Cameron is a pathetically weak PM for even allowing a referendum!

Cameron is a very weak leader, can you see any of the 'toughs' of the past allowing this spineless liberal assault on the very notion of the UK itself?

People like Churchill, Thatcher, Putin, Brezhnev, Reagan etc.. must be either rolling/laughing in their grave, or basking in the glory of liberal stupidity.

And Cameron is a Tory - what a joke!

Liberals of the World unite?

 

I don't know, may be he is sure to win, so that he will have demonstrated a deep democratic attitude and he will have obtained a great political victory for the Tories and the future of the UK ...

But ... what if he will lose ???

 

Cameron did not believe there was a chance that a yes vote would be forthcoming. I think he was kind of egging the SNP on expecting to give them an embarrassing defeat.

 

Rubbish. I've no liking for Cameron, but all he did was what was promised.

 

A leader of a nation should lead, not gamble.

- - - Updated - - -

Cameron has been shafted by the liberal PC penis, of Clegg - and this is the result!

- - - Updated - - -

Promised by whom - since when were the English, Welsh, and N.Irish allowed to vote here?

Cameron is a disgrace

 

I remember when, after the last elections UK politicians realized that a coalition government was a necessity. I do remember also the comments of some journalists and political observers: some of them saw the perspective as a tremendous tragedy which would have caused a terrible misfortune to the Kingdom.

It was from the time of WW II that there weren't coalition government in UK ... I also remember how we Italians answered to the British concerns:

"Welcome into continental Europe" [where coalition governments, a part some exceptions are the normality, sure in Italy!].

A coalition government actually generates the need for compromise and usually the compromise among political parties tends to be a bad compromise based on sacrifices and concessions.

I cannot say that this referendum is a concession by the Tories to Clegg and his buddies, anyway, that's a possibility.

 

Not really. It would have been utterly stupid for any political party to refuse to allow a referendum. There's no excuse for not knowing that a refusal to allow a referendum would have fostered nationalism. which would be doing nobody any good.

As it is, there will be a resounding "no" vote, s anyone with any sense knows.

Not that this will stop the nationalist from going on and on and blaming England for all their troubles..

 

Would he also be pathetically weak for calling a referendum on the EU?

 

There will probably be a 'No' vote, but it is very unlikely to be 'resounding'!

As for Cameron in this instance, all he did was accept that the people of Scotland had democratically elected a government in their own parliament which stood on a primary platform of independence via a referendum. To do anything else would not only have been undemocratic, but would have opened up the possibility of even greater troubles, as previously occurred in Ireland.

The population of a country have the right to self-determination, and to be democratically run in the best way they see fit, as expressed by the ballot box. If they people of Scotland want to be independent, that is their absolute right - the days of Imperialism, and holding a population to 'foreign' rule against their wishes, are thankfully long gone from the UK.

 

I think it will, but we will see.

As long as they know what they're doing and not voting for daft, romantic reasons.

 

It's their right to vote for what ever reasons they want - it is they who will have to take responsibility for the result.

There will be plenty of people voting for 'daft' and/or 'romantic' reasons on both sides!

 

Lets hope you are wrong then Lil and that Yes wins. I am not arrogant enough to predict which side will win but whichever side does, and I hope it is yes, the Scots will have the answer they voted for and we will all just have to accept that.

 

Cenydd,
Yes you are bang on there. Many are not even voting with their hearts more because they like/dislike Alex. Salmonds appearance and are confusing a vote for the referendum as a vote for the SNP.

 

And so would everyone else in Scotland.

There aren't any daft or romantic reasons to vote No. It's pure common sense.

 

No arrogance needed to understand the polls.

The problem with getting the wrong result, is that everybody pays.

Nobody should have to say afterwards, " I didn't know what it would mean".

And nobody should have to reply, " Why wouldn't you listen to us?".

And worst of all " Why didn't you tell us the truth? " to the SNP

 

Of course there are - voting because of the attachment to 'being British' is as common as voting because of the attachment to being 'Scottish not British' - whatever the arguments about the economy and so on, many, many people are voting both ways for purely or mainly emotional reasons.

 

Nothing wrong with allowing UK nationalism though.

Referendum should not be allowed as a show of strength to the people and World.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, that would also be fairly weak.

Like I said earlier, a leader should lead, not have a vote on every single issue.

 

The UK is the country - of which Scotland is a part - what bit of that do you libs not understand

Scots are British citizens as as are people of Yorkshire, Kent etc.. ie: they do not have a right to secede, otherwise I could just do the same with my own village

- - - Updated - - -

Thankyou for highlighting the weakness of the democratic system

- - - Updated - - -

Both sides? what are you talking about - the people of England, Wales and NI cannot vote!

 

The UK is a union of countries, specifically formed by the union of England and Scotland. Which part of history is not being understood?

Scotland is a country which is part of a union. The people of that country can decide to leave that union, just as a partner in a married couple can decide to leave/dissolve that marriage. Self-determination is one of the most basic of rights for any nation.

Democracy is by far the best system of government that has ever existed, and the only way in which a free society can exist.

'Yes' voters and 'No' voters. The people of the rest of the UK do not need to vote to 'allow' the self-determination of Scotland, just as a partner in a marriage does not have the right to prevent the other partner from leaving against their will. It is a union, not an eternal prison from which there can be no escape.

 

Tanks should be sent into Edinburgh IMO - that would nip the liberal weakness in the bud!

 

Ah - old fashioned Imperialism. That'll help us all get along better!

 

It's not imperialism, it's called 'keeping the union intact'

 

Sending the tanks in to prevent democratic self-determination through an open and fair public referendum (which has been agreed by all parties involved) can easily by called 'Imperialism' or, if you prefer, simply 'invasion'.

 

First of all, the referendum should be scrapped - then it will all die down soon enough.

Another option would be to let England, Wales and NI to also vote - that would be fair.

 

No, it won't. The reverse would happen - a ramping up of tension that would eventually boil over into violence, and turn Scotland into a new 1980's Northern Ireland of domestic terrorism and running battles in the street. That is the kind of thing that can easily happen if democracy is suddenly taken away in such contentious circumstances.

It's not relevant. Either side could decide to dissolve the union if it chose to, and the population of the other side does not need to agree to it. In fact, I suspect if there was a 'Yes' vote in Scotland followed by a referendum in the rest of the UK on whether to accept their democratic decision, most people would vote to accept the result anyway both because it is right to accept such a democratic decision and because they know the trouble that would be caused if the tried to stop them.