Our national social-conscience is incompatible with that of Tory England, and we have long recognised the democratic deficit that leads to Scotland getting the government that England votes for.

The game's up.

Complete tosh. No one is rattled. There is no contradiction in what Nicola Sturgeon said. It is perfectly possible to consistently hold that Cameron - who leads a minority government - has no right to interfere with the overwhelming democratic mandate held by the only majority government in the UK, and to believe that this will backfire - but still to assert that this is wrong because it is bad for democracy. It's called espousing a principle - something Labour (and Tory)-supporting media find difficult to comprehend because it's such a novel conceptfor them

Nonsense article. George Eaton should ask himself who is right when he keeps finding himself in agreement with the likes of Cameron and Clegg on the issue of Scotland.
If you know anything about Scottish people you should know how they will react to pushy, arrogant little upstart (with no mandate whatsoever) telling Scots what is going to happen.
The SNP have known for a very long time that all the main parties will do anything and try every trick going to keep Scotland in line.
When you find yourself on the sameside of the argument as these lowlives you have to start asking yourself a few questions. If anyone seriously believes that Cameron gives two hoots about Scottish people they need their heads checking

Mike Roberts,
your prejudice towards Scotland is clear. Scotland is not subsidised. The odd person writing mildly annoying stuff about England does not mean it's okay insult a country in return. I for example am not going to return insults towards England in response to yourself.
Whilst there are big areas of England that doesn't vote Tory a lot of England does.
From what I can gather you should be happy to get rid of Scotland out of the UK if Scotland is such a drain on resources and England can have all the Labour governments it wants

Oh I'm more than happy for Cameron to play it this. In fact wether he's giving decrees from London or coming up here and lording it over us from Edinburugh then great. The more vocal and bullish the better. The same goes for all Tories, Lib Dems and a number of Labour people.
Support for independence is a very close run thing just now. I believe this can only increase as the full scale of cruelty from this government becomes clear

Cameron is the fool here.
If he survives the Anti-Tory backlash of a Westminster hijacked referendum on Independence, then the SNP will simply call a subsequent 'INDEPENDENCE LITE' referendum on their terms.
2 bites at the cherry.

Salmond's problem is, and always has been his arrogance. He seems to think that Independence is something that appeals, in principle at least, to the majority of Scots. He's wrong and at the moment he know's it. This Bannockburn horse-shit, do me favour. Next he'll be pushing for STV to show Braveheart on the eve of the Referendum.

When the SNP lose, where will that leave Salmond?

Rather than call Salmond's bluff, Cameron has done exactly what Salmond wants him to do. He can now show that Cameron's 'respect agenda' was contemptible nonsense and that Westminster are trying to interfere in Scottish affairs. And you clearly, yet again, George, show scant understanding of Scottish politics. The SNP's referendum can only be consultative anyway, since the constitution is a reserved matter, so if they go ahead with the 2014/5 referendum then it will be as it always was going to be.

In response to Mike Roberts: Scotland is not 'subsidy hungry' since the level of revenue generated here is higher than public spending, therefore we subsidise the rest of the UK. It is Westminster which is subsidy hungry, not Scotland.

The thing is this is a no-win for Cameron. If he ignored the problem, the SNP will yell about his lack of interest in Scotland and when he's gotten involved he is denounced as prejudicing Scottish democracy, or the ludicrous idea of dictating to Salmond...

Fact is this, Scotland is no longer governed on many issues of importance to Scottish society (policing, education, health etc) run from Westminster. It is done in Holyrood. The SNP know this, but the fail to see that most Scots, myself included, are largely apathetic about it all. They know what counts is run by Scots, and that there are more Scots in Westminster helping to run the common affairs of the UK. It's gotten to the stage were Scots vote Labour solidly for Westminster and SNP for Holyrood. We understand the nuance of governance in the UK, as well as the Northern Irish and Welsh do. It's why the SNP (and PC in Wales) fail to win massively in UK elections. Salmond boasted about 20 SNP MPs at the last election and ended up with about 7, where as Labour, took nothing for granted, and won 50% of the vote. A year later at Holyrood, nearly the reverse. It seems the SNP have become prisoners to the Devolution settlement. Not relevant enough at UK level to win backing for Westminster, whilst Labour are approaching that position at Holyrood.

This is an interesting dynamic. I think that, as we live in a representative democracy, we need to have a referendum created by a committee of all parties in Holyrood. With MSPs appointed based on the proportion of seats their parties hold, this allows for a broadly consensual referendum to be formed and voted on. It should only be YES NO and have no Devolution Max/Status Quo in it. I agree on the need for more powers in Edinburgh, but we need't muddy the waters on the biggest issue of the day in Scotland. We need to be concise and to the point. I reckon the Scots will, perhaps narrowly, back the Union, which will make 2016 an interesting election for the SNP and Salmond's position in his party an interesting one too.

On calling bluffs the pro-Union side missed their greatest chance on this in 2008, Wendy Alexander, done the right thing by calling for the referendum to be brought forward. Had it been dealt with by 2011, then we would certainly be in an interesting place now. Scottish Labour had him then, with their pledge to allow it through Salmond would have been in an extremely difficult place, one which I think even he would have found hard. This whole 'The Unionists blocked us then...' narrative is emerging. Had we followed Alexander's lead and been bold I reckon this would be a dead issue now, and possibly too Salmond's career.

