´óÏó´«Ã½

The main reason behind this seems to be principally the devolution of Scotland and the introduction of the Scottish Parliament many of whose members also vote on English matters AGAINST what they voted for Scotland. So, we, the English, have to accept what even the Scottish MPs see as a poor choice and we so have no other option than to have our own parliament where we could vote ourselves the same benefits as the Scots (and Welsh).

Of course for Labour the issue is that they can scarcely hope to win any general election without Scotland and Wales - but they freed the goose that laid their golden eggs and now we all want the same opportunities.

This government has meddled with so many elements of government that have served us well for many years, if not always happily. What survived centuries before this government came to power has been destroyed in 10 years. It's so sad.

I am SO tired of Scots telling me I do NOT need an English parliament. Blair said it, unelected Falconer said it, and ALL the Scottish members of the cabinet said it. July 1988 and Gordon Brown signs the Scottish Constitutional Convention's Claim of Right (which is, most definitely, nationalistic and an unequivocal assertion of Scotland's permanence as a nation):

"We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."
When Gordon Brown and his Scottish socialist buddies achieved devolution for Scotland they also, quite wilfully and with complete disregard for England, created a democratic deficit that allowed them to vote on English matters but forbade English members from voting on the concomitant Scottish matters. So what we now have is a union between two nations in which the Scottish electorate foists foreign MPs upon the English electorate. The Scottish electorate elect MPs like Gordon Brown to represent them on reserved matters at Westminster knowing full well that he will meddle in English health, education and transport - devolved areas over which he has no democratic mandate in England and no authority in Scotland.

We English just need equal treatment, no more and no less.

Gordon Brown ( without mandate!) as a probable UK Prime Minister?with his constituency in Scotland & the existing electoral bribe for Scotland to support Labours credentials at England's expense!!........enough is too much!

MPs representing Scottish constituencies voting on English only matters known as the "West Lothian Question" needs urgent attention... it is undemocratic & obviously does not sit well with the English(savvy) electorate who are also very aware of these inequalities with the enhanced payments per capita .

Of course the Union should end. However, the peoples of England and Scotland need to see through the largely negative political rhetoric and embrace this change with a handshake.

The Union is simply not an arrangement that can, actually, work. The past thirty years have clearly demonstrated anything but proper democratic representation on both sides of the border. After Scottish devolution, the English themselves are now getting to grips with fudged 'UK' representation, on the back of the West Lothian question.

There should undoubtedly be an English parliament - but pursuing this would again demonstrate that federalism in itself wont work. It would not stop cross-border meddling, and in itself lead to the break-up of the UK.

In particular - Scottish Labour's campaign is nothing short of shameful. Any party that claims to be acting in the interest of her own people whilst actively generating as much fear as possible in order to steer people away from independence has my full contempt.

Thus far, we can expect an attack by Al Qaeda on Scottish soil, family ties to England apparently dissolving - and, astonishingly, an all out 'Balkans' type scenario.

The latter is a disgraceful statement - one which Mr.Brown seems to wield and reiterate quite happily.

Rather than debating this change in a thoroughly negative manner, on the back of reprehensible political scaremongering, perhaps we can ponder getting along as free nations, neighbours, and enjoy proper and democratic representation?

The Union is finished.
Blair and co-conspiritor Falconer started the breakup for selfish, short term political gain. There is no going back. The only way forward is the creation of an English Parliament. To do nothing will see English resentment turn into anger.
New Labour, true to form, failed to think through the consequences of their devolution policy.
Blairs legacy will be the break up of the United Kingdom and the Iraq War. Some legacy!
The Labour government should hang their heads in shame

Gerald Cox
Somerset
England

I will be watching this with great interest. I also do not think there will be a United Kingdom, flying the Union Jack in ten years time and more the pity for the Scots.

The newsnight poll is irrelevant
how can you take a poll in scotland of under 600 people and think this represents anything,and under 1000people in england
I work with a lot of english friends,
and I find it difficult to explain to them why Scottish MPs can vote on english matters
it is a difficult situation in different parts of the UK.
When they had a vote on devolution in the Tyne area ,it was an overwhelming No.
There should be a seperate referendum in each of the four countrys making up the uk.
The question should be straightforward
Do you want independence from the UK
Yes or No
Then the politicians ,who are elected by the people should do what the people want

This debate is not about a contest between the English and the Scots. Nor is it about England and Scotland. Both countries benefit from people of many geographical and ethnic backgrounds.

It is about whether the Union, forged in another age and for long obsolete needs, meets the requirements of today.

With the successful small nations of the developed world showing the way in innovation, flexibility and adaptability it is clear that Scotland would benefit from the ending of the union. The assets-driven debate (oil et al) is a red herring as natural-asset-poor countries like Ireland and Switzerland demonstrate that being rich in skills is the key to prosperity in the modern world. And Scotland passes that test with flying colours.

The economic growth rate of Scotland lags that of the UK by a significant margin so we know the union ain't working on that test.

But would the ending of the bi-partisan union between England and Scotland and the move to a shared union through both being members of the much larger EU benefit England?

Certainly England would lose a surly lodger and should gain a friendly neighbour. The social union would foster good relationships. It would also allow England to focus on its own needs and end the "we subsidise you .. oh no you don't" pantomime that is unhelpful political "debate".

Then too England can, for example, tackle her own economic needs by setting interest rates which meet their needs (raise them) without fear of the adverse affect in Scotland where the rises are not needed.

The real barrier to objective discussion is career-driven Labour politicians from Scotland who have made their lives in London.

I have empathy with the people from England who feel upset at Scottish MP's voting on basically English matters; however as this programme is highlighting (whether it realises it or not) for the 300 years we have sufferd the "Union" the boot has been on the other foor; English MP's have voted on all things that have had an effect on the lives of Scots in Scotland!! Now you know what it feels like. Can I also point out that English MP's still vote on matters effecting Scots; that is all the matters that are reserved at Westminster.

Can we also just lay another wee myth to bed please ENGLAND DOES NOT SUBSIDISE SCOTLAND; we put more overall into the pot than England does and we get less back, that is the bottom line so please do not be confused over this.

Finally I can't wait for the opportunity to live in an independent Scotland; it is the right of every nation to self determination. The peoples of Scotland were denied the right to a referendum and be part of the decision making process 300 years ago; the Unionist parties are still denying us that right because they don't want to lose their jobs and it will be the final nail in their less than impressive political careers. I say bring it on the sooner the better and good luck to the English and Welsh in their quests for self determination.

Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.

But pith and power,till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold,
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

Robert Burns

All we seem to be getting from Labour at the moment is 'you're not good enough to make it on your own'.

Clearly an awe inspiring message message for any nation. It certainly inspires me to support independence so at least we don't have to put up with this ridiculous drivel.

It gets folks backs up and simply increases cross-border animosity.

Of course we can manage on our own and I am convinced it will improve relations between Scots and English folk since we will be taking a responsibility for our own future.

Not only have we put up with English MP'S voting on Scottish matters for 300 years, we have also been used as the grovenment testing ground - The Poll Tax was in force here 1 year before eslewhere!
Also if we do have two separtate nations then England can take back it's nuclear weapons! Scotland does not want or need them Scot's are welcomed everywhere in the world, we would not enter into wars so easily as English Governments do !

Of course it's time for Scotland and England to go our own ways. For too long the people of Scotland have had to live with being told we are, uniquely, too wee, too stupid and too poor to go it alone. However that is not the worst part. The people who reiterate this rubbish are themselves Scots, well by birth anyway. Scotland and England can be a great combination but only as neighbours, with both countries having their own say on matters in their own country. What is wrong with that? Why do psuedo scots such as Brown, Reid and Alexander fear Independence? Could it possibly be that they are putting their own narrow career prospects before the benefit of their own people? Heaven forfend! Scotland do not deserve to have to put up with this parcel of rogues but neither do the good people of England. Let's vote on Independence and then we can both move forward from there.

James Dornan
Glasgow

As a Scot of Irish descent I doubt any of my ancestors Scots or Irish
would see any cause for celebration of 300 years of English rule in a most unequal partnership.

The problem with this debate is that it is too simplistic. It's always presented as a simple choice between union and independence. The fact that there are vast differences - cultural, social, political - between all the nations of the UK isn't really the point either.
In reality the ballot paper for a referendum on the UK's future would have a multitude of questions. There are those who want Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU; there are those who want neither; and then again there are those who want one or otherbut not both!
There are those who want republics and those who prefer monarchy. There are those who like secular democracies and those whose stated aim is theocracy. And there are those who push for devolution (even within a devolved Scotland)and those who seek to centralise.
So let's have a debate but let it be a mature grown-up one that recognises the real complexities of the issue. One size does not fit all and a simple yes/no vote will never resolve the issues.
P.S. if Kirsty Wark really wants to use music to highlight the cultural differences between Scotland and Engaldn she should have looked at the vast scope of Scottish traditional music rather than some here today, gone tomorrow pop culture.

Could you ask one of the "pop star" panelists tonight what their thoughts are in light of the recent survey that shows the majority of young people are actually in favour of the union?

I always thought young people were suppose to be pro-independence and anti-establishment. Is it because they have more faith in one of their MySpace friends than a Scottish politician?

Jean

It is slightly strange to read such acerbic comments on "ending-the-union"... While I can understand that people feel strongly about Labour's negative campaigning in Scotland, I find this you're-either-with-us-or-you're-independent talk rather off-putting. Does the concept of a federal state scare people that much? The example of Switzerland is given in a comment above without even acknowledging that part of its success stems from its federal structure. Newsnights' report last week, like the current survey and many other polls down the years, seemed to suggest that the percentage in favour of outright independence dropped sharply when an option to increase in devolved/federal decision-making was introduced. Like comment #16 above, it is just not that simple.

Lothian Question: If my memory serves me right, the Lothian Question mainly concerns the areas of decision-making that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament but are still decided at Westminster for the rest of the UK, thus allowing Scottish MPs to influence policy decisions which have no bearing on their constituencies but affect everyone else. That is different from a majority decision on a national policy taken by a nationally elected parliament which affects everyone in the UK: the notion of English MPs voting on 'Scottish matters' is at best misleading, given that these were not Scottish policies that were being voted on by English MPs but national, UK-wide policies that were being voted on by all MPs no matter where their constituencies lay. Whether and/or how these policies took regional social/economic/cultural disparities into account is another matter all together: it is a question of federal vs. centralised legislatures and not one of English MPs vs Scottish interests.

Federalism: Instead of independence-aye-or-nay, shouldn't the debate be about which areas of decision-making are best decided on a regional/federal level and which on a national/central level? For example, while it makes enough sense that most education/health/policing issues are dealt with at federal level, is immigrating to Scotland really all that different from immigrating to the UK? Does Scotland want run its own armed forces, with all the training and equipment costs that that implies, or does it merely want a say in the deployment/structure of its regiments? Does Scotland want to join the Euro and ECB interest rates, given the transaction costs for anyone doing business with it and given the fact that the Scottish economy/inflation is much more in sync with the rest of the UK than it is with the Eurozone? And so on...

Referendum: A decision for or against greater autonomy/federalism and/or independence should be based on what is best for Scotland/UK now and in the future and not on events of 200, 100, 50 or even 10 years ago.

PS.: On the economic topic, could we have some data on who actually pays for what? It seems odd that one comment suggests that Scotland's economic growth is slower and the next one implying that its people are net-contributors to the union.

I think it's a shame that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has engaged it's own 'poll' ahead of this very interesting debate...

...inasmuch as we should not lose sight of the fact that broader, perhaps more judicious polls have already taken place which demonstrate a consistency of thought with regards Scottish independence.

For example, the ICM research on behalf of the Sunday Telegraph. 'Should Scotland become and independent country?'

England:
Yes - 59%
No - 28%
Scotland:
Yes - 52%
No - 35%

'Should England become independent of Scotland, Wales & NI?'

England:
Yes - 48%
No - 43%
Scotland:
Yes - 45%
No - 38%

There are of course others - via the Scotsman [51% of Scots for independence], the yougov Sunday Times results [44% of Scots for - next to 42% against].

This is without touching on polls specifically commissioned by the SNP etc, which are very much in line with these remarkable figures.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ poll seems somewhat rushed - a tad trivial - and I'm not entirely convinced at their peculiar findings.

Please don't dupe viewers or contort these findings by making your own the foundation of the show, at the very least.

If these questions were put to Scots and English alike tomorrow...well...I don't think it'd reflect the ´óÏó´«Ã½s to any great extent - in favour or not.

Looking forward to the debate.

One of the key factors in the Scottish Parliament ratifying the Union those 300 years ago was quite simply that Scotland was all but bankrupt. This was courtesy of the failed attempt to emulate their European neighbours, both near and far, and establish overseas colonies. The Scottish Darien Project in what is now known as Panama, was an unmitigated disaster.

As for the repeated complaints about the English domination, of course it is so easy to forget that the raiding south of the border was an ongoing problem for much of Northern England, hence the Peel Towers and fortified cemeteries for goodness sake. Why the latter, because the medical schools of Edinburgh were supplied by raiding English graves. Perhaps this causes a chuckle north of the border, but is in reality a desparate insult.

But break up of the Union, well that's been on the cards since the UK joined the EU, or EC as it was. The real problem is acheiving a sensible balance. The question goes well beyond the aspirations of the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the (Northern) Irish. I understand that the folk of Orkney have already expressed a desire to be no part of a "Greater" Scotland in the event of devolution.

Will such a break up be conducted in a rational evenhanded manner by the different communites? I am sceptical about that bearing in mind several occassions when I have been berated by Scots about how the English should be booted out of Scotland. Scotland for the Scots was the recurring refrain. Fine said I, but that should be recipricated. Ironic also because all the these occassions happened in England.

Th sake

Asked why MPs of non-English constituencies have been used to push through reforms which only affect England; Blair had this to say:

"Well I'm not sure about that if you look at all the different reforms"

Mr Blair, please answer the question; and bear in mind that trying to sweep English fee paying students under the carpet will not make them go away.

Asked why MPs of non-English constituencies have been used to push through reforms which only affect England; Blair had this to say:

"Well I'm not sure about that if you look at all the different reforms"

Mr Blair, please answer the question; and bear in mind that trying to sweep English fee paying students under the carpet will not make them go away.

Asked why MPs of non-English constituencies have been used to push through reforms which only affect England; Blair had this to say:

"Well I'm not sure about that if you look at all the different reforms"

Mr Blair, please answer the question; and bear in mind that trying to sweep English fee paying students under the carpet will not make them go away.

Please bear in mind that this has always been an unequal union, spawned out of desparation by most of the main parties. For years English MPs voted on Scottish matters in a way in which Scottish interests were very much down the pecking order and so very poorly managed. Scotland has always paid more into the union than comes back despite the myths to the contrary. Why England now complains when the boot appears on the other foot beats me and Scottish MPs have NO SAY in Holyrood which is MSPs only!And English MPs still vote on Scottish things which are NOT devolved. So it's time for Independence.

The English have lost their identity in mistakenly believing that they must take on aspects of every non-English country they absorbed. The Victorians knew who they were and did great things at home and abroad. It would be the best thing possible not only to divest ourselves of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales but the Commonwealth as well. We could then re-define ourselves and find other forms of greatness.

The united Kingdom?
A union between two Countries, a Principality and a Province!. Long past it's sell by date. It is now of little benefit to any of the members. As a Scot who recognises that we are the drugs capital of Europe, With death from heart disease worse than several third world countries. A nation who have become accustomed to handouts without ever questioning whether we can do better for our selves. when interest rates are set by the bank of England to support the economy of the south east of England irrespective of the consequences to Scotland. It is time! Time to stand on your own two feet. Time to take responsibility for your actions. Time to be glad that you are proud to be a country again.

Sorry Mr.Birch

While I take your point about change post-EC, please do take some time out to study the Darien affair in some detail. You'll note the political tensions at the time, and the *absolute resolve* of the English powers that be, that no aid/help of any kind should ever meet the colonists as they starved and died under a hot sun. Why? To help force union. There are those of us who'll note that historical fact.

I'd also add that the power of people - then - was limited to those 0.05% in power. The union was hardly backed by the people of Scotland, bankrupt or no.

