who says that we need two referendums. Czechoslovakia did not even have a referendum. Thats utter nonsense and typical unionist propaganda. Also Scotland wont have to reapply for the EU for the nation is already part of the EU. The VIenna convention on successor states 1978 states that we inherit membership and treaty obligations for the original state ie membership of the eu. Also greenland become politically independent from Denmark and it stayed on in the EEC the predecessor of the eu with no need to rejion. so the above article is unionist half lies and spin and its just the same old stuff we have heard before well guess what many in scotland dont belive the unionist lies anymore.

Thank you, Abbé Sieyès - constitution-monger extraordinaire.

When Scotland becomes independent, we will be in the EU unless we choose to leave.

As an Englishman, the one key point that I think has to be made is that the government of Britain can not be the negotiating body for the remaining UK members unless it is absolutely clear that it is only the English/Welsh/NI bits of the British government doing the negotiating.

A key difference in the scenario outlined is that there were 2 sides in the Czech/Slovak case. At the moment - as the English know only too well - when it comes to the settlement for Scotland it is the Scots negotiating with the Scots.

This is a major additional obstacle for the simple, practical, reason that there is no desire on the part of any major political party to empower the English in any way as a discrete entity and it would be a further complexity to create a body that could negotiate on behalf of the rump UK. But it would have to happen - it is simply not credible for the Scots to be on the 'UK' side of the seccession negotiation.

The reaction to Kosovo's claim to independence suggests that EU member states like Spain might block Scotland's application, for fear of encouraging similar claims from the Basque country and Catalonia.

That really is nonsense. Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Bosnia, FYROM, Slovakia, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Russia, and the other hundred-odd countries that have not recognized Kosovo as a separate country, do not recognise the US/UK's "right" to militarily occupy a section of another country, allow ethnic cleansing to take place, and then declare the crippled, smoking remains a "country". This has nothing to do with a peaceful divorce between England and Scotland, voted on democratically and without violence.

As a citizen of the Irish Republic, I think Mr. Hazell has missed something crucial.

It's all about the morale boost - many Scots want their country to take it's place among the family of European nations again.

There will be obstacles - Mr. Hazell has outlined four in this article, and a possible fifth.

So, five hurdles to go. You've come a long way Scotland. Do you want to go all the way? We did.

"They would no longer receive subventions from the British taxpayer, which currently enable them to enjoy per capita levels of public expenditure some 25% higher than those in England."

Why not let England have a referendum about whether or not we should keep paying the Scots those subventions?

By all means let England go ahead and have a referendum on anything it likes, but this is a red-herring, it simply isn't true, it is all very well aggregating all-England expenditure and deducing some absurd figure like 25%, the fact is and the author must certainly know this, that per-capita expenditure in some parts of England is far higher than that in Scotland, per-capita expenditure in London for example far exceeds that in Scotland as a whole or any individual part of Scotland.

Someone else can explain the increased costs of providing services to smaller communites in remote and inaccessible places and across vast distances.

The entire article is baseless mendacious nonsense.

Dustmite is quite right to dismiss the alleged 25% higher public spending in Scotland as a red herring (and quite wrong to dismiss the entire article as mendacious nonsense).

However, the existence of widespread belief in this factoid throughout England is undeniable, and the reaction it provokes from such as Roas is obviously helpful to Scottish nationalism.

What is strange is the lack of any serious effort by Unionists of any major party to counter such ignorance. In fact, the Scots Nats have hardly had to make a case at all. Most of the work for their cause is done for them. The current surge of Scottish nationalism began with Thatcher. While she was PM and head of the Conservative and Supposedly Unionist Party, she consistently used Scotland as an expendable guinea pig for all sorts of policy experiments, and never showed the least concern for the consequence on Scottish opinion. It culminated a little later in the complete extinction of all Scottish Tory MPs. Since then, things keep being handed to the SNP on a plate. If the SNP achieves its aim, I hope it acknowledges Thatcher's key role in its success. Perhaps it could name a variety of thistle after her.

As the article is concerned with comparisons and precedents, I wonder why it does not mention the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 that established the Irish Free State. That had to be ratified by the Westminster parliament, by Dáil Éireann and the House of Commons of southern Ireland. (The last body is probably irrelevant because no equivalent is likely to exist in Scotland.) In Westminster the ratification was carried 401 to 58. This suggests few if any Irish MPs voted (there were exactly 459 Conservative and Liberal MPs, which is enough to account for every vote cast), but the lack of Irish participation can be explained by the 73 Sinn Fein MPs refusing to take their seats, rather than any nice agreement over who should take part in which debate.

