When Lloyd talks of "the big figures from-but no longer in-Scottish politics", he unconsciously expresses something profound, but then shows his own blindness to this fact by going on to talk about making the argument for the union.

The union has been maintained in Scotland through the suppression of argument; the Scottish establishment knew early on that this was the price for prosperity. It may also be because of Presbyterian support, but the union has been treated, until very recently, as a moral rather than a political issue.

Reaction to those who questioned it was not that they were humoured, as I think Lloyd was trying to say, it was nastier than that. They were treated as morally suspect and there is a long history of such thoughts being loosely associated with a dark and primitive side to Scotland's past, as part of what has come to be called the Scottish cringe.

The success of the SNP has therefore been testimony to the decline of this monolithic British presumption, and is in itself destabilising. This poses particular problems, not just for the other parties, but for Scottish civil society as a whole, because the ground rules of what is permissible to Scots in terms of attitudes and aspirations is no longer proscribed.

The difficulty, highlighted by Lloyd's and other's blind spot, in discussing the present situation lies in the peculiarity of the Scottish case, which is that a continuing separate Scottish state structure was negotiated in 1707. As Nairn has argued in After Britain', to stabilise this unusual situation close tries were formed between elites, most importantly at the Westminster parliament.

Scotland was a state without a polity, serious politics, like serious business, took place in London. This was a fact of life, and questioning this was discouraged. So the Labour Party finds itself in uncharted waters, its usual responses, like that off all other British governing parties of the carrot and stick [Barnett or dire warnings of economic disaster] are no longer enough [devolution can be seen as a new variant of the carrot].

After 300 years of studiously trying to bury the issue of its incomplete nation building, the British establishment now finds it nigh impossible to know how to respond when the taboo has been breeched.

Alex Buchan

From Keith McBurney

Dougthedug may get back to answer your question. That you are asking it may be telling enough. It is, is it not, rather revealing, in being out of touch with where it is at and will go down ...or for the better up?

Go find and read Wendy Alexander's 2007 St Andrew's Day speech heralding GB of GB's cherry picking exercise on behalf of the UK-wide parties. NB her first and foremost open re-avowal to the Home Rule of Keir Hardie, John Smith and Donald Dewar. Conclusion as to her departure from the scene for now?

Labour in Scotland is neither here nor there. As an in-house divided, it is in no position to get abreast of other than GB of GB's declared times. She had to go 'cos she had already written him off. Scotland has been a Labour fiefdom for too long. Irrespective of the Glasgow East result, the real message is to expect many other resignations on family or health grounds before the next General Election. Why take the heat if you can get out of the kitchen.

And the real heat is because the English Question can only be resolved in Scotland. The UK is England writ large: you cannot leave yourselves. Ask the CEP's Angela.

Some will not wish to bear the responsibility of losing England after WA apologised for losing Scotland. Such arrogance was her undoing.

For Scotland, the small price of Independence is Union. For England, the small price of  Union is Independence for itself too, not to mention Wales and N Ireland in some autonomous measure. Keir Hardie got it wrong at the time to get it right later.

For us all - English, Scots, Welsh, and yes all the Irish, along with as now the self-governing isles folk of the Guernsey, Jersey and Man as well as the overseas territories if it be their wish too - that means Confederation in Independence and Union. Get it? The politicians do. Heard anyone want to save the UK? No, they speak of saving the Union as all UK-wide parties do because collectively they must. What say they individually? We can but ask! Do so!

For ##### sake England wake up, or you will end up with the UK writ small in England alone and still not decentralised. Can you imagine the laughter in Bonn and Paris? That is the problem which ersatz decentralisation in devolution to their hubristic set aside margins has been: the beginning of their downfall. If you have to ask who, you are still dreaming that they might.

It need not be our downfall. If you really do wish to make everything better for us all, there is only one party to engage with: us - yes, you too - the people.

And the means? Our own Citizens' Constitutional Conventions in each of our nations. And yes we can, because we must. Let's have a party!  Lets have a ball!  Let’s have the balls!

So choose: us or them? Party to the solution, or party to the problem? Confederation in Independence and Union. The Council of the Isles awaits the Union of the Isles.

Our nations of families, and our family of friendly nations deserves nothing less. What did our forbears live and die for but our freedom to choose freedom. We can even find grace in saving our colonial selves for last - whilst others still die in our name if only for each other, as we are safely but not assuredly abed pontificating as i.

Go see "Black Watch" Did we defend our dying so that Saddam could outlive the first and what should have been the only war against Iraq? Why was Srebnica not defended? Are there only two classes: them and us plebs of any religion? No way my fore fathers' way nor mine. Did yours' die so that you had to read this pitiful effort on their and our behalves. Am i alone in this as i must be in all else?

