For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
Calm down dear - He's the son of a stock broker and went to Eton, not the scion of some ancient nobles oblige family who arrived from Normandy in 1066.
Absolute nonsense. David Cameron is descended from just about every Scottish family which held a Earldom or above in 1707. He is a 5x great grandson of William IV He is a 3x great grandson of James 5th Earl of Fife He is a 4 x great grandson of William 18th Earl of Errol He is a 12 x great grandson of James VI and I He is a 26 x great grandson (as am I) of Freskyn of Moravia whose father accompanied his cousins Eustace, Count of Boulogne and William Duke of Normandy in 1066.
If that is not a scion of ancient nobles oblige I have no idea what is!!!
I am sure that you are right with your pedigree. But it matters not a jot. True nobility is not inherited, any more than surgical skill is inherited.
To make him the scapegoat is ridiculous though, any more than hailing him as the saviour of the union is if the vote goes the other way. There was a clear mandate for an indy ref after the 2011 Holyrood vote that would have been undemocratic to ignore. There was no mandate for devomax to be on the ballot paper (and Gordon et al should note there still is no mandate for this until the scope of devomax is passed by Westminster). I am no fan of Cameron, but he has behaved with dignity and honour over the whole issue. There is no need for any resignation, not least because any other leader of the party would have done the same.
I think you're totally wrong, and he will resign on principle (after a few weeks) or be forced out PDQ by very very angry Tory MPs.
But even if he clings on, can you honestly imagine this crippled, sad, laughable figure (as he will be, having lost the Union) leading the Tory party INTO the next election?
Vote for The Guy Who Broke the Nation
Vote for The Big Society - Cause Under Me Its Getting Geographically Smaller by 30% Every Five Years!
Vote for David "I think I'd be quite good at destroying Great Britain" Cameron
This is off the top of my head and after just two glasses of wine. Satirists, enemies, opponents, the Queen, and Boris Johnson will have a year to think up far more cutting lines, making Cameron's life a total, wretched and public misery.
He will go.
Alternatively, the remainder of rUK will wreath him in laurels for enabling us to be rid of Scotland...
Can't take any more of this. Off to the hills tomorrow as its a good forecast for the North West Highlands. Things always look better from the summit of a Munro or Corbett.
Enjoy yourself. I'm very jealous, being trapped down here in the flatlands.
Nothing quite like sitting on top of the mountain, looking at four or five other ranges on all points of the compass.
Or as we call them here in Cambridgeshire, molehills. ;-)
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
Calm down dear - He's the son of a stock broker and went to Eton, not the scion of some ancient nobles oblige family who arrived from Normandy in 1066.
Absolute nonsense. David Cameron is descended from just about every Scottish family which held a Earldom or above in 1707. He is a 5x great grandson of William IV He is a 3x great grandson of James 5th Earl of Fife He is a 4 x great grandson of William 18th Earl of Errol He is a 12 x great grandson of James VI and I He is a 26 x great grandson (as am I) of Freskyn of Moravia whose father accompanied his cousins Eustace, Count of Boulogne and William Duke of Normandy in 1066.
If that is not a scion of ancient nobles oblige I have no idea what is!!!
Every White British person alive is descended from William the Bastard. Cameron is upper middle class, not upper class.
Does it, in 2014, matter very much? Do you, or does anyone, believe Seant's preposterous suggestion that the nobility are more prone to suicide on point of principle than any other class? (He doesn't, for starters.)
It's bollocks. The Upper Classes stopped blowing their brains out for reasons of honour decades ago. Only the stupid ones did anyway.
Besides, Cameron's from a nice upper middle class Berkshire family, not the nobility. Peasemore pony club, hunt balls and fun with the local racing fraternity and whatever luxuries his fathers stockbroker earnings could stretch to. Newbury Races, Lockinge point to point, hardly the owners box at the L'Arc de Triomphe.
If he goes, he'll pootle off and enjoy life with his family. He's been through more than many, and won't throw it all away.
Here is David Cameron's pedigree from the Norman Conquest for anyone remotely interested: Ollec the Fleming made Lord of most of Pembrokeshire after 1066 Freskyn of Moravia William son of Freskyn Hugh De Moravia William 1st Earl of Sutherland (created 1235 Scotland's oldest Earldom) William 2nd Earl of Sutherland Kenneth 4th Earl of Sutherland (brother-in-law of Robert the Bruce and fought at Bannockburn, their wives were granddaughters of Llewelyn Prince of Wales ) William 5th Earl of Sutherland (and 2nd wife Lady Joanna Menteith) Robert 6th Earl of Sutherland Alexander Sutherland of Dunbeath Marjorie Sutherland and 1st Earl of Caithness Lady Eleanor Sinclair and the 1st Earl of Atholl Lady Elizabeth Stewart and 3rd Earl of Lennox Matthew Stewart 4th Earl of Lennox and Lady Margaret Douglas (daughter of Princess Margaret Tudor and granddaughter of Henry VII of England) Henry Lord Darnley who married his 1st cousin Mary Queen of Scots James VI and I Elizabeth Queen of Bohemia Sophia Electress of Hanover George I George II (shared at this point with Boris Johnson) Frederick Prince of Wales George III William IV and Dorothea Jordan Elizabeth FitzClarence and William Hay 18th Earl of Errol Lady Agnes Hay and James Duff 5th Earl of Fife Lady Agnes Duff and Sir Alfred Cooper Stephanie Cooper Enid Levita and Sir William Mount Bt Mary Mount and Ian Donald Cameron David William Donald Cameron
so there you are, at least one line of David Cameron's ancestry back to 1066
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
Calm down dear - He's the son of a stock broker and went to Eton, not the scion of some ancient nobles oblige family who arrived from Normandy in 1066.
If he was a Duke of the Blood Royal he'd go off and eat a swan or something, and tup a comely wench, following a YES vote, but as the duty-bound honourable type he will do his duty. He will resign. Imagine what his wife's family (genuinely posh) will think of him.
You're projecting too many of your own insecurities on to him.
Chill.
Actually quite a lot of people would think highly of him for not doing a Rajoy, and actually allowing a democratic vote (albeit belatedly and with his arm twisted by the 2011 election result).
Apparently some Catalans lofted posters of him during their rallies, which must have been novel for him.
Been canvassing in the Borders for Better Together all day. Plenty of no voters, including those reluctant to go public because they've heard people with no posters have had bricks through their windows. At point, a farmer came in asking for a new field poster as his existing one had been stolen; he said he'd be going to the Yes campaign office to give them a piece of his mind.
Did anyone else go canvassing today? How was it?
We'll I'm in Edinburgh to drop off my daughter at university. Drove up from London through the borders - few posters evident in the villages. Of those I did see there were more no than yes. In Edinburgh the yes camp is clearly winning the poster war but they tend to have several posters in each supporter's house - probably many more posters than voters. Happened to walk past an Edinburgh Labour Party office so went in to check daughter was on the electoral register. Asked how things were going and got very positive story "was really brilliant today". At dinner in Indian restaurant just off Royal Mile the waiter asked how we were voting. He said he was a no - the currency issue was decisive for him. I guess plenty of other small business people share his view. Daughter's view is that Edinburgh uni students are overwhelmingly no.
In the Sunday Times, Peter Kellner predicts a no victory
Why do I predict a no? It’s the economy, stupid
And yet it is so close - either the economic arguments have failed to resonate, or they are not proving as important as people think it should regardless. One hopes it is enough to give No the edge, but if it was an 'obviously will win the day for No' sort of factor, it would have already killed things off, surely?
Imagine that you are David Cameron right now. This is beyond Staring into the Abyss.
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
No potty-mouth as it's the weekend but you are wrong. Cameron will not resign or be forced to resign if yes prevails, however you and the massed legions of pbkippers might wish it so. But no is going to win.
