Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Patrick Bateman]

DC could quite possibly make the FM look rather silly.

 

I don't see why the debate couldn't be restricted to reserved matters. Cameron couldn't complain about that, although after last night's massacre, you can see why he's desperate to avoid doing his duty and explaining why Scotland's interests are best realised by Westminster and not Scotland itself.

 

I can't believe that people are trying to defend Cameron's refusal on any grounds other than because he'd lose, heavily. If he isn't aware enough of Scottish issues to debate them for 45 minutes to an hour, then how on EARTH is he the best person to be responsible for policies that impact on Scotland? Can someone answer this point, because I've made it a few times now.

[Boris]

I don't see why the debate couldn't be restricted to reserved matters. Cameron couldn't complain about that, although after last night's massacre, you can see why he's desperate to avoid doing his duty and explaining why Scotland's interests are best realised by Westminster and not Scotland itself.

 

I can't believe that people are trying to defend Cameron's refusal on any grounds other than because he'd lose, heavily. If he isn't aware enough of Scottish issues to debate them for 45 minutes to an hour, then how on EARTH is he the best person to be responsible for policies that impact on Scotland? Can someone answer this point, because I've made it a few times now.

 

I'm certainly not defending Cameron's refusal, if anything I am encouraging his participation!

 

I agree with you!

 

p.s. read the bit in the WP about constitution and liked what I saw. :-)

[Patrick Bateman]

I'm certainly not defending Cameron's refusal, if anything I am encouraging his participation!

 

I agree with you!

 

p.s. read the bit in the WP about constitution and liked what I saw. :-)

 

Cameron is running out of politicians that he can have throw under his chariot. Unless, of course, Iain Gray is being lined up for a come back, following Mr 150 vote majority's inexplicable return to front-line politics. He would make a worthy sacrifice.

 

[Socrates]

On any sensible breakdown on who's Scottish he is as he lives and works here.

 

Fixed that for you.

[Boris]

Cameron is running out of politicians that he can have throw under his chariot. Unless, of course, Iain Gray is being lined up for a come back, following Mr 150 vote majority's inexplicable return to front-line politics. He would make a worthy sacrifice.

 

 

Hahahaha - that gif is class!

[Socrates]

The simple reason why is that the PM would not have a vote on the issue, that's why.

 

If anything, the sovereign should be the one making the case for the integrity of the realm, but that would never happen.

 

Crown-in-Parliament and all that. Surely this would suggest that the PM, as Her Maj's representative, should take up the gauntlet. Then again, Salmond versus Lizzie might be more fun for everyone.

[JamboX2]

The referencing to an NI border poll is a good one. In that situation, again,a PM from Scotland (say) shouldn't be the figure head of the pro-UK camp. Why? Because he's an alien to the debate, its history, its politics and its ramifications. Cameron has that to a constitutional debate centred on Scotland.

 

I'm sure McGuiness and Adams, like Salmond and Sturgeon, would love Cameron to lead such a debate, but he shouldn't as he's not Northern Irish. Same goes on EU membership, should Merkel and Van Rompouy lead a debate in the UK on for membership? No. Because they aren't British.

 

As much as it must pain a lot of nationalists Cameron isnt Scottish by birth, by constituency or residency. This is a Scottish debate on Scotland's place in the UK, Europe and the world primarily its for Scots. Not his fight in a nationalistic term.

 

But then again, we're told that all Scots politicians are inferior to Alex Salmond, so surely it wont matter who he faces to committed Yes men as he'll win surely.

[Boris]

This is a Scottish debate on Scotland's place in the UK, Europe and the world primarily its for Scots. Not his fight in a nationalistic term.

 

So who is best placed to argue re the ramifications to the reserved issues? Has to be someone from Westminster, surely? And who better than the PM?

 

However, if it is as you say, then comments from Osborne re currency union (as an example) should be ignored?

[Patrick Bateman]

The referencing to an NI border poll is a good one. In that situation, again,a PM from Scotland (say) shouldn't be the figure head of the pro-UK camp. Why? Because he's an alien to the debate, its history, its politics and its ramifications. Cameron has that to a constitutional debate centred on Scotland.

