The Scottish sun, shocked by having its usual cloudy underpinnings stripped away, shone feverishly, embarrassed by its nakedness. — Stuart Haddon
We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation. —Voltaire
Today's Scottish referendum is an impassioned plea that the Scots should be given some insulated cultural space, political standing and economic clout. Scotland is not the first country to hold a referendum on independence. The first country to do so was Chile in 1817, when Chile declared independence from Spain. Shorn of its ideological garb, Scottish independence is indeed, sheer unrelieved misery for the British government. For the Scots who will vote “No” today, Scottish independence is an unmitigated socio-economic catastrophe without any prospect of relief once Scotland ceases to be the integral part of the UK it has been for more than 300 years. Any willingness to engage so heartily with England would be unwarranted if Scots vote “Yes”. To many Scots, federation has in the last six months quickly lost whatever charms it ever possessed in the past. British Prime Minister David Cameron undertook no preliminary soundings of the Scottish referendum on independence, so it was not until the very last week — indeed a few days before today's referendum — that he made an impassioned speech to save the United Kingdom from disintegration. “As you reach your final decision, please don't let anyone tell you that you can't be a proud Scot and a proud Brit. So please, from all of us: vote to stick together. Vote to stay. Vote to save our United Kingdom.” At this point, Cameron has little leverage at his disposal. Pro-UK Scottish voters reiterated their well-worn theme of common British interests. Cameron tried desperately to steer a course between wringing concessions out of the Scottish nationalists without alienating his own supporters in Scotland. Cameron has not yet abandoned the dream of a Scottish rejection of independence. The Scottish “Yes” voters by and large want nothing to do with British imperialist wars in the Middle East or elsewhere if such adventurous escapades would not bring independence to Scotland. They simply want independence as quickly as possible. “It is my duty to be clear about the likely consequences of a yes vote. Independence would not be a trial separation. It would be a painful divorce,” Cameron railed. The subsequent importance ascribed to Cameron's impassioned speech demonstrates how the history of Scotland's association with England has, in large measure, been written backwards. If Scotland votes for independence, Cameron will go down in history as the British premier who presided over the dissolution of the UK. Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond, in sharp contrast, on Monday exploited an event at Edinburgh Airport to slander the “scaremongering” of the “No” campaign. “We're not aiming to win by one vote. We're aiming to achieve a substantial majority if we can. And one of the great assets of the ‘Yes' campaign is that we don't regard any section or sector of Scottish society or any geography of Scotland beyond our reach,” said Scotland's first minister. Alistair Darling, a former British chancellor of the exchequer and leader of the “Better Together” campaign, warned that if Scots vote to split from the UK it would be “irreversible”, his voice choking with repressed emotion. Two international issues have become starkly clear, and two specific questions are posed. Would the UK without Scotland be eligible for a United Nations permanent Security Council seat? And what would the special relationship between the United States and Britain be like without Scotland? The Acts of Union in 1707 between England and Scotland prompted Scottish imperialists to found British colonies throughout the world. Scottish colonialists were pioneers and their settlements were not confined to Nova Scotia, first claimed by Scotland and settled with Scottish colonists in 1629, well before the 1707 union. More than four million Scots as well as English and foreign residents, from the Highlands and Islands to the tough inner-city estates of Glasgow, are eligible to vote. The question on the ballot paper will ask simply: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Scotland is standing at a crossroads. The very currency of the country, if Scots opt for independence, is uncertain. Would it be the Euro? Or perhaps an independent currency? One thing is sure: it would not be Sterling. It is common to latch on to one particular topic in the run-up to a referendum. In the case of Scotland, it is the economy. The Centre for Policy Studies estimated that Scottish government revenues would drop some $18 billion if Scots vote “Yes”. Scottish government spending would soar. North Sea revenues have plummeted in recent years. Moreover, the rising cost of public sector pensions in Scotland is destined to pose a heavy burden due to declining oil revenues and the probable haemorrhaging of tax revenues from financial services. As well as issues of interest and trust, there is often a very wide gap between those Scots bent on voting “Yes” and those who are inclined to vote “No”. The referendum result will, in all probability, be decided by the undecided. Until September, all polls but one in 2013 had shown the unionists with a comfortable lead. By the start of this month, the tide had appeared to turn. But even Scottish nationalists have doubts about independence. Doreen Briggs, a Scottish-born Egyptian national, told Al-Ahram Weekly on the eve of the referendum that “being a Scottish nationalist I should vote ‘Yes', but I decided it should be ‘No', because I don't know how things would be if it did not work.” The Scots, Briggs stressed, “would not be able to go back” if they voted “Yes”. The Scottish independence referendum caused something of a commotion among the ruling Conservative Party leadership. British Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury George Osborne cancelled a trip to the G20 meeting in Australia. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, too, decided to leave the G20 meeting early. Scotland is a traditional Labour Party stronghold. And most Scots abhor the Tories. If Scots vote “Yes” today, Conservative Party leader Cameron would be the biggest loser. The referendum might cost him his political career. The Conservative Party has a history of turning rashly and ruthlessly against its leaders. In September 1990, nobody would have envisioned that the impregnable late British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, the “Iron Lady”, was even remotely vulnerable. Less than three months later she was forced to step down after her fellow Tories stabbed her in the back. Sir Jeremy Heywood, head of the British Civil Service, was candid. “The government has made it clear,” Heywood declared just before the referendum, “that it does not wish to do any contingency planning and that applies to the Civil Service. When we are given a clear instruction by ministers, we obey it.” Heywood told a parliamentary committee that government departments were doing “absolutely nothing to prepare for the possibility of Scottish independence.” He set the cat among the pigeons. Europhobia is yet another concern. The Tories are diehard Euro-sceptics. Without Scotland, Labour would find it particularly difficult to win a general election in a UK shorn of Scotland. But the loss of Scotland would also negatively impact the Conservative Party. The Tories — unlike Scotland and the Labour Party — are strongly committed to exiting the European Union. If Scottish voters decide to vote “Yes” and Scotland breaks away from Britain today, a chain of events would begin that could end with Britain breaking the EU. Internationally, the UK would lose face if Scotland secedes. Not to mention, what would be the fate of the Clyde-based Trident, the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered submarine? “Break-up of the United Kingdom? I don't think there is any possibility of that. God forbid!” India's Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj was quoted as saying at a press conference in Delhi. Nevertheless, after an aide whispered a word of caution in her ear, Swaraj sobered and sounded more subdued on the tricky subject of Scottish independence. “It's for Scotland to decide. I have nothing to say on this,” she sheepishly conceded. Russian papers detested the notion of an independent Scotland, drawing parallels between Scottish voters and Russian-speaking insurgents the West accuses of being backed by Russian military expertise and hardware. Beijing, too, is alarmed by the prospect of Scottish independence. China's restive west, like Scotland, is relatively sparsely populated but accounts for a significant portion of the country's territory and has reserves of oil and gas. In Egypt, people and press are largely indifferent to Scotland's fate. “The only news from the UK making headlines in Egypt is Prince Harry's potential Egyptian girlfriend,” said Zeinobia, one of Egypt's highest-profile bloggers. That comment, in a nutshell, sums up Egyptian attitudes to Scotland's political future.
