Cameron wants a "Yes" vote .....

[Dad164]

Without Scotland, in 2010, the Conservatives would have won an outright majority. Perhaps this explains why D.C. appears to want to annoy the Scots into voting yes by forwarding pathetic arguments and being about as patronising as I've ever heard.

Thanks to dodgy electoral boundary lines, the Conservatives need to be around 9 points AHEAD of Labour in the 2015 General Election to get on par with Labour on parliamentary seats and Labour just need 31% of the votes to form the next 2015 government..

Put in Westminster popular vote/Westminster seats, when Labour had 35% of the votes, they had a 60 seat MAJORITY, when the Conservatives had 36% of the votes in 2010, they were 20 seat SHORT of a majority – and Labour (as evidenced by their 2010 manifesto) were clueless how to fix their own mess, so thank god for the Lib Dems.

So is that democracy, where in an EU Referendum, a Labour government would say NO to n EU Referendum with far less of a popular votes than the Conservatives?

But re Scotland, anything Cameron did or said would “annoy” the Scots, as it appears the English seem to have the common sense to work out that Labour and their high spending policies the SNP will follow, always ends in economic disaster, national debt, and higher taxes FOR ALL to pay for it – and the Conservatives deliver by getting the economy and jobs back on track, and lower taxes previously wasted on a fat State.

Salmond 'the man without a plan' and his hairy legged egg throwing nationalists, no better than the aggression showed by the BNP in England, don't know their currency, their interest rates, what price oil will be from one week to next - and yet Cameron is pathetic and patronising???? lol

Cameron and the rest of the UK need a 'NO' vote as Mr Salmon and friends disingenuously don't seem to remember Scotland's debts.

As itf Scotland has £1 for every time one of the nationalists said "we are one of the richest country's in the world", they'd be someways to paying off their share of the UK’s Pension Liabilities to come out of their oil revenues, on top of their share of the current £1,.400,000,000,000 trillion National Debt.

www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

www.if.org.uk/archives/2031/ons-reveals-full-uk-pension-liabilities
The total government pension liabilities are £5 trillion. These break down as follows:
• Government employee pensions: £1.2 trillion (unfunded: £0.9 trillion; funded: £0.3 trillion)
• State pensions: £3.8 trillion (all unfunded)

So that is a TOTAL National Debt, State Pension liability and Public Sector (unfunded) Pension liability of £6,100,000,000,000, (£6.1 trillion) from which Scotland the country have a liability/share BEFORE spending an annual penny on services.

I wonder if other 'richest countries in the world' like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Norway has those type of debts?

Doubt it. Independence is a massive administrative headache with no obvious benefits for the rest of the uk. Even if it would result in a more right wing nation south of the border, they might all vote for UKIP.

I'm guessing "Isitmebut" is a conservative?

I'm not sure anyone can predict either the 2015 election outcome nor the price of oil with any credibility. The 2010 election was pretty clear. Without Scotland Labour would have lost over 40 seats in Westminster, the conservatives would have lost only 1. I don't understand where your stats in your second paragraph come from.

I am genuinely indifferent to the outcome, but I think it would be a great shame if the turn-out was less than 60%.

The true winner here should be democracy not politics. Voters so rarely have the chance to exercise their power in a meaningful way. If the Scots choose independence then good luck to them (said without sarcasm).

Why people in England/Wales/NI are getting so anxious about it is beyond me. There don't seem to be any concrete downsides for the rest of the UK, particularly if you believe in a reduced less big government, less welfare state and lower taxes (not that I do).

To be a conservative (small "c") and a pro-"no" vote seems almost a paradox to me.

Thanks for the link, which also says:

"The liability for state pensions is equal to 263% of Britain’s total GDP, which is actually slightly below the EU-level average of 278%."

Cognitive dissonance perhaps?

And when did Mr. Cameron tell you this OP?

He didn't. Clearly he is "trying" to support the "no" campaign, but having listened to his final speech I found it so extraordinarily patronising to tell the Scots how important the issue was that it struck me that perhaps this was deliberate as a "yes" vote might serve the conservatives well (although probably not him personally).

I guess a sort of reverse psych. theory, but I think the idea that the next general election with Scotland is likely to be a worse outcome for the conservatives than without Scotland is a fair prediction.

Just because you believe rUK would be financially better off without Scotland, does not mean that you believe smashing the Union is the right thing to do. Cameron did not have to give the Scots a referendum, but did so because it was the right thing to do when they voted in SNP. He has stayed out of most of the campaigning to avoid upsetting the Scots, but as leader of the Conservative and Union party, he genuinely wants them to stay.

'I found it so extraordinarily patronising'

It is not on purpose, he can't help it.

It's not only him - Gordon Brown and today's Channel 4 News with Dan Snow, Eddie Izzard and a London rapper - that's it, that's sad.

