David Cameron dismisses second Scottish Referendum before 2020

Original post by scott18044

Cameron has been reported as saying there won't be another referendum in Scotland until at least the end of this Parliament when he is set to stand down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11765829/David-Cameron-rejects-Scottish-referendum-before-2020.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33668976

Thoughts? Do you think it is something that the SNP would/ will push for before then, perhaps by including it in their manifesto for the Holyrood election next year?

The SNP said the referendum
would be a once in a generation event.

They're now telling more lies claiming that promises have been broken when they unite obviously haven't.

It would be interesting to see their campiagn strategy for a second referendum.

We know we lied to you about automatic entry to the EU the first time around. We know we lied to you about the economic argument the first time around. We know we lied to you about a shared currency the first time around. Remember the first time around when billions left Scotland?

The SNP have one strategy and one strategy only, to promote a sense of victimhood. We're already seeing that their policies are leaving education and healthcare falling behind the rest of the UK.

Reply 2

@MatureStudent36 is nothing but a troll.

I don't think there should be another referendum within the next 10 years, and that is despite the fact that I support Scottish Independence. However, I do think that David Cameron is playing an incredibly stupid game. 'Ruling out' a second referendum is only going to help the SNP and increase the sense of grievance amongst Scots towards Westminster.

If the SNP stand on a ticket wanting a second referendum, and win the election (especially if they get over 50% of the vote) then they have a clear mandate, a much greater one than David Cameron has. If this mandate was refused then all it would do is guarantee a rise in support for Independence as people would see it as Scotland being ignored within the UK. All this intervention has done is almost force the SNP into campaigning for another referendum as they can't be seen to back down to the Conservatives.

What David Cameron really needs to do is call the SNP's bluff and appease his backbenchers over the barnet formula by giving Scotland full fiscal autonomy. If that doesn't happen then another referendum is inevitable as the views of the electorate is becoming even more anti-Westminster, and eventually that will bubble over into support for independence. The Scottish Parliament must become a fully accountable Parliament for the Union to survive.

Reply 3

Original post by david9640

@MatureStudent36 is nothing but a troll.

I don't think there should be another referendum within the next 10 years, and that is despite the fact that I support Scottish Independence. However, I do think that David Cameron is playing an incredibly stupid game. 'Ruling out' a second referendum is only going to help the SNP and increase the sense of grievance amongst Scots towards Westminster.

If the SNP stand on a ticket wanting a second referendum, and win the election (especially if they get over 50% of the vote) then they have a clear mandate, a much greater one than David Cameron has. If this mandate was refused then all it would do is guarantee a rise in support for Independence as people would see it as Scotland being ignored within the UK. All this intervention has done is almost force the SNP into campaigning for another referendum as they can't be seen to back down to the Conservatives.

What David Cameron really needs to do is call the SNP's bluff and appease his backbenchers over the barnet formula by giving Scotland full fiscal autonomy. If that doesn't happen then another referendum is inevitable as the views of the electorate is becoming even more anti-Westminster, and eventually that will bubble over into support for independence. The Scottish Parliament must become a fully accountable Parliament for the Union to survive.

Full fiscal autonomy?

You do realise that the SNP made up their numbers and Scotland's now financially screwed since oil prices have plummeted?

Is it the intention of all SNP supporters to go into self destruct mode and screw over the poorest of society even more?

Isn't it about time the SNP started to govern instead of constantly complain?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 4

tengentoppa

18

Original post by david9640

@MatureStudent36 is nothing but a troll.

I don't think there should be another referendum within the next 10 years, and that is despite the fact that I support Scottish Independence. However, I do think that David Cameron is playing an incredibly stupid game. 'Ruling out' a second referendum is only going to help the SNP and increase the sense of grievance amongst Scots towards Westminster.

If the SNP stand on a ticket wanting a second referendum, and win the election (especially if they get over 50% of the vote) then they have a clear mandate, a much greater one than David Cameron has. If this mandate was refused then all it would do is guarantee a rise in support for Independence as people would see it as Scotland being ignored within the UK. All this intervention has done is almost force the SNP into campaigning for another referendum as they can't be seen to back down to the Conservatives.

What David Cameron really needs to do is call the SNP's bluff and appease his backbenchers over the barnet formula by giving Scotland full fiscal autonomy. If that doesn't happen then another referendum is inevitable as the views of the electorate is becoming even more anti-Westminster, and eventually that will bubble over into support for independence. The Scottish Parliament must become a fully accountable Parliament for the Union to survive.

No they don't. The prime minister has final say over whether there is a second referendum, and there is nothing the SNP can really do about it. It might be politically unpopular, but constitutional powers are reserved.

