Originally posted by sjegI wouldn't describe myself as nationalistic.
hi Mike. How are you? So, would you be a nationalistic Scot, then?
No to your strange question- you've missed my point. I think you can see quite easily I'm suggesting that devolution is a sham, and makes the umpteenth time the Scots have sold themselves out.
I'm also challenging your assumption that Scottish politics is far more interesting than the poli ...[text shortened]... on you, and wondering to himself:
"I was hanged, drawn and quartered for this?"
I'm a socialist, who sees independance for Scotland as a neccesary step towards a more democratic Scotland, where we can hope to make some social progress.
I don't agree that devolution is some kind of sell-out. I think it is a stepping stone towards independence. Sure, the labour party see it as a means of preventing independence, but I don't agree. There is already the prospect of a pro-independence majority after the next elections in 2007 (there are 3 pro-independence parties), which would get us a referendum - something we could never hope for without a Scottish Parliament.
In terms of whether we more interesting, then I guess this is always a matter of opinion. However, I think Scottish politics has to be more interesting than that in England, where there are 3 parties competing for the 'middle gound', with very small policy differences between them.
We have 6 parties with multiple MSPs, and a couple of smaller parties and independents. We have a range of different policy stances - from the far left through to the tories, with clear differences on the future of the country.
I'm not sure what you mean about needing to have a state. Even before we're independent, the parliament deals with education, health, crime, etc etc.
Maybe it isn't very interesting to people in other countries, but I'd argue that, for a neutral observer, we've certainly more diverse and dynamic politics then most countries.