He is a unionist, and conservatives are about keeping things as they are. He wants Scotland to stay.

It's not about petty Conservative electoral advantage in England, because this is forever. If Scotland goes, Tories may want Cameron to go because he will have failed to maintain the Union.

Plus, you have to realise that he is not a real old-school Conservative anyway, he is just as progressive as all of the Labour lot, and I think that progressivism comes above his Conservativism.

He is part of the establishment and the establishment wants Scotland to stay.

All of the Labour MPs, Conservative MPs and LibDem MPs and actors and pop stars and comedians and rappers want Scotland to stay.

But it is out of their hands, it is a decision for the Scottish people. Love-bombing won't stop it.

It is monumental and is likely to have massive effects in the UK and all over Europe.

Actually, the last thing Alex Salmon wants is a Yes vote. He's an effective enough politician when all he has to do is stamp his feet and complain about Westminster politicians. If you don't believe me, watch the interview he did this Sunday on the Andrew Marr show. He looked absolutely terrified, as if he'd realised he may actually win. If he does, God help Scotland.

There's a good read with lots of facts about Scottish Independence at www.mike-anthony.info/2014/politics/little-white-book-on-scottish-independence/. It points to the Scottish Government website showing £17.1 billion deficit each year and why "Scotland's oil" is not possible. That site says there may be a legal challenge too.

I agree with poster jonicomelately that independence is the last thing that Salmond wants. All he has to do is wiggle a little an Scotland gets a ton more money from the UK to everyone else's loss.

happydaddy

Great link to an interesting piece. Worth reading through but the piece overall is explaining why Yes is bad for Scots and, in a zero sum game, good for RUK.

For example

"Without any negotiation, UK government will benefit by £100

billion within 8 or less years, having regard to Scottish

government's own public accounts, because UK will save

underwriting a socialist-style SNP overspend each year, save

paying about £1 billion agricultural grants, and save somewhere

around £500,000 research grants."

I used to thing the last thing that Salmond (or indeed Farage) wants was what they say 'on the tin', but for Salmond now, he realises that he actually has at THIS moment a 'perfect storm' to achieve what he has stood for.

The worst recession in 100-years bringing down living standards, politicians in Westminster still battling a £97 bil annual overspend that can not promise voters the ££££earth, oil trading around $100 a barrel, but oil that will be increasing difficult to lift/budget when putting spending plans to Scottish voters - and a clueless main opposition Labour Party that was unable to stamp their taxes/spending/cuts on the UK before 2010.

As Salmond sez, this is a 'once in a generation thang', but I suspect he believes that its now or never, so has to go for it.

But as posters say, Salmond kinda wins with a 'YES' or 'NO' vote.

Dad164 …… Regarding UK pensions and this notion of yours that either European pensions are affordable, or that GDP is any real measurement of a country’s ability to service those pensions by just using percentages.

First of all, this is the basic formula for GDP, and note how important government spending, consumption and business investments is – as a country can have ‘the wrong kind of GDP’ which challenges the sustainability of an economy, its spending power and therefore the money to be spent on ‘social’ things we enjoy like pensions, an NHS or education.

The basic definition of GDP.
www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp
Private Consumption/Spending + Government Spending + Business capital Spending + Net Exports (Exports – Imports).

Companies whether they had to worry about two socialist main politic parties in Scotland for eternity or not, are not “scaremongering” when trading internationally and worried about a Scottish currency, how high Scottish interest rates will go, or if due to the volatility of oil, extra taxes would be aimed at them to make up any shortfall.

So with the aid of a few links, let me show you socialism in the UK at work through a 10-year boom until 2007 distorting the sustainability of GDP i.e. massive government spending and ‘manufacturing’ employment/consumption – as this is the blueprint for an independent Scotland.

The UK, in the 7-years to 2005, lost 1 million manufacturing jobs through a global manufacturing/consumption boom, partly due to a volatile Pound.
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/million-factory-jobs-lost-under-labour-6150418.html

The UK, over a longer period, helped admittedly by the increased tax proceeds of City/bank profits and consumption/debt spending, increased the Public Sector by around 1 million, with many people earning far more than ‘front line’ workers.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html

We also ‘manufactured’ jobs within local authorities, as our Council tax went up over 110% in 13-years.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

So in summary, a UK GDP figure, heavily bloated by Government Spending and Government employees (who’s salaries and Consumption are 100% funded by the taxpayer), while the Private Sector/jobs paying taxes disappear - is not sustainable enough GDP to annually afford what we nationally spend, never mind pension fund liabilities 40-odd years into the future.

Oh and how about generous pension France and Italy doing, 7- years after the financial crash with heavy EU and national regulatory weights on the Private Sector.

