Scottish Independence Referendum - 18 September 2014

[tpfkaw]

If I were Cameron I'd go camping out in Scotland, visiting as many places as possible in support of "no," maybe drag Clegg up with me and Thatcher too if she still has enough wits with her.

[tpfkaw]

If I were Cameron I'd go camping out in Scotland, visiting as many places as possible in support of "no," maybe drag Clegg up with me and Thatcher too if she still has enough wits with her.

English Tories campaigning would be poison for the Scottish unionist side. And Thatcher was hated in Scotland and still is by many.

(That's the point...)

[tpfkaw]

If I were Cameron I'd go camping out in Scotland, visiting as many places as possible in support of "no," maybe drag Clegg up with me and Thatcher too if she still has enough wits with her.

English Tories campaigning would be poison for the Scottish unionist side. And Thatcher was hated in Scotland and still is by many.

(That's the point...)

OK, but not that clear since you are a conservative yourself. Using a smiley or three ... afterwards would be helpful when you are being sarcastic about your own side. Otherwise it just looks like ignorance.

He's not joking...He's saying that the Tories would love for Scotland to secede because it would give them a near-permanent majority in Parliament.

Not that they would love that... they should.  (I'm also actually skeptical of all "permanent majority" hypotheses, I suspect English Labour would shift rightwards enough to make it marginal again, but there might be a "permanent majority" for an election or two before they do so.).

[tpfkaw]

He's not joking...He's saying that the Tories would love for Scotland to secede because it would give them a near-permanent majority in Parliament.

Except, of course, for the fact that it wouldn't. It's just a delusion of gin-addled Torygraph readers. Labour is more than capable of winning a majority of seats in England and did so as recently as... er... 2005. Hey, even in October 1974 (a narrow victory but still a proper victory) Labour won more seats in England than the Tories.

And never in the entire history of the party would the Democrats have lost an election if New York weren't a state.  But you'd have to be a joker if you thought that wouldn't be a massive disadvantage for them.

[tpfkaw]

And never in the entire history of the party would the Democrats have lost an election if New York weren't a state.  But you'd have to be a joker if you thought that wouldn't be a massive disadvantage for them.

So what you're suggesting is that the Tories ought (if they knew what was good for them) support breaking up the UK (and lose all kind of important strategic and economic resources) in order to secure would would be, in practice, a comparatively minor electoral advantage? Makes perfect sense, though only after a few glasses of gin and a long stare at the attractive woman who's picture always graces the front of the paper.

Well I imagine the Scots wouldn't be so vindictive as to impose border controls or tariffs on their more southerly cousins or vice-versa, so the economic consequences would be fairly minor.  (What's a "strategic resource," anyway?  Something that makes it easier to fight wars?  I'm all for breaking up all those...).  The oil will be gone in c. 20 years or so anyway.  I'm also biased in favor of smaller countries, which as a general rule tend to be rather better-run.  Also, the small advantage gets larger if Wales or even possibly the North follow.  Main disadvantage is that the nicest-looking national flag gets way uglier (maybe the Scots will give up some random island to keep St. Andrew's cross in there, but that's doubtful).