Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

What's new? The latest myff announcements


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Reluctant Hero

Cameron : Union is fragile

And him coming north is just what the Unionist argument needs  Laughing

Quote:
Cameron in staunch Union defence

Conservative leader David Cameron has strongly defended the Union, pledging to fight the "ugly stain of separatism seeping through the Union flag".
Speaking in Edinburgh, Mr Cameron said he believed the Union between Scotland and England was more fragile than ever.

He said there were those in England who wanted to see the Scottish Government succeed in its independence goal.

The SNP accused Mr Cameron of delivering a "negative message about Scotland in negative language".

The 300-year-old Union between the two nations was the only topic in a speech delivered by Mr Cameron as he travelled to Scotland to meet Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie.

He pointed out that just two days after the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union, Scots had voted for an SNP government at Holyrood.

In a bid to combat the SNP, the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems joined forces last week at the Scottish Parliament to vote through plans for a constitutional commission to look into the future of devolution.

Speaking in the shadow of both the Scottish Parliament and Holyrood Palace, Mr Cameron said: "It is my desire and my duty to help shape the future, and the future of our Union is looking more fragile, more threatened than at any time in recent history."

He added: "The SNP now promise to deliver independence in 10 years and at the same time there are those in England who want the SNP to succeed, who would like to see the Union fail.

"They seek to use grievances to foster a narrow English nationalism. I have a message for them: I will never let you succeed."

'Blaming Labour'

Prime Minister Gordon Brown, then chancellor, repeatedly said that Scotland and England were "stronger together, weaker apart" prior to the Holyrood election.

The Tory leader echoed that sentiment by arguing that the two countries were stronger, safer, richer and fairer together.

But while his speech echoed Mr Brown's words, Mr Cameron was critical of the Prime Minister's proposals on the subject of Britishness.

"He approaches the whole question of national identity like a sort of brand manager trying to launch a new product on the market or some kind of spin doctor trying to revive the reputation of a failing government department," Mr Cameron said.

"That's the thing about frustration. It can be easy to blame your neighbours, but what we should be doing is blaming Labour."

He said he believed that was why Scots had backed the SNP in May's Scottish Parliament elections.  

Responding to the speech, SNP Depute Leader Nicola Sturgeon MSP pointed out that Mr Cameron had stated before the Holyrood poll that Scotland could be a successful independent country.

She added: "The Tories are facing both ways on Scotland. Just last week, the Tories north of the Border signed up to a commission to boost the financial powers of the parliament which would make us wealthier.

"Whereas the Tory drive at Westminster is about appealing to a south of England agenda and cutting Scottish spending.

"Instead of coming to sell a negative message about Scotland in negative language, David Cameron should support the right of the Scottish people to choose their future in a democratic referendum."

Labour's Jack Straw said: "Mr Cameron's plan for English votes for English laws is dangerous and unworkable."

Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael added: "

"Such constitutional illiteracy plays into nationalistic hands on both sides of the border."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7136935.stm
Maol.Chaluim

David Cameron wrote:
They (the SNP) seek to use grievances to foster a narrow English nationalism.


Surely he can't get away with lying like that?
sgmillerton

mr. cameron speaks in favour of the union and he is mocked and called a a liar. mr. salmond speaks out against the union and people think he is a great politician. are nationalists really that narrowminded?
Maol.Chaluim

When has the SNP seeked to "use grievances to foster a narrow English nationalism" then?  Where is the evidence for it?

Cameron and whoever else is of course welcome to speak in favour of the Union, Salmond can speak in favour of independence.  Neither should resort to misrepresentation, scaremongering or lies to promote their repsective positions.
SLG

SGM - people don't mock Cameron simply for being a Unionist.

Interesting perspective on the CEP blog on this.  Basically Cameron will soon commit the Tories to backing 'English votes on English issues'.  English nats (including some in the Tory party) will leap on this as a very pro-English move.  Scots nats will say this is creating a divided UK parliament which undermines the Scottish say even further.  Labour will accuse the Tories of not being as good Unionists as them.

