Who knows? Perhaps Gordon Brown could have invoked the Prevention of Terrorism Act on Edinburgh as well as Reykjavik, or perhaps A Scottish Treasury would have had tighter rules. Perhaps we could have had a Eurozone solution. Too many variables.

Thanks for your comments. I tried to make it as clear as I could that, if there is a difference at all between people living in Scotland and people living elsewhere in the UK, it is that the policies of the SNP that are more attractive to them rather than the ethno-nationalism of which you speak. It seems to me, given that there is a solitary Conservative MP sitting North of the border, that the facts support that.

I do not actually understand quite what flavour you think Scottish Nationalism actually is. At the last Hollyrood election the chap standing outside my polling station, passing out leaflets for the SNP, was Asian. It is certainly not ethnically based, as you appear to suggest.

Obviously, to successfully carry an independence vote you are going to have to get over 50% of those who vote to agree with you. That is a challenge, but I’m not convinced it is insurmountable.

I would not support any sort of racist agenda. I think I am correct in saying that the BNP has never had an electoral success at any level up here, and frankly it is unlikely to. Apart from the odd nutter, it is not on the political radar.

Ultimately an independant Scotland is near enough the next logical step in devolution, there are only a finite number of reserved matters by Westminster, literally everything else is in the hands of the Holyrood.

The most important of those reserved matters are already intrinsically linked to the European Union or the Council of Europe, or would be linked to a greater extent if Scotland interacted completely independantly with them. For the sake of argument free travel within the EU, the right of people from the EU to settle anywhere they wish within the Union (and as such a significant part of the immigration debate), equal opportunities etc are all reserved by Westminster not because its trying to thumb Scotland down but simply because its a requirement to meet those obligations on a national level.

The important word there is requirement, Scotland wouldn’t have a greater freedom in crucial aspects of those areas it would simply deal with the EU and the CoE on its own; it would still be required to meet those obligations: nothing would change.

Similarly with monetary policy as far as im aware the SNP are in favour of joining the Euro, regardless its incredibly unlikely for the EU to make an exception for Scotland when its de facto policy with new applications to the EU is for them to join the Euro (it was part of the accession treaties for new members); as i said in another post awhile ago the EU ultimately wants European integration, the UK has opted out to serve its own interests but the overall philosophy of the EU is integration and new members have to accept that fully. In fact Scotland has a far far greater proportional input into the monetary policy of the UK then it would the Eurozone and the EU. It wouldn’t be ‘free’ in the respect, it would simply trasfer control to the ECB.

The point im making is there is very little else of substance that Westminster can devolve. The important parts of what is retained would transfer to the control of the EU. Scotland governs itself to the majority of the extent now as it would an independant nation as a member of the EU.

So the question of independence isn’t really about setting up a different Scotland, its institutions as i said above would simply copy everything else, and what Westminster controls now would move to Brussels and Strasbourg.

All politicians in Scotland are aware of that, and as such i think envoking the call of a ‘freer’ Scotland is a red herring. I don’t think the underlying issues are to do with Scotlands relationship with England, or even Scotlands relationship with Europe.

Its about Scotlands relationship with itself.

Those who want a pure ‘Scottishness’ and those who also have a sense of ‘Britishness’. The nuance of that is lost on those decended from immigrants, as Ashik touched on in #26 many are fearful of it because the debate is an emotive one. The history of Scotland – of unionists and republicans – is emotionally meaningless to most immigrants and their decendants, it is as meaningless as the intricacies of ethnic relationships on the sub continent are to anyone who immigrates there.

Its tribalism, and the only people who can be bothered are the ones who have an emotional connection with their tribe.

Ultimately Scotland will never move forward until it can resolve that issue. Regardless of what polls are used to determine voting patterns for the SNP there are either a partial majority or a substantial minority of people who are against them, who feel British are Unionists and wish to remain part of the Union.

It isn’t England preventing Scotlands independence nor is it England refusing to devolve powers that an independant Scotland would have.

Its those people not wanting to vote for independence.

You can talk about how Scotland would act differently with asylum seekers, about how green it would be, about how Nuclear power wouldn’t be used in Scotland, but until that fundamental issue of addressing the fears and identity of unionists is met i think Scottish nationalists are just sidestepping the issue.

Until the SNP can properly address and juxtapose its ideals with the ideals of Unionists it won’t be dealing with the crucial block to Scotland’s independence.

Whats more if Scottish politics can’t be empathetic to that debate, if Scots on both sides can’t be sympathetic to the sense of self or ‘the other’ it has no hope of addressing the identity politics of minorities.

I’m not an economist, thankfully, so I base my assertion that Scotland couldn’t afford it only on various articles I’ve read this year and the analysis by that odd-looking BBC economist in Hardeep Singh Kohli’s documentary What Do the English Really Think of the Scots. He thoroughly skewered the SNP North Sea Oil myth.