 

As I have said, repeatedly now; if he is 'alien' to debating how Scotland is best run, why should he have the responsibility of governing Scotland at all? Scotland has a choice between having reserved matters continually determined by Westminster, or returning those powers to Scotland. He is the head of the Government at Westminster, he is the man ultimately responsible for reserved policies, therefore he should debate. His nationality and residency are utterly moot; he has the power, regardless of where he lives. Why have the power but not the responsibility to defend/explain his decisions? You know that he'd lose and his presence would be damaging to better together, because it draws into focus the crux of the argument; Scotland's future in Scotland's hands, or Scotland's future in Westminster's hands, and no amount of sophistry can escape that.

 

Interestingly, I see Lamont is now citing the Spanish PM as a reason against independence. I wonder what Labour men of old and those who signed up for the international brigades would make of a Labour leader siding with a right-wing Government in Spain who is doing its utmost to suppress Catalan self-determination. Are there any principles that the Labour party in Scotland haven't yet abandoned? I'm struggling to think of what they represent now, other than an embittered, consistently anti-SNP stance.

[Coco]

The referencing to an NI border poll is a good one. In that situation, again,a PM from Scotland (say) shouldn't be the figure head of the pro-UK camp. Why? Because he's an alien to the debate, its history, its politics and its ramifications. Cameron has that to a constitutional debate centred on Scotland.

 

I'm sure McGuiness and Adams, like Salmond and Sturgeon, would love Cameron to lead such a debate, but he shouldn't as he's not Northern Irish. Same goes on EU membership, should Merkel and Van Rompouy lead a debate in the UK on for membership? No. Because they aren't British.

 

As much as it must pain a lot of nationalists Cameron isnt Scottish by birth, by constituency or residency. This is a Scottish debate on Scotland's place in the UK, Europe and the world primarily its for Scots. Not his fight in a nationalistic term.

 

But then again, we're told that all Scots politicians are inferior to Alex Salmond, so surely it wont matter who he faces to committed Yes men as he'll win surely.

 

I don't agree with this. Why shouldn't he argue for the Union?

 

In terms of the debates - and I would suggest that a strong chair could keep the issues off the political and on the constitutional - it is surely the responsibility of the UK Government to try to preserve the Union?

[Coco]

So who is best placed to argue re the ramifications to the reserved issues? Has to be someone from Westminster, surely? And who better than the PM?

 

However, if it is as you say, then comments from Osborne re currency union (as an example) should be ignored?

 

Another good point. The speech I referenced from Osborne on currency union prospects is excellent so why shouldn't it be heard?

 

I am not at all in favour of shutting down the debate.

[pablo]

So who is best placed to argue re the ramifications to the reserved issues? Has to be someone from Westminster, surely? And who better than the PM?

 

However, if it is as you say, then comments from Osborne re currency union (as an example) should be ignored?

 

Darling was elected to front the Better Together campaign by the three Unionist parties ( I think ). So I'd say him.

[Boris]

Darling was elected to front the Better Together campaign by the three Unionist parties ( I think ). So I'd say him.

 

Better Together is a Scottish organisation so how can Darling speak on behalf of HMG? There are certain things in this debate that need input from Westminster. Better Together can't provide that input. (imo)

Edited November 28, 2013 by Boris

[Das Root]

So who is best placed to argue re the ramifications to the reserved issues? Has to be someone from Westminster, surely? And who better than the PM?

 

However, if it is as you say, then comments from Osborne re currency union (as an example) should be ignored?

 

 

That's the way I see it, either they are in it 100% or they need to stop sniping from the sidelines.

[Alfred]

a couple of things....

 

Re David Cameron taking part in a debate.... a lot of people liken all this to a divorce, surely NOT taking part is a bit like one of the prospective divorcee's deciding everything that's going to happen, all they'll get etc etc for themselves with the other person not taking part and losing everything as a result?

