Twitter icon Email alerts icon Latest News RSS icon Magazine icon Stay connected:

View the article online at

Cameron: ‘You can be a patriotic Scot and vote no’

by James Phillipps on Jul 03, 2014 at 07:00

Cameron: ‘You can be a patriotic Scot and vote no’

Prime minister David Cameron is in Scotland today and will tell voters ‘you can be a patriotic Scot and vote no’.

Speaking at a Rally for the Union event, Cameron is to say that he is speaking for the ‘silent majority, who oppose Scottish independence ahead of the vote in 77 days.

We’ve heard the noise of the Nationalist few, but now it is time for the voices of the silent majority to be heard,’ he will say.

‘The silent majority who feel happy being part of the UK; the silent majority who don’t want the risks of going it alone; the silent majority who worry about what separation would mean for their children and grandchildren.

‘With 77 days to go, we need the voices of the many to ring out across the land. For each one to realise that they are not alone because there are millions just like them.’

The prime minister will also say that ‘we’re safer and better off together’ with the union offering the ‘best of both worlds together’.

‘You can be proudly Scottish and want to stay in the UK. Too many people in this country have been made to feel that you can’t be a proud Scot and say “No thanks”,’ he’ll say.

‘You’ve got to choose between the Saltire and the Union flag. That is wrong. Loving your country means wanting the best for it – and for Scotland that is staying in the UK.

‘So yes – you can be a patriotic Scot and vote no.’

Cameron will be joined at the event by Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson MSP.

15 comments so far. Why not have your say?


Jul 03, 2014 at 08:51

Great. Another condescending lecture tour from Dave speaking to only the media and not debating with anyone. Coward.

report this

danny nolan

Jul 03, 2014 at 09:53

The Times had an article a few years ago stating that net net only 270,000 Scottish residents paid income tax, the other 5,000,000 odd were net beneficiaries.

Scotland wish to replace dependence on the South East English taxpayer with dependence on the Europen Union taxpayer, so not quite 'independence' as I would understand it.

Scotland's %age of GDP coming from the State (ie M25 taxpayer) is around 60%, higher than some USSR satellites during the Cold War.

Salmond expects Scotland to be Europe's 'wind capital' - hasn't occurred to him that power purchasers (you and me) have run out of patience with renewal subsidies. He believes Edinburgh will be the film capital of Europe, and Glasgow the music capital - not clear to me how 'independence' will expedite this plan. I say 'plan', I mean 'fantasy'.

The voter will have no idea what the currency will be (Osborne has ruled out Sterling, and Sainsbury have ruled out The Nectar Point), and no idea whether they will be part of the European Union.

The only 'argument' Salmond can come up with includes the words 'Tory Toffs, Battle of Bannockburn, Brave Heart, and patriotism'. Or to put it another way - he doesn't have an argument.

All that said I'm for 'independence' - this 'independence' would be followed very very quickly by a bailot from the IMF who would then ensure that for the first time in 60 years or so there would be a serious attempt to get Scotland to spend less than it earns.

Fiscal discipline is really what Scotland needs not a different teat for the nation to superglue it's collective lips to..

report this

Pumpernickel Von Blackwelshire

Jul 03, 2014 at 10:10

[slow clapping danny nolan]

report this


Jul 03, 2014 at 10:21

Danny - get your facts right. Although the media won't report it (professors and others, as well as many general public know as well as the BBC - there have been protests here - albeit not reported) are being biased, the figures show Scotland has and does pay more into tax system than it gets out. Everyone who knows what they are talking about knows this fact.

Almost everyone apart from WM tribe know that the currency thing is a bluff. Very few in Scotland think it otherwise.

The Yes campaign is more than Salmond. I know many WM folks want to personalise and isolate the Yes campaign - but its simply not true.

It took Iceland 6 years to leave the EU when they voted to leave! (But Scots will be kicked out in 6 minutes!!!)

Cameron is a coward for not debating. For all she was disliked in Scotland, at least Thatcher would have debated, and stood by her principles.

report this

on the other hand

Jul 03, 2014 at 13:42

Trainspotter, its not DCs role to debate this one.... the decision is for Scotland to make. Cameron cannot vote on it so why should he do more than express his opinion. The debate should be between the Scots who will be most affected by the outcome, eg Salmond vs Darling or Brown or Danny Callaghan or whoever.