In any case, I'd imagine we should leave history where it belongs, in the past. My concern, as far as domination of one country over another is concerned, is the inescapable 'future' consideration that the current powers in England - be they Scots, Welsh or English - have no desire to let Scotland slip from the union. Whether you consider the impact on the armed forces, Scotlands huge wealth of natural resources [not just remaining oil] and the land opportunities in that nation.

I believe that England deserves her democratic freedom, the current situation is intolerable - and truly wish a speedy path to an English parliament - but I also believe that Scotland's future is one that is considerably darker should independence not be realised quickly.

The Conservative party desired union because of these considerations in the past - there's even more of an emphasis here with regards their future wants - and what, ultimately, ensures enough space for English interests.

I feel sickened, listening to Douglas Alexander defending his position in British politics.

His constituency is in Scotland, to which transportion is devolved, yet he saw fit to take charge of England's transportation.

the man is a hypocrite of the highest order. Of course he will defend his position rather than admit that his is morally and democratically bankrupt !!

I wonder how much Wales will be ignored in this disussion.

I think we should all stay together as one. My partner is scottish and I am from Liverpool. Should Scotland leave the Union and become a soverign state of its own, will it have a Monach or a President as head of State?

There is a science to polling. Beyond a sample of 1000 it doesn't really get much more accurate if you ask 10,000 or 100,000.

Come on you Scots vote SNP for Hollyrood 2007.
The Scots have had an independence party for how long? and why is it they never voted for them en masse even when they were able to support themselves financially. Scotland could have had independence years ago by voting in the SNP but chose not to. In their first referendum on devolution in 1979 why did Scots only vote 51% in favour and why did so few bother to vote.
Because only recently has Scotlands revenue exceeded its spending.
The Scots are a proud nation that retained its identity for 300 years, of Britishness but they need to stop being bitter towards the English and accept some of the resposibilty for still being in the union lies at their feet.
England has lost its identity but thanks to Scotlands demand for independence are finding a growing realisation that they are English first.
Alex Salmond fighting for Scotland and England. VOTE SNP 2007

This is a once in a generation opportunity for Scotland to become an independent republic. Whilst the whole of England are behaving like Jade Goody in Big Brother, and moaning about how lazy and financially dependent Scotland is, the people of Scotland can steathily steal their independence back. Of course the mainstream political parties are against it, and the monarchy too, I'll bet. Scotland, like Ireland, will probably excel economically and socially without the rest of the UK housemates.

May I please ask how many English people are sitting in the Scottish assembly.
Then how many Scottish people are in Westminster.
I personally do not want a Scottish Prime Minister or Home Secretary here.
We need a general election before Blair retires

Where in this is the discussion about Wales and Northern Ireland in this program?

Its always Scotland and England, and North and South of the Border, what about West of the Border? Yes humble Wales. Whenever there is a discussion about devolution and independence its is just the Scots and English. We don't even have representation on the union flag and even in your poll graphics it was England and Scotland who had the limelight, but thank you for letting us actually take part, that was nice.

Have the Scots had to put up by being called "an annex of England" having an Assembly not a Parliament, or being insulted by this program by having minimum representation, I also believe this is true of Northern Ireland.

Come on ´óÏó´«Ã½ its a union of four nation not the two ....

It's time ENGLAND was also recognised as a proud historic nation.

Matthew Parris is a racist bigot and traitor and should keep quiet.

Kelvin McKenzie, Christine Constable and Alex Salmond are on the right track.

Why should somebody be labelled a racist because they want their country recognised? Parris is a preening pc bigot.

Now AT LAST people are listening to what the English Democrats have been saying for four years.

What I detest is that this is seen mostly as a Scottish issue and participants in these debates are paying lip service to England. It's insulting and discriminatory.

The real issue is encapsulated in what Tony Blair said earlier on News 24 - that Scotland would suffer financially as a result of a break up of the union.

Of course it would. The Scots would lose the £30 billion under the Barnett formula that funds their free prescriptions, elderly care and student grants - all that the English are paying for.

So he would say that wouldn't he?

Surely I can be furious about this without being called a racist bigot or Scots hater - which incidentally I'm not.

The Union certainly can not survive for long in it's present form. Asymmetric devolution has been grossly unfair to England. The English have been slow to react to this, but will not put up with it indefinitely.

If, at the next Westminster election there is a Conservative majority of seats in England but not in the United Kingdom the waste matter will hit the air cooling device.

Add to this the fact that the debate on the Union in Scotland, whether pro or anti, is 80% concentrated on money, so their hearts are clearly not in it and the outlook for the Union is bleak.

1
The quality of the structure of Parliament and its processes is far more important - and urgent than Scottish Independence - which may be a convenient distraction.

2. What of the large number of people of Scottish extraction in England. Should they not have a vote on Scottish indepedence, similarly to Scottish MPs voting in England?

It's rather sad that the English want to get rid of "the surly Scots" as one contributor put on the very day that a Scottisg soldier was killed in line of duty in Afghanistan on behalf of the Union.Do English people realise that scotland wth 9% 0f the population provide 15% of the armed forces.Also including Sevin McKenzie of the"Sun" a paper written by morons for morons-on the programme quoting ridiculous fallacious figures destroys the credibility of the programme.I thought Newsnight was a serious programmeI've switched it off

Again Wales is on the whole ingored in discussions about the United Kingdom, the lack of the mention of the Welsh in this debate shows that the media is not talking the "break up of the union" very seriously, and that this Newsnight programme is a waste of time, when they could be reporting more important and real thing.

Just switched off this boring boring boring programme. I watch the programme religiously each night, but this reminds me why I was able to happily leave the lovely country of Scotland, the marvellously alive city of Glasgow, and the great Glasgow people in 1983 after 12 years of living there - I'm a Geordie.
The issue of Scottish Nationalism is a bore to everyone but the SNP, only to be dragged up on Hogmanay at 3 in the morning, just after you've all done religion to death.
It is a boring subject, but as long as it sustains a political party, Scots will have to suffer this topic.
Keep it off English screens please.
I'm now having to watch Real CSI for goodness sake!!

Again Wales is on the whole ingored in discussions about the United Kingdom, the lack of the mention of the Welsh in this debate shows that the media is not talking the "break up of the union" very seriously, and that this Newsnight programme is a waste of time, when they could be reporting more important and real thing.

It is even more telling that Northern Ireland's only mention is in the blog and not even on the programme...

I think it's a pity that the Scots are about to be suckered into a false debate by the Nationalists. Simply saying that they are being seen off by the English whilst giving no answers to economic questions (save that because the English are 'fair-minded' we'll hand over 90% of North Sea Oil revenue to them without question), defence etc. No-one is asking the questions (and that includes the Newsnight sycophants who have yet to truly quiz the Nationalists).

My view is that maybe when I was younger I viewed Scots as a bit rugged and uneducated. The more I learn about the people, the more I think we should value them as members of this island. What I fear is that they are slaves to an economy of which they reap none of the rewards. I feel they should do whatever is in their own interests and we should support them as much as we can.

I think that it has been missed that Tony Blair was infact 'born' in Scotland . Therefore there is already a Scotsman as the prime minister.
Besides this. Have the people of Scotland forgotten the amount of money that has been transported down south that was promised to be kept in Scotland? 'We' are supposed to be 'being kept' by the English, I think it was said to be £30million a year. What about the amount of money that has gone down south? How many billions?
I have been to countries like Norway and Ireland where they have roughly the same population. Norway has the second highest GDP per capita in the world due to its oil and Ireland is the fastest financialy growing country in Europe. SO who is right about the arguement that Scotland could not support itself? It is the self esteem that has been 'put down' in the scottish heart. Stop being told that we cannot support ourselves and look at the facts. No wonder the population of Scotland is decreasing and moving out.Although, I must say...with the Scottish Parliament Building costing 10 times the estimate (£45 million to £450 million). Who will be get to run the country that will not squander our money? THAT is the next debate!!

I have to disagree with Kelvin McKenzie on one thing.

I would love to see Scottish independence but, not because I want to go to Edinburgh to take Scottish jobs, no; I want to sit in England and watch this arrogant little country founder on the rocks of their misbegotten ambition.

I am sick of funding Scots while being governed by them and hearing their constant whining.

I don't want an English Parliament, we already have one; it's called Westminster!

There is continuous reference to the enormous amount of talent emanating from Scotland, a" small country", my feeling is thatis the audience of such a small country big enough for all this talent?

Why was this programme advertised as a discussion on devolution in England in Scotland?

The Scots haven't shut up all the way the through the programme. Yes, its true to life, but for goodness sakes, tell the presenters to get a grip and even the discusion out !!

Or is it deliberate?

I'm waiting for any reporting or comment from this two-dimensional program about Wales or Northern Ireland - other than quoting results of the poll from Wales and then ignoring it. Why was Northern Ireland not polled?

What the program is missing is that, before any significant movement for Scotland (or Wales), the demographics of Northern Ireland may well lead to them ceding from the union. Then the Scots may then feel they must follow them. What happens to Wales will depend on what the Scots do.

This program is irrelevant to the Irish and the Welsh and reflects the typical attitude of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ to the UK - it's a union between the English and the Scots.

There is continuous reference to the enormous amount of talent emanating from Scotland, a" small country", my feeling is thatis the audience of such a small country big enough for all this talent?

Why did you spend so much time on the pointless cultural debate? Yes, Scotland has its own vibrant culture (better than the pointless comparison of your slideshow). Why not concentrate on the real debate and demand answers. Culture is a matter of opinion and involvement. Economics should be central to this debate and you should be probing more thoroughly than flimsy questioning of the fishy ones (Salmon and Sturgeon). The whole things fishy!

James Boyle talked about the scots as a race.
My question is whether the english or scots can claim to be a race with so much historical cross pollination.
Is McDougall from London a saxon and Cooper from aberdeen a celt?
It seems to be to do with accents and nothing more.
What about the gaelic language?

Of course England should have its own Parliament!
It should be based in Inverness then we would each have one in a foriegn country!

Why have no Scots mentioned the facts that our Scot Gaelic langauge has disappeared since 1707?

Why is Scotland seen as a "cheeky wee country" by so many Scots who seem unwilling to accept that we are a nation within the Union, and a very active part of it. Indeed it is not 5 years since the leaders of all 3 main UK political parties wee born in Scotland, the monarch is half Scottish, and some of the UK's most famous broadcasters, writers, musicians etc were born within this countries borders.
The debate itself was aired on TV, invented by John Logie baird, whilst things we use every day like telephones, road covering etc were invented by Scots.
When people like Elain C. smith and Alec Salmond always refer to the "big bad English" (or other such phrases) they always bring up a certain politician, whom they have a dislike for. No matter what they may think the entire English nation is not Margaret Thatcher.

Happy Birthday to the Union.

The Scots have had 300 years of being suppressed by the English. They have provided most of the troops to fight the many wars for the UK. Just look at how they were treated by Margaret Thatcher. The Poll tax forced on them. Their oil and gas stripped from them. Yes, let them have independence. Then in the years to come England will see what they will have to pay for importing oil from abroad or energy from the wind and wave farms in Scotland. England have never had it so good. I for one will not return to England as Scotland will prosper under independene.

I think it is time to go on our own. The stuff that the unionist were coming out with were truely laughable and as for the Lib dems they dont know if there coming or going.

Let Battle commence,in a literal & voting sense, of course!!

Dear Sir or Madam, Regaurding the debate on newsnight, i belive scotland should go it alone, just like wales should, i am English, not british, and my country is England not united kingdom,and if i was a scot, i would vote snp as i would not want to be ruled by an english goverment.just like i do not want a scot as prim minister.

I have to say the think regarding the Monach and President is laughable aswell. Do sum people not understand the we are in the EU now and so will Scotland if it was to be total soverign state. And it should be noted that the queen is NOT the queen of Scotland she is the Queen of Scotts two diffrent things and therefore she would remain so. All these details are on the SNP website and other gooded sourced sites.

Is it just me or does Douglas Alexander come over like the school swot and teachers pet? What a vile, creepy politician this man is.

No wonder English people want to get shot of Scots MP's when they see what is ruling them.

solve the problem ...build a wall around the m25 call that bit blairland leave it to blair and his russian mates ..then scotland england & wales can get on with it in the eu

Being halve Scotish(Mother)and halve English(Father).....and having lived in Montenegro for the past Ten years I see so many similarities between Scotland/England and Serbia/Montenegro all four countries were Kingdoms and although Montengo was subjegated to Serbia(Yugoslavia)as recently as 1918 and not 300 hundred years ago as was the case of Scotland vis-a-vis England(U.K)the arguments for Independence are the same....The power of the "Bigger Brother"the fear of allowing the "Small"Brother to leave the poverbial Home...etc.etc.and yet since the tiny Nation of Montenegro declared it's Independence from Serbia last May both Serbia and Montenegro have prospered...after all to para-phrase a Montenegrian saying..."No article of clothing is worn closer to your heart than your skin"in escence an Independent Scotland would also allow for an Independent England and therefore the brothers of this small Island would be eaqual..

The United Kingdom is the blueprint for what a succesful Europe could achieve.

I dont understand the arguement for Soctland devolving the union but still remaining active in Europe.

The French wanted to join the UK in the 50s as it could see what we have.

Further, there seems little point in separating now when our bloodlines and marriages are so intermingled.

That said I am not in favour of a strong federation of Europe so maybe we should devolved the union(s).

I so long to be shot of Scotland. Your programme tonight has confirmed everything that I have ever believed. England will be infinitely freer, richer, happier and altogether better off without the incubus of those chippy Scots. And what a line-up: a blustering, self-serving politician (Alex Salmond); a compromised presenter, Kirsty Wark (whoever allowed her into a supposedly independent programme on Scottish independence?) and James Boyle, the most disastrous controller in Radio 4 history. Vote SNP, give England its independence, Gordon Brown the boot and leave Scotland to the dubious mercies of Mr slippery Salmond.

I have never heard such a self serving view as that voiced by Douglas Alexander. It serves Labour's purpose not to address the West Lothian question as they would be lost without the support of MPs who have no business voting on English issues. I say Sotland for the Scottish and let us English run our own affairs, the added benefit would be that we won't be subsidising a race who rarely have a good word to say about us. I doubt that an independent Scotland or England would be entitled to automatic membership of the EU so we could get rid of that at the same time and save ourselves even more money and interference in our affairs

So the Nationalist budget is based upon the 'fair-minded' nature of the English? (Newsnight 16 Jan 07). What if we decide that we don't accept your demand (and it is that after all)? What if we propose 70%? What if BP (BRITISH Petroleum) or Shell (ROYAL Dutch Shell) decide not to co-operate (where are their HQs?)? What is the Nationalist Budget based on these uncertainties and what is the contingency plan? Even the best option (you get the cash after years of court action) need explaining as to how you are going to get through this period financially. IMF anyone?

this is all absolute rubbish. do you really think that the whole of england thinks the same, that they have the same culture in newcastle as they have in kent, the same culture in kent as they have in manchester, the same culture in manchester as in oxfordshire. if scotland devolves itself it will be lost in the world. we are an island. the scots need to accept that we live on an island and every section of this island is culturally strong. support where you live be proud of where you live and keep the beliefs and cultures of where you live alive. it is down to each region to do this for yourselves. there is no point winging that you are not getting recognised, nobody on the island is. the scots have more choice and opportunities to hold their own destinies than the cornish. there is f**k all that you can do about making your country any better any more than they can in norfolk or wales. stop feeling so hard done by and get on with making your area of the world your own again. financially without the rest of the uk you would fall apart same as northern ireland and wales, only the people of each region can make it any different to anywhere else.

Enlgand is not labour voting coutnry (sic)
----

Really? Labour had an 90 seat majority in England at the last election.

Nothing tires me out more than people continuously focusing on 'The West Lothian Question'. Devolution was a measure put in place to rectify an imbalance of power, and thereby protect minority nations within the U.K.

As those who watched the debate will know, the vast majority of MPs are English. Combine that with the nature of British politics and the problem disappears. To elaborate, almost all votes in the house of commons are determined by party politics - that is to say that members of a political party are expected to vote according to the policies of that party. Even if every Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MP was to defy the whips, it would not carry a vote.

