't call it prejudice.
The desire for self determination, rather than being ruled by a bunch of Southern English Tories governing for Southern English Tories, seems perfectly rational to me.
You haven't really got the hang of this democracy thing have you ? The Southern Tories as you like to call them were "ruled" by Scots and Northern Labourites for 13 years and took it on the chin. The "Southern Tories" still don't rule as they're in coalition. Your argument seems to be a government is only valid if you agree with it.
English Tories' willingness to be ruled by Scottish Labour doesnt in any way require Scottish people to accept rule by English Tories. Democracy means both get a choice.
Cameron appealing for English people who want Scotland to stay to call up people in Scotland and tell them.
This is where we find out Salmond is five moves ahead of him. He's going to appeal for English people who want Scotland to leave to call them up and tell them that instead. Preparing for this moment has been the goal of the SNP's grassroots internet strategy all along.
Let them have it. But Independence means cutting *all* ties.
No shared use of Sterling.
Salmond will give you a list of numbers to call.
Why would I wish to call the 'Taj Mahal' in Kircaldy, or 'Chili Nights' in Elgin?
There will be a lot of focus on the impact that David Cameron's speech may have on the Scottish independence debate. I suggest that more attention needs to be given to the impact it may have on David Cameron's personal ratings. It was a big speech and is likely to be noticed by more than just Scottish voters.
Mr. Divvie, that's a flawed comparison. If you want to respond to my views on Scotland, England, the UK and why Hannibal is so obviously superior to Caesar I'm happy to engage with you. If you want to invite me to a formal debate in a public forum I shall decline.
'A debate between an Englishman and a Scotsman on Scottish independence'
I'll expect a little more precision in your sweeping generalisations then.
Mr. Llama, York would be better, but I suspect Birmingham likelier as a compromise between north and south. Lancastrians would also not like to be reminded of the glorious side of the Pennines.
I am all for self-determination and, as I have said on here before a few times, if I were living in Scotland I would struggle not to vote yes; but not because the PM was a Tory and had an English accent.
But avoiding being governed by Tories from London is a significant argument for some people who will be voting.
So are you saying the Tories should move to Manchester and all would be ok ?
Given the EPP is the majority party in the EU is it ok to be governed by Tories from Brussels ?
Alanbrooke - I almost certainly wont have a vote in the referendum so it's not for me to say what concessions from our Tory friends might make a 'no' vote more likely. But if they all want to move to Manchester then they should try it.
I dont think the EPP is the majority party in the EU and the Tories are not in the EPP. But, besides that, if people dont want to be governed from Brussels they should absolutely have a right to vote on that.
Mr. Divvie, there was no sweeping generalisation, only a (perhaps deliberate) lack of comprehension on your part.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), mildly amused about Smith's political status after the female peer (Morgan?) bleated about Labour types being purged. One suspects purging Smith would not prove unpopular.
I wouldnt say that - 'no' has a pretty healthy lead right now.
Well, let's hope that continues as it would imply that the Scots are not as prejudiced as some on the Yes side believe that they may be.
I really wouldn't call it prejudice.
The desire for self determination, rather than being ruled by a bunch of Southern English Tories governing for Southern English Tories, seems perfectly rational to me.
I am all for self-determination and, as I have said on here before a few times, if I were living in Scotland I would struggle not to vote yes; but not because the PM was a Tory and had an English accent.
I doubt any Scot will vote on that basis.
Cameron intervening might remind them of the merits of self-determination Vs Southern English Tory rule though.
Are you implying that having less tory MPs than pandas in scotland was some kind of deliberate democratic choice and not 'prejudice'
I wouldnt say that - 'no' has a pretty healthy lead right now.
Well, let's hope that continues as it would imply that the Scots are not as prejudiced as some on the Yes side believe that they may be.
I really wouldn't call it prejudice.
The desire for self determination, rather than being ruled by a bunch of Southern English Tories governing for Southern English Tories, seems perfectly rational to me.
You haven't really got the hang of this democracy thing have you ? The Southern Tories as you like to call them were "ruled" by Scots and Northern Labourites for 13 years and took it on the chin. The "Southern Tories" still don't rule as they're in coalition. Your argument seems to be a government is only valid if you agree with it.
English Tories' willingness to be ruled by Scottish Labour doesnt in any way require Scottish people to accept rule by English Tories. Democracy means both get a choice.