The SNP polls poorly in UK elections because the Scottish people know that they can never have enough numbers in a UK context to achieve anything meaningful at Westminster. However, on a level playing field things are rather different much to the annoyance of the Labour party.
Cameron is leader of a party almost universally despised in Scotland. Cameron attempting tie conditions and restrict options available to the Scottish people in terms of their own democratic future is offensive to any reasonable person.
The result of an independence referendum may well affect the rest of the UK to a degree but that doesn't mean he should be playing games in an attempt to make Scotland more likely to remain part of the UK. He has zero democratic mandate up here.
From a pragmatic selfish point of view I'm happy for him to tread his size 9s all over Scottish politics in the run up to the referendum but his actions are offensive

Where'as the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are good fair minded, honest people I assume. Give me a break.

Jem,
perhaps you could go away spread your nasty little comments around the the Daily Mail or Express, Sun or something.
You should find plenty of like minded people there.

@Benjamin Rae, I'm sorry to burst this bubble, but the Tories have consistently been the 3rd party in Holyrood since 1999. It was Lib-Dem collapse not a Conservative one in 2011. I'm no Tory, but even I can see they do hold a certain sway with the electorate. In fact most of Salmond's big police policies were pushed through by the Tories, the number the SNP wanted to increase police by was considerably smaller than the Tory quota. He had to increase to get the Tory support.

Conservatism in rural Scotland has not been replaced or lanced, it's merely been replaced by the SNP, who do have a certain conservative air about them. They are after all a 'non-denominal' party, focused on independence above all else. If you were to sum them up they are purely centrist populists in policy. Free school meals and prescriptions distinctly of the left, but a degree of euroscepticism and fiscal prudency which is largely a Tory trait. They are an interesting party as they cover the centre so neatly. Pro-Business and Pro-Public sector. They are essentially a refined, Scottocised-New Labour imo.

I reckon in an independent Scotland the Tories would do well, as there would almost certainly need to be a huge rebalancing of the state towards the private sector. Michael Fry, a small c conservative writer has argued this for years. An independent Scotland would become a more conservative Scotland. Even the Labour Party in Scotland is distinctly conservative in outlook, it is tough on crime in its announcements and gives a facade of toughness on certain social problems, which UK Labour doesn't. Scotland in my opinion is conservative in her values, but approves of solidarity in achieving these values. It's an odd mix.

I reckon if we returned to 79 seats in Scotland the Tories would have more than 1 seat. Seats like Edinburgh Pentlands, the division of the Perthshire and Aberdeen seats and some in the more affluent parts of Glasgow and the Borders would most certainly be blue.

Alexander Mitchell,
perhaps I overstated a bit in relation to the conservatives but I also think you are being bit generous on your description of the support they hold.
Most of those who don't vote Tory dislike them intensely. The get around 15% of the vote give or take in Scottish elections. That leaves around 85% of of the electorate. Now I accept that SNP retains a degree of Conservatism in some quarters but I would also say that it is now more of a Social Democratic party than Labour.
Your point about the co- between the SNP and the Tories is more about a joint dislike of Labour and for convenience rather than some meeting of ideological partners.
Now, once independence is achieved then I'm not entirely sure I'll continue my membership. I am probably among the most left wing of their members.
If someone in Scotland truly wants to take a different direction from the despicable policies being pushed through at Westminster then I don't see that they are left with any option but to go for independence. The Labour party is too shackled by how successfully the right has pushed the centre ground in England rightwards.
I'd rather deal with 15% of Tory voters in Scotland than the amount in England

Alex Salmond's bluff has been called. No wonder he is only putting up that Sturgeon on the radio and the television.

Sturgeon is a major reason why independence would be the death of the SNP as surely as a No vote, or a failure to hold a referendum at all. How many people in the very wealthy and very right-wing SNP heartland of the North East of Scotland would continue to vote for her and for her party's many other Hard Left characters once the constitutional question had been settled to their own satisfaction?

David Lindsay,
oh yes, Cameron has outfoxed Salmond. Keep dreaming. Shame he couldn't use that intelligence to further his own parties fortunes in Scotland.
If you believe Salmond is worried or at all surprised by the recent events your kidding yourself. You might be surprised to hear that the SNP have thought about and planned for manoeuvres that the likes of Cameron might try.

Cameron hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah ahh ahh ahh
Sorry I cant type for laughing at the sheer folly of Eaton or is it Eton?

David Lindsay,
I'm not going to bother disentangling your post as it appears your disappearing up your own ar#e with so called logic. Your picking titbits of information out and trying to convince yourself that the right is heading for a meaningful revival of the right.

Benjamin Rae, it is not a matter of "reviving" the Right. The Right is in power in Scotland, on the majoritarian basis that is not the case in England.

The question is, in the medium to longer term, which of the two rival right-wing parties gets to benefit from that manifest right-wing majority? The one with right-wing activists as well as right-wing leaders and right-wing voters, if it plays its cards right.

And its cards cannot really be playyaed wrong: no referendum, no more SNP; a No vote, no more SNP; a Yes vote and, soon enough, no more SNP.

No wonder the Tories want the referendum the day before yesterday. No wonder Salmond doesn't want it until after he is dead, if ever.

Benjamin Rae, perhaps it's because you've no sense of humour, or that the issue of playing identity politics is too nuanced for you (and others) to understand the risks unleashed by appeasing nationalism. it is simply no argument to effectively accuse everybody else of being 'lowlife' whilst you (of course) are quite happy and apparently able to 'deal' with them. Oh yes? Dream on.

Cameron is a bloody idiot. There are plenty of people in Scotland who do not really want Scotland to become independent but would like Holyrood to have more fiscal powers. Personally I support devolution max as a compromise. Everything Cameron does to try and prevent independence just winds Scotland up and makes it more likely. He's the best argument for independence there is, and is handling this situation so incompentently I begin to wonder if he's double-bluffing after all.