Furthermore, the suggestion that Unionist Scottish MPs such as Gordon Brown have a secret, anti-English agenda is paranoid to the most ridiculous extremity.

As far as I can see, the people of England have a parliament - Westminster. Having said that, if the English people feel that they need additional representation, then that is their democratic right, and I would never dream of objecting. I hope that the people of England would feel the same way if we Scots choose to opt for independence.

The discussion has covered many issues, all relevant, but has somehow managed to miss the primary point behind the whole West Lothian issue.When we discuss the powers of Parliaments, we are always, whatever the labels, essentially talking about one single constitutional issue and one only; in a democracy, where should power lie?

My own opinion is and has always been that true democracy means that power should reside as closely as possible to the place at which it is applied. For the vast majority of cases, that means at as local a level as possible. It is here we see the central issue. We are not considering an increase in power for a local authority at all here. We are thinking about taking power away from Westminster!

Of course, that means any politician currently in Westminster has personal interests to serve. But so do we, the people. It is in our own interests to devolve power as far as is possible to ensure it is as accountable as possible. Accountability is a vital issue here and this is clearly seen by the ever-popular argument about Scottish MPs voting for issues which do not affect Scotland. It is clearly wrong; wrong because it breaks the accountability of our representatives. TO resolve it, what we need to decide is not whether to break the Union, but what powers Westminster *ought* to have.

The benefits of Union are and have always been important and remain so today. It gives us a clearer voice abroad. It allows us to develop and maintain a substantial and stable economy. It makes internal security, safety, health and border issues easier to handle. To those three, we can now ass a fourth; that it makes management of the environment easier.

It is my opinion that this means Westminster should only be responsible for the Foreign Office. the Treasury, the Home Office together with a supervisory-only role in NHS provision and, the fourth, the Department of the Environment. All other powers should be devolved down to the national assemblies of each of the nations within the Union. Even then, the central government should retain the right to veto laws passed by those local areas should the local laws contradict or place in jeapordy the laws or constituion of the Union or the wider world.

How this devolution takes place is an issue, of course. Currently, the SNP is claiming it should be by independence. However, they will not discuss what, if any, powers they would like to see remain at Westminster. Here in England, people are much more concerned with the accountability issue, which many have confused with Scottish independence simply because they have missed the whole real point of the question: democracy.

It is my opinion, as I have said, that a much more tightly defined and restricted central government is reasonable but that local power should be exercised locally. If that is acceptable to Scotland, and according to the polls it is, then the real issue here is simple and is one for England more than anywhere else.

How does England expect local English issues to be governed? Stated like that, there is one and only one answer. Split up Parliament and its powers and create what we should always have had. A truly English PArliament.

As a Scot living in England I and my neighbors are subject to those laws brought in by the scottish block vote and a three line whip.

Care fees for the elderly and student fees are two measures that were rejected by a Scottish Parliament that could not use a bunch of foreigners to dictate unfair and socially damageing policy.

New Labour, for a party that Mr. Alexander claims is all in favour of the Union, has done more to bring about the break-up of the U.K. than even Mrs. Thatcher's divisive and autocratic regime did.

Two wrongs never make a right, the most vulnerable and their families are penalised and young people are financially hobbled before they have started their adult life. It is this injustice that fans the flame of English desire for independance.

Undoubtably an independant Scotland would thrive as part of the E.U. sadly this would mean a break with the Union but it seems an inevitable consequence of the leaden and incompetent manner that Blair's government has handled the sensitive issue of England-only issues.

All this has come about to save face and the occasional adverse headline. As we scots say 'Hell mend him'.

I accept Ricky Ross's point concerning the Scottish population's current experience of broadcast media through the filter of London. I, however, would far rather receive my early morning fix of news, comment, debate and thought for the day through a London filter, rather than through a Queen Margaret Drive filter. And what's wrong with that? If we are looking for the best and we happen to find it in London (or Edinburgh or Cardiff or Belfast) so be it. The United Kingdom offers us all tremendous cultural variety, which should be apprehended through the filter of the United Kingdom in Europe.

All of the countries that make up the UK have the right to their own self determination and no other country has the right to prevent that determination.

Bear that in mind, we are separate countries, always have been and the Act of Union was merely a precursor of institutions such as the EU.

As a Scot I agree that we should not vote on issues at Westminster that have no bearing on Scotland. Cases such as this as transport and health. I would imagine all people would applaud the SNP for taking this stance whether you agree with their views or not.

However what a lot of people in England do not seem to realise or understand is that the majority of English MP's over those from othe parts of the UK means that England has effectively dominated UK politics and has had no need to head the wishes of the Scots, Welsh or those from Norther Ireland.

If a decision of UK level was of no great benefit to England, however would be socially and economically of great benefit to anothe part of the UK, chances are the MP's in England whose constituency would be affected, would push for the decision to benefit England.

Throughout the course of the Union, decisions of this kind have been taken against the express opposition of public opinion in the smaller partners in the UK. An example of this would be the recent reorganisation of the Army.

With respect to the nationality of the Prime Minister, why shouldn't he or she be a Scot? Scotland has long had a succession of English Prime Minsters when we have not wanted them or when they have had no interest in our country. Thatcher is a prime example.

While the PM is in theory responsible for the formulation and direction of governement policy, the fact that as a Scot they would be in a position to formulate policy for England which English people suddenly do not like, well it's a case of the boot on the other foot.

Oh, it also has hints of racism about it.

While I bear no ill will to those in England or to the English themselves, be free to govern yourself, grab the opportunity to stand by yourself on the world stage.

Simply due to the size of the countries in the Union, there can never be an equal partnership in decisions made at UK level.

It is time for the voices of each contry to be heard so that they can make decisions for themselves and themselves alone.

If the Scots or Welsh or the Northern Irish, want to take this opportunity, don't deny them of it, what right have you? It would be their decision to make and their decision alone.

Break up the union? of course.
I know many scots living and working in England and every one of them seem to be against England and even quote hollywood films such as brave heart as if it were fact. They are always slagging off England but they do not return to Scotland. Let us leave the scots to there own fate, discontinue our large subsidies to their economy, and send Gordon Brown back to his roots before he cripples us all. How much better England would be without him, His taxation policies have made us a poor nation.
Scotland has a great cultural history which we have enjoyed, but we cannot afford them any more.

I think it was typical of the whole issue that the debate on NN tonight was from Edinburgh, why not from London (capital of England & Wales) -an equal partner in the process in 1707, yet with a larger percentage of the population.

Scotland feels itself the underdog for 300 years, yet has massively gained from the Union with England(& Wales I know!). They remain the lesser contributor, yet the largest gainer per capita.

I say "cut them loose", let them struggle as a third rate EU Independant Nation; at least then Germany, France and Italy will have to fund their development as well to a greater extent and we won't be left alone to "carry the can" - (or the begging bowl).

Can someone please question the idea of a Referendum. My memory serves me that there was one in the 1970's about devolution that got rejected. Repeated again in the 1990's and was accepted. HOW LONG IS THIS DECISION VALID FOR. Could we have a new one in 2010?. Referendum as a long term policy making decision maker is not useful unless each REFERENDUM DECISION has a life of a particular number of years.
Introduction to the Culture Section with clips of places and finishes with the kilted Highlander falling off the back of a lorry drunk with a bottle? Then the programme finishes with a Highland Piper - does this indicate that Scotland is not 1 nation but 2 with the powerful group constantly reproducing stereotypes of drunken Highlanders as per Robert Louis Stevenson.
Scotland's own indiginous language never got a mention but trite city ravings were given full space,
Useful to listen but surely the past we are talking about is the joint past of 1707-2007 not pre 1707.
COMEDY is that the year of Highland Culture commemorates the Union. Who chose the date for this? Someone to whom the Rebellions had bo meaning? The Central Belt of Scotland has lost its way and just whinges non stop, GROW UP

I have just watched the programme and have to comment I felt that jermemy paxman was rude and dismissive in particular to Alex salmond!

In particular (although alex salmond had never brought the subject up) when he (Jeremy) asked would you want independence if Westminster dictated to you, you can have it but you will not keep North sea oil?
(This was the first North sea oil was mentioned,) Mr Salmond explained that the oil would be ruled by international law and that 90% ownership should become scottish.

Mr Paxman agressively talked over his answer and said answer my question? Answer my question?

Why should he answer a question that is most probably fictious?

Kirsty Wark's last comments were also patronising 'well I am off for a deep fried Mars bar' and paxman finished with and me a large scotch.

Summed the presenters up!

Devolution was a disasterous mistake. The Union should have stayed intact; there should be no further erotion. Few people in Britain can claim to be solely: Scottish, Welsh, Irish or English, as history proves. Our country has always been a melting pot of nationalities and cultures and should remain so.

The "west Lothian question" is vexed, not clear cut... Accepted, Scottish MPs vote on England/Wales only issues. But the UK parliament votes on issues that affect Scotland.. Scotland only has /limited/ devolution...
There's a fair question as to whether this is more or less balanced, but the balance is probably not wildly wrong..?

That said... With an apparently rising clamour for an English parliament, and perhaps a continuing sentiment to not totally abandon the Union.. And no-one wanting another layer of government, coupled with no-one having any clear idea of what to do about the house of lords...
Isn't there an obvious solution, of having national parliaments for Scotland, England, Wales (and whichever bits of Ireland could stop hating each other...), and a secondary chamber, which would be of the United Isles? (But not stuffed with evil Tony’s cronies, like fat toad Faulkner)

Coming back to Scots nationalism, it might not be a bad thing, because it would force Scots MSPs to adopt an attitude for the economic benefit of the country, whereas now they can get away with granting UK (notably London) money to pet causes... Many Scots find the current halfway house deeply flawed, because of this lack of ultimate financial answerability..

Um. As a London resident, I'd quite like to open a further debate, putting the case for London's independence from the other 9/10ths of the YUK population.. In London, 1/10th of the population brings in 1/4 of the national GDP, and has most of it taxed away, despite houses costing 300% to 500% more.. Even with double or triple national average income, a Londoner is poor. If we had our own government, this could be redressed….
It’s not England that gives the extra 13% tax to Scotland, it’s London. So I’d prefer if the rest of England didn’t get to vote on what to do with money that isn’t theirs?
Let's hear it for independence for London.

Re the idiot Kelvin McKenzie's point about Scots taking all the best London jobs, he's probably right, and it's a compliment... If we left, if you do a count of all the Scots that London would lose, it'd fall apart...

I thought we got rid of Scotland when we spent the final millions on funding the a new scottish parliament building fiasco but I was wrong. Apparantly, the idea then was for the scotts to run our country for us while we prop them up to the tune of thirty billion pounds of english taxpayers money every year to give them a better living per head of population than we have. The word madness doesn't cover it and what makes me and millions of others mad is that the English stand by and let it happen!

I have never heard such a self serving view as that voiced by Douglas Alexander. It serves Labour's purpose not to address the West Lothian question as they would be lost without the support of MPs who have no business voting on English issues. I say Sotland for the Scottish and let us English run our own affairs, the added benefit would be that we won't be subsidising a race who rarely have a good word to say about us. I doubt that an independent Scotland or England would be entitled to automatic membership of the EU so we could get rid of that at the same time and save ourselves even more money and interference in our affairs

Ian Banks's comments and facial expressions indicated his contemptfor the cultural values of his fellows. I wonder if he knows or cares how many Scots watched River City earlier tonight.He should understand he is not the self appointed censor nor is he the sole arbitor on what is produced in Scotland or what people enjoy. Iwould suggest a sizeable larger number watched River City than picked up Banks latest novel.Does that meean that Eilaine Smith should have the right to rubbish his works.I think not His apparent intolerance of others view on "culture" puts his views on independence in queestion

hi everyone

Interesting debate this

I didnt think much of the show because paxman and the Kirsty wark, who went down in my estimation after her pathetic Madonna interview, interrupted too much.

A heated debate needs more time to get heated and into more depth

On the top heres the advice to Scotland from a welshman

I think the past 7 years Scotland has focussed too much on the political argument and needs to focuse more on the other creative/business support aspects that have made Scotland great before.

In other words forget the politics free yourelves. I actually think that little old Wales and its politicians has done something right. It has formed an assembly and not a parliament.

The bonues is this. these overpaid politicians donot watse their days arguing about endless new laws. They have westminster to do that. Instead they spend time encouraging business, investment, jobs, arts, theatre, sporting and cultural global events, regeneration, land development, tourism etc

The welsh AM's (assemblymembers) therefore have to actuallyprove themselves to the business community and the people of wales before a parliament would ever be considered. I dont think wales would ever consider a full parliament simply because who needs yet another layer of burocracy?

Scottish employment is high. the likes of glasgow are at the forefront of the technology investments. The oil supplies are still significant, I dont knowwhat the culture scene is like as I havent been to scotlandfor 5 years

In wales weve seen huge benefits from the assembly approach and the less is more strategy. example; sports Ryder cup 2010, the ashes test matches 2009, FA cup finals, Olympics (all football/water sports)
new world class satdiums; millennium stadium, leckwith stadium, glamorgans test ground etc

several new world class theatres , the jewel thewales millennium centre in cardiff bay has all 7 national arts companies undert 1 roof. Basically its the biggest arts centre in europe. Next door to Doctor who convention if you want to visit. 10 main marinas and bays have been totally regenerated in wales.

tomorrow will be a £14 billion announcement that vale of glamorgan will be joint or sole home to the entire armed forces/aerospace plane manufacturing industry at st athans. This has been worked on for 8 years.
Airbus in n wales is again a welsh assmebly agreement with the french and they are building the biggest planes in the world

asides from busienss we see tremendous cultural strength in wales. the royal welsh show sees 300,000 a year for the biggest agriculture show in europe. eisteddfodd is a 1500 years old singing/arts/poetry week long event. there are 3 versions a childrens, a welsh and aforeign one in Llangollen
annually. This is where the endless tream of welsh singers comes from. this is their fountainof inspiration

As a welshman i can assure you wales extraordinarly patriotic but in a great way. Totally unexplainable but its deep its ancient and its blumming mystical. it's like scotland and Ireland prides itself on working class values and its hospitality.yes we all have same cultural problems like drugs, beer, young parents etc.
But the feeling of welshness like scottishness is ancient and truly sacred.

Remind yourselves who you are
be yourself regain your identity from within
Dont let the politicians try and let you find you

scots are legendary inventors, they practically invented everything that matters, from lights, to radios to phones to tv's

They produce great scientist, doctors, artists, actors, singers, soldiers, preachers, politicians, busniessmen, technology millionaires, shipping, lawmakers oh and football managers. Lest we forget it was the scots welsh and english who wrote the declaration of independece, and constitution of america

Ilike the scots. I see them as straight forward honest, yes sometimes dour, but always ascerbic witty and dark humoured. I just read duncan bannatyne's book on how to be a £100 million man from the slums of Glasgow and if ever a man crystallises the typical scottish spirit it is him.

I want scotland to be great and though I have nothing to gain from writing this lengthy piece late at night. I do it for the greater good but thats just the welshness in me

I only caught the last half- hour of the programme but was delighted to view such a well-presented debate. I,like many other former Labour voters in Scotland,am at a loss as to how to vote in the forthcoming election. So many of the beliefs to which we adhered have been relegated to the sidelines...this programme, while not directly relating to the May elections in Scotland, served to remind me of the high quality of commentators we have in Britain in cultural,political and academic fields. While not purporting to be a great fan of Matthew Parris, I felt that his contribution was well made. However, I and many others like me in Scotland still look to the politicians we elect to uphold values of fairness in the Education, Health and Social Service sectors. Creation of individual wealth remains a thing devoutly to be wished by some but many of us here in Scotland still believe that this cannot be at the expense of others less fortunate than ourselves. Therein lies the difference between the Scottish community and that of England, in my opinion. I don't want to have to vote SNP but if my choice is that or "New Labour" and other parties who embrace the "Me" culture, then perhaps I'll have to grit my teeth and betray generations of my family and indeed my own dearly- held Labour Party beliefs. I don't know yet . Anyway, thankyou for a fantastic programme.

