Thursday, 12 January 2012

Where the Haggis cry 'Freedom'.

What is the Cameroid up to?

He has already made noises about the SNP referendum on independence for kilts and sporrans, but now he seems to have had a toddler tantrum about it. "You can't have it unless I says so, nyah".

Reminds me somewhat of a saying of my father's from long ago (Granny would never have used one so coarse unless it was in Welsh). It went 'Like a bitch with a bone' and it meant 'He/she doesn't really want it but they don't want anyone else to have it'. Cameron has no support n Scotland but he wants to keep it anyway.

If Scotland separates, the remaining UK will probably have a Tory government forever. The Libby Dimmys will be wiped out. Labour will be reduced to a shadow. Why would a Tory Prime Monster resist that? He'd be in a job for life if he ditched Scotland and if he had any sense he'd be looking at Wales and saying "See? They did it, how about you?"

What does he lose in terms of MPs? One or two? This is a local country for local people, Tories, there's nothing here for you.

I can see why Labour don't want Scottish independence. They'd get hammered if they lost the Buckfast vote. The Libby Dimmys still have a few here too, and they can't afford to lose even one MP at the moment. The Tories, however, would be well shot of Scotland and if they wanted to, they could move their remaining voter south.

Al the Oily Fish didn't set this current argument going. The Cameroid did, all by himself. Why now? Oh, he claims the polls show Oily Al would lose if he had a referendum now but those polls were taken before the Cameroid threw his toys out of the pram. He has, with his 'I am Teacher and you will do as you are told' attitude, advanced Oily Al's position more than any SNP rhetoric ever could. A referendum now is not a guaranteed result, not at all. If Cameroid had silenced the flapping of his gob, chances are Oily Al would have lost.

There seems no logic to it, apart from one little possible bit.

If the UK breaks up, the constituent parts would have to reapply for EU membership. England might rip Cameron a new one and not bother reapplying. Scotland probably would if the SNP get their way but even then, the process would take years. Meanwhile the EU might not get their idiot tax from any part of the UK and we might not feel obliged to obey any of their laws.

I wonder, is it possible the Cameroid has been visited by The Management?

"Nice government you got 'ere, Davey. Shame if anyfink was to 'appen to it. My mate Sarky can get a bit clumsy sometimes, you know, signing things in uvver people's names an' that. Anyway, we got a nice EU pension for the good boys and a special place for the bad boys, know what I mean?"

If Oily Al won his referendum it would cause problems for the EU. It might also get the English thinking "Hang on. They got a referendum, where's the one the Forehead promised us?"

I have always been a 'don't care' on Scottish independence because I'm not Scottish. If they get independence and I don't like it, leaving wouldn't be a problem.

But if it will annoy the Cameroid and the EU, my vote will now be 'yes'.

17 comments:

Mr Frost said...

I'm no supporter of lefty 'Notting Hill' Dave, but I do believe he is a Unionist and with the SNP having successfully set the agenda needed to do something.

So yes, whilst this may annoy / subvert the EU (something I would equally enjoy), I would prefer the Auld Union to remain.

Mr. Frost

Lou said...

Neat post squire, however there's another way of looking at the Tory position; they have one MP to lose, but - under Thatcher - they had 9. Boundary changes are designed to cut Scottish MP's to 52 from 57 and they're doing a similar thing in Wales. In both cases it'll cut into Labour numbers.

If memory serves I believe it takes Westminster down to 620 from 650 and, unless Labour change their leader, the coalition will be with us for a very long time, with Lib/Dems as an even weaker - token - partner.

Consider this one. If DC gets his way and it ends up with a single question - in or out - and the vote comes back with a "no" to full independence, then he can contain Scotland politically and he may benefit with a few more MP's in 2015.

Way I see it, he doesn't want to devolve any additional powers to Scotland, hence the core reason for the tiff isn't so much about timing, rather it's about what could emerge if the SNP give voters a choice about more powers (independence without defence and foreign policy), which I think may be closer to what many Scots feel.

