No problem with government, no problem with being governed by those with a different view to me.

That's democracy.

But the spread of how local governance has to be in terms of what they influence is where we have issues. A Westminster government of one party will hamper a council of the other party etc. It is down to where autonomy lies. I still think it is possible to have autonomy at regional level in regional affairs, local autonomy in local affairs. Yes, Westminster autonomy in fundamental affairs.

Why? Because you can't throw away a system based on the incompetence of those running it. You vote otherwise next time.

The Scottish experiment in Utopia planning is based on goodwill of others. Xenophobia usually means that you don't give foreigners an even break though. Switzerland has a hung referendum result on immigration. They aren't part of The EU, they don't gave a vote in The EU, but if the vote was to go against EU immigration criteria, they would be punished through trade tariffs, freedom of movement, visa restrictions etc.

This is the status Salmond wants. All the rules but none of the say.

Having read Cameron's latest speech, I wouldn't want to be in an "independent" Scotland if he gets a majority government next time. As a UK out referendum wouldn't win, his shallow Col. blimp back benchers would, presumably, force him to veto any further Euro integration.

Scotland's application would get further away.

Sorry, but we can't eat enough haggis or drink enough malt to finance Scotland's public sector, let alone the welfare bill. Especially if EU trade doesn't apply. Tariffs and all that...