Now, all these “experts” may be right or wrong – it’s been amply demonstrated recently exactly how clueless the world of economics and finance really is – so I certainly don’t have an answer. I think it’s for the Scots to decide just how poor they want to be.

Lastly, I’d vote for anything with free beer.

An independent Scotland will automatically forfeit EU membership, then will have to reapply to join.

There at least seems to be a debate about that: see the reference @ 45 for one side of the debate, which at least admits that there is another position. And this, slightly panglossian quote from t’other:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/08/13103747/5

3.21 An independent Scotland would continue in the European Union and bear the burdens and fulfil the responsibilities of membership. Following negotiations on the detailed terms of membership, Scotland would be in a similar position to other European Union member states of a similar size. As a full member of the European Union, Scotland would have the normal rights of representation in its institutions, with an equal status to the other member states. For example, Scotland would expect representation in the European Parliament nearer to that of Denmark, which has 14 members, rather than the current seven members that represent Scotland (which may be reduced to six). Scotland would be bound by the laws of the European Union, but on a level playing field with other full member states. The distinctive interests of Scotland as a member state would be properly represented through the Council of Ministers and the European Council, and the required transposition of European directives and regulations into domestic law would be done with due regard to their effect in Scotland.

Neither side mentions the terrifying prospect of Scotland being invaded by Libertarians!

Also, any decision on Scotland joining the EU would be subject to a French referendum, as it is in their constitution now. If they were rejected, I would move north of the border.

I’d have thought that if the separation was conducted democratically and peacefully, and it will be or it really won’t happen, then the Spanish would have no real cause to implement a veto. The Basque seperatist movement is not a model I’d subscribe to.

I take it you are referring to this document:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/media/articles/2008/Kosovo08.pdf

Which flies, quite frankly, in the face of the EU’s own enlargement policy.

I would very much doubt that this would be the barrier that the author seems to want it to be. The cases are in no way comparable. Scotland is currently a part of the EU and Kosovo is not. There is usually a higher hurdle to chucking someone out of a club than there is in refusing them admission in the first place.

‘Scotland to remain in the EU’

Who says they’ll gain automatic accesion into the EU? The Spanish who have their own regional issues like the Basque region may well balk at the precedent an independent Scotland sets.

So, comments on the comments.

There is, I think, a pretty well accurate analysis from several commentators that the problems that the South East of England have, and those that Scotland have could just as well apply to nations seperated by thousands of miles. Geography is just the way the cookie crumbled, as far as I can tell. There is no particular reason why a nation state should stick together if folk don’t want it too, the break up of Sweden and Norway, or the split between the Czechs and the Slovaks are two peaceful examples from the last century, and as far as I know they get on fine with each of their ex-partners.

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone from England who comments here that doesn’t live in the South East? I’d have hoped that some of what I had to say would have reverberated, absent the tartan bit obviously, with folk in the other three quadrants, but there you go, silence.

I thought that the link also gave an interesting perspective on another way of seeing what some states or at least many of their political actors are really about. The centres of the failed European Empires, the lot of them, cling to a ghostly past and to a hoped for influence over the new kid(s) on the block. It is, I think, largely illusory. El Cid, and others bring up Brigadoon, I’d just fire back with Camelot. Anyway, he’s not flying with Eagles, he’s flying with Vultures.

John Liburne assumes that an independent Scotland could not afford the policies the SNP outline. Of thoseI listed, one is probably economically beneficial – immigration, two are cost neutral, the nuclear comments, and one is simply changing revenue sources, I’m a bit surprised at that. I certainly hope the SNP do introduce free beer. Though I somehow doubt it. They want to be seen as the sensible party.

I am not advocating a retreat into some sort of secret Shangri-La valley lost to the world for a thousand years. I’d expect an independent Scotland to remain in the EU, to remain in NATO, The Council of Europe and the UN. I’d also hope and expect it to contribute to cross national projects. The model would be, more or less, Denmark or Norway or Sweden.

I think Kulvinder makes some very interesting points. Just to clarify, I too would be horrified if we started getting all misty eyed about some sort of Celtic heritage – unless it was simply to fleece tourists. I believe I am right in saying that most of it was manufactured in Victorian times. You should never believe your own publicity.

As I may have mentioned before, I consider I have more in common with some other posters on here than I have with my next door neighbour, and I wouldn’t want that to stop. So, it isn’t so odd, really. The planet will become more bound together by the World Wide Web than it has ever been in the past. That, unfortunately doesn’t solve the local economic, social or environmental issues. Although it may lead to convergence, eventually.

Interesting comments, thanks.

a place where people harbor a mysterious secret and behave as if they were still living two hundred years in the past..

..But enough about Essex.