If Scotland votes yes, should Cameron resign ?

[Bold Seagull]

So no credit to the Yes campaign then? Just blame the Tories for Everything.

You mean blame the government that is in power and allows it's country to be broken up? Why would we blame the Tories who have perhaps bought concessions to the table too little too late, who didn't take this seriously until they realised the Yes vote might actually win.

Labour were blamed for the ENTIRE global financial crisis, how on earth do you imagine the Tories will not blamed for something that has happened 4 1/2 years into their government if the yes vote wins?

 

[Bozza]

Well ?

Barely a third of people agree with you thus far. Is that what you expected?

 

[Cian]

concerning the party name "Conservative and Unionist Party", i have come to learn that this name hasnt actually been in use since 1965, and refers to the union with Ireland. has nothing to do with Scotland.

It was used in Northern Ireland for the 2010 General Election; albeit due to running alongside the UUP. Didn't win a single seat.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Well ?

Nope

 

[jimhigham]

I don't think that the answer to the OP's question has to be party political. The Prime Minister is the leader of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If a Prime Minister oversees the break up of that nation it seems reasonable to suggest that their position becomes untenable.

If Scotland votes for independence and Cameron doesn't resign it would not surprise me if he was felled in a vote of no confidence from within his own party, who are probably desperate to parachute Boris in as the one Tory who can attract votes from across party lines. Seriously. A Tory mayor of London. How did that even happen? It certainly wasn't down to be people voting with tribal loyalty.

 

[dingodan]

I was quite surprised by the way the media and politicians have handled the Scottish Independence vote, I'm surprised that they didn't campaign against it sooner, and I'm surprised that at how negative the campaign and coverage has been.

& now, it seems like everyone in England is against it, and feels a strong resentment about it too. Everyone is referring to the "breaking up" of a country, rather than the Independence of a country.

The debate seems to have become quite bitter, and from here it looks like a lot of people have gotten themselves caught up in all the campaign rhetoric.

This is about a country, it's population, taking legislative control over it's affairs. Becoming self determined. Charting it's own destiny.

Why are people so against it? Why do people feel so offended by it? Isn't this the very thing we profess to believe in the most?

 

[fat old seagull]

You mean blame the government that is in power and allows it's country to be broken up? Why would we blame the Tories who have perhaps bought concessions to the table too little too late, who didn't take this seriously until they realised the Yes vote might actually win.

Labour were blamed for the ENTIRE global financial crisis, how on earth do you imagine the Tories will not blamed for something that has happened 4 1/2 years into their government if the yes vote wins?

Whilst not wishing to declare myself a great fan of socialism or conservatism for that matter. I agree with all of that.
The Scots rightly or wrongly feel as though they've been given short thrift from David Cameron and Westminster. He's left it a bit late in the day to start offering treats, I feel. But the outcome of a YES vote could be good for Conservatives, they'd have good reason to turn on DC and ditch him, whilst also offloading a large Labour following from having any influence in what is left of Britain...all a bit sad really.

 

[The Spanish]

I don't think that the answer to the OP's question has to be party political. The Prime Minister is the leader of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If a Prime Minister oversees the break up of that nation it seems reasonable to suggest that their position becomes untenable.

If Scotland votes for independence and Cameron doesn't resign it would not surprise me if he was felled in a vote of no confidence from within his own party, who are probably desperate to parachute Boris in as the one Tory who can attract votes from across party lines. Seriously. A Tory mayor of London. How did that even happen? It certainly wasn't down to be people voting with tribal loyalty.

plenty of post war prime ministers have lost territory previously governed by Westminster. In fact, probably, the vast majority.

perhaps its this short termism and baby out with the bathwater mentality sack the manager attitude that has led us to this particular point. why does everyone always have to resign all the time, in football, politics, public life and have everyone screaming for a head as soon as something goes wrong. people should have been screaming for blairs head when he gave the goahead for the scottish parliament. cameron is snookered on this, no matter how dislikeable he may be.

some of the comments crack me up, mythologising scottish voting habits and social attitudes to suit agendas, gleefully using the break up of the UK in a scandalously undemocratic and gerrymandered way, to score party political points.

 

[The Spanish]

I was quite surprised by the way the media and politicians have handled the Scottish Independence vote, I'm surprised that they didn't campaign against it sooner, and I'm surprised that at how negative the campaign and coverage has been.

& now, it seems like everyone in England is against it, and feels a strong resentment about it too. Everyone is referring to the "breaking up" of a country, rather than the Independence of a country.

The debate seems to have become quite bitter, and from here it looks like a lot of people have gotten themselves caught up in all the campaign rhetoric.

This is about a country, it's population, taking legislative control over it's affairs. Becoming self determined. Charting it's own destiny.

Why are people so against it? Why do people feel so offended by it? Isn't this the very thing we profess to believe in the most?

we have been told for the last twenty years about it being multicultural britain, dont be suprised that people are a little shocked when a nationalist party promoting self determination in a remarkeably homogenous part of the UK, effectively splits the UK, with apparent blessing and no questioning.

