Long before Scottish voters are asked whether they want to leave the United Kingdom, the wrangling has begun

Being a citizen of a state that didn't exist prior to WW2, I have been educated to view all independence movements favourably. However, after some fact-checking, I am having trouble viewing the Scottish separatist movement in the same light that I regard, for example, my own country's independence movement.

I mean, wasn't Scotland an enthusiastic partner in running the empire along with England and Wales? It isn't called the British empire without a reason. And now that the party is over, you want to leave?

If England is a colonial power that has no right of presence in Scotland, then it is a more benign colonial power than most national governments around the world. It funds Scotland so that it can have a higher public spending per capita than England. It funds schools so that they can teach moribund Gaelic languages indigenous to Scotland. It bails out Scottish banks. It allows an unhindered representation at the Union's capital AND a devolved parliament that is autonomous. And the last prime minister of the United Kingdom was a Scotsman.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. I'd dearly like to be on the cool and revolutionary side and scream "Freedom" until my voice is hoarse, but I can't. I only see a culture of victimhood here.

I'm sorry Kim77, but your comments are both badly informed and frankly rather insulting. Scotland contributes more than it's fair share to the UK, including, yes, to the historical 'successes' of the British Empire. We pay taxes too. Our public services are not 'paid for by England': what offensive drivel! Just because our taxes are sent to Westminster does not make what is returned 'English'. Westminster is the UK parliament, not the English parliament. Please try to understand this. As for your dismissive comment about Gaelic, the less said the better: but to dismiss attempts at ensuring a significant cultural facet of Scottish life is protected is just narrow-minded in the extreme. What is spent on Gaelic education over decades won't even begin to match what is Scotland's per capita contribution to the three week-long London Olympics. Finally I am amused that you refer to England 'bailing out Scottish banks'. Yes, there were banks that had 'Scotland' in their names that were bailed out by the *UK* (I.e. including Scotland), but if you look closer you will realise that the majority of these banks' enterprises, and in particular much of the dodgy trading, took place south of the border. Is it not insulting that when these banks were enormously successful, they were lauded as the best of British, but after the Westminster government and London regulator allowed, nay encouraged, them to behave atrociously, they suddenly became failed 'Scottish' banks. This switching of identity is exactly the sort of underhand tactics used to undermine Scotland. For a nation to be undermined from within its own partner state is staggering. Returning to the point of bailing out banks, had Scotland been independent, it has been estimated that England would've been liable for up to 90% of the bailout given, reflecting the trading activity taking place either side of the border and the accordant significance to the relative economies. But that's all getting into technical debatables: the main point I wished to make was to ask you to try and understand the difference between England and the UK. Once you do, you'll understand why your comments are misplaced, and your accusation of 'victimhood' patronising in the extreme.

If Scotland wishes to be independent, I wish them all the best. But it is a risky path to take. They do not have the oil wealth which is required to guarentee there prosperity and any slips in the price could easily push them into a deficit.

One thing i do not agree with is 'devo max'. Just like the UK cannot dictate terms of its partnership with the EU (although it fights tooth and nail for its interests, much to the dislike of our European neighbours), Scotland cannot dictate the terms of the union with the UK, effectively having its cake and eating it.

As a non-Brit, following the terminology of this issue is very challenging.

In particular, I wonder if it makes sense to speak of Scotland 'leaving' the United Kingdom.

Despite administrative devolution, the UK is not a federation. It is a unitary state, with one sovereign entity: the Sovereign. The formation was created by uniting two crowns: England and Scotland

By this view, a separation of Scotland ends the United Kingdom. No-one 'leaves' it - it is an entity which terminates.

Today, the front of a British passport says "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

I wonder what the new English passports will say? "The Kingdom of England and Related Dependencies"?

Ask yourselves, why are the UK mainstream political parties so persistant in their voicing of keeping Scotland in the union. These parties will attempt every conceivable trick and manouvre to ensure Scotland remains a country within the UK. Since when did Westminster get so passionate about anything Scottish in the past which leads me to smell a rat. Could it possibly be that Westminster stands to lose financially if Scotland departs and stands on its own two feet like almost every other country on earth. The English, Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish have been fed very convenient scaremongering untruths for many decades, can't wait until the whole murky facts reveal themselves in the not to distant future which I believe will create massive repercutions strengthening Independence for not only Scotland. Anyone asking is Scotland can financially manage to support its inhabitants need only ask themselves what Scotland lacks that other similar sized nations possess. Extremely interesting times!