Actually within the same polity it does, that's what democracy's about. There are loads of southern tories who have bitched solid about the labour Scottish mafia during the Blair years but bar a few trolls they're not suggesting splitting up the country. Democracy means accepting that at some point the other lot will get in and you'll try to get them out at the next election rather than put up borders every time you don't get your own way.
Democracy means accepting that at some point the other lot will get in and you'll try to get them out at the next election rather than put up borders every time you don't get your own way.
No, democracy means doing that if you want to. And declaring independence if you want to do that instead. It's a choice, you see.
Edited extra bit: "Renault were unable to run their turbo at even 50% boost in Jerez, and nor were they able to get the energy-storage system to run at anywhere near full capacity. They are also suffering severe vibrations in the drive-train, which show up in the car but not on the test bed."
That's quite the list of problems. Lack of ERS will essentially entailing winning no races. They need to sort it, but there's plenty of time left yet. No wonder Horner wants double points extending to the last three races.
In case anyone believes the 'prejudice' is only on one side, feel free to peruse some of the comments (1700 & rising) on the BBC site's report of Cameron's speech.
You have a fair point and this kind of goes back to what I said about the sometimes sad history between the two countries.
It would be sad if it took independence for us to like and respect each other a bit more, but that certainly seems to be the way with the Irish republic.
UKIP isn't that popular anywhere in Scotland - well more so than the Lib Dems but that is hardly a measure. The "borders" region is as Scottish Tory Blue as it gets, would have been a good choice for Cameron's speech today.
UKIP isn't that popular anywhere in Scotland - well more so than the Lib Dems but that is hardly a measure. The "borders" region is as Scottish Tory Blue as it gets, would have been a good choice for Cameron's speech today.
To what do the Scots object - the 'Independence' bit in the name? Or the leaving Europe aspect?
UKIP isn't that popular anywhere in Scotland - well more so than the Lib Dems but that is hardly a measure.
I tend to think it's quite a telling measure of just how bad things are for the lib dems in scotland myself. Can it somehow get worse for them everywhere else too? We'll see in May.
Patrick Wintour: "Government has dodged the political bullet on flooding. Culprit is to be townie and former Labour Minister Lord Smith, and his quango."
Democracy means accepting that at some point the other lot will get in and you'll try to get them out at the next election rather than put up borders every time you don't get your own way.
No, democracy means doing that if you want to. And declaring independence if you want to do that instead. It's a choice, you see.
Of course it's a choice and that choice is being offered to Scotland in September, but as things currently look the majority of Scots will say no. So the argument about Southern Tories means accepting the other side get in every so often.
UKIP isn't that popular anywhere in Scotland - well more so than the Lib Dems but that is hardly a measure. The "borders" region is as Scottish Tory Blue as it gets, would have been a good choice for Cameron's speech today.
To what do the Scots object - the 'Independence' bit in the name? Or the leaving Europe aspect?
Scots see them as 'Those other Tories' no doubt, particularly around the central belt where SLAB is strongest. They probably also see the Lib Dems as other Tories, and the central belt of Scotland hates anything it thinks is a Tory.
In case anyone believes the 'prejudice' is only on one side, feel free to peruse some of the comments (1700 & rising) on the BBC site's report of Cameron's speech.
You have a fair point and this kind of goes back to what I said about the sometimes sad history between the two countries.
It would be sad if it took independence for us to like and respect each other a bit more, but that certainly seems to be the way with the Irish republic.
Anglo Irish relations are exceedingly cordial.
Well yes but it took more than 80 years to achieve that. I remember when it was very different. Neither of my parents would ever buy anything from the republic.
I personally think that Cameron has got this about right today. He is not "interfering" but he is making it clear as PM of the UK that he wants to UK to survive and recognises that rUK would be as diminished as Scotland should the latter go independent.
There is a danger for the unionists in the rest of the UK that leaving this question entirely to the Scots can look like indifference. That would be playing into the hands of the yes vote. Unionists need to feel wanted and Cameron has made clear that they are . Admittedly some of the comments on the BBC website are somewhat less effusive.
Mr. Llama, York would be better, but I suspect Birmingham likelier as a compromise between north and south. Lancastrians would also not like to be reminded of the glorious side of the Pennines.
