You can't quit UK without my approval, David Cameron warns Scots

Border-Rat

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083665/You-quit-UK-approval-David-Cameron-warns-Scots-First-Minister-Alex-Salmond-pushes-referendum.html

This outburst from Cameron is revealing. With this behaviour, the same should be expected if and when the 06 Counties held a referendum, especially one that positively looked for a United Ireland. These are not honorable men.

Fratton Fred

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083665/You-quit-UK-approval-David-Cameron-warns-Scots-First-Minister-Alex-Salmond-pushes-referendum.html

This outburst from Cameron is revealing. With this behaviour, the same should be expected if and when the 06 Counties held a referendum, especially one that positively looked for a United Ireland. These are not honorable men.

Who?

What has David Cameron ever done that would make you state that?

Lapin

If the Scots had any sense, they'd be fighting to remain in the union.

Independence isn't worth a damn.

Look at us.

Manach

i.e. from that article he stated the legal advice that such a move would be unconstitutional. In political terms it would make sense for the Unionists to a question set by an un-biased group instead of the Scottish nationalist party.

lugha

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083665/You-quit-UK-approval-David-Cameron-warns-Scots-First-Minister-Alex-Salmond-pushes-referendum.html

This outburst from Cameron is revealing. With this behaviour, the same should be expected if and when the 06 Counties held a referendum, especially one that positively looked for a United Ireland. These are not honorable men.

Hardly. If the people of Northern Ireland want out of the UK, and if the people in the republic want part of a united Ireland (by no means a given), then it will happen. Just as a Scottish opt out will happen if the Scots want it.

And David Cameron will be long gone, as will perhaps a dozen of his successors, before the issue will arise.

woodoo

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083665/You-quit-UK-approval-David-Cameron-warns-Scots-First-Minister-Alex-Salmond-pushes-referendum.html

This outburst from Cameron is revealing. With this behaviour, the same should be expected if and when the 06 Counties held a referendum, especially one that positively looked for a United Ireland. These are not honorable men.

David Cameron would be heartbroken if Scotland left the union. He wouldn't give a rats behind if NI decided to go.

woodoo

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083665/You-quit-UK-approval-David-Cameron-warns-Scots-First-Minister-Alex-Salmond-pushes-referendum.html

This outburst from Cameron is revealing. With this behaviour, the same should be expected if and when the 06 Counties held a referendum, especially one that positively looked for a United Ireland. These are not honorable men.

There is a provision in the Good Friday Agreement that says the people of NI will decide. If they vote to go. Thats it as far as the UK is concerned.

dlofnep

It's not really relevant what David Cameron thinks. His party has no mandate in Scotland.

KeithAFC

Well said David Cameron. Keep the Union together at all costs. Scotland would be a disaster if it got independence.

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well said David Cameron. Keep the Union together at all costs. Scotland would be a disaster if it got independence.

Keep the union together, if it's against the wishes of the Scottish people?

woodoo

dlofnep wrote: »

Keep the union together, if it's against the wishes of the Scottish people?

Democracy is only good sometimes to Kieth.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

Keep the union together, if it's against the wishes of the Scottish people?

But it isn't. So David Cameron should be encouraging more Scottish people to be Unionists.

PARKHEAD67

KeithAFC wrote: »

But it isn't. So David Cameron should be encouraging more Scottish people to be Unionists.

You should start worrying about the north keith.Its getting very Catholicy up there.Saw a bit in the paper where the Catholics have outstripped the prods attending queens university.Tick tock keith.Tick tock.

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

But it isn't.

Well, we haven't had a referendum yet to confirm that, Keith.

KeithAFC wrote: »

So David Cameron should be encouraging more Scottish people to be Unionists.

David Cameron can encourage anyone who likes, to do whatever he pleases - but he doesn't get to determine whether or not Scotland can become independent.

KeithAFC

Well, we haven't had a referendum yet to confirm that, Keith.

Well the SNP should hurry up and get one so the Scottish people can decide. I would be confident of a Pro Union victory.

You should start worrying about the north keith.Its getting very Catholicy up there.Saw a bit in the paper where the Catholics have outstripped the prods attending queens university.Tick tock keith.Tick tock.

We should leave Ulster out of the discussion.

Dannyboy83

"You can't quit UK without my approval,"

He must want them to leave if he's publicly making statements like that, LOL!

Cameron's diplomatic skills strike again

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well the SNP should hurry up and get one so the Scottish people can decide. I would be confident of a Pro Union victory.

The SNP have stated that it will be in the second half of the parliamentary term - possibly 2014. They have the mandate to determine the date, not you. It is an important question, and not something that should be rushed. The SNP will have time to make a case for independence building up to the possible 2014 date.

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

The SNP have stated that it will be in the second half of the parliamentary term - possibly 2014. They have the mandate to determine the date, not you. It is an important question, and not something that should be rushed. The SNP will have time to make a case for independence building up to the possible 2014 date.

