Scotlandâ€™s independence: To be or not to be?

NEW DELHI: A referendum on September 18 will see an electorate of 4.1 million addressing a simple set of six-words, "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

The referendum is a pivotal moment in the history of Scotland and the United Kingdom, the results of which will profoundly alter the British Isles, for better or for worse.

Historically the Kingdom of Scotland had been a sovereign state for eight centuries prior to the Act of Union in 1707, which saw the establishment of a single parliament in Westminster.

It was not till the 19th century that the Scots found themselves desiring an administrative devolution that was given to them as a Scottish Office in Whitehall. Yet the idea of an independent Scotland never entered the political mainstream till a century later.

A referendum was held in 1979 to establish a Scottish Assembly, but the measure never passed. In 1997 a vote allowed the establishment of a Scottish Parliament but it would be dependent on grants from Westminster. A vote on independence never seemed possible. It was only in 2011 when the Scottish National Party, which promised an independence referendum as part of its manifesto, won a majority vote in the Scottish parliamentary elections, that the idea of an independent Scotland seemed likely. The Scottish First Minister and SNP leader, Alex Salmond, has since been the main proponent of Scottish independence.

Salmond has long been disenchanted with the unionist bureaucracy, maintaining that Scotland has always been an afterthought for Westminster. Understandably he believes those with Scotland's best interests at heart should be the ones managing her affairs. After all a government that the Scottish rejected presently governs the United Kingdom.

Learning from those before him Salmond's bid for independence is built on pragmatism rather than sentimentality, a chance to "change Scotland for the better." In today's desperate fiscal climate the appeal of independence lies purely in its economic and social benefits.

Last year the Scottish Government published a 670-page document outlining their case for sovereignty and the measures they would take to oversee it. North Sea oil has been central to the argument for independence, as the Scottish Government believes they would lay claim to 1.5 trillion pounds worth of oil left in the reserves. Still, not everyone is convinced. The general trend in almost every poll conducted on the matter has been roughly 60-40 in favour of 'No'.

Chairing the unionist Better Together campaign, Alex Salmond's main opponent, Alistair Darling, asserts that being a part of the United Kingdom brings security, mutual risk, a shared culture, and more importantly a currency union. The three largest British political parties, the Tories, Labour and Lib-Dems, have united in the avowal that a currency union is incompatible with an independent Scotland and that the pound would not be theirs to keep. However Salmond has reduced such claims to being an attempt at scaremongering, assuring his voters that they will keep the sterling. Darling has since derided the 670-page document to be "thick with false promises and meaningless assertions."

(AFP photo)

The referendum has polarized the Scots. British identity has always been an enigma and for the first time they are having to confront themselves about it. Fifty days from now a decision would have been made as to whether Scotland is to remain in the United Kingdom. Should the majority cast a 'Yes' vote, Scotland would fancy itself an independent state annulling a 307-year old political union with their English counterparts. Should the majority cast a 'No' vote, Scotland would remain a part of Britain, but not really. The notion of an independent Scotland will be incessantly lingering north of the border. The question of "what if?" will forever entice. Independent or not, Alex Salmond has won.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/followceleb.cms?alias=United Kingdom,Scottish Government,Scotland,Alistair Darling,Alex Salmond