DC is transient but the establishment is not and the loss of Scotland will be a catastrophic failure. It's far too important strategically to simply "lose" 30 plus % of the country especially when that give power to a fundamentally hostile government up here. DC and NC will both have to go if that happens.

DC would like to get the Scottish thing out the way asap because it does mess up strategic decisions and inward investment. No way high speed rail or airports or pipelines or power cables will be financed if they're likely to be handed over to the Scots. No way private capital wants to invest with our track record on tax.

Ideally he'd like this out the way by May 2013, because that's EU election time - and UKIP are well set to eat into their vote - and get good publicity.

It's a political thing and, as usual, we're along for the ride. It should be fun. 

Di O'Clese said...

Sooner they go the better as far as I can see - and I don't mean that in any derogatory way. We're better off without each other.

Dioclese said...

That's better!

P JH said...

"What does he lose in terms of MPs? One or two?"

Scotland has more pandas than tory MPs.

Michael Fowke said...

The problem with this Cameron prick is that he can't keep his mouth shut about anything. Yesterday he was going on about fucking films, for Christ's sake!

Budvar said...

Contrary to what the woaded up extras of Braveheart would have us believe, I doubt there'd be a majority vote in any independence referendum. I believe the yardstick used for ex-colony independence was a 2/3rds majority, but even if we conceded a 50% +1 majority, I still don't think they'd get even that and Oily Al knows this.

What I see Salmond doing is using the threat of an independence referendum as a stick to gain concessions for more power in the Scottish parliament. hence the 3rd option.

What this is in reality is he wants to leave his wife, but still wants to pop round for his meals, the occasional shag, and have his washing and ironing done. Ie all the benefits but none of the responsibilities.

I'm not a fan of old "Slaphead", but I think he's right on this issue. I think he should give the Scots a straight forward "Shit or bust" independence referendum, if they win, fine "All the best". If a no vote, say "Right you had your chance, now STFU". I'd also take the opportunity to abolish the the Barnett formula, and those north of the border get a per capita budget the same as the rest of the country and constituency sizes the same as everyone else.

cfrankdavis said...

I can see why Labour don't want Scottish independence. They'd get hammered if they lost the Buckfast vote. The Libby Dimmys still have a few here too, and they can't afford to lose even one MP at the moment. The Tories, however, would be well shot of Scotland..
Perhaps it's that thinking about them as separate parties that confuses the issue. Really they're the single Lab-Lib-Con layer cake containing three different nuts. They agree on all the important policy issues that matter (Europe, AGW, smoking bans, etc). And whatever costs one of them votes costs all of them votes. So of course Cameron is going to help out the Lib-Lab wing of the party. He'd probably even wear a red rosette and sing the Red Flag if he needed to.

Single acts of tyranny said...

Salmond says he wants a referendum but doesn't really because he knows that defeat for him is death, so he pretends to want it.  Cameron says he loves the union but would actually like to be PM for the next twenty years and shorn of the Scots Labour MP's he would be.  Milli desperately needs Scotland's block vote otherwise he will be the leader that sees labour become mathematically unelectable and so he too pretends to be a unionist. 

Truth is thin on the ground. 

Kin_Free said...

Why don't you think that this is classic 'divide & Conquer' LI? D&C is a tried and tested tactic that IS very successful. Just look at the EU sponsored anti-smoker war . Pit smokers against non-smokers; small independent bars -v- pub cos. -v- private clubs -v- restaurants; off licence -v- on licence trade  etc etc. - the divisions are almost endless and all trying to 'level the playing field’ that has been artificially rutted by vested interest! Once minor differences have been identified, exaggerate them, use fear, apathy, greed etc. to exploit them; prod them, promote hatred amongst them etc. 