I before the new Year.
With genuine respect, all I can say as a Tory member and activist for 40 years (shudders), I think I know my party pretty well and your scenario is fanciful.
.
How many pb Tories - I concede we're now a decided minority on this forum - agree with you and Sean Thomas. I haven't counted any....and I believe this is reflected in the party as a whole. We shall see (though I think this will be academic).
I hope you're right on the latter, and rather amazingly (from my perspective) there has been at least some polling saying people want him to stay on in the event of a Yes I believe, although surely the key need not be among the party as a whole, but the parliamentary party (assuming he feels no no obligation to step down)? As a party member, are you as confident in them not to react like headless chickens? That is how they come across, but then I've never met any of them (scratch that, I have met one of them, but did not get to converse with them).
I sense that being only months away from the general election the prevailing mood in the Parliamentray party is one of hanging together or hanging separately. Never forget that ALL opinion polls show that Cameron is hugely popular among Conservative voters. None of the possible replacements (bar Boris?) get even close. That matters hugely with activists which in turn impinges on the MPs.
In the Sunday Times, Peter Kellner predicts a no victory
Why do I predict a no? It’s the economy, stupid
And yet it is so close - either the economic arguments have failed to resonate, or they are not proving as important as people think it should regardless. One hopes it is enough to give No the edge, but if it was an 'obviously will win the day for No' sort of factor, it would have already killed things off, surely?
Imagine that you are David Cameron right now. This is beyond Staring into the Abyss.
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
No potty-mouth as it's the weekend but you are wrong. Cameron will not resign or be forced to resign if yes prevails, however you and the massed legions of pbkippers might wish it so. But no is going to win.
I before the new Year.
With genuine respect, all I can say as a Tory member and activist for 40 years (shudders), I think I know my party pretty well and your scenario is fanciful.
.
How many pb Tories - I concede we're now a decided minority on this forum - agree with you and Sean Thomas. I haven't counted any....and I believe this is reflected in the party as a whole. We shall see (though I think this will be academic).
I hope you're right on the latter, and rather amazingly (from my perspective) there has been at least some polling saying people want him to stay on in the event of a Yes I believe, although surely the key need not be among the party as a whole, but the parliamentary party (assuming he feels no no obligation to step down)? As a party member, are you as confident in them not to react like headless chickens? That is how they come across, but then I've never met any of them (scratch that, I have met one of them, but did not get to converse with them).
I sense that being only months away from the general election the prevailing mood in the Parliamentray party is one of hanging together or hanging separately. Never forget that ALL opinion polls show that Cameron is hugely popular among Conservative voters. None of the possible replacements (bar Boris?) get even close. That matters hugely with activists which in turn impinges on the MPs.
It matters with MPs too, who have something of a vested interest in the matter (well, those in marginal do).
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
Calm down dear - He's the son of a stock broker and went to Eton, not the scion of some ancient nobles oblige family who arrived from Normandy in 1066.
Absolute nonsense. David Cameron is descended from just about every Scottish family which held a Earldom or above in 1707. He is a 5x great grandson of William IV He is a 3x great grandson of James 5th Earl of Fife He is a 4 x great grandson of William 18th Earl of Errol He is a 12 x great grandson of James VI and I He is a 26 x great grandson (as am I) of Freskyn of Moravia whose father accompanied his cousins Eustace, Count of Boulogne and William Duke of Normandy in 1066.
If that is not a scion of ancient nobles oblige I have no idea what is!!!
Every White British person alive is descended from William the Bastard. Cameron is upper middle class, not upper class.
Does it, in 2014, matter very much? Do you, or does anyone, believe Seant's preposterous suggestion that the nobility are more prone to suicide on point of principle than any other class? (He doesn't, for starters.)
It's bollocks. The Upper Classes stopped blowing their brains out for reasons of honour decades ago. Only the stupid ones did anyway.
Besides, Cameron's from a nice upper middle class Berkshire family, not the nobility. Peasemore pony club, hunt balls and fun with the local racing fraternity and whatever luxuries his fathers stockbroker earnings could stretch to. Newbury Races, Lockinge point to point, hardly the owners box at the L'Arc de Triomphe.
If he goes, he'll pootle off and enjoy life with his family. He's been through more than many, and won't throw it all away.
Darwinian selection in action? (the honourable vs dishonourable ones).
Can't take any more of this. Off to the hills tomorrow as its a good forecast for the North West Highlands. Things always look better from the summit of a Munro or Corbett.
Enjoy yourself. I'm very jealous, being trapped down here in the flatlands.
Nothing quite like sitting on top of the mountain, looking at four or five other ranges on all points of the compass.
Or as we call them here in Cambridgeshire, molehills. ;-)
Haven't done any Munros this year, but was astounded by mountains on Crete. However, did walk down the Samaria Gorge, easy in many ways but started at 1230m on the plateau from Omalos.
Would love to be able to head off for the hills in the NW Highlands.
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
And do what? Go back to being a PR? I think traditionally the fool of the family went into the church, but he chose politics.
And yes he should go. If you are head of the Conservative and Unionist Party and have
1. Failed to win a majority over a deadbeat PM. 2. Failed to preserve the Union 3. Split the Right in this country 4. Exposed the Church of England to legal action due to your recklessness
you frankly have no option.
I have said that 2015 would be no repeat of 1997; now I'm not so sure.
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
And do what? Go back to being a PR? I think traditionally the fool of the family went into the church, but he chose politics.
And yes he should go. If you are head of the Conservative and Unionist Party and have
1. Failed to win a majority over a deadbeat PM. 2. Failed to preserve the Union 3. Split the Right in this country 4. Exposed the Church of England to legal action due to your recklessness
you frankly have no option.
I have said that 2015 would be no repeat of 1997; now I'm not so sure.
"the deadbeat PM" might be the one who saves the UNion.
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
Here is David Cameron's pedigree from the Norman Conquest for anyone remotely interested: Ollec the Fleming made Lord of most of Pembrokeshire after 1066 Freskyn of Moravia William son of Freskyn Hugh De Moravia William 1st Earl of Sutherland (created 1235 Scotland's oldest Earldom) William 2nd Earl of Sutherland Kenneth 4th Earl of Sutherland (brother-in-law of Robert the Bruce and fought at Bannockburn, their wives were granddaughters of Llewelyn Prince of Wales ) William 5th Earl of Sutherland (and 2nd wife Lady Joanna Menteith) Robert 6th Earl of Sutherland Alexander Sutherland of Dunbeath Marjorie Sutherland and 1st Earl of Caithness Lady Eleanor Sinclair and the 1st Earl of Atholl Lady Elizabeth Stewart and 3rd Earl of Lennox Matthew Stewart 4th Earl of Lennox and Lady Margaret Douglas (daughter of Princess Margaret Tudor and granddaughter of Henry VII of England) Henry Lord Darnley who married his 1st cousin Mary Queen of Scots James VI and I Elizabeth Queen of Bohemia Sophia Electress of Hanover George I George II (shared at this point with Boris Johnson) Frederick Prince of Wales George III William IV and Dorothea Jordan Elizabeth FitzClarence and William Hay 18th Earl of Errol Lady Agnes Hay and James Duff 5th Earl of Fife Lady Agnes Duff and Sir Alfred Cooper Stephanie Cooper Enid Levita and Sir William Mount Bt Mary Mount and Ian Donald Cameron David William Donald Cameron
so there you are, at least one line of David Cameron's ancestry back to 1066
Who the F*ck cares ? Now I can see why the Scots hate the Tories !
