[Nigel Mace]

The notion of 'independence' as a real category for states/countries in the contemporary world - clearly is not, nor has it for a long time been, the supposed total 'negative liberty' myth of 'total sovereignty'. That was the 'will-o'-the-wisp' which flitted, like a wrecker's fire, through the fantasies hyped up by the unprincipled Leave/Brexit campaign. However I suspect, Adam, that you'd pretty swiftly recognise its polar opposite if subjected to it. You'd surely know it if you were obliged to see your polity, economy, people and culture perpetually over-ruled, exploited, suppressed and spurned within a state whose ruling establishment was never (or as G&S would have it "hardly ever") remotely aligned with your own country's views. I'm sure you'd recognise that difference still more if a mythic, back-ward looking insularity was to be imposed on your own society's open, progressive and internationalist view of its very nature.
That is where Scotland stands - and it will be why, as 'South Britain' heads for the past somewhere in the wastes of the mid-Atlantic, we will be staying with Europe and heading for the future.

Turning to the timing issue, which has been the subject of serious enquiry here. After the Bill for a new Independence referendum (for which there is a clear mandate from the last Scottish Parliament's election) passes in Holyrood this week, the formal request for Westminster legislation for a Section 30 order will be made. Either it will be accepted in principle and negotiations on a new version of the previous Edinburgh Agreement, which will include the issue of timing, will begin - or the request will be denied. If the former takes place, the negotiation on timing will place the result somewhere between May's extraordinary claim that its should be after 'Brexit' has already happened (the equivalent of according a condemned man a hearing of the evidence after he's been hanged - the old Border term for this is Jeddart Justice!) and the earliest of Sturgeon's target times, autumn 2018. That could result in a referendum between March and May 2019 - and YES will, having seen the shape of a very hard 'Brexit', win.
If the request is denied, the Scottish Government has a number of options. An advisory referendum held at the time of the Scottish Parliament's choosing. People who used to scoff at the significance of "only advisory" referendums, have now rather solid reasons to recalibrate their force!
The other options include, taking Scotland to a new Scottish General Election for Holyrood with independence THE issue and/or 56 of the 59 Scottish Westminster MPs resigning and creating 56 simultaneous byelections. The SNP and their Green allies would win the former and the SNP on its own would win the latter.

So.... the 'timing' issue is fairly inscrutable at the moment. I have seen the notion floated that May might try to circumvent the Westminster Fixed Term Parliaments Act - either by its abolition, or by gaining the support of a PLP, now teetering on the brink of complete self-destruction, for the necessary two thirds majority to enable the calling of a new Westminster General Election. The political insensitivity of this government is so great that it might even try it on - but with the Tory Party election expenses scandal poised to engulf perhaps as many MPs in byelections as to threaten or even remove their parliamentary majority, I suspect that such extreme measures will daunt even Boris. It is hard to see even such bizarre tactics, affecting the steadily gathering Scottish crisis.

Last time, the challenge was massive and we went from 28% to 45%. The new Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, a very 'conservative', in the non-party sense, source places Independence - for the first time ever - as the first choice at 46% (double the standing in 2012) - devolution second at only 42%. This time starting from c. 47-50% in the polls, I cannot see any outcome but independence - and, one way or another, in Europe.

I will return, very briefly, I promise to comment on John's peculiar problems later.

[John Whitworth]

But Nigel, what are you going to use for money? Free Scotland will need money. Every country needs money.

I don't understand all that long word stuff.

[Mark McDonnell]

Hey Nigel - there, we knew you and John would get to it eventually. Hope you didn't mind my moment of levity earlier...

[Adam Elgar]

One of the many admirable things about Scotland is the vigour and creative energy of its cultural identity/identities. I don't see how this will be improved by severing ties with England. It would be a poor cultural identity (which is the only kind that matters in the end) that was so affected by a political and economic union.
It's for the Scots to decide. I just can't see what's going to be gained. Of course if more than half the English had a chance to cut themselves safely adrift from the toxicity of Toryism, they'd do it, so I do understand that part of the motivation.

[David Anthony]

I did enjoy Ruth Davidson's comment in the Scottish Parliament:
"A big Tory did it and ran away" (summarising Sturgeon's argument).

[David Anthony]

And that's the reason we'll never separate, IMFFHO, despite Braveheart, that ridiculous and false American film: we share not only our history but also our sense of humour.