Goodnight UK. Good Morning IU.

And you too EU, in Confederation. Did the sins of "Commission" ever think anyone would want a USE, UESR, or New Holy Roman Empire!

You only need vision if you are wearing "endism" blinkers. Get real. There is much less time than you think.

Aye Ours, Keith

PS. 42 days in Glasgow East! That’s time off! Try 10p off – Labour’s pole-axing poll tax.

Newsnight have a piece on Brown's Jekyl and Hyde-ish Scottish/Britishness.

A fair point Anthony but the continual references to the, "Scottish Labour Party", and, "Scottish Labour Leader", generally in the media are not simple mistakes and it is something that annoys me.
The Labour Party continually tries to push the idea that there is a, "Scottish Labour Party", and, "Scottish Labour Leader", in order to pretend that Labour in Scotland has some independence from Labour in the rest of Britain and to gain some electoral advantage from it and the media goes along with it either deliberately or through lazyness.
Even Gordon Brown has referred to a, "Scottish Labour Leader", though the only Scottish, Welsh, English, and Northern Irish Labour Leader is Gordon Brown. (I'm still not sure if the Labour party really wants to be a party in Northern Ireland. They only accepted members from Northern Ireland after being threatened with the Race Relations Act in 2003)

Dougthedug: thogh we do not disagree much, by Scottish Labour Party I wasn't meaning an institution but a culture. I may be wrong but I think there is a different Labour tradition in Scotland, one that is, indeed, in its own way an expression of Scottishness even while this is also Unionist. So we can make the distinction between Labour north and south of the border even if there is one monolithic organisation, as you put it.

The British Labour Party is deeply rooted in Scotland but although there once was a Scottish Labour party it dissolved in 1893.

The Conservatives have a separate sub-party in Scotland as do the Lib-Dems but not the Labour Party. The British Labour Party is a monolithic organisation in structure and in outlook.
There is no, "Scottish Labour Party", and therefore no, "Scottish Labour Party Leader", thought the term is frequently used to refer to the leader of the Labour MSP's in the Scottish Parliament, a postition which is usually ignored by the rest of the members of the British Labour Party based in Scotland and elsewhere. John Loyd continues this basic error throughout his article.

What's unfortunate about Irish nationalism and why is the ever present British nationalism of the establishment not mentioned? It's the usual story where all nationalisms are bad except for British nationalism which is not a real nationalism as far as commenters like John Loyd are concerned.

The British Labour Party is British Nationalist and it is quite clear that any radicalism which it once espoused and which was often seen as a threat to the establishment was simply a gimmick which used the establishment as a background and stage to strut on. The perfect example of this is of course ex-minister Brian Wilson who once sold himself as a "firebrand" in Scotland but is now as British nationalist and establishment as any crusty old colonel back from the tea plantation in the time of the Raj.

The SNP don't want to change the establishment or use it as a platform to strut on and threaten, they just want to leave it entirely. Labour have grown into the establishment, perks, privileges, honours and baubles and a touch of ermine at the end of a career. That's why Labour hate them and that's why it is going to be very difficult for the Labour Party in Scotland because as they try to sell themselves as establishment cheer-leaders they will find themselves in harmony with the Conservatives and the ultra-unionist Lib-Dems who are the very people they're trying to differentiate themselves from in England.

Brown's Scottish Unionism fails to strike a chord south of the Border because Unionism is not something that has ever had to be considered in England as even now the majority of the population there still cannot differentiate between Britain and England. I suspect that Brown's banging on about "Britishness" just comes across as something a little odd and foreign.

Events at The Edinburgh Dungeon would suggest not.

John Smeaton, sweetheart of the Labour Conference, lauded and applauded by Gordon Brown, plays William Wallace.

I don't know if it's a cultural difference between England and Scotland that stopped Scottish Labour MPs rebelling over 42-days when quite a number of English Labour members did.  Are Scots more statist and authoritarian by nature, or are they just less likely to rebel?  Or just more likely to stick up for their boy in No.10?

"There is a deeply rooted Scottish Labour Party and labour movement, more so than in England"

I can't comment on how true that statement is of Scotland but from a Welsh perspective part of the push towards devolution among some in Welsh Labour was the realisation that there was a generational time-bomb ticking under the party and that it needed to renew itself.

Labour’s dominance was built on heavy industry. Wales is no longer a country of heavy industry. While the Labour vote remains higher in Wales and Scotland than in England, can it be said to be ‘deeply rooted’ following de-industrialisation?