The people of the United States decided long ago that they were better off without London taking decisions for them.

Was that decision an example of tribalism? Or just the common sense choice for your nation?

Mr Goodhart writes from a peculiarly British perspective, but his is a very out of date view. Scotland's 18th century union may serve London well but for decades it has been bad news for Scotland. As part of Britain we have had the lowest long-term economic growth in the EU, with family incomes being squeezed, interest rates higher and wages lower.

And at the same time as Scotland underperforms, similar neighbouring nations like Ireland, Norway and Iceland - all the same size, in the same part of the world and with similar talents and resources - are at the top of world wealth and quality of life league tables. Just last week the UN described Norway as the best place in the world to live, Iceland was second, Ireland fourth. Scotland as part of Britain had fallen 3 places to 18th. That is not good enough for my nation. We no longer want or need London remote control. Instead we want a new more modern relationship with the people of England as two equal nations, partners in much of what we do, but like Ireland, Norway or Iceland, free to prosper.

The readers of this blog in the USA know what it means to be free and able to make your own success. It is time Scotland had that opportunity.

This piece starts well but ends badly.

The author is correct in his analysis that currently the SNP are the more likely winners of the Scottish election next May, and that this is partly due to the continuing failures of devolution to work to significantly and substantially improve the lives of those in Scotland. That's why even die-hard opponents of Scottish Independence such as Michael Fry have now switched positions and are backing self-determination.

Given the current lack of willingness for a real contest for the leadership of the post-Blair British Labour Party within present members of the Cabinet, it may well be that Gordon Brown's inability to secure Labour votes at home may be what forces the hand of the Blairites to enter the contest.

But the article is simply let down by its ending. On current projections, Scotland has a relative surplus of 4.34 billion pounds compared to the UK and an absolute surplus of 1.01 billion pounds - not a bad start for any new country.

Add to this the potiential to grow the economy that full powers will give people in Scotland and it's understandable why the majority view in Scotland's business community is that have more powers will benefit Scots and the Scottish economy.

"To emulate the Irish model, the Scots would probably need to cut public spending by one-third, not a good start to life as an independent nation."

Really? On what basis does the author make that assertion?

With North Sea oil revenues (75-90% in the Scottish area) keeping down the UK's borrowing requirement for the government's fiscal deficit how does it transpire that it is Scotland which would cut public spending?

This is far more complicated than just one parliament declaring independence.

The issues of a common Monarch between England and Scotland are the result of 700 years of wars and intermarriage.

I doubt the current inhabitance of Windsor castle would be willing to give up the Scottish crown and remove the coat of arms of Scotland from their flag.

And if they don't, then they are still one "Kingdom" no matter how much autonomy London gives them, and with that comes some sort of higher authority than they would have under an indpendant state.

Unless they did something along the lines of what Canada and Australia have done.

I found the article interesting. I would think a federal system would take care of this problem, I'd guess the Scottish Parliament doesn't have any real authority then. A UK without Scotland is definitely weaker, whither then Northern Ireland? Would they attempt to hang onto Scotland? What then happens in Wales? At what point do you have negotiations on exactly where the borders would be? Would each section of Scotland have to approve it, or would there be a 'Southern Scotland' attached to England?

What annoys me is the mis-informed suggestion that we want to keep our neighbours from hell!.A few comments you may find interesting: England needs to be recognised and treated as a unified country. Scotland and Wales have been recognised as countries and their people given the opportunity to vote in referenda for devolved government. Scotland now has a parliament, and Wales an assembly. In contrast, the people of England have been denied the opportunity to choose an English Parliament. Instead, England is being dismembered into nine regions. We find this discrimination unacceptable. England should be a political entity with its own parliament and executive.
The immediate abandonment of the Barnett formula. The formula institutionalises discrimination against the people of England by ensuring that public spending in Scotland and Wales is far higher per head of population than in England. The Barnett formula diverts about £8 billion of extra public expenditure to Scotland each year. This means that the entire population of Scotland enjoys a subsidy averaging £30 per person per week. This has meant, for example, smaller class sizes in Scotland, higher pay for teachers, shorter hospital waiting lists, and the availability of prescription drugs and surgical procedures which are unavailable in England on grounds of cost. This unjustified discrimination must end. A new fairer system is needed which enables England's share of the £8 billion to be used to improve public services in England.
Free the English....please vote for independance and take your politicians with you.