Methinks North Sea oil and gas make up for the "subvention" red herring.

Followtheoil: as an expat scot, I suspect that yes, Scotland will go all the way. Our national character (like our rugby) is cautious where it counts... We may hesitate for another 1/2 century or so if we don't go for it in the life of this and the next scottish parliament, but I reckon we'll see an independent Scotland in the EU in my lifetime. Other federal nations would grumble and hedge, but probably stop short of an outright block.

If the SNP achieves its aim, I hope it acknowledges Thatcher's key role in its success. Perhaps it could name a variety of thistle after her.

would have to be the milk (snatcher) thistle.

Correction to my previous post - where I said 'Liberals' I meant 'Coalition Liberals', who were led by Lloyd George in coalition with the Tories. There was a separate group of 36 'Liberals' who followed Asquith.

I suspect that once the Scots got the bit between their teeth, independence would gain a momentum of its own. If the Tories are elected in 2010, that momentum will surely up a pace, given what Thatcher and co did last time they were in office.

What people don't realise about the Regional Assembly referendum in the north east in 2004, is that people voted against the specific proposal on offer rather than the principle. We were offered a toothless talking shop which would have cost us money. Now that's something any self-respecting Scot would understand.

If the Scots want independence they should have it. I don't see a problem in that.

This author doesn't realise that these lies (or hurdles as he calls them) have been debated in Scotland for over twenty years now. Noone believes this Unionists scaremongering anymore.

Prepare to be well and truly ripped to pieces Mr Hazell as news of your article spreads on the cybernet. Your ignorance of Scottish politics means you're about to have your academic credibilty well and truly dumped in the midden.

Another thing Mr Hazell. The SNP victory in Glasgow East should have led to wodespread preductions of independence.

Instead there has been blanket coverage of gossip within the Labour Party. The real story has been almost completely ignored.

So that is the first lie in your article.

Mr Hazell says:

it is not within the competence of the Scottish parliament unilaterally to declare independence.

The self-same remark could have been made about the Irish Parliament elected in December of 1918. The one that negotiated the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921.

Scottish independence - bring it on! Then we'll no longer feel we need to wave the flag for the odious Andy Murray, or hear any more whinging Scottish Nationalists.

Should you not be over at the Mail or Telegraph Charliezulu? Please get onto the Scottish papers as comments like yours will surely hasten Scottish independence.

Yes indeed, bring it on.

The Guardian is showing it's fear with this article. It is acting with all the democratic accountabiliy of a Labour MP.

What a pile of confabulatory nonsense. How this paper can say it is liberal and democratic with a grossly undemocratic stance in article above.

What next an additional rule whereby 95% of the population needs to stand on one leg hop and touch their nose for the refferendum to carry any serious weight.

With a stance like above you will have riots on the streets!

Best of lucks to all Scots from Catalonia. I really hope you have a more civilized and democratic neighbours than us.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Thank you and hola! bardissa. If they try the stunts listed above they will be "basque - ing" in a mess of their own making!

Bardissa, please tell as many politicaly active people as you can to come have a look at UK democracy and fairness in action , then have a laugh at the sheer double standards. Blair touted kosovo for independence but cant do likewise for Scotland.

A raving bunch of scared hypocrites.

Go it alone and make a hash of it or be ruled by the tories who will break the country. Tough choice.

It really staggers me that anyone could oppose on principal Scottish independence. Scotland is a nation, and if the democratic will of the people is to have separate state, how can anyone possibly disagree? Same with Wales, same with England.

Of course there will be constitutional problems - we will be dismantling a constitutional arrangement - but so what? It's been done before. The current 'West-Lothianised' constitutional arrangement is laughably undemocratic, anyway.

I would hope too that separation would end the idiotic racism that exists between the nations of the British Isles (that no-doubt will be on display here soon enough) but I won't hold my breath.

A separate Scotland, Wales and federalised England within a federal Europe sounds pretty good to me.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

@KBAXTER Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU.

The Treaty on European Union (available here http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm) explicitly lists the states that are EU members. Scotland is currently covered by the UK membership of the EU. If Scotland were to leave the UK that would no longer apply.

