I wasn't really - it depends on how you define liberalism - as this is primarily an American board I was pertaining more to their definition which is more tied into the concept of the left rather than the more traditionally laissez-faire european equivalent. Social liberalism is probably a better term for what I was describing, which is definitely a more left leaning definition.
I figured as much, check the edit time on my post.
As far as politics go I'd say the SNP are in direct contrast to the Conservatives politically which are both the governments of the day (I don't see either changing for the next decade really). Whilst you are right to reference the Labour party I don't feel that the Labour party in its current state is anything less than right wing - it's wholeheartedly endorsed privatisation and widespread economic deregulation and its social policy, whilst not as aggressively anti-welfare as the Conservatives, is still lacking.
I guess I tend to focus more on the social issues the parties align themselves to and I see the Labour party as being leftist in that regard. Centre-left but left all the same.
Whilst Scotland willingly went into the union it only willingly went at the discretion of landowners who saw it as financially profitable at the time. It wasn't a democratic decision in any sense of the word and history mostly notes it for its clumsiness more than anything. Although you're right Scots made as much of a savagery of the British empire as the English, I don't think we have as much pretensions for aggressive foreign policy today though, there is definite elements of that colonial mentality still alive and breathing within the Westminster establishment.
Sure but the same can be said of any number of things. Scotland didn't get it half as bad as Cornwall, who are still laughed at if they even suggest that they have their own cultural identity. Not that that should make any difference to the Scotland vote but it's worth noting that other parts of the UK don't even get devolution, Wales was conquered and annexed and was technically just part of England for ages. Comparatively, union was peaceful and voluntary. It's only worth noting because a lot of support gets thrown about because there's a perception that it was some aggressive takeover. Flawed sure but it wasn't the 14th century.
Whether or not Scotland is completely different to the rest of the UK (which I would still contest, obviously it's different enough for there to be an issue of representation at Westminster) is a moot point because it doesn't really change the argument that if Scots generally share views that because of the shape of UK democracy they won't see realised in legislation, they should secede and govern themselves. Similarly, other parts of the country should be able to do the same thing. Personally, I'd go for a confederation broken down by population rather than nationality instead as I think it would be fairer and retain the cultural ties we have but whatever.
Believe me though, if the vote was just to get shot of London and let the rest of the UK make its own way I'd vote for that
So would a lot of other people. I also think you're conflating England with the establishment, especially when you talk about how the English are more "imperialistic". The establishment is definitely British rather than English, it's unfair to blame them for the supposed imperialism of the establishment, especially when millions oppose it. I think you've implicitly recognised that by saying the problem is essentially more that government is so South East/London centric than anything else. I've always seen Scotland as being massively more close to the north of England than the north is to the south of England, especially the south east.
And you wouldn't get a Scottish passport the same way I wouldn't get an English one even though I have an English second name and half my family originates from Devon.
That seems pretty isolationist and divisive to me. Anyway, my axe to grind is that it's very unfair that Scotland gets devolution when other areas don't. However this vote turns out, I hope people start to question that. Bit of a tangent but since nation, state and country are all separate concepts, nation refering to the people, state to the government and country to the geographical region, I would still retain my nationality, I would still be living in the same area, but my ability to participate democratically would be hugely improved if the state I lived in started at the river Tamar and ended at Swindon. I think if people understood the distinction between those concepts they'd be more receptive to the idea that they wouldn't lose their identity. I mean, we say we've abandoned the nation-state anyway, so surely this is a logical continuation of that? We used to draw the lines based on the people that lived in different areas, but that's not something we do anymore. Why do we need to keep those same lines in that case?
In a globalised world, commerce and business will happen regardless. Simply changing who makes the rules in a certain area won't end life as we know it, we won't all become destitute. We'll just have a better say in how our lives are run. America does, or at least did fine with federated states, why can't we?
Unfortunately our dimwitted Prime Minister said some silly things about it.. idiot! Good luck with it \m/ It seems you guys could benefit from some self sufficiency and non-reliance on an outdated monarch that's doing sweet FA for your country currently 