Cameron is right to deny another referendum because it was agreed to be a once in a lifetime event. Even if there was one, it;s hard to see a yes vote in light of the plunging oil prices.

Reply 5

Good bloke

Original post by david9640

MatureStudent36 is nothing but a troll.

Don't be childish. He has been debating Scottish independence and other matters perfectly reasonably for a very long time. The fact he disagrees with you does not make him a troll.

Original post by david9640

'Ruling out' a second referendum is only going to help the SNP and increase the sense of grievance amongst Scots towards Westminster.

I don't know why you use inverted commas. Cameron has repeated the tactic that the party leaders adopted over the currency in the referendum by ruling out a new referendum. He has (not unreasonably) made a statement from which there is no return. His credibility as PM is at stake. To continue to bleat about it will merely show the SNP up in a bad light and get them nowhere.

The only grievance will be among the minority of Scots who support independence; I imagine the great majority who don't want independence are as fed up with the SNP as the rest of Britain.

Original post by david9640

If the SNP stand on a ticket wanting a second referendum, and win the election (especially if they get over 50% of the vote) then they have a clear mandate, a much greater one than David Cameron has.

Well, no. People vote for the SNP for a large number of reasons and the referendum has shown that many people who vote SNP do not support independence (and less than 38% of the electorate did support it in the referendum).

If they held the election with only one policy, to hold a referendum, and state they will resign once that has been passed and hold another election on normal running-of-the-country policies, then that might be a different matter. But they won't dare do that.

Original post by david9640

If that doesn't happen then another referendum is inevitable

A meaningful referendum is only within the gift of the UK parliament. The Scottish parliament can hold its own polls until the cows come home but they will mean nothing (other than to waster Scottish taxpayers' money), and have no legal effect. The British people generally will be in uproar if another referendum is granted now.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 6

russellsteapot

16

I get the impression that the SNP will keep demanding vote after vote until they eventually hit the political mood lottery right and win one. I wonder if they'll then hold a re-joining referendum every couple of years until Scotland votes to come back into the UK, and then keep holding one every five years just in case they want to leave again.

Reply 7

Duncan2012

The SNP's only policy is achieving independence, and they'll do anything and say anything to get it. Their nonsense white paper for an independent Scotland, their wildly optimistic oil price predictions and their waste of resources and airtime talking about another referendum does nothing to endear them to the majority of the population who voted No last year. Constitutionally they were permitted by Westminster to hold the referendum last year, and there is no rationale to allow them to do the same any time soon, hence Cameron's recent remarks.

Reply 8

L i b

Only ten months ago, Scotland gave membership of the UK the biggest democratic mandate it has ever given anything in its history. Over two million people turned out to vote for the union in a poll agreed by both the UK and Scottish governments to be fair, legal and decisive. It was agreed that this would be a once in a generation or once in a lifetime event.

Can we kindly stop pretending that there is any risk of a second referendum any time in the near future? If the SNP propose it, of course the UK Government will refuse it. To fail in that regard would be the biggest betrayal of the voters, campaigners and people of Scotland, many of whom put their all into the campaign to secure the future of their country.

Just please note that when the SNP are in trouble over domestic policy, they start focusing on separation. Why? Because it distracts every newspaper frontpage, and the pro-union politicians stupidly go into a hissy-fit about the whole thing. They should have one clear line, a no more than a couple of sentences long, entirely dismissing the whole idea - and that should be all they say on the matter.

The SNP do well when no-one holds them to account on their great many failings. In education, literacy and numeracy are falling - a shocking indictment; the NHS in Scotland is in full car-crash mode; the SNP's flagship single Scottish police force is held in utter contempt after a year of cock-ups. The more the pro-union parties start talking about that and the less they get drawn into Alex Salmond's distraction techniques, the better.

Reply 9

L i b

Original post by david9640

If the SNP stand on a ticket wanting a second referendum, and win the election (especially if they get over 50% of the vote) then they have a clear mandate, a much greater one than David Cameron has. If this mandate was refused then all it would do is guarantee a rise in support for Independence as people would see it as Scotland being ignored within the UK. All this intervention has done is almost force the SNP into campaigning for another referendum as they can't be seen to back down to the Conservatives.

Nope. 55% of the Scottish people voted no, and I suspect they want their decision respected. If it has to be the UK Government standing there to guarantee that the law and the agreements of the SNP are upheld, then so be it.

Part of the reason we got into this situation is that no-one has any respect for the sort of weak unionism that successive UK Government have put about. While the arguing about economics certainly works, it does not engender respect: it suggest that, all else being equal, the Scottish people would be perfectly reasonable in choosing to separate from the UK. Then, when we are strong, we give the Scottish Government more powers.

