 |
| Alex Salmond |
 |
| Nicola Sturgeon |
The obvious answer to the question in the title is ‘Yes’. Scotland has a population of around five and a half million, which is similar to Ireland but, unlike that other Celtic country, it is not divided in two between those who consider themselves British and those who do not. If Luxembourg can survive with not much more than a tenth of that number, so can Scotland.
The issue is becoming more pressing all the time. Although the Scots voted in 2014 to remain in the United Kingdom in what was then called a ‘once in a generation’ referendum, the issue has not gone away. Nor was it likely to with the Scottish National Party (SNP) so strong and so determined to get its own way eventually on the issue that is the reason for its existence.
Democracy, however, is not always asking the same question until you get the answer you want. Sometimes I think that Nicola Sturgeon, currently leader of the SNP, would hold a referendum every Thursday until it produced the result she wanted – after which she would suddenly lose all enthusiasm for the idea of asking the Scots to vote on independence.
As an Englishman, I veer between thinking that Scottish independence is none of my business – a sentiment most nationalists would probably agree with – and feeling that it would be a shame if the United Kingdom was to be completely destroyed by the Scots breaking away, which would seem the inevitable result of the country becoming independent.
But need it be? If the Scots want to decide on what taxes they pay, form their own army and not send any MPs to London to decide the fate of those living north of the border, then it is surely not for those living south of the same border to insist that they remain stuck in a union most of them no longer want, if they ever did so in the first place.
England and Scotland have certain things in common apart from being neighbours, which does not seem to have made for good relations between the two countries. One of these is the royal family, which has many Scottish links, not least the fact that the Queen is half-Scottish and has two homes in the country: Balmoral in the highlands and Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh.
I suspect that most Scots would opt for a greater degree of independence but not a complete divorce from the UK. Rivalry between the England and Scotland is inevitable – just listen to the Scottish crowd booing Andy Farrell when they are asked to ‘respect the kicker’ at a rugby match in Murrayfield – but it need not be terminal.
 |
| The Union Jack (properly the Union Flag) |
The symbol of the United Kingdom is, of course, the Union Flag, often referred to as the Union Jack. A 'jack' flies from a jackstaff and the joining of the navies of the two countries led to their union - either that it was designed by the first king to peacefully rule over them, James (Jacques in Latin) the First of England and sixth of Scotland. It would be a shame to lose such an interesting flag, even if it is a symbol of an increasing less viable union.
Maybe we could think of the UK as a voluntary union of countries that want to live together while making their own decisions about how they run their affairs? (Much like the EU - although we know what happened there.) We could keep the union flag and the royal family, but leave the Scots to set their own taxes and decide how to spend them.
This might save England a deal of money. The accepted wisdom is that England subsidises Scotland in terms of public spending because their public expenditure is higher than average in the UK. If you take North Sea oil revenues into account, however, the picture is different and the subsidy going northwards is not so large.
There would be the matter of money, as in what type Scotland should adopt. Does it stick with sterling, join the euro or form its own currency with a Scottish pound? If it stays with sterling, Scotland’s economy will be partly run from London without Scots having a say. If it joins the Euro, the same problem exists from a greater distance. If it adopts its own currency, would this be viable?
What about the border between England and Scotland? I tell people that it is now just a line on the map and a sign at the side of the road. Do we really want passport checks and visas for a crossing that we formerly sped past, stopping only to take a photograph as we crossed an historic - but not an actual - border?
I have not written about the spat between Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond. The argument – and the creation of a new independence party called Alba – is just a domestic squabble in comparison to the question of whether England and Scotland remain together in the United Kingdom or whether they go their separate ways.
Whatever happens, England and Scotland will be forever tied together, even if they are at daggers drawn. Plenty of families, including the royals, live in both countries so there could never be a Berlin wall between us. Perish the thought. In an era when it is becoming easier to cross borders, making it harder makes little sense.
Maybe independence will see the Scots cutting out some of the anti-England rhetoric which you often hear when you go north of the border and which can be a bit wearying after a while. A country should not define itself by the enmity it feels towards it neighbour. This might be the best reason for embracing independence.
Edwin Lerner
For the UK government's site on the money issue visit: here
My other blog is diaryofatouristguide.blogspot.com