 

Re the Spain thing.... when/if we vote yes we are not immediately out of the EU... between then and actual independence day we'd still be in the EU and during that time we'd be negotiating to remain in the EU when we leave the UK. OK, if negotiations fail then we'd be out on our ears and have to apply to get back in, to meet the criteria you need to have a democratic parliament, laws, finance etc all in place to apply then move them to an agreed EU position for sign off then they vote you in (or not)... the quickest was Finland which took just under 3 years.... the difference for Scotland is that all our institutions already conform to the EU standard so, arguably, if we wanted back in it would be much quicker.

 

And on the Spain thing... Scottish waters are a major part of their working area (indeed the UK Gov paid ?55 million in litigation costs in the late 80's for trying to stop them fishing here), I can't see Spain now turning their back on that industry.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Alfred

[pablo]

Better Together is a Scottish organisation so how can Darling speak on behalf of HMG? There are certain things in this debate that need input from Westminster. Better Together can't provide that input. (imo)

 

In terms of a debate, televised or otherwise I'm happy to keep it between Yes Scotland and Better Together. Anything else would be a diversionary tactic by Yes to make it about the Tories V SNP. ( imo )

[Das Root]

In terms of a debate, televised or otherwise I'm happy to keep it between Yes Scotland and Better Together. Anything else would be a diversionary tactic by Yes to make it about the Tories V SNP. ( imo )

 

 

So should all politicians on both sides stay out of it? Those two organisations are not political, so how can they advise the will of each government given BT have little to zero representation from Westminster. Or is the preference just that each side put up the ideas they have, even if they would never be ratified by parliament?

[Boris]

In terms of a debate, televised or otherwise I'm happy to keep it between Yes Scotland and Better Together. Anything else would be a diversionary tactic by Yes to make it about the Tories V SNP. ( imo )

 

Firstly, I'd like to see a Yes v BT debate and I'd like to see non-SNP Yes folk doing the talking. For example, the stuff in the white paper about policy is of course subject to elections to the first independent scottish parliament and there is no guarantee who will win that.

 

The whole thing so far is looking like a vote for Yes = a vote for the SNP which is wrong, but equally wrong to say that a No vote is a Tory vote.

 

But there are certain things where Westminster input is required.

[Das Root]

Article on last night's STV debate...Sturgeon concluded as winner.

 

http://news.stv.tv/politics/250646-sturgeon-and-carmichael-debate-their-competing-visions-for-scotland/

[Patrick Bateman]

In terms of a debate, televised or otherwise I'm happy to keep it between Yes Scotland and Better Together. Anything else would be a diversionary tactic by Yes to make it about the Tories V SNP. ( imo )

 

I'll say this again; this is a debate about whether decisions about Scotland are better made at Westminster or at Holyrood. The Westminster Government is, evidently, a Tory one, and the Holyrood Government is an SNP one. Why shut down the debate? Why limit those who are involved? Because it's inconvenient for unionism? So we can set up a false debate where we pretend Scotland has direct control over the economy, welfare and foreign policy?

 

You'd really have to ask yourself; if we really are 'better together' then why does Better Together want to limit the scope of debate? The answer is self-evident.

[Alba gu Brath]

 

 

Fancy that!

[SE16 3LN]

A TV debate is for the less able in society, perhaps they can't read, or understand the wealth of arguments and information that has been presented over a number of years. Thus, they want to look at some performing chimp and choose the one with the nicest hair or eyes, or who comes across as being nice. I see why the yes campaign are so up for it.

[Das Root]

A TV debate is for the less able in society, perhaps they can't read, or understand the wealth of arguments and information that has been presented over a number of years. Thus, they want to look at some performing chimp and choose the one with the nicest hair or eyes, or who comes across as being nice. I see why the yes campaign are so up for it.

 

 

Because Cameron is hideous?

[Patrick Bateman]

A TV debate is for the less able in society, perhaps they can't read, or understand the wealth of arguments and information that has been presented over a number of years. Thus, they want to look at some performing chimp and choose the one with the nicest hair or eyes, or who comes across as being nice. I see why the yes campaign are so up for it.

 

Cringe. I wonder if anyone who is against Scottish independence will just be honest and admit they don't want Cameron to debate because he'll be massacred and it would shatter better together. Or will they keep up this Iraqi-Information-Minister fantasy land pretence of dismissing the value of debates, or questioning why the Prime Minister of the UK should... defend Scotland's place within the UK. Do they seriously think they're convincing anyone with this line?

