Scottish referendum: David Cameron begs Scots not to leave the UK

Discussion in 'Jocks & Woolybacks' started by Apocales, Sep 15, 2014.

  1. Apocales 4:35a.m. just one more episode..

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    21,992
    Location:
    Your head - rent free.
    Reputation:
    108,427,453
    Ratings Received:
    +13,235 / 84 / -145
    Does it have to be more embarrassing than this? If this does happen which it looks like it will, how will split all the oil money?
    If you don't like me, I won't be here forever, the Prime Minister tells voters during an impassioned final plea in Aberdeen

    David Cameron begged the people of Scotland not to leave the United Kingdom as he promised them that he “won’t be here forever”. In a final plea before Thursday’s referendum, the Prime Minister warned Scottish voters in a speech in Aberdeen that separation would be a “painful divorce”. Mr Cameron was close to tears as he warned voters that Alex Salmond’s separatist movement had “painted a picture” of an independent Scotland that was “too good to be true”. He said the reality would involve stricter borders which could mean people being forced to “pack their passport when they’re going to see friends and loved ones”. Mr Cameron also attempted to placate Scots who dislike him and his government by reminding them that he would not be Prime Minister forever. “Don’t think, 'I’m frustrated with politics right now, so I’ll walk out the door and never come back,’ ” Mr Cameron told the audience of Conservative activists. “If you don’t like me, I won’t be here forever. If you don’t like this government, it won’t last forever. But if you leave the UK, – that will be forever.” The White House on Monday reiterated Barack Obama’s call for Scotland to remain part of a united Britain. The President’s spokesman said Mr Obama wanted the UK to remain “strong, robust, united, and an effective partner”. In London, thousands of people last night attended a “unity rally” intended to encourage Scots to vote against independence. Mr Cameron has in recent weeks faced accusations that he has failed to make an “emotional case for the UK”. However, in a last-ditch attempt to impress on Scots the consequences of a Yes vote, he said: “For the people of Scotland to walk away now would be like painstakingly building a home and then walking out the door and throwing away the keys.” He said that “head and heart and soul, we want you to stay”, paying tribute to “British values” and saying that our nations had “only become Great Britain because of the greatness of Scotland”. The Prime Minister also hit back at claims made by the First Minister that he has conducted a “scare-mongering” campaign by calling on business leaders to speak out against independence. “To warn of the consequences is not to scare-monger, it is like warning a friend about a decision they might take that will affect the rest of their lives, and the lives of their children,” Mr Cameron said. “I say all this because I don’t want the people of Scotland to be sold a dream that disappears.” He urged voters across the country not to “lose faith” in what the UK can achieve if it stays together, adding: “So as you reach your final decision, please, please don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t be a proud Scot and a proud Brit.

    video and more at link--

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-Cameron-begs-Scots-not-to-leave-the-UK.html
  2. Apocales 4:35a.m. just one more episode..

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    21,992
    Location:
    Your head - rent free.
    Reputation:
    108,427,453
    Ratings Received:
    +13,235 / 84 / -145
    What would Braveheart do?

    Pat Buchanan: Scotland is leading secession movement 'ablaze all over the world'

    No matter how the vote turns out on Thursday in Scotland, either for independence or continued union with Britain, the disintegration of the Old Continent appears almost inevitable. Already the British government has conceded that, even if the Scots vote for union, Edinburgh will receive greater powers to rule itself. Cheering for the breakup of the U.K. are Catalans and Basques, Bretons and Corsicans, Tyroleans, Venetians, Flemish, all dreaming of nations of their own carved out of Spain, France, Italy and Belgium. Europe’s secessionists have waxed ever stronger since the last decade of the 20th century when the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia splintered into 22 nations and Czechoslovakia broke in two. Abkhazians and Ossetians then broke from Georgia as Transnistria fought free of Moldova. Chechnya went to war twice to escape from Russia. Secessionists now battle Russia in Ingushetsia and Dagestan. The decomposition of the nations of Old Europe is the triumph of tribalism over transnationalism. The heart has reasons that the mind knows not, said Pascal. And the wild heart is winning. The call of blood, history, faith, culture and memory is winning the struggle against Economism, the Western materialist ideology that holds that the desire for money and things is what ultimately motivates mankind. Economics uber alles. Here is Niall Ferguson in the New York Times wondering how these crazy Scots could think of seceding from England: “The economic risks are so glaring that even Paul Krugman and I agree it’s a terrible idea. What currency will Scotland use? The pound? The euro? No one knows. What share of North Sea oil revenues will go to Edinburgh? What about Scotland’s share of Britain’s enormous national debt?” A Scottish vote for independence, Ferguson wails, “would have grave economic consequences, and not just for Scotland. Investment has already stalled. Big companies based in Scotland, notably the pensions giant Standard Life, have warned of relocating to England. Jobs would definitely be lost. The recent steep decline in the pound shows that the financial world hates the whole idea.” Niall Ferguson is not the kind of fellow who would have been out there at midnight dumping the King’s tea into Boston harbor in 1773. And he would surely have admonished those stupid farmers on the Concord Bridge that if they didn’t put those muskets down, they could wind up ruining the colonies’ trade with the Mother Country. “What currency will we use?”