Moreover, any addition to the states that are parties to the Treaty on European Union requires the ratification of the other existing member states (see Article O).

I don't think that the 'Vienna Convention on succession of States in respect of treaties' is relevant at all. The UK hasn't ratified it, and only seven of the 25 EU members have. So the majority of EU members would not follow its provisions.

An independent Scotland would have to apply to become a party to the Treaty on European Union, and without membership of that treaty it couldn't be a member state of the EU. I have no doubt that such an application would be successful. Nevertheless, like the the other applicants, the accession process would be complex and may take years (especially if the UK government were to block progress).

The Treaty on European Union is available here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/index.htm

The 'Vienna Convention on succession of States in respect of treaties' is available here: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_2_1978.pdf

A list of ratifications is available here: http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXXIII/treaty2.asp

"Kalliyuga", you have probably hit it spot on.

As "5ynic" said earlier, we are a cautious bunch in Scotland.

It's probable though that the prospect of another Tory devastation of this country (the UK) will push us all the way. Judging by the comments and perfomance so far, Mr Cameron bids fair to challenge Mrs Thatcher as our most divisive leader yet. That might well hasten our decision.

(Incidentally the suggestion by some fool that Mrs. T should be given a state funeral probably did as much for the Independence movement as the Glasgow East election. The general astonishment, almost disgust, here at that proposal shows Scotland has neither forgotten nor forgiven.)

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

It make much more sense to know where the UK (including Scotland) stands regarding the EU long term before Scottish Independence is considered. In theory new member states would have to sign up to Schengen (i.e border controls with England) and the Euro (i.e. different currency to England). Existing UK opt outs would not be on the table.

The SNP stance that this is a post independence issue is not credible and is I think deliberately disingenous.

The SNP is all over the shop when it comes to the EU. The leadership is Eurofederalist and would like to join the European political establishment (or "gravy train" as some call it). It also thinks EU membership will help overcome people's fears of dramatic change in an independence vote.

However many SNP supporters support independence because they are also anti EU - e.g. the fishermen and small farmers. So at the moment the SNP combines support for the EU with opposition to the CFP and the Lisbon treaty. Come on, you must be joking!

The Irish result was met with deafening silence on the part of the SNP, yet this is also how it would be for Scotland.

Hopefully the Tories will get into power soon and give the UK (i.e. incl. Scotland) a referendum on Lisbon. According to the Open Europe poll this would result in a big Scottish NO. Then any Independence debate would would be in a more known EU context.

Woodchopper. If Scotland would not be allowed member status of Europe then England would also have to rejoin as it treffers to the united kingdom. This would cease to exist and thus England ,Wales Scotland And NI would all need to re-apply. gven the logic of the arguments above.

VOILA! HOHOHO!

I love the way that the SNP runs on a socialist style platform, but has no sense of internationalism. I seem to remember the idea that "we're stronger together than we are alone" - something about "solidarity".

It's so sad, because if this country is being run badly, you need to get in and help make it better, not try to cut yourself off and go it alone. English people need Scottish help against the Thatchers and the Camerons.

And what does the SNP think is going to happen if they get "independence"? It solves no problems, it does not develop any new ideas, because if they had them they'd say what they are and we'd all be so convinced that they'd be running London. It's just small minded, short termist nationalism with a touch of bigotry.

I am truly sickened by the media of this country and the bilge it serves up to protect and promote those in power at Westminster.

I hope the divide and rule stategy is blown out of the water by those who use the internet and research for themselves.

You English folk , who have been TAUGHT to believe that us Scots are stealing your money, tell me why the Government is so keen NOT to allow independence to be discussed and voted on? Could it be that Scotland keeps the UK afloat ?

Ignore ALL polls , they are worded to manipulate , and they tell lies by skewing the sample.

For example , Glasgow East labour ahead by 14% and then 17% and Lo! it came to pass the polls were WRONG.

As for the writer of this article , he is a little too ON Labour message for my taste and understanding of my country.

Grauniaddict - the solution to the conundrum you pose is easy. If a party is socialist, but has no sense of internationalism, it is presumably a national socialist party...

@EwanKerr

Unfortunately not. The situation would be the same as when the Irish Free State became independent in 1922. The UK remained, albeit with a change in name and smaller territory, and the Irish Free State was treated as a brand new entity that had to apply to join the League of Nations.