[Gene Parmesan]

A TV debate is for the less able in society, perhaps they can't read, or understand the wealth of arguments and information that has been presented over a number of years. Thus, they want to look at some performing chimp and choose the one with the nicest hair or eyes, or who comes across as being nice. I see why the yes campaign are so up for it.

 

[Coco]

A TV debate is for the less able in society, perhaps they can't read, or understand the wealth of arguments and information that has been presented over a number of years. Thus, they want to look at some performing chimp and choose the one with the nicest hair or eyes, or who comes across as being nice. I see why the yes campaign are so up for it.

 

I can see why some No campaigners might want a debate then ...

 

[2NaFish]

A TV debate is for the less able in society, perhaps they can't read, or understand the wealth of arguments and information that has been presented over a number of years. Thus, they want to look at some performing chimp and choose the one with the nicest hair or eyes, or who comes across as being nice. I see why the yes campaign are so up for it.

 

Aye, Salmond is just eye-candy for morons.

[TheMaganator]

http://www.bettertogether.net/blog/entry/why-cant-alex-salmond-just-tell-the-truth-on-europe

Hohoho

Misleading the Scottish Parliament again.

 

Best not challenge him though. Don't want to rock the boat

[Patrick Bateman]

http://www.bettertog...truth-on-europe

Hohoho

Misleading the Scottish Parliament again.

 

Best not challenge him though. Don't want to rock the boat

 

And can you point to the mechanism that strips EU citizens of their EU citizenship? It doesn't exist.

 

As for better together trying to proclaim the Spanish PM as a neutral party in this, come on. His government is desperately trying to suppress the Catalan independence movement, with little success. And even if this was all true, does this even constitute an argument against Scottish independence? The idea that Scotland wouldn't be wanted in the EU is, frankly, laughable.

[Coco]

And can you point to the mechanism that strips EU citizens of their EU citizenship? It doesn't exist.

 

As for better together trying to proclaim the Spanish PM as a neutral party in this, come on. His government is desperately trying to suppress the Catalan independence movement, with little success. And even if this was all true, does this even constitute an argument against Scottish independence? The idea that Scotland wouldn't be wanted in the EU is, frankly, laughable.

 

Isn't it the case that the members of the EU are the States? And that citizenship or loss of citizenship is decided by the individual States?

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/

 

With regard to the internet letter - I presume that the change in treaties requiring unanimity of all members is at the European Council? So the issue is that Spain (and perhaps other countries?) will not want to create a precedent and would vote against.

 

I don't think that there is any doubt that the burEUacrats would want Scotland to join. But if it would require unanimity of the member States then it is perhaps less likely that there could be negotiation from within. So if that is the case then Scotland would go down the route of joining as a new entrant with all the issues that entails.

 

And with all that said, perhaps one of the first things that an Independent Scotland could do is ask the people if they want to join the EU. But perhaps if there is a Yes vote then we are all voting for all things in the White Paper?

[Big D]

As I have said, repeatedly now; if he is 'alien' to debating how Scotland is best run, why should he have the responsibility of governing Scotland at all? Scotland has a choice between having reserved matters continually determined by Westminster, or returning those powers to Scotland. He is the head of the Government at Westminster, he is the man ultimately responsible for reserved policies, therefore he should debate. His nationality and residency are utterly moot; he has the power, regardless of where he lives. Why have the power but not the responsibility to defend/explain his decisions? You know that he'd lose and his presence would be damaging to better together, because it draws into focus the crux of the argument; Scotland's future in Scotland's hands, or Scotland's future in Westminster's hands, and no amount of sophistry can escape that.

 

Interestingly, I see Lamont is now citing the Spanish PM as a reason against independence. I wonder what Labour men of old and those who signed up for the international brigades would make of a Labour leader siding with a right-wing Government in Spain who is doing its utmost to suppress Catalan self-determination. Are there any principles that the Labour party in Scotland haven't yet abandoned? I'm struggling to think of what they represent now, other than an embittered, consistently anti-SNP stance.

