Scottish independence

25-01-2021 5:14pm

fash wrote: »

Domestically potentially, ( I'm not sure what the current legislation in relation thereto is) - in international it would of course be illegal.

Why would it be illegal if the government has fulfilled its obligations under the agreement?

And can you point to this "International" you talk of?

25-01-2021 5:15pm

PommieBast wrote: »

Has Ireland actually ever held one?

No, they haven't but if they did, British citizens would still not be able to vote in them

L1011 · 25-01-2021 5:17pm

PommieBast wrote: »

Has Ireland actually ever held one?

The referendum to adopt the Constitution was theoretically a non-binding plebiscite.

We've had a substantial number of regional ones that are generally acted on - usually about really minor things like spellings of town names.

Water John · 25-01-2021 5:19pm

We rely on polling and use a Citizens Assembly to invite public discussion on specific issues. UK would have been well served early on if they too used the format of a CA to open a full discussion on EU membership, instead they handed the stage to Farage.

fash · 25-01-2021 5:37pm

Aegir wrote: »

and which bit of International law would be broken?

Both the Vienna convention and customary international law:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties

25-01-2021 5:42pm

fash wrote: »

Both the Vienna convention and customary international law:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties

which bit?

What treaty would have been broken?

fash · 25-01-2021 5:43pm

Aegir wrote: »

Why would it be illegal if the government has fulfilled its obligations under the agreement?

It failed to comply with its obligations under the withdrawal agreement - specifically article 5 on good faith:
"They shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from this Agreement and shall refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement."

And can you point to this "International" you talk of?

Just did: Vienna convention, international customary law etc. Ask the Brits about it - they committed many atrocities and other acts of war on this basis.

fash · 25-01-2021 5:48pm

Aegir wrote: »

which bit?

Vienna convention:
Article 26
Pacta sunt servanda

Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

Customary international law principle: "pacta sunt servanda"

What treaty would have been broken?

The withdrawal agreement - which is a breach of the Vienna convention.

25-01-2021 5:49pm

fash wrote: »

It failed to comply with its obligations under the withdrawal agreement - specifically article 5 on good faith:
"They shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from this Agreement and shall refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement."

Just did: Vienna convention, international customary law etc. Ask the Brits about it - they committed many atrocities and other acts of war on this basis.

you really are all over the place now

Water John · 25-01-2021 5:51pm

Good art by Martin Kettle, Guardian on the late realisation by the Tories that the break up risk needs a new strategy:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/25/johnson-last-minute-bid-save-union-neglect-scotland-independence

25-01-2021 5:51pm

fash wrote: »

The withdrawal agreement - which is a breach of the Vienna convention.

We've been doing this a while at this stage - I get the impression you are arguing in bad faith.

but we're talking about a border poll

fash · 25-01-2021 6:09pm

Aegir wrote: »

but we're talking about a border poll

You were asking about the internal market bill:

Aegir wrote: »

and which bit of International law would be broken?

25-01-2021 6:24pm

fash wrote: »

You were asking about the internal market bill:

no, I wasn't. We were discussing NI before you went off on some random tangent.

ancapailldorcha · 25-01-2021 6:28pm

Mod: There is a thread about NI on this forum. Please keep on topic.

Capt'n Midnight · 25-01-2021 7:59pm

Lumen wrote: »

In any case, the unwritten constitution is a terrible idea in theory that works OK in practice.

Don't you mean that has worked OK so far.

Check out the history of Roman Dictators. It was OK in practice while you had people like Cincinnatus but then Sulla exposed the flaws. And Julius Caesar exploited them to take down the whole system.

Water John · 25-01-2021 8:29pm

Convention is a poor substitute for law.

A Dub in Glasgo · 25-01-2021 10:00pm

Hugo Rifkind has a piece in the Times that is titled 'Stop whining, Remainers, and save the UK'. It is a rambling piece which appears to appeal to remainers to save the UK from the Brexit infused Scottish independence

Stop whining, Remainers, and save the UK

johnnyskeleton · 26-01-2021 12:09am

When it comes down to it, I dont think we will see an independent Scotland for two main reasons:

1) we often assume that they are similar to us, but theyre not. When it comes down to it, the Scots dont have the same fire in their bellies for Independence as Irish people do, and they love the connections to the crown etc.

