Colin - a singular demonstration of how badly the electoral system is rigged towards Labour, that SO many more people have to vote Tory for them to have a majority.

The bottom line is that ANYTHING that can be done to kneecap Labour for the future has to be good for England. Look what a fucking mess they have made of the place since '97.

This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. this really is really nice one and provides indepth info. many thanks for this nice article.

Even if Cameron and Alec both wanted to split the uk, there would still have to be the referendum, and the chances of a yes vote are small. Support for independence has been steadily shrinking since the SNP gained power, also the fact that the SNP run a minority government (with originally only gaining one more seat than labour) shows that the SNP is nowhere near as popular as people outwith Scotland think.

God you must be bored. Finished the ironing? Read the papers? Nothing left to do? Write, write, write!

Let's face it, Scotland has been a drain on the taxes of the English for years and, encouraged by an undemocratic Labour Party, have made a complete pig's arse of the democratic process. They want to run their own country? Fine with me - we'll turn off the money and, at last, have a democracy where the laws are made by those who represent the areas where those laws apply.

Everyone's a winner.

If there was an SNP candidate in Gloucester I'd vote for him.

"Let's face it, Scotland has been a drain on the taxes of the English for years".
Wrong.
"Fine with me - we'll turn off the money and, at last, have a democracy where the laws are made by those who represent the areas where those laws apply."
People like you were notoriously silent during the Thatcher era.
So - a clueless hypocrite.

"Alec" is not the scottish spelling, its "Alex" u moron

iain shutup plz, the countrys a mess because of england, because u can't govern yourself, what we should do is get rid of the queen and everyone releated to her, all we do is pay for sectarian descendants of cowards.

we should've placed the scottish parliment in glasgow, i know that edinburgh is the royal home of scotland but the thing is they don't bother with the rest of scotland,u english people just check out the facts most of the money uk give scotland gets wasted on stupid meaningless shite like "preserving the historical monuments", i know for a fact that sounds similar to some english people but your problem is with immigrants, under labour we had a education system second to no-one and now those SNPs r fiddiling with everything, the health secretary tried to get a random person out of jail, he was convicted of fraud

i genuinely don't this ... but is it true that most of the tory seats in england are meaningless countryside estates whilst the south-west is libdem and the cities are mostly labour???? uk is pointless, cameron says he has a right to rule and that the lib-dems should join with the tories, whilst before the (supposedly illegal) TV debates both cameron n clegg were calling for a refrom. scotland n wales n N.Ireland all voted for labour over the other 2. althought it is right that the tories should form a govt wales,N.ireland and scotland should have some form of power so that they can veto anything.

"The 300-year old social political, social and economic alliance is greater than the sum of its parts. "

with this kind of argument you can say that the European Union is greater than the sum of its parts. That's funny coming from Eurosceptic Tory supporters.

There are over 21 oilfields in England. Gas is also piped in on the East Yorkshre coast.

Yet more taxes are collected at the petrol pumps in England than all the oilfields put together.

Scottish readers should not be deluded that England needs their oil. We don't. And we don't need or want them, either. Now go away and vote SNP.

So are you saying if the Scots vote for independence that Cameron should say "hard luck I am not going to allow it"?
I do not think they will vote for it, but if they do who are the English to tell them they can not have it?

"Who cares?
Labour because that would be the end for them in terms of ever governing the UK gain."

Hardly. Labour would just evolve slightly to suit english tastes a bit better. People would never accept perpetual Tory rule, and the party best placed to oust them would be Labour.

Good lord, how ignorant are the English. His name is Alex Salmond not Alec Salmond.

Why do we continue to emphasise the idea of a break-up? Is this a deliberate tactic by pro-unionists to divert debate from the real issues?

Should Scotland become independent? Some of the arguments advanced by the “Flower of Scotland” bunch are embarrassing, both in their naivety and sentimentality. Independence merely as separation from everyone else for the sake of it is probably just a recipe for long-term poverty and even puritanism.

On the other hand, I tend to see the 1707 Union as just a piece of political software [like all software, it of course made fortunes for a few of its authors]. How long do we expect a piece of software to last? Perhaps 2-3 years, and this product is already 300+ years old.

What we need is a mature and generous acceptance by all sides that the Union is long broken, and a wish to negotiate something new and positive, not the mudslinging which characterises the “independence” debate at present [largely stirred up by anxious UK parties and their press allies]. That way, the best elements can perhaps be rescued from the current situation, and shaped into a new federal relationship. It would not be the first “velvet divorce” in Europe!

The starting point must be to dissolve entirely what is there - no “breakaways“, but a demolition job. Scotland and England should certainly then become sovereign nations. Northern Ireland would need to decide [without external interference] whether to become sovereign or join with the Republic. Wales would need to consider whether it is strong enough to go it alone, or whether simply to remain a province of England, with some devolution. Each of the resultant nations would no longer rely on grudging “crumbs” from the Westminster table, but would have the full range of powers.

Then, it is necessary to ask “When is it sensible to cooperate with the others?”

Small nations like Scotland would find it both costly and impractical to run a separate army and a navy, so a defensive alliance would be needed, whether with England, the EU or NATO. Scotland could become like the Scandinavian countries, choosing to buy in at an average European level of commitment to secure its own basic defence, but cutting itself off decisively [and hopefully forever] from the ruinous English/American compulsion to wage, and pay for, post-imperial aggressive wars all over the world.

