Maybe it’s the media’s fault. Newspapers in this country are not famous for digging into the detail and providing in-depth analysis of a policy or a speech. Left vs right, unions vs Tories or Lib Dems vs Lib Dems will typically suffice for a narrative, so there’s no reason why it should be any different for unionist vs nationalist, even when it is the Prime Minister that is involved.
That said, David Cameron’s speech today is, from the previews available, depressingly vacuous and ever so slightly patronising.
A couple of quotes from media outlets that have been leaked soundbites are as follows:
(Mail):
We are better off together. We’re stronger, because together we count for more in the world, with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, real clout in NATO and Europe and unique influence with allies all over the world. We’re safer, because in an increasingly dangerous world we have the fourth-largest defence budget on the planet, superb armed forces and anti-terrorist and security capabilities that stretch across the globe and are feared by our enemies and admired by our friends.’
(Sky):
“I am 100% clear that I will fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together.
To me, this is not some issue of policy or strategy or calculation – it matters head, heart and soul. Our shared home is under threat and everyone who cares about it needs to speak out. Of course, there are arguments that can be made about the volatility of dependence on oil, or the problems of debt and a big banking system. But that’s not the point.
The best case for the United Kingdom is entirely positive. We are better off together. Why? Well, first of all, let’s be practical. Inside the United Kingdom, Scotland – just as much as England, Wales and Northern Ireland – is stronger, safer, richer and fairer.”
It is not uncommon for Tory leaders to liken policy debates to wars as they try to tap into the Old Blighty WW2 spirit that they hope still courses through our veins. Churchill was an expert at it and Margaret Thatcher used it to great effect in many a speech in the eighties. David Cameron is, not unsurprisingly given the context, trying to do so again here with his ‘our shared home is under threat’ rhetoric. Alex Salmond the Nazi? That didn’t work out so well for the last person who tried it.
One problem is that it is all too high-handed, too broad brush, when the only way to advance the debate is with detail, facts and figures. The line ‘head, heart and soul’ might have a pleasing cadence to it, and saying the debate in favour of the UK is “entirely positive” may in itself sound positive, but there is no substance there, nothing for Scots to get their teeth into and taste the evidence from.
When Ruth Davidson talks of ‘fantasy figures’ that the First Minister is using to boast that Scotland would be the sixth richest nation, the obvious challenge is to say that at least Salmond is using figures to back up his argument. If the truth is contrary to the SNP’s view of the future, where is the hard-headed evidence otherwise?
If Scotland becoming an independent country is a leap of faith and a step into the unknown, a challenge not denied by Nicola Sturgeon on Good Morning Scotland this morning, then we are as likely to be better off than worse off, safer than more at risk and fairer than ripped off.
Put another way, saying we are ‘stronger, safer, richer and fairer’ doesn’t make it so. I just hope the transcript of David Cameron’s speech today serves up more than his soundbites are promising.
#1 by ReasonableNat on February 16, 2012 - 1:59 pm
Cameron on a 2nd question: “We have to settle that question before then going on and asking, I think quite legitimately, is there more that we can do to improve the devolved settlement?”
No, we need to know what we are voting for. We all know that a majority of Scots favour much more devolution (including devolution of most taxation), and we already know Cameron’s view on devolving corporation tax, for example. Lots of Scots might well be prepared to settle for further devolution rather than independence, but if Cameron is not prepared to define what the devolution package might be, before the independence referendum, how can we possibly make an informed choice. We don’t necessarily need a second question, but we absolutely need to know what package is on offer. If unionists are not prepared to define it then we have to assume that they know that it will fall far short of what the electorate want. Cameron is insulting our intelligence with this approach – it isn’t fair, isn’t honest, and absolutely isn’t going to work. I
#2 by Jeff on February 16, 2012 - 2:05 pm
I agree.
Cameron is trying to be quite clever by making a vague promise of more powers after the referendum but it’s infeasible that he can get away with not spelling out what those more powers would be over the next two years. Journalists will badger him constantly until he relinquishes the promise or sets out a proposal.
I never thought a second question would be appropriate for this referendum but it’s beginning to look like a realistic prospect, if not yet a probability.
#3 by ReasonableNat on February 16, 2012 - 2:28 pm
Personally I’d love these referenda to be separated out, but I’d like to see the devo-max question asked first. I’d love to be going into the indyref AFTER Cameron has said no to devo-max. What we Scots have to realise is that devo-max will not (ever) be granted to us, even if we vote for it in a referendum, so we really need to be making the choice between union and independence with that in mind. Cameron has been clear about is opposition to devolution of corporation tax – the notion that he will be persuaded to the devolve all taxation is laughable.
#4 by GMcM on February 16, 2012 - 2:31 pm
C’mon Jeff. This line of argument is beginning to look like the old ‘nationalists will never be satisfied’.
A Tory PM doesn’t just say he will look at things later but actually says he would like it to happen and its seen as a bad thing.
He says that Scotland and the rUK could survive post separation (completely against the tired belief nats have that anyone against independence is calling the country too wee, too poor and too stupid) and yet he is still lambasted.
