iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Scotland Independence: David Cameron Pleads To Stay Together

Scotland Independence Cameron

By JILL LAWLESS   02/16/12 12:23 PM ET  AP

LONDON -- England and Scotland work "so much better together" than apart, British Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday, as he appealed to Scots not to break up the United Kingdom by voting for independence.

In a speech in Edinburgh before talks on the ground rules for a referendum, Cameron said Britain was "a warm and stable home that billions elsewhere envy" – and dangled the prospect of more autonomy for Scotland if it chose not to leave.

"I believe in the United Kingdom," Cameron said. "I'm a unionist – head, heart and soul.

"Of course Scotland could govern itself. So could England. But we do it so much better together."

Cameron was in the Scottish capital for his first meeting on the issue with Scottish leader Alex Salmond, whose separatist party has long campaigned for Scotland to leave its neighbors behind for the first time in more than 300 years.

Salmond is seeking to hold an independence referendum in September 2014, hoping that a separation from London would be completed with a May 2016 election for the Scottish Parliament.

However, with opinion polls showing that only about a third of Scots favor splitting the nation, Cameron and other opponents are pressing for the vote to be held earlier.

They also want a straight "yes or no" question rather than a third option, suggested by Salmond, of increased autonomy short of outright independence.

After the meeting, Salmond said talks "have moved on quite substantially," with the only remaining disagreement being how many questions would be on the ballot.

But Cameron said that "on the issue of independence, separating Scotland, leaving the United Kingdom, I am afraid there wasn't much progress."

"I believe that we need to put a straightforward and simple and legal question to the Scottish people in good time, Cameron said.

And he said Scotland could get more powers if it said no to independence.

"If the answer to the question is that Scotland wants to stay in the United Kingdom, then further options for devolution are on the table," he told the BBC.

Scotland and England united in 1707 to form Great Britain, but Scotland gained significant autonomy after voting in 1997 to set up the Edinburgh-based Scottish Parliament, which has power over education, health and justice and can make minor alterations to income tax. London retains primacy on all matters relating to Britain as a whole – including defense, energy and foreign relations.

Cameron's government and Salmond have differed on the date of the referendum, what will be on the ballot paper and whether 16- and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote.

In his Edinburgh speech, Cameron hinted that independence could damage Britain's status in Europe, within NATO and put at risk the U.K.'s permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. He said Scotland would be safer and richer if it remained a part of the U.K., along with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Wales and Northern Ireland also have devolved administrations with limited powers.

But his overall tone was emollient. Cameron stressed that Scotland had the right to choose its own destiny, but said he hoped it would remain within Britain.

He said that in an era of globalization and "increasing economic competition from the new, economic powerhouses of the world," there was strength in numbers.

"Nothing encapsulates the principle of pooling risk, sharing resources and standing together with your neighbor better than the United Kingdom," he said.

He also suggested Scotland could be granted more powers within the U.K. if it rejected independence.

He said once the independence question was settled it would be time to ask: "Are there other powers that can be devolved? How can we make the United Kingdom work better?"

Salmond insists that independence would bring greater prosperity, allowing Scotland to better exploit its oil, gas and other energy resources.

And he was skeptical of Cameron's suggestion that rejecting independence would bring more powers for Scotland.

"If the prime minister has an offer to make to the people of Scotland then he should make it now," Salmond said. "He should spell it out now so we can have a clear debate and a clear decision on the alternative futures for Scotland.

"This idea of saying 'well, vote no and we'll give you something later' I don't think is going to convince anyone in Scotland."

___

David Stringer contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

LONDON -- England and Scotland work "so much better together" than apart, British Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday, as he appealed to Scots not to break up the United Kingdom by voting for i...
LONDON -- England and Scotland work "so much better together" than apart, British Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday, as he appealed to Scots not to break up the United Kingdom by voting for i...
Filed by Eline Gordts  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
aaraujo
Liberalis
06:24 PM on 02/18/2012
heading off to scotland!
07:31 AM on 02/17/2012
First the British said we couldn't stand alone. Now Cameron grudgingly admits we can. The Unionists are absolutely desperate to keep Scotland tethered to the UK because they are fully aware just how much our input keeps London affluent. They presently help themselves to our abundant natural resources, but with independence they'd have to dig deep. Scotland is a very wealthy small Nation, presently handing it's wealth over to London - this will stop.

For the British, this is all about international prestige, as they struggle to maintain their long-dead imperial status. For Scotland, however, it's all about the people.
06:56 AM on 02/17/2012
David Cameron's speech was sanctimonious rubbish, sweetness and love by his spin doctor.
What I saw was someone who is scared that Independence will play out, despite all their fear tactics and smears. Scotland has and does contribute to the Union above our weight, only when we have departed will they realise that had we had a fair and equal relationship. Then this would have been unlikely to happen. The greed and self interest of Westminster of belittling Scotland at every opportunity is at the core of the problems.
photo
Thisbeautifulplanet
omnia vincit amor
05:02 PM on 02/16/2012
"Liberty is glorious." - Anonymous medieval Scottish poet.
04:25 PM on 02/16/2012
Well done Scotland!!!!!!! United Britian was not even offered instead of United Kingdom "Title"?! Best wishes for your proud independence!!!! Make scotish have their own people's Kingdom!!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:10 PM on 02/16/2012
"...United Britian was not even offered instead of United Kingdom..."