I await the date. I think the Scottish people are intelligent people and will decide what is best for them. Which would be remaining in the Union. Let's hope that is the case.

PARKHEAD67

We should leave Ulster out of the discussion.[/QUOTE]
"Ulster" already has 3 counties in the Republic, namely Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan. When the other 6 counties of "Ulster" become part of a united Ireland, the independence or lack of independence of Scotland will be the least of your worries keith me old pal:D.

PARKHEAD67

KeithAFC wrote: »

I await the date. I think the Scottish people are intelligent people and will decide what is best for them. Which would be remaining in the Union. Let's hope that is the case.

Did you ever watch Braveheart??Are the Irish the only nation who ever had the balls to stand up to the tyrants?

KeithAFC

"Ulster" already has 3 counties in the Republic, namely Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan. When the other 6 counties of "Ulster" become part of a united Ireland, the independence or lack of independence of Scotland will be the least of your worries keith me old pal:D.

Can we not keep this thread on topic? It is a good discussion on Scotland. We don't need to bring Ulster politics into this.:)

PARKHEAD67

KeithAFC wrote: »

Can we not keep this thread on topic? It is a good discussion on Scotland. We don't need to bring Ulster politics into this.:)

Ol keith.Just for you;)

brimal

Interesting topic.

Has there been any recent polls/surveys in Scotland on this? Do the majority want out of the UK?

brimal

Ok had a look around myself and some interesting results from recent polls.

Would you support Scottish independence?

YouGov - 2009
28% Yes
57% No
15% Undecided

YouGov - 2011
34% Yes
50% No
16% Undecided

TNS-BMRB - 2010
40% Yes
44% No
16% Undecided

TNS-BMRB - June 2011
37% Yes
45% No
18% Undecided

TNS-BMRB - September 2011
39% Yes
38% No
23% Undecided

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence#Public_opinion

It's alot closer than I thought, Scotland leaving UK is a very possible outcome.

junder

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Did you ever watch Braveheart??Are the Irish the only nation who ever had the balls to stand up to the tyrants?

Cause braveheart is an accurate account of history

dlofnep

junder wrote: »

Cause braveheart is an accurate account of history

No, but the actions of the crown are well documented in an array of historical books and it isn't a positive account.

MadsL

dlofnep wrote: »

No, but the actions of the crown are well documented in an array of historical books and it isn't a positive account.

Yes those pesky colonists..can't imagine where they got the idea of coming over and settling in someone else's land from...

*cough*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wales
6th Century

There was considerable Irish colonization in Dyfed in south-west Wales

or where they felt that they were welcome...

*cough* *cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarmait_Mac_Murchada

Don'cha hate when guests stay too long.....:P

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

No, but the actions of the crown are well documented in an array of historical books and it isn't a positive account.

yes, history! How many hundred years ago ?

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

The SNP have stated that it will be in the second half of the parliamentary term - possibly 2014. They have the mandate to determine the date, not you. It is an important question, and not something that should be rushed. The SNP will have time to make a case for independence building up to the possible 2014 date.

If the SNP thought an independence referendum would succeed tomorrow, they would call it. The reason they are putting it off is because they know it would lose.

The SNP have been making a case for Scottish independence since their conception, a year or two more isn't going to make any difference.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

No, but the actions of the crown are well documented in an array of historical books and it isn't a positive account.

What was Wallace fighting for if it wasn't the crown?

Fratton Fred

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Did you ever watch Braveheart??Are the Irish the only nation who ever had the balls to stand up to the tyrants?

Wallace was brutal, but I wouldn't call him a tyrant.

However, the famous Welsh longbow men fought alongside the Irish and English as well so no, the Irish weren't the only ones to stand up to him.

maggy_thatcher

Should Scotland secede from the UK, has anybody figured out what percentage of the British national debt that they'd have to take with them would be? As they were part of the group when the money was spent, it'd only be fair for them to take a reasonable percentage of the debt with them...

Fratton Fred

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Should Scotland secede from the UK, has anybody figured out what percentage of the British national debt that they'd have to take with them would be? As they were part of the group when the money was spent, it'd only be fair for them to take a reasonable percentage of the debt with them...

Considering that a big chunk of that was spent bailing out a Scottish bank, quite a lot I would say.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What was Wallace fighting for if it wasn't the crown?

It certainly wasn't for the British crown.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If the SNP thought an independence referendum would succeed tomorrow, they would call it. The reason they are putting it off is because they know it would lose.

The SNP have been making a case for Scottish independence since their conception, a year or two more isn't going to make any difference.

Indeed they have - but only as of late have they been given a legitimate platform to express their views. It will take time to build their case, and isn't something that they should rush through.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Considering that a big chunk of that was spent bailing out a Scottish bank, quite a lot I would say.

And along with it, Scotland can take all of it's oil reserves.

NinjaK

Lapin wrote: »

If the Scots had any sense, they'd be fighting to remain in the union.

Independence isn't worth a damn.

Look at us.

Independence isn't worth a damn? Thats one of the dumbest things ive ever read

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

It certainly wasn't for the British crown.