Why would the EU *NOT* be cheering as they watch the steady process of a once powerful union split up and reduced to a few warring tribes, too busy fighting each other to realise that the real threat is waiting in the wings; waiting to pick up the pieces, to 'save' them from the ensuing crisis, protect them from harm and assimilate them into the new paternalistic, totalitarian fourth reich? 



Since the discovery of north sea oil, the push for Scottish independence has been particularly easy for those who want to see a split and diminution of 'Great Britain'.  



"Look, the English are stealing your oil and getting rich, all you Scots have to do is keep it for yourselves and you will all become rich and powerful"  - patent rubbish!



There have always been divisions between members of the UK but together we are much stronger on the international stage. Small may well be beautiful but is also extremely weak when faced with a large, organised, and determined adversary like the EU. Seeing the UK, split into small, ineffective, inward-looking, self-interested tribes, then easily subsumed into their bureaucratic, dictatorial empire, would be the jewel in their crown!



"I have always been a 'don't care' on Scottish independence because I'm not Scottish." - now where have I heard that sort of statement before; - "I don't smoke, so I don't care if we have smoking bans, I'm not fat... , I'm not jewish... I'm not black... etc."



Don't take offence LI. I am one of your greatest fans, but I think you have not thought this particular issue through. Just as the anti-smoker campaign has little to do with health, there is much more at stake here than the single issue of Scottish independence or the insipid views of any stupid Tory, Lib Dem, Labour or SNP politician. 'United we stand - divided we fall' may be an overused statement, but it is none the less true and very relevant to this issue!

Kin

Pa_broon74 said...

Couple of things.

The extra time desired will be used to undo the years of BBC/MSM propaganda, North of the border, the truth of our situation isn't talked about at all.

And, Scottish people have a problem with westminster NOT the English people. That problem is centered on their being a Tory government (effectively) and only one tory MP in Scotland. Once that is remedied two things I hope will happen; Firstly, we'll have an even stronger partnership against the various travails of the EU and the infighting about who gets what in terms of funding will be gone.

Finally, the press often report that only 35% of Scots would vote yes, that percentage is rising on a daily basis. What they don't report is that the no vote is exactly the same percentage and falling on a daily basis. The rest are 'indecided'.

Personally, I just want westminster out of it. It's corrupt, that goes for the Scottish MP's as well, some of whom were the worst offenders in the expenses scandal.

Damchandler said...

No the Scottish people have a BIG problem with the English people.I went to work in your country in the 70s stupidly thinking I was British.You lot soon put me right on that score,I was English and despised.Scotland is where I learnt all about race hate.Why are the English not getting a say,it will affect us as much as you.

Legiron said...

I'm not Scottish, but I know what you mean. It's certainly not a common attitude in the North but it's there, especially in smaller rural towns. It's also not confined exclusively to English. Took me a while to work out what 'guffy' meant, and it's not a compliment.

Legiron said...

Perhaps, rather than 'don't care', I should have said 'it's not my country so I don't feel it's my business'. If Scotland gets independence and I don't like how it works out, I can move. It's not as if I have strong family ties here.

I see your point though. This whole issue is more about politics than practicality. As I've said to pro-independence folk I meet in the real world - look at Ireland. Years of fighting to get independence from London rule and then they just gave it away to Brussels. What was the point of that? There is no point talking about gaining 'independence' from a country that is no longer even in charge of itself, never mind anyone else.

Scotland's independence from England seems to me to be a matter of no relevance because that is not where the power lies any more. We'll just be an EU region, the same as if we stayed within the UK.

It's not that the independence argument is wrong. It's the wrong argument.

Humph said...

But what about Nick Cle ... oh yeah, who gives a fuck?

Humph said...

We would definitely have been better off without the last 2 Scottish idiots 'running' the country.

Uk Fred said...

Is Rusty Dave actually being very clever here?  Is he really trying to get the Scots to vote for independence so that he can have Tory perennial gov ernment for England?  Nah, it must be a mistake.  After all, he's a politician.

opinions powered by SendLove.to