 

[Bold Seagull]

plenty of post war prime ministers have lost territory previously governed by Westminster. In fact, probably, the vast majority.

perhaps its this short termism and baby out with the bathwater mentality sack the manager attitude that has led us to this particular point. why does everyone always have to resign all the time, in football, politics, public life and have everyone screaming for a head as soon as something goes wrong. people should have been screaming for blairs head when he gave the goahead for the scottish parliament. cameron is snookered on this, no matter how dislikeable he may be.

some of the comments crack me up, mythologising scottish voting habits and social attitudes to suit agendas, gleefully using the break up of the UK in a scandalously undemocratic and gerrymandered way, to score party political points.

That is a completely different kettle of fish to suggest the break down of imperialistic Britain is somehow comparable to the Union and what that stands for. What was wrong with setting up the Scottish Parliament?

What has gone wrong with our Union is that we haven't devolved enough power fast enough, not that we shouldn't have devolved power at all. There are already calls for devolved powers to cities like Manchester. Given this administration has ignored this issue to suddenly offering new powers in the last few weeks is just not good enough and shows no forward planning or strategic thinking. Right and left economic think tanks appear to agree on regional powers not only being a good thing, but being essential to growth.

 

[Bold Seagull]

we have been told for the last twenty years about it being multicultural britain, dont be suprised that people are a little shocked when a nationalist party promoting self determination in a remarkeably homogenous part of the UK, effectively splits the UK, with apparent blessing and no questioning.

Why would Britain or Scotland be any less multicultural? The SNP are for independent governance, but their platform is far from nationalism in the right wing sense. If anything they are campaigning for political self determination, but want to leave borders, movement, currency etc. relatively unchanged if they can. Quite why we've been unable to allocate the same amount of money to them from the economy but allow them to spend it as they see fit, and if necessary set their own levels of taxation is beyond me. Westminster has left it very late to suddenly realise this fact.

 

[dingodan]

we have been told for the last twenty years about it being multicultural britain, dont be suprised that people are a little shocked when a nationalist party promoting self determination in a remarkeably homogenous part of the UK, effectively splits the UK, with apparent blessing and no questioning.

I don't understand, can you elaborate on what you mean here?

 

[maltaseagull]

I'm amazed that so many people have voted no on this poll. Surely "not causing your country to cease existing" is pretty near the top of a national leader's (and de facto head of state's) job spec.

Relax it's not so bad! England will still exist

 

[maltaseagull]

You mean blame the government that is in power and allows it's country to be broken up? Why would we blame the Tories who have perhaps bought concessions to the table too little too late, who didn't take this seriously until they realised the Yes vote might actually win.

Labour were blamed for the ENTIRE global financial crisis, how on earth do you imagine the Tories will not blamed for something that has happened 4 1/2 years into their government if the yes vote wins?

Impossible to have a debate when you go to these extremes "Labour were blamed for the ENTIRE global financial crisis, " Seriously? By whom?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I'm amazed that so many people have voted no on this poll. Surely "not causing your country to cease existing" is pretty near the top of a national leader's (and de facto head of state's) job spec.

My country is not Britain. It is England.

 

[Bold Seagull]

"Labour were blamed for the ENTIRE global financial crisis" Seriously? By whom?

Seriously, are you being serious!?

I know Malta is a bit isolated, but come on...

 

[Bold Seagull]

My country is not Britain. It is England.

In a parallel universe where the UK parliament was controlled from Edinburgh, that decisions for the South East were made by a majority of socialist Scots 500 miles away - I assume you'd be voting yes for an independent England rather than remain within a Union?

 

[maltaseagull]

Seriously, are you being serious!?

I know Malta is a bit isolated, but come on...

I am just sick and tired of Political debates that are dominated by supporters of either side who are so one sided they will not listen to any other view than their own. Please show me some evidence that the whole world blamed the Labour Party for the world crisis. (Even though I secretly do ) I will opt out of this as I cannot vote in the Uk and so really have no right to comment.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I am just sick and tired of Political debates that are dominated by supporters of either side who are so one sided they will not listen to any other view than their own. Please show me some evidence that the whole world blamed the Labour Party for the world crisis. (Even though I secretly do ) I will opt out of this as I cannot vote in the Uk and so really have no right to comment.

No one outside the UK blames the UK of course, but many within the UK. I wasn't making a polarised point either way, merely answering the question that you posed as to why you'd blame the Tories, in that if you can blame the previous administration for the financial crisis, then stands to reason that something that the current administration actually has some real influence and control over, and whose decisions directly effect the result - then yes of course they can and will be blamed if the Yes vote wins.

I wasn't coming down on either side, but that's politics in general. If Cameron is going to lay the blame of the entire state of the economy on his predecessors, then stands to reason he accepts the blame for this.

 

[The Spanish]

In a parallel universe where the UK parliament was controlled from Edinburgh, that decisions for the South East were made by a majority of socialist Scots 500 miles away - I assume you'd be voting yes for an independent England rather than remain within a Union?

Is it distance, nationality, or political allegiance, that is the tipping factor in this theoretical scenario?