I'm still thinking about the poll, I'll come back to it.

I personally don't think it's all that ethical to suppress a referendum with a Lib-Lab-Tory pact. If the SNP gets enough votes to form a Lib-SNP-Green coalition then I feel the Lib Dems have a responsibility to acknowledge that the will of the people deserves an outing, so long as they can (and I'd imagine they can) find common policy ground with the Greens and the SNP on other issues.

So, I support a referendum if the party advocating it gets significant support in the election. My gut feeling is that a referendum would likely not vote for independence this time around. I think it would be close, but I do feel there's quite a body of people who aren't yet up for the upheaval of the status quo. I'm not saying they are happy with the union, but they haven't reached boiling point with it either. But, I don't live up there and I only know a certain number of Scots.

Longer term forecasting is difficult because it relies on 2 or 3 variables. One is the actual election results. If the SNP falls short of predictions, then the issue will fade for a while, I think Alex Salmond would retire and the SNP will go through some quiet reorganising. On the other hand, if they exceed predictions but are thwarted by a Lib-Lab-Tory pact I can see the issue just getting hotter and hotter.

So, assuming there is an SNP surge which leads to a referendum, but the referendum says "no" for now. Then the jokers in the pack are Brown and Cameron and their platforms and policies and of course which one wins.

That's a story for another comment.

I think an English First Minister leads directly to the end of the UK parliament. Sooner or later there is going to be a conflict over money and priorities, particularly if the English FM is a Tory and the UK parliament as a whole is centre-left. I don't see that resolving without major changes.

Also, as you note, the UK parliament would have little direct connection with the voters. This would leave it with little popular support in confrontation with a government that deals with the things that matter, day to day.

I think the fear is that an English First Minister would be an over mighty subject who would sooner or later do to the UK Prime Minister what Russian President Yeltsin did to Soviet President Gorbachev.

Yup.

One thing that puzzles me is that the West Lothian question never posed itself in Spain, despite the fact that the plan that the framers of the Constitution of 1978 had in mind was basically for the peripheral regions (Galicia, Basque Country, Catalonia, and maybe Navarra, Andalucia and the islands) to get regional assemblies and having the rest under the National Parliament. In actuality, it took less than 10 years for the entire country to get carved up into 17 regional governments (plus Ceuta and Melilla).

Why was it that all of "Greater Castille" didn't just constitute itself into a single autonomous unit (like the putative English parliament) and instead organised itself into 10 regions? Is it because the mechanism was explicitly bottom-up? Also, the existing Regional organisation from Franco's time greatly influenced (but differs in significant ways) from the current subdivisions.

Also note that, just like the Spanish Autonomy Statutes are organic laws of the National Parliament (second only to the Constitution in rank) so the UK's regional assemblies have been created by act of the Westminster Parliament.

After quoting the Spanish Constitution's devolution procedure twice (here and here) I asked the following question in a recent diary, but I didn't get a satisfactory reply:

Suppose for a minute that the devolution provisions of the Spanish constitution were applied to the UK:

Section 143
1. In the exercise of the right to self-government recognized in section 2 of the Constitution, bordering provinces with common historic, cultural and economic characteristics, insular territories and provinces with a historic regional status may accede to self-government and form Self-governing Communities (Comunidades Autónomas) in conformity with the provisions contained in this Part and in the respective Statutes.
2. The right to initiate the process towards self-government lies with all the Provincial Councils concerned or with the corresponding inter-island body and with two thirds of the municipalities whose population represents at least the majority of the electorate of each province or island. These requirements must be met within six months from the initial agreement reached to this aim by any of the local Corporations concerned.
3. If this initiative is not successful, it may be repeated only after five years have elapsed.

(Where it says "province" read "county")

What would be the result?

The existing regional assemblies (Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Greater London) would be grandfathered into the system.


"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

of ProgressiveHistorians, a community site dedicated to the intersection of history and politics, I would be honored if you would cross-post this excellent diary there.

The Crolian Progressive: as great an adventure as ever I heard of...

Meanwhile in England support for a devolved English Parliament seems to be growing. The Westminster politicians are not keen on this option. They would lose all the issues their electors really care about education, health and criminal justice (if the English Parliament had the same powers as the Scottish one). The UK Parliament would be left with foreign affairs, defence and raising the taxes to pay for the schemes of the devolved institutions.

Given that, despite a large degree of devolution of education, health and justice, the Spanish Parliament hasn't lost its pre-eminent position in the mind of Spaniards after 20 to 25 years of devolution, I wonder whether what you are saying is true, and how that would work. Would Westminster lose or share the power to legislate on these areas? Some power to legislate at the national level would be necessary to ensure coordination and cohesion of the regional systems (though the controversy over drugs available under the NHS in Scotland but not in England makes me wonder about this). Wikipedia claims

The Scotland Act 1998 creates the Scottish Parliament, sets out how Members of the Scottish Parliament are to be elected, makes some provision about the internal operation of the Parliament (although many issues are left for the Parliament itself to regulate) and sets out the process for the Parliament to consider and pass Bills which become Acts of the Scottish Parliament once they receive Royal Assent. The Act does not affect the power of the UK Parliament to legislate in respect of Scotland, recognising the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty.

I am beginning to wonder how the Scotland Act 1998 compares with, say, the new Catalan Statute. Comparisons between the Basque Country and Northern Ireland are also often made, together with the statement that the current Basque Statute devolves more powers than the Stormont Agreement.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

IIRC, the Scottish parliamentary seats are distributed (roughly) proportionally to votes. Correct?

Since this very seldom produces a majority party, different (formal and informal) rules generally rule the formation of a government. In some cases (like Sweden) minority governments are common and in some others (like Germany) they are very uncommon, if they exist at all. From what you have written it would look like it in Scotland would demand a majority for forming a government. True?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se