By getting up the patriot's noses with his demands for any ballot, Cameron may well be deliberately ensuring that Salmond's wish for Scottish independence is fulfilled. Apart from permanently neutralising the Labour Party's hopes of UK electoral success, he may well want to excise that part of the nation which - with its gas and oil assets in a rapid state of depletion - is no longer the same cash-cow asset to government it was during the 80s-90s.

Salmond denied being a wriggler.

Failed to give a convincing answer as to why the pro-full independence SNP are now so keen on FFA/DevoMax.

Refused to give assurance that any referendum would be held under the auspices of the Electoral Commission.

Salmond was wriggling like a big pink wriggling thing.

I'm not a Nationalist, but I wouldn't paint Salmond as a little Scotlander railing at the nasty English.

I think the reason his party got the majority vote was because it was positive about the future prospects for the country, instead of argybargying about who was to blame for what.

While there are elements of your article that may well be true, the fact is ever since devolution, there is a growing sentiment in Scotland across public life, commentators and writers and not just inside Holyrood ,that the UK Government in it's current state is failing the interests of Scotland and change is needed.

Even when Salmond was not leader of the SNP and he spent time at Westminster, during the 2003 Scottish elections the pro independence candidates (including SNP, SSP and Greens) gained 49 seats at the Scottish elections, just 8 short of Labour's winning margin of 57.

Controlling all tax and spending at Holyrood is consistently backed by 60-80% of the Scottish electorate in all credible opinion polls.

I suspect many Scots look at what the Tories are doing to welfare, NHS, state schools in England and are thinking another 5-10 years of right wing US style politics would be more dangerous than the risks of independence.

What is a Scot? Most seem to live elsewhere. Will they have a say?

On HS2 starting in the north. That's such a great political stroke that it's already SNP policy. Do try to keep up at the back.

Salmond is relying on the nature of Scots bigotry and anti-Engilsh racism to ensure a Yes vote.

Instead of the British asking what can we do to get a No vote, the English should take the lead and ask, "What can we do to help Salmond get that Yes tick?"

The simple answer would be to just exist - if we didn't, they'd have to invent us - but a few letters to the right newspapers should help to wind them up and ensure we are finally free of the constant whinging and back stabbing we have had to endure for too many centuries. No more English silence. Now is the time to bite back and make sure our children and grandchildren do not have to tolerate the bigotry we have had to endure for far too long.

Good stuff Michael. Keep up the good work.

I'm getting tired of hearing about Alex Smoked Scottish Salmon.

I am a Unionist, and I want the Scots to be part of a UNITED Kingdom but if they do not then so be it. It's their choice.

But please please please hurry up and decide; I cannot take much more of his smug, self-satisfied, toad-like grin plastered all over TV.

Seeing Salmond touring the news outlets yesterday, I was again struck by his utterly unmatched smugness and pomposity. At one point I actually thought he might explode under the weight of his own self-perceived brilliance.

There is no doubt he is a tremendously effective political operator. Though I do wish people would stop pointing out at every opportunity that he is "the canniest political operator in Britain", or whatever - it only fuels the personality cult he has built around himself.

I was encouraged by what I've just heard in PMQs - both Miliband and Cameron agreeing on the need to make the positive case for Britain, as opposed to merely batting off the SNP's separatist attacks. They have also rightly identified that the SNP would be more than happy to spend the next three years arguing over the process and the technicalities, including in the courts - it fits into their narrative of Westminster dictating to Scotland and also keeps debate over the substantive issues around independence in the shade. When they are brought out into the light Salmond will lose the argument. I think he knows that, in his heart of hearts.

He needs to be pressed on the substance at every opportunity. Lab, Con and LDs need to show utterly united front and coordinate lines of argument. Get every big Scottish personality they have on message and calling out Salmond's bluster. Sadly the Scottish leaders in Holyrood - Lamont, Davidson and Rennie -are invisible really, but that isn't to say there aren't still great Scottish pro-British politicians who can make the case well.

Bring it on!

Scotland, just like any other country, has the right to self determination and to determine its own future without the interference from others. Once you grasp that and take away your snide comments about oppression and nationalism then maybe we can all move on.

But, perhaps, you think nationalism is ok so long as it British nationalism?

They all 'Wriggle', or have you as a journalist not noticed?

Perhaps because you all 'Wriggle' too.