Perhaps we could make it Leeds as a compromise between Birmingham and York. I like Leeds, it has one of the finest curry houses I have ever eaten in, some magnificent Victorian architecture and the Leeds Club is an asset that would sit well with the English Parliament, a spiffing place but in need of some money and tender loving care (the Gents are industrial archaeologists wonder). OK, it might piss off some Lancastrians but what have they got to offer in competition, Manchester?
"That was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Nationalist Party"
Had a read through and seemed quite a good speech to me. Was making a positive case for keeping the union together rather than relying on fear.
Clearly some people won't like it as they don't like Cameron but considering he had to get involved somewhere along the line I don't think it's an unreasonable intervention
"There is a danger for the unionists in the rest of the UK that leaving this question entirely to the Scots can look like indifference."
Danger? No, I don't think so. Truth, more like. If the Scots decide to go off on their own, and I would if I was one of them, who in England would care? I suspect the vast majority of the English would probably, for reasons they would be hard pushed to articulate but sort of to do with sentiment and the thin red line, prefer we stay together. But if a push comes to a shove and its thinking about the Union or what is on TV this evening the Scottish independence issue don't even get a look in.
If, as I hope, there is a Yes vote I wonder if many Scots will not be left with a sense of disappointment, even deflation maybe even fear. The auld enemy is gone and with it the excuses.
Mr. Taffys, bah. That'd be as daft as me expecting an apology for the last Scottish invasion. The past should be learnt about, and learnt from, but clinging desperately to ancient grievances and expecting pity and compensation thereof is bloody daft.
Ed Miliband isn't leading a party that came third or fourth in Scotland UD, but do you really think he would have said anything different if he had made the speech?
I dare say there would be similarities with a lot more spirit of '45 and NHS stuff, but I'd hope additionally Miliband would have the confidence to put his views up to be challenged i.e. in a debate.
In case anyone believes the 'prejudice' is only on one side, feel free to peruse some of the comments (1700 & rising) on the BBC site's report of Cameron's speech.
For a nationalist party the SNP is breathtakingly modern - no mention of Bannockburn . Quite right too. History is too complicated to celebrate, and Mr Morris Dancer has it right. So I will be interested to see how 1914 celebrations go.
Which reminds me - I was slightly surprised nobody commented on Mr Cameron's emphasis on the Olympics, as this potentially - I say potentially - conveys mixed messages. They (incl much of the infrastructure) were largely, IIRC, funded out of extra-Barnett allocations: in other words, the Scots, Welsh and NI folk had to pay for it just as much as anyone in London, any local taxes excepted, especially with a very large chunk taken out of lottery funds allocated to their areas (certainly the case in Scotland). But the Commonwealth Games (booked by Labour for their heartland and not by the SNP) are 100% funded out of the Scottish budget.
The Olympics do not seem to have paid off in any immediate financial sense given their depressive impact on wider overseas tourism which the Olympics seemingly had (without allowing for weather, of course). The use of flags other than the Union Flag (and the South Korean sponsor!) was specifically excluded, and that was almost 100% enforced, with the result that, in the Scottish context at least, the organisers of the Olympic torch relay missed out on a more considered approach which would have ensured the normal festive appearance of a jolly mix of Union Flags, Lions Rampant and Saltires that one gets e.g. when royalty visits. I've often wondered about the impact of the OLympics in terms of the referendum - and which way it went. Probably not much difference now given the way the media covered it.
Ed Miliband isn't leading a party that came third or fourth in Scotland UD, but do you really think he would have said anything different if he had made the speech?
I dare say there would be similarities with a lot more spirit of '45 and NHS stuff, but I'd hope additionally Miliband would have the confidence to put his views up to be challenged i.e. in a debate.
For a nationalist party the SNP is breathtakingly modern - no mention of Bannockburn . Quite right too. History is too complicated to celebrate, and Mr Morris Dancer has it right. So I will be interested to see how 1914 celebrations go.
Which reminds me - I was slightly surprised nobody commented on Mr Cameron's emphasis on the Olympics, as this potentially - I say potentially - conveys mixed messages. They (incl much of the infrastructure) were largely, IIRC, funded out of extra-Barnett allocations: in other words, the Scots, Welsh and NI folk had to pay for it just as much as anyone in London, any local taxes excepted, especially with a very large chunk taken out of lottery funds allocated to their areas (certainly the case in Scotland). But the Commonwealth Games (booked by Labour for their heartland and not by the SNP) are 100% funded out of the Scottish budget.