So here we have Cameron getting in there first.  He loves the Union - it's his first priority - he would never dream of doing anything to put it at risk.  He then takes the step that his party demands (and he hopes will win the Tories votes) and goes some way to answering the West Lothian question - though he knows it also serve to undermine the Union.
sgmillerton

do you seriously believe that the snp, whilst creating an atmosphere of hostility in westminster by squabbling about oil, barnett, iraq, funding,fish, prescrition charges and whatever else, are, in this process, damping the rising flames of english nationalism then you are quite deluded. mr. salmond is as slippery as they come, but he is a clever slippery one.

plan is simple-antagonise the rest of the union and the rest of the union will tell scotland to f**k off. very clever but ultimatley it won't work.
sgmillerton

SLG wrote:
SGM - people don't mock Cameron simply for being a Unionist.

yes they are.
Maol.Chaluim

Try actually reading what I've posted and addressing it directly.

If you expect any government, be it of an independent country or a sub-national legislature, regional government, state government, or whatever, not to act in it's interests, then it's you who is quite deluded.
sgmillerton

they bloody better be acting in my interests, i f***ing pay them enough. the pointis how they are going about it, in an antagonistic fashion and that is fanning the flames of english nationalism. so, no, i'm not being deluded.
Maol.Chaluim

Do you have any evidence that the SNP are going about they're business in an antagonistic fashion, or that they're creating an atmosphere of hostility at Westminster?  Any links?
SLG

Asymmetrical devolution by its very nature creates antagonism.  That's why everyone agrees that it can't continue.  The Unionist will look to make the same mistake a second time.  And it will fail a second time.  Then, eventually, the Union will be dissolved.
sgmillerton

oh jesus, not links again.

here we go, did not take very long.i'm not looking for anymore by the way. anyone with a hint of insight know what the tactic is.

http://www.snp.org/press-releases...ttish-funding-under-attack-again/
sgmillerton

SLG wrote:
Asymmetrical devolution by its very nature creates antagonism.  That's why everyone agrees that it can't continue.  The Unionist will look to make the same mistake a second time.  And it will fail a second time.  Then, eventually, the Union will be dissolved.


does he need to provide a link?
Maol.Chaluim

No.  I asked you for evidence, or a link, that the SNP is being antagonistic and creating hostility at Westminster.  The link you provided proves no such thing.  It does demostrate, quite rightly, as you have previously agreed, the SNP looking after the interests of the people that elected them, something  which the previous administration also did occasionally.  

As SLG says (how do you know it's a "he" Very Happy), asymetrical devolution is the problem.
sgmillerton

Maol.Chaluim wrote:
No.  I asked you for evidence, or a link, that the SNP is being antagonistic and creating hostility at Westminster.  The link you provided proves no such thing.  It does demostrate, quite rightly, as you have previously agreed, the SNP looking after the interests of the people that elected them, something  which the previous administration also did occasionally.  

As SLG says (how do you know it's a "he" Very Happy), asymetrical devolution is the problem.


i'm just gonna leave you to it. if you cannot see that the snp is trying to create an atmosphere of hostility and antagonism with westminster which subsequently fans the flames of english nationalism (as a by-product of acting as a govt.), then no links or eveidence will furnish that. your mind has been made up, 'the snp are doing their best for the people and skip through fields of wheat with miss. westminster talking nicely about independence and a loving relaionship with the rest of the union. hooray, the snp have no hiddden agenda's'. good luck.
doodells

Of course it helps the SNP cause if problems do arise in Westminster reagrding Scotlands place in the union but I don't believe they are being 'hostile'. 'Squabling' over real and important issues such as fishing, nuclear weapons, energy, cash for honours etc is as far as I'm concerned exactly what I want to see our politicians doing!

