Scottish independence and Welsh devolution ...

... is the future, and it's written in stone.

Scotland joined with England and Wales at the behest of Scots politics, joined by a shared the Royal House of Stuart ( James VI of Scotland / James I of England (and Wales) ) ...

... the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his double first cousin twice removed, Queen Elizabeth I. Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head (as opposed to the implied creation of a single Crown and a single Kingdom, exemplified by the later Kingdom of Great Britain) .

... until a hundred years later when the Act of Union was agreed between both parliaments (England and Scotland).  This second Act of Union negotiated by those with particular fiscal interests not representing the popular view which was against the proposed union, a view that has simmered for centuries that has now emerged as the representative view of a possible 40% and growing.

In Wales things were quite different, Whereas Scotland were joined as a nation originally under the rule of  Kenneth MacAlpin (known Kenneth I) king of the Picts and, according to national myth, first king of Scots, in Wales there never was a single unifying leader of any significant period of time, we remained tribal until the day of Llywelyn ab Iorwerth ( Llywelyn Fawr (the Great) ), who was sole ruler of Gwynedd by 1200 and by his death in 1240 was effectively ruler of much of Wales, but not all, he was opposed not just by the English but by other local leaders, he was opposed by the psyche of Wales.

Wales became was assimilated into England, the local rulers looked to London and realised it would be good, not for the people, but for the leadership, it is doubtful that the people looked beyond their local leadership for answers to their impoverished needs, Wales was poor, poor because of geography, whereas in large areas of England agriculture was easy, in Wales it was difficult to prosper.  Eventually Wales did prosper from its agriculture, existing adjacent to England it serviced the markets east of Offa's Dyke with stock for finishing in England.  It was the beginning of its assimilation into that country that would become known as Great Britain, its local leadership embraced the English court, whilst the little people took advantage of the economics of internal trade.

Why the potted history, it provides a clue as to why Scotland must go ( tomorrow or the next day it's irrelevant, go they must ), it's because they were never really a part of Great Britain, Independence is the future, whereas Wales is happy in its relationship within Britain.

To sum up, Scotland is wired to cooperate with its own identifiable culture, whilst Wales is wired through centuries of cooperation, internal migrations, and shared political ideals to the dominant culture that is multi-cultural Britain.

If I might recommend a book to be borrowed (or bought) it is "Wired for Culture" by Mark Pagel, it doesn't give all the answers, but gives clues as to where politics of "Britannia" might go.

This is why nationalist politics in Wales is a declining non-event, we see cooperation as the best way forward, this is why having strong links with Westminster will further this road map for a secure and prosperous future, Britannia needs the radical thoughts of Wales, Scotland will always be a thorn in the head of our great country, let them be neighbours without their meddlesome politics.

In Wales politics owes it to the electorate to become pragmatic in its quest for prosperity.