Indeed they have - but only as of late have they been given a legitimate platform to express their views. It will take time to build their case, and isn't something that they should rush through.

There was no such thing as a "British" Crown in the 13th century and at that time even the English King spoke French.

Anyway, quoting Braveheart in a debate about Scottish independence is about as relevant as quoting Wallace and Grommit in a discussion about the Kennel Club.

If being a Member of Parliament isn't a legitimate platform, then what is? What have the SNP been doing all these years?

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

And along with it, Scotland can take all of it's oil reserves.

What will be interesting is the Shetland question. If they get independence they could be, per capita, one of the wealthiest nations on the planet.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There was no such thing as a "British" Crown in the 13th century and at that time even the English King spoke French.

Anyway, quoting Braveheart in a debate about Scottish independence is about as relevant as quoting Wallace and Grommit in a discussion about the Kennel Club.

I didn't bring up the topic of Braveheart, but you were content to perpetuate it.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If being a Member of Parliament isn't a legitimate platform, then what is? What have the SNP been doing all these years?

I'm not referring to a political platform, I'm referring to a media platform. For years, the establishment scoffed at SNP proposals. But since the SNP won a majority Government - the media's hands are now tied to ensure they give the SNP a platform to express their view, and give them at least a modicum of respect.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What will be interesting is the Shetland question. If they get independence they could be, per capita, one of the wealthiest nations on the planet.

Shetland is a part of Scotland, and is administered as such.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

Shetland is a part of Scotland, and is administered as such.

Scotland is part of the UK and is administered as such.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Scotland is part of the UK and is administered as such.

We're quite aware of that, but the proposition is that Scotland receives independence - I don't see any reason why they would cede territory during this process, especially one as critical as Shetland.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

We're quite aware of that, but the proposition is that Scotland receives independence - I don't see any reason why they would cede territory during this process, especially one as critical as Shetland.

Cede territory?

Like the UK will be doing?

RichieC

blindjustice wrote: »

dlofnep wrote: »

No, but the actions of the crown are well documented in an array of historical books and it isn't a positive account.

yes, history! How many hundred years ago ?

Deago garcia.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

Could we for example veto say Kerry from ceding from the rest of Ireland were they to make a massive oil find? Most I think would say yes and invoke the somewhat vague notion of an ancient Scottish nation to distinguish between these two scenarios.

There is nothing vague about a Scottish nation. Scotland is well defined. It's borders are set in stone. It's culture is unique to Scotland, and it has it's own devolved parliament.

I don't see the same case being made for Kerry I'm afraid. An absurd scenario on your behalf - but if that what's it takes to try and garner support for a pro-union stance on Scottish independence, then it doesn't say much for your argument.

Batsy

I can't see why the English should be denied a referendum on independence. If the Scots can have a referendum on Scottish independence why can't the English have one on English independence? I'd laugh if all four of the Home Nations had such referenda and only the English voted for independence and England becomes the only one to secede from the Union.

Also, what if the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish all have rereferenda on independence but the English aren't given one (for some bizarre reason the English are often forgotten about in such matters despite making up about 84% of the UK population) and the other three all vote for independence? It would mean that England would become an independent nation only because the other three seceded from the Union even though the English would never have had a say on whether or not they want to be an independent nation and may not have wished to be so.

Batsy

Lapin wrote: »

If the Scots had any sense, they'd be fighting to remain in the union.

Nah. Scotland could always join Alex Salmond's "Arc of Prosperity", containing countries such as Ireland and Iceland. He was once very keep on an independent Scotland joining it. I'm sure the Scottish people would jump at the chance.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

There is nothing vague about a Scottish nation. Scotland is well defined. It's borders are set in stone. It's culture is unique to Scotland, and it has it's own devolved parliament.

I don't see the same case being made for Kerry I'm afraid. An absurd scenario on your behalf - but if that what's it takes to try and garner support for a pro-union stance on Scottish independence, then it doesn't say much for your argument.

I couldn’t give a monkey’s what Scotland do, I am simply querying if there is a universal approach that can be taken to these kind of questions.

As for borders set in stone (aren’t all borders artificial?) and devolved parliament, well that sounds like some place a few miles up the road. And I suspect that if there ever is a united Ireland, and if subsequently there were an unlikely surge in the unionist population, you would have little time for a separatist argument from them, though they may be able to cite exactly the arguments you do for Scotland.

So my question remains; what are the conditions whereby a state can say, we are a sovereign state with recognized borders and any change in our state must only come about with the consent of the citizens?

Batsy

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not really relevant what David Cameron thinks. His party has no mandate in Scotland.

David Cameron is the Prime Minister of Scotland.

Batsy

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Are the Irish the only nation who ever had the balls to stand up to the tyrants?

Definitely not. The British stood up to tyrants between 1939 and 1945 whilst the Irish did nothing.

Batsy

dlofnep wrote: »

And along with it, Scotland can take all of it's oil reserves.

Which will run out soon.