In the Sunday Times, Peter Kellner predicts a no victory
Why do I predict a no? It’s the economy, stupid
And yet it is so close - either the economic arguments have failed to resonate, or they are not proving as important as people think it should regardless. One hopes it is enough to give No the edge, but if it was an 'obviously will win the day for No' sort of factor, it would have already killed things off, surely?
Imagine that you are David Cameron right now. This is beyond Staring into the Abyss.
For a man of his background, I'd be surprised if he hasn't had suicidal thoughts.
No potty-mouth as it's the weekend but you are wrong. Cameron will not resign or be forced to resign if yes prevails, however you and the massed legions of pbkippers might wish it so. But no is going to win.
I before the new Year.
With genuine respect, all I can say as a Tory member and activist for 40 years (shudders), I think I know my party pretty well and your scenario is fanciful.
.
How many pb Tories - I concede we're now a decided minority on this forum - agree with you and Sean Thomas. I haven't counted any....and I believe this is reflected in the party as a whole. We shall see (though I think this will be academic).
I hope you're right on the latter, and rather amazingly (from my perspective) there has been at least some polling saying people want him to stay on in the event of a Yes I believe, although surely the key need not be among the party as a whole, but the parliamentary party (assuming he feels no no obligation to step down)? As a party member, are you as confident in them not to react like headless chickens? That is how they come across, but then I've never met any of them (scratch that, I have met one of them, but did not get to converse with them).
I sense that being only months away from the general election the prevailing mood in the Parliamentray party is one of hanging together or hanging separately. Never forget that ALL opinion polls show that Cameron is hugely popular among Conservative voters. None of the possible replacements (bar Boris?) get even close. That matters hugely with activists which in turn impinges on the MPs.
It matters with MPs too, who have something of a vested interest in the matter (well, those in marginal do).
Is Shipley regarded as a marginal these days? Sometimes I wish it were.....
I think the question of whether Cameron would survive a Yes vote in Scotland (unless he does resign) will be based on the same factors as most leader removals are based; The polls.
If the Tories take a significant and sustained hit in the polls (Dropping to the mid 20's) then Cameron will struggle to survive . If the Tories hold their vote then he'll survive.
The other consideration is if Cameron is caught between his own party and the Libdems over the English question and whether a) his party would accept an unpopular compromise that helps primarily Labour or b) Labour and Libdems use the issue to bring about a vote of no confidence
The thing is we will be in uncharted territory (how would the newspapers/ media react to losing Scotland?) so all sorts of pitfalls and problems could raise their heads.
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
And do what? Go back to being a PR? I think traditionally the fool of the family went into the church, but he chose politics.
And yes he should go. If you are head of the Conservative and Unionist Party and have
1. Failed to win a majority over a deadbeat PM. 2. Failed to preserve the Union 3. Split the Right in this country 4. Exposed the Church of England to legal action due to your recklessness
you frankly have no option.
I have said that 2015 would be no repeat of 1997; now I'm not so sure.
Stupid people don't become Prime Minister.
Regardless of personal opinion, Cameron, Brown, & Blair etc are not dim.
Here is David Cameron's pedigree from the Norman Conquest for anyone remotely interested: Ollec the Fleming made Lord of most of Pembrokeshire after 1066 Freskyn of Moravia William son of Freskyn Hugh De Moravia William 1st Earl of Sutherland (created 1235 Scotland's oldest Earldom) William 2nd Earl of Sutherland Kenneth 4th Earl of Sutherland (brother-in-law of Robert the Bruce and fought at Bannockburn, their wives were granddaughters of Llewelyn Prince of Wales ) William 5th Earl of Sutherland (and 2nd wife Lady Joanna Menteith) Robert 6th Earl of Sutherland Alexander Sutherland of Dunbeath Marjorie Sutherland and 1st Earl of Caithness Lady Eleanor Sinclair and the 1st Earl of Atholl Lady Elizabeth Stewart and 3rd Earl of Lennox Matthew Stewart 4th Earl of Lennox and Lady Margaret Douglas (daughter of Princess Margaret Tudor and granddaughter of Henry VII of England) Henry Lord Darnley who married his 1st cousin Mary Queen of Scots James VI and I Elizabeth Queen of Bohemia Sophia Electress of Hanover George I George II (shared at this point with Boris Johnson) Frederick Prince of Wales George III William IV and Dorothea Jordan Elizabeth FitzClarence and William Hay 18th Earl of Errol Lady Agnes Hay and James Duff 5th Earl of Fife Lady Agnes Duff and Sir Alfred Cooper Stephanie Cooper Enid Levita and Sir William Mount Bt Mary Mount and Ian Donald Cameron David William Donald Cameron
so there you are, at least one line of David Cameron's ancestry back to 1066
Who the F*ck cares ? Now I can see why the Scots hate the Tories !
Of all reasons given for the Scots to hate the Tories (excluding all those Scots who vote Tory, but never mind them), I cannot think of which one might have been demonstrated by that post. (?)
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
In 1997, Wales got an Assembly after a 50.3/49.7 vote.
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
I don't think Ted Heath was passionately obsessed by politics - he had the distractions of music and sailing. Margaret Thatcher probably had much less of a hinterland.
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
Why not go the whole way and assume anyone who didnt vote or who died since the register was drawn up would have voted no!! A majority of +1 is still a majority, ask the many MP's elected with less than half of the total votes cast if they won or not.
That said though losing the Union would be up there with Suez and 'Peace In Our Times' among the biggest failures in modern day political history. If voters are demanding a scapegoat first and foremost it would have to be Cameron
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
And do what? Go back to being a PR? I think traditionally the fool of the family went into the church, but he chose politics.
And yes he should go. If you are head of the Conservative and Unionist Party and have
1. Failed to win a majority over a deadbeat PM. 2. Failed to preserve the Union 3. Split the Right in this country 4. Exposed the Church of England to legal action due to your recklessness
you frankly have no option.
I have said that 2015 would be no repeat of 1997; now I'm not so sure.
Another poster who brings his loathing of Cameron to the table. You would call for his resignation even if he kissed the Popes ring and they both ascended to heaven on a cloud!
We do not know what a Yes vote means for the May 2015 elections (or a No vote either) but it is easy to set out a case where a demoralised Labour gets defeated by a rUK Tory party who then go on to form a majority government with a mandate of negotiating the English demands for separation.
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
I don't think Ted Heath was passionately obsessed by politics - he had the distractions of music and sailing. Margaret Thatcher probably had much less of a hinterland.
I can't think of any hobbies that Margaret Thatcher had.
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
I don't think Ted Heath was passionately obsessed by politics - he had the distractions of music and sailing. Margaret Thatcher probably had much less of a hinterland.
Politics was everything to Margaret Thatcher.
Coincidentally, I'm reading Charles Moore's biography of her right now. I've *just* got to the bit where she's discussing the Tory strategy on the Scottish devolution proposals in 1977/1978. It caused a bit of a split in her shadow cabinet.
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
I don't think Ted Heath was passionately obsessed by politics - he had the distractions of music and sailing. Margaret Thatcher probably had much less of a hinterland.
I can't think of any hobbies that Margaret Thatcher had.
Here is David Cameron's pedigree from the Norman Conquest for anyone remotely interested: Ollec the Fleming made Lord of most of Pembrokeshire after 1066
Mary Mount and Ian Donald Cameron David William Donald Cameron
so there you are, at least one line of David Cameron's ancestry back to 1066
We are all descended from Adam and Eve, and most of us from Julius Caesar.
Anyone who can find a sixth cousin in the Royal Family (surely most Britons?) can then trace themselves back just like Cameron.
What matters in shaping character is your immediate class background. Cameron is (as The Watcher says!) upper middle class, very affluent, stock broker Home Counties. That's very posh, but it is subtly but importantly different to the higher landed gentry like his wife.