????????
08:55 PM on 02/16/2012
Scottish don't need to be part of another country's kingdom. When English people become real democratic and desolve the undemocraticly elected house of lords, Scotland may share England under a new fair title "United Britain"!
REDSTATEREFUGEE
Texan by birth ; Californian by choice
03:41 PM on 02/16/2012
My best wishes to the Scots who desire complete independence from England. As a general rule, I favor indigenous peoples who wish to exercise their own autonomy. I can still remember a course in modern British history, where we were treated to a distressing film, "The Battle of Culloden," in which the Scots bravely confronted the English mano-a-mano, but the Brits, armed with cannon, cut them to pieces before any traditional combat could ensue.

There may be other, more subtle reasons to remain in the union, such as defense, commerce, administration, etc., that I and others are unaware of. Best of luck to both parties in coming to resolution....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:09 PM on 02/16/2012
"...course in modern British history..."

It might be an idea to re-take the course.....

This was not a "Scots" v. "English" battle.

This was a battle between the rebel forces of the Stuart dynasty (who were trying to overthrow the Hanoverian dynasty) on one side, and government troops on the other.

Scottish regiments fought on both sides.

Both sides had cannon.

There was a great deal of hand-to-hand fighting.

The government won; the rebels lost.

If you paid for the course, ask for your money back ;-)
03:14 AM on 02/17/2012
True, if over simplified.Culloden amounted to a question of choice. It's neither a Scotland V England thing [though some of the combatants fought because they despised the illegal Union] nor a Catholic V Protestant thing [though some of the combatants fought because of religious reasons].

I wouldn't hand the money back. The 'battle' was indeed little more than a cannonade. 90% of the troops never clashed at all man against man. The Jacobite Cannon was small, irregular and ill managed [as the Highland forces constituted a 'fighting' army, full of men, and swords] and the casualties sustained by the Highlanders, about 95% of them in battle, were due to standing under a hail of British Cannon and shrapnel for 25-minutes.

The hundreds who were not killed there and then, were despatched by the bayonet thereafter, slowly, coldly. The atrocities after the battle are well documented. Be it wounded men crowded into barns and burned alive or piled up on the field and cannoned afresh.

Local farmers, who carried the Gaelic or even a Scottish accent, were strung up.

In the immediate years afterwards, up to 50,000 men, woman and children were 'cleansed' from the highlands, be it through bayonet or the arching bend of a tree.

The story of Culloden is NOT a story about Scotland V England, but it IS a story about British imperialism and cruelty. No British regiment has thus far stood up to glean the 'battle honours' from the bloodbath.
REDSTATEREFUGEE
Texan by birth ; Californian by choice
07:05 AM on 02/17/2012
My bad.....My memory of forty years ago has failed me. Thanks for the update....
05:19 AM on 02/17/2012
"...I can still remember a course in modern British history, where we were treated to a distressin­g film, "The Battle of Culloden," in which the Scots bravely confronted the English mano-a-man­o, but the Brits, armed with cannon, cut them to pieces before any traditiona­l combat could ensue."..

If that's your understanding, you certainly wouldn't have passed the course!!
REDSTATEREFUGEE
Texan by birth ; Californian by choice
07:03 AM on 02/17/2012
Educate me, kind lady....what is your understanding of the film?
REDSTATEREFUGEE
Texan by birth ; Californian by choice
07:19 AM on 02/17/2012
Thanks for your post, MT....I have been corrected....I will not try to rely on my memory of 40 years ago....
03:04 PM on 02/16/2012
Cameron and his unionist cohorts, bottom line, are terrified of losing Scottish resources - be it land, space, water, oil, renewables or even people (armed forces).

Scotland sees through his lies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:50 PM on 02/16/2012
According to current opinion polls, the Scottish people are not buying into this separatist utopia.
03:01 AM on 02/17/2012
Really? Had you been looking you would have seen that these polls bracket anywhere between 35% and 51% support. There's substantial evidence to suggest that the 'undecided' have yet to make up their mind, and why not?

In addition, there is *huge* support for full fiscal autonomy [not full Independence]. Now, given Cameron has often waxed lyrical about shared 'British values' and all that guff, he should not have a problem with this, given the armed forces etc. would still be together...

...but he does, of course. Why? Because this whole argument boils down to Westminster control over Scottish resources. They are already raw and smarting from NOT being able to dictate a pro-nuclear strategy in Scotland [backed up by the usual scaremongering nonsense, their default 'positive' case for the Union] but the prospect of not being able to glean oil and land taxes etc.is too much for them - it rips the heart out of the British exchequer.

It's been hilarious to see the Unionists in Scotland and England suddenly 'officially' back-track on the long cited 'Scotland is subsidised' myth. Why? Because they can't afford to press such fibs on the Scottish electorate ahead of the referendum bid. [Cont]
03:02 AM on 02/17/2012
[Cont]

The *positive* case for the Union has yet to poke it's head out the burrow. Rumour has it that it doesn't really exist, short of a bucketful of dreadful meaningless Unionist sound'bites like 'We're stronger together, weaker apart' i.e. Westminster is stronger together, and weaker apart.

Cameron added to this in his speech, suggesting that Scotland if 'safer' under Unionism [what with all the Nuclear subs 25-miles from Glasgow] and 'richer' [what with all major export and land taxes AND oil revenue going directly to London].

You couldn't make this up. The Unionists don't have a positive argument for the Union - there is none. Over the next few years, more and more of the Scottish electorate will wake up to this and see through their fearmongering and desperation.

Final note - Scotland's not about to float away into the North Sea. The Social Union between our neighbours on these islands is absolutely fine - this is about politics and resources, as it always is - democracy.

In the meantime, sit back and enjoy the ongoing Unionist 'positive' case for the Union i.e. *negative* reasons why Scotland can't go it alone [quite a different premise] - you may want to keep this handy guide next to you at all times - an A-Z of Unionist scare stories, myths and misinformation - http://tinyurl.com/7u996he