The Olympics do not seem to have paid off in any immediate financial sense given their depressive impact on wider overseas tourism which the Olympics seemingly had (without allowing for weather, of course). The use of flags other than the Union Flag (and the South Korean sponsor!) was specifically excluded, and that was almost 100% enforced, with the result that, in the Scottish context at least, the organisers of the Olympic torch relay missed out on a more considered approach which would have ensured the normal festive appearance of a jolly mix of Union Flags, Lions Rampant and Saltires that one gets e.g. when royalty visits. I've often wondered about the impact of the OLympics in terms of the referendum - and which way it went. Probably not much difference now given the way the media covered it.
"So I will be interested to see how 1914 celebrations go."
I thought 1914 was commemorations, I can think of bugger all to celebrate.
Thanks Carlotta I read the PM's speech with interest.
It had everything in it apart from one thing. An apology.
Scotland has, down the centuries, been intermittently f8cked over by England. The genuine venom we get from the SNP posters on here shows that there is a real, visceral hatred for a certain type of Englishman which I can only imagine is borne of historical grievances.
Cameron could have mentioned this unfortunate and sad history of the two countries, and England's culpability in causing some of the misery.
An apology for what exactly ?
Perhaps you like to enlighten this Scot of a certain vintage how we have been "f8cked over by England" down the centuries ?
Jack, He was not including rich Tory/ Lib Dumb Toffs, who spend most of their time in London when not shooting.
I've heard the highland clearances called 'pogroms' by one high profile SNP supporter.
Nasty repression after 1745?
Is that it ?!?!
1. You mean the poll tax that eventually all the UK faced ? 2. Much of the clearances were undertaken by Scottish landlords and Scottish peers. 3. A civil war is by its very nature extremely unpleasant but by 1760 the Hanovarian settlement was complete and accepted.
The fact is Scotland has flourished since the Union. The Scottish Enlightenment, Scottish Industrial strength in the 19th and early 20th century and Scottish culture have been at the forefront of much of what has been great about the UK and our wider influence in the world.
So I say thank you to the Union. Long may it and Scotland prosper within it .... and we will because Scots will vote No in the referendum.
Proves how much you travel in Scotland. Not everyones experience is limited to Gleneagles Hotel , Caledonian Hotel , etc
but clinging desperately to ancient grievances and expecting pity and compensation thereof is bloody daft.
Fair enough, but isn;t this what drives the SNP forward? Isn't that its whole motor?
That Scotland is getting a raw deal from the union and always has?
The whole point is that we want to make the decisions that are best for Scotland in Scotland , not have to suffer what is best for Tories in London and south East England.
Cameron appealing for English people who want Scotland to stay to call up people in Scotland and tell them.
This is where we find out Salmond is five moves ahead of him. He's going to appeal for English people who want Scotland to leave to call them up and tell them that instead. Preparing for this moment has been the goal of the SNP's grassroots internet strategy all along.
Let them have it. But Independence means cutting *all* ties.
I wouldnt say that - 'no' has a pretty healthy lead right now.
Well, let's hope that continues as it would imply that the Scots are not as prejudiced as some on the Yes side believe that they may be.
I really wouldn't call it prejudice.
The desire for self determination, rather than being ruled by a bunch of Southern English Tories governing for Southern English Tories, seems perfectly rational to me.
You haven't really got the hang of this democracy thing have you ? The Southern Tories as you like to call them were "ruled" by Scots and Northern Labourites for 13 years and took it on the chin. The "Southern Tories" still don't rule as they're in coalition. Your argument seems to be a government is only valid if you agree with it.
English Tories' willingness to be ruled by Scottish Labour doesnt in any way require Scottish people to accept rule by English Tories. Democracy means both get a choice.
Actually within the same polity it does, that's what democracy's about. There are loads of southern tories who have bitched solid about the labour Scottish mafia during the Blair years but bar a few trolls they're not suggesting splitting up the country. Democracy means accepting that at some point the other lot will get in and you'll try to get them out at the next election rather than put up borders every time you don't get your own way.
Alan, but not when it is almost never and we get either cheating Tories or cheating Labour. Democracy my arse.