Re the tax debate, there's plenty of number fudging going on by both sides. Bearing in mind how diffcult it is to apportion share of expenses like armed forces, national security, welfare administration etc there is probably no "right" answer and even if Scotland do contribute more than they receive, a big chunk of that is oil related which is a volatile and finite income source. Pretty risky to base a countries future on it.

When it comes to EU membership, use of the pound, sharing embassies, new naval ships manufacturing etc, all of the issues that are being flatly contradicted, it seems again like the risk of a "what if" scenario is high enough to place a big question mark over the viability of the project.

Being English, based in London and with no ties to Scotland, I have no strong opinion either way in the larger debate but I find the level of misinformation, vitriol and outright dishonesty being displayed by both sides to be frankly disgraceful and whatever the result there is likely to be unjustified bitterness and recrimination.

report this


Jul 03, 2014 at 14:24

It is up to Dave - he after all keeps telling the media his is the PM of the whole of the UK

Oil price has been more stable in the past 5 years than the past 30...

Yes there are a lot of ifs, but only cause UK wont pre-negotiate (unless when they do - take devo max off ballot - then make devo max promises, and currency union "no" comments).

Plenty of oil left - including the untapped stuff on the west coast that was not allowed to be drilled cause of Trident subs....(like McCrone - but in the 80s).

Its not a "project" its a countries' freedom we are talking about.

Wonder when it comes to EU debate, if Cameron would debate with Gordon Brown ? (failed back bencher and ex-chancellor - same as Darling?)

And, with the exception of a few idiots online - all of the debate up here has been civilised. Go read what Margo McDonald said about that.

Sadly, the media don't report how well the debate has revitalised interest in politics up here...

report this

on the other hand

Jul 03, 2014 at 15:03

Bit more misinformation there I think Trainspotter as its not strictly true about oil prices is it? In the last 5 years Brent Crude has ranged from $66 per barrel to over $120 and is towards the top of that range now. The price has displayed high volatility and for many people oil is a sell at this level given the growth of shale gas.... suggesting prices could fall which will affect tax revenue. That would also make West of Scotland reserves less economically viable to extract.

And yes you are right that DC is PM of the UK, but this is not a UK wide debate as 90% of the UK population does not get a vote on the matter. This is a local question, and evoking the chance of "freedom" from the "oppressive bond" of the UK is part of what is turning the debate from the rational to the emotional.

Of course the UK will not pre-negotiate. That would be like pre-agreeing a divorce and you are insane if you think that a yes vote would not be seen as a huge snub for Westmninster. In that event, you can expect that rUK politicians will make it as painful and expensive as possible for Scotland to leave. There is strong economic rationale for not having a currency union and not sharing monetary policy, and regardless of the counter arguments, you can expect Westminster will be vindictive and spiteful in its enforcement of its rights. Salmond may hold the threat of defaulting on Scotlands share of debt but rUK covering an extra 10% on national debt will be significantly less disruptice than Scotland having to form a currency and monetary system from scratch.

Not sure the EU debate is that relevant but DC is actually pro so he will probably have to argue against Farage on that one. Given that hes recently very openly argued with Merkel et al, its pretty clear that he is happy to debate that issue.

I dont argue that the referendum has ignited the interest in politics, which is a good thing. I argue with the heavily biased and factually incorrect coverage given by SBC, BBC Scotland, The Scotsman etc on both sides.

report this

a mcf

Jul 03, 2014 at 16:40

for clarification who are SBC?

report this

on the other hand

Jul 03, 2014 at 16:50

Apologies, meant STV. Think SBC is what Salmond said BBC Scotland would become in the event of a yes.

report this


Jul 03, 2014 at 17:18

My point is although the Edinburgh agreement is not to pre-negotiate - that's exactly what WM parties are doing.

Have you actually read the McCrone report from the 70s that was made top secret for 30+ years ? Kind of speaks to all this oil is crap info we are getting. Why are companies still investing billions - for a laugh ? Suits WM to downplay revenue just now.

BBC Scotland is a joke - do you realise that only Scottish Politics website stories have a ban on "have your say" - they don't want debate...

I don't say that WM is oppressive - it just doesn't provide a representation of Scottish voting. 26 months or so of labour government have actually counted in respect of what Scotland voted in the past 30 years or so...not really fair representation.

