The Scottish Referendum was a close run thing. The worse the Scots behaved the more concessions they wrung from the rest of the United Kingdom and matters will probably reach a state in which independence will be necessary; it will be achieved de facto, if not de jure. The independence movement was led in Scotland by Alex Salmond, who is a very talented politician. he was First Minister (there is no “prime” in Scotland) and has now resigned from that position. It seems he is likely to become a Member of the United Kingdom’s Parliament at the next election. That seems to me to be very odd.
I cannot see why a politician who has fought for Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom for so many years should now seek to join the legislature of the entity that binds Scotland to the UK. He is too wise to realise that he can persuade Parliament in Westminster to allow Scottish Independence. He might have some chance of having some power in Westminster if the next election creates a “hung” Parliament and Mr Salmond leads a significant number of like minded Scottish members, who will then be able to have undue influence over the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr Salmond believes that a strong block of Scottish MPs would have a huge influence on Westminster. He is quite correct about this, although whether it is right that this should be the case is quite another matter.
Ultimately all small nations seek “influence” on larger nations, but influence is an illusion because whatever influence a small nation may have (as in the case of the UK in the EU) ultimately the larger nation will, notwithstanding the influence always act in the best interests of its own citizens. If the larger nation does not act in the interests of its own citizens then it is acting immorally. Persuading a nation to act immorally is obviously immoral.
It is quite odd that people quite easily accept concepts of “influence” being right and desirable.