Kezia Dugdale's comments about why she's decided to quit the Scottish Political blogosphere have been the cause for much debate. Not least, what she said about whether blogging works as a vehicle for debate:

Blogging is no longer, in my view, a proper vehicle for debate. It's been saturated by partisan venom and that can be quite debilitating.
I'll write a post and then 95% of the comments that follow will be negative. That doesn't mean I'm wrong every single time... but it does begin to feel that way when the blogosphere leans so heavily towards nationalism and/or a right wing agenda.

So, it's pleasing to see people like Doctor Vee trying to make a positive attempt to seek the common ground between people, especially the Nats and 'the others.' He makes the point that actually SNP policy is not for full independence for Scotland. The SNP see Scotland remaining within the EU, so it's likely that a great deal of power would remain there, with some power of monetary policy flowing  further away from Holyrood if an independent Scotland was to join the Euro. Doctor Vee wonders whether, despite all the heat and light, there is actually a general consensus that some  form of a move towards a more federalist UK is supported by all the parties.

There is no logic to the relationships of the various bits of the British Isles, and although the diagram above isn't a political diagram, it helps to visualise the weird and wonderful relationships that exist in and around the UK. Obviously, it doesn't even mention the EU. Any discussion of devolution and/or independence for Scotland must consider these wider relationships. Wouldn't it be great if Westminster could address all these constitutional questions rationally? Or consistently at the very least.

Ultimately, I'm a federalist, in that I'd like to see considerably more powers for Holyrood, particularly powers relating to tax, social security, energy and broadcasting policies. Foreign policy can stay with Westminster, and frankly I'm not convinced that joining the Euro would be useful, so assuming Scotland is likely to retain GBP as it's currency for the foreseeable future,  I'd prefer interest rates to be set in London than Brussels. The weird logic of devolution from Westminster on one hand, whilst Europe becomes more and more powerful on the other, seems to point to a sort of odd Westminster rump of a legislature, left with things like:

• Arbitrating disputes between the less united bits of the kingdom
• Foreign Policy, aid etc.
  
• Fighting people on our behalf (should it be required)
  
• Funding the royal family (although I do away with them if I could)
• Sorting out major 'systemic shocks' (like banking crises).

However, just because I'd like to see more powers for Holyrood, doesn't mean that I want them to stay there. Like most Greens, I support a pretty radical decentralisation of some powers to local government and, in some cases to neighbourhood scale. Most parties claim to want to improve 'neighbourhood management' but in reality budgets and hence control has stayed in the city halls. There are only a few exceptions I know of, like the Leith Neighbourhood partnership putting a committee largely made up of community council representatives in charge of a proportion of roads capital spending.

 There's a whole load of policy areas that could be decentralised. I'd like to see some aspects of housing, planning, waste , cleansing and recycling, renewable energy, low level ASB, capital investment budgets and the like devolved to smaller than Local Authority scale.

Although, I'd like to see this kind of local devolution, the SNP ironically seem to be centralising powers in Holyrood. Given they're trying to govern as a minority administration,  perhaps that's understandable from a real politik point of view. However, on point of principle I find this trend one of the least appealing things about  living the SNP experience.

One of the things I'd like to see most is a consistent approach to all the bits of the UK, and perhaps even the Channel Isles, and the Isle of Man too. If Scotland would benefit from more devolution, then surely the Isle of Man would, England would, Wales would and so on. I know there may not be much call for it in England, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary.  It  would at least resolve the West Lothian question once and for all.

And as for Europe? It's messy but I like it. I would like to see the EU parliament strengthened, and individual countries retain a veto.  A huge amount of effort has been put into trying to prevent the development of a 'two speed' europe, where some countries pursue integration faster than others, 'enhanced cooperation'. However, I personally don't see a problem with certain member states pursuing common goals together  - Europe is already operating as a series of interlocking groupings rather than a consistent whole - the Euro being the best example of a subset of EU countries cooperating on a project that not everyone signs up to. Now that we have an EU of 27 states, and that agreeing EU wide treaties has been almost impossible of late, it would seem that a 'modular' EU might be the only way to go. If this is the way the EU develops, then perhaps the UK, or even it's newly mandated federal components could decide which parts of the EU policy book to cooperate with others on, and which ones they'd like to pursue independently?

So, there we have it. Radical localism, within a federal UK, and an optional, modular EU.