The Jocks want a referendum, but ultimately their parliament doesn't have the authority to call one or to secede from the Union - I think it is extremely unlikely that they can muster enough votes in parliament to achieve either. There will undoubtedly be a large groundswell of support for independence, but there's no obvious mechanism for that to be granted unless parliament agrees to it.

There have been a number of politicians who have tried to make a case for a 2nd referendum to accept or reject the terms of the divorce from the EC - ie Leave under these terms or Stay in after all.

Who knows what's going to happen - they Tories are now in hock to their right wing, with the (relatively) left end of their support appalled by what's happened; the Labour party are in total disarray with the leader just getting slaughtered in a vote of no confidence and with large swathes of their historic support defecting to UKIP; the Liberals barely exist any more.

From the outside looking in from across the pond, I'd bet that Scotland does secede from the UK.

No good deed goes unpunished. NATO was a treaty voluntarily entered into by multiple nations. A number of Western European nations entered into the Brussels Treaty. Because of fears that would be insufficient to dissuade the Eastern Bloc, Western European nations recruited the U.S. for a broader defense treaty. The U.S. on the whole has done a lot of good stuff. We don't exist to be despised by Europeans.

Hahah, you may be right, your constitution is so f****d up anyways. That a legislative text is hold as sacred scripture always sounded nutty to me I know I'm hyperboling, but when a text of law & rights constantly has to be interpreted, something has IMHO gone wrong.

And I wasnt talking about the good or bad deeds of the US but the possible ones of NATO and CIA. Just one, thing, though : the idea that europeans recruited the US to form NATO is... somewhat at odds with history. But about the US though, I guess that some of us will never forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that's another story...

Hey, sure, It's great that lots of countries got together (in the end...) to fight facism, and France is far far far from perfect in that matter (I still think that the fact that France didn't stand by its serbian allies at the dawn of WWI made it far worse then it should have been... thank god France at least sent Lafayette and his army to help the US fight the british, at least we don't have this on our conscience ). But I still don't see how that makes it alright for nations to use atom bombs on civilians. D-Day has nothing to do with Hiroshima or Nagasaki, unless you're hyperbolizing To summ up my philosophy about this, a good deed doesn't erase a bad one, I think and hope we can agree on this.

Well, obviously I disagree, but I understand the logic of your argument.
Appart from the fact that many specialist consider that the dropping of the bombs were unecessary at this point a s Japan was getting crushed in every direction and this probably served no other purpose than testing ones (even more problematicly on civilians...), I happen to have read this book when I was about 18 :
www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/anders/Anders1962BurningConscienceEatherlyOCR.pdf

This is a collection of the epistolary conversations between one member of the crew who dropped the bombs and the philosopher Günther Anders.
This was one of the most profound reading of my life. There's nothing to agree or disagree with, it's just first hand experience by the only voice of the team that tried to escape the latter monitoring of the defense department (several movie attempts about his life were halted). He may have been a largely sketchy and unreliable character, but his feelings about the affair afterwards seem guenuine, and the distance from Anders is enough to make it highly relevant, a supremely interesting book in many regards, whatever your feelings are about the question. Even if Earthly may have lied about some aspects of his story, the message is more important and was at the time it manifested mostly absent from public debate.

edit : here's a critique - librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/the-attempt-to-keep-conscience-alive-reflections-on-the-book-burning-conscience/

"So did we"! say the Canadians in the back row. 

The thing about the atomic bombs that Arthur mentioned is a very emotional one. Such weapons of mass destruction, with effects that linger and are so terrible, naturally ellicit a reaction of horror.

However, if we stop to think about it, when we get to the point where we're ready to kill other beings, the means become something of a detail. As dreadful as atomic bombs are, they are not particularly more inhumane than the kind of standard bombing that razed Dresden. Furthermore, if we get into the sick logic of numbers, killing 50,000 Japanese civilians to save the 1,000,000 + who would have died during a ground invasion (not to mention the U.S. soldiers who would have died, something a responsible president MUST take into account) starts making a lot of sense. Plus there's the ugly realpolitik of the day: the west had to show the Russians that it would be a bad idea to get too greedy after Germany had fallen. 

The one thing I still do not understand is why the bomb was dropped on cities instead of, say, a few kilometers away... Just to demonstrate what an atomic explosion was and scare the Japanese government into surrendering. Of course that may be wishful thinking (and from an armchair corporal, to boot): after all, even after cities blew up, the Japanese weren't wiling to give up (you don't want those guys as your enemies). A few generals even mounted a coup to topple the govenment after it started considering surrendering!

So I don't blame the US for using the atom bomb to quickly put an end to a nightmarish war. It was a terrible thing to do, but war is about doing terrible things to the other guy before terrible things are done to you.