What a brilliant and stimulating debate. I certainly have learned much about the subject.
The later part of the debate, to me, lends itself to the issue of English identity too. Whilst most English people cannot claim to be 100% English borne and bred, myself included, they do seem to have an inherent problem with calling themselves English and celebrating this; it is one thing that we can certainly learn from our Scottish cousins. It is as if there is a system in place to control and stamp out any remotely English nationalistic views. Unfortunately, it is only the extreme far right which appears to openly discuss such matters, but these do not represent the opinions of the majority of people on the street.
On a more serious note, I do wonder how Scotland would financially be able to support itself if they ever did gain full independence.

I thought for a television show this wasn't too bad and hopefully a start for more reasonable and far reaching debate in the future.

Economics is a difficult area subject to many "ifs and buts" but a couple of points: I lived in the Republic of Ireland for many years where they maintained the link with sterling until about seventy years after independence. When their currency, the Punt, broke with sterling and ultimately went to 79% in value of the pound, they were much derided by the British even although it ultimately gave them significant competitive advantage prior to their joining the Euro (much derided by the little Englanders).

Even although much has been made of the support they received from the EC/EU (not quite so available today), they were prepared to pay for their independence despite poorer health services, roads etc.

Now, due to their economic policies, corporation tax to name but one and a non-idealogical approach to politics they have had the much vaunted Celtic Tiger.Now they have different problems entirely. Norway-an entirely different story.

Alex Salmond has got to stop making easy oasy "it'll be alright on the night" economic statements, and our English friends really have to stop their nonsense about who is subsidising whom!

At the end of the day, only a properly prepared and worded referendum can decide this.

Alex Salmond not only wants to have his cake and eat it, he wants to eat someone else's too. To think he's a nationalist, yet he wants to retain the Sterling as Scottish currency smacks to me of someone who wants to reap the benefits of having his own fiefdom without the side-effects of possible unpopular economic policies - another reason to blame the Sassenachs.

If he so desperately wants to be ruler of his own country, he could save us all a lot of trouble by putting a border guard at the end of his driveway and fencing himself, and his paradoxical politics, off from the rest of us. I bet, for some other SNP supporters, his statement on retaining the Sterling as national currency was also not very welcome.

But is it because even HE realises Scotland would have the economic clout of Iceland if the Sterling were ditched?

On this subject, what would Scotland be as an independent entity? In fact, what would England be? We need the Union to play our important role in European and world affairs. We would lose our equality with France and Italy in the European Parliament seat quota, we would make it difficult to have much power in the UN, maybe losing the permanent seat, and we would alienate ourselves from any meaningful parts to play on the world stage as a whole.

Finally, I am British. My name is neither Anglo-Saxon, nor Celtic. I am therefore by heritage not English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. I, like a lot of 2nd/3rd generation immigrant family members, would feel the need to adopt some "nationality" which I am uncomfortable with. "British" is an all-encompassing adjective, a universal description of many, and I will not allow this Czechoslovakianisation to deny me of my nationality.

All I ever here from Scotish people is how much they hate the English. they see us as evil, ritch, oppressors, a bit like a baddy in a film. Their view of us is purely based on london, for a start, and secondly they cling on to their cultual heratige, like cilts and bagpipes. but do you see english people watching teary eyed at morris dancers longing for english folk music. They blame the english for destroying their traditions, but in reality traditions died on both side of the border due to industrialisation, not oppression. an industrial revolution Scotland played a major part in.
And then there's brave heart, give me strength. they long for identity because they have been told all their lives that the English have stolen it. they fail to realise their identity is our identity and visa versa, our impact on the world was as a union, the british empire. You say empire, they think its English because of London. But im sorry to say this, and this is the problem, SCOTLAND IS A REGION of the UK its population is simular to that of a region of the UK, the only difference is history but if you look at scotland without looking back, it looks like a reigon. accepting this opens your eyes to the reality that the whole of the UK stands in the shadows of London. and there is less to divide a scotsman from a brummy than a brummy from a londoner culturaly and economicly. I think football has a lot to awnser to in dividing English and Scotish.

Regardless of your views on Scottish independence, Labour desperately need someone who can compete with Alex Salmond.

They're clearly not allowing Jack McConnell anywhere near him, Reid and Brown have got their hands full so it looks like Douglas Alexander got the short straw. But you can see he knows he's losing......

By the way england does have 9 regional assemblies of its owen do deal totally with english affairs in those areas that scottish or irish or welsh mp's do notget involved

East of England Regional Assembly
East Midlands Regional Assembly
London Assembly
North East Assembly
North West Regional Assembly
South East England Regional Assembly
South West Regional Assembly
West Midlands Regional Assembly
Yorkshire and Humber Assembly

[edit] Plans for elected assemblies

Just thoughtId mention that regarding the issue of scots voting on matters in england and wales yet we cant vote on isses in scotland

the welsh I know do nothave a problem withit and frankly it is irrelevant red herring stirred up by tabloid mdia

the fact is the british government CAN VETO scottish parliament anyway.
The other fact is the scottish MP's are only dealing with small number of devolved scottish powers. whereas the debates in westminster are far bigger and involve vastly more poer money and jobs.

I think it would beless of an issue however if the scots smply had just an assembly

The patronising attitude of Jeremy Clarkston towards the Scots is verging on racism, if he said that a PM couldn’t hold office because they were Black, Asian, Jewish, Gay, Catholic etc., would cause a public outcry, yet we have him and the editor of the Sun spouting this opinion because of being Scottish.. It was also said that it is unacceptable for Scots MP's to vote on English issues, I agree but for nearly 300 years prior to this we had 10 fold English MP's voting on Scottish issues and for 18 years we had a government which had little or no MP's in Scotland ruling Scotland imposing the poll tax and trident on us.

I grew up in the 60's and the next 40 years they built motorway networks all over England yet the main route from the heart of Scotland to England, the a74, was a two laned donkey track, which which became a 4 laned motorway at the welcome to England sign.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is really the EBC, Scotland only has regional status, Scots Actors who employed in ´óÏó´«Ã½ programming are always given the part of the stereotypical, drunk, junkie, hard man, wife beater etc. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Saturday night entertainment in Scotland is the English Premiership highlights, there is no money for Scottish team highlights as ´óÏó´«Ã½ gave it all away competing with Sky for English Football.

Is it any wonder Scots get a chip on their shoulder, Scots have no animosity towards English people, only the establishment and media, if we make a hash of independence then we can blame ourselves, but we should be given as should the people of England the choice.

The program tonight was interesting and expressed views of different groups of people not only throughout the uk but also globally where there the same kind of union.

I am from africa(united republic of tanzania) and we are facing the same problem in the time being. Our first leaders formed a union of two countries(tanganyika and zanzibar) which after following tonights program i realised it is similar to the uk one. the union is only fourty years old and of recently has come under a very huge pressure from the modern generation of politicians who sees only the negative side of the union witout reasoning why it came into place at first time.

fourty years back african coutries needed to unite so as to fight colonialism as well as integrating their people for trading and social purposes.

These modern generation of politicians consists of people who are in need of power and recognition and these are the ones who questions the union and brainwash the society to the problems of the union without addressing the benefits as well.

So the uk politicians instead of arguing and fighting for independence of their countries they should sit down and debate on the issues which they think need to be addressed and what changes need to be made to the union so as to make it suit the existing environment. and i don't think any of the involved parties to the union will benefit by opting out.

Interesting that this debate on the Union was so slanted towards the arts and culture, as it highlighted what is wrong with the Scottish arts and media establishment. A problem which is not English but a home grown problem, namely lack of conviction and confidence in our own people and talent. How many Scottish arts establishments are run by non Scots, how many are run by small self serving cliques who keep the ´óÏó´«Ã½, Scottish Arts Council etc 'on message'. Who are 'gerry mandering' the Culture Bill and the Ofcom proposals to name but a few. Would independence free us up and break up the cliques ? Would Aberdeen, or the Borders be better represented by a culture still centred on Glasgow and Edinburgh ? I am not convinced, not unless the SNP ( who I am a former active member of ) could purge the existing arts and media establishment and open it up to the people. Only then could we benfeit from an artistic and cultural renaissance. Who's idea was the Piper ? Whether it came from a ´óÏó´«Ã½ or a ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland Producer, it symbolised all that is wrong with our timid arts and media establishment and the false image we project - add a bit of tartan there and the add the word 'Scottish' there. Gie us a break !

I have watched your programme tonight with interest. Clearly, Alex is interested in gaining power & Douglas is interested in retaining power.
It is totally wrong for the british taxpayer to pick up the bill for their parliament & then have them all working in England.
My suiggestion is that they have their parliament, they have their M.P's, they have their currency & they have their "product." They do not need further subsidy from England, so devolve the lot, that includes for all scots working in England. It is a nonsense & an expensive one to have them decidimg in our parliament. The very minimum I can expect is that my taxes (inc council tax) will greatly reduce.
This will then assist Gordon in that he will not need to take up office in No 10. No Scot should EVER preside over England.

The trouble with the SNP is that (as Alex Salmond said in the program) they would join the Euro, jumping wholesale into a European superstate, thus throwing independence away again as soon as they won it! This undermines the SNP's argument. I support the principal that Scotland has a right to independence if the population want it, but it sounds like the SNP would throw it away.

Anyone who talks about the break up of the Union is in my opinion ungrateful, they are also Traitors. I personally feel alot of the problem lies with politicians who are sell outs. They want this great country to be carved up and consumed by Europe. They have forgotten to fight for this country in their race to outdo each other on opinion polls. Jumping from one band wagon to the next. Independence is not going to bring a host of massive opportuniies as those who wish it preach, unfortunately most will not be abe to see beyond their own noses and it will be too late to change once the danger stares them in the face. We should really be looking at actual isues that count, and getting politicians who are committed to this country's needs, not their own. Politicians with some guts and the ability to make real decisions. The Independence in question should not be about the countries within the United Kingdom but rather the United Kingdom remaining Independent of Europe and European attempts at control.

I am glad Cameron Edwards (post 30) mentions the role of England in the Darien scheme. William Paterson (the Scot who founded the Bank of England) was closely involved in the proposed expedition but English investors - who had already promised their money -were forced to withdraw by the English governmment so, at the last minute, the money had to be raised exclusively in Scotland. King William instructed the English in America not to trade supplies and when a ship in distress called at the (English) Jamaica it was refused assistance. The English then bribed the bankrupt Scots MPs into the Union by offering to pay off the huge debt left by the Darien scheme. As to the scheme's being an 'unmitigated disaster' (post 21) I read somewhere recently (though I am sorry I can't remember where) the the Panamanians don't think so and erected a statue to at least one of the settlers.

I am fed up with all the knee-jerk reactions from the talk of independence. Take the problem slowly and intellectually: Instead of this left wing 'victim culture' I heard numerous times during Newsnight, e.g. 'England has oppressed Scotland culturally etc etc', We as a United Kingdom, should go about doing things together. I wouldn't think most Britons see Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland as being inferior to Englanders, yes there’s banter about sporting success and a healthy rivalry exists, much like between other Anglo-phone nations such as Australia.

I don't get the same 'foreign feeling' I do get when I go to France or Germany; Europe feels so alien to me, whereas in Britain-going to Scotland or Wales I don't feel unwelcome or an alien in a foreign land.

Just because a few issues (e.g .top-up fees) doesn't go your way, it doesn't mean you should abandon the union altogether. Even if England did have its own parliament that doesn't mean we would not have top-up fees - it's silly to assume England would do the same as Scotland just because it has a parliament of its own. It’s surely the people that run the country who are to blame not a country itself, i.e Labour, as England is a Conservative country if you take the last 2 elections after '97

Also using Iraq as an example as equally flawed - most Englanders did not agree like most Scots - by using this devise, that England did while Scotland didn't, isn't useful and only serves to set up a difference that is not there.

I have a sneaky feeling the left despises the Union Jack, and all it stands for, so this is one way to destroy it; by breaking up Britain and therefore the final nail in the coffin for English Imperialism. They cease to remember that Britain did forge the modern world - not just England. Why are they certain areas in the world that have names like Nova Scotia, New South Wales, Plymouth, Halifax, Pennsylvania, there's even a region in the US which speaks Welsh!

Also Europe would equally like to see a demise of the British Union, we would become weaker and divided thus France and Germany can capitalise on such affairs. People tend to dislike the successful peoples - take the Jews for example, Europe in the C19th/ C20th distrusted them because they were successful, France dislike Britain because our empire was more successful than theirs. People hate America because they are jealous that the US is the most successful nation in the world. It borders on racism.

This idea that it is a sin to be proud to be British is fast becoming engrained into the British mode of thought- it shouldn't matter whether a successful Briton is a Scot, English, Welsh, Irish, it should be that he or she is British. This act of union was a bridge to 'the Scottish wall'. When Scotland looks inwards it loses its critical eye and ability to discuss issues and resorts to jumpy responses.

'A nation within a nation'- serves as a Canadian/Quebec example. It may do well to use this act end this Union crisis. A united Canada will be stronger and not pushed around by the US. Thus a United Kingdom will be stronger and not bullied by a Europe set on destroying British advancements e.g. the rebate vs. the CAP.

Will the plight of multiculturalism drift into Scotland, Wales and Ireland? By 'celebrating' differences one shuns the possibility to look at all the glorious positives that we as a United Kingdom have created, and will continue to create together.

The 1978 Independence Referendum shewed that the majority of Scots that voted, voted for Independence.
Cunningham's 40% turn out ensured the
defeat of the point in holding the Referendum because Labour activists
encouraged their voters to stay at home.
There was no mention of that "skandal
in the debate. Nor was there any mention of the projected oil revenues.(30 year rules) Probably because most of those speaking were not enfranchised at the time, 1978!
In my lifetime, the honesty and integrity of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, "filtered through London" has degenerated to being the mouth piece of the Westminister government.

Personally I'm FOR national independence of the UK countries.

One thing confounds me, which others might relate to; A question which Kirsty voiced: So what if the Union broke up, - and how would it affect the culture of Scotland without England?

But I ask what about those British people who have no National Identity other than British and are a mixture of Scottish, English, Irish, Welsh?

On my father's side of my family I am 1/8 Scottish, part Welsh and part English. On my mother's side of my family I am part Irish and part English. I feel a degree of affinity with each culture without actually belonging to any of them. In the event of national separation could I still describe myself as British? If not, then I will have no national identity.

I have always seen the British as a community of nations long before Winston Churchill's idea of a European community of nations. I will view the break-up of the UK with some ambivalence in the event.

If Scotland wants independence let them have it. This debate was all about them. Not much mention of the Welsh and Northern Irish.
It is time England was recognised and treated as a unified country. Scotland and Wales have been given the opportunity to vote for a devolved government. It is time Blair recognised that the people of England want an English Parliament. Instead if he has his way he wants England to be split into nine regions. Let the people of England decide what is best for them. We do not want to lose our identity. We want our own English anthem, we want our own national day on 23rd April.
Each nation wants to be proud of their own culture, traditions, parliament,anthems, flags, etc.

There is too much confusion as to Britishness - In sporting events when we are British the National Anthem is played. The Scots and Welsh have their own anthems and the English oh yes we have the National Anthem and if we play Nothern Ireland they have ... the National Anthem.

I'm of the opinion that the emphasis in this debate on union or independence for Scotland is to some extent missing the point. As a Scot I am naturally interested in fostering a political system which will produce beneficial outcomes. For all of my lifetime I have been aware of statistics which place Scotland at or near the wrong end on issues such as health,employment,income,housing,life expectancy,drug taking,etc.This would suggest that the politcal system prevailing during this time has been unsatisfactory.
Devolution,I believe,has given the vast majority of Scots an appetite for having control over solutions to our own problems the difficulty being that the limited powers available under devolution are curtailing what we would wish to be able to do.eg setting lower corporation tax to promtote business growth or being able to promote more effectively immigration into a country where the trend to falling population poses serious challenges.
I would wish to see all Scotish political parties trying better to cooperate towards producing satisfactory outcomes for Scotland rather than concentrating on their own political standpoints
Devoluton as a set arrangement is surely ridiculous. Things change all the time and so surely must the devolution arrangement.If this leads eventually to Scottish independence then so what if this provides the best solutions on Scottish issues.

Much has been said and yet little of substance on this matter.