The same happened after Pakistan left India, (and then Bangladesh left Pakistan). Similarly, when the Soviet Union broke up Russia inherited the seat on the Security Council and the other republics were treated as new states that had to apply to join the UN. There are countless other examples (Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro etc).

I don't see any reason why independence for Scotland would play out any differently from the creation of the Irish Free State. We have all been here before and know exactly what will happen. The UK will remain as England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and Scotland will be a brand new state.

As an Irishman, I will never forget a quotation from Irish writer John McGahern's "Amongst Women".

A disillusioned Irish nationalist who fought for his country remarks that after independence, "Only the colour of the post-boxes changed" (or something to that effect).

Collectively, Scotland needs to grow up (like Ireland has done) and stop blaming England for all its problems. Its first hurdle is deciding whether it wants independence, or whether they are being cajoled into it by Smug Salmond.

They always, always shoot the messenger. That's the tactic. Someone (at last, at last!) writes a sane, rational article appraising some of the complexities surrounding breaking up the UK and the teenage nat scribblers are all over him like a swarm of wasps. It's all part of the unionist conspiracy. He's a Labour stooge. Brown put him up to it, etc., etc. It's just all so infantile, the whole business.

And they claim to speak for people in Scotland, these idiots. Please, Guardian readers south of the border, do not be misled. The propaganda is designed to make us all believe that it will just be a matter of us putting a cross on a piece of paper in 2010 and presto! - we'll be off. As Hazell points out, it will require a majority in the Scottish Parliament (which the SNP doesn't currently have) to enact a referendum bill. If the unionist parties accede to such a bill, they would be mad not to insist that any majority in favour of separation must be a majority of all voters, not just those voting, or at least specify a good turnout of, say 75%. Otherwise what would you do about a low turnout? But Hazell is also right: after that referendum, people would demand to vote again on the actual settlement, surely? Otherwise how could they guarantee they weren't being sold down the river?

I am always surprised that the advocates of Scottish independence react in such a hostile way when anyone merely tries to set out the practical steps that must be gone through. It seems to me that they have this delusion; that they can decide whether or not to secede from the UK and decide upon the terms. This is clearly a fallacy. If there is a referendum that mandates the Scottish government to negotiate an independence settlement then the process that Prof Hazell outlines will surely happen. It will be a negotiation between the government of the UK and the representatives of Scotland. I would expect that all Scottish MPs (including any ministers) would be excluded from the UK side for obvious reasons. The UK negotiators would be mandated to ensure that the interests of the UK (post Scotlansd) are fully protected. Indeed, I suspect that they would be under a great deal of popular pressure to take a very tough stance. The Scottish negotiators would have a pretty weak hand, as it is they who want independence, they represent a small proportion of the UK's population, and they can not declare UDI. A settlement can no doubt be reached, but it is surely right to suggest that this be put once again to a referendum. It is strange to think that the Scottish people can make the final decision without knowing the terms. The more interesting question is whether or not the terms will have to be put to the vote in the rest of the UK?

Grauniaddict

Internationalism is a fundamental part of Scottish Nationalism and at the core of SNP policies. Maybe you shoud try taking a less parochial and narrow view of this issue.

Or maybe you can explain why you feel that Scotland becoming part of the international community is not internationalist.

Speranza86

Apart from "everything" what exactly is it you feel we blame the English for all the time.

I'm interested in those in Scotland who demand independence. Why? What do they stand to gain, compared to what they will lose. If they joined the EU (assuming they were eventually allowed to join), they'd be a member about the size of Slovakia with very little say in the club. (And would they have to join the Euro?)

Of course the self-determinism that would come from independence is important, but the UK currently has a Scottish PM, and Scots are over-represented with MSPs so Scotland can hardly say they're still been ruled by England. Quite the opposite almost. They'd also lose the extra per-capita funding they receive. Scots cite the importance of the North Sea Oil, but I'd assume the negotiations of any UK split would involve some right to that oil going to England too.

Surely Scots can appreciate the value of the Union and how their status is enhanced by it over what they'd gain from independence? Perhaps someone can explain what I'm missing here.

Hazell is simply a tool of Unionism. He is British, and accordingly he despises both English and Scots.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/mar/29/localgovernment.britishidentityandsociety

His argument against the English Parliament is that England is too big!!!!!

PS The creation of "regions" within England. My question is: Who writes English law?

Regional assemblies cannot write laws for the whole of England, can they?

And the non-English cannot write laws for England, can they?