I had the glee of attending hustings a few years ago in which Tommy Sheridan absolutely humiliated the so called socialists in the union camp on this very point. Never and still not a fan of Tommy but it was a masterful performance. Nicola hardly had to say a word that night. The shame of Labour must be near nadir. Although they rarely fail to find further depths the plums.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

If Brown had still been in charge, would your position change?

Yes, because he is a Scottish MP. He directly represents Scotland in reserved matters.

 

I wouldn't want him involved in Northern Ireland in the hypothetical either.

[Patrick Bateman]

Yes, because he is a Scottish MP. He directly represents Scotland in reserved matters.

 

I wouldn't want him involved in Northern Ireland in the hypothetical either.

 

And Cameron decides upon reserved matters in Scotland, as head of the UK Government. I'm astonished that people are trying to argue against this fact. It doesn't matter where his seat is, he is the PM, Alex Salmond is the FM. He represents Westminster, Salmond represents Holyrood. Again, people can play with sophistry all they want; Cameron is shirking his responsibilities. Here's what he said in January: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/07/cameron-fight-scottish-independence

 

 

"Head, heart, body and soul, we will fight for our United Kingdom every step of the way,"

 

He is refusing to debate Scottish independence, he is refusing to fight. He looks weak, disinterested, if not indifferent, to Scotland by refusing to stick to his vow. He created this narrative, he cannot expect to walk away from it.

[Arnold Rothstein]

And Cameron decides upon reserved matters in Scotland, as head of the UK Government. I'm astonished that people are trying to argue against this fact. It doesn't matter where his seat is, he is the PM, Alex Salmond is the FM. He represents Westminster, Salmond represents Holyrood. Again, people can play with sophistry all they want; Cameron is shirking his responsibilities. Here's what he said in January: http://www.theguardi...sh-independence

 

 

"Head, heart, body and soul, we will fight for our United Kingdom every step of the way,"

 

He is refusing to debate Scottish independence, he is refusing to fight. He looks weak, disinterested, if not indifferent, to Scotland by refusing to stick to his vow. He created this narrative, he cannot expect to walk away from it.

 

He's probably got more important things to do.

[Patrick Bateman]

He's probably got more important things to do.

 

Than prevent the dissolution of the United Kingdom? Care to explain why someone who is clearly so indifferent to Scotland, or who doesn't feel the need to explain Westminster's importance to Scotland, should be allowed to make decisions that materially effect the people of Scotland? I haven't heard a single unionist or would be no voter take this point on directly. Probably because they can't.

[Arnold Rothstein]

Than prevent the dissolution of the United Kingdom? Care to explain why someone who is clearly so indifferent to Scotland, or who doesn't feel the need to explain Westminster's importance to Scotland, should be allowed to make decisions that materially effect the people of Scotland? I haven't heard a single unionist or would be no voter take this point on directly. Probably because they can't.

 

Because like it or not he is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and that's his job. Polls would suggest most Scots like it that way.

 

Also, as an aside you make some good points but i get the impression you don't respect people's right to a 'no' opinion. I on the other hand totally respect your opinion and those of my 'yes' minded friends.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Mr Shakey-Hand Man

[JamboX2]

Cameron, Osbourne, Jones et al, all have a right to enter the debate. As free speech applies. Their views should be treated with weight as well, as they're in high elected offices. However, there is no duty for them to debate live on tv against the First Minister as they aren't Scottish. Carmichael and Alexander are two senior Scottish Westminster ministers who decide matters reserved. I mean if NI wanted to leave the UK and join the Republic, would we want Enda Kenny v David Cameron? Or Peter Robinson v Martin McGuiness? It's a decision for Scots, should be debated by Scots. If you want a debate between governments it'll digress into political aims and policies which will then fall away into the Toff v the Scottish FM. And yes that is a careful political calculation by BT and the Tory Party.

 

Many on here who wants independence are right to say this isn't about Salmond. That much is clear, it's about a bigger picture than that. So if that's the case, then why must every debate on tv contain an SNP spokesman or a member of the Cabinet in Scotland? I'd much rather here Patrick Harvie's, Cannavan's and whoever else's as I've heard the age old SNP line for a long while now.