I’m sorry Jeff but Cameron was pointing out things that are true in the present situation, he gave examples. Why did the SNP spokesperson when asked to comment on what he said not pick up his points and use facts to show how wrong he was? Why just resort to saying the argument is ‘pathetic’, ‘threadbare’ etc?
I think its looking like the SNP (nationalists in general) are just wanting to shout down anything that isn’t pro-independence. The only side that are failing to provide the details that matter are those infavour of independence.
Surely it would be better for nationalists to start answering these questions rather then just shouting down any other argument as ‘threadbare’?
#5 by JPJ2 on February 16, 2012 - 2:50 pm
GMcM Nobody is shouting you down (although I do note that my replies to you at Labour Hame remain unpublished) even though I did not shout).
Good to see a “Scottish” Labour supporter championing the Tory PM rather than the usual claim that the SNP vote with the Tories at Holyrood (when Labour actually did so more frequently).
Moving on to a a couple of serious points:
* Cameron (and other unionists) will have to promise very detailed additional powers to Scotland and explain the mechanism for their achievement for this to increase the “No” vote.
Many of us remember, and those too young will be reminded, of past betrayals (the Sir Alec Douglas-Home Tory promises betrayed by Thatcher and/or the Cook, Kinnock, Brian Wilson, Cunningham Labour betrayals in campaigning for “No” in 1979).
* Labour will struggle to explain why they prefer a Tory government in London to a Scottish Government in Edinburgh (and, no, it is not much use to say you want a Labour government at Westminster because everyone knows that a large chunk of the time you will not achive it thereby leaving Scotland under a Tory government).
#6 by Jeff on February 16, 2012 - 3:44 pm
Well, for a start, I don’t represent the SNP press team so that particular bone will have to be picked elsewhere.
I of course welcome the idea of further devolution even if a No vote is returned but surely you must accept that creating a condition that those powers will only be spelled out after referendum is put to bed gives the opportunity to renege on that promise. And if you think Cameron can’t be taken at his word, I’ll remind you of his pre-election promise ‘no top down reorganisation of the NHS’. How’s that one working out so far?
David Cameron is playing to win, which he absolutely is within his rights to do and, from where I am sitting, he is gambling that a vague promise of more powers after 2014 will increase his chances of winning, irrespective of whether he decides to deliver on that promise or not. If he has a vision of how devolution would look post-2014, why not spell it out?
As for his confirming that Scotland and rUK could survive post separation; for me, that was never in doubt so forgive me for not celebrating his finally stating it (note that I am not lambasting it for saying it either, contrary to your assertion).
I can appreciate your view that Nationalists are shouting down anything that isn’t pro-independence; many comment boards online are going that way (NB, don’t stray into the Scotsman’s comments section. It’s getting worse). However, I don’t think it’s out of order to protest at the lack of a forward facing, detailed argument in favour of the UK. Most of what Cameron talked about today is historical and broadbrush. It makes for a nice gushy speech but doesn’t swing my Yes towards being a No, but maybe that’s just me.
#7 by GMcM on February 16, 2012 - 4:40 pm
Jeff, I was meaning in general terms for some of the reaction to pro-UK arguments. I also didn’t mean to create the impression you were speaking on behalf of anyone other than yourself.
My main gripe here is the hypocrisy in many nationalists (not necessarily yourself, as you try to be even handed). The idea that its up to those in favour of the union to answer questions but dodge many questions or answer in vague terms. When the SNP, who are running the independence show, do bring forward a proposal it leaves more questions and then they fail to answer those – defence is a prime example of this. I feel too often people attack those in favour of avoiding separation for being vague yet we hear very little substance from those in favour of independence. It’s always a pick n mix: we could be like this country in terms of X, like this other country in terms of Y etc Yes we could but not all of those things at the same time. This is why it appears to many as a land of milk and honey. All the good bits of Ireland, Norway, Iceland, Leichtenstein, Switzerland, New Zealand etc and none of the bad. I think we need more honesty from those in favour of independence just as we do need more from those in favour of the union.
I know you can’t trust everything the guy says, I loathe his ideology, however he did deliver other things he promised, like cuts! I think it is more of an acceptance from him that devolution must be enhanced. I think the majority of politicians would like to see devolution grow to create a fairer democratic model across the UK. That is not a question for this referendum.
The too wee, too poor blah blah blah nonsense I can’t recall coming from you. There are some who comment here who use that phrase in an attempt to diminish the validity of any question put them regarding independence and the future of the country. Too many people actually believe that when someone talks up the UK they talk down Scotland, as though by saying you’re better off in the UK means Scotland is a poor subsidy junkie! I beleive, and have said this often, Scotland would do well independently but not nearly as well as it could in the UK. I’m talking the potential of Scotland up – its not negative and its not threadbare.
#8 by Indy on February 16, 2012 - 6:00 pm
But the SNP has answered the questions.
On defence for example. The SNP has answered every question put to it. You don’t agree with the answers – fair enough but say you don’t agree. Same with other issues like the currency etc. That’s been answered time and time again by the SNP – though obviously the SNP can only speak on its own behalf. Other pro-independence parties may take a different view.
