Independence for England, then see us go back to being a good country, deciding our own fate, not in the hands of a Country who has no love for us, ie the Scots.

We did very well before the Union, Scotland was in a very bad financial state before the Union. Scotland has gained most from the present set up, England has not. Even when you take into account that the North Sea oil area could be partially English under present internationally agreed rules, and maybe we should have harped on about English Gas? Never did did we? The sooner we are free in England the better. As the SNP DJ said at a recent party I attended in Scotland. ‘Freedom and Independence for Scotland’, to which I replied ‘And for England too’! England, underrepresented, overuled, over taxed and under appreciated.

Who knows we in England may even get Free prescriptions, as I am sure should the matter come to Westminster, Scots MPs would be ‘good little boys’ and vote for whichever way the Government told them. (In my view keeping prescription charges in England).

Further if Scotland did become Independent, I trust you would be only to glad to accept your share of National Debt, or even as most of the problems of late were caused by Scottish banks HBOS, RBS, maybe you should take the lions share caused by your fellow Countrymen, and fellow Country banks.

As for a different time zone. Who says all us English want to stay one hour ahead of GMT, all year round? Why the Government in Westminster! Run by ?? Scots!!

In regard to the BBC, why we may even get at last a BBC England, instead of ‘Regions’. Which has lead to the case of having a programme about ‘The History of Scotland’. When will we get ‘The History of England’? Probably never, because England does not at present exist for the BBC.

Come an Independent Scotland the case for a BBC England would be unstoppable. At the very least it would stop the present unworkable ideas of splitting England into ‘Regional Governments.

The reason? Because Labour is anti English, and wish us to go away, and pay our taxes and be happy to be marginalised.

HOME RULE FOR ENGLAND!!! ALL OF ENGLAND

I mean that no matter how big demonstrations in England were against the invasion of Iraq, English voters seem no less inclined to vote for parties that supported said invasion. In Scotland, there has been a significant shift towards parties that condemned it.

It’s self-evidently true that policies tend to be more popular in some places than they are in others. But Scotland is a distinct legal entity; parts of Scotland are merely administrative conveniences, so talk about ‘splitting Scotland up’ is nonsense.

I support independence because it is an expression of the politics in which I believe viz. bringing government as close to people as possible. I don’t really believe that an independent Scottish government would follow my line of thinking in many other regards, but on the issue of foreign policy, I’m with the majority for once.

Great stuff Political Dissuasion, a very detailed plan. I like everything you say and I think I agree with almost all of it.

I am still neither for nor against an independent Scotland, haven’t yet made up my mind or been persuaded, though I have always tended towards the pro-independence side of the argument and am confident that within the next 10-15 years, Scotland will have voted YES to independence.

It’s a good point that due to the EU/NATO/EC/Euro etc, we would not in fact be fully independent and I’m pretty sure that most people would agree that we’d be keen to be a member of at least one of the internationals organisations out there.

But of the question of UK based independence? Doctorvee suggests some powers may not be removed from the authority of Westminster on the basis of practicality. I (kind of) agree. On defence and the military, I would be keen to keep the current set up, with it all being controlled as one unit. I don’t want a separate Scottish Army and a separate Former United Kingdom’s Welsh-Anglo Reservists (FUKWAR?), I want the British Army/UK Army/Isles Army, whatever you want to call it. Essentially, Scottish independence with an Entente Cordial (*more on this later) with the rest of the Former UK (FUKs?) on defence.

This would then lead to questions of “who calls the shots when crunch time comes”. Whether that’s Westminster, or an inter-governmental committee that was set up who we give control to, I still believe we would all be in a better position with this kind of set up (I could go into specifics, but it’d be pointless – you get the principle).

I also believe, as I’m sure many will agree, that after gaining independence, we would be keeping the sterling pound (£) for the foreseeable future, and again, I would recommend that we keep the current Bank of England set up (with at least one of the board of governors being selected by the Scottish Parliament). Then, if we chose to take on the Euro, keep the sterling pound or even a new currency ‘the Jock’ (pennies could be ‘jockles?), we could do so when we wished, but the stabiliy this would offer in the early years, I think, would be a reasonable way to progress.

Then there is the issue of what we currently call a ‘national emergency’ – the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow airport and foot-and-mouth for example.

As I detailed before(*), we would have some sort of agreement – an entente cordial, a council of ministers, some sort of mechanism – where when it was necessary, the two Governments would have an agreed council/team made up of the relevant minsters, advisers etc who would, as part of their jobs, take charge of such matters, making decisions as a whole. These would be agreed withint strict, set parameters which would (hopefully) avoid any political posturing or manoeuvers in order to deal with the serious issues. Again, this is where working with (not necessarily as a part of) Westminster would be, in my view, a sensible course of action.

So to answer Doctorvee’s questions…

“I am going to ask if everyone believes that different powers should be held at different levels. This could be Scotland as part of the EU, Scotland as part of the UK and the EU, or whatever other permutations you care to come up with. I have already noted that I think almost everyone agrees with the principle of this. Am I wrong?”

You are not wrong. I believe, as do you, that the modern world no longer operates, in the main, as a planet made up of all independent nations. I believe we would be better served by being part of the EU (especially in our infancy as an independent nation).

I have always been very sceptical of the EU as an institution, and don’ believe it is nearly as efficient and effective as it could or should be, but the principle of the EU is a good one for an independent Scotland, and as long as we aren’t forced into signing the (hopefully doomed) EU constitution, then I’m confident Scotland would prosper.

I, however don’t believe we necessarily have to be part of the UK, though we can and should work closely with them within a new ‘British Isles Union’ (or something along those lines) within which we can gain and offer help when it is best for us all on very few, but very important issues.

Day to day Government, such as schools and hospitals and transport etc, yes, should be part of an independent Scotland’s control, but we should have tools, mechanisms and trust enough to utilise the UK, the EU, whoever, with such links being embedded into our national plan.

Over to you Doctorvee…

It may be the case that the particular parts of defence policy you mention are less popular in Scotland than they are in the rest of the UK (I don’t know). But it begins to look as though you support independence because you believe that’s the easiest way to get the policies you like, rather than because independence per se is a good thing. That’s just gerrymandering. And as I’ve pointed out in a recent post, you could as easily chop up Scotland into bits where policy X is more popular than policy Y and so on.

Elizabeth, I don’t think it’s controversial to point out that the more politicians you add to the mix the more likely discussions are to reach deadlock.