[John Whitworth]

I take it you are not a Tory, Adam, just a great big cuddly lefty. Do you know anything about Scotland?

[Nigel Mace]

Funny thing, David, I've always seen Braveheart as an Australian republican tract. (Worth pondering, I assure you.) As the translator of the entire Wallace into English verse, I can certainly aver that it is a rather poor reflection of the literary 'original'!
As to Ruth's deployment of that old Glasgow 'chestnut', it was a fair shot at being amusing - but not the best that she was once capable of in her younger, journalist days, when I once told her it was her best ever bon mot - though then the surreal target was the Palais de Justice in Brussels. What lacked real humour this time, was that the comic punchline - was true and not ridiculous.

Why on earth, Adam, do you assume that ceasing to be governed by the Establishment of another country, means that we will be "severing our ties with England"? Are you remotely estranged from Italian culture by no longer being ruled as part of the Pax Romana/the Papacy/the HRE? The notion does not bear a micro-second's serious consideration. We share the desire to escape the bonds of right-wing Tory domination - and, please believe me, we really share and sympathise with your frustrations. We have the good fortune to have forged our own way out - and we have every intention to use it.

John, what can I say? Your hang-ups are extensive and apparently impervious to factual information. They are also so phrased as to reduce my extremely patriotic English better-half, playwright, to near indanescense that you should so besmirch her country's good name with your mode of expression. (She demanded that I say at least this in response.)

Let me try some simple facts for a final time.

We do not receive any 'English' money. The Scottish block grant is a part only of what we pay in taxation to the Treasury of the UK. On average, we pay significantly more than we are paid back.

We have - insofar as there are any reliable stats. on Scottish v. UK (rest of) finances [they are mainly made up of UK government 'estimates' designed for political purposes] - a positive balance of trade with the rest of the world. The UK has a huge balance of trade deficit.

Our economy is 6% better by GDP per head cf. with Germany and 15% better on the same basis with France. It is 15th on that basis in the world and we have Europe's best educated population and the third best educated, by qualifications, in the world.

We will 'use' either sterling with/without a currency agreement. I reckon we won't do either, since the UK government in 2014 showed it cared more about political point-scoring than a sensible (and massively favourable to them) offer of a currency union; OR, more likely, we will have our own currency - a Scottish Pound. We CANNOT adopt the Euro, as we have not been, nor will we choose to be, members of the ERM for the required 2 continuous years prior to requesting membership of the Euro. We don't intend to do it - and we legally cannot do it, let alone be obliged to do it. Fact - end of.

Our membership of the EU will be either continuous, or continuing but renegotiated (e.g. on fisheries and farming) in a manner which fits our needs - unlike having our interests disposed of as bargaining chips as the UK did last time. Spain will not oppose it. She needs us as do the other 27 and there is every sign that we will be welcome. Spain's only 'probems' are unconstitutional independence (e.g Kosovo which they don't recognise) as opposed to constitutional ones (e.g. Montenegro which they do recognise) AND Gibraltar, which may lead them (they've already so threatened) to veto a UK leaving deal.

Oh, final PS and for the removal of doubt - my home base is in the Tweed Valley in the Borders, John, where I vote and pay my taxes - not elsewhere.

[John Whitworth]

Good for you, Nigel. Long may you prosper.

The rest of you will no doubt realise that Scotland does not pay its way. What would it pay its way with? All Nigel's figures are spurious SNP stuff and have been challenged and destroyed many times. However if Scotland should vote for Independence we will see.

More stuff about oil and whisky no doubt. And tourism, English tourism.

Have you heard of capital flight, Nigel? You would see it. Why would any successful Edinburgh business want to stay in Scotland to subsidise idle Glaswegians?

[Adam Elgar]

Nigel, I don't understand what independence means if it doesn't mean severing ties - ditto the Brexiteers' blarney about independence from the EU. The ties that wont' be severed are the ones that already richly exist, and Scotland is the vigorous, culturally dynamic nation it is, despite English oppression. Your remark about my attachment to italian culture works the other way, too. It developed, and develops, even though I don't live there, and am an Englishman living under various forms of English conservatism.

John, I have not made a single statement about Scotland that requires knowledge. Self-evidently the Scots have a strong and culturally rich identity, as any dispassionate observer can see.

As for the English and Toryism, I merely make a statement of fact. The Conservatives have never had the support of a majority of the population.