Michael White wrote:

It also occurred to me on a topical note that, far from starting the HS2 rail line in Euston and slowly pushing it north to Manchester and Leeds, eventually to Glasgow and Edinburgh, as ministers currently promise (we'll see how firm their resolve proves to be), it would be both a great political stroke, cheaper and quicker, to start at the other end.

No, I can see the snags and don't expect it to happen, but the need to make generous and imaginative gestures to Scotland is important if we value the union. And we do, don't we?

I think that the Spanish Socialist Party tried something similar in the late 1980', the Seville's high speed link; it did work for them

It's up to the folk of Scotland. But to me Salmond seems to be leading them down a dangerous road of nationalism and for what exactly?

Surely they will be better off remaining within the Union?

I have heard little policy from Salmond, just the same old tired Independence drum, beating long and heavy.

I can't help but think that if the good folk of Scotland do vote for independence, that they might just come to realise, ten years down the line, that perhaps they shouldn't have listened to Alex Salmond in the first place.

Ah right this clears it up for me. The SNP voters think Salmond is a cross between Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa. That explains the Holyrood majority they have!

I wonder if Salmond thinks the 16 & 17 year olds may well swing this X-factor referendum, or whether they just wont care. Or both, like this author.

Either way, it's awfully nice to see that Michael White, in spite of his reservations, would "accept" that if Scotland voted for independence then it should be allowed to do so. Glad he cleared this up as I'm never sure who is in favour of respecting the democratic wishes of nations, and who is opposed to it.

A fair article Michael. Well done - you've shown the swivel-eyed Unionists at The Telegraph how to cover the issue properly.

The Scots have been thinking seriously about independence for over 15 years now. We English have only just become aware of the debate at all, so it's taking us some time to catch up with what's going on up there.

This article helps. What will take some time for us to understand however, is that this is a Scottish debate, and by and large us English need to butt out. And if you want the Union to remain then it's imperative the English are seen to butt out. Every interference from Westminster just strengthens Salmond's hand in Scotland.

Salmond is relying on the nature of Scots bigotry and anti-Engilsh racism to ensure a Yes vote.

Instead of the British asking what can we do to get a No vote, the English should take the lead and ask, "What can we do to help Salmond get that Yes tick?"

The simple answer would be to just exist - if we didn't, they'd have to invent us - but a few letters to the right newspapers should help to wind them up and ensure we are finally free of the constant whinging and back stabbing we have had to endure for too many centuries. No more English silence. Now is the time to bite back and make sure our children and grandchildren do not have to tolerate the bigotry we have had to endure for far too long.

The irony.

A lot of English regions would like to have an effective and efficient alternative to neo-con policies, and to have a government which won't dictate solutions before listening to their views. This patronising article does not add anything to the real arguments.

Sorry but the key element to your point is that Scotland is an independent country. It has not been for over 300 years. Most European nations including Germany and Italy have not been single states for the same length of time.

I can't remember the last time I read one of these pieces and saw a comment form a Scot saying "We hate the English".

On the other hand I am appalled and saddened at the sheer amount of hatred and bile I've read today on here, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Independent, and on Twitter etc – written by English people who either hate Scotland and want it to go NOW, or hate Scotland but demand it must stay (for unexplained reasons).

That is the only 'bigotry' I've come across.

People like Michael White (who probably couldn't point to Scotland on a map) simply fan the flames - must keep those website hits up eh chaps.

Pathetic and rather sad.

Ok, so here goes: sometimes you irritate the hell out of me, Michael White, particularly when your articles contain the words "Scotland" and "politics".

But is has nothing to do with me benighting Salmond - he has his flaws, so do you - it is about your complete lack of understanding about politics in Scotland.

Your analyses in this article could have been written by 13 year old Politics student. The main assertion that Salmond is playing grievance politics is completely unfair, especially when you look at the grievance politics this Coalition Government has been playing for the last 18 months to explain why everyone of their policies has f*cked up.

Most importantly, the majority of the pro-independence voice in Scotland has nothing to do with grievance against "perfidious Albion," it is pure and simply about making decisions that best fit the populace of Scotland.

The only people that will benefit from this piece of constitutional vandalism are the lawyers and Scottish parliamentarians who's ego's are the key driver in this matter.
One interesting point as we all know about the oil and gas that the Scot's seem to think will deliver them nirvana what about BP's assets - they are a British company are they not? Secondly, how much will the Scottish Government give us to cover the tax payer bailout of the RBS by British taxpayers? Its complex and just not worth the efforts. Jesus anyone would think that we are still living in the 17th century.