The English could of course keep their Trident missiles if they wanted [and pay for them], but would require to determine where in England to locate them. In Devon, with its existing naval bases? Chatham, conveniently near London? Or in Liam Fox’s constituency?

The existing UK military relies heavily on Scottish recruits, and they too rely on the employment, since sadly for many of them it is their only realistic option for escaping poverty. There should be nothing to stop them as individuals from joining the English army, as Irish nationals do at present.

Scotland would also expect to cooperate as equals on eg environmental protection, drugs, diplomatic services, or trade missions. Decisions on how far it was desirable to pool sovereignty in this way would be negotiated, not imposed as often happens at present. Coordinated policies which are similar and compatible, but which can be tweaked to suit the circumstances of each individual nation, would become the order of the day.

There would be no need whatsoever for Westminster and its inflated cohort of deluded politicians. They could be reabsorbed into their national parliaments, or, recognising the limited abilities of many of them, into local government. Twice yearly meetings between the national parliaments, say in Manchester, would probably suffice to ensure coordination. Incidentally, British presence on the Security Council would end, giving way to an EU seat. “Punching above our weight” would become no more than a fading nightmare of our past belligerence.

It would be messy and time-consuming, with no doubt a great deal of debate. Labour would hate it, since the party would never again control England. But it would ultimately be worth it , and, unlike the current Westminster system, it would be democracy.

Is this the best analysis that the British left can come up with? You can't even be bothered to spell Alex Salmond's name correctly! Why should Scotland stick with Britain and Toryism (or Labourite Toryism?) when there is a logical alternative available of independence? If the NS would remove it's idealogical blinkers it would realise that the break of Britain would benefit the whole world. Britain's imperialism belongs to a dying age and if the British state ever benefited Scotland it certainly confers no benefits today. We could have a direct voice in the EU and UN rather than being treated with contempt by both the left and right from London. If you can't be bothered treating Scotland's politics with respect then please do not bother commenting at all. This lazy ignorant article shows everything that is wrong with 'we are all in it together' British socialism which thinks Scotland and Wales don't count as the national part of internationalism. Pathetic!

Whisper "A Parliament for England" in any of the three leaders ears,they use every treacherous argument they can summon up.
So start shouting,A PARLIAMENT FOR ENGLAND!

Vote Tory !
As an English Nationalist (well, since '97) such an 'English' British government could be the answer to our grievance. The Liebour Scottish 'Raj' has been a catastrophe for England.
Adding up the populations of all the Celtic British countries you come up with c.12 million (includes Ireland / Eire and Cornwall / Kernow !). This be little more than London within the M25. Add the rest of England to the equation and there be no contest. The Celts are a little people occupying little countries... who needs them ?!
North Sea Oil no longer represents a bonanza. They be more of a drain on the rest of us. BE RID OF THEM !

As an American, this really isn't any of my business. However, I would like to see the Union stay together. This world is getting scarier by the day (North Korea, Iran, etc.) and the UK has always been a force for justice and democracy in the world. It's hard to imagine the 4 countries having the same impact on their own.

*"HE was attacking", sorry.

If the Tories so loathed in Scotland win the British election with English votes will the Scottish vote for independence? I hope so!
How embarrasing for Scottish voters to complain about an English imposed Tory government but fail to vote to leave the UK!!! Take Wales and N.Ireland with you please.
Robert Wallace. You can bet the Unionists will make a tougher voting threshold than they did for the Holyrood referendum.
The simplest answer surely is for Scotland to elect a majority of SNP MPs at the Westminster election. That would be very difficult to argue with! The SNP would have a mandate to declare independence without a referendum.
Vote SNP Set England Free!

Ianinburnshill. One source of employment in Scotland will be in the creation of a Scottish Passport Agency to process all the passport applications received from Scottish people who want to visit England!
Luvvly Jubbly!

I'v just stumbled on this site. Very interesting. I'm English by the way and I don't think I care much for the union. It seems so biased against us. Would be happy to let it go although as the author says the union is really greater than the sum of its parts. Can't see how it benefits us though.
If you want to keep it then England has to have recognition too.
I'll stand for the English parliament for the Levellers , an old English party which is as English as they come.

You MIGHT try quoting his speech right in the first place. Mr. Salmond's criticism was of Scots who went to London as MPs and FAILED to represent their constituents' interests. What he said (and I quote) was: "We remember Labour’s lobby fodder who voted shamefully for war in Iraq--Labour MPs who went to London to settle down."

Interesting how you can say he "settled down" in London when he is retiring from Westminster for being FM in Holyrood. Settled down in London? Not really and when there HE represented his constituents.

I have to agree with Gallach on your need to back up your contention that somehow "The 300-year old social political, social and economic alliance is greater than the sum of its parts. Its preservation is crucial, and may be the subject of one of the great political battles to come."

A battle. Yes, no doubt Labour wants to hold onto its heartland and the UK to its oil. But what you don't mention is ONE SINGLE WAY IN WHICH SCOTLAND IS BENEFITED by this supposed being greater than the sum of its parts.

A nice--but meaningless--slogan.

James McIntyre,

Why do you fear a break up of the UK? It would seem to suit your politics?