I think there should be a bit of sanity here as I have been disappointed in the soundbiting, tittletattle and intermitent nitpicking that is, unfortunately part and parcel of political debates of late...

Many of the benefits of a separate Scottish state are hidden, or at least not readibly tangebly metered in financial terms. Amongst these are the increase in tourism caused by the polarisation of the Scottish and English states, a better and more efficient voice in Europe and a better organised economic structure for a country with very different demographics than its southern neighbour. The major benefit however, is a release of the apathy of the Scots due to the subsidy junky culture that is often purported by the English media machine and has surrounded much of the debate tonight. Furthermore there will be a resounding increase in economic performance due to direct responsibility and accountability that comes from running ones own affairs and being accountable to ones own people. An additional benefit is the obvious retention of decent Scottish politicians to the deference of the current crop who have hardly been inspirational.

To the people who continue to drizzle on about the apparent conflict in finance north and south of the border I add the following economic argument. Oil is not an everlasting commodity (and the argument by Douglas Alexander frankly strikes me as ill informed at best) and oil prices will rise to over the $100/barrel in the near future (if you dont believe me, the 2 largest oil fields in Saudi and Kuwait were discovered over 50 years ago with nothing major since). This is the real economic debate. As to who owns the oil is not for me to decide but I would expect a fairly hefty backlash from the square mile of London. As to the political debate, the real question would be the diminishment of the power of England in international affairs (e.g. would it retain its seat in the UN security council).

On the cultural debate, Scotland is very different from England (and I am fed up being told the news from an Engish perspective and watching cricket by the way) although what unites us is, for the major part, greater than what divides us.

The real politik of the situation is as follows: Scotland would be financially and politically better off as a separate country and my belief is that they would prosper in a way similar to other small countries in Europe (the new political and economic stomping ground). Do you really think that the English are so stupid as to bargain and retain a union that is economically detrimental to them. London is not the financial centre that it is through follies such as this. The laws of diffusion are simple enough. The English retain the union because they need it to retain the "greatness" of Britain when arguing on the world stage and reap the benefit of this.

When you vote (and you are Scottish) you need to ask yourself the simple question: Given the choice are you Scottish first and British second or vice versa. Have some faith in your own people (the politicians will improve!). They are an inventive, innovative, argumentative lot. This is a combination that is not to be underestimated.

* Audrey Doig wrote:

Not only have we put up with English MP'S voting on Scottish matters for 300 years, we have also been used as the grovenment testing ground - The Poll Tax was in force here 1 year before eslewhere!
Also if we do have two separtate nations then England can take back it's nuclear weapons! Scotland does not want or need them Scot's are welcomed everywhere in the world, we would not enter into wars so easily as English Governments do !

Well Audrey seeing that the main players in taking us to war were Scottish; Blair, Brown et al I'm not so convinced.

Of course Scotland wouldn't want or need nuclear weapons - if push came to shove wouldn't the English or the US bail you out?

You got the poll tax first - where each pays the same for the same services - how terrible. It's no different in principle to a millionaire and a pauper paying the same for a loaf of bread...how dare they suggest such a thing. After all the situation now with a couple on a pension living in their family house SHOULD pay the same as the family of four wage earners next door. That's fair isn't it? Or a widower living alone pay the same as a family next door - is that preferable too?

The hypocrisy of the Scots MPs in voting differently in Scotland than they did in England on the same issues was diabolical, dishonest, despicable and dishonourable - and nothing less than we have come to expect from this government. This government who could not rule England without the Scots (and Welsh) MPs which is why according to Tony Bliar "and English Parliament is unworkable". It probably is - for him!

As Flanders and Swann would say:
"The English, the English, the English are best - so up with the English and down with the rest"

Home rule for England.

The only people in the United Kingdom who are not properly represented in the democratic process are the English. The debate is not about whether or not Scotland should move on to independence. It is about whether it is about time the English should have the opportunity to decide what is good for England.

Does anyone actually care what the English think? You know - where the English live - England. Cricket, the Proms, Shakespear, Dickens, Elgar, Milton - used to be the home of democracy. Before anyone ceased to give damn what we think

Where does Kelvin Mackenzie get his figures from? £30bn of English money funding Scotland??? Scotland barely spends £30bn/year! According to the latest GERS accounts, Scotland's deficit is £10bn; but if you look a little closer, you might see that this deficit is funded by:
-£3bn (Scots per capita share of UK national debt)
-£2bn (what the exchequer makes from Whisky)
-£5bn (an imbalance of 'unidentified expenditure' that is actually spent in England 'on Scotland's behalf' (har har))

In short, the Scots economy is in reasonable shape, which is what you'd expect from an economy that has 8.3% of the UK population, but contributes 9.3% to UK GDP - EXCLUDING OIL. Which prompts the question ... where is the oil revenue going ? England ???

If it is, I don't have a problem with that. It's a pity it's not going to places that need it like the North East; rather than London (the biggest subsidy junky of them all with >£8k/head/year in identifiable spending, and around 55% of 'unidentifiable spending' being spent in the South of England).

We (the UK) suffer from a bad case of sibling rivalry - that's all. The W/L question is a source of irritation at the moment; but the overall benefit of the UK to all 4 nations is that in our efforts to out-do eachother, we end up collectively punching above our weight. Do we really want/need a separate Foreign Office, MoD etc.???

We have lived (and died) together for too long to let the media's lust for the biggest celebrity divorce in history get the better of us. Can we please:
1. Find an answer to the West Lothian Question
2. Stop believing the Daily Mail
3. Grow Up!

Interesting reading some of the above remarks.

Why is it when money is poured down to Westminster (scottish and apparently 1 billion per month comes from North sea oil) it is classed as British money.

Yet when it works it way back up North of the Border it becomes Scottish money.

Scotland in land mass is 2/3 of the size of England .. yet it has a population of 5 million. England, not that much larger, has a population of 60 million. It is therefore ridiculous to count monies being paid out from Westminster by population numbers. What do you expect us to do? Shut half the country down?

The North sea oil brings in revenues of 1 billion per month. I state as a fact the Scots more than pay their way.

Might I also add, being half scots and half english. I adore both countries and try to remain as neutral as possible with my next comment.

I am saddened to say that England is in meltdown. Some home counties (ie the Sun male as a predominat speaker within the programme) have a patronising view towards Scotland. To put it simply check out your own country first. Over population. Your teachers are trying to teach within over populated non english speaking schools. The problems with many mixed races and religions. Etc etc. I think you have far more home grown issues to sort out, rather than pointing the finger at scottish accented British MP's. Illegal immigration. The old theory of the Mary Poppins England is long gone.

You need to find your own identity and stop lashing out at the Scots, whom in all honesty have only had a voice within the UK over the last 8 years. Not withstanding the last 300 years of the Union.

QUERY:

In 2007 we celebrate the 300 anniversary of The Union.

After May Scottish elections, if Alex Salmond & the SNP force a vote which ultimately leads to split between UK & Scotland (God forbid) ...

Q. how should we relate too Scottish Immigrants, from a then small nation, low population & an economy in turmoil?

SNP:

The SNP is a cyclic one horse trick i.e. Alex Salmond (as proved by the effect of his resignation & re-emergence)

The left wing politics of Alex Salmond [1] & the socialist & republican policies of SNP [2] provide a useful internal reminder to the rest of the UK lefty republican want-2-be. *

* unworkable theoretical ideas cannot be realised & paid for by idealists & unworkable fantasy economics

The new Scottish PR electoral system, only goes to proves in comparison too the robustness & stability that first past the post provides for sustainable long term national stability, wellbeing & unity [3] **

** though minority, radical & extremist causes obviously PR the influence they can grab through PR

QUESTION FOR SCOTS:

Given the distribution of populatiaon in the UK, look at the types of people who come forward to become elected - this is the best we can do (lord help us - out of a population of 60+ million) [4]

Together we have a large pool of talent esp for politics & still look who we have, why would it better with just 8% of the population to choose from.

Q.1 do the Scots (8% of UK population) really wish to give more power & rely on agenda driven socialists of the SNP, Salmond & others e.g. Tommy Sheridan?

Besides issues of presence at various tables …. UNSC & other political, military, economic & influential bodes etc.

Q.2 do the Scots (8% of UK) want to have a 'independent' country with an official lower population than Finland? [5]

Q.3 do the Scots want to go from being part of a country with 4th / 5th largest GDP in the world, too an economny *** [6] significantly down the league table? [7]

*** under tremendous pressure from a low population base & the economic, legislative & political impact & social upheaval of independence … or do they wish to invite all those jolly foreigners in …. & loose their national identity to them rather than an amalgamated British ID within the UK which we have benefited from for 300 years

WHOSE TO BLAME:

New Labour & Blair, so desperate to get elected in 1997 (promises of devolution too Scottish & Welsh electorate etc) lay the seeds of threat too The Union.

Prediction - Alex Salmond dies or discredited or retires (again) - the cyclic reassurance of delusional Scots Separatism heads downwards - AGAIN :)

What price perceived pride - really?

SUMMARY:

The union has a lot too loose from the loss & contribution of Scotland in a truly United Kingdom.

Personally, more than happy to keep THE UNITED KINGDOM - & pay over the odds for it (additional monies north of the border).

Thankfully so still do the majority of the different groups of people within this great country … we are proud & thankfull to be BRITISH …. & Welsh & Irish & English & Scottish :)

Steve #53 is right - the UK is a working model/blueprint (warts & all) for Europe.

Rather than the flagging socialist-esque disingenuous bureaucratic edifice for ideals over reason i.e. an unreformed parasitic burgeoning EU want-to-be-state & those types/usual suspects behind such (whose ideals & agendas are not representative or electorally blessed from the populations of the EU).

vikingar

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

The editor or columnist from the Sun was appalling. I'm an Englishman who spent New Years Eve and the following 5 days in Scotland (Edinburgh and Tignabruiach if you're interested!) and I am of the opinion that being united with such marvellous and friendly people is only a benefit to a worldwide society that is failing to be social and retreating onto internet debates instead of coming to terms with opinions through balanced conversation. Sad to say the only people making sense were Scottish this evening. I think every single comment made by an Englishman/woman can be discounted as a stark generalisation or poppycock. Such a shame that England couldn't provide critics with better insight into a sensitive but necessary discussion.
Well done Scotland, sort yourself out England...

I agree with those who have noticed the lack of interest in the Welsh and Northern Irish quarters of things. Northern Ireland, as someone said, isn't even mentioned other than its being part of the United Kingdom. But the poll doesn't contain results of a single person from Northern Ireland.

My personal thoughts are that the structure of the United Kingdom needs a MAJOR make-over. England should certainly have a devolved government.

At such a time, the British parliament, which could certainly still be located where it is, should become an overseer - made up of 25% representation from each of the four member countries. The monarchy should be slowly phased out. I'm not particularly anti-royal, but I think a monarchy in the 21st century is a bit out-dated - even a Constitutional Monarchy such as ours. Its merely symbolic.

I guess I'm advocating a political system somewhat similar to that of the USA. They have 50 states; we have four. Each of their states gets a fair representation, as far as I'm aware, in the federal government. What kind of representation do Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales get in our 'British' parliament?

If we're going to be British, and remain British, let's do it properly. We deserve it after all this time.

Watching the debate on Newsnight yesterday, I was taken by how nice the REAL historic Scottish Parliament building is. As far as I am aware, this is the first time this has ever been seen on TV.

How irritating that the Labour Party wasted £400m on a rather ugly new building in a hole at the bottom of the Royal Mile, when we had a perfectly good and much more historic and resonant chamber a mile up the road which could have been brought back into use for a few hundred thousand. I suggest the new parliament be used as offices, and the debating chamber moved back to its correct location. The lawyers who have been squatting in it for the last 299 years can well afford somewhere else!

First, I'll put my cards on the table: I'm half English, half Irish and a long-term resident in Belgium.
I started watching last night in an equivocal frame of mind - but by the end of the show, I was convinced that Scottish independence was in the interests of both the Scots and the English.
It strikes me more and more that the case FOR the union is being pushed by the people who will have the most to lose from independence - Scots MPs and especially, ministers in Westminster. Their cogent positive arguments for the continuation of the union are flagrant in their absence.
It is cristal clear that Gordon Brown is a unionist only because the union has got him where he is now and an independent Scotland would mean the end of his political ambitions, not to say career.
As I said at the top, I live in Belgium and, frankly, I see more likelihood of the break-up of the UK than I do of the break-up of Belgium.
But I CAN tell you, that if the equivilent the "West Lothian Question" ever arose here, ther would be protests in the streets.

Our indiginous gaelic language has not been dropped centuried ago by choice, as the guy above suggests. I went to primary school fluent in gaelic with no english. We were banned from speaking Galeic in school and caned for doing so. These were the rules the English forced our language out. The history books in schools are also full of English propaganda to keep us down.

Once again the ´óÏó´«Ã½ fails to strike a fair balance, Scot after Scot was allowed to air their feelings on independence, the three English speakers were largely spectators, to inspect the other side of the issue I suggest that Newsnight broadcast a similar programme from somewhere in England, I bet they won't.

Geraint - Now you know how the English felt in 1997 when the Welsh and Scots were allowed a referendum on devolution, not very nice is it?

My parents were immigrants; I live in England, but I am not English; I am British and proud of it because, for all the stick Britain gets and all the mistakes it must have made, it has been a massive influence for decency in a pretty tough world.

If Scotland withdraws from the Union that's the end of 'The British'. It matters.

Tony Blair will have done what Napoleon and Hitler failed to do - destroy Britain.

Tony Blair, I salute your power.
(I'm waving some fingers, you just can't see them.)

Not only are we English denied a parliament but we are being diluted which makes it even more difficult in the future. In the not too distant future Greater London, with a population of 7.5million, will have an English minority. A situation that has already been reached in some London boroughs.

Last night's programme simply highlighted what is becoming a clash of greed on the side of those who wish to destroy the United Kingdom. The unedifying spectacle of Kelvin MacKenzie (now, there's a good, English name!)echoed Alex Salmond in his wish to see the back of the Jocks who he clearly sees as spongers whilst Salmond clearly thinks the Sassenachs are grabbing Scottish oil revenue at Scotland's expense and wants rid of them. Clearly, this cannot continue. It is tribal nonsense and tribes don't succeed in an increasingly collective world. Either one side or the other is right. Either Scotland subsidises England, or England subsidises Scotland, but, by the time we find out who subsidises whom, it will be too late. Tearing the fabric of what is probably one of the most successful joint enterprises ever set up, like dogs fighting over a bone, is shaming and depressing. The allure of membership of the EU, a larger, but more remote union, drives the SNP's craving for 'independence', but, in truth, it is no such thing. There is no 'independence' in the European Union and it is misleading to suggest that there is.

Mr Salmond trying to compare Scotland's economy with those of Ireland, Iceland and Norway is to compare apples and oranges, as he well knows. Their economies are utterly different from ours and their populations have historically had very different focuses than the Scots have. Equally, for the English to think that 'getting rid' of Scotland will be beneficial in some way is to miss the point. The Scots will still be around just as they are just now. As with the Scots, one has to ask who the English are? Millions of English, like Mr MacKenzie, are Scots who have been settled in England for generations. We are one people! The only real differences that Scottish 'independence'(and, by extension, that means English 'independence' too)will bring about is conflict on different ways of dealing with the same problems - think of immigration and a border without controls; terrorism and a Scotland that has opted out of NATO and has booted out the nuclear fleet; territorial disputes over ownership of offshore assets; the splitting up of Scotland itself as Shetland goes its own way under agreement with the SNP (or will it stay British?); splitting up of British overseas territories (Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Falkland Islands etc) not to mention how breathtakingly naive Mr Salmond was that Scotland would use sterling as its currency after 'independence' (maybe England would have some say in that!) and you have a recipe for the sort of conditions which brought about the Treaty in the first place.

The security threat is a leading concern in an increasingly unstable world. Russia is on the rise again and its democratic credentials are increasingly threadbare. The Middle East is edging towards obtaining both nuclear weapons and missiles to carry them. In such a situation, England may well find herself having to impose a union on Scotland in decades to come out of sheer security necessity. Whatever may happen now, the Union is something that will not go away.