2) when they look at the actual practical ramifications of independence, the UK would not give them much by wya of assets etc, and they would be in choppy waters, diplomatically isolated, unsure if they will join the EU and forced to put a border in an area that has never really had a border.

All of this will ultimately swing the moderate Scottish Nationalists to treat the referendum as another way to secure more concessions from Westminster, but then balk at the last minute and remain.

Fr Tod Umptious · 26-01-2021 12:28am

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think to most English people the term English = British = English. There is no distinction, and generally both terms are interchangeable. They see no difference. However Scots do not like to be referred to as English.

Globally, that is much the same in many countries.

It is quite common for non-Dutch people to equate Holland with the Netherlands, but you will not find many Dutch people that do that. Many English people refer to Ireland as Southern Ireland or Eire - neither of which is acceptable, but there you go. Canadians do not like to be called Americans, and so on.

While I agree with you that Southern Ireland should not be acceptable, Eire on the other hand is.

It's the official name of the country.
Have a look at any postage stamp.

logie101 · 26-01-2021 12:35am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

While I agree with you that Southern Ireland should not be acceptable, Eire on the other hand is.

It's the official name of the country.
Have a look at any postage stamp.

Eire is NOT the official name of the state!

Water John · 26-01-2021 12:42am

Have a look at your Eire Passport:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state

logie101 · 26-01-2021 12:50am

Water John wrote: »

Have a look at your Eire Passport:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Irish_state

Read your Constitution.

“Eire” , if memory serves, was only ever the official name of the country between 1937 and 1948.

Mr.Nice Guy · 26-01-2021 2:46am

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1353703183634354176

I don't quite understand the thought process here. They surely can't be deluded enough to think Johnson can win over the masses?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

When it comes down to it, I dont think we will see an independent Scotland for two main reasons:

1) we often assume that they are similar to us, but theyre not. When it comes down to it, the Scots dont have the same fire in their bellies for Independence as Irish people do, and they love the connections to the crown etc.

2) when they look at the actual practical ramifications of independence, the UK would not give them much by wya of assets etc, and they would be in choppy waters, diplomatically isolated, unsure if they will join the EU and forced to put a border in an area that has never really had a border.

All of this will ultimately swing the moderate Scottish Nationalists to treat the referendum as another way to secure more concessions from Westminster, but then balk at the last minute and remain.

Irish people haven't always had fire in the belly for independence. There was a time in the not too distant past when the majority were relatively content with Home Rule within the UK, much like there was a time when most Scots were content with devolved government within the UK. It's remarkable how quickly things can unravel. In Ireland, the British totally misread the mood over the Rising, and later by threatening conscription. More recently in Scotland, they have totally misread the mood over the EU.

I think a UK government would be fairly reasonable in any transition negotiation. It wouldn't be in their interest to create difficulties as this would have knock on effects on their own economy, security, freedom of movement etc, not to mention the world, and especially NI and Wales, would be monitoring how they handle it. I don't see how Scotland would be diplomatically isolated either. There will be an enormous outpouring of goodwill from all over the world.

Peregrinus · 26-01-2021 4:10am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

While I agree with you that Southern Ireland should not be acceptable, Eire on the other hand is.

It's the official name of the country.
Have a look at any postage stamp.

"Éire" (not "eire", which is a different word with a different meaning) is the name of the state in the Irish language. The name of the state in the English language is Ireland. Unless you're in the habit, when speaking English, of calling Germany "Deutschland", Italy "Italia", Russia "Россия" and Greece "Ελλάς", then you should call Ireland "Ireland".

When speaking Irish, call it "Éire".

Never, ever call it "eire", which means a burden or load.