Even if it did increase support for independence in the short-term (which, according to the SNP, virtually every action any unionist party takes will), who cares? Our decisions now are hardly going to impact significantly if a second referendum is held in 30 years time. The SNP are hardly going to surge forward and rob the UK Government of swathes of seats in Scotland - it only has one.

What David Cameron really needs to do is call the SNP's bluff and appease his backbenchers over the barnet formula by giving Scotland full fiscal autonomy.

That would create a recession, destabilise UK monetary policy and lead to the sort of constitutional instability from which the UK could never recover. It will never happen, nor should it.

What David Cameron needs to do is ignore the posturing of the SNP.

Reply 10

Original post by tengentoppa

No they don't. The prime minister has final say over whether there is a second referendum, and there is nothing the SNP can really do about it. It might be politically unpopular, but constitutional powers are reserved.

Cameron is right to deny another referendum because it was agreed to be a once in a lifetime event. Even if there was one, it;s hard to see a yes vote in light of the plunging oil prices.

Please look up the definition of mandate if you disagree. If any party puts something in their manifesto and wins more support from the electorate than any other party, they have a mandate.

If the SNP win over 50% or beat the Conservatives then they have more of a mandate from the Scottish people than David Cameron. This isn't difficult stuff.

Reply 11

Original post by Good bloke

Don't be childish. He has been debating Scottish independence and other matters perfectly reasonably for a very long time. The fact he disagrees with you does not make him a troll.

I don't know why you use inverted commas. Cameron has repeated the tactic that the party leaders adopted over the currency in the referendum by ruling out a new referendum. He has (not unreasonably) made a statement from which there is no return. His credibility as PM is at stake. To continue to bleat about it will merely show the SNP up in a bad light and get them nowhere.

The only grievance will be among the minority of Scots who support independence; I imagine the great majority who don't want independence are as fed up with the SNP as the rest of Britain.

Well, no. People vote for the SNP for a large number of reasons and the referendum has shown that many people who vote SNP do not support independence (and less than 38% of the electorate did support it in the referendum).

If they held the election with only one policy, to hold a referendum, and state they will resign once that has been passed and hold another election on normal running-of-the-country policies, then that might be a different matter. But they won't dare do that.

A meaningful referendum is only within the gift of the UK parliament. The Scottish parliament can hold its own polls until the cows come home but they will mean nothing (other than to waster Scottish taxpayers' money), and have no legal effect. The British people generally will be in uproar if another referendum is granted now.

No he has not, what you have just said is your opinion and is entirely subjective.

I understand the tactic, I've never disputed that is his tactic. HEADLINE: "Independence supporting party support Independence". If it puts them in a bad light with the British electorate then so be it, their support is very substantial in the place where they actually put forward candidates.

The grievance would be among the majority of Scots. Many are already angry about the pretty paltry powers that we are being offered. I don't believe people would necessarily be angry over the referendum issue, but I do believe that people would be angry that any mandate from the Scottish people can be ignored and this would highlight that.

I've never said that all SNP supporters support Independence. I haven't said that Scotland supports Independence either.

That would be a stupid position for any party to take. The electorate deserve to know what they plan to do in the Parliament they are elected to. The point of a manifesto is that you see the policies of the parties, and at the end of the day if there is anything that you don't support, or anything that crosses a line in the sand then you can choose not to vote for them.

I don't care, that's not the point I'm making.

I don't support another referendum. But every point I made was entirely reasonable with regards to how the issue would play out.

Reply 12

Original post by david9640

No he has not, what you have just said is your opinion and is entirely subjective.

I understand the tactic, I've never disputed that is his tactic. HEADLINE: "Independence supporting party support Independence". If it puts them in a bad light with the British electorate then so be it, their support is very substantial in the place where they actually put forward candidates.

The grievance would be among the majority of Scots. Many are already angry about the pretty paltry powers that we are being offered. I don't believe people would necessarily be angry over the referendum issue, but I do believe that people would be angry that any mandate from the Scottish people can be ignored and this would highlight that.

I've never said that all SNP supporters support Independence. I haven't said that Scotland supports Independence either.

That would be a stupid position for any party to take. The electorate deserve to know what they plan to do in the Parliament they are elected to. The point of a manifesto is that you see the policies of the parties, and at the end of the day if there is anything that you don't support, or anything that crosses a line in the sand then you can choose not to vote for them.

I don't care, that's not the point I'm making.

I don't support another referendum. But every point I made was entirely reasonable with regards to how the issue would play out.

All powers agreed have been delivered.