David Ford Lane English Democrat

Goodhart misses the point spectacularly when it comes to comparisons between Scotland and Ireland.

Scotland does not have the economic problems which Ireland had until the late 1980s. In running a large relative budget surplus to the UK thanks to strong oil and corporation tax revenues, an independent Scotland could emulate Irish corporate tax cuts without risking a budget deficit.

Of course, as part of the UK, Scotland has fewer powers over her economy than the state of Rhode Island. That's why Ireland is stealing a march on Scotland, and why she will continue to do so for so long as Scotland is shackled to the economic policies deemed most appropriate for the well-being of the City of London.

Is it pedantic to point out that 'England's size' is, well, England's size, regardless of whether Britain remains intact or not? And as for independence meaning 'tribalism', I'm sure people like Goodhart were making the same very arguments when the Baltic States won freedom from the Soviet Union, and when the Austro-Hungarian Empire disintegrated.

Truly, in David Goodhart, the Habsburgs are alive and well, and chattering round a dinner table in Hampstead.

Independence for Scotland wouldn't be "another depressing victory for tribalism." Empires that were assembled at gunpoint/swordpoint (UK, USSR, the Austro-Hungarian empire, Yugoslavia) aren't legitimate and are likely to unravel. If after all this time the Scots don't feel like they got a fair deal from the Brits, we should support their right to self-determination.

I am glad to see England face this SCOTTISH
SYNDROME and to see how Englishman handle it.
No "civilization clash" here, I do not know why Scottich wants to break away from England.
To my best understand, I would like to make a educated guess here, Scotland will still unite with England for at least 50 years. Reason: if they break away, each will fall into the third -rated country. No one wants it.

I am Scottish and am in literally two minds about this.

Interesting discussion; I spent Saturday afternoon in the new Parliament building and was staggered by it and its location.

It is very tempting to see if we can plough our own furrow.

As to Mr Ford Lane's comment about finance for Scotland under the Barnett formula, that's OK, remove it.

We will go our own way and keep our own oil and gas.

We would be as rich as Norway.

Nah, just kidding.

I LIKE the English and do not want a divorce.

Next May I will be voting against independence.

To Irish-American. Scots recieving a raw deal from Brits? I think your getting your labels mixed up. Currently Scots are Brits, just like the English are Brits. It's a common mis-conception that Brits = just the English. It referes to anyone who comes from the British isles. Most of the UK's powerful cabinet positions are controlled by Scottish MP's who weren't voted for and are unaccountable to English voters. Imagine if Canada and the US where unified but Canada called all of the shots from Washington and none of it's Senators where voted for by US citizens, and you get an simplified idea of the current state of play in the UK.
Scotland is welcome to it's independence and the quicker they vote for it the better I believe it will be for the English.

With a Scottish Stuart ancestor on my mother's side, I like nearly all of us have been inundated with Scottish nationalist hero stories from Robert the Bruce, to Bonnie Prince Charlie and William Wallace. The Romans built Hadrian's Wall to keep the barbarous and wild Scots out of Britannia. The Scots are never satisfied and I suspect that if they break away from Britain, they will soon devolve into fighting amongst themselves as they did before the Romans and the English tried to "civilize" them. As with the Quebecois in Canada, the British should divest themselves of these atavistic tribes and move on.

Now the British get to taste their own medicine. Divide and conquer is the tactic. What is next? Hawaiians want to be independent? Time will tell.

"A depressing victory for tribalism"? What rubbish. Scotland has been ill-served by the union with England. In 1707, when the union was formed, we had one third of England's population. Now we have less than one tenth. That says it all.

The United Kingdom was split asunder when:
1. The Scots, Welsh and N. Irish people chose devolution.
2. Lord Barnett arbitrarily decided that, per capita, Scots, Welsh and N. Irish residents should have more money spent on them than on English residents.
3. Scottish MPs at Westminster voted yes to legislation that brought about tuition fees for English university students, Knowing that their counterparts in the Scottish parliament had voted to give Scottish university students a free education.
4. The English NHS deprived English patients of life saving drugs, knowing that these drugs were available to Scottish and Welsh patients.
5. The elderly residents of England were forced to sell their homes in order to pay for social care, for the elderly Scots it was free.
6. When MPs elected to Westminster by Scots voters could vote on purely English matters but had no say in the affairs of their home country and were unaccountable to the English electorate.
There is plenty more where that came from but from this sample alone, who can dare say that there is unity of any kind between the erstwhile constituents of the United Kingdom. I say good luck to the Scots in their bid for independence, they will not be the only country set free.