 

However, there is a reason now why to discount many views outwith the SNP. That being that the Finance Secretary last night on newsnight discounted all the interesting economic ideas from RiC and Jimmy Reid and the Greens by saying "there would need to be a degree of permanancy on currency..." Brewar then pressed again, "the currency union, to be serious to markets would have to be a long term commitment". In a matter of seconds Swinney destroyed the idea that the SNP position isn't what this vote is about. By tieing Scots in the future to a proposed currency union they ties us to following the Westminster based economic model which is failing. This analysis from the New Statesmen summed up my position on the blatancy of that fact -

 

"Page 91 of the White Paper states, "An independent Scotland will not replicate the economic structure of the UK". Yet, on Tuesday, the first minister made the case for currency union on the grounds Scottish productivity and employment rates matched those of the UK. The White Paper also reaffirms the SNP?s commitment to a shared system of financial regulation, to "fiscal discipline" and to securing "credibility with the financial markets", all of which are entirely in keeping with the Westminster consensus.

 

But none of this is new. The SNP is not a party of the old left, nor is it run by a cadre of tartan libertarians, as some commentators insist. Nationalist economic strategy is essentially Brownite. It assumes revenues generated by a dynamic free market should fund a generous welfare state. Hence the simultaneous pledges to cut corporation tax and deliver Swedish-style childcare provision."

 

What chance for divergence economically when being in a currency union means we adopt an age old economic consensus, just with a more Scottish face. That to me is the red line on independence. Look to the Nordics and you'll see a demand for economic independence governed through their own currency interests. Denmark has a land border with Germany and does well with the Krone, as do Sweden and Norway, and one of them's out the EU. On top of that the UK has profited well from the EU without having the Euro. The argument we need to have a Sterling-zone area and tie us to Westminster orthodoxy post-Yes vote is mad, as mad as the Lib-Dems saying folk couldn't go on holiday to Spain without adopting the Euro or that trade with the EU would collapse.

 

New Statesman article on it today - sums up my views well - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/11/scottish-independence-white-paper-passed-political-test

Edited November 28, 2013 by JamboX2

[Patrick Bateman]

Because like it or not he is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and that's his job. Polls would suggest most Scots like it that way.

 

Also, as an aside you make some good points but i get the impression you don't respect people's right to a 'no' opinion. I on the other hand totally respect your opinion and those of my 'yes' minded friends.

 

In what way are polls relevant to whether Cameron comes to Scotland to debate Scottish independence? You'd think that, as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who stated that he would fight "Head, heart, body and soul" to maintain Scotland's place within the union, that he'd at least have the decency to come up to Scotland to debate why. Clearly this debate has some grey areas, but this isn't one of them and it seems comical to me that people can't just admit that the reason Cameron won't debate is because he will, in all probability, lose the debate. To lose an independence debate with Salmond makes him look incredibly weak, he'll open himself up to blame when Scotland votes yes, and it could derail what he really cares about; winning the 2015 UK General Election. If people could just accept this reality, rather than sophistic arguments about Cameron being in somehow irrelevant because he represents an English constituency, or that he has other things to do, the better.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

And Cameron decides upon reserved matters in Scotland, as head of the UK Government. I'm astonished that people are trying to argue against this fact. It doesn't matter where his seat is, he is the PM, Alex Salmond is the FM. He represents Westminster, Salmond represents Holyrood. Again, people can play with sophistry all they want; Cameron is shirking his responsibilities. Here's what he said in January: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/07/cameron-fight-scottish-independence

 

 

"Head, heart, body and soul, we will fight for our United Kingdom every step of the way,"

 

He is refusing to debate Scottish independence, he is refusing to fight. He looks weak, disinterested, if not indifferent, to Scotland by refusing to stick to his vow. He created this narrative, he cannot expect to walk away from it.

Did you elect a Prime Minister? No, you elected a constituency MP. Cameron represents Witney. He is primo inter pares under the Westminster system. He represents a constituency in Oxfordshire, England, and does not have a vote on Scottish independence which is limited to the resident population of Scotland.

 

Do you want all the voters of the UK to decide this issue? It might help to get you the outcome you want.

