Has Cameron Conceded The Independence Fight? Draws Line In The Sand - 'Independence Or Nothing'

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 'Call Me Dave' Cameron, has apparently decided that 'Devo Max' or FFA (Full Fiscal Autonomy) are 'incompatible' with the Union and the Scots must make a straight choice between the status quo or full independence.

Whilst I welcome the line in the sand he has drawn it does seem a little strange for someone who only a few days ago said that he would fight for the Union with every fibre in his body....I say this because virtually everyone believes that the only way of saving the Union was for increased fiscal powers for Holyrood to be granted - maintaining the status quo was never an option. With this declaration has Cameron effectively given up the fight?

Has he effectively said 'if we don't have control of the purse strings then you have nothing for us'?

He also didn't bother to tell Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson who was totally taken aback when asked about it yesterday on TV - so much for his 'Respect' agenda for Scotland when he can't even be bothered to tell his chief lackey in Scotland.

This also torpedoes Johann Lamont's and Labour's position of 'let's think about Devo Max after the result of the referendum is known' because Dave has effectively said it'll never happen.

What with the Royal Navy telling us that Trident WILL stay in Scotland regardless of how we vote and MSM commentators like Paxman being allowed to compare our elected First Minister to Robert Mugabe, it seems like the choice is now crystal clear.

Scotland, it's over to you....

reply to post by YeshuaPiso


It is certainly a strange one isn't it? The longer this thing plays out, the stranger it gets. Take "braveheart" Salmond for example over the weekend - we would keep the Queen as Monarchical head of state even if we get full independence. How does that work out then?

I actually think Salmond has been far more succesful with this than he ever truly envisaged and it is catching all the politicians out (including himself). I can't really think of any other explanation as to why it is all getting so confusing!

reply to post by Flavian


You may be on to something Flavian, although I've long had a theory about Salmond's decision to retain QE2 as Head of State.... I think it's a sop to the older voters who don't want to see too much change at once.

And, of course, it is not inconsistent with independence. Canada, Australia and many other Commonwealth countries have Liz as Head of State without being any less independent. Still, strange in the light of the strong republican streak in the SNP support.

It really annoys me how 'Dave' , or 'Dick head Dave' as he's known in these parts always thinks he knows what the public wants and needs, not giving us the vote or choice on serious matters like he is the be all and end all of the UK and his word and judgement is final. People are already sick and tiered of his nonsense and its only a matter of time until the riots of last summer look like an afternoon in the park.

I REALLY want to see the Jocks get independance !
If only for the fact we sassanachs will gain an extra hour
of daylight !
The skirt wearers have always kiboshed the idea cos theyre cows dont like the dark !
Or other nonsense !
Ive never understood why we could'nt just have different timezones anyway ! ha ha ha

reply to post by chaztekno


Well to be honest he is the power when it comes to political force in this country. His role is effectively head of the UK. The Queen may officially have the role but it is an honoury role. Therefore is Dave says devo max is not going to be on the table then quite simply devo max will not be on the table. Whether anyone likes it or not. If anyone is unhappy with this, i suggest they enter politics, become head of state and then change things!

reply to post by YeshuaPiso


I totally see your point about the Commonwealth but the way the interview was coming across, it was more than that. And i have to say it confused the hell out of me! (not hard)

You will know my views on this from previous discussions - im a unionist and i know you are not. However, i had begun to think it was actually fairly straight forward after all. After this weekend, i am almost back to the beginning!

Originally posted by ProRipp
I REALLY want to see the Jocks get independance !
If only for the fact we sassanachs will gain an extra hour
of daylight !
The skirt wearers have always kiboshed the idea cos theyre cows dont like the dark !
Or other nonsense !
Ive never understood why we could'nt just have different timezones anyway ! ha ha ha

Or other nonsense...like our children coming home from school in the dark and being much more likely to be involved in road accidents (although I know our cows prefer it too)...

Thanks for the support though.

reply to post by Flavian


Hi Flavian, I do understand the confusion. There is a lot of sorting out to do.