One of the joys of reading anything written outside Scotland about independence or the referendum is the rampant mis-information in much of the blogs.
I find it encouraging that so many are ignorant of the fact that with 8.5% of the UK population, Scotland delivers 11.5% of the UK's income. In fact this has been the rough ratio for years.
But the myth of the Scots being subsidy junkies persists. I suppose those who spout such rubbish are from the same mound that buried the McCrone report in the 70's and branded it as 'secret' ?. Especially as it forecast Scotland, being independent, and assuming 90% of all the oil wealth would be about the sixth or seventh richest country in the world.
Clearly this information could never have been made public. God Forbid, those pesky Jocks might actually want independence ?. Good news is that both the Conservatives and Labour buried this report.
Freedom of information and the internet is a wonderful thing.
Few north of the border believe anything that comes out of the mouths of London based politicians and that includes Scots who have sniffed the ermine.

I wonder, if 'Devolution Max' is to be included in a referendum, then surely 'An End to Devolution' should also be included.

Id certainly vote for that.

What a waste of time and money the Scottish Parliament has been.

Very good point. I am also a non-Brit and I have found the talk in the British media about "Scotland leaving the UK" very misleading. The United Kingdom was formed in 1707 by the merger of the Kingdom of England&Wales with the Kingdom of Scotland.

If the Kingdom of Scotland chooses to be independent this dissolution would legally and effectively mean that the United Kingdom will cease to exist as an entity. The "United" in "United Kingdom" would be moot.

I really would like to hear more from constitutional lawyers on this issue, as this could mean that the Kingdom of England&Wales, as well as the Kingdom of Scotland would have to sign new accession treaties with the European Union.

Although I am not directly affected, I find this debate fascinating, if not for the sheer hypocrisy on display by the Tories. The same Tories, many of whom request to be independent from the EU, want, as "Unionists", to effectively deny the same requests by the Scots be independent from the Union.

Thank goodness for a sensible and rational article about the issue.

Having read the Guardian's biased and sensationalist coverage over the past few days (typified by a 'poll' asking readers to choose Scotland's future by clicking a photo of Salmond or Cameron) the coverage here - complete with refreshingly thoughtful reader comments - is a godsend.

If Cameron wants to settle this question "once and for all" in the next 18 months, why can't the UK have a Yes/No referendum on the EU to settle that question once and for all too in the next 18 months (that's one referendum the people of this country have been demanding for decades)?

If the Tories want to renegotiate the UK's terms within the EU, why can't the Scots have the option of "devo max"?

As a Canadian I have lived through 40 years of the economically destructive, emotionally draining and ultimately barren discussions surrounding the separation of Quebec from Canada. In the article and comments I recognize all the same debates; 'who contributes what?', 'who owns what?' etc., and all the same finger-pointing and historical revisionism. On the assumption that you won't do the sensible thing and just drop it, I have a humble suggestion. Please read our Clarity Act for hints, then set clear rules for a straight 'yes or no' vote, and let the chips fall where they may. In their different ways, both Canada and the UK and great and favoured lands. So I end by quoting what most of the world said when the possible break up of Canada was reported, "Are you nuts?"

I think many people are missing a crucial detail here. A disproportionately large number of westminster politicians, even Tories, are themselves Scottish. I'm sure they could have stayed in local politics, like salmond, if they had wanted to but they didn't. So of course they will fight to keep their opportunity to sit at the top table...

To suggest a "culture of victimhood" is missing the point.

It is, ultimately, a question of sovereignty (limited as it is in modern Europe) and how it is best exercised for the benefit of the population of Scotland. This is not a "freedom movement" in the context of removing "colonial masters'. A basic understanding of British history clarifies this (though the context of Scotland joining the Treaty of Union c.1707 Post Darian may contradict this somewhat).

There is no "subsidy" of Scotland on the part of England. Clearly, Scotland is a viable entity in its own right. It has excellent Universities, a diversified and growing manufacturing sector, abundance of natural resources (and not just oil), excellent communications and a cadre of world class companies in the private sector etc. It also has its share of problems common to much of Western Europe, and very few that are unique to Scotland.

