Are Scots and Brits ” “too close to be separated?

If a marriage is forever so is a divorce. British premier David Cameron reiterated the concept on the eve of the Scottish referendum on autonomy from London. It’s a veiled threat, which at the same time sounds likes a promise. Indeed, Cameron himself is the promoter of another popular vote to decide on the Country’s presence in the EU, which he promised to UK citizens – if he is re-elected -. Paraphrasing an ancient proverb – does he who lives by the referendum die by the referendum? The victory of secessionists of Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow would jeopardize Cameron’s presence at 10, Downing Street. Thus the island is in ferment. Widespread opinions – ranging from scholars to celebrities, from leading entrepreneurs to Church representatives – were expressed on the possibility of secession from the north,. Elisabeth II fears that her kingdom might loose a consistent portion of its territory and population, and with institutional politeness she invited the descendants of Braveheart to seriously reflect on their future… On the opposite front the leader of the pro-independence stances, current Scottish premier Alex Salmond, raised his voice: “We will make a better job of running the wealth of the country ourselves”, which includes, inter alia, oil, fish and whiskey. “Scottish people know that this is once in a lifetime opportunity to build a richer country”, he said. “Our per capita GDP is higher than that of France, Japan and Great Britain”. To conclude with an otherwise logical statement: “Nobody can govern Scotland better than the Scots”. But the other side of the coin features concrete problems of a country created – in fact, re-created after 307 years – ex nihilo: Scotland lacks its own currency and a central Bank. The postal system is English, as is also the army. Separation from England implies that Scotland would loose countless companies and large businesses that have already threatened to relocate in the City. It should also be said that the Scots would thereby endanger their welfare state, banking accounts and loans (managed by English banks), along with exports which are in large part directed to the South of Hadrian’s Wall, with the burden of a significant share of British public debt, which Cameron already promised as his “present” to a future free Scotland. Moreover, Edinburgh would be cut out from the European Union. Indeed, Scotland would have an 18-month period to negotiate its permanence (or rather, its entry) into the “common home” before its independence, scheduled for 2016; but it’s equally true that EU adhesion requires the favourable and unanimous vote of all 28 Member Countries. At that point, in addition to the possibility of a “no” from London there could also be a stop from Spain, that doesn’t wish to foment Catalonia’s vehement secessionist claims. In reality, Scotland already is an integrating part of the United Kingdom, and notwithstanding remarkable historical, cultural, geographic and productive differences, along with a sound “patriotic pride”, it should be admitted that the things that English and Scots have in common are more than those which separate them. Would it therefore be legitimate to assume that creeping nationalism and the full-blown populism involving the whole of Europe have also affected the referendum campaign? Is it possible that a majority ‘yes’ vote might bring more problems than solutions to the legitimate aspirations of the Scottish people? Nobody knows what would happen if a yes-vote prevailed over the ‘no-thanks’ votes. It’s a risky challenge. The future of the Scottish people is in their own hands.