"That was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of the Scottish Nationalist Party"
Had a read through and seemed quite a good speech to me. Was making a positive case for keeping the union together rather than relying on fear.
Clearly some people won't like it as they don't like Cameron but considering he had to get involved somewhere along the line I don't think it's an unreasonable intervention
From up here it was pure mince, typical Tory bollocks that can only help YES vote.
Comments
I would also imagine pro Independence Scots would consider giving England a say in it akin to the whole of the EU being able to vote in our In/Out Referendum, should it happen.
Personally have no opinion on it, if I were a jock Id probably want out. I don't know anyone English who cares, and have never asked my one Scottish mate what he thinks. He is a lefty atheist that supports Celtic, so does that mean Pro Indy?!
cue @Hugh saying I am making him up!
OK Maybe not an apology, but I still think the sometimes sad history of relations between the two countries could have been touched on in some way.
Ed Miliband isn't leading a party that came third or fourth in Scotland UD, but do you really think he would have said anything different if he had made the speech?
1. You mean the poll tax that eventually all the UK faced ?
2. Much of the clearances were undertaken by Scottish landlords and Scottish peers.
3. A civil war is by its very nature extremely unpleasant but by 1760 the Hanovarian settlement was complete and accepted.
The fact is Scotland has flourished since the Union. The Scottish Enlightenment, Scottish Industrial strength in the 19th and early 20th century and Scottish culture have been at the forefront of much of what has been great about the UK and our wider influence in the world.
So I say thank you to the Union. Long may it and Scotland prosper within it .... and we will because Scots will vote No in the referendum.
Furthermore a company can do its business in the UK, using all the advantages that that brings (access to the rule of law, property rights) and infrastructure that enable the business to carry on (e.g. Amazon without motorways wouldn't work) and yet register its office somewhere else for tax purposes and enjoy the benefits by pay bugger all towards them.
A company income tax would be simple to calculate, easy to collect, hard to evade and would affect everyone who does business here equally. Much better and fairer than the current corporation tax rules, which few understand and those that do make a living advising others how to evade them.
If memory serves until 1964 companies paid an income tax, then the government of the day introduced an additional tax on profits. The two eventually got morphed together into corporation tax. I would argue that the world has changed since the sixties and our tax regime for companies needs to change too.
Livingstone's turnover tax is not totally barking. He has the seed of a very good idea.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8618
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/farage-is-forced-to-flee-from-royal-mile-protesters.21068659
This is where we find out Salmond is five moves ahead of him. He's going to appeal for English people who want Scotland to leave to call them up and tell them that instead. Preparing for this moment has been the goal of the SNP's grassroots internet strategy all along.
Fair enough, but isn;t this what drives the SNP forward? Isn't that its whole motor?
That Scotland is getting a raw deal from the union and always has?
This is a referendum of the heart, values and emotions. Logic and sense will have little part to play on either side, much as the EU debate is framed.
Also, I suspect Brummies would be happy to have the parliament, but the East Midlands would be better. Chesterfield would be a good spot.
No shared use of Sterling.
In case anyone believes the 'prejudice' is only on one side, feel free to peruse some of the comments (1700 & rising) on the BBC site's report of Cameron's speech.
http://tinyurl.com/k2abnll
Bloody odd idea to have such a debate where one of the participants didn't even have a vote. Then again, Salmond's just playing silly buggers.
“I can absolutely guarantee that neither myself nor Mr Salmond will politicise the Commonwealth Games in the way that David Cameron is politicising the Olympics.
“Now let me be very clear I had no objection at all to David Cameron supporting Team GB and draping himself in the union cack at the Olympics.
“I will be supporting team Scotland in the Commonwealth Game, that is very, very different to using a speech in the Olympic Park to try to politicise sport.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10624006/Scottish-referendum-SNP-dismisses-David-Cameron-speech-as-shameful-and-cowardly.html
As Mark Fergusson observes in Labour List:
Yet, as usual, the SNP are being breathtakingly hypocritical. Their Deputy Leader has been out this morning saying that “to politicise any sporting occasion is shameful”.....this sentiment completely flies in the face of how the SNP behaved during the 2012 Olympics. Remember Alex Salmond calling for people to cheer on “Scolympians” rather than Team GB? Remember the £400,000 spent on a pseudo-Scottish Embassy? Attacking Cameron for politicising a uniquely unifying British moment is cheap – but it’s also barefaced cheek from the Scottish Nats.