Persisting in saying the SNP refuses to answer the questions is just dishonest. I can understand why people do it because it is quite difficult to condemn the SNP for saying our policy is to stick with sterling in the short term – because sticking with sterling is your policy too.
#9 by Jeff on February 17, 2012 - 10:29 am
Fair enough, but if anyone writes a blog post, surely it’s reasonable for the points in that post to be debated rather than just generally what’s out there, particularly with a view to avoiding the “blah blah blah nonsense†that you claim to be seeking to escape from?
I do agree with you that there are a few questions, particularly on Defence, that could do with an answer. As much as I agree that it’s not for the SNP to roll out a policy programme for an independent Scotland, it is still smart tactics for them to have a coherent policy on Nato. I suspect there will be, if there isn’t already, internal wrangling over Nato within the SNP which will result in a policy of Scotland being a member. I just think pragmatism trumps principle on occasions and this is one such occasion. Aside from that, an independent Scotland spending less money on Defence and freeing up more money for schools and hospitals, while still remaining an equitable part of a strong EU, Nato & UN alliance looks like a wonderful prospect to me, so I don’t find myself sitting with too many unanswered questions on Defence, just Nato and how rUK/Scotland will link up in practice.
#10 by Iain Menzies on February 17, 2012 - 6:13 pm
The mess that the SNP is in with regards defence is totally unnecessary IMHO.
On NATO, there are only 5 nations in western Europe which arent members, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland and Ireland. Four of those are officially neutrals, and as for the fifth, Finland, well i wouldnt want to have spent the Cold War in NATO if i was THAT close, with such an exposed border with the USSR. NATO has had a degree of overstretch, Afghanistan/Libya, but it also provides base line security for its members even in a post cold war environment. Principally facilitating the provision by other member states for the Air Defence of the Baltic States. SNP policy towards NATO doesnt seem to go much beyond the peacenik tendency.
On the wider point, there is nothing, at all, that stops the SNP doing a Scottish security review. Its doubtful that you could get senior HM Armed Forces personnel to do it but the idea that you couldnt find a half dozen retired Generals/Admirals around the world, or a decent security think tank to look at Scotlands defence needs doesnt stand up.
If Scotland goes indy, the only thing that will change in the security environment is independence.
Now i aint no expert, but, especially if we werent in NATO, i cant see a justification for a Scottish military establishment that goes much beyond a half dozen or so OPV’s, maybe a few MPA planes, and maybe a couple of thousand troops, for civil emergency as much as national defence. I suspect that those in the SNP who have given any real thought to the matter realise that, and dont want to admit it.
Why dont they want to admit it? well, its politically damaging.
I dont see how Scotland needs a true Blue water navy, really patroling economic interests in the North Sea is about the only thing that Scotland could be expected to do on its own. Yet the last SNP policy document on the subject suggested that a Scottish Navy would be based on the Clyde. Now i am a west coaster and proud of it…..but i cant see the logic of basing a force on the west coast….when its primary mission is off the east coast. Unless the main reason for such a policy is that you dont want to tell people who live near faslane that yon big local employer is gonna close if they vote yes.
#11 by Indy on February 19, 2012 - 9:53 am
Ian how many European countries are home to nuclear weapons?
Simple question.
Not necessarily a simple answer because while the UK, France and Russia are the only countries that have their own nuce;ear weapons (though there are of course questions about how independent Britain’s nuclear weapons actually are ) there are a number of other countries which allow US nuclear weapons to be located in their territory – Germany, belgium, Italy and the Netherlands I believe, though there is a fair bit of secrecy about it.
However clearly the majority of European countries which atre members of NATO do not have or store nuclear weapons. So comparisons with Scotland are a bit daft aren’t they?
The SNP’s stance on NATO is entirely based on the SNP’s stance on nuclear weapons. If one can be resolved spo can the other but it’s important to set out at the start that no compromise would be considered by an SNP Government on the nuclear weapons issue. If other parties want to take a different stance then they can do that and people can vote accordingly.
#12 by Iain Menzies on February 22, 2012 - 9:12 am
The SNP position on Nuclear weapons is little more than Nimbyism.
Im not sure how secret nuclear hosting is….theres a wiki page for it after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
But to focus on nukes, your totally missing my point, which is that the SNP defence ‘posture’ is more concerned with electoral considerations than scottish security.
#13 by Doug Daniel on February 16, 2012 - 4:04 pm
It’s difficult to use facts when the argument you’re counteracting is completely devoid of detail. How exactly do you counteract “we’re stronger together” with facts, when it’s not even clear what “stronger together” even means? He might as well have said “the UK is totally ace”, such is the level of detail he’s provided.
It’s not a case of trying to shout down anything that isn’t pro-independence, we’d just like the debate to be on an even footing. We’re expected to be able to produce details about tax rates, exact expenditure predictions, the number of soldiers that would be in a defence force, and produce conclusive proof backing up everything we say. Why should the unionist argument be allowed to be built on platitudes that have no actual substance behind them?
So when someone comes along and says “we’re fairer in the UK”, we’re entitled to say “how?”, and when it gets repeated over and over again without ever being fleshed out into detail, we’re entitled to scream “HOW?!?!?!?”
