The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Cameron's state of the union flop

The SNP will be delighted with the Prime Minister's lacklustre speech in Edinburgh.

By Jamie Maxwell Published 16 February 2012 18:34

Even before David Cameron delivered his speech in defence of the union in Edinburgh this afternoon, the Scottish National Party had already dismissed it as "threadbare and outdated". In retrospect, the nationalists could have added "ill-informed" and "underwhelming" and they still would have fallen slightly short of the mark.
　
It's safe to say that the Prime Minister's attempt today to develop a positive case for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom probably won't be remembered as one of the turning points in the debate about Scotland's constitutional future.
　
On the contrary, Cameron gave the distinct impression of someone who hadn't seriously examined his opponent's arguments. At times, in fact, he gave the impression of someone who hadn't really examined his own. "Scotland", he said, "is richer and fairer as part of the UK". But the facts simply don't back this up. Over the last 35 - 40 years, North Sea oil production has generated as much as £300bn in tax revenues for the UK Exchequer, yet Scottish rates of income inequality have skyrocketed while social mobility has stagnated. Only a Home Counties Conservative could describe that as "fair".
　
The emotive elements of Cameron's address were similarly unpersuasive. "The link between our nations is a precious thing. It's about our history, our values, our shared identity". Well, of course. But just because two nations share some sense of an identity it doesn't mean they should also share a government, a parliament or a constitution. Few would deny the strength of the cultural relationship between Britain and Ireland. Fewer still believe the latter should re-join the UK because of it. Indeed, from a nationalist perspective, Cameron's decision to emphasise the common historical experiences of the Scots and the English will be seen as an indication of the intellectual weakness of unionism. Alex Salmond knows that the referendum will be won or lost on political and economic, rather than sentimental, grounds. Unionists should be worried that their leaders have not yet come to the same realisation.
　
Worse still, in claiming that the provisions contained within the Scotland Bill would give the Scottish Parliament tax raising powers "for the first time", Cameron revealed his poor grasp of the details of the current devolutionary settlement. Holyrood already has the power to vary income tax rates by 3p in the pound.
　
In reality, nationalists are quietly delighted with Cameron's apparent eagerness to be involved in the referendum campaign. The Tory brand remains contaminated north of the border and, since Thatcher, attempts by the Conservative Party to influence Scottish opinion have come across as hectoring and belligerent. What's more, every trip Cameron makes to Scotland serves as a reminder of how thin his mandate in the country is. It is common knowledge that support for the Tories in Scotland has fallen steadily over the last six decades. It less well known that if the coalition survives for the duration of this parliamentary session, Scots will have spent almost as many post-war years ruled by Westminster governments they didn't vote for as those they did.
　
This "democratic deficit" was one of a number of important issues Cameron failed to mention in Edinburgh today. But why would he? Before it became apparent that the union was genuinely under threat, the Tory leader had shown little interest in -- and therefore developed little understanding of -- Scotland and Scottish affairs. That absence of understanding -- on full display earlier -- will do the unionists no favours as the 2014 vote draws closer. Don't be surprised if Salmond is already busy trying to arrange the next the prime ministerial visit.
　

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Scottish independence Alex Salmond David Cameron Scotland

More from Jamie Maxwell

68 comments

Fri, 2012-02-17 11:28 — john henry (not verified)

@Shamit Gosh

Answer your own questions.

I'm not going to start defending myself against your and the anti-Independence negative agenda.

The argument has to be made WHY Scotland should stay IN the UNION not why it should NOT leave the Union.

Answer THAT question please.

I doubt if you can as there is NO compelling argument for Scotland to stay IN the Union.

Why? The time has come for Scottish Independence.

I am a Scot and I remember my mother a long time ago campaigning for the SNP and Scottish Independence.

It's Time!

Sat, 2012-02-18 15:07 — Lox (not verified)

I'm astonished, Englands Rose. You have friends?

Sat, 2012-02-18 15:26 — albert (not verified)

@Englands rose.

I'm English, could you stop speaking in my name now please. You're making a complete fool of yourself.

You sound thick and are obviously a bit of a twat.

