Jump to content

PM: More powers for Scotland 'soon'


Confidemus

Recommended Posts

Well that's cleared up all the confusion then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28952197

Holyrood would get further powers "soon" if there is a "No" vote to independence, David Cameron has said.

Mr Cameron said more devolution would allow MSPs to make "further decisions to help growth and jobs".

The prime minister said voting to stay in the UK was "the right choice" for Scotland's businesses and its people.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond challenged Mr Cameron to name a single job-creating power certain to come after a "No" vote.

Mr Cameron later delivered an address to the CBI annual dinner in Glasgow as the referendum campaign entered its final weeks.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson asked Mr Cameron if he would guarantee more powers in the event of a "No" vote and, if so, when.

The prime minister replied: "Yes and soon is the very short answer to that."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cue no voters greetin' when this never happens and we "don't have the powers to vote him out for lying to us" :rolleyes:

I genuinely don't see why No voters can't see straight through this.

If I was Prime Minister and tasked with the job of keeping Scotland in the UK, I'd be promising all sorts of specific powers with exact timescales.

It's just total lies. Typical Westminster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clear Cameron is keeping his powder dry until just before the election then lay out a raft of powers they are willing to devolve, and to be fair that is obviously the best strategy for them as revealing that now would leave far too long for people to find fault with them.

However, even if Cameron suggests so, we would still need to wait until the middle of the next parliament; say round about 2017, then hope that what was offered before the vote was the same as offered after it (and there would be no reason to after a No vote as it wouldn't affect him if he reneged as if the Tories aren't going to lose seats in Scotland if they fail to honour an loose agreement), we then need to hope that it gets through the parliament on a vote and there is again no guarantee that it would. Finally those powers are unlikely to be devolved for another couple of years after that.

So essentially it's a suggestion of something vague with no guarantee that might or might not be delivered in 5 years time, and only if Cameron gets into power, the parliament agrees and that they match what was offered in the first place. All based on a Conservative majority being delivered at Westminster.

Instead, you could vote Yes and you can guarantee all the powers transferred to Scottish control within a couple of years. No "if", no "but", no "soon", no vague hopes years down the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit cocky assuming that one of the three BT mob will get elected, no?

It's pretty much a stick on that it'll be a UKIP/Conservative coalition. Everything points to that and no amount of racism and hatred from UKIP seems to affect their support in the polls (currently running about 15%).

Labour refuse to offer any suggestions on further devolution, the Liberals are struggling to keep their deposits and UKIP have absolutely no policy of extending devolved powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cue no voters greetin' when this never happens and we "don't have the powers to vote him out for lying to us" :rolleyes:

They absolutely will not be greeting, if no more powers come. They'll be scrambling about for reasons to excuse the Westminster goons that have just slipped them another length.

Unionists would defend just about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They absolutely will not be greeting, if no more powers come. They'll be scrambling about for reasons to excuse the Westminster goons that have just slipped them another length.

Unionists would defend just about anything.

Yup, if the Bitters win and the powers are not devolved, then it'll clearly be Salmond's fault for being fat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He needs to say which powers and make a commitment.

The problem is that all he can do is make vague assurances that possible future promises could be made under a specific set of conditions and which can only be implemented in a vague timescale.

The ONLY way to guarantee more powers for Scotland is to vote Yes. There simply is no debate on that, it's a cast iron certainty.

Let's move the clock forward and assume that there will be a CONKIP coalition, which looks likely if not quite a foregone conclusion. As UKIP are vehemently opposed to Scottish independence with Farage calling it "dead in the water" and calling nationalists as "fascist scum", do you think that they will happily allow further devolution to be part of a manifesto of the coalition, and even if it is there's no guarantee it would be voted through in parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty much a stick on that it'll be a UKIP/Conservative coalition. Everything points to that and no amount of racism and hatred from UKIP seems to affect their support in the polls (currently running about 15%).

Labour refuse to offer any suggestions on further devolution, the Liberals are struggling to keep their deposits and UKIP have absolutely no policy of extending devolved powers.

I think it's a stick on that there won't be Tory government in any form due to the bias in the electoral system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a stick on that there won't be Tory government in any form due to the bias in the electoral system.

Do you even follow the polls? UKIP are going to have the same sort of leverage that the Liberals had, perhaps more. Do you think they will form a coalition with Labour? It's possible but highly unlikely. That only leaves one option.

While not impossible but it's highly, if not extremely, improbable the next Prime Minister is not Conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casual Bystander clearly doesn't understand FPTP if he thinks UKIP are going to be the kingmakers. For a party to be the kingmaker you basically need to be the third party in a hung parliament.

First of all they need a hung parliament, which is pretty unlikely as it is, 2010 only being the second non-decisive election in recent memory.

Secondly they need to win more seats than the Liberal Democrats and that's simply not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of Yes voters are planning to vote Tory in the hope that they will screw Scotland and hasten independence.

That makes absolutely no sense. I think a lot of people will be enjoying the Tories getting in, in a told you so kind of way.

If we elected them personally, it would totally detract from the point shirley?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Casual Bystander clearly doesn't understand FPTP if he thinks UKIP are going to be the kingmakers. For a party to be the kingmaker you basically need to be the third party in a hung parliament.

First of all they need a hung parliament, which is pretty unlikely as it is, 2010 only being the second non-decisive election in recent memory.

Secondly they need to win more seats than the Liberal Democrats and that's simply not going to happen.

I can only presume you either have no interest in Westminster politics, or that you do but are just a very bad interpreter of them.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2

Don't let those facts hit you on the arse on your way out of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...