(A Scottish protestor yesterday)A brief history lesson:
The current United Kingom is the result of a long process of mergers and acquisitions. Once upon a time, more than a thousand years ago, England, Wales and Scotland emerged as independent politically-centralised powers. In the thirteenth century, Wales was brought under the control of the English monarch. For centuries, England and Wales were not very popular with their northern neighbours, the Scots, who occasionally took to face-painting as a form of protest (see inset picture). From about the eleventh century onwards, the English invaded and settled Ireland as well, although it wasn't until the nineteenth century that Ireland became more than just a colony. The fierce English - Scottish rivalry was suddenly eclipsed when in 1603, in a shock move, the king of Scotland made a reverse takeover bid for England and Wales. James VI of Scotland became James I of England and Wales, etc. But although the three countries were all ruled by one person, it wasn't until 1706 that the countries formally merged into one country (Great Britain). Finally, in 1801, Great Britain merged with Ireland, and the result was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This was the UK at its peak. Then, in 1922, Ireland became independent of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Now it looks possible that the United Kingdom will lose another constituent state. Scotland's local elections are this week, and although it is unlikely that the Scottish National Party will carry an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament, they are very likely to be the largest party. The Scottish National Party's main platform has been an independent Scotland and so, if they become the dominant party in Scotland, will it be only a matter of time before the United Kingdom will be referred to as 'the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland'? In fact, with the power-sharing process underway in Northern Ireland, how long will it be before it is simply 'the United Kingdom of England and Wales'?
At the moment, the British are still being polite, and refraining from expressing strong views against the potential break-up of the United Kingdom. It is hard to imagine silence in the face of such a sweeping change in the United States. Imagine California deciding to go it alone. Would the rest of the United States stand by in silence? You can be certain that such a vital carve-up of the body politic would not be met with the (apparently) disinterested silence which attends the Scottish question.
Finally, aside from the emotional arguments for preserving intact the 306-year old Great Britain, it is worth considering what impact a separate Scotland would have on both England and Scotland. Financially, (for now) this would very much depend whether or not Scotland keeps the North Sea oil. With the oil, Scotland could maintain its present public expenditure for at least another ten years (after which it looks likely that the oil reserves will have disappeared). Without it? Well, that's a very good question.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/story/0,,2068186,00.html