Fri, 2012-02-17 11:55 — Englands Rose (not verified)

To Shamit Ghosh .. I am with you totally and you are the only one on here that has said anything at all constructive. What John Henry is Saying .. Is do not worry if you cannot swim just jump in the ocean and you will be alright. As far as i am lead to believe is Scottish Independence not about being better off from England. Or is it about nationalist and fanatics jut wanting home rule at any cost to there people.
It will be the children of Scotland born in the future,that will suffer for your arrogance. It seems to me the people who back Salmond are not people who want the best for there country and people. They just want home rule at any cost .. That's why they are not bothered if Salmond answers the questions he has been asked by his own people .. just remember not all your people want to live on fresh air. Just for the sake on ending the union. Its a democracy and all the people in Scotland need to know what substance there is to Salmonds arguments before the referendum takes place.

Fri, 2012-02-17 11:56 — Dave (not verified)

@ John Henry

Your not winning the arguement with that one John, someone can say the reasons for Scottish independence are great or rubbish, just as you can say staying in the Union is great or rubbish...somebody else could say ...if someone said to you vote no for Scottish independence...and you replied 'why?' and they said ...'because the time has come for the Union!' what would you do? you wouldn't be convinced by that arguement would you..

Fri, 2012-02-17 12:13 — Pinkie Cleugh (not verified)

Would an 'independent' Scotland be able to afford to keep the current high levels of state employment . Which is 25% of its present work force.

Fri, 2012-02-17 12:33 — nor hunter (not verified)

@ John Henry, I agree with you the dependents case is so fragile we know over the years what we dont't want as we have had enough. How come we have one of the highest rates of child poverty when we have oil revenues a plenty to address this issue. No Cameron and those before him parade on the world stage trying to appear high and mighty. No thanks why should I accept this any longer tell me?

Fri, 2012-02-17 12:34 — David (not verified)

@Shamit Gosh: You really should not believe what you read in the papers. The Spanish rebutted the report about blocking Scottish EU membership a fortnight ago, so your claim is no more than fallacious nonsense.

The public debt issue is a no-brainer too. An independent Scotland would take a proportionate share of current UK dept. This is well known. The position in terms of the armed forces is well known. And Salmond has never painted an unrealistic picture of what a future independent Scotland would be like. There are plenty facts and figures out there in the public domain, even though the unionists would have us believe that this is not the case. But then, the unionist case is based entirely upon spin and scaremongering.

I'm astounded that someone is even less well informed on the issues of the debate than Cameron, so it's time you did a little homework before rejoining the debate.

Fri, 2012-02-17 12:42 — David Robertson (not verified)

I want independence, I don't thing I'm selfish and blindly walking into something. It's something I have wanted for some considerable time and after working all over the world it has never changed. A number of posters talk of the debts that Scotland will have to take on, fine, we already have them, we already pay towards he embassies, defence, national debt etc we just don't have a say on the decisions that we pay for. Imagine your neighbour buying a new car and putting your name down on the credit agreement, although they may let you use it, if your good.

The thing about independence that many of us understand is that there will be many challenges however it will be Scotland to work them out and I for one am looking forward to it.

Sat, 2012-02-18 18:21 — pogue ma hone (not verified)

E.R. just a couple of things while we await your next rant... Scots on the whole do not dislike the english, personally its your govt I dislike and its utter contempt for the people it is supposed to represent. It is more interested in doing everything it can to help businesses screw as much out of the working people in this country as possible. In Scotland we didn't vote for this party or its right-wing policies, up here we like the idea of the NHS, we like the idea of our children being able to attend University without being saddled with £30,000 of debt at the start of their lives, we like the idea of a fair society and if we can use the oil revenues to improve this society , all the better. We,d rather use it like this than be wasted on illegal wars, nuclear weapons or lining the pockets of mps and lords who believe £300 a day expenses can be in any way justified. Tell me one reason why Scotland should stay in the union, one tangible benefit the scottish people have gained from it and we can discuss it... heres your chance to defend your precious onion.... dont go off on a rant

Fri, 2012-02-17 13:09 — Rolfe (not verified)

Robert Campbell, Fergus and others. I wish posters would stop promoting James Wilkie's claims to have lobbied the Council of Europe to force Blair to deliver devolution in the 1990s. He's been pushing this "Scotland-UN-Committee devolution papers" lark for years, and can't back up a word of it. Challenge him, and he merely becomes abusive and threatens to sue.

The list of papers he has lodged with the National Library (and bear in mind that the library will archive anything anyone gives them - I could lodge the minutes of my knitting circle if I wanted to) are nothing but background documentation (such as a copy of the Treaty of Union), vague messages from various "great and good", copies of the documents they themselves submitted to the Council of Europe, and some holiday snaps. There isn't a single word to substantiate the claim that these self-appointed meddlers influenced any body to take any action at all. As far as one can tell, the petitions and so on were merely filed.