#14 by GMcM on February 16, 2012 - 4:49 pm
DD the figures for the size of defence, taxes, capital spend etc etc are all available right now. What we don’t have is a picture of what changes would be made in an independent Scotland.
If we would continue with the same setup then what difference does it make? If you then say it doesn’t matter and that its about determining our own future then why doesn’t Alex Salmond just say so instead of trying to answer these questions and show a difference in the vision of an independent Scotland?
I guess its because he is being asked these questions because people want the answers. Scottish people won’t vote for independence if they are not given a good reason for it; if they don’t know what improvements they will see after it happens. The SNP won’t win the referendum by saying everything will stay the same and they can’t win it by saying we can do all the good things other countries do but none of the bad.
As I said DD. Yes you have the right to ask questions and get answers. Why didn’t Alex Salmonds spokesperson fire back some questions to probe a little further into DC’s comments? Why did they just use a throw away comment rather than challenge what he says? Obviously they don’t agree but why not show us why they don’t and perhaps try and convince people? Do you think simply saying someones argument is ‘threadbare’ means you have won the argument? No; you have to show why that is so and the SNP never do. Why?
#15 by Indy on February 16, 2012 - 6:05 pm
But DC hasn’t made any specific comments or commitments. It’s just waffle really. He said it himself: “To me, this is not some issue of policy or strategy or calculation.”
#16 by Ken on February 16, 2012 - 2:51 pm
Out of the 2 paragraphs quoted, what was patronising?
#17 by Indy on February 16, 2012 - 3:22 pm
If we cut through all the arguments it is clear than an independent Scotland would be starting out in much the same financial position that we are in now. We are not subsidised by the UK but equally we would not miraculously become debt-free with independence – we’d be starting out with the same proportionate deficit as the UK does and so we would still be in a pretty tight financial position.
People can argue around the edges – SNP people can say no it would be better because they are not counting all the oil and gas revenues in, unionist people can say no it would be worse because you won’t get all the oil and gas revenues you want – but the balance of evidence suggests we’d be in about the same position we are now.
So – to me – Cameron’s argument about the benefits of spending massive amounts on nuclear weapons, having a global reach, being feared by our enemies etc is woefully out of touch with mainstream opinion in Scotland, where people are more worried about jobs and maintaining decent standard of living than they are about being feared by our enemies! Really that is preposterous, he might as well march down the street behind a military band playing Land of Hope and Glory!
That’s where the debate really lies. Are we best placed to protect our way of life and maintain living standards as an independent country or as part of the UK?
As we go forward it will become more and more clear that there is no “positive case for the Unionâ€. There is only the case against independence, which is by its very nature negative as it has to be. It’s fair enough in one sense. We are the ones proposing changing the status quo. They are the ones arguing no, let’s stay as we are, better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. So it is up to us to make a positive case and all they can do is make a negative case.
In fairness to David Cameron it is difficult for him to do that without soundind patronising. So I have a certain amount of sympathy for him actually.
#18 by Angus McLellan on February 16, 2012 - 5:24 pm
And what does all that flag- and willy-waving cost? Well …
Direct defence dept employment in NZ 2010: c. 14K
Direct defence dept employment in Scotland 2010: c. 20K
Defence spending in NZ 2010: 1.36 billion US dollars
Notional defence spending in Scotland 2010: 4.82 billion US dollars
Difference: c. 3.5 billion US dollars.
Cumulative difference between actual NZ and notional Scottish defence spending, 1999-2010, in constant 2009 US dollars: c. 38 billion.
A few billion here and a few billion there and soon you’re talking about real money. I wonder if the UK spy budgets are published anywhere …
#19 by Tormod on February 17, 2012 - 1:19 pm
That is a lot of money.
#20 by Iain Menzies on February 17, 2012 - 6:17 pm
whats your point?
#21 by Indy on February 19, 2012 - 9:57 am
The point is the choices people can make. Is the warm glow that comes from being a big and important member of the UN Security Council really worth the cost of maintaining nuclear weapons and doing the US Government’s bidding? Or could we find a better use for the money that Scottish taxpayers currently contribute to that?
#22 by Iain Menzies on February 22, 2012 - 9:15 am
Doing the US Governments bidding? What you mean like how half the british army was in Vietnam….oh wait…
If your talking about Iraq/Afghanistan……two wars we got involved in by governments that were made up of a party which got more votes, before and after the wars, than any other party in Scotland.
#23 by Doug Daniel on February 16, 2012 - 5:04 pm
When I was doing Computing Science at university, we were told that using phrases such as “easier to use” were not suitable when describing why one thing is better than the other, because it tells you absolutely nothing. “How is it easier to use? What makes it easier to use?” our lecturer would tell us. The same is true of everything Cameron is saying here. On their own, “stronger”, “safer”, “richer” and “fairer” are completely meaningless, because he doesn’t say how these things are achieved in comparison to how they would be under independence.
This is without even delving into the ridiculous notion that an independent Scotland could possibly be less fair a society than the UK, with its massive gap between the rich and poor, the current ideological cuts which are hell-bent on punishing the poor for the mistakes of the rich, and where Scots are governed by a party they almost unanimously rejected. Similar arguments can be made for the other three buzzwords.