(If you don't have enough Irish to appreciate the difference between "Éire" and "eire", probably wisest not to attempt to drop Irish words into conversation. It will create the opposite effect to the one you are probably hoping for.)

dogbert27 · 26-01-2021 6:34am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

When it comes down to it, I dont think we will see an independent Scotland for two main reasons:

1) we often assume that they are similar to us, but theyre not. When it comes down to it, the Scots dont have the same fire in their bellies for Independence as Irish people do, and they love the connections to the crown etc.

2) when they look at the actual practical ramifications of independence, the UK would not give them much by wya of assets etc, and they would be in choppy waters, diplomatically isolated, unsure if they will join the EU and forced to put a border in an area that has never really had a border.

All of this will ultimately swing the moderate Scottish Nationalists to treat the referendum as another way to secure more concessions from Westminster, but then balk at the last minute and remain.

There has been a recognised border between Scotland and England for centuries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Scottish_border

I'm sure that if the majority voted for independence all the SNP have to do is use the same claptrap the Vote Leave campaign used for the last 4 years, "will of the people, blah, blah, blah" and Boris would be a hypocrite if he was to disagree with any of it.

And this piece is what people see as the real English attitude towards Scotland:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9186171/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-failed-state-Scotland-Wee-Burney.html

Disrespectfully calling the Scottish head of State "Wee Burney" (for those who do not know it's a character from Rab. C Nesbitt) and a "two-bob Toytown Tartanista chancer".

BonnieSituation · 26-01-2021 8:58am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

When it comes down to it, I dont think we will see an independent Scotland for two main reasons:

1) we often assume that they are similar to us, but theyre not. When it comes down to it, the Scots dont have the same fire in their bellies for Independence as Irish people do, and they love the connections to the crown etc.

2) when they look at the actual practical ramifications of independence, the UK would not give them much by wya of assets etc, and they would be in choppy waters, diplomatically isolated, unsure if they will join the EU and forced to put a border in an area that has never really had a border.

All of this will ultimately swing the moderate Scottish Nationalists to treat the referendum as another way to secure more concessions from Westminster, but then balk at the last minute and remain.

Scotland is the UK, thus they are entitled to their share of their own assets and liabilities. It will all be part of negotiations anyway.

Fr Tod Umptious · 26-01-2021 10:10am

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1353703183634354176

I don't quite understand the thought process here. They surely can't be deluded enough to think Johnson can win over the masses?

Irish people haven't always had fire in the belly for independence. There was a time in the not too distant past when the majority were relatively content with Home Rule within the UK, much like there was a time when most Scots were content with devolved government within the UK. It's remarkable how quickly things can unravel. In Ireland, the British totally misread the mood over the Rising, and later by threatening conscription. More recently in Scotland, they have totally misread the mood over the EU.

I think a UK government would be fairly reasonable in any transition negotiation. It wouldn't be in their interest to create difficulties as this would have knock on effects on their own economy, security, freedom of movement etc, not to mention the world, and especially NI and Wales, would be monitoring how they handle it. I don't see how Scotland would be diplomatically isolated either. There will be an enormous outpouring of goodwill from all over the world.

Why would there be though ?

If the main support for independence comes from the Brexit outcome then many from outside will see Scottish independence as being driven by people's inability to respect the democratic outcome of a referendum.

It's not as if the Scots are an ethic minority within the country, that have been oppressed for centuries that are yearning for freedom.
Their language is not banned, they have freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.

Also countries are not great fans of separatist movements.
The Spanish are not fond of Catalan separatism, Belgium would not like to see their country split, Canada were against Quebec's efforts over the decades.

Established, democratic countries prefer stability, especially if it's in their back yard.

Equally here in Ireland I doubt many in government would be relishing the idea of Scottish independence because of the impact it may have on NI and the stability of the peace process.

A Dub in Glasgo · 26-01-2021 10:14am

The people in Scotland were told in 2014 that the UK is a union, a precious one at that and a family of nations. The people in Scotland were expecting their voice on something like Brexit to be acknowledged and respected... it was not, in fact the UK govt went out of their way to disrespect it. Now, the people in Scotland would like to reassess their place in the union

Tyrone212 · 26-01-2021 10:17am

I think Scottish independence is inevitable now. There's a higher chance of a united Ireland happening after it as well. I do know it will confuse some Ulster Scots , that Scots decided to leave the UK and Unionists here will feel very insecure about their future if Scotland leaves. I think England losing Scotland is more damaging to them than if they lost both NI and Wales instead. Just my opinion.