Back to the subject, cameron is using the same negative lines as Labour by trying to portray the SNP as an entity that wishes to destroy the current status quo. Of course they do want to change things but I don't think Camerons words are any more significant that what other Unionists said in the run up to the last Scottish elections. I don't see the significance of this trip to Edinburgh. ANd anyway, what is so bad about English nationalism? I hate it how everytime someone mentions English nationalism it is always in a negative light. If there are people in ENgland who wish to be independent, they opinions and arguments are as equally valid as those who wish to keep the union.
sgmillerton

[. If there are people in ENgland who wish to be independent, they opinions and arguments are as equally valid as those who wish to keep the union.[/quote]

hear,hear.what a refreshing outlook.
William_Cleland

Cameron faces a bit of a problem in that he has to appeal to people who still hanker after the old status quo and those who want to see a self-governing England in response to the changes that have taken place. He is going to send out mixed signals to try to appeal to people with both those mindsets and we won't really know for sure where he really stands until he gets into office as I suspect he will after the next Westminster general election.
sgmillerton

William_Cleland wrote:
Cameron faces a bit of a problem in that he has to appeal to people who still hanker after the old status quo and those who want to see a self-governing England in response to the changes that have taken place. He is going to send out mixed signals to try to appeal to people with both those mindsets and we won't really know for sure where he really stands until he gets into office as I suspect he will after the next Westminster general election.


mixed signals, not sure where he stands,i know just the chap who can help him at hollyrood.
Rinty

I would think that the party who first embraces the idea of a devolved English parliament is on to an winner and it is less of a gamble than some might think.

Most people support a balance to the devolution settlements that the current system doesnt provide.

If I were the tories a would be going for a slogan like "a strong england in a string union" or axing the 'subsidy junkie' dabet by anniouncing fiscal autnomy for the four countires in the union with a sloagn like "proud british nations, standing on their own two feet'.
kevin04

Rinty wrote:
I would think that the party who first embraces the idea of a devolved English parliament is on to an winner and it is less of a gamble than some might think.

Most people support a balance to the devolution settlements that the current system doesnt provide.

If I were the tories a would be going for a slogan like "a strong england in a string union" or axing the 'subsidy junkie' dabet by anniouncing fiscal autnomy for the four countires in the union with a sloagn like "proud british nations, standing on their own two feet'.


I think there's a job out there for you rinty!  Cool
sgmillerton

i agree, more power devolution but retain the union.well done.
carol

sg I disagree with you

if the union is so fragile best thing is DIVORCE
Economist

A good analysis on this from Iain MacWhirter, that's maybe worth repeating:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co..../2007/12/camerons_union_dues.html

Quote:
David Cameron made a valiant attempt to rouse support for the union in Edinburgh yesterday, as the 300th anniversary year drains away. But it is impossible to ignore the processes that have been set in train this momentous political year, which saw a nationalist government installed in Holyrood and a parallel growth in English nationalism. This will lead inexorably to a radically altered union, or no union at all.

The reason? In Scotland, all the opposition parties, including the Scottish Conservatives, have now voted to set up a constitutional commission to press for greater devolution of power. The objective is to repatriate many of the reserved powers from Westminster - such as firearms, drugs, broadcasting - and to give the Scottish parliament its own independent tax base. This is almost as significant as Alex Salmond becoming first minister.

The fact that the Scottish Tories are participating in this process is quite extraordinary for anyone who has watched the constitutional story unfold over the last 20 years. The Tories bitterly opposed devolution on the grounds that it might lead to an independent or federal Scotland; now they are actively backing greater autonomy. The SNP has welcomed the process and says it supports the drive to win greater powers for Holyrood.

For his part, David Cameron is also doing his best to loosen the ties that bind the union. He has endorsed the calls for an English grand committee to be set up in Westminster, composed exclusively of English MPs, which would have legislative responsibility for "England-only" legislation, like the 2005 higher education bill. This move towards "English votes for English laws" will create a de facto English parliament within Westminster.