So, can Cameron rise above the vacuous? Doesn’t look like it. But then, what else can we expect from a glorified PR man?
#24 by Barbarian on February 16, 2012 - 8:07 pm
As to Cameron, I’m waiting for the SNP announcement about new members following his visit! It might be better if politicians on all sides stopped the soundbites for a few months and concentrated on working together, because people are already getting hacked off with the lot of them.
Oh, and it seems Alex has upset Celtic FC with comments he made during an interview. He’s not having a good run with sport is he!
#25 by Allan on February 16, 2012 - 8:45 pm
It’s not uncommon for English people to try and re-live World War 2 at all. I remember the sports writer Simon Kupier describing England’s bloody 0-0 draw with Sweeden in a World Cup qualifier as satisfying Englands urge “to recreate Dunkirk at every opportunity”. Its just that in politics this often happens with issues that gets the blood moving, like relations with the EU and the current debate over the Independence plebicite.
You are right to say that this is too broad brush and too high handed – I’ve forgotten a more apt phrase for Cameron’s demenor – but the broad brush approch often works in elections. Most of New Labour’s electorial successes were built on the broad brush approch – with several specific tactical messages thrown in. While the SNP’s own breakthrough win in 2007 owed more to the New Labour handbook than most SNP supporters would care to think.
The Pro-union parties have been drip feeding their messages for years – “The Union dividend” being one. The SNP have been making a case for Independence, but have never actively campaigned for it. I still think that they should have had a dry run for this campaign during the 2010 Westminster elections – at the very least the main arguments would be out there to people who don’t have a lot of time to digest news/information.
To answer your question, no. But then again I don’t think he will be a highly visable prescence during the campaign.
#26 by Indy on February 17, 2012 - 7:27 am
I think everyone knows that tone is as important as policy – people do vote with their hearts as well as their heads, we know this. So politicians have to appeal to the emotions as well as make a rational argument. But it’s the tone I think David Cameron got wrong – and he made no rational arguments at all.
#27 by Jeff on February 17, 2012 - 9:28 am
To be fair, I think he got the tone spot on when the speech actually came to pass. His ‘respect’ philosophy was there and there’s little doubt that he believes what he says. I still find it vacuous but if all he was aiming for was ‘tone at the top’, he pretty much nailed it.
#28 by An Duine Gruamach on February 16, 2012 - 8:48 pm
A couple of points:
1) I don’t trust Cameron (or any Tory) or Moore (or any Liberal) to deliver any significant improvement on devolution in the aftermath of a “no” vote. Once we’ve demonstrated that we won’t use our nuclear option, their incentive to give up power is gone.
2) The SNP are quite rightly being chased for detail on their plans for what independence means (in terms of currency, for instance). People may or may not like the answers much, but the British Nationalists are going to offer a better version of devolution, that too must be detailed before we choose if we like it more than independence. Will it include devolution of oil revenues? Will it include corporation tax? Broadcasting? A veto on hosting a renewed Trident? I hae ma doots.
#29 by DH on February 16, 2012 - 11:32 pm
You can’t actually predict what tax rates will need to be in the future beyond 2 years. So you could say that… an Independent Scotland will be financially better off if… the 6.2% YoY decline rate in the North Sea Oil and Gas is stabilized through increased investment or that the oil price appreciates at more than the decline rate. You can’t know how much Tax could be lowered to increase inward investment, if you don’t know the oil revenue figure. You can’t predict what the inward investment would be for a given tax reduction. As for defence it depends on what model you want; Ireland’s or Norway’s. Norway spends more on defense per head than the UK does and Ireland spends a lot less. There are scenarios where Scotland would be better off and scenarios where it would be worse off. The closest you could come to detailing this would be to have future scenarios with figures and people would have to judge what they believe the most likely outcome to be.
#30 by douglas clark on February 17, 2012 - 12:06 am
DH,
I largely agree with what you have to say. It does seem to me to be a given that no government, be it the Scottish nor Westminster nor anywhere elsecome to that, can predict the future. It is the famous Harold McMillan line about ‘events, dear boy, events’.
But taking control of your reaction to those events is the essence of a nation.
#31 by Don McC on February 17, 2012 - 12:31 am
Isn’t Cameron simply copying wee Dougie Alexander in making some vague never never promise about new powers he has absolutely no intention of defining never mind delivering. He hopes his spiffing wheeze will con enough people (or at least muddy the waters for them) to not vote yes. After all, his wishy washy “positive” arguments for the Union – “better together, stronger apart, I believe the children are the future, working together in perfect harmony, side by side on my piano keyboard” (those old songs are great, btw) reveal that he has no positive arguments for the union, no more than the labour party do.
To see how credible his “promise” actually is, ask Ruth if he gave her a heads up after her infamous line in the sand speech – “this far and no further”, keeping in mind that what he was actually promising was no more than “looking” at more powers being devolved.
The upshot is that, according at least to some BBC news broadcasts, it is now up to Cameron to define devo-max. All those Unionists can now check with Call-Me-Dave for the details instead of pestering Salmond.
