
Seeing the coach got me thinking about the strange things I’ve seen on Southwark Bridge. It’s a far more eventful bridge than, say, Blackfriars, which is the bridge I used to walk across to get to my old job.

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