I can't find a sixth cousin in the Royal family. Can you?
Rather than generalising that Cameron must be a man of honour because his dad was something in the city, let's look at his actions. He has clearly been positioning himself for the last three years to survive a Yes by distancing himself from the campaign as far as he can. And he said in Scotland last week that "if you vote Yes,I'll be here to make it work" owtte. Case closed.
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
In 1997, Wales got an Assembly after a 50.3/49.7 vote.
True but that was because it was the result the Westminster government wanted and no international organisations were involved. FWIW my view is that if there is a close result this time the EU (encouraged by rUK and Spain and probably others) will make sure that the Scottish application for membership disappears into the bureaucracy for a decade or two. So they will either have to go for independence outside the EU or face is very long wait. By this time the SNP will have lost power at Holyrood and if there is unionist majority there a way will be found to set aside or rerun the referendum.
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
I don't think Ted Heath was passionately obsessed by politics - he had the distractions of music and sailing. Margaret Thatcher probably had much less of a hinterland.
I can't think of any hobbies that Margaret Thatcher had.
I think Maggie came from the era when for a woman to have a hobby was somehow seen as vaguely decadent. No, getting Dennis's tea was her only distraction from running the nation.
Here is David Cameron's pedigree from the Norman Conquest for anyone remotely interested: Ollec the Fleming made Lord of most of Pembrokeshire after 1066
Mary Mount and Ian Donald Cameron David William Donald Cameron
so there you are, at least one line of David Cameron's ancestry back to 1066
We are all descended from Adam and Eve, and most of us from Julius Caesar.
Anyone who can find a sixth cousin in the Royal Family (surely most Britons?) can then trace themselves back just like Cameron.
What matters in shaping character is your immediate class background. Cameron is (as The Watcher says!) upper middle class, very affluent, stock broker Home Counties. That's very posh, but it is subtly but importantly different to the higher landed gentry like his wife.
I can't find a sixth cousin in the Royal family. Can you?
Rather than generalising that Cameron must be a man of honour because his dad was something in the city, let's look at his actions. He has clearly been positioning himself for the last three years to survive a Yes by distancing himself from the campaign as far as he can. And he said in Scotland last week that "if you vote Yes,I'll be here to make it work" owtte. Case closed.
I know of no aristocrat in my lineage. Not enough inbreeding for that! Though I am descended from one of the regicides...
I don't have a view on whether David Cameron should feel responsible and resign. I suspect he will do. In my view, however, he made a number of unforced errors due to a lack of attention that on their own would allow a close yes vote. In particular he should have insisted on a question with a choice: remain in the UK or become an independent country, and not simply an assertion you are invited to agree with, and insist on the franchise be extended to Scottish born UK residents, who will automatically be Scottish citizens, according to the White Paper, and should surely be allowed a say
Perhaps when the referendum is all cut and dried and Cameron has resigned or not as the case may be, we should have a thread or more likely a series of threads on what went went wrong for for him, starting iirc around a year before the 2010 GE. Initially, with his unscripted speeches, etc, he seemed to have it all but in all truth he's been a considerable disappointment. Yes, he's made mistakes, which Prime Minister hasn't, but somehow he's never quite cut it and I'm not entirely sure why that should be. Then again I'm not sure how Brown ever got the gig, nor how he managed to keep it for so long.
I can save you the trouble, mate.
David Cameron has very little experience of the people of this country. He has had the benefit of the best education money can buy - with the emphasis on money. He didn't get involved with student politics at Oxford, preferring to smash up restaurants with his Bullingdon mates. His first job out of university was secured by his step-mother - in TV.
He is also young as a Prime Minister (OK, not William Pitt, but we now have a universal franchise). This perhaps counts for his recklessness over Scotland and gay 'marriage'.
Finally, he studied PPE at Oxford and went on to be a spad, then MP. Economists are often accused of fitting the people to the model, rather than the model to the people. Political scientists seem to be the same, if Cameron is an example. Time and time again, he seems completely to misjudge what his party (what's left of it) or the country (what's left of it) thinks.
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
Tipping point.
The thing about tipping points is, they come singly.
Presumably you post on here in the hope of being taken as a serious and interesting commentator. The referendum due in under a week is the most important event of your political life. And you are happy to look to any reader of the blog like an infantile prat by inane trolling like this?
Oh, and I want a Yes vote on Thursday, so don't congratulate yourself on pissing off a Unionist.
Exposed the Church of England to legal action due to your recklessness
I wouldn't worry about threats of legal action, i'd worry more about who's going to run the church now we've given the next generation of gay kids their dignity back.
Conservative Party activists wouldn't be calling for Cameron's head in the event of a No vote; nor would Conservative MPs. They would back him because he remains an asset to the party. Nor would they be taking advice from SeanT on this, however amusing he can be. He knows as much about practical politics as I do about hard drugs. (I've got an opinion but it is entirely uninformed by experience.) Cameron did the honourable and democratic thing - allowed the Scots self-determination after they voted for it by choosing an SNP government in Edinburgh. The rest of the UK would be no worse off economically, though we would be the poorer culturally. Most of the most talented Scots are already south or west of the border already. Some may move back. Most will stay away until retirement.
Here is David Cameron's pedigree from the Norman Conquest for anyone remotely interested: Ollec the Fleming made Lord of most of Pembrokeshire after 1066
Mary Mount and Ian Donald Cameron David William Donald Cameron
so there you are, at least one line of David Cameron's ancestry back to 1066
We are all descended from Adam and Eve, and most of us from Julius Caesar.
Anyone who can find a sixth cousin in the Royal Family (surely most Britons?) can then trace themselves back just like Cameron.
What matters in shaping character is your immediate class background. Cameron is (as The Watcher says!) upper middle class, very affluent, stock broker Home Counties. That's very posh, but it is subtly but importantly different to the higher landed gentry like his wife.
I can't find a sixth cousin in the Royal family. Can you?
Rather than generalising that Cameron must be a man of honour because his dad was something in the city, let's look at his actions. He has clearly been positioning himself for the last three years to survive a Yes by distancing himself from the campaign as far as he can. And he said in Scotland last week that "if you vote Yes,I'll be here to make it work" owtte. Case closed.
Any decent genealogist could find you a regal 6th cousin if you give them £300. It's easy. We are all closely related. But who gives a flying F apart from the socially insecure.
I prefer Napoleon's alleged riposte, when he found himself surrounded by tall, noble generals discussing their fancy ancestors.
"Je suis un ancetre!"
I am an ancestor!
Better to begin a dynasty, than find yourself at the end, reliving its glories, and little else.
Cammo distanced himself from the referendum until he couldn't. He's now been up there, and he owns the result. But he always owned it anyway. He agreed to the terms which now look horribly like biting him on the arse.
If it is a YES, I offer you £50 at evens that Cameron will not lead the Tories into GE 2015.
Aha, that's a bet you rejected a week ago. I am a poor man, but I'll have £25 on that basis with pleasure.
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
In 1997, Wales got an Assembly after a 50.3/49.7 vote.
True but that was because it was the result the Westminster government wanted and no international organisations were involved. FWIW my view is that if there is a close result this time the EU (encouraged by rUK and Spain and probably others) will make sure that the Scottish application for membership disappears into the bureaucracy for a decade or two. So they will either have to go for independence outside the EU or face is very long wait. By this time the SNP will have lost power at Holyrood and if there is unionist majority there a way will be found to set aside or rerun the referendum.
I cannot see that happening. The EU and NATO would respect a close victory.
The only way for a Yes vote to be rescinded would be for the Holyrood parliament to have a further vote before Independence day on the negotiated terms. Even economic chaos and riots in the streets would not cause that, so I cannot see it happening.
