Matt I didn't claim there was support for independence, we will never know untill a referendum is called, but it is by far the most logical conclusion.

Oh dear! David Hayes is of course right. I was attempting to allude to Burke's insight that ‘A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.’ But looking back at the original article it seems that I was channelling Lampedusa at the time of writing. Ah well, it could be worse I suppose!

My thanks also to Ordovicius for going to the trouble of translating the piece. It was an unexpected and pleasant surprise to find it on his blog. (For those of you who don’t know, Ordovicius’ blog is an indispensable source for anyone interested in Welsh politics – not only are his own posts consistently interesting but he also regularly translates postings from the blog of the Welsh language blog of the BBC’s Vaughan Roderick, without doubt one of the best political bloggers in these islands.)

Scott - I disagree.

A vote of one third or so in favour of "independence" parties at the election in May, a series of publicity stunts by Mr Salmond stirring up Anglophobia, and support for Independence 6 months later at its lowest level for a whole decade at just 23% blows your point completely out of the water.

The support is just not there.

Burke said something similar and perhaps equally apposite to the West Lothian Question: "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its preservation."

Support for independence? The point surely is not to look at what polls say now, or then, or whenever, but to assess the processes that are being unleashed (or locked up). If devolution delivers an effective Scottish government why vote for separation? But if in three years time there is a Cameron government with a small majority in office trying to clean up after a major economic crisis and it pushes through legislation to ensure itself a English majority then Labour in Scotland could split. When more than one major party in Scotland favours independence then this no longer implies a one-party state. To put it another way, there is at present a majority in Scotland for membership of a Labour Britain. What happens when Britain changes?

Anthony Barnett

Anthony, an excellent point. Scotland has changed so much since '97. So much in the last 6 months. It seems to me the UK is becoming more fragile every week, if not day, that passes.

The UK reached its unity zenith in 1922. Since then the process has simply unravelled.

People often consider devolution to the English regions as dead in the water after the no vote in the North.

I would agree that devolution to these artifical government zones is a non starter but what about the Celtic nation of Cornwall and the natural historic regions of England such as Yorkshire? Have the English public been consulted about such an alternative. Why not asymetric devolution as is found in Spain.

Don't forget that Cornwall produced a petition of 50,000 signatures calling for devolution.

Correction to my comment. The study that I quoted awas the "Scottish Social Attitudes" survey -data collected between May and August 2007.

The current political climate in Scotland through devolution and the SNP victory has turned independence from a thing of ridicule to the cleanest most logical solution to UK conundrum.

Nothing can preserve the Union.