Union what Union ?

I doubt very much whether the majority of Scots and English people realised there was a Union.

A Union should be a recognition of seperate nations a Union of equals, sensitive at all times to the needs of all. In my lifetime over the last 50 years I have never felt that we Scots were anything other than the poor relation in all sorts of ways. Until devolution we had been governed by a a completely indifferent Westminister Parliament.
Indifferent to our Nationhood, our Culture.Indifferent English MPs and for that matter Scottish MPs sucked into discussing parliamentary agendas on "little England" or a "Britain" which in reality does not exist. In parliament a Scottish question time viewed by us in Scotland as the English Parliament ( oops British Parliament)toothless, paying us lip service. At no time can I remember that Parliament genuinely feeling like a British/Union Parliament.

Year after year Scotland was governed by a party it had not elected. Finally common sense prevailed and we got Devolution.

At last we started to address our own issues. Unfortunately the downside is that the flaws in the system are now there for all to see, particularly for the people of England. Having been indifferent to Scottish issues by a Westminster parliament for hundreds of years It has only taken the English Nation 8 years to bleat that the Scottish Parliament is introducing changes to a Scottish society it wants.

Is it not wonderful that indifference has now gone !

The move towards total autonomy can now not be stopped. The English people will make this inevitable.

They do not need a new Parliament. They have had one for hundreds of years its called Westminster. All you have to do is to make redundant all the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs !

At last the shaky foundations of "Great Britain" are being addressed openly and democratically. There is so much more to debate!
We live in exciting times !

There was a case to be made for greater devolution to easily identifiable regions of Britain. However, this Government decided to devolve power on national lines for Wales and Scotland, but ignored 85% of the British electorate.

The Union is threatened (from and English perspective) because of this Government’s unfair, incomplete and asymmetrical policy of devolution.

The only options are to reverse Scottish and Welsh devolution (unlikely) or complete its process by giving the English a Parliament with similar powers to the Scottish one.

If the Union does break up it will be because of this Government and Brown was one of its principal architects.

I think its clear from last night programme the attitude of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and most to people in NI. The talk was on the Union of the UK yet ´óÏó´«Ã½ thought it right to ignore NI opinion in the poll. It seems that labour are a unionist party in terms of scotland and the UK but nationalist when it comes to NI and the UK.

people of NI know exactly were the priority of the labour government rests.

The Union should be retained as it has and will continue to bring benefits to all in Britain.Does divorce ever work out satisfactorily, particularly on the financial side. Only in death does unhappiness end.
But the West Lothian issue must be resolved quickly as this unjust and undemocratic form of government is the source of increasing divisions and is the reason for the SNP gaining support for their cause.
Politicians as always distort the truth & mislead the voters. Ministers and MPs should only make policy decisions and vote on those decisions which affect their constitutents and to whom they are then accountable.
Douglas Aleander conveniently forgets the power of accountability to the constituents when Hazl Blears is required to declare to them her position on local NHS reforms - oppose.
As always politicans present the case in very general terms. It is only when you get into the details that the reality of independence can be seen and understood by all.
Isn't it typical of Alex Salmond to demand full independence and yet want to keep the Sterling Pound - presumably he wants to be able to blame London when his own Scottish Economy has difficulties
He wants to be like Ireland and get EC handouts so he should embrace the Euro.Will he be happy when he gets allocated his share of the exisitng UK contribution to the EU budget.With his view of the strength of the Scottish economy and "his"oil it could be rather sizeable.
It is a contradiction to demand independence and yet want all the benefits of the EU -its grants,its regulations and its constitution.He wants to go from one Union to another - sold to the highest bidder
The Scots should be clear that SNP independence means complete separation from all existing UK structures.They should look into the detailed implications of their breakaway before they vote - but will the SNP be able or willing to tell them.
If Scotland demand to leave the Union, the English must not accept anything less than complete separation. England will need to ensure that NO Scottish MP, whether a Minister or on the back benches,who sits in the UK Parliament be allowed to participate in the negotiation of that separation - it must be handled by Scottish & English representatives.
Is this separation really what Scots want.I would wish them well but wonder if they understood the real implications.

I was quite disappointed by the Newsnight special!

First of all, why was Northern Ireland excluded from the poll? Especially since it wasn't taking about the Union of 1801 between Ireland and GB, but what people felt about the Union between Scotland and England.

If you don't think Northern Ireland is relevant to the discussion, considering Ireland's the only part of the UK to have witnessed secession of a constituent nation, then why were the people of Wales asked for their opinion, when surely that is just as irrelevant to a Scottish/English problem?

Also, there was very little debate about the various other options there are - it was either end the Union or the status quo! What about full federalisation (possibly including the IoM, Channel Isles and overseas territories) like the US, Canada, Australia or Germany? Why was that not discussed?

If the 300 year old Act of Union isn't fit for purpose, then maybe radical federal overhaul is better than ending it.

Indeed, the ramifications of Scotland breaking away from the Union on the Commonwealth and the UK's remaining overseas territories were not discussed. Would these countries want to remain an English territory, rather than a British one?

Alex Salmond kept referring to the success of "Ireland" - first of all he should have been asked to clarify it as the "Republic of Ireland". He says the RoI has been a success, but it took 80 years - for much of that time Ireland was poor with large emigration and little inward investment. And separation from the UK was not, as we all know, a peaceful event and led to the partition of Ireland.

Also, who's to say that an independent Scotland would have the border as it currently stands? Maybe communities who are currently in Scotland or England would prefer to be on the other side of the new border - and a Boundary Commission would be required?

I wish someone had asked this question of Alex Salmond (perhaps they did - I didn't see the whole programme):

Assume that Scotland gains independence, complete autonomy. Then please tell us in detail what your recovery plans are for the worst case scenario, whereby everything goes completely wrong - economic collapse, the inability to deal successfully with world "events", etc, etc.

Surely the Scottish people have a right to know this?

James,
Scotland will become another small "Eastern" country within the EU and as such will become a nett benefactor of the largesse shelled out by the likes of Mandelson but paid for by the likes of England, they will, like Ireland, do very well thank you.
BTW
I didn't hear anyone bleating about England being left out in the referenda afforded to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. You voted for it, you got it, deal with it. England still waits.

So the Newsnight poll suggests a majority of Scots still want the Union......yeah right, this will be the same bunch of pollsters that said the majority of Scots would support England in the World Cup! They make it up as they go along. Just asking the staff in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ canteen does not count as an objective poll. :-)

While I agree that people in Scotland and England have a right and choice to discuss union etc, I found very unpalatable the comments made by the Sun Correspondence, in last nights program.
He had no real informed statements or points, except buzz words and stereotypes that verge on xenophobia!
I found myself to be angry at the fact that he was representing as such a voice of England, which I want to reinforce is not the voice of the majority!
If you are going to have debates such as these don't invite racist hypocrites who obviously have no real grasp of the realities world/local affairs!

I suppose the program was an improvement on the last time Newsnight reviewed the subject, for that time Kristy Wark went to Edinburgh to host a program and stated.. 'Well the English don't want devolution', ( recent 60% polls for an English parliament suggests she didn't know what she was talking about). As I say it was an improvement, but not much of an improvement, for yet again it was highly Scottish centric program, ignoring the fact that it is English people who are most fed up with the current constitutional arrangement, but unfortunately have to have their issues aired in Scotland, via Scottish politicians, or ignorant crass ex tabloid editors.

May be next time the Newsnight will give English people a forum and debate to discuss their constitutional issues.

Scots wanting to get shot of the English should realise that English soldiers are dying for the UK. If we had more control over our own affairs, we may not have been drawn into such a war.

Typical ´óÏó´«Ã½, the English hardly had a say. The programme was dominated by the Scots voicing what they want. Let's have another debate about a Parliament for England.

The only voice of reason was that of Christine Constable who brought up the question of Regional Assemblies which the Labour Government and the EU would like to see brought in, in order to break England into regions. That is a layer of bureaucracy we could do without.

Assume that Scotland gains independence, complete autonomy. Then please tell us in detail what your recovery plans are for the worst case scenario,

-------

Perhaps he would have referred you to smaller countries such as Ireland, Norway, Denmark and he might have asked how many of them are clamouring to be part of a bigger country. Perhaps he would have asked how many countries which became independent want to revert to the original situation. Perhaps he would have asked why Scotland would be different from any other country in history.

The idea that information is filtered through London is an old and weak argument for independence.
-----

It is not THE argument for independence. It is one of many arguments for independence

"...and now over to our Scotland Correspondent" ...who will be, of course, English.

Do they think down there in London that Scotland is on a par with France or the USA?

What if we decide that we don't accept your demand (and it is that after all)? What if we propose 70%? What if BP (BRITISH Petroleum) or Shell (ROYAL Dutch Shell) decide not to co-operate (where are their HQs?)?

-------------------

The writer above should learn a little about maritime law before writing this kind of stuff.

Scotland will not be claiming "95% of the oil".

The international law of the sea clearly delineates where the UK/Scottish boundary will be in the North Sea should Scotland be independent.

It is this boundary which places 95% of North Sea Oil in Scottish waters.

I like a lot of scots am quite happy that we decide on our own education and health issues but do not agree with a break up of the union. I also agree that scots mp's should not vote on legislation that is particular to England. Labour want to keep the union because under the Thatcher years the majority of their mp's were scottish and i find it difficult to understand why on last nights program there was particular attack on Gordon Brown wanting to be a SCOTS prime minister when we already have a SCOTS prime minister in TONY BLAIR born in Edinburgh. The scots education system is better than our english counterparts by providing education that meets the needs of individuals as documented in the additional support for learning act 2004. The english education system appears to have not caught up with this yet. We in scotland provide free eye checks for all, not available in england.
I would like to ask if the union between scotland and england ceases where does it stop. We all know that Cornwall wants its own government. Where does it stop. Do we get like america and have different laws in every county of the country. For practicality reasons and common sense the union must continue.

Can someone please tell Jeremy Paxman who has a bee in his bonnet about Scots MPs voting on English issues that in Scotland we've had laws forced on to us that were voted in by English MPs for many years. The Poll Tax was approved by Margaret Thatcher and became law in Scotland a year before England, we were used as a "testing" ground. I was a student nurse at this time and despite earning around £300- £400 a month I had to pay the full amount and when I didn't pay it I had my wages arrested twice.

A good idea for a programme, marred by having kelvin mckenzie on it!

If ever there was a good reason to break away from England, this ignorant man, typical of a lot of people down south, is it!

Ref Ed Iglehart #151

Will try harder :)

(Interesting links you provided)

Nothing is inevitable, either the maintenance of the status quo or change.

History has demonstrated the inherent risk to these Isles when other nations (with equally vested interests) decide to side with Scots radicals

Together this Island, this nation & countries within it, are greater than being split/apart.

As a 'liberal conservative', I acknowledge that the Tories could do very well politically out of a de-unionised Isles & it could fatally undermine Labours political future.

But despite this gain, this it would be a fatal loss to the United Kingdom - I put national loyalty ahead of party / ideological loyalty.

In an age of uncertainty, I am not for going down the road of implosion, it’s a backward step that panders to fanciful notions & short term perception of gain & disregard reality & sustainability.

As I have stated in #123 - if Alex Salmond dies or discredited or retires (again) - the cyclic re-emergence of delusional Scots Separatism will tail downwards - AGAIN :)

vikingar

This discussion has missed the point that not all of the Scots and not all of the English are as polarised as some of the contributers think they are.
I am from Liverpool and usually look to the North of England and Scotland (apart from the sport)for support and to be a counter balance to the South of England bias which affects a lot of people in England not just the Scottish, Welsh and N Irish.
If the Scots think they get picked on by the "English" maybe they need to look at their nearer English neighbours to see what the North of England has suffered especially under Mrs Thatchers conservative government. If the Scottish leave us we could be codemned to long periods of Tory rule.

If Scotland does get independence can we come with you?

Why was the Newsnight debate on the future of the Union held in Scotland, with almost all of it dealing with the subject from Scotland's viewpoint? Only two English contributors were allowed a voice with only a few minutes to put the English point of view.

As pointed out so succinctly by Christine Constable of the English Democratic Party, the people of England have been suffering from a serious democratic deficit since devolution, so how about having a similar programme on Newsnight in England with a mainly English audience and contributors.

Why do the Scots nationalists always compare Scotland to the Irish Republic? For the first 60 odd years of its existence the Irish state was a chippy, post-colonial, inward-looking economic backwater that sent its young men in droves across to the hated Britain for work. It has only recently emerged from that legacy, largely as a result of membership of the EU. Even now, there are those who claim Irish freedom is compromised by the EU. Would an independent Scotland (or Wales for that matter) engage in cultural, economic and political parochialism? I have this instinctive fear of people who want to be a big fish in a small pond. I say that as an Anglo-Welshman who lives in Ireland!

Devolution was unnecessary, and should have put this foolish notion to bed. Scottish culture is not under threat, and scottish identity is not being oppressed. There will be no tangible difference made through independence, and the Scottish parliament can surely use its power to preserve a sense of scottish-ness. However the greater point is surely that if Scotland were to be given indepence tommorow, all the needlessly insecure scottish nationalists could indeed bask in their own magnificence at having plucked scottish culture from the firey depths of english prejudice. However a scottish PM would be of little international importance in the same way that an english one would (an English parliament would also be a disaster).

As it stands Britain punches above it's weight on the world stage, and the fact that the current PM's attitude, towards the US amongst other things, has angered many is a matter to be taken up at the ballot box. But if we are to relegate the voice of a Britsih PM and then a Scottish PM as well, to a barely heard murmur we shall encounter a more menacing reality than our government supporting a reckless US government. The possibility of a new PM that may offer resistance in the future to an overly aggressive US, will simply not be heard or regarded, and the influence of Britain will simply be non-existent (and anybody who believes we don't have one at the moment is simply wrong) and the public opinion in Britain will not matter at all globally. Public opinion in Scotland will be worth less than nothing internationally, because their leader will not be regarded.

As a United Kingdom Tony Blair did make Iraq easier for Bush, and had public opinion forced him to withdraw from Iraq (the fact it didnt has more to do with the PM in question) it would have been a significant event in the US. However a broken up UK would be so insignificant, as most countries of our size are, that it's help would not have been courted and it's denial of support would have been barely worth mentioning. A situation even more pronounced in Scotland, who if they at some point in the future felt a sense of injustice over an event in some other part of the world, they would be without an audience. Let us not forget that Blair did greatly influence Clinton on the question of Kosovo (sadly too late), as well as a strong condemnation of the Sudanese at the UN, which was surely better than having leaders who are not in the position to influence anybody beyond their immediate families.

Ref James #161

hear hear …many excellent points made

For many a wannabe Scots Separatist .. what price perceived pride indeed.

Ref Balkans, lets not also forget the recent wisdom of socialist Alex Salmond SNP MP on his world politics soap box:

"NATO's action against President Milosevic an "unpardonable folly" in pursuit of "misguided policy" and described NATO's attacks as comparable with the raids by Germany's Luftwaffe on Clydeside" [1a] [1b]

Yeah … Alex :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1a]
[1b]

It is a myth – and one which the British seem rather keen on perpetuating – that Ireland was' bailed out' by the European Union. In fact, astute economic policies, favourable demographics and an educated population are what caused the Celtic Tiger. EU grant-aid was always modest and went largely to the farming sector. Its impact on the wider economy was little better than negligible. Yet to this day, many in the UK seem unable to come to terms with the fact that Ireland was actually capable, all on its own, of outpacing the British economy. Time to leave your 19th century mentality behind,perhaps?

United we stand divided we fall. The Act of Union has been a major benefit to people from across the British Isles and this nationalist nonsense is on the verge of wiping out 300 years of history.
It is no coincidence that before 1707 Scotland and England had achieved very little, but after this date Britain quickly became the most advanced, powerful country in the world.
As a United Kingdom we became the first country on earth to industrialise on a massive scale, the nation that introduced and invented much of the technology still used today, and a nation that fought and won two world wars.
It angers me that increasing numbers of people both north and south of the border seem to have forgotten what we've achieved together , and no longer feel pride in being British.
The fact, as highlighted in the programme, that the 25 leading businesses in Scotland are all anti-independence says it all.
Douglas Alexander completely won the debate with Alex Salmond, and showed Salmond to be exactly what he is - an arrogant, smug, opportunist who has no clear policies other than a dangerous desire to break up our country.
If the people of Scotland are sick of this Labour Government, that is perfectly understandable but they should vote Conservative or Liberal Democrat not SNP, if they want to give Labour a kick in the teeth.