Alistair Darlings comments on the Today program this morning beautifully highlighted the disingenuous nature of the pro-union parties.

Darling admitted Salmonds negotiating strength was in part due to Labours failures in the 2011 election and went on to say that the reasons the SNP won were complex and that 'independence was not a core issue'. In Darling's view Salmond went out of his way to point out that the elections were not about independence and 'thats why he (Salmond) wanted a vote in the second part of the parliament'. In other words Labour failed to win more votes in Scotland predominantly due to there terrible record - failing the Scottish people - and that it was very clear back in May 2011 that Salmond intended to hold the referendum in the second part of the parliament.

Darling also said that there should be no argument about the process of the referendum and everyone should concentrate on the 'big questions' surrounding independence which will require clarification and debate and in the same breath said he wanted a referendum as soon as possible.

If this is the case why did Cameron attempt to lay down the rules and shake his little fists via the popular press and why did Labour back him - instead of coming to an agreement with the SNP across the negotiating table.

After 300 years surely a couple more to hammer out these complex issues is completely sensible and dare I say essential! Or would Darling prefer to simply scare voters with a litany of half baked 'facts' then rush to a vote before the smoke screen blows over.

I just joined the SNP today - thank you Cameron & Darling for spurring me on.

He needs to be pressed on the substance at every opportunity. Lab, Con and LDs need to show utterly united front and coordinate lines of argument. Get every big Scottish personality they have on message and calling out Salmond's bluster. Sadly the Scottish leaders in Holyrood - Lamont, Davidson and Rennie -are invisible really, but that isn't to say there aren't still great Scottish pro-British politicians who can make the case well.

A united front, you say, does that include the single Tory MP? I think you will find there is a political united front in Scotland - the SNP - and they have shown that they are united by voting for the SNP in large numbers.

And no, I am not a Scot, but consider their right to chose their independence (or not) entirely their own affair and good luck to them. They could hardly do a worse job than Cameron, Clegg, Brown and Blair.

It might do well alone, but it's a big gamble and the downside is also evident. A major Scottish bank collapse provided the momentum for the union of 1707. We have just had another, which has been better managed within a larger state.

Others are saying on other article comment sections that the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland came after its merger with an English bank and that its decisions were responsible. If that is correct, it may not be the best example to use then.

Here we go - regional government - yet another tier of Labour big government only this time not quite so big but just as expensive and egotistical.

Get back in your box Michael White, you're being archived.

Where have you been and why can't we get more sensible posts like yours?

They enjoy playing the roles of victims. Salmond just plays to the gallery, but if he had any confidence he wouldn't wait another 3 years.

Bouncing back - astonishing thaat you haven't heard much about policy from Salmond - myabe it's because he and to be fair former Labour First Ministers have just got on with doing their jobs.

I would like to think, however, that you have noticed the divergence in the running the NHS, Higher Education, etc. between Scotland and England. That does not just happen, it is actually the result of different policies.

Is restored independence in the best interests of the Scottish people? If so, will Scotland retain sterling or join the eurozone? What about its defence? Its membership of Nato and the EU? What about the monarchy, which matters a lot to many Scots?

I should be used to it by now but I still can't help but be staggered by the ignorance of commentators in the msm. I am aware you're coming to the party late, but do you even bother to do any research?

The SNP have made their positions on these issues crystal clear.
Go and look them up.

It's easier with only two countries, but the Republic of Ireland was never happy linking the punt to the pound, broke free when it could, then quickly embraced the euro. 'Nuff said.

More needs to be said about this. It's the crux of the issue.

Three scenarios:

1. An "independent" Scotland sticks with sterling. That means adopting a monetary policy set in Westminster and having no say over it. Scotland exercises less sovereignty outside the union than it does inside it.

2. An "independent" Scotland adopts the euro. That means adopting a monetary policy set in Frankfurt and signing up to much tighter fiscal rules than at present - ie it loses the right to run a deficit. Scotland exercises less sovereignty outside the union than it does inside it.

3. An "independent" Scotland creates its own Scottish pound that floats against the English pound. Can anyone see that turning out well? (Ireland was able to decouple the punt from sterling only with the creation of the ERM in 1979 - a system of managed exchange rates only available as a precursor to full monetary union, ie adopting the euro.) Scotland is too small to exercise sovereignty of this kind - hence why Wales/Northern Ireland and English regions don't have their own currencies.

