Thursday, 16 February 2012

Cameron and the 'Edinburgh' Speech

The New Statesman has a transcript of this speech - and interesting reading it makes. Here we have a Conservative Prime Minister who readily admits he is not 'flavour of the month' where he and his party is concerned, who admits he should show a tad of humility - then forgetting both points and pleading with the Scottish people not to take away any more of the dictatorial power he has left.

Bearing in mind that last point, Cameron may be doing something rare for him in that when he talks about not being in Scotland to make a case on behalf of his party, its interests or its approach to office - he may well be telling the truth. It is a pity that he could not add that he was not there for personal political reasons either. I find his statement that the United Kingdom isn't just some sort of deal, to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, a tad odd when is that not just what our Masters in Brussels are aiming for with their programme of regionalisation? Is it not the EU's aim to remove the nation state, thus making us all 'EUians'? With typical Cameron aplomb we then have the suggestion that any referendum should be 'in/out', with a discussion on what powers would be devolved afterwards. So a man who cannot keep a 'cast-iron' promise is asking people to accept an unspecified promise? We all know that Cameron has a background in PR - it is now becoming clear that where PR is concerned, PR relates to being a Prize Rat.

Then we have the other 'actor' in this saga, Alex Salmond, who in common with all politicians wants to be 'top dog' in his own country, yet who with his wish to be part of the EU, cannot see that he would then no longer be 'top dog'. To be fair one cannot blame Salmond for his attempted 'power grab' when idiots like Blair open the bottle and let the genie out - leaving his successors the problem of trying to control it.

There is of course yet another legal 'problem' in that it was the United Kingdom who joined what was then the EEC and it could be argued that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom would not what remained - and I'm not sure what it would be called - have to then re-apply under its new name, as would Scotland. That would surely mean a referendum would have to be held, something Cameron will shift heaven and earth to avoid - so it is no surprise he doesn't want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. On the point of the legalities involved, no doubt far better brains than mine will be able to enlighten us on the legalities that a break-up of the UK viz-a-viz the EU would pose.

Needless to say the entire question of the United Kingdom remaining 'united' could easily be solved with the introduction of direct democracy - of which, more later........


James Higham said...

Scots seem hellbent on going down the gurgler.

Restoring Britain said...

One thing for me that appears to be missing from any debate or politicians clever wordsmithery is what about the debt?

The UK as a whole entity has a significant amount of debt, much of brought about by the use of publci money to finance the bribery of certain aspects of the electorate depending on who is in power.

The last 13 years saw that debt rise to unprecedented levels to support some form of financial gerrymandering in which key groups saw the public sector input into those regions swell.

Scotland was one such region, without whom the Labour project is effectively over.

So I find myself wondering if Scotland goes it alone, how much of a bill will they be landed with to cover off their proportion of the debt.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

JH: But is it 'Scotland' or is it Salmond and his wish, like any politician, to be 'top-dog'? Methinks the Salmond wish will get unlimited funding as happened in 1975?

RB: Fair question and one I ducked deliberately. What we have here is two democratised dictators having a private argument, one which most obviously does not involve those they are both meant to 'represent'!

Now, can we have direct democracy - please?

john in cheshire said...

O/T I have no comments about Jonathan Spelman. But, his mother, that's another matter. How do these parasites manage to gain sustenance from the public teat?

Sean O'Hare said...

If Cameron is worried about the status of UK's EU membership post Scottish independence I can't understand why he has pushed Salmond into holding a referendum in 2014. The only reason I can think of would be if the advice he has been given is that if a referendum were to be held later than 2014 the result would be an overwhelming yes to independence. I'm not convinced that would be the case. Goodness knows what his game plan is.

Anonymous said...

If Scotland leaves the UK the bit that is left is called England! Wales is the occupied and annexed.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

SO'H: God knows where Cameron is concerned. At the moment it seems both men are fighting to dictate the outcome by wanting to frame the question that will be put.

Anon: You're forgetting Northern Ireland.......?