Given the EPP is the majority party in the EU is it ok to be governed by Tories from Brussels ?
Dr. Sox's idea of the East-Midlands fails I think on two counts, historical significance and the place is a dump.
So York it will have to be.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/06/what-your-tv-favourites-say-about-your-politics/
Only watch 1 Tory prog (Strickers), 3 Labour (Phoenix Nights, The Office & Frasier) and no LDs
I'll expect a little more precision in your sweeping generalisations then.
The best outcome of this flood could be the EA being scrapped.
I dont think the EPP is the majority party in the EU and the Tories are not in the EPP. But, besides that, if people dont want to be governed from Brussels they should absolutely have a right to vote on that.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), mildly amused about Smith's political status after the female peer (Morgan?) bleated about Labour types being purged. One suspects purging Smith would not prove unpopular.
According to it,I'm a lib dem ;-)
Another organisation infiltrated and wrecked by the Greenies.
How dare you!
LOL
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26084505
It is too early to say.
Edited extra bit: "Renault were unable to run their turbo at even 50% boost in Jerez, and nor were they able to get the energy-storage system to run at anywhere near full capacity. They are also suffering severe vibrations in the drive-train, which show up in the car but not on the test bed."
That's quite the list of problems. Lack of ERS will essentially entailing winning no races. They need to sort it, but there's plenty of time left yet. No wonder Horner wants double points extending to the last three races.
You have a fair point and this kind of goes back to what I said about the sometimes sad history between the two countries.
It would be sad if it took independence for us to like and respect each other a bit more, but that certainly seems to be the way with the Irish republic.
Anglo Irish relations are exceedingly cordial.
I personally think that Cameron has got this about right today. He is not "interfering" but he is making it clear as PM of the UK that he wants to UK to survive and recognises that rUK would be as diminished as Scotland should the latter go independent.
There is a danger for the unionists in the rest of the UK that leaving this question entirely to the Scots can look like indifference. That would be playing into the hands of the yes vote. Unionists need to feel wanted and Cameron has made clear that they are . Admittedly some of the comments on the BBC website are somewhat less effusive.
I'm glad you accept it's their choice!
Always easier to do on a Friday afternoon!
Clearly some people won't like it as they don't like Cameron but considering he had to get involved somewhere along the line I don't think it's an unreasonable intervention
Danger? No, I don't think so. Truth, more like. If the Scots decide to go off on their own, and I would if I was one of them, who in England would care? I suspect the vast majority of the English would probably, for reasons they would be hard pushed to articulate but sort of to do with sentiment and the thin red line, prefer we stay together. But if a push comes to a shove and its thinking about the Union or what is on TV this evening the Scottish independence issue don't even get a look in.
If, as I hope, there is a Yes vote I wonder if many Scots will not be left with a sense of disappointment, even deflation maybe even fear. The auld enemy is gone and with it the excuses.
Which reminds me - I was slightly surprised nobody commented on Mr Cameron's emphasis on the Olympics, as this potentially - I say potentially - conveys mixed messages. They (incl much of the infrastructure) were largely, IIRC, funded out of extra-Barnett allocations: in other words, the Scots, Welsh and NI folk had to pay for it just as much as anyone in London, any local taxes excepted, especially with a very large chunk taken out of lottery funds allocated to their areas (certainly the case in Scotland). But the Commonwealth Games (booked by Labour for their heartland and not by the SNP) are 100% funded out of the Scottish budget.
The Olympics do not seem to have paid off in any immediate financial sense given their depressive impact on wider overseas tourism which the Olympics seemingly had (without allowing for weather, of course). The use of flags other than the Union Flag (and the South Korean sponsor!) was specifically excluded, and that was almost 100% enforced, with the result that, in the Scottish context at least, the organisers of the Olympic torch relay missed out on a more considered approach which would have ensured the normal festive appearance of a jolly mix of Union Flags, Lions Rampant and Saltires that one gets e.g. when royalty visits. I've often wondered about the impact of the OLympics in terms of the referendum - and which way it went. Probably not much difference now given the way the media covered it.
I thought 1914 was commemorations, I can think of bugger all to celebrate.