So why the contortions to preclude an English state and parliament?

@Grauniaddict

Scottish , and personally I think Welsh and Northern Irish ( don't laugh, demographics are changing a lot there ) independence would probably the best thing that could ever happen to the English, as they would start to see what the Franco-Germanic-Danish overlords really do for the English people ( as opposed to ,do for their selfish tory selves). The English would soon tire of the Tories once they were isolated and would quickly sort them out once for all. They would then, having purged themselves of this ugly parasite and it's anachronistic tradition of domineering, pretentious and ruthless exploitation, find a lot more in common with their neighbours than the tories will permit them to find under the present social dynamic. They may even begin to reconstruct their severely damaged self-image. And ,what the heck, those tories that decide to stay on as equal and willing ( though by now chastened )partners, would no doubt still be able to rent a cottage to go shooting and trout fishing in Scotland, as they do in Ireland.

Perhaps it's with this sense of the common good in mind that Wendy Alexander says bring on the referendum..... Nah ! That's really pushing the realms of fantasy a bit far. Loved the idea of a thistle named Maggie though,...could hand deliver ( special delivery, heh! heh!, one to Tory Bliar and David CameraOn, but I'm not going to paste to notepad to see who it was again. Nice one anyhow : ) !

At last, a sensible article on the mechanics of Scottish devolution. Perhaps its the reality of how it would work that upsets so many Scotts here. It comes from an academic specialising in Constitutional law, if they are going to argue with it they had better have some decent evidence.

Re Scotlands place in Europe post devolution: Before and after devolution the UK would still be the 'United Kingdon of GB and NI', Scotland wont make any difference to that one way or the other. On the other hand Scotland will want commissioners, MEP's etc. Salmond's White Paper states that they expect to get the same level of representation as Denmark. Will not all the smaller states in Europe object to such a dillution of their influence?

By the way - I am an Englishman who supports devolution. Nation states are irrelevant in the post globalised world.

(@WendyAlexander: are you really Wendy Alexander?)

@JohnnyZeitgeist - Easy. Alec Salmond is an extremely plausible second-hand car salesman with an ego the size of the planet, a self-made man who worships his creator. The SNP flourishes with him at the helm, and withers when he is not (remember John "Whohe?" Swinney?). And Salmond believes in Scottish independence, probably so he can be the biggest salmon in a pretty small pond.

What more do you need to know?

"It seems to me that they have this delusion; that they can decide whether or not to secede from the UK and decide upon the terms. This is clearly a fallacy"

The Nats' self delusion on this and other matters hasn't really been subjected to serious scrutiny by unionists as yet, and that's frustrating. In fact Labour's biggest failure in Scotland has been their lack of intellectual understanding of the constitutional issue and consequent inability to make an effective critique of the nationalist project without being accused of 'scaremongering'. That goes right back to the way they introduced devolution. Tont Blair deserves credit for making it happen, but its implementation in Scotland was done reluctantly and with too many political compromises. Nobody on the Labour side, not even Donald Dewar, really made a visionary case for the benefits it could bring and for why it could be better than independence.

Most Scottish political commentators lack that imagination too. They're fond of saying that we'll become independent incrementally. The next stage will be a degree of fiscal autonomy. But no-one considers that that might be precisely the measure that stops independence in its tracks. A nationalist government that had to account for the taxes it raises and deal with the difficult issues that would arise would have a very different relationship with the Scottish people.

We here plenty about the English rage over not getting the referendum promised by Blair on the EU.

So English nationality is sacrosanct in the EU, but not Scottish?

The Labour establishment waxed the lyrical over the independence of Kosovo, but do not wish the same for us Scots?

Montenegro voted for and gained independence with full international approval with in seven days.

Independence is a natural state for countries within the EU. With the addition of EU bureaucracy it makes absolute sense to ditch the redundant and morally bankrupt Brit Nat state. Scottish MPs and The Scotland Office are a waste of space now.

For years we were fed the scaremongering rubbish about how we would never survive without the UK, we were to small, to poor, to parochial, to far north, to drunk, to fat, to hooked on subsidy, to uncivilised, to racist, to lazy, to anything that would scare us from voting for independence. And it used to work, because all the levers in the media are operated from down south, so the propaganda volume can be turned up at the behest of Westminster

BBC or rather LBC Scotlands blatant propaganda and Labour Party puppetry was pathetic and so transparent during recent elections, not least the Glasgow East one.

