No status quo for Scotland

Scotland, if it chooses to vote 'No' in the forthcoming 2014 independence referendum, will still see some sort of substantial change in the amount of devolution that it will possess as a nation. 

I read a very fascinating article on The Guardian website earlier this week written by Mark Sneddon. A former Conservative MEP, John Stevens,  suggested that David Cameron could still offer maximum devolution to Scotland, yet save the union from breaking up AND finally address the West Lothian question.

It really got me thinking and last night I was asked why I came to the assertion I made in my first paragraph of this article. After all, why wouldn't the current Prime Minister want to make a piece of substantial British history? It may even define his premiership for his own benefit for his legacy. 

And as for Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond, it would mean he could claim to have brought Scotland just one step closer to independence. Or he could claim to have brought "home rule with independence" as quoted from his March 2012 address during the Scottish National Party conference. That would be independence in terms of fiscal autonomy if some commentators prefer to interpret that phrase that way.

What Scotland can't, and shouldn't end up with, is absolutely no change from the current status quo. Because it would mean the last few years of hard and passionate debate will have all gone in vain.