The question is, would separation improve the lot of the average citizen? I'm not sure that it would, for a variety of reasons. However this process should not be viewed as analogous to some sort of post British Empire colonial struggle for national self determination. Very few people in Scotland view it in those terms.

A little dramatic don't you think.

I don't deny the UK fight hard, but there is a lot that the EU requires which the British don't like, (eg. CAP). But this debate is for another thread so i'm going to leave it at that.

With regards to Scotland, they have always been treated equally to the rest of the UK and have been given powers through devolution to conduct there own affairs. They have also benefitted from being part of a stable and prosperous Democracy and Economy. As I said before, if they wish to leave so be it, but i don't think it is actually in their interest.

I wonder like George whether RBS, HBOS, Northern Rock bailouts which have saddled everyone in the UK with debt would happen in an independant scotland.

At least everyone is young in scotland though, so there is no concern of the future high cost of welfare/pensions needing any subsidy

Usefully the declining oil reserves may still be valuable enough in the future to fund local defense, pensions, welfare, jobs, and building a new shipping industry to connect to Europe, and to join the Euro properly - like Ireland found so valuable when its banks collapsed and had to turn to their partner - the ECB for help, who forced them to pay back the german bond holders who took the risk, rather than reflate the country.

The last two UK Prime Ministers were also both Scottish.

Technically, there are only two "Kingdoms" that make up the "United Kingdom" - namely the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of England. Both Kingdoms' shared the same monarch from the early 1600's. They retained full distinct parliamentary sovereignty until the Treaty of Union (c.1707). The Kingdoms' of Scotland and England (which includes Wales which was conquered in the 13th cent. by England) form "Great Britain".

Wales is a Principality and Northern Ireland, a Province. So it depends on how you define the "Kingdom". If it's based on a shared monarch, then it does not end with Scotland leaving.

If it's based on full parliamentary union, then Scotland leaving would terminate both Great Britain and the United Kingdom as political entities. "The Kingdom of England and Related Dependencies" sounds about right in this context, however the Welsh may not like it.

You are missing the point that the regulation of this Scottish bank was carried out in London. Had Scotland been independent it can be assumed that bank regulation would have been different too. So no-one can say FOR SURE what would have happened.

What IS a valid question is whether an independent Scotland will be suitable prudent in its long term policies, or fall into the more gung-ho approaches that brought down Ireland and Iceland. A few years ago I suspect we wouldn't. After seeing Ireland and Iceland I hope that we would.

Lastly, an energy rich nation almost certainly could have bailed out RBS with borrowing against future oil revenues (or perhaps even future renewables sales to England). What will England borrow against in future? Oh yes, banking! Hmmm.

The bank bail out issue needs clarifying.

RBS was HBOS were both headquartered and domiciled in Edinburgh, and if Scotland had been independent, the Scottish government would have 100% responsible for their bailouts. The location of business is irrelevant. This is true globally.
Secondly, for RBS, it was not the trading business that blew up. The new acquisition Dutch bank ABN Amro needed massive bailouts due to exposure to toxic US sub prime, mostly in the form of CDOs. Fred Goodwin, the Scottish CEO of RBS, pushed through the takeover in an act of hubris.
That single act bankrupted Scotland in 2008, and made any attempt to paint Scotland as fiscally independent look like a sick joke.
England had absolutely nothing to do with it, apart from the rescue of course.

It is one of the major reasons for so much anger down South. If the Scots and Salmond had acted decent and munificent about it, then the situation would probably have been acceptable.
As it is, the debate is not if Scotland should vote for independence, it is whether England should just throw the ungrateful lot out of the union. Except of course, who else would end up footing the bill for Scotland's next rescue?

Much as Labour don't want to lose so many Scottish seats, these are not nearly as precious to them for winning a Westminster election as is often made out. And oil or not, I am drawn towards voting yes to independence more and more because I'm tired of hearing the line that Scotland is uniquely incapable and too poor to be independent. If the debate from Westminster can't give positive reasons for the UK to remain, I'm not voting for Scotland to remain in it if the main tactic is blackmail.