Please be a little more thoughtful before promoting a self-aggrandising fantasy that Wilkie has been pushing for years.

Fri, 2012-02-17 13:28 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Gaia Hepburh 9.28

I could take offense at your comments but won't bother. The Cabinet Meeting concerning Devolution in 1997 and 1998 were made up of 15 Scottish Ministers, 5 Scottish under Secretaires of State, 2 Welsh Ministers and 12 ENGLISH, if you class Blair as English. All Those Scottish Ministers and Under Secretaries had signed the Scottish Claim of Right 10 years previously.

It was me that made the Freedom of Information Request concerning these Meetings, I am a Member of The Campaign for an English Parliament and of an Englishman.

I would not be as insulting about Scots as you and others here are about the English, you seem to revel in trying to outdo each other in your rudeness.

Fri, 2012-02-17 13:41 — David Robertson (not verified)

Hi Stuart

Unfortunately there are those on both sides who will resort to insults either through lack of understanding or frustration. Hopefully others will, as you have, continue to try to get to the facts.

Is that it over with the FOI request or is there an appeal etc. Would be interesting to know who was at the meeting. As a former Labour supporter I have been continually shocked by their actions and came to realise that when it comes to keeping control over the UK they like the Tories and LibDems will do whatever it takes and makes strange bedfellows

Fri, 2012-02-17 13:43 — Englands Rose (not verified)

David Robertson have you ever heard about the Darien Adventure. When William Paterson who made his name as a Director for the Bank of England,returned to Edinburgh with a major scheme to turn Scotland into a major broker of trades, across the pacific ocean. Where there was a Island: Isthmus, Panama .. with a sheltered bay,friendly Indians and a rich fertile land-a place called Darien.He asked all the Scottish people who lived there to give him all that they had. And he in return would bring them back riches untold. Thing is if you read up on it his scheme failed and left the people of his country hungry and without money and a large sum of money owing. After the failure of Darien at Panama.
Scotland conceded to the union with England .. And England paid off its debt. And the institution established was the Royal Bank to put the money into .. Although this was the ill thought out plan of William Paterson the Scots said they had been sabotaged by the English. Once again the Scots did not take responsibility for there own actions.
We do not care if Scotland goes its own way .. just stop blaming everything that goes wrong in Scotland on the English. And if Salmond's dream and the Scottish peoples Dream of a Independent Scotland does not come to fruitation once again. As dreams are different to reality .. Please do not blame it on us again. We are sick of it .. I always tell my son and daughter you make your own bed you lie on it. And if they make a mess of things .. they get no help from me .. And England will give no help to Scotland in the future. As like every divorce .. the resentment will linger long after the union ends.

Fri, 2012-02-17 14:08 — Dave (not verified)

@ David Robertson 'we already have them, we already pay towards he embassies, defence, national debt etc we just don't have a say on the decisions that we pay for. Imagine your neighbour buying a new car and putting your name down on the credit agreement, although they may let you use it, if your good.'

Why do the Scots' so often talk as though everything is Englands' when actually it is shared, and will continue to be shared until Scotland leaves the Union. This is one of the benefits of having things jointly, in that the cost of such things is paid for by 62m people rather then 5m, and this in turn benefits Scottish people and business' as they are fully entitled to use a larger embassy network for example to push further then say the facilities of what the Republic of Ireland has.

Fri, 2012-02-17 14:15 — David Robertson (not verified)

Hi England's Rose

Had to read my comment again after your response as was a bit confused. Couldn't see the bit where I blamed England for anything. Any decisions in the last 300 odd years have been made by the Gont. of the UK or GB not the English. The term neighbour was to highlight someone else making decisions in your name rather than a geographical reference.

Independence is about taking responsibility, it is too easy to blame others and has led to many myths that when looked at with a level head are proven to be just that.

As for the Darien affair, yes I've heard of although not whilst at school as that was in England. I've read many accounts of the scheme, how the burghs where wealthy and the elite where up there eyes in debt to them and didn't want to hand over power to "shopkeepers". that although bankrupt Scotland wasn't in debt, whilst England had a huge debt due to recent wars. That Paterson oft involved himself in speculative, high risk, money making schemes. That there were English investers in teh scheme and it wasn't just Scotland. That the English govn. actively blocked routes to ensure that the scheme failed and had an army on the border to ensure that negotiations went as planned.

