I agree with Hendre; but my point was who is entitled to vote on Scottish independence, and what should be the question on which they are voting? Should only people living in Scotland be entitled to vote on a question that asks for people's views on independence out of any UK-wide context; or should Scottish people (not defined ethnically - I'm not the one who's viewing this in ethnic terms; I never stated I saw Scottishness as an ethnicity) living elsewhere also have the vote on the same context-free question; or, if you admit the principle that interested persons outside of Scotland (which unionists might wish to extend to all UK citizens) should also have a say, should a single question (e.g. Scottish independence and a newly defined state / constitution for the rest of the UK) be put to the whole of the UK - the consequence of a 'no' vote in the rest of the UK not being a veto on Scottish independence but the requirement to find another settlement for the remaining UK countries, including the possibility of independence for them? See my further discsussion on this (my final word here on the matter!) at: http://nationalconversationforengland.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/scottish-independence-a-uk-wide-referendum-would-be-required/.

I agree with Hendre. The crucial thing to understand about nationalism is that it is not a racism or ethnism. It is open to anyone who 'imagines' themselves to be part of the community, to follow Ben Anderson's analysis. His point being that this imagining is very real and influential. There can be chauvinists who proclaim a racially defined nationalism but they can be - and mostly are - successfully frustrated because they are, among other things, making a category mistake.

On Wales, I know an English born person who not only speaks Welsh and is now the parent in a Welsh speaking family, but has also taught it.

As Alex says, in the UK nationalism is civic.

The 2001 census revealed that 1 in 5 people resident in Wales were English-born. While this ‘English vote’ is significant it is probably misleading to term it as such since the reasons why English people live in Wales and their attitudes towards Welshness vary so much.

Two Plaid Cymru Assembly Members are English incomers; both Labour and the Conservatives also have English-born Assembly Members. Voting based on ethnicity really is a non-issue.

“How about if you - not your parents - were born in Warsaw or Karachi; or London or Newcastle upon Tyne, for that matter? Does that make you not Scottish and, by that token, not entitled to a vote on Scottish independence?”

The fact that this has never been raised in Scotland and that no one would ever consider raising it says all that needs to be said, and flows directly from the fact that Scottish nationalism is civic [or as Nairn would say ‘constitutional’] rather than ethnic. But it leaves me wondering why it is so important for your argument to find an ethnic nationalism lurking under the surface.

"Whether your parents were born in Warsaw or Karachi or Inverness is immaterial to you feeling Scottish. From birth onwards your experience of life is shaped by distinctly Scottish institutions".

How about if you - not your parents - were born in Warsaw or Karachi; or London or Newcastle upon Tyne, for that matter? Does that make you not Scottish and, by that token, not entitled to a vote on Scottish independence? 

“Well, there is a point in mentioning the situation of Scots living outside of Scotland, which relates to the question of who should decide on Scottish independence.”

I think it would be instructive if you could spend some time in Scotland. You might be surprised to find that even the very unionist BBC, along with STV, in their Scottish current affairs output rarely refer to Scotland as if it were part of Britain. For instance, if there are surveys done it is always reported in a Europe wide context. So we get Scotland has the worst record on ‘x’ in Europe, or the best record on ‘y’ in Europe. In effect, Scotland is already treated in many regards as an independent entity in Europe.

In this respect the BBC in Scotland and others are merely in tune with the society they are based in. The UK as a state is an anomaly, and even before devolution, Scotland had its own administration in virtually all aspects of life, such as education, health, local government, law and order and its own separate sporting associations. So in the sense of the argument above, living ‘outside Scotland’ is naturally regarded as anywhere, irrespective of whether it is another part of the UK or abroad. As far as people in Scotland are concerned whether a person moves to Australia or to Northumberland is immaterial, they no longer live in Scotland.

Those Scots, like myself, living in England, know this very well. Some may feel aggrieved if they do not get a vote in a referendum. But if they claim this is unjust they are conveniently pretending to not know the situation on the ground in Scotland.

Such arguments as the above totally misunderstand the Scottish experience of nationality because they are based on a mistaken view of Scottish identity as being based on ethnicity. Scottish identity is civic. Whether your parents were born in Warsaw or Karachi or Inverness is immaterial to you feeling Scottish. From birth onwards your experience of life is shaped by distinctly Scottish institutions.

You have a Scottish birth certificate, in your early years you are cared for by the Scottish health service, attend Scottish schools, sit Scottish exams and attend Scottish universities have Scottish public holidays and if you break the law you are dealt with by the Scottish criminal justice system. It is this shared experience that recreates Scottish identity anew for each generation regardless of ethnic origins.

The fact that the anomaly that is the UK lasted so long and that these state structures did not have a legislative branch until recently is not the fault of the Scots. They have been denied this successively by both main UK parties since 1950 when 2 million signed the National Covenant calling for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament.

Well, there is a point in mentioning the situation of Scots living outside of Scotland, which relates to the question of who should decide on Scottish independence. If the principle behind the vote is that of the sovereignty of the Scottish people, then surely only Scottish people should decide. So it would be wrong for English and Welsh people living in Scotland to have a vote, and thereby determine whether a Scot living in England or Wales could suddenly become either a citizen of another country (Scotland) or have to decide to become a citizen of the country (s)he lives in, which would be other than what (s)he considers to be her / his country. The only way round that would be to oblige people to register whether they wished to be counted as a Scottish citizen post-independence and would thereby be entitled to a referendum vote. This would potentially disenfranchise English and Welsh people living in Scotland who, it could be argued, have a legitimate interest in determining whether the country they live in suddenly becomes a different state from their own country.