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
In 1997, Wales got an Assembly after a 50.3/49.7 vote.
True but that was because it was the result the Westminster government wanted and no international organisations were involved. FWIW my view is that if there is a close result this time the EU (encouraged by rUK and Spain and probably others) will make sure that the Scottish application for membership disappears into the bureaucracy for a decade or two. So they will either have to go for independence outside the EU or face is very long wait. By this time the SNP will have lost power at Holyrood and if there is unionist majority there a way will be found to set aside or rerun the referendum.
Any new entrant to the EU has to be unanimously approved by the other members. And that's before we talk about the fact that Scotland would seek opt outs from Schengen and the Euro. The Spanish would not be helpful.
Welcome to the forum. You have the right addiction to fit right in. :-)
There will be a normal UK YouGov at midnight, or perhaps in the morning (for that Parliament thing that we're doing in May, for those who have forgotten it) but I'm not sure there are more Indyref polls due until four of them appear on referendum eve on Wednesday.
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
I don't think Ted Heath was passionately obsessed by politics - he had the distractions of music and sailing. Margaret Thatcher probably had much less of a hinterland.
I can't think of any hobbies that Margaret Thatcher had.
Making a misery of John Major's life?
She went straight to the House of Lords after the 1992 election and didn't stink the House of Commons out like Ted Heath.
No, John Major made his own mistakes but the country and Conservative Party paid dearly for them.
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
In 1997, Wales got an Assembly after a 50.3/49.7 vote.
True but that was because it was the result the Westminster government wanted and no international organisations were involved. FWIW my view is that if there is a close result this time the EU (encouraged by rUK and Spain and probably others) will make sure that the Scottish application for membership disappears into the bureaucracy for a decade or two. So they will either have to go for independence outside the EU or face is very long wait. By this time the SNP will have lost power at Holyrood and if there is unionist majority there a way will be found to set aside or rerun the referendum.
I cannot see that happening. The EU and NATO would respect a close victory.
The only way for a Yes vote to be rescinded would be for the Holyrood parliament to have a further vote before Independence day on the negotiated terms. Even economic chaos and riots in the streets would not cause that, so I cannot see it happening.
I'm pro union, but I think it's inconceivable that the EU would let Scotland languish outside while they worked out the membership arrangements. They may go for a temporary bilateral agreement where Scottish companies and individuals access the EU in the same way as now but Scotland is not yet a member and doesn't have representation. I think the bilateral agreement would be authorised by the European council and parliament. Individual countries wouldn't have a veto.
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
In 1997, Wales got an Assembly after a 50.3/49.7 vote.
True but that was because it was the result the Westminster government wanted and no international organisations were involved. FWIW my view is that if there is a close result this time the EU (encouraged by rUK and Spain and probably others) will make sure that the Scottish application for membership disappears into the bureaucracy for a decade or two. So they will either have to go for independence outside the EU or face is very long wait. By this time the SNP will have lost power at Holyrood and if there is unionist majority there a way will be found to set aside or rerun the referendum.
I cannot see that happening. The EU and NATO would respect a close victory.
Really? That would be a first. Ask the Irish and Danes.
Rupert Murdoch flew in to Scotland today dropping hints of support for YES. He has never had the interests of the UK at heart, just his business. It's time to make a law that all owners of media should be British citizens and resident in Britain. He took US citizenship so that he could be permitted to own big chunks of US media. The Yanks know how to do it. Boycott all Murdoch enterprises.
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
In 1997, Wales got an Assembly after a 50.3/49.7 vote.
True but that was because it was the result the Westminster government wanted and no international organisations were involved. FWIW my view is that if there is a close result this time the EU (encouraged by rUK and Spain and probably others) will make sure that the Scottish application for membership disappears into the bureaucracy for a decade or two. So they will either have to go for independence outside the EU or face is very long wait. By this time the SNP will have lost power at Holyrood and if there is unionist majority there a way will be found to set aside or rerun the referendum.
I cannot see that happening. The EU and NATO would respect a close victory.
Really? That would be a first. Ask the Irish and Danes.
Why would the EU reject a country who wanted to join? Not least for 18 months before seperation was official, it would be a member.
Whether Scotland would agree to the terms (fisheries policy, currency union with the Euro, Shengen agreement, loss of rebate) would be a different question.
Rupert Murdoch flew in to Scotland today dropping hints of support for YES. He has never had the interests of the UK at heart, just his business. It's time to make a law that all owners of media should be British citizens and resident in Britain. He took US citizenship so that he could be permitted to own big chunks of US media. The Yanks know how to do it. Boycott all Murdoch enterprises.
Whie we're at it, lets nationalise the internet too....
SeanT has decided. It's all over. The bookies are paying out already. It's Cameron's fault 'cos he's lazy, arrogant and NOT SMART. HE MUST GO! Shame you can't do green ink. Calm down, dear. We've got a few days to go yet. Losing Scotland to independence and SeanT to a blood pressure induced coronary would be too much for me to bear.
I've always thought Cameron would/will resign after a YES, but I don't particularly think he should.
If Scotland decides they no longer want to be part of the Union with the United Kingdom then that is a matter for them. You can't force people who don't want to be part of this country to stay in it. If the "will" isn't there, it isn't there.
Really, Cameron is a marginal figure in this, as is Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, etc...
That said I suspect he'll do his duty and resign, but as far as spending his life a broken wreck of man with suicidal thoughts, no. He'll survive and move on to the next stage of his life with his lovely wife and children.
To match JohnO, despite 40 years of Labour activism, I see no reason why Cameron (or Miliband, or anyone else) should resign in such a case. But if he did, I think you're quite right about what would happen next. Cameron is not like SeanT, passionately engaged in everything except when he's passionately engaged in the opposite. He is keen on politics and would like to do well, but he really isn't obsessed by it. He'll wander off and do something else.
An interesting question is whether a good PM *should* be passionately obsessed (examples: Gordon Brown, maybe Ted Heath) or a bit detached (examples: John Major, maybe Clem Attlee).
I don't think Ted Heath was passionately obsessed by politics - he had the distractions of music and sailing. Margaret Thatcher probably had much less of a hinterland.
I can't think of any hobbies that Margaret Thatcher had.
Heath hating (returned with interest). More of a passion really.
@SeanT Camerons problem is that his mind can't quite grasp the fact that people really do think differently from both him and the company he keeps. Eton teaches you one thing, confidence, and too much confidence can make you blind. (or was that masturbation ?)
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
In 1997, Wales got an Assembly after a 50.3/49.7 vote.
True but that was because it was the result the Westminster government wanted and no international organisations were involved. FWIW my view is that if there is a close result this time the EU (encouraged by rUK and Spain and probably others) will make sure that the Scottish application for membership disappears into the bureaucracy for a decade or two. So they will either have to go for independence outside the EU or face is very long wait. By this time the SNP will have lost power at Holyrood and if there is unionist majority there a way will be found to set aside or rerun the referendum.
I cannot see that happening. The EU and NATO would respect a close victory.
Really? That would be a first. Ask the Irish and Danes.
The Spanish are desperate to avoid doing anything to encourage Catalonia to break away. Belgium would also be very unlikely to welcome a breakaway state with open arms. I frankly don't think most EU members would care - Scotland is a tiny fraction of the EUs population - there is no geopolitical argument to admit it, as there was for small countries in Eastern Europe. They'd be perfectly happy to delay until all members were happy to admit it, which would probably be never.
@Theuniondivvie Apparently Mrs Thatcher had no sense of humour in the normal sense, This I find worrying. A PM who can't see a joke, is a dangerous thing in my opinion
She went straight to the House of Lords after the 1992 election and didn't stink the House of Commons out like Ted Heath.
No, John Major made his own mistakes but the country and Conservative Party paid dearly for them.