Tyrone212 · 26-01-2021 10:18am

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The people in Scotland were told in 2014 that the UK is a union, a precious one at that and a family of nations. The people in Scotland were expecting their voice on something like Brexit to be acknowledged and respected... it was not, in fact the UK govt went out of their way to disrespect it. Now, the people in Scotland would like to reassess their place in the union

There were also told that their place in the EU wouldn't be secured if they did vote to leave. I imagine that had an impact on the vote as well, how big who knows.

ancapailldorcha · 26-01-2021 10:21am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]
Why would there be though ?

If the main support for independence comes from the Brexit outcome then many from outside will see Scottish independence as being driven by people's inability to respect the democratic outcome of a referendum.

It's not as if the Scots are an ethic minority within the country, that have been oppressed for centuries that are yearning for freedom.
Their language is not banned, they have freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc.

Also countries are not great fans of separatist movements.
The Spanish are not fond of Catalan separatism, Belgium would not like to see their country split, Canada were against Quebec's efforts over the decades.

Established, democratic countries prefer stability, especially if it's in their back yard.

Equally here in Ireland I doubt many in government would be relishing the idea of Scottish independence because of the impact it may have on NI and the stability of the peace process.

Scots voted to stay in 2014 on the understanding that they'd stay in the UK and the EU. The only failure to respect the legitimacy of a referendum comes from English nationalists who have somehow managed to destroy the UK's vast reserves of goodwill and soft power for fish and blue passports. Anyone wanting to democratically and legally separate from these people will find support abroad IMO.

If the Scots want another referendum then they should have one. The history of Scotland as a separate nation goes back much further than that of Ireland, Wales, the US, Canada, Italy and many other nations.

The comparison with Spanish separatists is invaild IMO. The SNP have always sought independence through British law. Catalan separatists held an illegal referendum. There's a world of difference here.

McFly85 · 26-01-2021 10:27am

Scottish independence really looks to be when, not if. Since 2014, in all referendums and elections, the only thing Scotland has consistently voted for is a situation that keeps them within the EU. Once Brexit happened and any and all concerns from Scotland were ignored it was inevitable.

Brexit itself really shone a light on the completely unbalanced nature of the UK. Can you really claim to have a working union of countries when it's possible for one of those countries to outvote the rest? It speaks volumes that Scotland could have a more impactful participation in a union with 27 other countries than one with 4.

Fr Tod Umptious · 26-01-2021 10:28am

Tyrone212 wrote: »

There were also told that their place in the EU wouldn't be secured if they did vote to leave. I imagine that had an impact on the vote as well, how big who knows.

Which was 100% true.
Cameron promised an EU referendum (I don't think the word Brexit was established at that point) if the conservatives were returned to power in the 2015 general election.
So in September 2014 the UK was still in the EU and there was no guarantee an EU referendum would even take place.
However if the Scots voted to leave the union in 2014 their place in the EU was certainly not guaranteed.

20silkcut · 26-01-2021 10:34am

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1353703183634354176

I think a UK government would be fairly reasonable in any transition negotiation.

Very optimistic considering the actions of the current U.K. government towards the EU.

BonnieSituation · 26-01-2021 10:43am

Tyrone212 wrote: »

I think Scottish independence is inevitable now. There's a higher chance of a united Ireland happening after it as well. I do know it will confuse some Ulster Scots , that Scots decided to leave the UK and Unionists here will feel very insecure about their future if Scotland leaves. I think England losing Scotland is more damaging to them than if they lost both NI and Wales instead. Just my opinion.

It's even statements like "England losing Scotland" that show the true reality of the Union.

People just think Scotland is an English possession. Says it all really.

pixelburp · 26-01-2021 10:47am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]
Why would there be though ?