I always saw the Union as a model for a truly united Europe, as per Steve 53. Now, it is clear that Britain as it currently stands in Europe remains uncomitted to the new European goals and institutions- I believe it will never bring itself to enter the true spirit of cooperation required to form a strong Europe for a new world. BUT should the UK choose to withdraw from the European Union under a future government, it would be in the interests of both Scotland and Wales to secede from the Union and become States within Europe in their own right.

Ref Randolph Carter #165

"...Yet to this day, many in the UK seem unable to come to terms with the fact that Ireland was actually capable, all on its own, of outpacing the British economy …"

TALKING OF MYTHS:

… ahhh herrmm … where did Ireland get the money for this 'transformation' & what are the other causes (disputed) of its economic upturn?

The 'Celtic Tiger' [1]

Also define the term 'outpacing':

- Ireland : GDP $ 160 billion [2]

- UK : GDP 1.818 trillion [3]

… Irish sprint more like, in part of a leg of the economic race (happy to come second on figures like that).

So relatively speaking, after all this 'transformation' Ireland has only now exceeded the GDP of Scotland $130 billon [4]

Scottish GDP is a result of The Union, not in spite of it.

Scotland stands too loose most financially if it succumbs to Scottish socialist separatism.

Regardless of what policies you attribute the rosy & robust GDP's above, we know its not because of socialism :)

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

Ref Ed Iglehart #167

"... I happened to agree with Alex Salmond on the matter of bombing Kosovo. How many dead children (other folks', of course) are we willing to sacrifice? ..."

Ref leaving despots in power to kill & maim & dominate others & the comments of Alex Salmond in respect of Milosevic & Kosovo #162

"The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke [1]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]

"Outpacing" the British economy = higher per capita GDP.

Causes of Celtic Tiger - ie progressive taxation, demographics, educated population - in dispute?

Oh dear, we really are in denial aren't we?

Ireland was in receipt EU funding since the 70s (in return for signing away its fisheries rights) . But the economy only turned around after public expenditure was slashed in 1987. And the infrastructure - which the EU allegedly bankrolled - was crap until the mid 90s, when there was finally enough in the domestic coffers to build a few motorways (it's still largely undeveloped in many parts of the country)

The inability of many in the UK to take Irish prosperity at face value suggests a rather backward looking mindset. As I say, the 19th century is over.

Then again, if the UK really had a proper grasp of history and of its place in the world it wouldn't be occupying parts of the middle east right now.

Ref Randolph Carter #171

"Then again, if the UK really had a proper grasp of history and of its place in the world it wouldn't be occupying parts of the middle east right now"

- Ireland : GDP $ 160 billion [1] & 15+ years of economic prosperity.

- UK : GDP 1.818 trillion [2] & several hindered years of economic prosperity.

Which proper grasp of 'place in the world' do you fail to grasp?

Me, lapsed Catholic, 25%+ Irish, an Englishman & BRITISH.

you?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2]

CELTS LISTEN.They're making the whole story up, only getting a survey of a few hundred people is what our countries actually want? We know what the English are like. In the old days they raped, pilaged our lands, they destroyed our languages and stole our resources, which they are still doing; oil in Scotland, water, coal, steel and Gold in Wales. Our history shows that we were seperate countries. Give us our independence.

I totally agree with the English that we shouldn't have a say in their affairs, but they did in ours and still do; we're not independent yet!!! Give England their parliament and independence too.

The countries will blossom like Ireland, Serbia and Montenegro have. Give Ireland back their island; give independence to the celtic nations like Isle of Man; Independence for Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. It's so nice to see that the Cornish are trying to revive their language and the Scots are opening more Gaelic schools. I hope that they get better language rites than we do here in Wales.

It's getting better and closer to independence. I say in the new census they should have the independence question and ask people their nationalities. It's the english in Wales, Scotland and Ireland that are voting this 'No Indepence' nonsence.

There's no need for the Queen or the United Kingdom anymore. The English invaded countries for centuries and those contries have gained their independence, almost a third of the world, in fact. They took their resources and ran. They give us money???They owe the world money!I have Irish and Engish descent, but was born in Wales and am Welsh!!!

Cymru am byth a pob lwc i y Scots, Irish, Cornish a yr English.

'John Ballard 166'

What United we stand divided we fall. The United States 'divided' from the UK, do they look like they have fallen? Are you happy that the only way the UK got rich was that they raped and pilaged other countries.

The EU has told Wales that unless we were independant, we could not apply for certain benefits; the European 1 funding we applied for was suppose to, according to the EU, all come to Wales; but because of English law it went to England first and we had the scraps. Wales at the moment is the poorest country in the UK. We need independence like Ireland!

Ref James from Cardiff #174 & #175

" ... Wales at the moment is the poorest country in the UK. We need independence like Ireland! ..."

why? so Wales can be automatically become poorest country in the EU?

With it socialist separatists holding out their hands in anticipation of freebies from the EU

yeah ... can see our European colleagues looking to sub those socialists who've decided they wanted a bit more (like a greedy Tiny Taff)

What Wales has achieved in The Union is far more than she could attain as a socialist separatist state.

Still its an entertaining idead :)

vikingar

I am not in the least surprised that all of the above messages from Englishmen seem to think that Scotland would be seceding from England and not the UK. The PM reflected the same view on his 16 Jan press conferrence.

I am surprised, though, that most of the Scottish posts reflect the same view.

As a Northern Irishman I do question my allegiance to a union that seems to know not its other members.

I am constantly patronised in my London workplace- though this never happens for Welsh, Scots (and even more strangely, Irish nationals).

I am not sure why Scots would want to pull away from a larger country they own and run. They, like the Northern and Southern Irish, fare much better when they unchip the shoulder and look outward. More Edinburgh, less Glasgow. More stupid ciabatta sandwiches, less battered pizzas.

But England! Try not to patronise your little statelets and we'll not be such grumpy little Celts!

#85 Collected Eric
4) Salmond said something about "Benelux before the euro". What did he mean?

Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands & Luxemburg) had a monetary union, before the introduction of the Euro, whereby the exchange rates of national currencies were fixed and the latter were valid in each of the three countries (ie you did not have to change money when you happened to end up next door). I don't recall AS's comment but I suspect he meant that he would keep the 'Scottish' pound in line with the 'English' one before joining the Euro...

Greetings from hot and sticky central Africa.

CF

In reference to: vikingar.

Well like I said england has stolen our money and resources. They flooded our valleys, so that they can have water, no compensation to the villagers that lived in those valleys and they don't pay for the water that are in the Welsh resevoirs. The only reason why england is so rich, is the money and resources they stole from other countries. Just ask India, Hong Kong, the African countries. Wales is poor now, but if we get our independence, businesses will return to Wales. The UK, at the moment has too many taxes for businesses, that's why they leave.

On another note, when Welsh, Scotish and Irish go abroad they behave themselves; you don't see them on the front page of every newspaper and on every news programme causing riots. Just look what the english were like in France and Germany during the last 2 World cups. No-one likes them. The wars in Iraq, they're not what the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and the other Celtic contries wanted. I say let england send their troops over to Iraq, but leave us out of it. Lets hope in the next elections enough people vote for the SNP, Plaid (Cymru) and Sein Fein; we need our independence.

I have simmered and simpered since watching this debate and finally decided to post this comment. I was absolutely disgusted at the way Jeremy Paxman chaired this event, his actions were most certainly biased towards the Union and continually stopped Alex Salmond from speaking whilst failing to rain in Alexander when he continually interrupted proceedings. Is not the chair of a debate supposed to ensure evenhandedness from both sides, I wanted to hear a proper debate not Jeremy ranting on about his Englishness, it was pathetic to watch and instead of listening to debating protagonists we were treated to Jeremy acting like a prima donna and he nows best attitude. If we are to listen to political debate then I for one hope Jeremy stays well away from any future embarrasing fiascos like the one I endured on the 16th. I would much have preferrd Elaine C Smith to chair such a debate as she demonstrated a far more incisive understanding of the Scottish question than Jeremy could ever hope to have. Give her a job on the next debate please.

>As a Northern Irishman I do question my allegiance to a union that seems to know not its other members.

Hi Carl,

Know what you mean, know what you mean!!!! ;-)

Rob.

The little slither of land, which is the original 13 states were never united with the UK. The did well as part of the Empire, and their greed led to the declaration (watching the Nail Furguson program was facinating, and the truth would of upset a lot of US people). They grew through the murder of the native indians, and pure and simple Empire building.

But the USA breaking up, would never cross any US people's minds, as they know California, or Texas (part of Mexico?), or New York breaking away, would damage the US. They would consider it un-patriotic, and treasonous. Something that seems to be the norm over here.

This debate was about, if you think the union will see three more centuries. But not as three united countries, but as a United Country: UK of GB and NI. I know that it desreves too, forever. All the Kingdoms and regions of this Country have done great things, due to the union of this Country. Long may it reign, and the British people reign above this melancholy, negative, stupidity.

Mr.Darren Riche-Webber

If you had even the most base understanding of the 'state of the union' over here, you'd see there's very little in common with America - and that, indeed, it is a fudged situation that was actually birthed through entirely undemocratic means. We are talking about countries within a fudged political state - not states within a country.

The UK exists that England may benefit. It's really very simple. Now, you must understand, there's no victim complex from my POV. I think England 'needs' her independence also, to get over the very recent undemocratic 'West Lothian' question, to throw of it's reliance on Scotland etc and recalibrate - without the need for Scots, Welsh or N.Irish in its wars, without the need for nuclear questions that don't really apply to Scotland, without lectures about being stronger in the 'war against terrorism' together in the union [whilst building up arsenals of nuclear capability in Scottish lochs and rivers]. Please. With the greatest of respect, I wouldn't begin to wax lyrical about the chimpanzee you have in office - I'd rather be in a position to distance myself from that, if you don't mind...

Mr Cameron Edwards.

I do not know what over here mean's exactly, and I'm not going down the: you know nothing about history, road. I have not got time for the slagging off rubbish.

I do not see anything in common with the US, except we should have some sort of fedral set up (with England divided up, as I think the North of England has the same attitude as Scotland anyway). I was led to beleave also, that The US after independence, was run by an undemocratic committee.

Now I'm not saying the Union of my Country started off as all sweetness and light, many Countries have had unstable beginnings. Our Country, or it's people, the British/Britons are failing at this, where as America, Germany, France, and so on, are successful. The UK is the equivalent of them, not a Country with Country's, or Countrets, or whatever within her. It's strange though, a lot of people would accept Britain being a federal state of Europe, and not a nation state. The same for when certain silly people talk of Britain, or the UK not uniting with the US. It would be joining as the 51st state, as if we were the equivalent Wyoming.

Sport and recent attitudes give people the illusion that these old troublsome Kingdoms are Countries, and I've noticed where politician's never referred to these Kingdoms as Countries before, are now doing so. Part of the failure of the politician's, was not to properly define these Kingdoms.

Legally there should not be these separate teams, and a lot of people I know, are quite open and speak sensibly about having a GB, or UK football team. I was once told as a kid by my friends Scottish mother to: always support the teams of your Country, and that years ago traitors used to be hung. It was only because Brazil was cool, and we as kids want them to win against, of all teams, England. I've always wanted to see all my Country's teams do well, but not to the detriment, or to undermine my Country.

Those chimpanzee's at the top, are from Scotland, and Blair, who's war, with Bush this is, was born in Edingburgh. I'n not a Labour supporter. If they were all good politician's, and all Scottish, it wouldn't bother me anyway. The UK is everybody's Country, including there's. You've a right to stand in deepest surrey, and rigthly think of it as part of your Country. It's not a one way street.

You say the UK exists for England's benefit, you are wrong. If this was the case, it would be for the South East of England, as the North of England (differnet culture to the South of England) has been the forgotten victim in most of this.

I do not want to see any part of Britain in war. All I wanted to see at the beginning of the new century for The UK, was for us not to be embroiled in any wars and to see this Goverment support British (not English) shipbuilding, in building ships like the QM2 and other commercial ships, and for the Country to be happy about itself. None of this seems to be the case, at the moment.

If I see an industry close in Scotland, I'm likely to be more upset than any industry in the South of England, which is where I live. I know it is more difficult up North in general.

This is with the greatest respect, try not to assume, and have ago at people, you do not know. Try to let the past of a very long time ago, rest in peace, and not destroy our future. We all know there were crimes of the past, it happens all over the world. Ours is not a special case. There seems to be no reconcilliation, and if there are issues that favour say England over Wales, can this not be changed so it does become fare?

Happy Burns night to everybody.

Hey again

Burns supper was lovely thanks.

Rest assured I have no desire nor interest in engaging in a mud slinging competition. Unfortunately, with the greatest of respect, you seem to have a fairly weak political grasp on what is happening in the UK.

In short - a Federal UK would add another layer of government, NOT stop cross border meddling, counter and repeal both of acts of Union and surely act as a catalyst to the reestablishment of Scotland and England as independent nations. So I'm all for federalism. ;o)

Unfortunately - it cannot work.

England is too big in comparison to the other nations - in addition there is at once - right now - a strong sense of national identity which means that regionalisation will never be accepted either [as England has already shown]. Independence is a sensible answer.

Not sure where your coming from historically. 'Unstable beginnings'? Try forced and manipulated beginnings - and only for the benefit of rogues and a larger nation. History has shown time and time again that such situations fall apart of their own fickle threads. America, France and Germany - for better or worse - were shared architects in their deliberacy of action via revolution etc.

'Sport and recent attitudes give people the illusion that these old troublsome Kingdoms are Countries, and I've noticed where politician's never referred to these Kingdoms as Countries before, are now doing so. Part of the failure of the politician's, was not to properly define these Kingdoms.'

Ummm. I'm afraid I'm not really concerned with sports - not sure why you should be either. This is a completely obscure comment, with the greatest of respect. What on Earth has this to do with anything? Really. Scotland *was* and *is* a country, let me assure you - not some state scrambling for recognition. Think you'll find a number of people refer to Scotland as a country, solely due to the fact it is one.

'Legally there should not be these separate teams, and a lot of people I know, are quite open and speak sensibly about having a GB, or UK football team. I was once told as a kid by my friends Scottish mother to: always support the teams of your Country, and that years ago traitors used to be hung. It was only because Brazil was cool, and we as kids want them to win against, of all teams, England. I've always wanted to see all my Country's teams do well, but not to the detriment, or to undermine my Country.'

Huh? Legally? Really? This single comment demonstrates your interest in the matter - and I welcome that - but don't give up the day job with regards political debates on the UK constitution.

Also the Blair thing. Yes, he has Scottish connections - though I doubt he'd consider that the case. To be clear, I have a lot of respect for English nationalists [and federlists!] who are trying to put one over on the absurdity of a union that denies them a democratic voice - much like Scotland endured for many, many years. The thin ream of Scottish Unionists are an altogether different bunch. These are the people who seem comfortable with the real scaremongering. Balkanisation! Bin Laden attacks! Social ties disappearing!! Absolutely shameful - and unrequired. Whereas the Tory patry simply desire Union for the reasons I've stated before - they know the future needs Scotland. Importantly, this is NOT true viceversa.

What some people will to say to preserve this union! For, further to that, I am absolutely convinced that Scotland and England and the other countries of these islands could have an altogether more healthy and proactive relationship if each is secure in its existence, its own part to play in the world, for good, as partners and brothers.

Scottish unionists? I can only assume a great many of them are lost in their 'larger' career aspirations - instead of recognising and pursuing tangible change that would bring *real* difference to peoples lives whilst earning their respect in a real manner. Look at Brown. It's pathetic. A UK primeminister who is largely unwelcome in England, ignores the 'English' question, attempts to terrify Scots 'back home' and consistently oohs and aahs about 'narrow' nationalism. Well, this manner of narrow nationalism wouldn't have seen us carting body bags back home from Iraq. This manner of narrow nationalism despises war and is entirely inclusive. This manner of narrow nationalism wants to truly thrive with the global community of nations.

