Sorry but you can't just dismiss someone as "one eyed" just because he disagrees with points you put and puts very relevant point back to you. I stand by all my points. Why should I be described as a one eyed nationalist and you not a one eyed unionist? Isn't it better to keep away from insults and stick to debating the points?

As to the first thing. I simply pointed out that Scotland had been campaigning for devolution for about the last century. That is true – not propaganda! Sometimes it was less to the fore but sometimes it was very much to the fore. For instance just a few years after the end of WWII an estimated 2 million signatures were collected on the Scottish Covenant calling for a devolved body. Even if the figures are exaggerated it is clear that there was a massive call for it – which Westminster simply ignored. Are you really suggesting that if a comparable 20 million signatures were collected in England for an English parliament that it would not be quickly delivered? Sheer demographics ensure that it would be. Blue clicky at bottom gives BBC link though I have cut and pasted the relevant paragraph. Though you only need to read any modern Scottish history book!

"In 1947 a Scottish Convention was formed with the hope of securing a parliament for Scotland along non-party lines. Two years later, using the idea of the Presbyterian 'solemn league and covenant', it drew up the Scottish Covenant, which was eventually signed by two million people. However, it made little impact as all the Westminster parties still kept devolution off the main parliamentary agenda leaving the Covenant movement with nowhere to go."

a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/briefing/c20scot.shtml">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/briefing/c20scot.shtml