Given she was the most successful Conservative leader in history it didn't matter what House she sat in her supporters would still hang on her every word and I seem to recall she had some particularly scathing things to say about Maastricht for example from her speech in 1993 on that Treaty:
I could never have signed this treaty. I hope that that is clear to all who have heard me. The Bill will pass considerable further powers irrevocably from Westminster to Brussels, and, by extending majority voting, will undermine our age-old parliamentary and legal institutions, both far older than those in the Community. We have so much more to lose by this Maastricht Treaty than any other state in the European Community. It will diminish democracy and increase bureaucracy......
.....Finally, the referendum. No elector in this country has been able to vote against Maastricht—none. It has been impossible to do so. I think that when one looks at the extent of the powers which are being handed over, it would be disgraceful if we denied them that opportunity........
I believe that to hand over the people's parliamentary rights on the scale of the Maastricht Treaty without the consent of the people in a referendum would be to betray the trust—as guardians of the parliamentary institutions, of the courts and of the constitution—that they have placed in us.
Thatcher was the spiritual leader of Euroscepticism. She didn't need to sit in the 'other place' to make John Major's life a misery
Should Murdoch be getting involved? Won't his support harm the Yes campaign?
You'd think so. I saw a "yes" voter today confidently proclaim that Murdoch's support would be a "game-changer". Not only does that seem far-fetched to say the least, but it seems most plausible to me that if he were to have any impact it would be to actually cost the nationalists votes.
What angers me about Cameron is that it is his arrogance that got him into this stupid position. Laziness, and arrogance.
He is a self-regarding man who thinks he is cleverer than he actually is.
A smarter politician would have engineered a way to get a vague Devomax onto the ballot. Because a smarter politician would have known that Losing the Union was infinitely worse than the vague risk of some constitutional Devomax argumentation several years hence.
A smarter politician would have given himself wiggle room, and ruled out the absolute horror of national break-up.
But Cameron is not smart. He THINKS he is smart. So, lazily, he went for an all out gamble, YES or NO, which he might well lose, as things stand. And he did that because he was lazily confident that he would win. Being so self regarding.
He is utterly inept on a very basic level. He is an Etonian born to govern devoid of the basic skills of governance and politics.
For this, too, he must go.
Spot on. If there is a yes vote on Thursday this will be history's verdict on Cameron. The worst prime minister of the modern era. Without question.
However if it's no then the verdict may be a little kinder. But not much.
What angers me about Cameron is that it is his arrogance that got him into this stupid position. Laziness, and arrogance.
He is a self-regarding man who thinks he is cleverer than he actually is.
A smarter politician would have engineered a way to get a vague Devomax onto the ballot. Because a smarter politician would have known that Losing the Union was infinitely worse than the vague risk of some constitutional Devomax argumentation several years hence.
A smarter politician would have given himself wiggle room, and ruled out the absolute horror of national break-up.
But Cameron is not smart. He THINKS he is smart. So, lazily, he went for an all out gamble, YES or NO, which he might well lose, as things stand. And he did that because he was lazily confident that he would win. Being so self regarding.
He is utterly inept on a very basic level. He is an Etonian born to govern devoid of the basic skills of governance and politics.
For this, too, he must go.
Eloquently put, as I would expect from a professional writer. I agree with every word.
Rupert Murdoch flew in to Scotland today dropping hints of support for YES. He has never had the interests of the UK at heart, just his business. It's time to make a law that all owners of media should be British citizens and resident in Britain. He took US citizenship so that he could be permitted to own big chunks of US media. The Yanks know how to do it. Boycott all Murdoch enterprises.
Hmmm how should the headline banner for this proposal go?
I assume an absolute dead heat would be regarded as a de factor No vote.
Certainly. And I don't think it's certain by any means that a small yes majority would necessarily result in independence. There would be chaos , crisis and confusion but I wonder if rUK, the EU, NATO etc etc will really fall in with Salmond's demands on the basis of a 51-49 vote? Are there any historical examples of such a major constitutional change resulting from such a meagre majority?
In 1997, Wales got an Assembly after a 50.3/49.7 vote.
True but that was because it was the result the Westminster government wanted and no international organisations were involved. FWIW my view is that if there is a close result this time the EU (encouraged by rUK and Spain and probably others) will make sure that the Scottish application for membership disappears into the bureaucracy for a decade or two. So they will either have to go for independence outside the EU or face is very long wait. By this time the SNP will have lost power at Holyrood and if there is unionist majority there a way will be found to set aside or rerun the referendum.
I cannot see that happening. The EU and NATO would respect a close victory.
Really? That would be a first. Ask the Irish and Danes.
The Spanish are desperate to avoid doing anything to encourage Catalonia to break away. Belgium would also be very unlikely to welcome a breakaway state with open arms. I frankly don't think most EU members would care - Scotland is a tiny fraction of the EUs population - there is no geopolitical argument to admit it, as there was for small countries in Eastern Europe. They'd be perfectly happy to delay until all members were happy to admit it, which would probably be never.
A virtual Hadrian's Wall by the signatories of the successor to the Treaty Of Rome. It has a certain poignancy.........
What angers me about Cameron is that it is his arrogance that got him into this stupid position. Laziness, and arrogance.
He is a self-regarding man who thinks he is cleverer than he actually is.
A smarter politician would have engineered a way to get a vague Devomax onto the ballot. Because a smarter politician would have known that Losing the Union was infinitely worse than the vague risk of some constitutional Devomax argumentation several years hence.
A smarter politician would have given himself wiggle room, and ruled out the absolute horror of national break-up.
But Cameron is not smart. He THINKS he is smart. So, lazily, he went for an all out gamble, YES or NO, which he might well lose, as things stand. And he did that because he was lazily confident that he would win. Being so self regarding.
He is utterly inept on a very basic level. He is an Etonian born to govern devoid of the basic skills of governance and politics.
For this, too, he must go.
Spot on. If there is a yes vote on Thursday this will be history's verdict on Cameron. The worst prime minister of the modern era. Without question.
However if it's no then the verdict may be a little kinder. But not much.
To lose 30% of your country without a shot being fired is pretty damning. At least Lloyd George fired a few bullets in return and was got rid of as PM PDQ.
If there is a No, then it will all be forgotten, as the referendum in N.Ireland was. Eventually.
What angers me about Cameron is that it is his arrogance that got him into this stupid position. Laziness, and arrogance.
He is a self-regarding man who thinks he is cleverer than he actually is.
A smarter politician would have engineered a way to get a vague Devomax onto the ballot. Because a smarter politician would have known that Losing the Union was infinitely worse than the vague risk of some constitutional Devomax argumentation several years hence.
A smarter politician would have given himself wiggle room, and ruled out the absolute horror of national break-up.
But Cameron is not smart. He THINKS he is smart. So, lazily, he went for an all out gamble, YES or NO, which he might well lose, as things stand. And he did that because he was lazily confident that he would win. Being so self regarding.
He is utterly inept on a very basic level. He is an Etonian born to govern devoid of the basic skills of governance and politics.
For this, too, he must go.
Spot on. If there is a yes vote on Thursday this will be history's verdict on Cameron. The worst prime minister of the modern era. Without question.
However if it's no then the verdict may be a little kinder. But not much.
To lose 30% of your country without a shot being fired is pretty damning. At least Lloyd George fired a few bullets in return and was got rid of as PM PDQ.
If there is a No, then it will all be forgotten, as the referendum in N.Ireland was. Eventually.
Do you mean the 1973 or 1998 Northern Ireland referendum?