It's a great piece. I particularly like Goodhart's description, "the moral earnestness of the Scots leavening the famous pragmatism of the English"- who knew such generalities could be substantive.

The 'British Question' has plenty of idiosyncrasies, but if you survey the forest accounting for the vagaries of its trees, it shares remarkable similarities with the tens of dozens of other 'tribal' antagonisms afflicting the old world. Each side has its blood boiling narratives and pride, each is inextricably tied to the other by myriad dual loyalties, mixed blood, shared religions and traditions. To the extent that blunt force political and institutional segregation is the answer to such problems, I wonder if it doesn't bode poorly for the future and the growing global propensity to reduce conflict to perceived ethnic, national and religious differences.

if scotland gained independenc it would be annexed faster than you could say United Kingdom.

UP THE REPUBLIC!

"United Kingdom" indeed. It makes one sick just to pronounce the phrase. Down with all royalty, may they rot good and well.

Several posters (Stephen N in particular) seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that Scotland is somehow oppressed by its neighbor to the south when, if anything, the opposite is true. Scottish MP's routinely vote on purely English affairs and, most eggregiously, the Home Secretary, the man charged with overseeing English law and order, is a Scot. If the Scotish people do decide that they're fed up with English taxpayers subsidizing their public services, I suspect the average Englishman won't loose much sleep over it.

the problem with scotland, is that it's full of scots

the problem with england, it's full of snots

(...and royal bloodsuckers and lackeys of Washington)

5 million population Scotland
5 million population Yorkshire and the Humber

17.4% Scotland's working age population on benefits (556360)

http://193.115.152.21/100pc/wapopg/ccsex/comb/ccgor/a_cnpop_r_ccsex_c_comb_p_ccgor_scotland_may06.html

15.4% of Yorkshire and The Humber on benefits (486450)

http://193.115.152.21/100pc/wapopg/ccsex/comb/ccgor/a_cnpop_r_ccsex_c_comb_p_ccgor_yorkshire_and_the_humber_may06.html

88810 scot's on Jobseekers allowance
87470 yorkshire+humberside on Jobseekers allowance

84850 scots on incapacity benefit
67270 yorkshire+humberside on incapacity benefit

58000 uk civil servants in Scotland
38210 uk civil servants in yorkshire+humberside

£7 billion a year more public expenditure in scotland than in yorkshire+humberside.

This is the main tool for you own answers.
http://193.115.152.21/100pc/tabtool.html

No need to say anymore......

England needs to be freed from the theiving Scots.

The Scots are currently ruling over England, and the English have had enough

Watch this Space !!!!!!!!!

It seems to me that the silly notion of nations has passed. It is probably time to revive the idea of "tribes" or communities of related individuals. Given the capacities of communication and travel, having an additional layer of national governments just leads to power mad demogogs seizing despotic rule of people who have no stake in anything that is done by such folks.

There is no useful purpose in having Scotland, Ireland, or even Wales combined into a "nation" except for those who wish to play the Power game. Cooperation where it works can be easily negotiated between neighbors, forced activities by a National group just breeds resentment and does not contribute to the good of the peoples involved. This idea relates to all of the groupings of the European nations, and the disUnited States would be a much better citizen of the world if its component parts were independent.

The UN could morph into the World Federation with Continent size sub units. Course we would have to destroy all of the war toys, and let the people start anew with axes and spears!

I am an American, and I've got to admit I don't really know what the situation is with you guys in the UK, but I hope that whatever decision is made that it goes through without any violence or nastiness. There's already far too much fighting in the world. People look to the UK as a model for civility and reason.

One interesting note: If Scotland became independent, the UK would no longer be a nuclear power, as all of Britain's nuclear weapons and submarines are north of the border.

My suggestion is to just bring back the England v Scotland football match to settle it.