The lies and chicanery exposed over recent years, not the least of them being the McCrone report from the seventies, which showed that an independent Scotland would have one of the strongest currency's in the world and that we would be in vast surplus. The report was buried and kept secret for thirty years as the SNP were enjoying increasing popularity.

Then we have the bawbaggery that "sorry chaps the North Sea is empty, so your not going any where, yaboo sucks!"

How many nations on this planet operate with a fiscal surplus, not many and certainly not the UK.

If Scotland is the subsidy junkie basket case that this author and the rest of the unionist press would have us believe. What on earth is it that makes you want to have us in the UK. Certainly not the goodness of your hearts by some of the comments on here, so what?

This article is just a follow up to all the past propaganda, but with a change of tack because of the earth shaking result of the Glasgow by election.

The article does what Labour did in Glasgow, and all of the unionist chattering class has done since. Just stick to the unionist line that most Scots do not want independence. SNP canvassers were very surprised as were Labour, to find a large support for independence on the doors as they conducted there own polling, during their canvassing.

Breaking news: Most People in Scotland want independence. And guess what? A lot of them are English and other nationalities.

Labour then broke the shock horror news that the SNP candidate was "a hardline nationalist." The SNP could hardly believe there luck. A spectacular own goal, again by the Labour numpty party. It is game over.

At least this author has moved on from, if, to when. The road to Damascus is a very stony one!

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

@Angusogg

Independence is a natural state for countries within the EU. With the addition of EU bureaucracy it makes absolute sense to ditch the redundant and morally bankrupt Brit Nat state. Scottish MPs and The Scotland Office are a waste of space now.

I agree with you here (except for the 'morally bankrupt' bit but never mind), but nothing you write contradicts anythign that is in the article.

AngusOgg.

A healthy mistrust should have you looking at Scottish territorial waters and Scottish claims with regards the Arctic mineral claims opening up. You wouldn't want to find Albion get it's paws on what's next door to you 'too far north' ,and then says: Now you may have independence. Good time for the Scots to look at developing ' arrangements with Russia regarding oil pipelines and delivery contracts. I believe tit for tat tax increases would also be in order were England to use economic threats against the Scots. And this too is where Wales and Ireland could play a part through solidarity. What's so scary about a rising Euro vs a falling Pound beats me. Another bit of tory scare mongering. Naturally, by adopting EU labour law the Scots would be in a good position to be outraged at many English products produced through unfair and anti- EU policy exploitation and to market their competing examples as compliant vs non-compliant. Nice spin off for the Scottish advertising agencies too if that game was to be begun. Vigilance.

The casual misrepresentation of certain pertinentfacts causes this article's creliability to be somewhat undermined.

The article states:

The financial settlement might be unwelcome to them. They would no longer receive subventions from the British taxpayer, which currently enable them to enjoy per capita levels of public expenditure some 25% higher than those in England.

A canard that posters such as Roas swallow and correspondingly resent.

Let's use the government's own figures to analyse this.

Firstly, English posters may do well to focus less on the differences in public spending per head between Scotland and England, and focus more on the differences within England, between English regions.

Public spending is not allocated to "England"; it is split into regions... In the whole of the UK the region that receives the most public spending per head is in fact London, at £5985 per head, 28% above the UK average.

This compares to Northern Ireland, at £5684 per head, 21% above the UK average, and Scotland, £5676, again 21% above the average.

So, on spending, certain areas including Scotland appear over-represented.

However, an accurate picture begins to develop when we compare said spending to the tax raised and put into UK coffers. Scotland brings in £9593 per head in tax - more than anywhere in the UK outside London.

So Scotland contributes the second highest tax return, but does not receive the second highest public spending. And this is called a subsidy apparently.

If posters in England are truly interested in inequality of tax versus spending, I suggest they consider the East of England , which receives only £3820 per head, 18% below the UK average, despite contributing their fair share in tax!

These figures are all freely available - indeed they are what were used by the Institute for Public Policy Research in their recent investigations into the suitablity of the Barnett Formula.

Unfortunately the average reader of a newspaper has to assume that they are being given a balanced perspective - something Robert Hazell has singularly failed to do in this article.

The whole point of a negotiation is that you negotiate. The idea that the Scottish government will come down to London and that the UK government will meekly agree to all their requests is frankly laughable.

Nice one Kiwi. That comment gave me a good laugh.