[Patrick Bateman]

If you want a debate between governments it'll digress into political aims and policies which will then fall away into the Toff v the Scottish FM. And yes that is a careful political calculation by BT and the Tory Party.

 

Many on here who wants independence are right to say this isn't about Salmond. That much is clear, it's about a bigger picture than that. So if that's the case, then why must every debate on tv contain an SNP spokesman or a member of the Cabinet in Scotland? I'd much rather here Patrick Harvie's, Cannavan's and whoever else's as I've heard the age old SNP line for a long while now.

 

 

So, to put that all in plain, concise English - Better Together refuse to put Cameron up for a debate because he's unpopular with the electorate and knows little about Scotland, so he will likely lose and do massive harm to the anti-independence cause. It's also inconvenient because Cameron draws into sharp focus the ridiculousness of Scotland being governed by a party that has one seat out of fifty nine, and the inappropriate policies and governance that flow from that democratic deficit.

 

As for your second point; you start by saying 'This isn't about Alex Salmond, so why are SNP spokesperson or cabinet members always picked for TV debates' - The last time I checked, these were members of the Scottish Government, not Alex Salmond. And besides, it's up to the media who they request to bring forward for debate. Your problem is with them, not Alex Salmond or the rest of the Scottish Government. But then, I suspect you knew that already and just wanted another straw man argument.

[Patrick Bateman]

Did you elect a Prime Minister? No, you elected a constituency MP. Cameron represents Witney. He is primo inter pares under the Westminster system. He represents a constituency in Oxfordshire, England, and does not have a vote on Scottish independence which is limited to the resident population of Scotland.

 

Do you want all the voters of the UK to decide this issue? It might help to get you the outcome you want.

 

Am I really going to have to break this down? Scotland is making the choice between two institutions. Cameron is the head of the Government at Westminster, which has control over reserved matters. Why should he be allowed to shirk his responsibility to explain why not just he, but his office and government, is better placed to make the decisions that effect Scotland than the people who live and work here? The simple answer is he shouldn't and that he's only avoiding it because it'll do his political career immense harm. Again, no amount of constructs, false arguments or syllogisms can detract from that point.

 

I'll turn this around; if Cameron was popular, do you think he'd run away from this chance to secure a No vote? After all, he vowed to fight with everything he has. I mean, he wouldn't lie about that, would he?

[TheMaganator]

Cameron probably (rightly) thinks he's of more use to the Union not debating.

 

Why let Salmond make this a debate between Scotland & a Tory toff?

 

The Yes camp clambering over each other to demand it are doing so out of desperation. Nothing else has worked, so maybe this will.

[pablo]

It's not Scotland versus the UK, no matter how much the Nats wish it was. It's Scots versus Scots to decide the future we take.

[Patrick Bateman]

Cameron probably (rightly) thinks he's of more use to the Union not debating.

 

Why let Salmond make this a debate between Scotland & a Tory toff?

 

The Yes camp clambering over each other to demand it are doing so out of desperation. Nothing else has worked, so maybe this will.

 

[modedit]

 

It's not Scotland versus the UK, no matter how much the Nats wish it was. It's Scots versus Scots to decide the future we take.

 

Nobody said that, but it's interesting that you framed it that way. So it's up to Scots to decide whether we are better at deciding our own future, or whether we continue to let others do it instead? (At this point I'd make reference to those others accumulating a ?1.2 trillion debt, 12 year ongoing occupation of Afghanistan, etc) That's your argument? That's why I'm confident Yes will win.

[Alba gu Brath]

Cameron probably (rightly) thinks he's of more use to the Union not debating.

 

Why let Salmond make this a debate between Scotland & a Tory toff?

 

The Yes camp clambering over each other to demand it are doing so out of desperation. Nothing else has worked, so maybe this will.

 

Cameron, as PM of the UK, is our PM too until we vote 'yes'. Therefore, it is his duty to debate.

 

As to debates... Carmicheal was woeful. I thought he was one of the Lib Dems 'big beasts'. He's just paving the way for a seat in the House of Lards.