If the main support for independence comes from the Brexit outcome then many from outside will see Scottish independence as being driven by people's inability to respect the democratic outcome of a referendum.

I doubt very much the independence movement is making that many waves in the international press - and if it did, it's entirely likely the narrative will amount to: in 2014 the Scots said no 'cos they were told they'd no longer be in the EU; in 2016 they were pulled out of the EU despite voting to stay. The Scots have every right to demand a re-run having been effectively lied to, then dragged out of the very institution Westminister suddenly decided was anathema to UK success.

The international press has no great grá for Brexit and that collective case of populist, economic suicide; and even if they didn't side with the Scots, there's the question as to why anyone within Scotland should care what the press make of their desire for a re-run.

As my dad used to say, the Scots were sold a pup; twice over, in '14 and '16. I'm not surprised the needle has swung in favour of pulling the plug.

dogbert27 wrote: »

There has been a recognised border between Scotland and England for centuries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Scottish_border

I'm sure that if the majority voted for independence all the SNP have to do is use the same claptrap the Vote Leave campaign used for the last 4 years, "will of the people, blah, blah, blah" and Boris would be a hypocrite if he was to disagree with any of it.

And this piece is what people see as the real English attitude towards Scotland:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9186171/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-failed-state-Scotland-Wee-Burney.html

Disrespectfully calling the Scottish head of State "Wee Burney" (for those who do not know it's a character from Rab. C Nesbitt) and a "two-bob Toytown Tartanista chancer".

Ye gods I almost feel like reporting that post for reminding me that Richard Littlejohn still exists, and apparently draws a paycheque for writing that borderline racist dirge. Of course, patronising, disrespectful English attitudes is precisely the reason a second referendum is even on the cards in the first instance; any budding canvasser for independence, looking for some extra support, need only print Littlejohn's article and paste it around Edinburgh. I'd speculate as to who even reads or absorbs this written malevolence but the comments section is itself a wasteland of ideological regression.

Water John · 26-01-2021 10:49am

20silkcut wrote: »

Very optimistic considering the actions of the current U.K. government towards the EU.

England likes to use bullying as part of their arsenal in negotiations. They just found the EU too big to bully, so they tried another trick, division. They sought to split the different countries by approaching their particular interests, didn't work either. Scotland would be facing tough negotiations with Westminster.

Is the Scottish Head of State not the Queen?

bob mcbob · 26-01-2021 12:10pm

Interesting perspective from William Hague in the Telegraph.

Constitutional tinkering won’t stop the Scottish nationalist juggernaut
To save the Union we must end the perception that the UK is run mainly for Home Counties Tories

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/25/constitutional-tinkering-wont-stop-scottish-nationalist-juggernaut/

Pity this is 7 years too late. It may have had an effect after the first indy vote - not now.

Sam Russell · 26-01-2021 12:16pm

The only way of stopping Scottish independence is to regionalise England. They have regions, they just have to devolve the equivalent powers to them that they have devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI.

The fact the English MPs consider themselves the devolved gov for England is the basic problem.

Water John · 26-01-2021 12:40pm

Not sure they have the imagination to federalise. As a matter of interest, presuming SC, NI and Wales are three, how many more regions would there be?
Considering the big variations in pop of the areas, would it need a Second House to have equal representation from all areas?

McFly85 · 26-01-2021 12:55pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only way of stopping Scottish independence is to regionalise England. They have regions, they just have to devolve the equivalent powers to them that they have devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI.

The fact the English MPs consider themselves the devolved gov for England is the basic problem.

Agreed. If they have any interest in preserving the union and having it work in a way that doesn't automatically mean that whatever way England votes is what will happen then it's really the only course of action.

Of course they'd never do it, though.

Sam Russell · 26-01-2021 12:55pm

Water John wrote: »

Not sure they have the imagination to federalise. As a matter of interest, presuming SC, NI and Wales are three, how many more regions would there be?
Considering the big variations in pop of the areas, would it need a Second House to have equal representation from all areas?

I think it is 9 in England, but a few smaller ones could be amalgamated. It works out at about 5 million for each region, if the smaller ones are joined.