Of course, it's easier to ignore such situations and dismiss them as isolated cases, even though this would affect hundreds of thousands of individuals and families. 

"35.5 % of those who voted in England voted for Labour; 35.6% for the Tories. An argument that  concludes from this that 'England' wants Tory-type policies  could do so only by asserting that  Labour and the Conservatives are natural allies. "

I dont think they are natural allies but their policies are virtually indistinguishable. They have coalesced around what they think Middle England wants. It might not be what ME wants, or it might be what you want it to want, but its what they think it wants.

 The bit I dont get is: "if I were a pro-Union Scot living in England, I could feel terribly aggrieved that I were denied a say in a process that could see my country severing ties from the country I lived in - especially as English people and Welsh people living in Scotland would have a say in the same vote. Whose rights are being respected and whose ignored here? "

I don't think argument has legs.

"The Scottish MP's don't vote as a block either". 

I know.  But they're also much more likely to take the whip and vote with their front bench because they won't be held to account on much of the stuff they are voting on.

Joe Middleton wrote:

"Scotland and Wales both have the right to determine their own destiny. Cornwall also incidentally has the same rights". Agreed. Would you be happy with the same rights being asserted for / by England? 

And again:

"The reason why Labour is putting through Toryish policies in England however is because they see this as popular with the English electorate who used to vote Tory and are now getting ready to vote Tory again. Labour is tailoring its 'British' policies towards England and the agendas of English owned newspapers". Are they trying to appeal to the English people or to the 'English'  (? - cf. News International) media? Aren't they just trying to stay in power? 35.5 % of those who voted in England voted for Labour; 35.6% for the Tories. An argument that  concludes from this that 'England' wants Tory-type policies  could do so only by asserting that  Labour and the Conservatives are natural allies. On the contrary, there is a natural majority for centre-left policies in England. Under an English parliament or independence, with a proper PR system, we'd get coalition government rather like those we've seen in Scotland and Wales. Give us a Parliament for England, then!

"Ultimately however England only has the power of self determination over itself (like any other country) which is where the above article is inaccurate. Any country can break the union and no one country within that union can stop the others from leaving once they make a clear decision to do so". Does England have self-determination? Good, so there's no problem about us getting the English Parliament a majority want, then? I think not. Unlike many of those England-denying politicians that assert the Scottish Claim of Right.

"Also the United Kingdom refers to the kingdoms of Scotland and England". Does it? That's the whole point of my article. It does from a Scottish perspective, admittedly. However, if I were a unionist (which I'm not), I might feel a tad miffed that only one part of the Union had the right to dissolve it; and that, accordingly, one part of 'my' country  were given the right to break it up. Similarly, if I were a pro-Union Scot living in England, I could feel terribly aggrieved that I were denied a say in a process that could see my country severing ties from the country I lived in - especially as English people and Welsh people living in Scotland would have a say in the same vote. Whose rights are being respected and whose ignored here?

It's broke. Let's fix it.

All the foregoing means it seems, is that the English cannot themselves take leave of a UK that was and is Scotland, Wales and Ireland sans the ROI incorporated in England writ large until they are the last to leave, closing the door which locked us in Empire past, and joining us in a confederal "Union of the Isles" comprising our nations of families and friends and family of friendly nations - including all the Irish as in the Council of the Isles too.

And there is no reason why the English should wait in frustration whilst others shape their own future that they might wish to be getting on with determining for themselves too, when the means to that end are also in their own hands. That is if they too but recognise their own sovereignty.

But, just as an English parliament would be, they already have one. Which is why it is not a solution the UK-wide political parties put forward to whenever the English Question "what about us?" is put to them. The bottom line is that a de-jure federation only seems a possibility which might deliver a solely English parliament were it not for the inconvenient facts that the incorporating 1707 Union of Parliaments was not unitary, the Scottish parliament is no longer adjourned, the UK & English parliament has its drawbridge pulled up by Whitehall between general elections, and it in turn seems disinclined towards PR and Citizens’ Conventions let alone Referendums. Gnashing teeth don’t make it any easier to swallow what they chew over but cannot spit out. What other recourse then apart from the ballot box?  

As Westminster's parliament lays claim to being sovereign over all other institutions of governance, it is in effect a law unto itself to keep itself in being. Nor can it - even if the Whitehall executive would allow it to do so - acknowledge that it would prefere to be simply another sovereign legislature, without letting the judicial cat out of the bag, swiftly followed by the electorate's. So, whilst waiting to see what the new Supreme Court will make of the matter if not in bringing back Bingham, recalling what he had to say might help the judicial inroads he started upon reach the conclusion that those of the public who had given more than passing thought to it might have known all along in response to cries of "it isn't fair". It ain’t. Lawful maybe. But whose law is it, if under its rule we are enslaved, willingly or no? And if it is our law, is it legitimate that we are? Hence, it would be as well to have something to put before the Supreme Court at the earliest opportunity so that it might pronounce judgement sooner rather than later, even though the matter might then have to be taken to the UN and Council of Europe as some canny Scots did.

That something which is in English hands to bring forward is their own Claim of Right. When used in an inalienable context, “ceded” means “given up” not back down. That which cannot be taken from you cannot be given back. If all else has and looks likely to fail before sovereignty can be recognised, acknowledged and enacted, it must be asserted first. It is by laying claim to the right to self-determination of their own governance that the English would be asserting their own sovereignty, individually and severally. Who else, if not the vested interests of political parties, especially now? (Yes, the LibDems have done so, but only to proscribe their party’s self-determination in federation.)

So yes, it is high time the English caught up on our journey back to the future, as i hazard to suggest the overwhelming combined result of any constitutional referendum in Scotland will be for Independence and Union. In independence first, the win-win outcome that accommodates both preferences is not in unco' federation, but confederation. Not together, but set apart divided by devolution to rule. But apart, yet still together in the mutually interdependent interests of sharing our individual and several sovereignties as peoples and nations. And that does affect all of us, if we will and make it so for all our sakes. Let it be so.

Aye Ours,Keith, frae Fife and Yorkshire, for Independence & Union. 

(And for the avoidance of doubt, a member of no party as yet, and never one to vote for any which remain part of the problem rather than party to the solution.)   

"MPs representing England don't vote as an English bloc, the House splits down party lines as you well know."

The Scottish MP's don't vote as a block either, nor do the Welsh. England has most of the MP's in the British parliament, 529 out of of 646 (82%). On the other hand Wales (with 40 MP's) is outvoted 16-1 and Scotland (with 59) 11-1.

All the 'main' parties are effectively English and are ran from London. They are not 'English nationalist' because they perceive England's interests as indistinguishable from Britain's. Those Scottish MP's who keep the British Government's majority intact do not put Scotland first either they put their British party's interest first.

"MPs from outside England are able to determine the outcome of the vote on English legislation, and sometimes even the drafting and implementation of that legislation because they have executive power in what is in effect the English government."

Yes, MP's outside England can have an influence on the ultimate numbers of votes to an extent (as they should be able to do in an 'all Britain' parliament) but they cannot outvote England's MP's as a whole. That's the point. A few Scottish MP's are in Government but that is not the same as Scotland controlling the British Executive branch.

Is there a problem in that Labour's Scottish MP's (Scotland has one Tory) vote through policies that their own voters in Scotland wouldn't accept? Indeed there is but given the above arithmetic it is over emphasised in the media.

The MP's who do identify themselves with Scotland (ie the SNP's) try and avoid any such votes (unless there is a direct effect on Scotland, which there often is due to the funding mechanism for devolution).

The reason why Labour is putting through Toryish policies in England however is because they see this as popular with the English electorate who used to vote Tory and are now getting ready to vote Tory again.

Labour is tailoring its 'British' policies towards England and the agendas of English owned newspapers.

Labour's Scottish MP's influence can be removed with independence for England or Scotland. England will subsequently get the right wing policies that it wants directly through the Conservatives.

The reason why Labour aped the Tories however and sold their political soul was to gain power in England.

It has not helped them in Scotland and indeed the SNP and Plaid Cymru have been increasing their share of the traditional Labour vote ever since Labour began to move to the right. So the idea that parties are ignoring the 'English political agenda' is also wrong.

While Scotland and Wales can be effectively ignored due to the overwhelming majority of MP's being from England the parliament has to strongly consider English opinion.

Ultimately however England only has the power of self determination over itself (like any other country) which is where the above article is inaccurate. Any country can break the union and no one country within that union can stop the others from leaving once they make a clear decision to do so.

Also the United Kingdom refers to the kingdoms of Scotland and England. As long as Scotland and England share the monarch then this still exists but it cannot refer to a state whioch does not include both Scotland and England without being an illogical absurdity.

Having said that though logic hasn't stopped the Queen claiming to be defender of the [Catholic] Faith, nor has it stopped the awarding on imperial medals despite the slight problem of the disappearance of Empire so perhaps a new state might be initially delusional enough to try and keep such a name.

The 'problem with names' isn't likely to last long in any case as Wales will more than likely follow Scotland's example.

"That fact means that it is logically impossible for England to be dominated by other countries and in actual fact it isn't."

True.  However, MPs representing England don't vote as an English bloc, the House splits down party lines as you well know.  Therefore MPs from outside England are able to determine the outcome of the vote on English legislation, and sometimes even the drafting and implementation of that legislation because they have executive power in what is in effect the English government.

Can I first of all say that I am not keen on the name of this website since it implies support for 'our kingdom'. In fact the UK is an anachronism and while the kingdoms of Scotland and England might remain united for a time after independence this is unlikely to exist in perpetuity.

Support for the monarch seems to be constantly assumed but in actual fact a principled republican cannot actually enter either the British or Scottish parliaments without taking an oath of allegiance to the monarch. While obviously most republicans cross their fingers and mouth the oath without worrying too much about what it represents, the fact is they are forced into beginning their career with a blatant lie. This is deeply unfair and deliberately undermines the credibility of republican candidates.

The basic argument employed here is false. The British state is an undemocratic construct created by the elites in society for their own purposes. The 1707 union was involuntary and extremely unpopular with the people of Scotland. Even the 'nobles' were only convinced by a combination of bribery and the threat of military force (religious freedom and some independence of law making was also preserved).

The 1801 union formalised an absurdity since England had never properly conquered Ireland. The Irish parliament which agreed to it excluded representatives from 90% of the population and was therefore in no way representative of the people of Ireland.

Ireland broke from Britain eventually. Unfortunately because Britain subsequently declared war on Ireland and because a certain segment of Ireland (mostly) preferred British rule Britain was able to retain rule of that portion.

However the fact is Northern Ireland is not considered to be a proper state under international law and Britain's control over it is legally dubious though Ireland has been forced to accept it. It obviously relates back to James VI and I plantation of Ulster by Scots protestants a classic instance of divide 'n' rule.

England sought these unions to benefit her power. She was the guiding influence in both, just as she militarily annexed Wales and Cornwall. As Scotland and Wales have retaken some of their power from the centre England now starts to worry about her own position. However given that England had no right to control over these countries in the first place it is difficult to have any sympathy.

The fact is that England controls 83% of the British Parliament. That fact means that it is logically impossible for England to be dominated by other countries and in actual fact it isn't. The current PM is 'a Brit' first and foremost and in no way acts in Scotland's interests over England's, if anything it's the reverse since he is denying Scotland any share of oil revenues and has imposed a tight financial settlement on the Scottish parliament.

Britain was designed to amplify England's power abroad. The flag represents this reality with the St George's Cross front and centre. England's parliament remains (it is in charge) and would remain in existence after the other countries independence.

The problem with desiring 'an English parliament' is that such a body already effectively exists and therefore a further layer of Government seems unnecessary. English independence however logically fits because after Scotland and Wales declare independence an English only parliament will exist by default.

(Northern Ireland is a seperate question and it depends whether the unionists consider they have loyalty to England or Britain only whether they might want to maintain any future relationship. Ireland's view will also become more relevant under international law once the British state ceases to exist.)

Just like all the other countries in the Empire however who have decided to go their own way Scotland has the ultimate right of self determination and has emphasised that explicite right as far back as 1320.

This is accepted by all Scottish parties including the Lib Dems and Labour as they showed in their pre-devolution adoption of 'the Claim of Right for Scotland'. (The Lib Dems appear to have forgot about it in terms of an independence referendum but they would have even more difficulty in rejecting the basic premise).

There is no possible chance of England and Wales being entitled to vote to keep Scotland in the union (though they might not vote in favour anyway).

Scotland and Wales both have the right to determine their own destiny. Cornwall also incidentally has the same rights and a sister-like party to Plaid Cymru and SNP which represents that position (Mebyon Kernow who have gained some success).

England will have to accept the rights of the others to withdraw from union. She will then be independent by default and can then spend her own money in the knowledge that she is not being swindled by the others.

The fact that the reverse is actually true is a fact known well to the current British cabinet and ultimately the reason why they do not wish Scotland or Wales to become independent.

While the financial position is possibly murkier in Wales and Cornwall in comparison to Scotland the fact is that England in comparison to the former UK state will likely lose some international influence even if the financial position evens itself out. (The security council seat and place in the G8 would go). However since that coin has been bought by ignoring the other countries identities she had historically no right to such influence in any case.

In fact in both bodies the existing UK acts as a proxy of the US and the dissolution of the British state might free England to become a more positive influence on the world stage rather than being a cats paw of America. Certainly that is the role I think most Scots want to see Scotland play.

At the moment Britain is puffed up with delusions of her own importance. When that state is burst and the component countries emerge blinking into the light then hopefully all will share a new realism about their place in world affairs and will desire to work with others in Europe and Scandinavia on common projects rather than bully countries with unusable, expensive and ultimately pointless nuclear weapons.

A key issue that almost everyone manages to ignore - or simply miss - is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to give it its Sunday name) is pretty unique in the world of nation states. That's because it’s not a real Nation state, in the sense that anyone else would understand. It’s only accepted because it’s been around a long long time, and most other countries find this Britain/England/Scotland thing something for the too hard box.

The UK is a political assemblage of two Kingdoms (England, Scotland), a Principality (Wales) and a Province (Northern Ireland). It used to be three kingdoms and a Principality, but Eire chose to dissolve its political ties to the rest of the UK over 80 years ago.

The best way of looking at the UK is that it was a very early form of the European Union - formed in 1707 - and then added to in 1800, as an economic and political union to do two things - prevent war, and promote free trade through a single currency. Sound familiar? Yep - Jean Monet was 250 years late in coming up with the idea of free trade zones and economic growth through free movement of goods, services and people.

And what's the Pound Sterling – its only a 300 year old version of the Euro.

But the UK as was from 1707 until about 1880 was really only about macro economic issues, international trade, defence, wars and all that stuff. The important stuff for the average subject – law, education, religion, roads, poor relief was all sorted out at the national level – ie Ireland, Scotland and England – Wales is/was effectively a conquered province, primarily distinguished by a separate language, like Quebec in Canada.

It’s a pretty key statistic that the Scottish Office was only set up in 1885 – was only felt to be necessary – in 1885, as the modern centralised state began to develop (its interesting to note that that’s when centralised control in countries such as Italy and Germany also started to develop).

But the key issue is that Scotland - and England (and clearly Ireland!)- remained - and remain - separate nations within a political union. Harry Reid in his Herald article on the 31st July detailed this quite succinctly, albeit in a Scottish context. Its worth a read.

tinyurl.com/5ezlxx

The big problem with the UK, and the one that is now coming home to roost, is the fact that for the past 300 years Britain has meant England, to the English, and to most of the rest of the world.

Now that that is unravelling, for the simple reason that the way Scotland benefited from the Union on the 18th and 18th century - it had access to huge markets for goods and service, free movement for its labour and the ability for its politicians to drive the growth of an empire have now vanished subsumed within a much wider European trade zone.

So the the sort of benefits that the UK used to supply to Scotland - especially access to markets and capital, and free movement of labour have long gone. In simple trade terms, Scotland does not need the UK, as we have the EU.

You see that’s its also clear that smaller EU and EFTA nations - such as Ireland, Finland, Sweden and even Iceland have many more fiscal and economic tools at their disposal to ensure that their populace are ready to face up to the challenges of developing modern, open, knowledge based economies than anything that can be seen coming out of Westminster. (And doing that without being burdened with the trappings of empire – two lame duck aircraft carriers anyone?)

Look at some of these Nations - Finland, 600 years under Swedish rule, then Russian, then existing almost as a Soviet satellite - now one of the worlds most progressive countries. If you follow the logic of UK Unionist politicians it should be clamouring to for full economic and political union with Sweden, or Russia. If you follow that same reasoning Canada and Mexico should also be beating at the doors of the White House, desperate for membership of the US. Oh, and not much evidence of Ireland wanting to re-join the UK.

No the problem here is that England needs to realise that the world has changed completely, and that the very concept of the UK is well past its sell by date. If we stop thinking about the islands of Britain and Ireland as UK plus Ireland, and think of them as a West European Scandinavia we could move these islands and their people smoothly into a European Post Industrial 21st Century.

Will that happen – I think not. In my humble opinion England and the English, have a lot of hard, difficult self examination, soul searching and very difficult self realisation as to their real place in the world before they can move forward as a modern progressive nation. I wish them well in their journey, as it will make the nations and provinces that make up the rest of these islands own journey to that end all that easier.

"and the BBC are the worst offender"

I think you are being a bit harsh on the BBC. For shoddy journalism you can’t beat the London newspapers. At least BBC news refers to schools in England, the NHS in England etc where appropriate. One of the worst offenders in its general news coverage is The Independent – it’s still sulking over devolution.

Mike, I've been complaining about the BBC's treatment of England as Britain for years.  They routinely report things as if they are pan-UK stories when, in actual fact, they only pertain to England.  Not only is it sloppy journalism it is political because it deliberately misleads the English public, especially when devolved matters are being covered.  The media - and the BBC are the worst offender - use the word Britain when they should, to be accurate, use the word England.  Do you seriously think that this is to England's benefit?  I don't. I think it's the media equivalent of Brown and Cameron going on about the British NHS and British schools and new eco-towns for Britain.

If you had any idea of how many times the CEP have complained to the BBC over the years you might have a different view of this. 

Recently, thanks to Scottish complaints, the BBC have actually, at long last, begun to refer to "England's workers" and "English Departments".  Although the BBC now seems to recognise England as a distinct political constituency, it still fails to imagine England at all.

"Quite a pickle."

Agreed.  Some are even suggesting a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs, meaning that the Scots will have reduced representation on reserved UK matters, a development that the SNP are probably praying for even if it does lose them MPs.

Others are suggesting PR as a way of mitigating the West Lothian Question and increasing Tory representation in Scotland and Wales (making them a "party of the union") but in the long term this could lead to hung parliaments and minority governments where the DUP or SNP or Plaid hold the balance of power.  Even if the Lib Dems prop up a Labour administration it might only be possible because of the Scottish contingent in the Labour and Lib Dem parties.

Whichever way you cut the cake the union does look in quite a pickle; it's impossible to treat both England and Scotland fairly under the present system.

I've no doubt that the state and the people interests are different, that for me is axiomatic.

I'm struggling to see what the problem is about being thought of as Britain. Can you give some specific examples?

Is it the burden of having an English cultural / political agenda writ large though the national public media?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7447985.stm

Is it the burden of having national events and funding continually funneled to London, of which this is just one example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3868376.ece

Can you specific examples of your plight? 

"The growth of English nationalism may be to do with perceived injustices but it doesn't mean that English and British State interests aren't actually convergent, if you'll excuse the double-negative".

It's more circular logic than a double negative if you ask me, Mike: if you define the British state as effectively the English state by another name, then naturally, you're going to think the interests of England and of the British state are convergent. Traditionally, there's no doubt that the British state was the de facto English state, and 'England' and 'Britain' were co-terminous for most English people. However, post-devolution, this symbiosis has increasingly not only been perceived not to exist by the English but has in fact ceased to prevail in reality: England is ruled as if it were Britain by a government including and led by politicians unaccountable to any English voter; quite the opposite of the traditional situation, which was Britain being ruled as if it were England.

The growth of English nationalism may be to do with perceived injustices but it doesn't mean that English and British State interests aren't actually convergent, if you'll excuse the double-negative.

Personality politics in a supposedly post-ideological age is to blame for a lot. In the past the hogwash about a Scottish Raj would have been blown out of the water by people who had 'political analysis' rather than a kneejerk soap opera style. Gordon Browns nationalisty would have been exposed as irrelevant. This is not helped by our useless media and moronic popular culture, the drivel which leads us to the Clegg, Miliband, Cameron slops of unthinking triangulation and meaningless vacuity.

The establishment may want to thwart Alex Salmond but the problem with the sop of DevoMax is that at some point those advocating this have to state which powers to retain and which to throw out, and on what basis. The 'the scrapping of the Barnett Formula to make it harder for the SNP to meet its commitments ' would be percived North of the Border as punitive and would doubtless provoke its own backlash. The SNP Govt is still polling 82% satisfaction and the Tories are flat-lining.

Quite a pickle. 

"I see the British State and English national interest as being
convergent and synonymous over a great many years, so the point of this
discussion seems both abstract and semantic".

Most definitely not in the last ten.  The growth in English nationalism is testiment to that.

 "I doubt very much that within two years the powers of the British State
will cede rights to negotiate this to a fledgeling 'English Grand
Committee' (should such a thing exist and whatever that might mean or
represent)."

They are not going to cede executive power and create English government, obviously.  But make no mistake that the Establishment will do all it can to thwart Alex Salmond.  I wouldn't rule out the scrapping of the Barnett Formula to make it harder for the SNP to meet its commitments without raising taxes, further sops to the nationalists in the form of DevoMax, and even an English Grand Committee or English Regional Committees, if only to muddy the constitutional waters and to offer a pretence of accountability for a reformed Barnett Formula.

"I see the British State and English national interest as being convergent and synonymous over a great many years, so the point of this discussion seems both abstract and semantic".

Well, clearly, that perception is no longer shared by a growing portion of the English population. As for the British state, it articulates absolutely nothing as being in the 'English' national interest - a concept that is as alien to the government as a dissociation between England and Britain appears to be to you. With such a disconnect between the British government, the English people and Scottish perceptions, is it any wonder that the Union is unravelling? 

I agree that the English have taken on a chippiness formally associated with the Scots, but I think they've just matched the Scots, they certainly haven't surpassed them.  It's indicative of a rise in English nationalsim, a sign that the English aren't prepared to sit back and just take abuse from the Scots as they used to.  Now this sort of stuff that we've been reading for years is reciprocated in equal measure.  What's astonishing is the gall of Scots that have started complaining about a rise in "Scotophobia".

When I wrote the CEP blog I used to receive several emails a week from disgruntled Scots about the tone of some of the comments that were left on there.  Sometimes, to be fair, they did have a point, and I did ban a few people and eventually moved to a registration-only system which eliminated Scottish and English trolls, but frankly it paled into complete insignificance when measured against some of the downright racist stuff posted on the Tartan Army message boards, or SNLA or Siol nan Gaidheal forums.

Offensive or degrading language used against anyone shames us all, but so does the haste with which people now "take offence", especially when the Scots have been so very quick with the "friendly banter" in the past.

What I mean David is that I dont doubt that negotiations would be open, lengthy and protracted, with the British State standing up for and extracting the best deal they could, probably centred around an equation to do with % share of national debt and assets and military settlement, as well as crucially, natural mineral rights. I doubt very much that within two years the powers of the British State will cede rights to negotiate this to a fledgeling 'English Grand Committee' (should such a thing exist and whatever that might mean or represent).We start from such a different premise it sometimes difficult to make sense of what each other are saying. I see the British State and English national interest as being convergent and synonymous over a great many years, so the point of this discussion seems both abstract and semantic.

"I don't doubt that anyone would accept 'divorce' on Scotland's terms".

Mike, presumably, you mean you do doubt that anyone would accept divorce on Scotland's terms. It's more a case of the English having to accept divorce on the terms negotiated by the UK government that doesn't represent it. I think Toque is right that, if by the time such negotiations take place, there is a virtual (English Grand Committee) or actual English Parliament, then that body should and would take an active role in negotiating the divorce settlement with England's interests in mind. Otherwise, it will be a case of the UK government indeed trying to keep the Scots sweet while trying to preserve the current basis for its unrepresentative and unaccountable governance of England in tact.

I think the English people - while we're talking about popular sovereignty - should insist that whatever is put to the people of Scotland in a referendum should also be put to the English, Welsh and N. Irish. I.e. if what the Scots have to decide between is a Scottish Parliament within the UK with greater powers (e.g. for raising taxes) than now or independence, the same options should be put to the other countries of the UK: parliaments with the same powers as the Scottish parliament within the UK (which would almost certainly require federalism) or full independence. If no such equitable revision of the devolution settlement, naturally including an English Parliament, is on the table, the English should push for a negative referendum - again, the same as the Scottish referendum - merely asking whether England should become an independent state. If this became a popular movement, the UK government might be forced to negotiate a deal that would keep the English, and who knows even the Scottish, people happy to remain within a much restructured and more democratic (federal) UK.

On Barnett I'd point you in the direction of institutionalised and inherited inequalities first, before pointing to the iniquities of the $150 a barrel. I'd also point to the reality of providing health services for, say, Uist, Shetland and Orkney instead of Hackney or Walthamstow.

I too am not bothered about animosity in blog comments but more by the casual racism in many columnists text and sub-text. I don't think there's an evenness in animosity (I'll look out some recent examples). An odd thing has happened - the chippy aggressive Scot who blames everything on the English has been replaced by his Southern alter-ego cousin.

Grassy Knollington: I want to see leave the union but see the movement as much more positive than a negation of a union, its much more about starting something else. And I would describe myself as republican not nationalist.

No you haven't got me wrong - if you take nationalism to mean national sovereignty and the right of the people to decide whether they want union or not.  For me it's about where the power lies.  Should it lie with the nations or with the union state?  I say it should lie with the nations (which makes me a nationalist by my book) and ceded, or not ceded, to the union in accordance with the peoples' wishes.

I get a bit confused on these blogs. A Scottish Nationalist wants to leave the union. End of.

An English Nationalist however can apparently be a fairly ardent unionist. Or have I got you all wrong Toque?

The UK Government will be the only body with legal personality, but you never know...It could be accountable to an English Grand Committee by that stage, a sovereign English parliament - sovereign because it comprises 80% of the UK Parliament's MPS.

There's fault on both sides about how the debate is conducted, but it's not something that bothers me greatly because the anomosity generated in the comments of the Herald, Scotsman, Telegraph, Daily Mail, etc. just inflames the situation, and because of that the UK Government will have to address something that they have wilfully ignored for way too long.  Mention Barnett to most Scots and they'll automatically point you in the direction of GERS or oil prices.  But that's not my argument.  My argument is that while we are a United Kingdom tax-revenue should be distributed fairly regardless of where it is generated.  That's not an argument I can get across because the "It's Our Oil" brigade just shout you down, but it's an argument that they might do well to listen to because it's in Scottish nationalists' interests to get the Barnett Formula scrapped.

"this is one English nationalist who has never argued that Scotland is a burden, terrible or otherwise."

Quite so, though you'd no doubt agree that these are the terms in which this debate is mostly held in English political culture and media?

I see your point about the conflation of England and the United Kingdom (and have done for the past 30 years!).
However in 2010 - when the referendum will be held we have no body other than the UK Govt to interact with.

Mike, this is one English nationalist who has never argued that Scotland is a burden, terrible or otherwise.  My argument against the Barnett Formula has always been that it is unfair, irrespective of whether Scotland pays its way or not.

I'd complain against the wording of that referendum question because the United Kingdom Government doesn't represent England.  A moot point as far as you're concerned, and perhaps as far as constitutional law is concerned, but nevertheless an important one for an English nationalist.

"I agree that it's Scotland's sovereign right to leave the union irrespective of the wishes of the other nations, it doesn't follow that the other nations should meekly accept a divorce on Scotland's terms..."

Well of course not. The constitutional white paper includes the draft wording of a ballot paper for a referendum.

It asks voters whether they agree or disagree "that the Scottish government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of a United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state".

More here: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/White-Paper

I don't doubt that anyone would accept 'divorce' on Scotland's terms. Nor do I doubt we would quickly switch form being a terrible burden to a different prospect entirely.

On the question of popular sovereignty, education and social movements this is very good:
http://www.niace.org.uk/publications/P/PopEdScot.asp

It is a little confused, and my contribution probably doesn't help.  But then I think the idea of popular sovereignty itself is a little confusing, a little abstract because it can find expression in many ways.

What it means in Scottish terms is probably a replacement of UK parliamentary sovereignty with Scottish parliamentary sovereignty, albeit a more open and representative parliament with possibly no monarch (though in the short term I would imagine the monarch would still be sovereign in Scotland).

What is surely important is the precedent laid down by the Scottish Claim of Right - that it is the Scottish people who are constitutionally sovereign, that they are able to choose the form of government that they want, even if they do choose Scottish parliamentary sovereignty.  At the moment that constitutional sovereignty is really the only popular sovereignty that is required to advance the cause of Scottish nationalism and I'm not sure that appeals to more abstract notions of popular sovereignty have much resonance.  In other words: Popular sovereignty, you already have it.  But I wouldn't necessarily call it part of a tradition, in fact it's not something you've ever had before.  If you're correct about the strength of republican and nationalist feeling in Scotland then you should have little trouble in converting that constitutional sovereignty to a popular sovereignty.

"How would this be done?

With an English parliament that represents solely the interests of England.  The union was in pre-democratic times in England too, but that doesn't mean the English should forgo representation now.  Whilst I agree that it's Scotland's sovereign right to leave the union irrespective of the wishes of the other nations, it doesn't follow that the other nations should meekly accept a divorce on Scotland's terms (and on the terms of a "United Kingdom" government keen to retain sway over Scotland).

If the UK does reform then perhaps it will be a Celtic league with England cut adrift.  Prior to devolution I remember Scottish nationalists talking very excitedly about a Celtic League, and not just in relation to football.

"Scotland should be negotiating terms with England, with whom they entered political union, rather than the United Kingdom, of which they are part."

How would this be done?

Is this discussion entirely abstract?

Of course because union was in pre-democratic times so the 'Scotland' that entered political union was entirely unrepresentative.

I would of thought that when the referendum on Scottish Independence happens in 2010 there will be consequences at which point other members of the UK might wish to decide how they re-align / reform themselves. I'd view this as an entirely separate process.

This all seems a little confused. On the one hand there's the idea that the idea of popular sovereignty is grossly over-played then there's the recognition that that was precisely what the Claim of Right was. Then tyhere's the demand that England should have a say in the UK's future but no indication of what that might be, and how it might express itself - and - I may say no indication of what this might be based on.

We are in the present constitutional situation in Scotland because it is the culmination of 100 years and more of a movement - variously expressed. I see no real evidence that England has the desire for a claim of right. The problem for such a movement within England is that all the political movements and parties would be against it - being the geographical seat of power and being so closely allied with the concept of Britishness, Brit culture and the British State itself.

Devolution was achieved against the wishes of almost all of the political parties, so to argue that the idea of popular sovereignty seems overplayed is I think completely wrong.

Toque - you say you lived in Scotland for four years - I have no reason to doubt this - but your characterisation of Scottish anti-monarchism as a crude misogynist racism is not one I have ever experienced.

By the way - I would agree that Salmond's commitment to the British monarch is wholly insincere.

As I wrote here, England should have the same rights because Scotland should be negotiating terms with England, with whom they entered political union, rather than the United Kingdom, of which they are part.

Mike, I'm not attempting to deny Scotland's right to self-determination; merely insisting that England enjoy the same rights and trying to bottom out what those rights imply. I'd like Scotland to vote for and gain independence; I just think the rest of the UK should also have a say on its (that is, the UK's) future at the same time, not just drift into a default continuing UK minus Scotland. Scotland's gaining of independence, and any (admittedly unlikely) referendum on independence for each of the other UK countries, will in any case ultimately be dependent on the exercise of UK parliamentary sovereignty as outlined by Tom Griffin above, as parliament and the Queen will have to ratify or validate a 'yes' vote and will doubtless deny any vote at all to the English. Freedom for Scotland, fine; but also fairness and equality to England and the rest of the UK, please.

Having lived in Scotland fior five years I'm better informed than you might think.  Obviously I'm aware of Tom Nairn.  But he's hardly representative.

When Winnie Ewing said that the "Scottish Parliament adjourned in 1707 is hereby reconvened" (or words to that effect), she was perpetuating the myth that Scottish democracy had been interupted by union with England, when infact Scotland's oligarchic rule had been replaced by parliamentary democracy.  Was there a "tradition" of popular sovereignty prior to this, or was it - as Tom says - merely rhetorical appeals to popular sovereignty? 

I think it was entirely rhetorical appeals, always made to mobilise Scottish public opinion against English hegemony rather than to democratically empower individuals, and I think that certain contemporary intellectuals overplay this "tradition" to make a political point, however valid, about "English" monarchy and parliamentary sovereignty (popular sovereinty as a vehicle for nationalism rather than the other way about as Tom suggests).  But is it an intellectual tradition shared by the Scottish population at large?  No, not really, even though the Scots are much more constitutionally literate than the English.

The Claim of Right for Scotland was, I think, a very powerful statement of popular sovereignty, but it's rarely referenced by the SNP - perhaps because none of them signed it.  Those politicians that did sign it, according to Canon Kenyon Wright, didn't understand the significance of what they were signing, at least not in sovereignty terms.  And Alex Salmond, perhaps incincerely, proposes that the Queen could remain head of state as part of a "social contract" between Scotland and England.  A revelation that leaves popular sovereignty couched in conservative theory that parliamentary sovereignty is popular sovereignty because ultimately the people choose the institutions that represent them.

Addressing the SCC Kenyon Wright referred to Thatcher when he said: 'What if the other single voice we all know so well responds by saying, "We say no, and we are the State"?  Well, we say yes - and we are the people".

Great stuff.  But if Salmond fails to get his referendum on Scottish independence it will not be because the State says no, it will be because the Scottish Parliament says no, irrespective of public opinion - which, after-all, is fitting since MSPs (not the Scottish people) were presented with a mace to symbolise parliamentary sovereignty by the Queen.  It doesn't suggest to me that the majority of MSPs have much respect for the Scottish tradition of popular sovereignty, rather most seem wedded to the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty.  And that includes SNP MSPs who will be happy for Parliament to scupper the referendum if they think they will lose it.

A weird sophistry.  When all is set aside amounts to an attempt to construct an argument for denying self-determination. Where is this going?

The sentence '...if you advocate the view that only the Scots should decide on Scottish independence' is a very odd one.

As is Toque's comment that: 'The anti-monarchy sentiment in Scotland, that is almost always accompanied by nationalism, is usually expressed in terms of the Queen being an "English bitch" or a "hun". What an outrageously misinformed  statement. While their is a strong republican traditon in Scotland, it demeans both its authenticity and Toques credibility to characterise it in such crude terms. 

 There has been acres written about the concept of sovereignty in Scottish history and political culture. Why not start with 'The Democratic Intellect' or read anything by Tom Nairn in the past 30 years. 

In terms of attitudes to monarchy and you might remember the 1970s and 1980s when the 'national anthem' was routinely drowned out at Murrayfield and Hampden and had to be eventually be replaced by Flower of Scotland. This had nothing to do with hatred of the person of Elizabeth but a feeling that the song itself was insulting to Scotland and its inherent deference embarrasing. 

Republicans have similar sentiments in England too.

The Queen's oath is to the people, so perhaps, for the Scots, it's the people in question that is the problem, the constituency - the fact that there is a union of crowns.  After all the Declaration of Arbroath referred to Scotland as a Kingdom.

The anti-monarchy sentiment in Scotland, that is almost always accompanied by nationalism, is usually expressed in terms of the Queen being an "English bitch" or a "hun".  I still can't say I've ever heard Scots nats complain about the contradiction between monarchy and popular sovereignty, not Jo Public at any rate.

Gareth,

It has come up in the context of the debate about the parliamentary oath:

SNP MSPs have routinely taken the oath, but under protest, insisting beforehand that they believe that sovereignty lies with the Scottish people, not with the monarch.

This sentiment was echoed by SSP MSP Rosie Kane when she took the oath in 2003 and raised her right hand, on which she had written the words "My oath is to the people

Tom, how did the tradition of popular sovereignty in Scotland manifest itself?  Was it just the declaration of Arbroath, or was there something of more tangible democratic benefit to the people?  I've heard a lot about it, in passing, but people like Richard Weight and Linda Colley seem to suggest that the reality was that the Scottish people were actually less empowered than your average Englishman.  Was it more of an idea than a practice?  The whole time that I lived in Scotland I can't remember anyone putting the case for Scotland in those terms, and I talked to a lot of Scottish nats.  I think that the "popular sovvereignty" tradition may be a tradition overstated by intellectuals rather than an actual tradition, if you know what I mean.

I'm not making a political point here.  You could say the same about the English tradition of tolerance and fair play.

David, I think you're overcomplicating things.  If Scotland wants independence then that's their right.  They will still have obligations and treaties and responsibilities to honour, and we can only hope that by that time England has a strong arm to ensure that they do.  If not then you can bet that the "United Kingdom" government will absolve Scotland of everything in an attempt at bribing them to stay in a common currency and military union.

if you advocate the view that only the Scots should decide on Scottish independence, then you are saying that Britain is not a nation, i.e. a national polity whose sovereignty is founded on the will of its people.

I think the single biggest key to Britain's constitutional crisis is the fact that the British state has never been founded on any conception of popular sovereignty, but on the basis of parliamentary sovereignty, conceived originally as the vehicle of a landed elite against absolute monarchy on the one hand, and the unpropertied masses on the other. This was something that came out very clearly in the Putney debates of the 1640s, one of the few serious attempts to put forward the idea of popular sovereignty in England.

Scotland, on the other hand has a long history of (at least rhetorical appeals to) the idea of popular sovereignty. It has never given up that tradition. Hence, nationalism is a natural vehicle for the idea of popular sovereignty in Scotland.

Part of what is happening now is that latent conflict is coming to the surface.

Scottish popular sovereignty cannot undermine British popular sovereignty because such a thing has never existed.

The key issue is how to establish popular sovereignty in the rest of the UK, most particularly in England. Frustrating the popular will in Scotland will not help achieve that.