The question of is there a crisis and f so who thinks so? Is a very good one. Modest cough, the about section refers to an interview I did with Dan Leighton in Renewal on 'The crisis is that there is no crisis' and in the About section I describe what I mean by a "good crisis" - which in a different way Gareth - aka Toque - is describing. But yes, I definitely think that the parliamentary system we have is busted. But if it won't go quietly there will be some kind of noise.

Does anyone here actually think Britain is in crisis?  Who would mourn?  "Britain" would still exist after the United Kingdom state broke up.  This is Brown's crisis, and a crisis for the UK's political establishment, but I really don't see any wide-spread panic amongst the general populace - more apathy than anything.

People still have a vague ill-defined feeling of Britishness, but I'm not so sure as I once was that it would be substantially diminished by sovereignty moving from Westminster to the nations.  Many people get the feeling that that's already happened anyway.

Britain could be reinvigorated by dissolution of the United Kingdom, it could actually become a more meaningful and cherished relationship.  We'd just be reverting back to our maiden names and having our own current accounts instead of a joint account.  But we'd still have the memories and a nostalgic friendship.  And we'd probably find it in our mutual interest to watch each other's backs against the encroaching EU monster - as opposed to a Europe des Regions.  Britishness will live on in that Dunkirk, Dad's Army spirit.

The EU is courting states to join that have nowhere near the credentials of Scotland, which has been a member of the EU for decades. The idea that the inclusionist and expansionist EU would actively hinder Scotland's acention is ludicrous.

As Robin Cook, no friend of Scottish self determination famously said:

"Europe is not going to throw Scotland out. It's in the nature of the European Union, it welcomes all-comers and Scotland would be a member."

I suspect you're right on both those points Joinville. Regardless of the Vienna Convention I find the idea that Spain, or any other EU state, would veto Scottish membership pretty far fetched to be honest.

"And if Professor Robert Hazell is right in his suggestion that a country like Spain could veto Scottish independence, then the nation-states still have cards left to play."

If, in a referendum, Scotland voted to secede from the Union, there is not a damned thing anyone, anywhere could do to prevent it that did not involve violence. Hazell is a Unionist stooge, and his article is littered with scaremongering inaccuracies.

Two glaring errors I can see. Firstly, the Vienna Convention on Successor States (1978) assumes successor states inherit treaty obligations from the original state. This is not EU law, but established International Law. So Scotland stays in the EU. Secondly, he states that "it is not within the competence of the Scottish parliament unilaterally to declare independence". This matters not a jot if the Scottish People vote for it. The Irish Parliament in 1918 did not have such competence either, and look where that got them.

The bottom line is that if Scotland votes for secession, then Scotland will get secession.

"[T]he UK, the first unmistakably modern European state"? On what do you base this? At point in time was the UK the only unmistakably modern state?

"I doubt if many people, on either side of the Border, want to see the Union break up;"  Well, I'm afraid you're wrong. As for Alex Salmond coming up with a 'post-nationalist' solution. That label is somewhat fluffy and meaningless. What he and his colleagues have come up with is a model of civic-nationalism that doesnt pander to xenophobia, cultural exlusivity or any of the negative attributes of big-nation nationalism/imperialism, but instead rests on the very simple principle of subsidiarity being taken to its logical conclusion. Scotland deserves and will have exactly the same status as other small nations within the European Union. There's no need to concoct some devolution-plus that saves your precious Union, which let's be honest is what you mean by 'post-nationalist' in this context. Admit it and ditch the spin!

Quote

“And if Professor Robert Hazell is right in his suggestion that a country like Spain could veto Scottish independence, then the nation-states still have cards left to play.”

But as someone else has pointed out, would the EU want Scotland to join Norway as an oil rich state that is not willing to have it's energy policy dictated to by Brussels. A recent report suggested that only about half of the oil has been extracted and there will still be oil production for another thirty years. In Europe everything is always up for negotiation. To loose territory would be a new and salutary experience for the EU and, as Anthony has said, once Scotland votes for independence any idea that there could be a going back is not realistic.

There is already a head of steam; any ‘yes’ vote in a referendum could only come about if that head of steam had gathered even more momentum. Every day, almost, in Scotland we hear of new entrepreneurs or celebrities like Annie Lennox indicating a change of heart on independence. Something is happening out there, but its difficult to gauge yet just how big and how stable it is.

I find the idea that, not only the state, but the London commentariat could take Scotland seriously enough to tear up a thousand years of English constitutional development and adopt a parliament with proscribed and shared powers difficult to believe. Like all similar situations in the past the existing order is trapped by the confines of its own development. It almost always takes an outside agent or catastrophe to unlock the logjam.

Do you mean England, "the first unmistakably modern European state"?

The United Kingdom isn't very old.

There's no doubt that Europe has been a key enabler for Scottish nationalism, but the EU also has it's 'centralist, statist, unimaginative, heavy-handedly modern ' side, which we have seen in the reaction to the Lisbon Treaty.

And if Professor Robert Hazell is right in his suggestion that a country like Spain could veto Scottish independence, then the nation-states still have cards left to play.

I think there is a large element of truth in the claim that the Scottish people are "no longer scared of independence scaremongering and have open views on the future" but that is only one potential option.

Many comments (from a wide range of opinion) appear on OK warning that the biggest threat to the UK's continued wellbeing lies not with the SNP but the crass manner in which mainstream UK political parties continue to pursue policy development - only last week we had David Cameron suppyling strong evidence that it would be "business as usual" with regard to the Union for any future Conservative administration and Labour are in denial about their UK wide electoral prospects, particularly so in Scotland.

I still firmly believe that Scotland's electorate would find an opportunity to participate as a partner in a highly decentralised Federal UK arrangement (guaranteed by a written British Constitution which they had contributed to the development of via a Citizens' Convention), a much much more tempting prospect than any form of faux "independence".

David (Marquand) Hey - you can't just toss sensible suggestions about the potential long term demise of "artificial, 'modern' nation-states" and their subsequent displacement by an array of smaller more citizen resonant geo-political entities and not expect to garner some vitriolic abuse and derision!

I know because I'm regularly on the receiving end, having flown the flag (or to be more precise the hundred flags) these past 25 years or so for a "Europe of Regions" model as a credible future evolutionary pathway in an integrating European landscape.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

"I don't think it was a vote against the Union", maybe or maybe not, what it certainly shows is that people are no longer scared of independence scaremongering and have open views on the future.

It was by Margret Curran's own choosing, not the SNPs, to bring this by-election into scottish constitutional territory. Her first words after her selection were ' Councillor Mason came into politics for one reason, and one reason only- to break up the UK' Well Maggie, by your own words you put him on that platform- he's only in it for one reason, according to you, and yet it seems your very own scottish parliamentary constituents agree with him.

The people of Scotland are so adverse to independence they just voted for a 'hard line nationalist' (Labours campaign leaflet) over a devout unionist, the best candidate Labour could have hoped for. Spin your way out of that one Unionists. Your era is over. You can't label, shout and scream 'fundamentalist','Hardline Nat', 'Single issue party' and 'Dark side of the SNP' at a candidate for nearly a month and then when he wins claim it was absolutely nothing about about the very traits you were trying to highlight.

PS- the SNP canvassed 16,000 people for this by election. How many were 'for' independence on the returns? 48%, how many were against? 23%. Pretty unusual results for a seat the media peddled as 'having no truck with nationalsim'