The only people unhappy about it are the moon howlers who are still upset that they lost the referendum last year.

Anyway, do you think they'll actually use any of these new powers yet?

The SNP and its supporters seem to be great at complaining but not so great at doing.

Scotland already has significant tax raising powers that the SNP have chosen not to use historically. I feel they'll continue to let the poorest in society to suffer in order to continue to create some sort of perceived grievance.

Reply 13

Original post by MatureStudent36

All powers agreed have been delivered.

The only people unhappy about it are the moon howlers who are still upset that they lost the referendum last year.

Anyway, do you think they'll actually use any of these new powers yet?

The SNP and its supporters seem to be great at complaining but not so great at doing.

Scotland already has significant tax raising powers that the SNP have chosen not to use historically. I feel they'll continue to let the poorest in society to suffer in order to continue to create some sort of perceived grievance.

You only ever seem to be able to make assertions.

Reply 14

sdotd

17

hope they get another and vote to leave, fed up of them to be honest

Reply 15

i<3milkshake

4

Original post by MatureStudent36

The SNP said the referendum
would be a once in a generation event.

They're now telling more lies claiming that promises have been broken when they unite obviously haven't.

It would be interesting to see their campiagn strategy for a second referendum.

We know we lied to you about automatic entry to the EU the first time around. We know we lied to you about the economic argument the first time around. We know we lied to you about a shared currency the first time around. Remember the first time around when billions left Scotland?

The SNP have one strategy and one strategy only, to promote a sense of victimhood. We're already seeing that their policies are leaving education and healthcare falling behind the rest of the UK.

Original post by david9640

@MatureStudent36 is nothing but a troll.

He isn't a troll-he has a point.

The referendum was supposed to be once in a "lifetime". When Sturgeon was asked so often about it in the run up to the election she stuck to this narrative. How long did it take for this lie to unravel?

The Scottish Nationalists claimed Scotland would be able to go financially independent and not completely collapse. This was hugely reliant on oil prices which have now fallen through the floor. How long did it take for this lie about being able to be self-sufficent and still be as well off as part of the UK take to fall apart?

They also claimed that they would be able to be part of the EU-and that was also a lie.

Forget about complicated politics the SNP weren't even sure what currency to use. And finally, to save face, they claimed they had several options and it was like "several buses coming at once". In other words they had no idea what options would be realistically feasible but who cares about little things like in what currency your salary or pensions will be paid.

And with all of that stupidity they want another referendum? If they had won the last one, looking at the above, god knows what state Scotland would be in. Another referendum and all that is changed is that the SNP has just been proven to be even worse lies than the evil Westminster MP's.

In politics now there are so many important issues to focus on, for MP's to fight for and present their case. Why go through the same campaigning all over again and cause a huge distraction when the last attempt was so recent? Focus on reducing the deficit, on the EU referendum (where no one has had a say for decades rather than years). Focus on jobs.

A referendum is called to find the opinion of the public. That happened. If you don't like the result don't simply say "we will keep calling them at £10-20 million a time until we get the answer we want".

Reply 16

Original post by david9640

You only ever seem to be able to make assertions.

Not quite. I tend to deal in facts.

It's the SNP who take aspirations and push them out as fact.

'We'd like automatic entry into the eu' becomes ' we will have automatic entry into the EU.'

'We'd like a shared currency' becomes 'we'll have a shar d currency.'

Reply 17

Original post by MatureStudent36

Not quite. I tend to deal in facts.

It's the SNP who take aspirations and push them out as fact.

'We'd like automatic entry into the eu' becomes ' we will have automatic entry into the EU.'

'We'd like a shared currency' becomes 'we'll have a shar d currency.'

"All powers agreed have been delivered"

"The only people unhappy about it are the moon howlers who are still upset that they lost the referendum last year"

Assertion is the correct word.

Reply 18

i<3milkshake

4

Original post by sdotd

hope they get another and vote to leave, fed up of them to be honest

The SNP, with their hypocritical opposition to English votes for English laws, are playing a clever game.

They couldn't get Scotland to go independent with its own referendum so they are hoping to annoy the rest of the UK so much that they just get let out by the rest of the fed up UK.

Of course an intelligent person would realise that the reason most in the UK outside of Scotland don't care if they leave (and would actually prefer it if shut them up) is because everyone else would be fine and Scotland would be in trouble.

Obviously most Scots know they are better off together hence why the referendum result. However, despite being in the minority the nationalists don't half shout and scream in the attempt that this will change the "one person, one vote principle" to "I screamed loudest and bully the actual majority therefore I get what I want" principle. The minority want to burden the majority with a £10-20 million pound bill at a time of austerity...ironic.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 19