I don't expect WM to be vindictive - after all Dave signed the Edinburgh agreement which states they will abide by decision, and negotiate in good faith.

Can't understand why you harp on about Salmond. Very many Yes supporters don't like him. Yes includes, green, labour, tory, socialist etc. Only the media, and WM politicians like to personalise it to one individual. They hate to see it as a movement.

report this

on the other hand

Jul 03, 2014 at 17:48

Salmond is the face of "Yes" and so of course he will be identified with it. He is the instigator and most vocal supporter. In the same way that this article and your initial comments personalised the reference to DC, the entire debate has become personal.

I must admit to not having read the McCrone report but a quick google shows that it was published in 1974. I’m not sure that relying on a 40 year old assessment is all that reliable. There is no doubt that oil has contributed significantly to UK tax coffers and if Scotland had been independent for the last 40 years then a sovereign wealth fund like Norway’s that Salmond keeps alluding to would no doubt have been possible. But it’s not the 70's, and the revenue has been spent and so the debate should be about the future. Interestly there has recently been a rise in investment in the deep water stuff due in part to incentives in the March budget. Looks like WM is providing some help in that area.

I don’t know about BBC Scotland but a quick look here - - suggests a reasonable amount of debate.

Regarding representation in WM, that is a side effect of democracy. Not everyone can be represented by the governing party/coalition and there are no doubt plenty of people across the whole country who did not vote for DC to be PM but on the bright side Scotland does have its own parliament with non inconsiderable powers. OK, they don’t control everything, but they can do a lot. Spare a thought for the populations of NW or NE England. I’m pretty sure they didn’t vote Tory or Lib Dem and they don’t have their own assembly..... Haven’t heard them clamouring for independence though.

I repeat that I think its naïve to expect negotiations after a yes to be anything other than extremely painful.

report this

a mcf

Jul 03, 2014 at 22:04


are you eligible to vote

I think not as no person living in Scotland would make the mistake of confusing STV for SBC.

If you have no voting rights ( and thats another debate) then do what DC has done and stop trying to debate it

It 30% yes 30% no and 40% either dont know or cant be bothered

If WM keep patronising the voters then they will get told to sling their hook

report this

on the other hand

Jul 04, 2014 at 08:23

Well mcf, if you had read back through the comments you would see that I already admitted to not being able to vote. Doesn’t stop me being interested in the outcome though, and I enjoy the discussion, just not the lying and inaccuracy.

It’s a shame that we all don’t get a vote. Would be good to see the rest of the country involved more wholeheartedly in the conversation.

Interesting that your response to a well reasoned defence of “No” is to want to shut down the debate. Kind of what trainspotter was suggesting didn’t happen.

report this


Jul 04, 2014 at 09:03

Ha - shame we don't get a vote.

Rest of Britain getting a vote is like the rest of Europe telling WM what to do - seems like many don't like that - but obviously completely different situation!

Actually not got an issue with rest of countries getting involved in the debate - particularly given the lack of knowledge about the facts - and the amount of lies and scares being provided by WM government.

Of course Yes campaign do not have all the answers - but no one can predict the future - if they claimed to - that is obviously a lie...they certainly have been more engaged with public and debating than dour Darling, Brown, Cameron and Gideon - Jesus what a shower!

report this

on the other hand

Jul 04, 2014 at 09:21

Clearly Salmond played a masterstroke by getting “Yes” on the ballot. Campaigning for change and yes is positively charged before you even start. Campaigning for “No” and the status quo is by definition negative. Darling was always going to struggle convincing people to vote for more of the same….. and so they have resorted to the only line they have, the “vote no or its going be a disaster” approach.

I would quite like someone to take out a double page spread in The Scotsman (or similar) and lay out 2 columns, of pros and cons. Clear, honest and factually correct. At least then the voters could make at least a vaguely informed choice.

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

News sponsored by:

Sponsored Video: Bringing it all back home

As the UK coalition government strives to rebalance the national economy, so called 'reshoring' looks set to play an increasingly important role in economic recovery.

Today's top headlines

Investing for income in a changing environment

With talk on interest rates on the horizon, our latest roundtable debate covers income investing against a changing backdrop

More about this:


On the road

Click here to find out more from the Audience Development team.

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet