So after trying upstairs for an hour:
---------------------------------

Just had a thought. I was reading about the Scottish independence vote, and that Salmond has just said that 'the no voters were tricked' by false promises about 'devolution'.... and I realized I was not totally sure about what it meant in the context, so I looked it up...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution and saw this: "Devolution is the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. It is a form of decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area."

Fine, says I, the Scots were promised some more power over their own interests, and there is debate over whether they will get it as promised...

But then the next sentence said: "Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains, de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute."

Hmmm...then: "Federal systems, or federations, differ in that state or provincial government is guaranteed in the constitution. Australia, Canada, India, and the United States have federal systems, ..."~

And that could be part of the problem in this discussion. I'm not claiming that educated folk in the UK are not aware of the basic definitions, but it may be that the 'idea' that the central government ultimately controls and grants those privileges is so ingrained there that it is hard to deal with what we in a Federal system contend with.

Scotland doesn't wholly trust Westminster to grant what they promise... we (or certain states) assume correctly that they HAVE various rights, and have for 250 years. Now that the interpretation of those rights has become an issue, we are literally at the mercy of the 'system' itself if we try to change it. Things have been changed.. witness Dred Scott and Brown vs. Board of Education...etc... but those things had widespread momentum and did not have an entire industry dependent on NOT changing anything. Add to that the way attempts to introduce changes are 'amended' to death and linked with ideas that will never be adopted, and we have gridlock.

Of course it is 'possible' for enough people to get angry and support a new Constitutional amendment... but it's hard to say what would do it. People of good will ARE working on it constantly, but the issue doesn't have the same .... emotional force?... cultural power?.. as voting rights or equal pay...etc. It is, sadly, just 'statistics' to many.

(I assert constantly that **climate change** and **over population** are far more pressing problems ultimately, but until food riots and rising sea level hit a large % of folks, there is just apathy. I don't know the answer.)