#32 by Iain Menzies on February 17, 2012 - 6:29 pm
It is the SNP that have been muddying the waters, none of the Unionist parties (well possibly the LIb Dems but who cares about them) want a devo max option on the paper. It is the SNP that have been pushing for that.
As for what cameron said, well what he said was ocne we settle the indy question, if you want a serious conversation about what next for devolution we will do that, and do it seriously.
To say after the ref is perfectly fair.
to put it another he is saying, I am Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that includes you but its not just you.You wanted a referendum, Im trying to give you one, lets do that and the see how things stand. Im rather busy trying to sort out other things for you, not to mention the reserved stuff that i have to deal with for england, so make your mind up and then we can talk, i aint spending two years on reform if your gonna vote to bugger off.
now, unless your a totally head banging nutter nat, that seems reasonable to me.
#33 by Don McC on February 17, 2012 - 11:11 pm
Have you ever watched “Deal or No deal”? What if the banker, instead of offering money, offered an envelope instead. Now, that envelope could contain a pound, 10 thousand pounds or could be empty. The people of Scotland have a box in front of them. That box could make a serious change to people’s lives. And Cameron is the banker offering an envelope that might contain something or might be empty. He wants us to gamble that it’ll contain something but it could just as easily be nothing. And you think that’s fair?
#34 by Indy on February 19, 2012 - 10:10 am
I’m sorry but that is simply wrong. The SNP has not been pushing for Devo Max to be on the ballot paper. The SNP has simply not ruled it out as the other parties have.
The position of the other parties is that a) they don’t want any discussion of devo max or any question on the referendum ballot paper b) they are unwilling to say what devo max means or how it could be implemented but c) if the people of Scotland vote no they can still have have devo max.
I think it has become increasingly clear that the SNP’s decision not to rule out devo max on the ballot paper was a masterstroke. It invites some serious discussion of what options would be open to expand devolution if people vote no to independence. And the answer is a big fat zero as far as the political establishment is concerned.
The tunnel vision of the unionist side on this issue is quite extraordinary. They make ceaseless demands on the SNP to predict exactly what might happen in an independent Scotland, practically down to demanding to know who will win the Scottish Junior Cup. Yet, at the same time, they refuse to even discuss what changes might be made to the devolution settlement if people vote no, let alone set out anything even vaguely specfic.
Their position appears to be don’t trust the SNP on independence because they can’t tell you absolutely EVERYTHING about what it would mean. Instead, trust us to take devolution forward even though we will tell you absolutely NOTHING about what that might entail.
It is really extraordinary that they can’t see how preposterous that is,
#35 by Iain Menzies on February 22, 2012 - 9:18 am
oh you crack me up you really do.
if wee eck doesnt want devo max on the paper, then maybe he should shut up about it?
#36 by Commenter on February 21, 2012 - 8:06 am
PM you say? Of the UK? Obviously he’s a busy chap, I get that, but maybe he could delegate the job of actually telling us what mystery powers we’ll get if we vote no? I don’t want to inconvenience him, but some detail would be nice nonetheless.
#37 by Iain Menzies on February 22, 2012 - 9:19 am
that would be one way to do it.
But instead what hes doing is saying once we get past this referendum, if there are other powers that scots say they wont, then we will look at that.
isnt it better that we ask what powers wee want, over and above what we have, rather than sitting with out fingers crossed hoping we get what we want?
#38 by Barbarian on February 17, 2012 - 12:54 am
My view is that nationalist tactic at present is to use Salmond rather than detailed policies. The unionist side do not have anyone to match him, so they focus on the policies.
And it is policies in the end that will decide the result – not personalities.
People already have fear about their jobs with the current economic climate. Are they going to believe independence will suddenly reverse all these issues?
Cameron knows he is unpopular up here, hence the carrot of more devolved powers. That gives the voter the opportunity to keep the SNP as the Scottish Government, but without the added worry of independence.
I have it on good authority that the SNP will include a second question. They need it for the safety net, not the unionist camp. Westminster still holds the ultimate card where they can ignore the result, unless the “Yes” vote is overwhelming, and at present that is unlikely.
Things can turn around, but the SNP is vulnerable in certain policy areas: Europe, Transport and Defence.
Many nationalist supporters keep harking on about how the unionists need to give a reason to keep the Union. But the same applies to the nationalists. They are sitting roughly the same in the polls. Many sit in the middle, and that is why Cameron is playing his little games. That is why they are going for policies and not attacking Salmond directly.
#39 by Colin Dunn on February 17, 2012 - 2:21 pm
“My view is that nationalist tactic at present is to use Salmond rather than detailed policies. The unionist side do not have anyone to match him, so they focus on the policies.”
Assuming that’s true, when do we get to hear the unionist policies? Cameron’s speech was full of platitudes, but I didn’t hear anything about policies.
Colin
#40 by Chris on February 17, 2012 - 3:01 pm
Sorry, but it is not up to people who oppose Independence to develop the arguments for the Union. Many of us aren’t particularly in favour of the Union and will listen to arguments in favour of Independence and listen to criticisms of them. But really it isn’t our job to build an alternative vision, as that vision is the devil we know.