No second house, unless the House of Lords is turned into a USA Senate type of house, where each region has a fixed representation. Say 12 regions, 9 English, + Ni, Wales and Scotland - each region gets 12 seats, elected by STV, giving a house of 144 seats. Let the Gov appoint, say 10 seats, and that gives 154, and the speaker is elected from that, meaning a 77 is needed to form a majority. I do not know what they would do, but there you go.

I had not thought of a second national chamber.

Water John · 26-01-2021 12:58pm

One chamber surely would need to reflect population or have I been watching the election in the US too much?
The bonus seats could be allocated to the more populous regions in your example.

Sam Russell · 26-01-2021 1:21pm

Water John wrote: »

One chamber surely would need to reflect population or have I been watching the election in the US too much?
The bonus seats could be allocated to the more populous regions in your example.

The current HoL takes no account of population, so why would its replacement? The HoC is supposedly derived from population, but FPTP betrays some of that, and constituency size in not uniform.

The US Senate was deliberately set up not to take population into account to prevent majority-type bullying. The US senate is really directed at foreign policy and security, while the congress is in financial control. In the UK, it is the HoC that is in financial control, with the HoL not able to modify a 'money' bill.

Water John · 26-01-2021 1:43pm

Scotland would be about median pop among those regions. Wales would fare well. NI having the best representation of all in terms of numbers what ever about the quality and SF not taking their seats.

26-01-2021 2:08pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only way of stopping Scottish independence is to regionalise England. They have regions, they just have to devolve the equivalent powers to them that they have devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI.

The fact the English MPs consider themselves the devolved gov for England is the basic problem.

those regions would still be in England and they would elect English MPs (taking in to consideration Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs that represent English constituencies of course), unless you were thinking of breaking up England in some way, or forcibly changing people's nationality.

Sam Russell · 26-01-2021 2:32pm

Aegir wrote: »

those regions would still be in England and they would elect English MPs (taking in to consideration Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs that represent English constituencies of course), unless you were thinking of breaking up England in some way, or forcibly changing people's nationality.

This is nothing to do with MPs or nationality. Nationality remains that of The UK of GB and NI with blue passports.

MPs remain as is and are elected as is.

The MLA is elected by the voters in their region, and would have exactly the same powers as members of the Scottish devolved parliament. They would have control over, say, the NHS which would be divided from NHS England into NHS [region], and so on.

MPs would deal with taxation as it applies to the nation, security, defence, foreign affairs, international trade, etc.

I like the idea of the HoL being transformed into a Senate of equal number of elected members from each region. It would be better than the current setup of failed/retired politicians, chums and political donors, and hereditary toffs.

BlitzKrieg · 26-01-2021 2:44pm

In your proposal would London (Greater London) be a region all to itself? Essentially having the current mayor's office level up into a devolved body?

Just thinking if it was split England up into regions like South West, North East, North West etc You'd be saddling London with the South East and it would be a region that will either a) be dominated by London's politics or b) have mps clashing with London sensibility as the south east is the sort of area that the likes of Farage would run and possibly win so you'd be putting the UK's most multicultural metropoliton under the foot of potentially some of the most reactionary arsewipes in UK politics.

bob mcbob · 26-01-2021 2:46pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only way of stopping Scottish independence is to regionalise England. They have regions, they just have to devolve the equivalent powers to them that they have devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI.

The fact the English MPs consider themselves the devolved gov for England is the basic problem.

Too little, too late.

ancapailldorcha · 26-01-2021 3:06pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

In your proposal would London (Greater London) be a region all to itself? Essentially having the current mayor's office level up into a devolved body?

Just thinking if it was split England up into regions like South West, North East, North West etc You'd be saddling London with the South East and it would be a region that will either a) be dominated by London's politics or b) have mps clashing with London sensibility as the south east is the sort of area that the likes of Farage would run and possibly win so you'd be putting the UK's most multicultural metropoliton under the foot of potentially some of the most reactionary arsewipes in UK politics.

I like this idea of federalising alongside the ancient duchy boundaries and population lines:

Scottish independence

Comments