Goodhart's nauseatingly Scotocentric article is full of the usual simplistic and biased Scottish good / English bad rubbish which we in England have had to put up with over the years . He completely fails to appreciate that most of the English are heartily fed up with our northern neighbours' hectoring , spoilt , racist attitude to us and the absurdly overprivileged status they have in terms of government expenditure and massive political over representation . All this , by the way , at the hands of a Scottish dominated British government which carefully denies England a national parliament along the lines of the Scottish parliament and forces us to put up with a British parliament about which we were never consulted in 1706 - though Scotland was , at length .
A better model might be the 1993 split of Czeckoslovakia when the long tolerant Czecks became terminaly fed up with the endlessly curmudeonly Slovaks and collectively decided to get shot of them .

Much the same mental process is now happening is England . Belatedly , most English are coming to the realisation that it might well be better to be free of Scotland , which would mean a free England . Lets hope the Scots have the guts to do it on 1/05/2007 and don't chicken out .

England will be the freer and better for it and richer too( Scotland will have to shoulder its share of British national debt ) .

Scotland can prosper independently because the European Union envelopes Britain. Law, not might, governs the affairs between peoples in Europe.

Under the tent of the European Union, there is more ethnic self-determination everywhere. The Irish government, for example, was only able to cooperate with London when the European Union guaranteed that law, not coercio, governs the relationships between states. That laid the foundation for ending the terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Likewise the European Union provided groundrules to defuse ethnic conflict and devolution in Spain. Even unitary France is granting regions and peoples more autonomy. Belgium has become a federation between a Walloon and a Flemish state.

There will be few draw backs to Scotland going its own ways. Like Dublin, Edingburgh and Glasgow will move from the British periphery to European centers once Scotland is independent.

As Iraq demonstrates the limits of Anglo military might there is no reason to remain the appendix of England. On the contrary, once Scotland becomes independent, there is a good chance that Dublin and Glasgow will once again become metropolitan hubs.

Independence for Shetland and Orkney! If Faroe gets its own World Cup team, why not them? For far too long the lazybones in Glasgow and Edinburgh have been stealing the right to claim that "England" has been stealing "Scottish" oil revenue. These are Shetland and Orkney revenues and the sooner the Earldom is revived the better.

I recently returned to the US after spending a year in England as a racialized minority. I mostly had negative experiences there. England has tremendous internal social problems regarding race relations; basically, immigrants from the countries formerly colonized are arriving in England en masse, and neither the healthcare nor education systems are capable of handling the challenges. Immigrants are set apart from the mainstream population in cultural enclaves. Perhaps there are cultural reasons the Scots are looking for a divorce from England; from my experiences interacting with English institutions, it is clear to me that England as a society still suffers from the need to promote homogeneity...even more so than where I grew up in the deep South.

Danny boy, there would be no woods or trees to worry about had the European Union not decided that, for the purpose of easier governance, the UK should be divided into 12 regions (Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland were the first 3, stealthily disguised as a means to enhance democracy by de-centralisation). This has exacerbated the problem that you highlighted in your post. Instead of 4 countries getting along, quite nicely, thank you, for the last 300 years there will be 12 "regions" vying for the best deal, causing 3 times the amount of rivalry and jealousy, 12 "Regional" governments scrapping for the crumbs dispensed by central Government who in turn will be scrapping with 28 other EU countries for the crumbs dispensed by the (unelected and unaccountable) EU commission. Please don't even mention the tower of Babel that is the European Parliament, they can't even decide where the seat of European government is to be sited and given that there is only a choice of two, Brussels or Strasburg, it does not bode well for the future.

Patrick, the benefits of the European Union are not about governance but peace in Europe. Just look at what happened to Franco-German and British-Irish relations.

"People look to the UK as a model for civility and reason."

Correction: People in most of the world look to the UK as a model for hundreds of years of brutal, vicious, violent, hateful, fanatical racism, eliminationism, colonialism, and imperialism. People also look to the UK as an example of brain-dead royalism.

Useless royals: Off with their heads!

The article misses the true driver behind this and other nationalist movements in the UK, namely, the chasm between the political classes and ordinary people. Provide devolution, independence, or go the other way and strive for a Euro-state, it makes no difference, because people know deep down that these changes are not implemented for their benefit. Walk around the slums of Edinburgh and ask the people if that shiny new parliament building uptown has improved their lives. The voters are tuning out all politicians; independence is politicians' way trying to get them to tune back in.

It is time for the Londoners and English to realize that wih the birth of EU, the days of United Kingdom-ism is over.

Scotland was reborn when Madam Eccose and Dr Macartney won their seats in the European Parliament. SNP new generation such as Alex and Nicola are the students of those teachers.

If the conservatives join the SNP in Scotland, it will bring a good balance to the SNP policies and strengthen the man power with administration skills to rule the new Scotland. With Alex and Nicola's good chemistry and the rising price of the oil, the dream of Independence is not very far away for Scots. Scotland and Kurdistan will be two new born countries in this decade.

so many comments
if anyone makes it this far down I can assure you that the UK is not on the verge of independence. The bonds are too complicated, there are too many people with roots and loyalties on both sides of the border and it's in the interest of too many people, on both sides of the borders, to stay the same for it to actually happen.
A vote for the SNP is not in practical terms a vote for independence and if there was a referendum on independence it would fail.
I wish British people wouldn't write half baked articles in foreign newspapers that paint a false, and overly dramatic, picture of things.
my twopenny worth

Having lived in England Scotland for several years, I am of the view that Scots will be only be better off if they start to take matters in their own hands by:

1. Cutting public expenditures drastically and devise a investment oriented fiscal policy away from the past.

2. Encourage savings less on consumption.

3. Invest more on R&D and Technical Education.

4. Have a balanced budget and float its currency for first 5 years.

5. Provide basic health care to its citizens.

The above is a very tall order and would be a great challenge to Scots to shape up or take a cut in their standard of living
Taking over some of the National Debt would involve a rancorous debate. In final analysis, the cost of separating would be enormous even with North Sea Oil revenues.
My Scottish friends think before you take the jump!

I hope the Scots do become independent, and show other English-speaking countries the proper way to unwind. Specifically, the United States. I would welcome the disengagement of forward-looking American regions from the "beknighted" (as in Knights of the Ku Klux Klan) sections of Midwestern Jebusland and South Redneckonia. If my beloved city of San Francisco could only set itself up as an idependent city-state, or the cultural capital of the West Coast nation of Ecotopia, my wife and I could return from our political exile in Australia. And don't get me started on what the Aussies should do with those daft Queenslanders!

In the age of the internet, and vast numbers of cable channels, marketers often talk about targeting micro markets. By analogy and perhaps an unanticipated consequence, micro nations are also emerging.

The elements of nationhood like shared identity, common laws, security, and economic policy are either easily facilitated by technology or easily borrowed from one's neighboring country.

In addition the global economy is providing such a degree of interdependence, it's relatively easy for a want to be nation to solidify on top of it. If nothing else establishing a nation is like establishing a micro brand symbolizing unique characteristics and creating economic opportunity for its owners.

The sun has set on nations as we know them.

Perhaps it is time that the USA gets involved in this devolution fad. My question is how far back do we have to go when we start over as individual cultures?
I mean I have Scottish (Dudley,Gordon) English (Gates) and Norwegian ancestry. Am I offed or do I get to choose?
"The hammer of the gods Will drive our ships to new lands"
Will we have to recombine Pict DNA? I'd bet we'd find enough of it in the Isles despite noone wanting to admit to it. Neanderthal DNA? Now there is a clear case of genocide we never owned up to. Well, maybe Douglas Adams did it for us.
"To fight the horde, singing and crying:
Valhalla, I am coming!"
I am all for it!
"How soft your fields so green"
Who needs inclusion anyway.

I have been very troubled by social conditions in the UK, where life is assuming an Orwellian/Bradburian shape. Do the Scots plan to roll back the pervasive presence of The State in their lives, should they break with England? I hope so.

-drl

I love the photo of Mr. Goodhart. He looks like he's puckering up to kiss the Queen's wrinkled old arse.

For the friends of the Olde Enemy,
How many wars did Scottish blood and courage win for the English? You would never have had an empire without us. I for one will be setting alight a Butcher's Apron (aka, The Union Jack)in May.

Scotland Forever!!!!

KJ5 opines "How many wars did Scottish blood and courage win for the English? You would never have had an empire without us".

The answer is "none", the overwhelming majority, 92%, of the Army is English, the lowest ratio it has ever been is 89% English. The Scots like most of England's psuedo-celtic neighbours are imbued with a passion for victinhood and a propensity for never letting the truth get in the way of misrepresenting history.

The dependency culture and victim paradigm of Scotland is only matched by their ability to self publicise. England would be well rid of Scotland and its over reliance on English taxpayers and access to our markets, cut from the coat-tails of English enterprise the heavily subsidised Scots would then find their true level amongst the worlds economies, (nowhere to be seen) as a Disneyesque theme park where American tourists can see a nation balance a giant chip on each shoulder. The Scots economy is reliant on public (ie English taxpayers) expenditure as now 1 in 4 Scots are employed by the state, hardly the profile of a dynamic nation, it has ever been the case. If parochialism, envy, ingratitude and bitterness were national commodities then truly the Scottish would be a wealthy nation.

"The Scots economy is reliant on public (ie English taxpayers) expenditure as now 1 in 4 Scots are employed by the state, hardly the profile of a dynamic nation, it has ever been the case. If parochialism, envy, ingratitude and bitterness were national commodities then truly the Scottish would be a wealthy nation."

So what you're saying is that Scotland has a poor economy? I agree. That's why I support independence. And you sound pretty bitter yourself, as do many of your English compatriots in this thread. Indeed, I am tempted to go so far as to describe you all as "whingeing." Now where have I heard that word before?

To refute a few of the points you make :

"it has ever been the case." Nope. In fact, Scotland was the motor of the industrial revolution. Its economic woes are of recent vintage.

As for the excess public expenditure, it is more than made up for by oil and gas revenue you steal. I love you English. You take all the money from our oil and gas, throw a few coins back to us on public expenditure, then whinge about how we get a little more public expenditure than you do.

And the Barnett formula was originally proportionate to population. It only became slightly disproportionate in Scotland's favour because Scotland's population size, relative to the rest of the UK, continued to decline - this decline being a consequence of the poor economy which, in turn, is a consequence of our membership of the United Kingdom.

It is not just the SNP who supports Scottish Independence. The organisation which I am Secretary of,- The Scottish Independence Convention, is an all party/non party umbrella group formed to advance the cause of Scottish independence, and to promote the case for independence within Scotland and beyond.
Our Chairman is Murray Ritchie, a much respected former Political Editor of the Herald newspaper.
We provide a forum in which people, parties and organisations in and beyond Scotland can cooperate in advancing this cause;
We believe Scotland as a nation is entitled to self-determination and to become an independent state when the people of Scotland vote for it by a simple majority in a referendum.
The problem we have is that our supine media for the most part will only promote the case for the union. Had they supported independence we would have been independent now. But things are changing and more and more are beginning to realise that independence is now a distinct reality.
Check out our website www.scottishindependenceconvention.com

Yockel, me ole son, Under the iron fist of communism, in the form of Tito, Jugoslavia was a united collective of diverse ethnicity and religion, no one can forget what happened on the death of both communism and Tito. In our part of Europe (ever increasing in size) relations between, the erstwhile warring factions of, Britain, France and Germany since the 2nd WW have been cool but cordial which has developed naturally. Now the powers that be, seek to force unity on a collective of diverse ethnicity and religion, left to our own devices I think that relations would have naturally developed to be more than cool and cordial, I hate to think what would happen should there be a collapse in world economy or worse still a global environmental castastrophe. the rush for the door would make WW2 and Jugoslavia seem a picnic.

If some of these more recent posts are anything to go by it will be a messy divorce! As for squabbling over what's left of the oil and gas, if Scotland were to actually become independent the original maritime borders would surely have to be re-instated. They were ofcourse moved for the benefit of the Scots nationalists some years ago. According to international convention much of the oil and gas reserves therefore rightfully belong to England.

I would love to see the Scots vote SNP but I can't help thinking that the 51% figure is no more than 'talk' and when it comes to the crunch they simply won't have the nerve. I hope I'm wrong.

The Union has served a purpose. We should be grown up enough to take the stabilisers off now.

For the information of our American friends, Scotland is an ancient nation which was pressganged into the union of 1707. Its not an equal union as Scotland with 8.6% of the total UK population is very much the junior partner. For example: Scotlands economy suffers when Interest rates are increased to prevent overheating in the SE of England.

Also it should be noted that Scotland with 8.6% 0f the UK Population actually contributes 10.41% of all UK Government Taxes and revenues. In effect Scotland actually subsidises the rest of the UK. This is the main reason the British Government are resisting the growing demand for Independence.