That however is history, as are the riots in Scotland when the treaty was signed and the house of lords blocking the treaty being dissolved. It's about the future and I am looking forward to taking on the responsibility for my countries future as I'm sure you are for yours

Fri, 2012-02-17 14:21 — John Munro (not verified)

Dave. RBS was all our own work but not HBOS. Halifax took over the old BoS. The registered Head Office was kept in Edinburgh, in St.Andrew's Square but real control was exercised from England. I have relatives (One a reasonably highly placed manager.) and friends who can testify to the increasingly bonkers orders which came up to Edinburgh from Andy Hornby and the 'Haliban' down in England. The collapse of HBOS was down to good old 'Mother England'

If you can find much or indeed anything in the Scottish media which would back up your view that it would be the Scots who cut up rough after any separation then please give us the places where you found it. I doubt you can but I can direct you to some of the lovely articles about Scotland in London based publications such as the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Evening Standard and other publications. Yo can add some of the more egregiously stupid 'national' TV programmes to that.

Jack. Both Ireland and Iceland have higher GDP per capita and quality of life scores than the UK even after their recent troubles, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland etc are all doing far better than the UK or Scotland at present. It seems to be the case that relatively small countries with fairly homogeneous populations and good population to land/resources ratios do better than larger states.

Shamit Gosh most, if not all of the questions you ask have been answered time and time again. There has ben an informed debate going on, up here, for years. I can remember these questions being discussed and largely answered as far back as the mid-late 70s in Colin Bell's excellent 'Q' magazine. The problem is that unionists close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and go "La,la,la,a". The present unionist tactic appears to be to simply not take part in any debate at all..

As for Cameron's speech. It was pretty dire. Emotional and largely content free. His visit took in South Queensferry and the Forth Bridges, a porage factory and a nic looking room with a very good view of the castle. Every Scottish stereotype going. I was expecting him to come on dressed as Harry Lauder, singing 'Keep right on to the end of the road' an shaking his cromach at the camera. Hoots mon.

Fri, 2012-02-17 15:45 — Dave (not verified)

John, with regards to the Scottish Media, i have had a look and i hold my hands up and admit i haven't seen anything there. However, apart from Mr Salmond, there are many Scots' Nats' blogs etc that seem to be very anti-UK/England and ultimately Alex Salmond won't be in power forever, and that is why i could see it being more likely that it would be the Scottish that would cut it rough rather then old 'Mother England'.

Fri, 2012-02-17 16:10 — John Munro (not verified)

Sorry, little real chance of the tartan numpties ever coming to power up here if or when we get independence. I wish I could be as sure about down south. I travel to England quite regularly and I find the atmosphere, down in the south of England, particularly, getting rather more febrile each time I'm down there . Jocks, Taffs, the EU, Europeans, public sector workers, asylum seekers: all come in for dislike verging on hatred from some group or other. Sure, you'll get the odd ultra nat who writes nasty things on obscure blogs up here but take a look at the stuff flying in the opposite direction. I really sat up and took notice when I read some below the line reply to a Simon Heffer article, in the Telegraph which described Scots as "urine soaked drunks". What made it so noticeable was the number of 'recommends' the comment got. Incidentally, I'm not alone in this. Various other people, from up here, including some English born friends, notice this when they go down south or read or watch media originating down south. Do you think, for example, that a Scottish interviewer on Newsnight Scotland would compare England to Zimbabwe and Cameron to Mugabe during an interview with Cameron? Paxman did exactly this during an interview with Salmond only, of course, Scotland was Zimbabwe and Salmond Mugabe. This kind of thing is becoming more and more common in the mainstream English based media.

Fri, 2012-02-17 16:15 — ben leiper (not verified)

Englands Rose
17 February 2012 at 10:55

"As for your wind farms (dont forget wave tidal and hydro) England will not buy any of it off you"

Why ever not if its a good price? Spite?

" .. meaning you then have to sell the Electric to another country. Lets hope it is not to far as Electricity loses its Electrical resistance over a long distance and is very expensive to move"

You have not heard of HVDC then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

Mainland Europe has already seen the worth for Scottish Green energy and they want to buy it.

http://www.northconnect.no/

This will mean Scottish energy
producers will not have to pay unfair high costs to connect to the UK national grid whilst those in the south of england are subsidised.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Infrastructur...

"As a result of the strong locational pricing element in the charging methodology, generators in the North of Scotland are facing the highest charges in the UK which is £20.17 per Kilowatt in the North of Scotland, compared to subsidies of £5.87 per Kilowatt received by generators in Cornwall."

