Allan - maybe you don't intend to, but you make yourself sound like the sort of one-eyed SNP adherent that puts everyone else off (Scots, English, etc!).

Perhaps Scotland wasn't "just" offered a parliament; I'm not keenly interested enough to investigate how much genuine desire for such things has ever been (& not daft enough to accept any propagandists claim sight unseen). But, by your lights, were the Welsh ever "offered" a parliament? The point is that the three other divisions of the UK *now* all have some sort of say over their own affairs; England doesn't. So Scotland already has a degree of autonomy, along with Wales & NI. Poor ol' bloody England just has to put up with what Westminster decides.

Pie - again, you have missed my point. Of course Parliament isn't an English pie; I never suggested it was. But Scotland has some influence over what Scotland decides because it is devolved. And Scotland has some influence over what the UK decides, because Scottish MPs sit in Parliament. But Scotland also has some influence over what is decided for England, by right of those Scottish MPs.

England has NO direct influence over what is decided for England, because we have no direct voice. England only exercises, now, an indirect influence over what happens in Scotland through the same route that you do; Parliament. I don't think demographic has anything to do with it. There have been calls for an English Holyrood. But it's not in the interests of any party to pay it any attention, and people are largely, I believe, disaffected from politics. Whatever the underlying reasons, the Scots have rather more influence over English affairs than the English do over Scots.

As for the subsidy question, feel free to enlighten me, because I confess myself largely ignorant. However, the one thing that has been repeated down the years has been "North Sea Oil". Well, that's running down these days, so you might find yourselves in trouble if you're relying on that. Besides, when the SNP try to claim continental shelves etc, would you like to remember who paid all the development costs for exploration, for infrastructure, etc? It wasn't Scotland. It was private enterprise or the UK. So why do SNP-types suddenly think they've a claim on a cut of the remaining profits without bearing any of the costs that were / are / will be involved?

Ah. That'll be the same piece of nationalistic chicanery that says "retaining monetary union would be terrific". For Scotland maybe. Not for the UK. It's a sad fact of life that London and, by extension the South-East, subsidises the rest of the UK. Scotland included.

Like I said, you won't sink & neither will we. I just think that the sum is greater than the parts.