Reynard Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 He is the leader of the union a no vote will leave us part of. What is he affraid of? As for Boris, hopefully he'll not be our problem soon. He has nothing to be afraid of for sure. But there is no political gain for him engaging with Salmond so why bother? As for Boris, he has never been "our problem". Unless you live in London? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthAyrshireKillie Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 If he is anything like me, he will look at the assortment of politicians standing for his constituency and then plump for the least worst option (he hopes). In the Scottish parliament list system you just have to hope you get someone competant. You rarely ever do though. Or maybe he just goes in and draws a giant cock and balls on the ballot paper. It registers as a "vote" in the turnout but doesn't give anyone any encouragement. This was, notoriously how George W Bush won re election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 New Labour was essentially one big lie. If they are all as untrustworthy as each other in your opinion, how do you decide who to vote for then? Answer this, would Scotland be better off with people who live in and were born in Scotland making the policy's and decisions that affect the future in Scotland? 1) I don't agree with that. Labour's first term in office was quite successful No party should be in power as long as they were though. It encourages far too much comfort in office and arrogance. It has been seen with Thatcher's government through to Major and Blair/Brown. 2) You have to vote for the party you believe are the best option, or the least bad option. Or don't vote. I don't vote that often, but I agree with those who say that not voting for anyone doesn't allow you a free pass, just as voting for a particular party doesn't mean you like them or agree with all of their manifesto. 3) Would "Scotland" be better off? Scotland isn't a sentient entity. It's a collection of people. Would all of the people in Scotland be better off post secession? No. Certainly not. Nicola Sturgeon has even admitted this. I do not believe i would be better off in an independent Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthAyrshireKillie Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 1) I don't agree with that. Labour's first term in office was quite successful No party should be in power as long as they were though. It encourages far too much comfort in office and arrogance. It has been seen with Thatcher's government through to Major and Blair/Brown. 2) You have to vote for the party you believe are the best option, or the least bad option. Or don't vote. I don't vote that often, but I agree with those who say that not voting for anyone doesn't allow you a free pass, just as voting for a particular party doesn't mean you like them or agree with all of their manifesto. 3) Would "Scotland" be better off? Scotland isn't a sentient entity. It's a collection of people. Would all of the people in Scotland be better off post secession? No. Certainly not. Nicola Sturgeon has even admitted this. I do not believe i would be better off in an independent Scotland. And what is the foundation of this belief? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deky Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 He has nothing to be afraid of for sure. But there is no political gain for him engaging with Salmond so why bother? As for Boris, he has never been "our problem". Unless you live in London? It doesn't matter about political gain. The point is, as the PM of the UK, he should feel able to state his case for keeping the union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 And what is the foundation of this belief? I believe taxation will have to rise in IndyScot. And as a higher rate taxpayer, I expect to shoulder more of the burden in an IndyScot than I do as part of the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nifty shade of grey Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Could we please stop calling the SNP liars? No doubt there are some in the party who behave like typical politicians, but Labour, LibDems and Tories (ie: the main unionist parties) have proved time and time again that they are masters of the art of lying and it's ridiculous to try and paint the SNP as the bad guys. Alex Salmond has referred himself to the standards committee and has been cleared of breaching the ministerial code 6 times. That includes the following issues: EU legal advice News International's BSkyB bid Inviting lottery winners to his home nominating recipients for honours There's also been some controversy about open prisons, funding for the Scottish Interfaith Council, and class sizes. He was cleared of those too. Usually it's Labour (and Willie Rennie) wasting taxpayers money by constantly making (and repeating) accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Could we please stop calling the SNP liars? Why? Does it make you cry? I've already given you quotes from Nicola Sturgeon that prove she is a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I continue to refer to my signature. Tide is very much beginning to turn...you can sense the desperation, even on here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 It doesn't matter about political gain. The point is, as the PM of the UK, he should feel able to state his case for keeping the union. I'm sure he will. He simply won't be doing it in a debate with Salmond unless he gets desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Could we please stop calling the SNP liars? No doubt there are some in the party who behave like typical politicians, but Labour, LibDems and Tories (ie: the main unionist parties) have proved time and time again that they are masters of the art of lying and it's ridiculous to try and paint the SNP as the bad guys. Alex Salmond has referred himself to the standards committee and has been cleared of breaching the ministerial code 6 times. That includes the following issues: EU legal advice News International's BSkyB bid Inviting lottery winners to his home nominating recipients for honours There's also been some controversy about open prisons, funding for the Scottish Interfaith Council, and class sizes. He was cleared of those too. Usually it's Labour (and Willie Rennie) wasting taxpayers money by constantly making (and repeating) accusations. No. They are liars. They have also made their fanboy collective look stupid in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deky Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I'm sure he will. He simply won't be doing it in a debate with Salmond unless he gets desperate. Why should Salmond, Scotland's First Minister debate with BT head, Darling? He's a failed chancellor stuck on the back benches. Salmond and Cameron would be much more statesman like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 It's a secession referendum, not a referendum on the future of the union. Cameron will have nothing at all to do with it. And rightly so. In the same way that were we to have a vote tomorrow UK wide on continued EU participation, Barroso won't come over for a debate with Farage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Why should Salmond, Scotland's First Minister debate with BT head, Darling? He's a failed chancellor stuck on the back benches. Salmond and Cameron would be much more statesman like. Indeed. He is under no obligation to do anything at all if he chooses not to. If it seems like a good idea politically, then he will press for that. Politicians don't do things unless they feel their is something to be gained for their cause/themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deky Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 It's a secession referendum, not a referendum on the future of the union. Cameron will have nothing at all to do with it. And rightly so. In the same way that were we to have a vote tomorrow UK wide on continued EU participation, Barroso won't come over for a debate with Farage. So the UK government will be remaining silent on Scotland's secession then? Or will they just snipe from the sidelines in an attempt to save the union, whilst refusing to stand up debate their case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deky Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Indeed. He is under no obligation to do anything at all if he chooses not to. If it seems like a good idea politically, then he will press for that. Politicians don't do things unless they feel their is something to be gained for their cause/themselves. With insight like that, have you ever thought about running for publicly elected office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 It's a secession referendum, not a referendum on the future of the union. Cameron will have nothing at all to do with it. And rightly so. In the same way that were we to have a vote tomorrow UK wide on continued EU participation, Barroso won't come over for a debate with Farage. When he pops up to campaign in Scotland then, is this him having nothing to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 With insight like that, have you ever thought about running for publicly elected office? You seemed to be finding it a struggle to understand why Cameron has absolutely no need to debate anything using the format youi describe. In the same way Salmond has absolutely no need to offer himself up to the likes of Darling. It's simply politics. Cameron has the upper hand regarding Salmond and Salmond has the upper hand regarding the likes of Darling. Pretty basic stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 When he pops up to campaign in Scotland then, is this him having nothing to do with it? When has he done that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deky Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 You seemed to be finding it a struggle to understand why Cameron has absolutely no need to debate anything using the format youi describe. In the same way Salmond has absolutely no need to offer himself up to the likes of Darling. It's simply politics. Cameron has the upper hand regarding Salmond and Salmond has the upper hand regarding the likes of Darling. Pretty basic stuff. Oh I understand he has no "need" to debate Salmond. I just though that with the positive case for the union being so strong that Cameron would jump at the chance. The fact that the PM of the UK has no plans to debate the case for the union he leads speaks for itself imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.