Fri, 2012-02-17 16:52 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

David Robertson

Now the veto has been issued there is nothing else that can be done. The Information Commissioner will "after he has time to study the veto and its reasons make his thoughts known to Parliament.

Whilst the opening arguements were being presented to HM Courts and Tribunals the Information Commissioner's Office mentioned that "David Cameron intended to exclude all future F of I requests about Cabinet Meetings and minutes, this from the man who promised transparent Government!

Gordon Brown, Malcolm Chisholm, Tom Clarke, Robin Cook, Alistar Darling, Donald Dewer, George Foulkes, Sam Galbraith, Helen Liddell, Calum MacDonald, Michael Martin, John McFall, Henry Mcleish, John reid, George Roberston, Nigel Griffiths, Adam Ingram, Gavin Strang, Brian Wilson and Tony Worthington.

Fri, 2012-02-17 18:26 — David Robertson (not verified)

Hi Stuart

Thanks for that, seems that with power comes amnesia regarding transparency in government.

Interesting to see who was in attendance, the parcel of rogues still have much to say, looks as though on their terms only, in particular Lords Foulkes and Robertson

Thu, 2012-02-16 18:47 — ste (not verified)

Stop sucking up to that irrelevant and barren little communist EU Region stuck onto the top of England!!!, they wont be Independent regardless as they are and will continue to be ruled by Brussels!!!, the UK is a sham! English Parliament and Government NOW!

Fri, 2012-02-17 20:23 — john henry (not verified)

@Dave.

What you have said in response to what I wrote is complete nonesense and you have tried unsuccessfuly to belittle what you think is my argument FOR Scottish Independence.

The Time has come for Scottish Indepedence and you can't undermine that compleeling fact by your half-baked attempt at sophistry.

More than ever in Scotland the material circumstances now prevail for the Scottish people to take the unequivocal next step to Independence. This is an undeniable fact.

There would be no question of Scottish Independence if the Time was not right. It is the right time and the Scottsih people should exercise that right. It's Time!

Thu, 2012-02-16 19:15 — Babycat (not verified)

Scottish independence - or its choice to remain in the Union - will and must be made in Scotland. The more David Cameron determines that this is 'his' Union, the more Scots realise that, well, it isn't a Union they want to be part of.

Thu, 2012-02-16 19:47 — Thormod Morrisson (not verified)

You're a little hysterical, aren't you, ste? If Scotland is so irrelevant, why is Cameron so desperate to remain joined to it? One thing you ARE right on - the UK is a sham indeed.

Thu, 2012-02-16 19:56 — Tom Duffin (not verified)

Why can't we have transparency about this - it would help to see the UK finances in details re Taxes, and spend in ALL areas. It would seem the UK government have something to hide. Just last week we learned that the Attorney General vetoed the release of Cabinet committee papers relating to devolution under the Freedom of Information Act. Dominic Grieve said in a written statement to Parliament it was not in the public interest to release the papers because it would undermine the operation of Government.

A request had been made for publication of the minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee of Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions, dating from 1997 and 1998.
Such a veto has only been used twice in the past, once relating to further devolution papers and once over a request for Cabinet minutes relating to Iraq.

Thu, 2012-02-16 19:57 — Valley Boy (not verified)

Yes independence for Scotland and Wales to follow. Cameron just does not understand that its years of Tory rule pandering to the home counties and crucifying everyone else which has led to this.

Thu, 2012-02-16 19:59 — Lox (not verified)

Better clean that spittle from your screen before you try posting again, ste.

Thu, 2012-02-16 20:54 — Katherine (not verified)

If more people were aware of the McCrone Report, buried in a Westminster fault under the label 'Secret' for 30 years, they would realise how much has been stolen from Scotland. Not only oil revenues but also 6000 square miles of our seas were stolen - it's all about the oil for Westminster but none of the benefits come to Scotland.
Westminster has taught the public that Scotland is subsidised, the fact is that Scotland puts more taxes into Westminster than it gets back - and the oil revenues are not shown separately, even if they were, still the revenue from 6000 square miles would be missing off the audits.
People wonder why Scotland wants independence, it's so that we can reclaim OUR money and use it as we see fit.
It would not be wasted on illegal wars, it would not be wasted on nuclear weapons, rather it would be spent making improvements to the impoverished lives of the Scots to whom it belongs.
We are talking of billions upon billions of £££ which are nowhere to be seen in Scotland which has, as you rightly identify, suffered greatly over the decades.
Yet, in spite of all this treachery against the Scottish people, David Cameron still believes he has the right to dictate how the referendum is run, even to insisting he can set the question.
When in this World has any nation striving for its independence allowed the overlord to dictate how their referendum is run?
The arrogance of the man is astonishing.