Independence would actually free Scotlands entrepreneurs, businessmen, artists and creative people to build up a dynamic, vibrant and forward looking economy, which like Norway can offer the best of public service to her people. Something that cannot take place while the dead boot of Westminster rests upon Scotlands neck.

Airson Alba!
Yours for Scotland.
Niall.

" How many wars did Scottish blood and courage win for the English? You would never have had an empire without us. - - - -
Scotland Forever!!!! "

This is the sort of over puffed , factually wrong , endlessly resentful drivellings from the pamapered parasites north of the border which we English have had to put up with all these years .

The answer to your question KG7 is NONE .British armies , navy's etc were always predominantly English -and more than proportionately so for countries of the UK .
They still are . Scotland's always numerically minor contribution is likely to get more minor still - particularly given the rapid decline in Scotland's population ( assuming the UK continues that is )

By the way , contrary to Scotland's view of history , England was invaded much more often by the Scots than the other way around . And they nearly always got thrashed . eg Flodden 1513 .

Time for England to be rid of the professional victims .

England Forever ! .

John Lease asks "At what point do you have negotiations on exactly where the borders would be?" Answer, the border between Scotland and England already exists. For hundreds of years, Scottish law has applied on one side of this border, and English law on the other. Since this is one of the clearest and least disputed boundaries anywhere in the world, there would be nothing much to "negotiate" about. "Would each section of Scotland have to approve it, or would there be a 'Southern Scotland' attached to England?" - Answer, the South of Scotland is intensely patriotic. Every part of Scotland will vote unambiguously for independence. You are making the mistake of thinking that the Irish precedent is relevant. It isn't. There are no "Six Counties" in Scotland, nor five, nor four, no, not even one, which would choose to remain with England when the rest of Scotland becomes independent.
Will Smih says "Independence for Shetland and Orkney!" - but they don't want this, they just want a substantial degree of autonomy within Scotland. When a referendum is, at long last, held on independence for Scotland, the majority of Orcadians and the majority of Shetlanders will vote in favour, the same as the majority of Scots as a whole.

Isnt it funny that the English posters on here always go on about Scotland splitting up...well I say to you...all areas voted for devolution so all areas would vote for independence...If your country (England) is going to be split into regions..then that is up to you...we in Scotland don't particularly care what England decided to do to themselves..... as for the barnett formula where the English Democrat party want it scrapped...you dont want it scrapped more than us Scots..we want independence and anyone who says we should have a federal system...No it would be the same thing as now - no change and no chance.
While I am on...Can any of our American cousins please right to your congress/senate and complain about the US consul in Scotland making political speaches condemning the independence movement in Scotland.
Thx.

As a nationalist I believe (and hope with all my heart) that we can indeed take back our nation in May. The fact is that this would be a benefit for both Scotland and England - both would be free of their 'ever-whinging neighbour'.

From a Scottish point of view (well I am Scottish) we would retain our oil and also be free to create positive social conditions focussed on Scotland rather than the south east of England. We would also be able to opt out of illegal, unnecessary wars. I also believe it would give England a new lease of life and they could finally find their national identity - at present that seems to be defined by wearing an English football strip.

Many of the English posters on this forum argue that they are run by Scottish MPs. I think you would have to stretch your imagination a long way to find a Scot who defends the Union and Britishness with as much vigour as Gordon Brown (apart from perhaps a few Rangers fans). And Tony Blair, Scottish, don't make me laugh.

The simple fact is that Scottish independence is going to happen, like it or not. No party stays in power forever, and when Labour have had their day at Holyrood the SNP are the natural successors - Scotland has traditionally been a left-wing country and the SNP are the only major left of centre party still in existence, despite what Labour councillors would have us believe. It could be next May, it may not be for another 10 years but it is going to happen. As mentioned, one poll noted that 51% supported independence. But this poll had other interesting points to make:

1. 10% were undecided, so 51% was the very minimum
2. Huge chunks of the other parties' voters (even the Tories) supported independence

As an active member of the SNP, I always despair when I read my fellow nationalists falling into the trap of believing that we have somehow been hard done by by the English - I would argue that the vast majority of the English establishment (bar the likes of Samuel Johnson) , from 1707 on, has done a very good job of accomodating us, and making the best use of our people. Anytime when we have had a raw deal out of the union, there have been Scots standing alongside these so-called English oppressors.