 

http://news.stv.tv/politics/250647-sturgeon-and-carmichael-cross-examine-each-other-on-independence/

[JamboX2]

So, to put that all in plain, concise English - Better Together refuse to put Cameron up for a debate because he's unpopular with the electorate and knows little about Scotland, so he will likely lose and do massive harm to the anti-independence cause. It's also inconvenient because Cameron draws into sharp focus the ridiculousness of Scotland being governed by a party that has one seat out of fifty nine, and the inappropriate policies and governance that flow from that democratic deficit.

 

I wouldn't underestimate Cameron's ability to get a grip on a situation fast and be fully clued up on matters to win a debate. It may come as a surprise but the intricacies of Scottish politics won't be his main priority with an Afghan drawdown, a Eurozone faltering and his own party riven with division. I would argue that the Yes camp are becoming a tad fixated on this debate. It wont win your side the referendum and I doubt it'd be the killer blow for Better Together. That for them will be complacency.

 

As for your second point; you start by saying 'This isn't about Alex Salmond, so why are SNP spokesperson or cabinet members always picked for TV debates' - The last time I checked, these were members of the Scottish Government, not Alex Salmond. And besides, it's up to the media who they request to bring forward for debate. Your problem is with them, not Alex Salmond or the rest of the Scottish Government. But then, I suspect you knew that already and just wanted another straw man argument.

 

You're arrogance knows no bounds. Instead of consistently belittling my arguments and beliefs you should maybe considering questioning some of the things you repeat ad-nauseum from Yes Scotland.

 

The SNP government and thier spokesmen can refuse to go on. Put forward a voice more reasoned, less embittered, more open to debate than the frankly amateurish and childish remarks like "the price of your seat is child poverty" junk they're resorting to in televised debates. And that goes for Carmichael whining to the moderator as well btw. On the media you're right. Why don't the parties run this through the campaign groups and let them select a rotation of voices. Frankly the length of time this debate has lasted as embittered and divided our politics and has made political co-operation either side of this vote near impossible based on it's current trajectory. Both sides need to grow up, treat the voters like adults and not children and actually talk about this to give us an informed choice. Not descending into petty squabbles over who debates who.

 

Last night's Newsnight Scotland debate was 10x better than any of the STV shouting matches. On top of that they had two of their weaker links debating. Guess what, they actually discussed the merits of things. Imagine that? Incredible.

[JamboX2]

It's not Scotland versus the UK, no matter how much the Nats wish it was. It's Scots versus Scots to decide the future we take.

 

It's not even the UK Government vs the Scottish Government. But don't let that muddy the waters of the Yes narative. Remember a few years ago? Butt out etc? Then it was let's here your response. Now it's debate me on TV or sod off.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

Nobody said that, but it's interesting that you framed it that way. So it's up to Scots to decide whether we are better at deciding our own future, or whether we continue to let others do it instead? (At this point I'd make reference to those others accumulating a ?1.2 trillion debt, 12 year ongoing occupation of Afghanistan, etc) That's your argument? That's why I'm confident Yes will win.

 

MIght be wrong... but that 12 year ongoing fight is based on the NATO article 5 issue. So under the current white paper an independent Scotland, like Denmark and Norway and New Zealand and Lithuania and Estonia would be standing side by side with UK and US troops there.

[pablo]

[modedit]

 

 

Nobody said that, but it's interesting that you framed it that way. So it's up to Scots to decide whether we are better at deciding our own future, or whether we continue to let others do it instead? (At this point I'd make reference to those others accumulating a ?1.2 trillion debt, 12 year ongoing occupation of Afghanistan, etc) That's your argument? That's why I'm confident Yes will win.

 

Sorry, what's my argument? Afghanistan? What do you mean.

[Patrick Bateman]

Sorry, what's my argument? Afghanistan? What do you mean.

 

Your argument is that this debate is 'Scots versus Scots' as to how Scotland should go forward. This is 'Scotland's future in Scotland's hands. Now, do we take the opportunity to keep Scotland's future IN Scotland's hands, or do we vote No and put Scotland's future back into Westminster's hands. I suggest this isn't a wise course of action, considering how inefficient and mistake prone Westminster has been for some time. Is that clearer?