Thu, 2012-02-16 20:58 — cameronsdemisenowcertain (not verified)

Wonder if WEE Shiny Davey will catch the next flight to the Falklands to Claim the oil Dicovered there in 2010.( Could save his AAA rating ) I Feel another war coming on.

Thu, 2012-02-16 21:00 — p j wall (not verified)

By design or accident, Flashman 'Longshanks' is doing the Yes movement a great service?. To have a Millionaire, Poncy, Snooty, Snobby, Condescending Englishman, telling the Scots what`s good for them, isn`t exactly great PR?. Flashman has to realise, that as a politician, he is a novice compared to Salmond!, Salmond could rip Flashman a new arse, if they ever had a head to head debate, it would be interesting to see if this ever happened?, a debate that is!!. No matter what anyone thinks of Salmond, he is a brilliant politician and communicator!, it`s a shame the Labour party never had someone like him as leader?. Some might say Flashman`s playing the reverse psycology hand?, because he seems to be doing his best to Antagonize all the Scots, which can only help the Yes vote.

Thu, 2012-02-16 21:05 — p j wall (not verified)

That should read 'Psychology'

Thu, 2012-02-16 21:05 — cameronsdemisenowcertain (not verified)

I'm with you Katherine,How long would it take you to get fed up stamping on his fingers or pulling out his teeth with a crow bar . It would take me yeaqrs

Thu, 2012-02-16 21:06 — stevem1

Cameron is useless when it comes to a normal political speech. His forte is a PR stunt like his flouncing out of the European conference. He is the equivalent of a cardboard cutout. Salmond will wrap him round his littlle finger

Thu, 2012-02-16 21:16 — cameronsdemisenowcertain (not verified)

The whole of England now needs to wake up ! Here is Longshanks , One of the Tory leaders who tells England, you are Subsidising these wasters and yet he's up here begging us to stay within his Union ?If you had such a situation in business , you would cut out the cancer would you not? Thanks Davey , but , NO THANKS, go leech somewhere else, Leave us alone to make our own way. Davey ! go catch the ferry to port stanley,after all, you said those people had the right to self determination, GO FIGURE !

Thu, 2012-02-16 21:21 — cameronsdemisenowcertain (not verified)

Liked the subtle (state of the union) map in the Conference. Cameron must have felt ashamed to try presenting his side of the argument with that staring him in the coupon

Thu, 2012-02-16 21:28 — gloria (not verified)

Sad to see the nastness of all the comments. Will be sad if Scotland decide to become indepent but hope it will bring an end to all the sniping and bickering. Fear it wont and will only get worse.
If Scotland does become independent want strong defence of English economic and financial position in negotiations because, as they say, the devil is in the detail. Some issues to ponder :- if Scotland want nuclear base moved they should pay. Should also pay their share of the bail out for RSB and BoS as well as their share of national debt. Would also need guarantees from Scotland re immigration policy. Scotland needs immigrants whereas England is a magnet for economic migrants from all over the world. Scotland could end up being used by organised crime as an even easier way of getting into England.
Hmm. Unfortunately feel there will be a lot of extreme nastiness when dealing with delicate and complex issues we haven't even begun to imagine. Sad.

Thu, 2012-02-16 21:37 — priggy

Gloria, I agree, its sad to see all the nastiness and to be honest, its one of the reasons why I don't want to see Independence because I think the level of nastiness towards the English will damage us all.
Jamie makes some good points re: shared history and cultural ties as well as the oil revenue.
Here is my view - http://wp.me/pTriv-6o

Thu, 2012-02-16 22:03 — Indy1938 (not verified)

Priggy, you say that the level of nastiness will damage us all.

Ever consider it is a two way street?

Thu, 2012-02-16 22:08 — Paul (not verified)

Gloria, there are 2 sides to a balance sheet. Our share of UK debt also Includes our share of UK assets. Think about that one or see your accountant!!