Scotland does pretty well out of the Union. Leaving the Union would make Scotland less independent - not more.

I can't see Scots voting either to join the euro or set up their own army. If you're going to keep the Queen as head of state, all you're doing is flying a different flag. All you're left with is symbolism and nationalism - pretty ugly stuff, ultimately. Hence the parallel with English Eurosceptics.

Liuqidator - yes, I agree with you, time to get rid of one tier of government!

Let's talk about the questions of legality and age of voters...

Why should young Scots be allowed to join the army and risk death in illegal British wars and not be allowed to vote on their own consitutional future?

Some of these 'kids' do care. The one's who don't want to vote or 'don't care' aren't obliged to (it's called democracy), but is that any reason to deny the ones who do? I'm surprised that these outdated, patronising views still exist. I'm only 31, I hope I never turn into one of those old timers who stops listening to the young or giving them a chance. If you're old enough to pick up a gun, you're old enough to pick up a pen and a ballot paper.

Who would actually get a vote if Salmond got his way?

By 2014 I'd have been living and working in Scotland for 12 years. I wasn't born here but I had planned on sticking around and raising a family with my English-born (half-Scottish) wife.

Would I be entitled to have a vote on the future of the country where I live and work or is it just for those born here, even if they have fecked off to other parts of the globe with no intentions of returning (looking at you Connery!).

Does a Scot living and working in London have equal or greater say in what happens in Scotland than a Welshman who lives and works in Glasgow?

I always wondered what Salmond's rhetoric would be if he ever achieved independence...couldn't continue to blame Westminster for failings of Holyrood.

As a Scot living in Scotland I have a vested interest here so I've asked my local SNP representatives to clearly state what the advantages of being an independnet nation are and, as a counterpoint, what the disadvantages would be.

So far they've been completely unable to come up with anything that holds water as a convincing case for independence.

So perhaps the Graun's readers can help out here.

1) I'm in my 40's. Is independence going to cost me more in my lifetime?
2) What benefits do I get that I don't have already (NHS, free education, etc)?
3) What would drive Scotland's main revenue streams over the next 50 years?
4) Should we have our own police and defence (army, navy and airforce) forces. If so how will this be funded?
5) Would the common man in Scotland be given any more say in matters than what we currently have and, if so, how? Please don't mention community representatives or focus groups. We have those failures already.
6) Given the catastrophic mismanagement of two of Scotland's biggest construction products under the develoved government - the parliament and the trams - do you really believe the people who would be in charge would know what the hell they're doing?

Another poor article by Michael White. Neither funny, insightful nor persuasive, each time I read his articles I'm more likely to vote for independence.

Seeing as we're early in the discussion here, can I just scotch a few myths before they are repeated multiple times in this thread:

- For the purposes of the referendum, you get to vote if you are normally resident in Scotland regardless of where you were born. It's quite an inclusive form of Nationalism.

- Whilst the figures are debatable, Scotland is no chronic subsidy junkie. Public spending is less per capita than in London. We get free education etc. because we set different priorities for spending. If you dont like that, then elect representatives who will do the same for you.

- Scotland separating will not condem the rest of the UK to Conservative rule forever. Looking over the election results of past decades, in only one did Scotlands MPs affect the outcome - the last election. Without Scotlands MPs it would have been a Conservative win with no coalition required.

No, you wouldn't be entitled to a vote. And you'd have to walk around wearing a big sticker saying I AM NOT SCOTTISH as well. Obviously wearing a kilt would be a no-no.

##SNP voters who prefer to see the party leader as a cross between Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa.##

A shame you have to use such language to belittle the SNP supporters. Salmond is a gifted politician who is a quantum leap ahead of anyone else in Scotland ....you can say this and still attack his position without using puzzlingly crass pokes .
Constantinex

##Salmond was wriggling like a big pink wriggling thing##.

This will be the first time in history that the worm catches the fish.

B

What an odd, disjointed rant.

So you should never do this...

The SNP leader is similar to English Eurosceptics - who reduce complex issues to the simplicity of the national dimension

but then you can still say this

Nick Clegg (bless him) wants all UK 16 and 17-year-olds to have the vote and he's wrong too. They're too young and most of them don't care.

Based on the indesputable evidence of this:

Just look at the abysmal turnout among 18 to 24-year olds since Harold Wilson fiddled the franchise from 21 to 18 in 1970 (he lost and serve him right).