    Ferguson would have demanded of Jefferson in Independence Hall in 1776. Yet it is not only in Scotland where peoples are deciding that what separates them is more important than what unites them. Secessionism is ablaze all over the world. All those straight lines on Middle East maps drawn up by Sykes and Picot are being erased. The Syria and Iraq we have known will never be the same again, as the Shia-Sunni divide deepens and the Kurds of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran come together. In this century, we have seen Ethiopia and Sudan break in two, and now South Sudan hosts a tribal-civil war between Dinka and Nuer. Facing secessionist movements in Tibet and the Uighur lands of the west, Beijing is exporting Han Chinese by the trainload to repopulate the regions. Much like Stalin did with the Baltic republics he annexed in 1940. Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most popular leader alive for bringing home to Mother Russia the Crimea and making a virtual protectorate of the Russified southeastern Ukraine. But it is not only secessionism that imperils the One Europe of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman and their historic achievement, the EU. In Britain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and most of the countries of Europe, populist parties have arisen to liberate their nations from what they see as the soft dictatorship of the EU. Foremost among these are Nigel Farage’s Independence Party, the UKIP, and the National Front of Marine Le Pen, who is now running ahead of President Francois Hollande in national polls. This weekend, the Sweden Democrats, a rightist party, doubled its strength, taking 13 percent of the vote as Stockholm’s conservative government fell. What assures the growth of these parties is what engendered them – mass immigration from the Third World and the attendant rise in crime, Islamism and social disorder. And what is there to halt the waves of immigration in boats and rafts from across the Mediterranean? Nothing. Out of a Middle East descending into chaos will come millions of Arab and Muslim refugees. The African continent, which had 1.2 billion people in 2013, will have 2.3 billion in 2050, and 4.2 billion by century’s end. Hundreds of millions of these African folks will be fleeing these lands to occupy the empty places left by the depopulating nations of Europe, not one of whom has a fertility rate to ensure that its native people survive. As for the Scots, not to worry if Goldman Sachs is bearish on secession. When you enter the polling booths, just ask yourselves: What would Braveheart do?
  3. Man Against Time Black Hole Melchizedek

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    8,413
    Location:
    The wrong side of the tracks.
    Reputation:
    100,541,749
    Ratings Received:
    +9,011 / 126 / -271
    It's kind of funny that the English politicians purport to be in this state of panic because the Scots, like the yids who crucified Christ, apparently know not what they do. The Scots, not a stupid people by any means, must be aware of the natural economic adjustments that accompany any sort of regime change. Some will be negative, at least at first - but surely there is a potential upside that so many biased publications fail to mention or even bother to analyze.

    London isn't exactly the engineer of economic growth that it once was. On the contrary, their schizophrenic merry-go-round economic policies (from Tory to Labour to Tory and around again we go) seem to do more harm than good over the long haul. Prior to WW2, the Brits out-produced the Germans and enjoyed a comparatively higher standard-of-living. Even though France's infrastructure got pummeled during the war, and Germany's was bombed back into the stone age (with certain capital goods finding their way back to Britain after state-sanctioned looting), both these nations now outproduce the inefficient British. Why should the Scots continue to accept English leadership when that leadership clearly only understands how to usher in decline and stagnation?

    With independence, the Scots will at least have an opportunity to improve their economic standing with their own decisions, and will not be coerced into implementing short-sighted London economic policies. They may also have an opportunity to redefine their own citizenship, and could do more to reject the British Islamic refuse if they so please. On the other hand, they may opt to be more liberal than the English, and go straight down the tubes. I'm hoping that the Scots can achieve independence without allowing the English to enjoy any subsequent schadenfreude.

    Still, economics isn't everything. The Scots are a different set of people(s) than the Anglo-Saxons, with their own unique culture and history that evolved separately from the English. They accordingly have a right to independence for those facts alone. It is rather funny that the English supposedly abandoned empire with their brown subjects (whilst allowing these subjects to become the new colonists of Great Britain) but are pulling out all of the stops in an attempt to keep the Scottish under their imperialist heel. It also appears that, as the English exert more effort to persuade the Scots to remain, with the incorporation of new veiled disinvestment threats, more Scots lean toward moving Scotland away. Perhaps the Scots do have a bit of the contrarian remaining in their spirit.
  4. Bluto Drunken lout

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    13,202
    Reputation:
    252,921,989
    Ratings Received:
    +17,523 / 67 / -168

Share This Page