Supposing I said I wanted Independence for Maryhill. And you all rightly thought it was nonsensical. I will produce lots of facts explaining that as a free trade zone on the edge of the Atlantic with canal links to the North Sea that Maryhill could thrive by relocating industries from Clydebank through zero corporation tax and supermarkets from Bearsden because we would abolish minimum pricing for alcohol and remove VAT. And Maryhill would not be in Nato, but would use a de facto pound. We also wouldn’t have any defences but we would give the police machine guns to prevent smuggling across the Kelvin. Partick Thistle would play their Premiership games in a smashing wee stadium.
Now we agree this is all nonsense – complete nonsense. Not even worth alluding to the genuine case for Scottish Independence. However at this point I have called a referendum and invited anyone who used to live in Maryhill and anyone over 12 in Maryhill to vote. All of you would agree that this was nonsense. But as the ‘unionist’ camp who still believe in a United Scotland and don’t believe – like I fervently do – that Maryhill should take its rightful place at the United Nations amongst the great panoply of nations. Instead you think we should live “cap in hand” under the Scottish “yoke”. So I challenge you to provide figures to show how Maryhill would be better off within Scotland and to make a positive case for the Scottish Union.
And you would be quite right to say ‘NO’ that I brought this up and it is my problem to convince you and everyone else. It is not your job to build a vision for Maryhill in Scotland.
#41 by Don McC on February 17, 2012 - 5:05 pm
Chris, what if, instead of Maryhill, we used other parts of Glasgow. As part of your pitch, you could point out that the life expectancy for men, as one factor, is lower than the rest of the Western world. In fact, it’s lower than many conflict torn parts of the middle east. You could assert that post independence, this would be given due priority with concerted efforts to tackle this appalling record.
Do you really think it would be appropriate for the other side of the debate to simply say nothing, clinging to the defence that these men dying before they reach the age of 50 is simply the status quo and, therefore, it isn’t something that needs defended or a vision of rectifying the situation created?
Because that’s the situation we’re in just now. And the Labour party, as the main culprit is doing nothing to win anyone over with their deafening silence on Scotland’s future within the Union.
#42 by Iain Menzies on February 17, 2012 - 11:50 pm
and what power is it that the scottish parliament needs to tackle this problem that it doesnt already have?
and since this essentially boils down to vote for independence or you will DIE (younger)! that seems pretty negative to me.
(a dislike button would be fun too)
#43 by Don McC on February 19, 2012 - 7:12 am
It’s not negative to point to a fact. A fact that Labour love to ignore. The Scottish government are trying to tackle this but it’ll take a lot longer than the length of time they’ve been in power are decades of unionist parties have let this situation arise in the first place. And the minute the SNP lose power, well according to posters on LabourHame, the poverty of kids in Liverpool is more important than the life expectancy of men in Glasgow. And anyone who suggests otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.
#44 by Iain Menzies on February 22, 2012 - 9:21 am
i dont, nor will i ever, speak for labour.
and im still waiting for an answer to the question.
#45 by Iain Menzies on February 17, 2012 - 6:33 pm
really wish better nation would install a ‘like’ button.
#46 by Indy on February 19, 2012 - 10:35 am
I agree with that. There is no “positive case” for the Union. The Union is the status quo. We all know what it is, it doesn’t need to be explained.The Unionist case against independence is therefore an entirely negative one. Their job is to demolish the case for Independence. Just as it is our job to make a positive case for change.
If you have two propositions – one for change, one for no change – then the onus is on the people who support change to show that it will improve peoples lives. The people who don’t support change don’t have to do that – because they are not proposing to alter peoples lives by one iota.
To me that is clear – we are the ones saying let’s change the status quo. Therefore it is up to us to make a positive case for that. Those who oppose changing the status quo can’t suddenly invent compelling reasons for why the status quo is brilliant. All they can do is try and persuade people that change is not necessary, that there are risks involved, and that the risks involved outweight the potential benefits.
If I could use an analogy I used elsewhere,it’s a bit like the situation following the invention of the internal combustion engine. Some people started saying hey look at these car things, they are a lot better for getting about the place than your old horse and cart. And there were another group of people who said no, these cars are dangerous, they could blow up at any moment, they’ll never replace the horse and cart, let’s stick with what we know. The horse and cart people didn’t start suddenly making a positive case for using horses and carts. They didn’t have to because people knew exactly what a horse and cart was. That mode of transport did not need to be explained – no-one needed to make a positive case for it. The judgement people had to make was whether the potential risks involved in travelling by car were real enough to make them stick with the horse and cart. Would the car really blow up? Would people really explode if they travelled more than 50 miles an hour? Etc. Of course we all know what happened with that particular debate. But the debate could not have happened any other way, just as this debate cannot happen any other way.
There is no positive case for the Union and nothing could more clearly illustrate that than Cameron’s speech or the way that promises are made that, if we vote no, things can change anyway – even though they refuse to say how. They refuse to say how for a simple reason. Because things won’t change.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. And the demand for constitutioal change in Scotland has been driven almost entirely by the nationalist movement. People will say but Labour delivered the Scottish Parliament – yes they did and there was a strong nationalist wing within the Labour Party during the 1980s and 90s which helped move Scotland forward. But the people who now say if Scotland votes no we can make progress anyway without being at all specfic about that are not telling the truth. If they seriously wanted to take devolution further they would be saying that. People like Henry McLeish – they are genuine, I fully accept that, and they are actually trying to put forward a concrete alternative to independence which would entail continued devolution while remaining part of a formal Union. But everyone else – your Camerons, Lamonts and so on. They are offering nothing and therefore all they can do is argue against change and progress, not for it.