Personally I'd allow Liz to remain Head of State until she shuffles off this mortal coil and then become a republic but, to be honest, it's not an aspect of possible independence that keeps me awake at night.

Much more interested in having a grown-up, constructive relationship with our friends and neighbours most of whom I find to be top-notch people.

Why take DevoMax off the table if it's the most popular option? I find it odd that the man committed to preserving a UNITED Kingdom takes away the option that would most likely keep the UK united.

While im not all convinced that independence would win over the status quo I do think it will be very close. With DevoMax as an option that would lead independence by a good 10 points.

Another Bill Cooper prediction comming true...the breakup of the british isles.....
This is orchestrated by somebody who wishes to castarate the all remnants of the British Empire...and cast it to the failing memory of the history books......
The Square mile in London that is the financial center of the bank world is engineering this ....it is the same thing that Mitt Romney did to make his fortune......Corporate raiding.....
break up successful enterprises and sell them off piece meal for immense profits....leaving a trail of wrecked lives and homes and families and even destitute cities, behind him....
The bankers and the Crown (this is not the queen its a separate private holding called the Crown)
Are corporate raiding the UK.
Which, in the end will be left a pitiful remnant of the nation on which it was once said , the sun never set......
This is crazyness.....

Why the hell would you keep the queen as your head of state if you become independant? That would be like the U.S. having its revolutionary war and then after we won, we decide that King George wasn't such a bad guy after all and we keep him as king. Utterly redundant. Whats the point in fighting for independance if youre not willing to hang your balls out there and elect your own leaders. You don't need some royal snob telling you what to do. God gave all men the same abilities to lead.

reply to post by ChrisF231


Basically because devo max is a win win for Scotland rather than for the Union. It would be a case of "having the cake and eating it".

I actually agree with Cameron on this one to be honest. The choice should be a simple stay in the Union or leave the Union. If you choose to leave, so be it - im sure we would still be close friends in pretty much every area we are at the moment.

And to Yeshua, I agree mate. Most of us are more than capable of rational discussion, even when we throw in the odd bit of banter - im sorry but it is impossible not to if you are British, unless you were raised by vegans! (don't trust them as they never look happy).

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Except America didn't start the war of independence to get rid of King George - it started it in objection to the taxes they were asked to pay. Many signatories on the Declaration were pro Crown but anti tax. All of which is totally irrelevent to this discussion so i apologise!

reply to post by Flavian


I'm actually forced to say that you're all top-notch people because all three of my sons are English, as were both of my grandads (Somerset and Staffs).

I do sincerely believe though that the relationship between Scotland and England will be enhanced by independence. And assuming this isn't an incredibly devious plan by Cameron (and I never rule that out), I think the last few days have made Independence much more likely.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Except America didn't start the war of independence to get rid of King George - it started it in objection to the taxes they were asked to pay. Many signatories on the Declaration were pro Crown but anti tax. All of which is totally irrelevent to this discussion so i apologise!

Ok, you clearly missed what i was asking. My question was why would you keep the queen as your head of state if you achieve independance? Sorries!

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Only about 30-35% of Scots actually support independence so throwing in things like keeping the monarchy, keeping the British military, DevoMax instead of full independence, etc is designed to make the idea more appealing.

David Cameron is an idiot, he should have stayed out of it and let Alex Salmond self destruct on his own demagoguery and ego. The more Westminster gets involved the higher support for independence will go.

On the Queen thing, she is known as Queen Elizabeth II.

However QE I was never monarch of Scotland and many Scots object to this .

There was a time when signs in Scotland with QE II on them were altered by people to show the truth of the matter.

Also many in Scotland do not acknowledge the House of Hanovar, preferring instead the House of Stewart. The Stewart dynasty was another theft by the Act of Settlement.

The Duke of Bavaria I believe is the current rightful heir to the Scottish throne.

Finally the liberation of Scotland from English oppression is near.

reply to post by bigyin


Does that mean you love the Conservatives then? What with them supporting and funding the Jacobian rebellion?