@TheScreamingEagles said: 1/2 SunTimes/YouGov poll find 72% think a post-2015 government dependent on Scottish MPs would not be legitimate
I have been saying that on here for the last few days only to be called mad or a turnip. It is nice to have so much company
But again, the situation of a Labour government dependent on (soon-to-be-departed) Scottish MPs is not going to arise. I just don't understand why people would expect Scots who'd just voted for independence to then go and vote for Labour MPs who would be pointless to their situation. If it's a "Yes" vote, it will be an SNP landslide in Scotland to ensure that independence comes about as quickly as possible.
Whatever else one says about Cameron, I think it would be foolish to dispute that he is highly intelligent. He got a top first from Oxford. He's extremely sharp. I thought his sound bite about "not just another chance to give the Tories a kicking" was very well judged.
It's easy to dislike his arroagance etc, but I think it would be a big call to say the man i stupid. I think he would do well in an IQ test. He also appears to have high levels of emotional intelligence.
The video ended with a warning that a second British hostage would be the next to die. From the guardian
People I don't know die every minute, yet this has made me feel so sad.
A Brit beheads a fellow Brit over British foreign policy.
"On 28 March 1981 Powell gave a speech to Ashton-under-Lyne Young Conservatives where he attacked the "conspiracy of silence" between the government and the opposition over the prospective growth through births of the immigration population and added, "'We have seen nothing yet' is a phrase that we could with advantage repeat to ourselves whenever we try to form a picture of that future". He also criticised those who believed it was "too late to do anything" and that "there lies the certainty of violence on a scale which can only adequately be described as civil war". "
The odds remain very strange. All the value is on YES.
I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand? The way bookies work, the less likely an outcome, the higher the odds. Essentially, the bookies are confident that a YES vote will not happen. Bookies are rarely incorrect.
Whatever else one says about Cameron, I think it would be foolish to dispute that he is highly intelligent. He got a top first from Oxford. He's extremely sharp. I thought his sound bite about "not just another chance to give the Tories a kicking" was very well judged.
It's easy to dislike his arroagance etc, but I think it would be a big call to say the man i stupid. I think he would do well in an IQ test. He also appears to have high levels of emotional intelligence.
What angers me about Cameron is that it is his arrogance that got him into this stupid position. Laziness, and arrogance.
He is a self-regarding man who thinks he is cleverer than he actually is.
A smarter politician would have engineered a way to get a vague Devomax onto the ballot. Because a smarter politician would have known that Losing the Union was infinitely worse than the vague risk of some constitutional Devomax argumentation several years hence.
A smarter politician would have given himself wiggle room, and ruled out the absolute horror of national break-up.
But Cameron is not smart. He THINKS he is smart. So, lazily, he went for an all out gamble, YES or NO, which he might well lose, as things stand. And he did that because he was lazily confident that he would win. Being so self regarding.
He is utterly inept on a very basic level. He is an Etonian born to govern devoid of the basic skills of governance and politics.
For this, too, he must go.
I agree mostly. But in fairness to Cameron, yes was at 35% at the time. There was hardly a widespread view at the time that he'd f---ed up.
You know what depresses me? The fact I am obviously smarter than David Cameron.
I'm a ridiculous, semi-alcoholic thriller writer with bipolarity and a history of drug abuse and blatant whoring. I barely made it alive into my 40s.
Yet I could run this country better than our Etonian Prime Minister, inasmuch as I wouldn't have been so careless as to lose (or nearly lose) 30% of it. Even when I was totally hammered on high quality heroin I wouldn't have been that dim.
Eesh. We are governed by narcissistic cretins.
You don't appear to have run your own life successfully let alone being fit to run a nation. Self indulgent is the word.
The newsreader on Sky has just described it as an "alleged murder"
They filmed him explaining why his captors were about to kill him FFS.
Are we so detached from reality these days that "allegedly" must go in front of even this!
Yes, we don't often agree, but I agree with you on that. Moreover, I think we need sone voluntary restraint by broadcasters on ISIS statements, whether sent directly or dictated to their captives. It is directly against the public interest and the interest of potential hostages that we should give airtime to the alleged motivations of murderers who are clearly in reality partly motivated by... the wish to get airtime. Yeah, sure, the curious can seek them out on the internet, just as they can no doubt hunt out the thoughts of Anders Breivik. But let's disabuse murderers of the idea that we are interested in their crap.
The odds remain very strange. All the value is on YES.
I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand? The way bookies work, the less likely an outcome, the higher the odds. Essentially, the bookies are confident that a YES vote will not happen. Bookies are rarely incorrect.
A Brit beheads a fellow Brit over British foreign policy.
Why do we continue to persist in calling these foreigners "Brits". They're not - they're 2nd/3rd generation immigrants at best, and they have clearly chosen their side. There are millions of "Brits" in this country who do not share our culture, beliefs, or indeed speak our language. Why do we lie to ourselves?
The odds remain very strange. All the value is on YES.
I'm not sure what you're finding so difficult to understand? The way bookies work, the less likely an outcome, the higher the odds. Essentially, the bookies are confident that a YES vote will not happen. Bookies are rarely incorrect.
That the bookies are so apparently confident of one particular outcome when all other indicators are that it is so close is what is baffling
You know what depresses me? The fact I am obviously smarter than David Cameron.
I'm a ridiculous, semi-alcoholic thriller writer with bipolarity and a history of drug abuse and blatant whoring. I barely made it alive into my 40s.
Yet I could run this country better than our Etonian Prime Minister, inasmuch as I wouldn't have been so careless as to lose (or nearly lose) 30% of it. Even when I was totally hammered on high quality heroin I wouldn't have been that dim.
Eesh. We are governed by narcissistic cretins.
You don't appear to have run your own life successfully let alone being fit to run a nation. Self indulgent is the word.
I earn £200k a year, travel the world first class for free, have two beautiful daughters, and, at the age of 51, I am at present stepping out with a very attractive 26 year old. This after a lifetime of roistering, partying, and ridiculous self indulgence, sufficient to fill two memoirs (the first of which was an international best-seller).
You?
Well done, you.
However, I'd rather you weren't running my whelk stall, thank you very much.
Comments
Besides, Cameron's from a nice upper middle class Berkshire family, not the nobility. Peasemore pony club, hunt balls and fun with the local racing fraternity and whatever luxuries his fathers stockbroker earnings could stretch to. Newbury Races, Lockinge point to point, hardly the owners box at the L'Arc de Triomphe.
If he goes, he'll pootle off and enjoy life with his family. He's been through more than many, and won't throw it all away.
Ollec the Fleming made Lord of most of Pembrokeshire after 1066
Freskyn of Moravia
William son of Freskyn
Hugh De Moravia
William 1st Earl of Sutherland (created 1235 Scotland's oldest Earldom)
William 2nd Earl of Sutherland
Kenneth 4th Earl of Sutherland (brother-in-law of Robert the Bruce and fought at Bannockburn, their wives were granddaughters of Llewelyn Prince of Wales )
William 5th Earl of Sutherland (and 2nd wife Lady Joanna Menteith)
Robert 6th Earl of Sutherland
Alexander Sutherland of Dunbeath
Marjorie Sutherland and 1st Earl of Caithness
Lady Eleanor Sinclair and the 1st Earl of Atholl
Lady Elizabeth Stewart and 3rd Earl of Lennox
Matthew Stewart 4th Earl of Lennox and Lady Margaret Douglas (daughter of Princess Margaret Tudor and granddaughter of Henry VII of England)
Henry Lord Darnley who married his 1st cousin Mary Queen of Scots
James VI and I
Elizabeth Queen of Bohemia
Sophia Electress of Hanover
George I
George II (shared at this point with Boris Johnson)
Frederick Prince of Wales
George III
William IV and Dorothea Jordan
Elizabeth FitzClarence and William Hay 18th Earl of Errol
Lady Agnes Hay and James Duff 5th Earl of Fife
Lady Agnes Duff and Sir Alfred Cooper
Stephanie Cooper
Enid Levita and Sir William Mount Bt
Mary Mount and Ian Donald Cameron
David William Donald Cameron
so there you are, at least one line of David Cameron's ancestry back to 1066
Would love to be able to head off for the hills in the NW Highlands.