The exclusion of Scottish MPs will further detach Scotland from the UK parliament. As will any review of the Barnett formula for Scottish funding. So, why has David Cameron decided to make a speech saying that the union must be saved at all costs? Well, an interesting change had taken place in metropolitan opinion since May 3, which is reflected in the Tory leader's address.

The election of a nationalist government in Scotland has caused a wave of mild panic among the UK political establishment about the likely consequences of any Scottish breakaway. There is now a growing realisation that independence for Scotland is no longer in the realm of fantasy, and that this could leave England out in the cold. As Cameron noted in his speech, Britain's international status would be seriously undermined if the UK fragmented. It is unlikely that England alone could continue to carry its current clout in the UN security council or the councils of the EU.

Moreover, the rising price of oil, and the realisation that Scotland is going to be come a renewable energy powerhouse, has provoked economic anxiety about Scottish independence. It was always assumed that Scotland wasn't serious about independence, and that it would never leave the subsidised embrace of the UK. Now, no one is sure any more. And when you add up the numbers, with oil at nearly $100, the Barnett formula suddenly looks like a very good deal indeed for England.

The recent waves of metropolitan hostility towards Scotland, over the West Lothian question and the supposed "featherbedding" of Scotland through the Barnett formula, has done its work, however. Scotland's attachment to the union has undoubtedly been corroded over the last two years as papers like the Telegraph - which has launched a campaign to save the union - banged on endlessly about Scottish subsidies and Scottish overrepresentation in Westminster and in the Labour cabinet. The accepted wisdom, that English taxes are paying for a socialist paradise north of the border, is not shared by Scots. Now Scots have drawn their own conclusions and have decided that they want greater financial and political autonomy.

My own view is that, in 10 years, Scotland will be functionally independent - though it will retain the Queen as head of state and have a residual representation in a reformed House of Lords. Call it federalism, call it independence, the union as we know it is finished. And the irony is that David Cameron, and his Scottish party, is hastening its end.
sgmillerton

carol wrote:
sg I disagree with you

if the union is so fragile best thing is DIVORCE


the union will flourish with more devolved powers and in turn keeps ALL nationalists happy. give all who want it devolved powers but keep the union intact. seems perfect to me.
carol

flourish?   I think that will be a long hard climb.  The union is crumbling.

why go for more and more devolved powers when we can gain complete freedom from Westminster?  Why should we be 'governed' by another country?

Carol
kevin04

Another great column from MacWhirter, He's on top form again!
sgmillerton

carol wrote:
flourish?   I think that will be a long hard climb.  The union is crumbling.

why go for more and more devolved powers when we can gain complete freedom from Westminster?  Why should we be 'governed' by another country?

Carol


we are governed on some levels by holyrood and on some levels by westmintster which is the government of the uk, which we are part of, the last time i checked anyway. who is this other country governing us? brazil, greenland?
carol

Brit Parly, England

from another country would be more appropriate
carol

as for the mixed varieties of governing, it's ludicrous
sgmillerton

carol wrote:
Brit Parly, England

from another country would be more appropriate


'brit'.
anyway, i voted for my mp ( a scottish constituency) to enter the uk parliemnt along with othr voters in england, wales, scotland and ulster. you have been misinformed. british means the 4 counrties, not 1.
carol

I prefer my own identity thanks

Scottish  Wink
sgmillerton

you are perfectly entitled to that, i'm scots/british. stick to facts though about westminster.
Rinty

I also dont agree.  I think that further devolution to a federal UK will only be a short stop until full breaking up of the union, but it would be a vote winner for a mainstream party in England.

As we are part of the EU, the commonwealth etc a federal UK would be obsolete soon after it's launch for all but the normal relations that neighbouring countries have.
William_Cleland

Rinty wrote:
I would think that the party who first embraces the idea of a devolved English parliament is on to an winner and it is less of a gamble than some might think.


