Bah, humbug. It’s not about what’s good for Scotland: Scottish independence is just a big ego trip for A. Salmond. What’s the perceived point? Economic? Yes, there’s North Sea gas, but that’s finite. Yes, there’s the European Union, but that hasn’t done Ireland much good. And independence means no Barnett money. Is the point political – apart from the Salmond eg0-trip. Scotland’s got a parliament. What more does she need? England, on the other hand, could do without the West Lothian Question. The last two disastrous Prime Ministers were, er, Scottish. Is it nationalistic? Possibly. Although this, of course, is silly. There is no racial or tribal difference. The Celts, maybe, but even they are intermingled with Lowland blood. As for the Lowlanders, they’re as English as the English. They speak English – ‘Scots’ is not a language; it’s just English spelled phonetically, as eny fule kno. It may have special words, but so does Norfolk, but no-one dunt say thass a language. They have names ending in ‘son’ or plain English names like Brown or White or Smith. Their blood is, ok, part Celt, but so’s mine and I’m English; it’s also Anglo, Saxon and Scandinavian – just like the rest of the English. They have a more European legal and education system, but they’ve retained those throughout the unification of the Kingdom. They also have many English neighbours. Every time I hear Western Islanders interviewed on the radio, they all seem to come from Manchester. Perhaps that’s because the Islanders, fed up with the trashing of their small crofting or fishing way of life, have come to London to seek work. There are so many Scots in England and Engles in Scotland that independence is a nonsense.
Would Scottish independence mean that the Royal Family would be split again into Scottish and English lines, or would Scotland become a republic? I would hazard a guess for the latter, with the nomination for the first President of Scotland being one A. Salmond. QED.