Jan 2014; “French unemployment at record high”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25922231

Aug 2014; ”Shock as Italy stumbles into third recession”
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11016018/Shock-as-Italy-stumbles-into-third-recession.html

So Scotland has their share of the UK's debt liabilities, increasingly looking for an oil price that traded between $20 and $147 a barrel just seen during the Labour years based on global ‘events’, to not only pay for what they receive from Westminster now, but increases already promised by the SNP (to be run by a fatter and more expensive Scottish State) and Scottish pensions 40-years forward, years after the oil ran out.

Isitmebut

It isn't my notion. I was quoting from an article you linked to. You have just attacked your own post.

Oooops .... I guess I misunderstood your GDP and EU comparison post, what a waste of a soap box. lol

Isitmebut
Your comment about Salmond getting what he said he wanted - but never ever thinking he'd have to deliver on it. Reminds me a little of Nick Clegg....promising the world in a manifesto, but never thinking for a minute that you'd have to deliver.

ajandjjmum ..... yes and possibly yes to your policy point as he knew he would not form the 2010 (or any other) UK government, but the odds on a coalition were very high as that is what most pundits predicted, so not a wise offer to fix someone else's problem with an unfunded 50% uni UK target.

And there lies the problem with coalitions, you have to horse trade key policies, but I think history will be kind the Mr Clegg and the Lib Dems.

As if EVERY single policy, departmental budget, tax cut, or increase, had to be thrashed out by THREE party's in 'smokey back rooms' due to a minority Tory government, NOTHING would have got done and we'd be closer to the French economy by now. IMO

Well as Cameron will have borrowed 600 billion by the end of the parliament and the French a tad above 350 billion one might think you have your countries mixed up there.

600 billion quid. In five years.

Takes your breath away does it not?

I don't think the current Govt. inherited a particularly healthy balance sheet Spinflight - and it has been generally acknowledged - even by the doom-mongers, that the UK is coming out of the recession better than most, and better than was expected.

Remember the note in the Treasury after the last election - 'There's no money left'?

Spinflight ….. how many times do we have to go over this; in1997 Brown promised to maintain the Conservative budget, to finally reduce the annual budget deficit from the early 1990’s western recession, which happened around 2000/1 when the UK’s annual budget BALANCED.

Yet when the Conservatives came back into power with a minority government in 2010, the UK budget DEFICIT was £157 billion, mainly due to the huge rise in (often wasteful) Labour spending loading up the UK’s FIXED COSTS, as the tax RECEIPTS from the City and an economy built on more speculation and debt than the rest of Europe, dried up.
www.economicshelp.org/blog/5509/economics/government-spending-under-labour/

That is why the UK by far, had the largest annual budget deficit in Europe, ‘justified’ by the last government on a debt to GDP ratio, from a highly imbalanced economy the Conservatives did not hand over in 1997.

,The Coalition has currently reduced that annual budget deficit to around £97 billion, BUT AS NO POLITICAL PARTY said they would CUT the £157 billion 2010 to zero within years, especially Ukip who in 2010 didn’t know what the hell they were saying.

"UKIP leader Nigel Farage has disowned the party's entire (2010) general election manifesto - which he helped launch - branding it "drivel”
news.sky.com/story/1200525/nigel-farage-disowns-ukip-manifesto-as-drivel

In conclusion; only someone trying to score cheap political points, would accuse the Coalition that the annually accumulating national debt has RISEN under the party who partly lost the 1997 general Election, trying to balance the UK’s books – and this time, tried to help the low paid by raising to £10,500 the level they start tax, helped companies/job creation and boosting the State pension formula – which if they hadn’t, would have reduced the annual deficit more but caused more 'austerity' as Europe remains down the pan hole.

Cameron looked happy with a 'No' vote, possibly because some of the cobbled together promises to Scotland, including from those Labour politicians past and present, can only work for England, Northern Island and Wales, if the whole UK constitution is revised - especially this ridiculous situation that 59 I believe, MP's from Scotland, vote on purely English matters, when English MP's cannot vote on theirs.

Clearly squeaky bum time for a Labour Party that in 1997 thought the composition of a Scottish Parliament would never give the SNP a majority within, but it did - and it is they that now need to constitutionally do what is right for England, rather than their party's electoral advantage in Scotland.

Cameron did what was right for Scotland in ALLOWING a yes/no vote, so now with that form, he must deliver on an EU Referendum in 2017, if the Conservatives get a Westminster parliamentary majority in 2015.

Which remains currently the only way the UK WILL get a say on our continued membership of an EU, who by now know that if they don't make reforms Cameron demands - within a Referendum the UK politicians themselves do not control - the current structure on the EU not set up for 'leavers' is at threat anyway.

Can anyone see a 28 country EU monolith coming up with and agreeing a few reform goodies on the back of a sixpence if the EU Polls show a narrow 'OUT' the week before?