Whichever of the two main UK parties does it first will have their opponent wrapping itself in the Union Flag and talking about saving the country etc etc and if you are the Conservatives that could siphon away enough core supporters that it has to be a major concern. Think the Conservatives are trying to do it by stealth with the English MPs for English votes stuff, which they must know is unworkable as a solution long term, but we won't really know how serious they are about taking things to their logical conclusion on that until they actually win power. I would agree that once the wheels are set in motion it is less of a gamble than some people think.
Rinty

Aye, I agree William, which is why I would suggest that the tories, or whoever, would announce plans for an english parliament while wrapped in the union flag.
carol

sgmillerton wrote:
you are perfectly entitled to that, i'm scots/british. stick to facts though about westminster.


Scots/British sounds daft as German/European is.  Do you actually describe yourself as that?

As for Westmister it's like big bruv watching over us, cept Scotland is big enough to stand on it's own two feet and doesn't need babysitting.

Scottish and proud of it  Wink
sgmillerton

carol wrote:
sgmillerton wrote:
you are perfectly entitled to that, i'm scots/british. stick to facts though about westminster.


Scots/British sounds daft as German/European is.  Do you actually describe yourself as that?

As for Westmister it's like big bruv watching over us, cept Scotland is big enough to stand on it's own two feet and doesn't need babysitting.

Scottish and proud of it  Wink


scottish/british and proud of it, just like my asian/british brothers and african/british brothers and sisters. Wink
carol

well some consolation you're Scottish first  Wink
sgmillerton

defo, i'm scottish first, nae dooobts.
Rinty

you still here?

I see you got booted out of the SSY forum again, scottishpornstar was a rubbish new name.
sgmillerton

Rinty wrote:
you still here?

I see you got booted out of the SSY forum again, scottishpornstar was a rubbish new name.


in the name of pokefeet hiding in my loft, what are you on about?
Rinty

I'm on about you, scottishpornstar/trueblue, being banned yet again from the SSY forum.

I wish I hadn't argued to give you another chance when you re-appeared here.

You managed three posts before they spotted you, mainly attacking aamer anwar!
sgmillerton

Rinty wrote:
I'm on about you, scottishpornstar/trueblue, being banned yet again from the SSY forum.

I wish I hadn't argued to give you another chance when you re-appeared here.

You managed three posts before they spotted you, mainly attacking aamer anwar!


i'm sorry but you are way of track again. someone got banned from a website for attacking aamir awarn? you got a link, freedom of speech in action i supose.
Rinty

Itv was you, truebleu, who got banned.  When you attempt to re-enter the SSY forum you will find out.
sgmillerton

is this a leftie website? a forum?sounds like fun? what is the address and i'll have some fun with them.
Cymro

SG, you're a joke and a pretty tragic one at that. Do you STILL deny you are Trueblue ?
sgmillerton

tragedy is with us all btu we just do not know it yet. i have no idea what he is on about.
Cymro

Your trolling around websites is the tragic bit SG. It's pathetic. Did you not used to post here under the same Trueblue then?
sgmillerton

when? i cannot recall anysuch name or incident. i did find the ssy site on google. now, there are some mad folks out there but my god, they bonkers, BONKERS they are. goof laugh though, they seem somewhat intolerant though.
Cymro

I'm not interested in the SSY webiste of who posts on them. The words you used to describe them also comes politely close to words most would describe you. The admins on here are able to tell that you are Trueblue. Why do you still deny it?
sgmillerton

is rinty on a day off or something?
Cymro

sgmillerton wrote:
is rinty on a day off or something?


not that I'm aware of, do you deny you have been posting under the name 'trueblue'?
sgmillerton

i'm posting under sgmillerton as you can see.
Cymro

have, SG, HAVE. You've tried to deny it in the past but now seem unwilling to do so. Why is that ?
SLG

Ok, he's gone.  Thread locked.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter 'Top Scottish Websites' - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Top Site - Topsites Top 100 Scottish Websites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites Tartan Army Topsites View Site Stats Our Scotland Blog Scottish Politics Scottish Lads