Sovereignty

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): It seems you couldn't make it up. The elegant and even traditional way of putting the question is 'Who rules Britain?' Today, its Anglo-Saxon translation is 'What the f*** is going on?" The Anglo-Saxon communicates the urgency - and the breakdown - behind the apparently calmer, classical phrases in which power and the constitution are discussed. Now we need a living language to be out there in the public domain.

Pat Kane (Glasgow, Scottish Futures): Having received his Brenda-signed Royal Warrant to become First Minister, Alex Salmond went for tea today with the Queen at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, literally a small stroll across from the Parliament building. Salmond's embrace of the British monarchy, as a kindly plaid umbrella for his self-determinist ambitions, is long-standing (he's been chatting with Prince Charles for nearly ten years). In the Telegraph earlier this year, Salmond proposed that "if you have a monarch, a common head of state of independent countries, it underlines and stresses the social union between the two, as being appropriate for both Scotland and England." It would be wrong to doubt for a moment Salmond's 'primary loyalty' to the 'sovereignty of the people', asserted consistently over the last week, and throughout his career. When it comes to stopping Trident, restraining Scottish forces from middle-east adventuring, or territorial demands over oil, any Royal Warrant won't have much restraint over a future Scottish state. But if Salmond can get his version of a velvet divorce – call it 'the ermine divorce' - by exploiting whatever enchantments the glass of Monarchy casts over Scots, assauging their fears of disruptive separation, he will. And meantime, in terms of mobilising the Celtic penumbra in its campaign to get more autonomy from Whitehall, Salmond's royalism already seems particuarly adroit. For it seems even Ian Paisley is happy to sit down with a nationalist who respects the Queen.

OurKingdom: Neal Ascherson argues in a fine article in openDemocracy that the reforms Gordon Brown has signaled will turn to dust unless they make possible a fundamental shift in sovereignty: from what is in fact parliamentary absolutism to the sovereignty of the people entrenched in a constitution. The Scots are more than half way there, he says. Now it is England's turn, not Britain's. Do you agree? OK hosts the comments. For readers of oD who have not seen us before, click on the 'Blog' tag above for the full conversation. Thank you.