#47 by Iain Menzies on February 22, 2012 - 9:24 am
“There is no positive case for the Union and nothing could more clearly illustrate that than Cameron’s speech or the way that promises are made that, if we vote no, things can change anyway – even though they refuse to say how. They refuse to say how for a simple reason. Because things won’t change.”
Your right things NEVER change in the death grip of the Union.
Heck just the other day i say this wonderfully turned out jacobite army marching down my streat, there was a lovely young chap called charlie i think at the front of it.
this is exactly the same country that it was in 1715.
#48 by Chris on February 22, 2012 - 9:04 pm
Independent or not Scotland will be part of the global liberal capitalistic order. Your analogy of the internal combustion engine fails because what you are offering is not obviously progress.
A better analogy would be for you to say that the horse and cart is terrible and a zebra and cart would be much better. Anyone who raises the reasonable doubt that (a) we don’t know how Zebras behave and (b) it doesn’t look all that different (except for the stripes) you will criticise for being negative and offering no alternative to the failed centuries of the union of horse and cart. You will then criticise these people for offering no vision beyond a horse and cart.
I agree with you that the likely failure of the referendum will set back devolution. I spent much of the 80s as a precocious member of the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly and remember how difficult it was to get anyone to take devolution seriously (then the poll tax came).
#49 by Chris on February 17, 2012 - 11:24 pm
Don
I don’t accept that the Labour Party is responsible for poor diets, high alcohol consumption and lack of exercise amongst older men in Glasgow that lead to their increased mortality.
If you think that the men in Bearsden living ten years longer than men in Maryhill is because they were lucky enough to have a Tory council for most of your life then I think you have got the causality back to front.
Your point is frankly lazy.
#50 by Indy on February 22, 2012 - 8:35 am
The Labour Party bears some responsibility in the sense that they have traditionally judged the efficacy of the NHS in terms of a number count – how many nurses, doctors, hospitals – rather than in measuring outcomes and placing more emphasis on preventative measures.
And if we take the current issue of minimum pricing of alcohol, the prevalence of cheap booze in deprived areas results in a situation where people from those areas are 5 times more likely to die or be admitted to hospital because of alcohol abuse than the norm. Yet Labour oppose minimum pricing. Of course we do not know yet whether minimum pricing will help reverse that situation because it hasn’t been implemented yet. But we know that pretty much everyone involved in the delivery of healthcare believes that it will make a difference and Labour have ignored that.
#51 by scottish_skier on February 18, 2012 - 11:58 pm
I am still patiently waiting for the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Labour to outline their manifestos for an independent Scotland. The SNP gave given us their vision; needs a bit of fleshing out here and there but the main stuff is covered. If they started saying ‘This is definitely what an independent Scotland will look like’ I’d consider that verging on arrogance as it would mean they are assuming they will win a majority in post independence elections.
At this stage, given none of the big UK three have provided any information on their policies in the event of a yes vote, are we to assume they will disband and not stand for elections in an independent Scotland, should a yes vote be returned?
Anyway, I was under the impression we were simply voting on this question:
YES = Scots elect the government of Scotland
NO = Scots do not elect the government of Scotland, neighbouring countries do (or at least Scots only influence modestly how Scotland is run).
i.e. not specific policies long term as these would depend on which party/parties are in power following future elections.
If the big three do not get it together and start explaining their vision for an independent Scotland, they are going to be wiped out if they stand for future elections post a hypothetical Yes vote in 2014. Their lack of forward planning does not fill me confidence in terms of ability to govern. Even the smaller parties (e.g. Scottish Socialists) have manifestos for independence.
#52 by Iain Menzies on February 22, 2012 - 9:28 am
why would any party waste its time putting together a manifesto, when they wont support that change, they will campaign against that change, and all the avaliable evidence points to the scottish voting public rejecting that change?
and thats before you try to make any sense of this idea of a manifesto for an independent scotland. Im pretty sure that none of the major parties (SNP included) have anything near a final draft of a manifesto for the next Scottish or general election, so why would you have a manifesto now for something that couldnt even be a possibility for at least 5 years?
#53 by douglas clark on February 19, 2012 - 7:48 am
After Cameron’s speech, correct me if I am wrong, we are no longer being asked to vote (yes) to independence and (no) to the status quo. We are, instead, being asked to vote ‘yes’ to carefully crafted policies and ‘no’ to something else.
The ‘something else’ needs to be spelled out in exactly the same way as the ‘yes’ position. IMHO.
#54 by Iain Menzies on February 22, 2012 - 9:30 am
how about the yes position goes first. the snp may have crafted policies, but carefully?
Trackback: Das Beste Businessverzeichnis auf dem deutschen Markt 2011 - Die Besucher-Zahl online betrug bei DieGewerbeseiten im September 18 Mio Internet Besucher