Seriously, this discriminatory tactic is absolutely appalling.

Whatever the Herald has calculated, the Barnett formula still provides for 20% higher identifiable spending per head in Scotland compared to England. This takes no account of either revenue raised or need. I think Scotland would get slightly more than England on need, maybe on revenue, depending on oil prices. But the existing formula is just arbitrary.

As for creating two classes of MP. I believe devolution has already done that. Those whose constituents are affected by all legislation (English) and those whose are only affected by some (Scottish). It is no coincidence that MPs from Scotland are least likely to rebel, they will not be punished at the ballot box for tuition fees or foundation hospitals.

The statement that England would dominate a federal Union is often repeated, and by those who know more than me so I will assume it has some basis in truth. But a true federal system has clearly defined and separated areas of responsibility. It need see no change in Scotland at all, with Westminster and the Scottish parliament retaining the same powers. You can see why an English nationalist feels this is an excuse for Scottish inteference in English affairs. The same argument could be made for any nieghbouring countries to sit in each others parliament.

I think you raise an interesting point when you talk of the Scots seeing themselves as equals with England. How we both define this equality may determine how English and Scottish people interact politically. It may even be the most fundamental point!

We English nationalists in many ways believe Scotland as a nation should be equal to England as a nation. On the other hand obviously you can’t say 5 million Scots = 50 million English, unless you believe (no doubt many do!) one Scot to be worth 10 English.

You mentioned the regional federal solution, and Scots refusing this as it equates them with an English region. Strangely the English (at least the nationalists) also see themselves as losers in this solution, with Scotland kept whole as a “proud, historic nation” (Tony Blair’s words) and England subdivided into arbitrary regions. But then the idea of treating England and Scotland both as nations within a federal structure has been dismissed already.

To see three of the UK regions, Scotland, Wales and NI chosen because of historic claims of nationality, (well NI is complicated!) and England divided into arbitrary regions of the same size as Scotland, for the convenience of the other nations – well I am sure you can imagine how that looks. And as you mentioned Scotland would go from a specially recognised nation to a UK region, even with no change in powers.

The problem of course is that we consider ourselves to be separate nations. If we all felt British we’d be happy in a British parliament. When we draw the line at Scottish, Welsh, English, no-one feels truly represented by a British parliament, with others intefering in our affairs.

A nationalist need not believe in unchanging cultures or strict definitions of nationality. The belief that the fairest and most democratic method of decision making relies on consent as well as majority voting, that a group with enough common identity to consent to share a political system can constitute a nation, and that the nation state is the best level at which sovereign power should be exercised, is one definition of a (political) nationalist.

All though you wouldn’t describe yourself as a nationalist, I recognise (and salute) many of the arguments of nationalism in the case you make.

At the time I had exactly the same thoughts (i.e. what a cunt) and then this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf5ib8Mlcos

32 seconds in…could it be?…why yes, it’s Luke the Kook proclaiming his love for all things Brian Wilson.