Sat, 2012-02-18 01:17 — Englands Rose (not verified)

Ben leiper .. I am glad to hear that scotland's winds farms are going to be doing so well. And i sincerely mean that, but there is no hiding from the fact that once Scotland is Independent .. England will buy the bulk of what it needs from other countries. This was some thing Thatcher stated when she was in power also and Cameron is no different .. marriages never end amicably. As for the Embassies.. Scotland would not be allowed to share them .. England would either rein-burst anything that Scotland had put in to them financially or tell Scotland to buy them off England at today's prices.I have family that live in Chiswick London and family that come from Wales.. Scotland & Ireland. So i am fully aware of what goes on in each area of Britain.When the coal miners went on strike years ago in Wales ..First thing England did was to import coal from another country as they refused to be black mailed by the minors. But there again i think dirty tactics will play a big part in the break up. And it will happen on both sides, Its like when Scotland goes fully Independent that should mean English students wanting to go to Scottish universities get it free. But i believe that it would not be long before Salmond found a reason to change that legislation. As i said both sides will play hard ball and lets face it. Cameron is just now playing Mr nice guy to the Scots. As soon as they get Independence Cameron will steal as my contracts as he can off other countries before allowing them to go to Scotland. This is not just Westminster and Holy rood that hate each other. This is also the people on both sides of the border. So for Salmond to believe there could ever be a relationship between England and Scotland is sheer lunacy even in regards to trade. As England and Scotland do not have anything in common at all apart from the fact that your second language is the same as our first and only language. We do not stand behind our British soldiers, we stand by our own soldiers. In regards to sport we hate each other .. its not banter its contempt. As for the military if England disbands all the Scottish regiments it will just recruit more Gurkha's to fight for it. England will remove all nuclear weapons from Scotland, but Salmond is still going to have to find some sort of defence for Scotland or its country will be wide open to terrorists attacks. Even now you can bet westminster is already getting things in place with other countries on the chance Scotland goes Independent. Salmond is a sly man and thinks he has Westminster where he wants it .. Cameron is quiet and keeps his cards close to his chest and you no what they say .. quiet waters run deep. But all the best to Scotland which ever way it goes.

Thu, 2012-02-16 22:18 — John Munro (not verified)

Well Gloria 1) We never wanted the bloody big bombs and missiles up here to start with. When they're removed, Westminster pays for it, not Edinburgh. 2) Scotland will pay it's share of the national debt and Bank bail out. However, be careful what you wish for. If Scotland pays 8%-9% of national debt then Scotland takes 8%-9% of all national resources. Public buildings, roads, computers etc. Moreover, RBS was down to the Scots but HBOS and Lloyds was all England's own work. How much of that do the English pay?

As for migrants. I'd be happy to see Scotland join Schengen. If England doesn't then I don't mind showing my passport at Gretna or Coldstram. Unless the English want to play the prat it shoulodn't take much time but it means that I won't have to show my passport at Schiphol, Frankfurt, Franz Josef Strauss or CDG

Thu, 2012-02-16 22:22 — Dave (not verified)

'Priggy, you say that the level of nastiness will damage us all.

Ever consider it is a two way street?'

Your both right Indy1938, there is a lot of nastiness on both sides of the border, that will probably get worse before it gets better. Whatever happens, we will all have to live together on this island whether it be in one state or two after the referendum, and despite what the Nationalists on both sides say, there is a lot of common ground and we probably share more then what divides us, but that won't become apparent to many until after we have gone our seperate ways.

Thu, 2012-02-16 22:33 — Dave (not verified)

Sorry John, but HBOS is Scottish, anyway, the breaking up of these superbanks and their debt will relatively easy, and Scotland is entitled to both 8% of assets and debt in any break up/settlement.

When it comes to England playing the prat, i would see it more as Scotland likely to do that, as you seem to want everything your own way, such as Sterling...the currency that Scots' Nats' have been slating for years, and it you who would be more likely to insist having border guards at Gretna and Coldstream rather then England.

Sat, 2012-02-18 02:26 — Lox (not verified)

Incoherent shite from Englands (sic) brown rose. It's not even worth dipping into the stream of confused conciousness you've poured out here...but here goes.

England will buy the bulk of what it needs from wherever it can get the best deal. Unless you expect a government of sulky toddlers.

Embassies aren't England's to sell. They're joint property.

Plenty of divorces end amicably: mine did, but perhaps you've had a different experience. Don't tell me, I'd rather not know.

Salmond would not be able to put in place legislation to charge English students for access to universities in Scotland in anyway that discriminated against them. Nor would he want to. Do you honestly believe that every Scottish nationalist is motivated by hatred of England?

I don't hate English people. If you hate Scots, then that says more about you than it does about the merits of my country or of Scottish nationalism.

Sure, replace Scots with Gurkhas in the armed forces. Who cares?

As far as nuclear weapons and protection from terrorism are concerned; trident was helpful on 07/07/05, wasn't it?