Scotland's problems compared to Englands are purely demographic - 5 million people up here are always, always going to be of less import to a British government than the 25-30 million living in the South East of England. We do badly because we are a remote satellite state, not because there is considerable English ill-will towards us. Those who try to say otherwise do the movement a great disservice.

Some Scots have, and will continue to get a good deal out of the union - the problem is that very few Scots in fact do today. While it may be a force for good for all the 'Scottish Raj' media commmentators, (Wark, Marr et al) the union, and its resultant demographic problems, do not benefit the vast amjority of Scots.

And finally - what to fear of an independent Scotland, freed from its remote orbit round the London axis, able to turn itself to face the world, knowing that it may not be able to tip the balance in Iraq, but that it could make its positive contributions similar to those of Norway, which consistently 'punches above its weight' internationally with its leading positions on the Israeli-Palestinian and Sri-Lankan conflicts? Freed from the burden of power politics, Scots could go on and fill positions in international organisations that will more than compensate for any loss of a seat on the out of date UNSC.

Just a few notes about this supposed preponderance of English people in the UK's armed forces. You may be right, which makes the use of Scots as cannon fodder all the more disgraceful.

A few examples; Scotland has under 9% of the UK's population, but 18 of the first 100 (that's 18% in case you don't understand) UK personnel killed in Iraq since the 2003 invasion were Scots. During the First World War no European country lost a higher proportion of its population than Scotland, except for Turkey. In Turkey's case it was disease which carried them off, for the Scots it was ordnance.

in 1759 General James Wolfe died while capturing Quebec. He famously remarked of his Highland troops "They were hearty, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country and no great mischief if they fall." From before that day to beyond this one that has been and will remain the attitude of the UK's leaders to their Scottish troops; no great mischief if they fall, i.e. expendable.

A lot of the article seemed aimed at the pesky Scots going all tribal and breaking up England oh sorry Brtain the best superstate the world has ever seen, yeh right. Read the amount of comments from the English up above, a lot of them do not want Scotland either, but I don't see them being branded small minded or tribal.

The day that Scotland achieves its independence is coming fast, maybe America should remember its struggle in gaining independence and the important part that Scots played in that. An independent Scotland will be open for trade and relations with America, might be an idea for America to stay out of this debate and let it happen itself. The land of the free sounds nice, but does not fit America well if it is influencing things to Englands benefit.

Bring on the republic.

Bill Conor - you are full of it. The only referendum on "regionalisation" was held in the North East of England arranged by that bufoon Prescott (Welsh), he thought that because it was the Labour heartland he would get the required "Yes" vote, when the resounding "no" was returned he and the pseudo Scots Parliament in Westminster completely ignored it and went full steam ahead anyway. All we in the English Democrats Party are asking for is a referendum throughout England, this is surely our democratic right, you had a choice about your future, as did Wales and Northern Ireland. England was afforded no such curtesy, we fight on.

If Scotland votes in the SNP next May 2007, then the people will have decided that the Union of Scotland and England should come to an end. It will be the countries invaluable right to do so. As its pointed out, it will be ironic that this would come on exactly 300 years since the act of Union that unified the parliaments of the Kingdom of Scotland to the Kingdom of England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain (the crown was already unified about 100 years previously). It was evident from day one, that the union was slanted towards England, anyone who has read the 1707 treaty, can see this. At the time it was unpopular with the Scottish population, but with corruption rife in the political and noble classes, it was a done deal. 300 years later we have the pro Unionist politicians promoting the lie that is the UK, espousing that Scotland is better off, that Scotland gets more than it puts into the UK treasury, ignoring the fact that Scotland actually contribute more through taxes and the oil wealth, than it actually gets, a fact that's often denied but cannot be ignored. It's a shame that David Goodhart gave away his English right wing credentials at the end of his piece. He should have pointed out that in the event that the union is dissolved, politicians like Gordon Brown, Dr John Reid and the current speaker of the House of Commons would no longer be MPs in England. Also David Goodhart failed to state that if Scotland dissolved the union there would be no United Kingdom, but a Kingdom of Scotland and a Kingdom of England, just as it was before 1707. I, for one hope that Scotland will make the right decision (with