& while that is going on, some horrible news from the MiddleEast, but what other sort of news do we get from there...?
And yes he should go. If you are head of the Conservative and Unionist Party and have
1. Failed to win a majority over a deadbeat PM.
2. Failed to preserve the Union
3. Split the Right in this country
4. Exposed the Church of England to legal action due to your recklessness
you frankly have no option.
I have said that 2015 would be no repeat of 1997; now I'm not so sure.
Dear god no. ISIS have executed British hostage David Haines.
(Incidentally, are you actually in this country?)
More later
Will it be the last ELBOW before Scottish Independence?
If the Tories take a significant and sustained hit in the polls (Dropping to the mid 20's) then Cameron will struggle to survive . If the Tories hold their vote then he'll survive.
The other consideration is if Cameron is caught between his own party and the Libdems over the English question and whether a) his party would accept an unpopular compromise that helps primarily Labour or b) Labour and Libdems use the issue to bring about a vote of no confidence
The thing is we will be in uncharted territory (how would the newspapers/ media react to losing Scotland?) so all sorts of pitfalls and problems could raise their heads.
Regardless of personal opinion, Cameron, Brown, & Blair etc are not dim.
Off to the hills tomorrow.
We do not know what a Yes vote means for the May 2015 elections (or a No vote either) but it is easy to set out a case where a demoralised Labour gets defeated by a rUK Tory party who then go on to form a majority government with a mandate of negotiating the English demands for separation.
Coincidentally, I'm reading Charles Moore's biography of her right now. I've *just* got to the bit where she's discussing the Tory strategy on the Scottish devolution proposals in 1977/1978. It caused a bit of a split in her shadow cabinet.
It's very interesting.
Rather than generalising that Cameron must be a man of honour because his dad was something in the city, let's look at his actions. He has clearly been positioning himself for the last three years to survive a Yes by distancing himself from the campaign as far as he can. And he said in Scotland last week that "if you vote Yes,I'll be here to make it work" owtte. Case closed.
David Cameron has very little experience of the people of this country. He has had the benefit of the best education money can buy - with the emphasis on money. He didn't get involved with student politics at Oxford, preferring to smash up restaurants with his Bullingdon mates. His first job out of university was secured by his step-mother - in TV.
He is also young as a Prime Minister (OK, not William Pitt, but we now have a universal franchise). This perhaps counts for his recklessness over Scotland and gay 'marriage'.
Finally, he studied PPE at Oxford and went on to be a spad, then MP. Economists are often accused of fitting the people to the model, rather than the model to the people. Political scientists seem to be the same, if Cameron is an example. Time and time again, he seems completely to misjudge what his party (what's left of it) or the country (what's left of it) thinks.
Presumably you post on here in the hope of being taken as a serious and interesting commentator. The referendum due in under a week is the most important event of your political life. And you are happy to look to any reader of the blog like an infantile prat by inane trolling like this?
Oh, and I want a Yes vote on Thursday, so don't congratulate yourself on pissing off a Unionist.
It's a HR nightmare.
Nor would they be taking advice from SeanT on this, however amusing he can be. He knows as much about practical politics as I do about hard drugs. (I've got an opinion but it is entirely uninformed by experience.)
Cameron did the honourable and democratic thing - allowed the Scots self-determination after they voted for it by choosing an SNP government in Edinburgh.
The rest of the UK would be no worse off economically, though we would be the poorer culturally.
Most of the most talented Scots are already south or west of the border already. Some may move back. Most will stay away until retirement.
The only way for a Yes vote to be rescinded would be for the Holyrood parliament to have a further vote before Independence day on the negotiated terms. Even economic chaos and riots in the streets would not cause that, so I cannot see it happening.
There will be a normal UK YouGov at midnight, or perhaps in the morning (for that Parliament thing that we're doing in May, for those who have forgotten it) but I'm not sure there are more Indyref polls due until four of them appear on referendum eve on Wednesday.
No, John Major made his own mistakes but the country and Conservative Party paid dearly for them.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.110033387
Whether Scotland would agree to the terms (fisheries policy, currency union with the Euro, Shengen agreement, loss of rebate) would be a different question.
It's Cameron's fault 'cos he's lazy, arrogant and NOT SMART. HE MUST GO!
Shame you can't do green ink.
Calm down, dear. We've got a few days to go yet. Losing Scotland to independence and SeanT to a blood pressure induced coronary would be too much for me to bear.
Camerons problem is that his mind can't quite grasp the fact that people really do think differently from both him and the company he keeps.
Eton teaches you one thing, confidence, and too much confidence can make you blind.
(or was that masturbation ?)
Apparently Mrs Thatcher had no sense of humour in the normal sense, This I find worrying.
A PM who can't see a joke, is a dangerous thing in my opinion
I could never have signed this treaty. I hope that that is clear to all who have heard me. The Bill will pass considerable further powers irrevocably from Westminster to Brussels, and, by extending majority voting, will undermine our age-old parliamentary and legal institutions, both far older than those in the Community. We have so much more to lose by this Maastricht Treaty than any other state in the European Community. It will diminish democracy and increase bureaucracy......
.....Finally, the referendum. No elector in this country has been able to vote against Maastricht—none. It has been impossible to do so. I think that when one looks at the extent of the powers which are being handed over, it would be disgraceful if we denied them that opportunity........
I believe that to hand over the people's parliamentary rights on the scale of the Maastricht Treaty without the consent of the people in a referendum would be to betray the trust—as guardians of the parliamentary institutions, of the courts and of the constitution—that they have placed in us.
Thatcher was the spiritual leader of Euroscepticism. She didn't need to sit in the 'other place' to make John Major's life a misery
However if it's no then the verdict may be a little kinder. But not much.
Civil war
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.110033387
Cameroon Free Marketeers Demand Protectionism
or
British Owners for British Companies
Next you'll be suggesting nationalisation......
They filmed him explaining why his captors were about to kill him FFS.
Are we so detached from reality these days that "allegedly" must go in front of even this!
"Eton has given David Cameron lifelong confidence, unfortunately genetics was less generous with the intelligence. "
I would disagree, he probably did have "Intelligence" But he never really had to work hard at it.
Look at his work history and connections?
If there is a No, then it will all be forgotten, as the referendum in N.Ireland was. Eventually.
From the guardian
It's easy to dislike his arroagance etc, but I think it would be a big call to say the man i stupid. I think he would do well in an IQ test. He also appears to have high levels of emotional intelligence.
A Brit beheads a fellow Brit over British foreign policy.
"On 28 March 1981 Powell gave a speech to Ashton-under-Lyne Young Conservatives where he attacked the "conspiracy of silence" between the government and the opposition over the prospective growth through births of the immigration population and added, "'We have seen nothing yet' is a phrase that we could with advantage repeat to ourselves whenever we try to form a picture of that future". He also criticised those who believed it was "too late to do anything" and that "there lies the certainty of violence on a scale which can only adequately be described as civil war". "
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell
As all new memberships of the EU require a Treaty of Accession, the rules can be changed at any time for the circumstances.
They filmed him explaining why his captors were about to kill him FFS.
Are we so detached from reality these days that "allegedly" must go in front of even this!
I see no reason not to start slaughtering them. We should put as many IS fighters to death as we are capable of.
Until the video is authenticated, they have to put that caveat.
However, I'd rather you weren't running my whelk stall, thank you very much.