Thu, 2012-02-16 22:35 — Robert Campbell (not verified)

@Tom Duffin

The reason the devolution papers weren't released is because we are told every day by Labour that they delivered devolution to Scotland. But it's not the truth. Apart from the fact that it was the people of Scotland that delivered devolution to Scotland, Labour were forced to offer it to Scotland and Wales by the Council of Europe under threat of sanctions. If that information came out before the referendum it would be disasterous for the unionist campaign. Labour did everything in their power to prevent devolution. The title of Father of the Nation for Donald Dewar wont be quite as apt when Scots eventually learn the truth.

Sat, 2012-02-18 03:27 — Englands Rose (not verified)

TO GOLDIE LOX
FIRSTLY ENGLAND WILL SETTLE ITS BILL WITH SCOTLAND WHEN IT GOES ITS SEPERATE WAYS. ALSO ENGLAND WILL KEEP ITS EMBASSIES AND POUND .. DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE MONARCHY SHE WILL STILL BE HEAD OF STATE FOR THE U.K.
AS FOR OUR MINISTERS BEING SULKY .. DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOUR LABOUR MINISTER SAID AT THE TIME ENGLAND WAS GOING INTO THE WORLD CUP.
I HAVE FRIENDS THAT STAY IN SCOTLAND THAT SAY WHEN THE FOOTBALL IS ON THEY ARE TO SCARED TO WEAR THERE ENGLAND STRIP INCASE IT CAUSES RIOTS.
THERE HAS BEEN BITS IN THE PAPER WHERE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MADE TO TAKE THERE ENGLAND STRIPS OF IN PUBS. A YOUNG CHILD ATTACKED IN EDINBURGH BECAUSE HE WAS WEARING A ENGLAND STRIP. HE TURNED OUT TO BE AUSTRALIAN AND JUST HAPPENED TO BE IN SCOTLAND. A INVALID DRAGGED OUT OF A CAR AND BEATEN UP AND IT ALL MADE THE NEWS HEADLINES.
SO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT YOUR COUNTRY. ENGLAND AT ONE TIME WOULD OF BACKED ANY OF THE HOME NATIONS HAD THEY NOT GOT IN .. NOT NOW! SO AS FOR SALMOND AND HIS WORDS OF LETS HOPE IF WE GO INDEPENDENT WE CAN STILL LOOK ON ENGLAND AS OUR BIG BROTHER. NO WAY .. SCOTLAND HAS TREATED ENGLAND WITH CONTEMPT .. AND AS FOR WHAT EACH GOVERNMENT WILL DO .. WE WILL WAIT AND SEE WHEN INDEPENDENCE GETS HERE .. BUT ENGLAND ARE NOT FOOLED BY THE WE WANT TO BE YOUR LITTLE BROTHER SPEECH BY SALMOND. AND IF YOU LIVED IN ENGLAND YOU WOULD NO THAT. MAYBE IF SCOTLAND HAD TOOK ITS HATE OUT ON THE GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE .. MAYBE THEN IT WOULD OF BEEN AMICABLE .. NOT NOW. CAMERON WILL DO WHATS BEST FOR THE ENGLISH NOW LIKE HE SAID AT THE EU .. HIS INTEREST WERE WITH PROTECTING LONDON FULL STOP. AND LIKE YOU SAY WHO CARES? NOT ME .. NOT ENGLAND .. NOT SCOTLAND. SO WE ARE ALL SINGING FROM THE SAME HYMN SHEET.

Sat, 2012-02-18 04:09 — pogue ma hone (not verified)

hey engerlunds rose... Seem to be getting a wee bit upset there, is it because gloria has slung you a dizzy... poor wee you..she,s probably still trying to figure out that keeping your nuclear deterrent ( against what exactly..??) in a foreign country (that doesn't want them) is probably not the brightest of ideas and expecting them to pay for their extradition back to dear old engerlund, borders on lunacy.I also wonder if your govt will base them 20 miles from your largest city as they did up here or is it only the Scots that are treated with such contempt.....

Thu, 2012-02-16 23:18 — Dave (not verified)

@ Robert Campbell... can i ask what your source is for these claims? As i find it a bit odd that Labour would be forced by the Council of Europe rather then the previous Conservative govt...also why would they threaten sanctions?... it's not as though the UK pre 1997 was like South Africa...and finally it was a long standing commitment of the Labour Party to have devolved governments...and if you remember the Welsh nearly rejected it..so i would be interested in you substantiating your claims please.