thorbotnic

There's no reason why the Scottish Parliament couldn't pass an act tomorrow declaring independence. It wouldn't have any effect without Westminster recognising it, though. Edit: Menschlich beat me to it.

As an example, France has regions which are 'culturally' more or less arbitrary in most cases (but not in all cases, cf Brittany) but all of which have the same powers. There doesn't need to be a strong sense of connection between the people in a region for it to have political legitimacy, as long as what is focussed on is the practical, technocratic element.

As long as we attached the need for identity to regional government (either devolved or federal) it's not going to work - certain regions of England have a fairly strong, fairly cohesive sense of collective identity (mainly in the North - Northumbria, Yorkshire) but others don't, and if the creation of a regional authority of some stripe needs this identity to be present - well, it simply won't last. Instead, we need to recognise that it is in the interests of more effective and accountable government to have power exercised more closely to the people who it effects - it's a practical necessity to improve English government. As it operates at the moment, there are virtually no provisions for regional flexibility in terms of spending priorities - even though, as is obvious, NE England has totally different priorities from SE England, as an example - and those who divvy up the funds are utterly divorced from the consequences, good or bad, of their decisions. The regions themselves are already more-or-less defined (as per EU elections etc).

Also: having devolution / federalism based on regions of England is the only way the UK can possibly survive in the long run, anyway. Any other proposition either means turning Scottish / Welsh / NI / London MPs into second-class members (and therefore meaning no UK Prime Minister could come from those countries, practically speaking) or having the ridiculous situation of a separate English parliament which legislates for 86% of the UK population.

Prescott wasn't really supported by the rest of the Labour party leadership at the time - the whole thing was treated as the patronising joke it was. We English need to get past the ridiculous idea that regional government makes us less English, or represents our country being cut up - it's just about having more efficient government. We could reduce the number of MPs by 200 or more if we had proper regional devolution, too (if it's the number of politicians that's troubling you). Our politicians have a (deserved) bad rep because our political system is corrupt - we do not get the parliament we vote for, ever. It's not guaranteed but having public services controlled from a government which is much closer to the electorate can only be a good thing.

What we were offered was crap, though - the powers the regional assembly would've had were to be taken from local authorities and passed up, not taken from central government and passed down. And that was 10 years ago... a long time in politics. Some on here are arguing for a new independence referendum within 5 years!

I don't understand English resistance to regional devolution. Any other European state of England's size has regional and local devolution - or, even better, full-fledged federalism - instead, we have a ridiculously centralised and out of touch government. The Westminster powers love to peddle this myth that more politicans = just an extra layer of government chat, but when power is exercised close to the people it affects there are far more opportunities to keep politicians in check and hold them to account: we'd get better politicians, or at least be able to control them better. Westminster under FPTP is as far removed from the electorate as it's possible to be and still claim to be a democratic institution, as far as I'm concerned.

It's very early days but I'd love to see Yorkshire First and North East Party representation there too. They'd benefit massively from SNP / PC support and expertise.

I see. That might work well. I'd prefer to see a pan-UK anti-UK party, though - show that the various nationalist groups can seek out support from across the UK (and also show that the ties that bind us would continue on a fraternal basis post UK breakup)

How short-term? 15 years; perhaps longer? Between parties that, other than on this one matter, have a quite different set of policies?

These aren't single-issue parties, though. Supporting independence is only one part of their ideology... other than that, they're separate parties for a reason.

I can see England, Wales or NI having a strong argument should they vote one way in a referendum and the rest of the UK vote the other, but Scotland is the only nation which has actively confirmed it wants to be a part of the UK. Not getting the preferred Scottish result all the time in UK-wide votes is an inevitable part of what you have chosen.

This is basically the main reason the Bloc Quebecois was created - to complement the Parti Quebecois in Canadian federal elections, and to be outward-looking with the other provinces of Canada. I think it's a great idea for the SNP or a new spin-off party.

Which makes sense... but people are still lumping on No?!

Why would anyone even be betting on No - it's just a terrible value bet in a two-outcome situation. Don't understand it at all.

Just got 11.5 on betfair for Yes. Makes no sense

Unionists, the lot of them!

53 No - 47 Yes. Though I backed Yes 60%+ at stupid odds... So keep pushing!

For who?

This is the Standard one: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-independence-all-to-play-for-as-exclusive-poll-reveals-six-point-lead-for-no-campaign-9740413.html

Good luck Scotland, I hope you make the brave choice and show us how it's done.

And it won't be.

Spain would only have to recall its fishing fleets, and EU students (not that there's many of them any more) and economic migrants would only have to leave if Scotland chose to restrict freedom of movement of EU citizens and enforce regulations over fishing grounds in its waters. You see, Scotland would be able to do those things, or not, as a sovereign state outside the EU. Not as a sovereign state inside the EU, though, obviously. I imagine that for the period that Scotland is outside the EU it will apply EU law unilaterally to avoid any problems.

No, they will still be EU citizens because they will still be UK citizens. As will the vast majority of Scots, if there are no restrictions put on dual nationality. However, the state of Scotland, as a new state, will not automatically be an EU member state. EU citizenship is based on citizenship of an EU member state - there is no other route. It's basically an auxiliary citizenship, which is always secondary to and a product of your national citizenship. I actually agree with him - I think that Scotland will be able to join without too many problems. However, I don't agree with the SG's legal reasoning that they will be able to acquire membership through the principle of continuity of effect - rather, Scotland will have to make a whole new application. This will be granted, absolutely, but not by March 2016 - it's just not possible. There is just too much politics - bearing in mind that this is an entirely new situation for the EU to deal with - for the EU to deal with it within 18 months.

Like I said, nobody's kicking anybody out. You're leaving, of your own accord.