I don’t think the damage to Labour will be great so critical, they had a majority in England 1997-2005 IIRC.
As Tony Blair and Gordon Brown demonstrated, Scottish Labour doesn’t necessarily mean leftist.
I can sympathise with the UK Government. The Salmond strategy seems similar to the Quebec experience, get a yes vote on a vaguely worded question and xlaim that as a mandate for negotiating whatever you desire, be it full independence, devo max or whatever. Westminster might insist on a stark and possibly negatively worded (read, less likely to pass) question such as “Do you want Scotland to separate from the UK”.
The reaction would be based on how Scotland defines their independence.
Their own Parliament and PM but with Elizabeth II as queen in a personal union?
Their own Parliament and PM but with Prince William as heir to both Charles II and James II and forming a personal union when he inherits the English throne as William V in England and William I in Scotland?
Their own parliament and a President?
Coronating King Francis II as king regnant?
And if Scotland did declare independence, what would England do?
Ignore it and proceed on with business as usual.
Offer a compromise of greater autonomy for Scotland staying with the Union
Send the Army across the border and start capturing (and executing) the Scots for treason?
Why? Is Wales dating Yoko Ono?
If Scotland really does become independent, at least them having their own national soccer team and their own seperate league system will finally make some damned sense.
Yeah, Blair had a clear majority in all three of his General Elections even discarding the Scottish vote, albeit by a baw-hair on the last one.
How difficult the concept of some things being a bit old must seem to you.
Only if Puerto Rico recognizes their independence.
Scotland is recognized as a “nation” in the British system. What’s so illogical about it having a “national” team? “Nation” does not necessarily imply “independent nation-state.”
Heck, the individual U.S. states have their “National Guard” reserve units. The adjective “national” doesn’t automatically mean “related to the state overall at its highest level of government.”
Agreed. The only way a “British Federation” would work is if England was divided into a bunch of smaller regions. Blair tried instituting devolved regional assemblies in England (albiet with much less power than the Scottish Parliement, or even the Welsh Assembly). Nobody wanted them, except in London.
The federation chamber of the parliament would supposedly be staffed the same way as for instance the US senate. Each entity given the same number of seats, regardless of size.
THe largest US state is 1/10th the population of the Union. The second largest home nation is 1/10th the population of the largest home nation of the Union and said largest nation has 85-90% of the population, most of the wealth, all of the political power. Will not work.
I need to ask something but it has to be to an educated British person that I ask it to.
Are you one?
There are plenty of educated British people here. Ask away.
Are you aware of the immense suffering you have caused to many societies for the past 700 years… at least… 
It’s one thing to force your own people to breath coal dust for years, and have their 12 year old children die in coal mines so your masters can make more money… it’s another thing to mass kill generations of people in far away lands because your perceived masters wanted more profit for their business.
Is the “Great British Public” aware of those circumstances at all. I don’t think it is.
Okay. What’s the deal with “alu-MINI-um” ? Is the extra syllable supposed to make it posh?
The extra syllable makes it shiny.
Would it be considered “junior modding” to suggest that the evils of British colonialism really need their own thread?