Salmond...stat[ed] that he's pencilled in the autumn of 2014, shortly after the 700th anniversary of Scotland's famous 4-0 victory over the old enemy at Bannockburn FC.

Why are the English obsessed with 1314?

As a Scot, yes, I know it happened. In the same way I know that Flodden or Solway Moss or Halidon Hill happened. But I don't attach the same weight to arithmetical coincidence that you seem to.

Oh and do you have the slightest just how dismissive about our shared history that comment comes across as. I expect you're grandstanding to the anti-Scots bigots on here but this is supposed to be a quality newspaper.

Do we really need all these articles? This issue has been front page news for a few days now. If the Scots want to leave fine, there are many more important things going on in the world

Cameron and George Osborne – who is being presented as the brains behind the strategy – may have won a trick, despite the bad publicity in Scotland, by forcing the pace and thereby forcing Salmond, to show more of his hand.

But this may backfire on them especially when one reviews the manner in which agreements are made, either vocal or written. The Scots joined the Union and have been members for a substancial number of years, but what Cameron in essence is saying is that; if you join a club or organisation of your own free will then the termination of your freely committed membership relies solely on the terms and conditions set by the organisation you originally joined.

Its like the United Nations deciding what course of action is required if a State decided to leave the organisation of its own free will, or NATO requiring particular conditions for a member state to 'up sticks and leave by claiming that only they have the legal jurisdiction to decide and not the member state itself. Pure lunacy.

The Scots should be allowed to decide for themselves, whenever they wish and as many times as they want to review.

I don't know why you consistantly defend the idiots in the Westminister bubble who have been forcing a stop on the referendum and then suddenly switch to oh-my-god-we-need-to-have-the-referendum-yesterday when tactic A has failed so spectacularly. Less than 1% party membership dictating what goes on in 99% of the country and they have the cheek to call it democracy.

No, the point that I am making is that Scotland is already a country that has the right to self determination and there shouldn’t be outside interference in that.

The coalition are too poorly placed to start trying to frame any referendum debates: they only hold around 1/5th of the representations in Westminster and Holyrood. And mediocre Libdems, quoting London legalities, won't cut much ice in Scotland either. What's needed are cogent arguments around the substantive issues, as and when. Most Scots don't want to secede and probably won't yield to any tawdry sentimentality either but silly manouevrings and inept (Tory-led!) responses won't aid the union.
A broad-based, reasoned alliance will offer the best defence...

Good article, but isn't the real problem that the Tory party has made no attempt to recover its lustre in Scotland. Cameron makes no effort to govern as a UK party he instead panders to a narrow range of English voters. The only way to maintain the union is for the tories to return to their one nation roots otherwise the Unionist party will be responsible for tearing the UK apart. Sometimes in politics and economics the game takes a long time to play out.
The problems that Thatcher started nearly thirty years ago are still not resolved

Good article Mike, you only fail to give the one reason I find to vote for independance, I am heartily sick of being called a subsidy junky by the likes of Boris Johnson and red Ken Livingstone, I would be happy to stand or fall on my own two feet than be subsidised then cast up to me that I'm being subsidised!

Your point about the bigotry in Scotland protestant / Catholic is one reason I would be happy to stay in the union, the UK has kept these two factions in place, could an independant Scotland?

If the tories really want to keep Scotland in the union, they should hide Forsyth, after all he recently boasted he was proud to have played his part in closing Gartcosh and Ravenscraig, it follows then he was proud to have put thousands of hard working people on the dole with nothing to replace those jobs!, A grade one Scumbag,

The reason the SNP won such a majority in my view was not the wish of Scots to be independant, but the the rest of the parties were and still are such a load rubbish, not one of them could be described as capable or trustworthy in any way!

Bring it on!

You are Wendy Alexander and I claim my fiver!

Leaving the Union would make Scotland less independent - not more

Thanks for that. Definitely up there with some of my favourite examples of unionist double think.

Independence is dependence!

You should print some t-shirts for the campaign.

alex salmond does not reveal the truth about scottish independence to the scottish public,scotland will not be a member of the eu,and if they rejoined the eu they will have to join the eu single currency thats what all new members of the eu will have to do or they will not be a member of the eu,and scotland will lose the £30+ billion ayear what they get of england to keep scotland going,and many jobs will be lost in scotland.