North England has a working class history much more in line with Scots - yes. I've heard from many N.English who are genuinely alarmed at the prospect of an 'England' driven by the South - you're missing the point, though. I'm not denying that N.England suffered at the hands of Thatcher etc I am convinced that the country to the North, with it's own distinct culture is nevertheless at once a larder for future 'British' requirements. This means a bland, Anglo-centric dismantling of Scotland. Have you been to Wales?? Point in example. The poor people of Gwynedd. What an absurd stuation. Please - the last three hundred years have demonstrated this adequately enough - and, if anything, the future will demand more from Scotland to serve a union which leaves her mute in the world and voiceless on her own shores.

For 2007 I want: no part in UK,US wars/no part in Nuclear power stations that Scotland doesn't require/no part in Nuclear arsenals Scotland doesn't need - I want a proGreen Scotland with aims that focus on her people, cutting edge futures and real input within the community of nations.

A Union in 2007 is an absurd, backward arrangement cradled by those bent on an British/Anglostate - Scotland leaving the Union is entirely a forwards, proactive, inclusive step that supports the people of Scotland AND England.

Not concerned about the past. No victim complex here. Not interested in debating battles or even the old fudge of union - merely want to get rid of the current fudge, and then we can all move on...

Ahhh. Vikingar. Glad to see you're still painting negativity for the masses. The boogey-woogey man will come and we'll all embrace some manner new manner of potato famine. Fearful rubbish mate.

'"The Past" its called history, its living & breathing & has shaped shared values & common norms, institutions, politics, society & culture of The United Kingdom & its peoples, British (Scots, Irish, Welsh, English).'

Yes - it is. However, from experience on debates on this thread, had I investigated the importance of 'the past' in any real sense - its impact on what is essentially a *required* divorce - you would doubtless have branded me as some retrograde, backward thinking Jacobite - living in that past - with no real grasp of forward thinking and nursing an exclusionary chip on the shoulder...

So, I'll simply repeat the reasons cited above. ;o)

Forward thinking Scots/Welsh/Irish/English.

Thanks.

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Abraham Lincoln....Prophetic words

O dear 184, there you go again.

I apologize for not being a politician like you. I like to see things happen, and happen for the good, and the Country breaking up, is not one of them.

The inevitability factor in this Country of: this is what's going to happen, and usually for the worse, is a typical British attitude nower days, aswell as the belittling, people seem to recieve from other's who do not like the truth or different veiw. But if we are going back to being a little tribal people, this is to be expected.

I do not see why federalisation would mean repealing any of the act's involved in the union of this Country, or that it will lead to these Kingdom's, province, and principality becoming totally independent, and sovereign. The union has changed because of devolution to parts of the Country anyway, and has not needed repealing the act of union. This is a kind of federation anyway, and has evolved. Politics, and law in a lot of cases, are a matter of interpretation.

As to what is the Country, people who refer to Scotland, or England etc, and then Britain, or the UK as Countries in the same breath are trying to please everyone. Britain is the Country. It act's like a any normal Country (politically and non-politically), she does Country type things, and she feels like a Country. Wether you like it or not, Britain (UK), is the Country.

The football reference was to highlight, how a good few people tended to be 25+ years ago (and I should think alot of them have been coersed into the nationalistic way of thinking now), and how damaging even a sport like football is. It may not seem relevent, but it one of the things that needlessly contributes to this Country's death of a thousand cuts. History going back to Romans up to today is important into trying to understand where this Country is coming from, and how certain truths upset people, history can get muddled. I'm not into football anyway. Motoracing is my thing, and I support (in my opinion) our top British driver, David Coulthard, and would proudly wave a St Andrew alongside a Union Flag.

I have to say, I'm no sassonnach, and I do not want to be labbled English as my race, nation, creed etc. It's not right, in the head and heart.

These false identities of the Welsh, English, Scottish, are really made up, but thats not to say, they should exist. I love Scottish culture, I get emotional when the bag pipes are played, etc. It upsets me when they are used as a divisive tool in undermining the Country. They are part of a great Scottish, and British culture. They are not exclusive to just Scotland, as part of the make up of this Country.

There is nothing wrong in any Scottish person wanting to run this big important Country. There has been Scottish PM's in the past, and always in important office's of power. Ambition, is not a dirty word. As I have said before: Britain is their Country too, why shouldn't they want to run it, or be PM. Nationalist's have their own ambitions too which are very self orientated.

You have to accept that there are people from Scotland who see a bigger picture than yours. As I accept there are separatists from all over the Country, from Cornwall, to the Highlands, even though it does not make any sense to me. They do not want to be bogged down by history like this also.

Such situations fall apart of thier fickle threads. Only if people get their facts wrong, or only see bad, and carry on their own self destructive way, (very British at the moment) This situation has lasted over 300 years. It's been better than the US, France or Germany, and can be improved still.

You speak with bitterness and resentment, as if history does effect you. People just do not, cannot, or do not want to rise to this situation, make Britain work for them, and vice versa. All the component (great) parts of the Nation need to be strong and fair for all the people, with no body being made to feel a foreigner in any part of their Country, and if they do, shame on those people.

The thing with lunatic fringes bodies, is that they can influence people, that everthing is bad (yes, there is need for improvment, that deos not mean it should be detroyed), that their way will be the more sunny side, and only they can achieve this, at great expense. They only want to see the union fail at the end of the day.

The righteous, and pretentious way in which nationalists go about things, as if it's their devine way, inevitable destiny, and that Scottish Unionist's are either dirty, less Scottish, un-Scottish, or it is they, who are the extremists, and disloyal one's is pretty low to say the least.

But in the end, this being a democratic Country, it's in the people's hands to press the self destruct button, as that's what it amounts to.

If you (Mr Edwards) are not concerned about the past, surely we can go onwards, and upwards together.

Never the less, well said that man. Even when you are wrong.

I have previously always considered myself to be British first and English second. I was brought up to be tolerant and understanding of all cultures, creeds, and religions, that I was part of four great Nations which have merged to become an example to the world of tolerance and democracy. That was, until I moved to Wales. As a tourist spending money I was welcomed but as a resident I have had first-hand experience of the hatred and racism that exists openly here, so much so that I can't wait to move back to
England. They winge and whine, blaming the English for everything. In sports, if the four nations are competing seperately then obviously each will support their own region. However, if England is knocked out in a competition then the English automatically give their support to the others that remain as the British contingent. Andy Murray at Wimbledon expressed clearly the view of our not so loyal neighbours.
Let them have their Independance for I am now ashamed to call myself British.

The Union unfortunately cannot last in it's current format...

If the Scots vote for it, then they should allowed to have their independence!
The same goes for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as long as in each case it is the PEOPLE who decide and not their MPs!

It comes down to the same issue, no matter whether you are English (as I am), Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish...

Our government has betrayed us! It has constantly worked towards a totalitarian nation where freedom is a political construct rather than a basic human right, it has allied itself with the world's most arrogant and tyrannical leader and has ignored everything that it's people have wanted along the way. This government has used every political loop-hole in order to secure their power in the future and yet they still claim to be working for the good of our nation!
It is FINALLY time that the people of the British Isles get what THEY want!!
Everyone just wants a say in what THEIR country does!! We all want to be represented...

I refer to myself as English, because I feel ashamed of what this British Government has done... Many may say that I have more to be ashamed of as an Englishman, but I refuse to apologise for a history of conflict and bloodshed that was well before my time. I am more ashamed by this government's weasel-like approach to international diplomacy.

Each of the Home Nations should have their own National Representative Government controlled by that country's people and not by corrupt power-hungry men who have no moral integrity.

Unfortunately the Union is doomed, the British Government has failed!...

Time to try listening to the People of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!

Oh dear. Mr.Webber.

What to do with you. ;o)

The country breaking up isn't a bad thing - where the country is a unfair political union. The *country* gaining freedom, and answering agendas and future challenges that are relevant to it, however, is a *very, very* good thing. The country being Scotland.

"The inevitability factor in this Country of: this is what's going to happen, and usually for the worse, is a typical British attitude nower days, aswell as the belittling, people seem to recieve from other's who do not like the truth or different veiw. But if we are going back to being a little tribal people, this is to be expected."

I have no idea what this means. Seriously, with the greatest of respect, none of this - or much else of what you say - actually makes any kind of sense. The amazing thing is, I'm not mud slinging! Far from it. Its just gibberish. Sorry.

A federation cannot work. Let's look at it another way. The main political unionist parties are terrified of it, especially the Tories. Why? Because it *would* end the union. This is also why, apart from anything else, the unionist parties will not dance with English nationalists. Many of whom are under the impression that their [understandable] cause for English self-governance can also include a [totally unworkable] federation.

So, sorry in turn that I *do* have a grasp of UK politics, but as you can see, the politicians themselves are very aware of the dangers posed by any talk of federation.

"As to what is the Country, people who refer to Scotland, or England etc, and then Britain, or the UK as Countries in the same breath are trying to please everyone. Britain is the Country. It act's like a any normal Country (politically and non-politically), she does Country type things, and she feels like a Country. Wether you like it or not, Britain (UK), is the Country."

Hehheh. Mr.Webber. It's not a question of me liking it or not - and I'm not interested in pleasing anyone. Perhaps you're referring to Brown and his cronies. Playing the 'tattie-scone' card in Scotland, whilst playing up England on English soil. Really. Truly. This only underlines the absurdity of a fudged union, and the slippery, double-dealing unionist politicians who will do what it takes to glean votes.

I can assure you, preaching the importance of 'Britishness' to English only schools is as transparent as anything else along these lines - and the English aren't stupid! - they can see through the sheer bloody cheek of this like any other self-respecting nation!

"The football reference was to highlight, how a good few people tended to be 25+ years ago (and I should think alot of them have been coersed into the nationalistic way of thinking now), and how damaging even a sport like football is. It may not seem relevent, but it one of the things that needlessly contributes to this Country's death of a thousand cuts. History going back to Romans up to today is important into trying to understand where this Country is coming from, and how certain truths upset people, history can get muddled. I'm not into football anyway. Motoracing is my thing, and I support (in my opinion) our top British driver, David Coulthard, and would proudly wave a St Andrew alongside a Union Flag."

What utter, utter nonsense. Dear oh dear. Mr. Webber, in the humblest manner possible, do you live in the 'UK'? Do you have any notion of Scottish history, culture? English even?

You are suggesting that Scotland and England are not, in fact, countries? Please. You might want to tell that to Mrs Coulthard and Murray then? Huh? I believe they generally wave the flag of their country, Scotland? Perhaps I was seeing things when I saw Mr.Murray drape himself in the Lion Rampant, the Scottish Kings flag?

Get a grip - and do understand - Scotland, England, Ireland - all nations in their own right.

"These false identities of the Welsh, English, Scottish, are really made up, but thats not to say, they should exist. I love Scottish culture, I get emotional when the bag pipes are played, etc. It upsets me when they are used as a divisive tool in undermining the Country. They are part of a great Scottish, and British culture. They are not exclusive to just Scotland, as part of the make up of this Country."

Stop, you're killing me.

Scottish identity is 'made up'? But the British identity isn't?

Hmmm, you did watch the newsnight debate, right? You did see and listen to those [fairly intelligent] people from different vocational corners, outline and defend and plan for the future of their Scottish/English identities?? Are they all deluded Mr. Webber? Are all the nationalists in Scotland and England deluded? Are all those unionists of your mind too, that Scotish and English identities are just concoctions?

"There is nothing wrong in any Scottish person wanting to run this big important Country. There has been Scottish PM's in the past, and always in important office's of power. Ambition, is not a dirty word. As I have said before: Britain is their Country too, why shouldn't they want to run it, or be PM. Nationalist's have their own ambitions too which are very self orientated. You have to accept that there are people from Scotland who see a bigger picture than yours. As I accept there are separatists from all over the Country, from Cornwall, to the Highlands, even though it does not make any sense to me. They do not want to be bogged down by history like this also."

Goodness me Mr.Webber. You're suggesting that planning for an independent Scotland is not pondering the 'bigger picture'? The bigger picture in this case involving itself with Environmental questions that are suitable for Scotland, defence decisions that are suitable for Scotland etc Believe me, there is nothing more noble nor practical in defining a future Scotland that can act as an example to other nations. There is such opportunity, such exciting new horizons to be tackled, that this is more than 'big' enough for the Scottish people.

300 years. I suggest you *read* Mr.Webber. Read alllll about the union. There's lots there to criticise - but I would ask you to pay particulary attention to the last 30 years, whilst pondering what a democracy actually is ;o) Even from Thatcher through to Labour's numerous undemocratic shortfalls in Scotland *and* England. Please. Buy a book. Also, you might want to dwell on this very pertinent little snippet - spoken by a very intelligent young Asian Scot, with more cause, ken and right to speak about the union, than you - I suspect -

"You speak with bitterness and resentment, as if history does effect you. People just do not, cannot, or do not want to rise to this situation, make Britain work for them, and vice versa. All the component (great) parts of the Nation need to be strong and fair for all the people, with no body being made to feel a foreigner in any part of their Country, and if they do, shame on those people."

No, no, no. Sighhhh. It's very rare to come across a mailer who is wrong - so very wrong - on almost every aspect of the thread. You don't even have the first idea of what you're talking about, and that saddens me. Why are you wasting your time on something you clearly know very little about?

I'm not bitter. I'm hopeful. No resentment, rather, a full heart. Promise. Bettering ourselves. Being better neighbours. Helping others. That's what it's all about Mr.Webber. An independent Scotland offers more opportunity to connect the common man to politics, and it's actions, than fudged, non-sensical, indirect, misrepresented UK fudges.

"The thing with lunatic fringes bodies, is that they can influence people, that everthing is bad (yes, there is need for improvment, that deos not mean it should be detroyed), that their way will be the more sunny side, and only they can achieve this, at great expense. They only want to see the union fail at the end of the day."

You see the SNP as a 'lunatic fringe body'?

Enough said. ;o)

"The righteous, and pretentious way in which nationalists go about things, as if it's their devine way, inevitable destiny, and that Scottish Unionist's are either dirty, less Scottish, un-Scottish, or it is they, who are the extremists, and disloyal one's is pretty low to say the least."

Oh good god. Get real. No one is marching to Gretna by burning torch if the SNP lose in May Mr.Webber. I don't regard unionists as dirty. I believe the common folk of Scotland are living in changing times, which they clearly are, politically. We're looking at transitional times in Scotland and England - for obvious and required - entirely inductive - reasons. You know what's low Mr.Webber? Scottish MPs voting against Trident and the defence requirements of the larger state being forced on them anyway. Environmental decisions - massive ones - being made, that don't have any relevance to a small country with a loooooong shoreline. I'm sure there are many out there who could no doubt add to this list of injustices in turn. That's the whole point. The union can't work because it's not representing the people of Scotland, and right now, the people of England either - though for different and equally valid reasons. It's not answerable, nor representative.

"But in the end, this being a democratic Country, it's in the people's hands to press the self destruct button, as that's what it amounts to."

Really awful assumption. Wholly inaccurate. Fact 1 - Scotland isn't going to become a boom-country. Fact 2 - neither is it going to be a vagrant in the world. Keep wild, rather silly, sentences like this for the 'doomed' brigade.

"If you (Mr Edwards) are not concerned about the past, surely we can go onwards, and upwards together."

The past? I'm very much concerned with the FUTURE Mr.Webber. The F-U-T-U-R-E. Hope that's clear enough. For the record, as a grown-up, I see Scotland and England moving forward together in a much happier state of affairs, should their own people be represented!!

Poorly said - all of it. Really, F- Mr.Webber. Inaccurate, frequently non-sensical, always completely, irrevocably wrong.

I would ask someone - anyone - out there to underline the fact that I'm [hopefully] not going mad and, in fact, judging by Mr.Webber's musings, he's possibly the most 'wrong' person on the planet.

I would, finally, ask you to 'up' your views on the union. It can only - in every sense - help democracy return to Scotland and England, and the SNP cause generally, by its sheer idiocy.