The end of the UK?

Did William Wallace die in vain? It's interesting to see how deeply tied to the oil in the North Sea this whole issue seems to be.

The End of the United Kingdom?

London, England - One of the world's most successful multinational states, and a key ally of the United States, could in a few months time start to unravel: I mean, of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The process will be set in motion if the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) ends up the largest party in the Scottish parliament after elections next May. This is a distinct possibility. The break up of the UK will not be inevitable even if the SNP do dominate the parliament, but it will certainly make the political classes of Britain -- and perhaps of the U.S. and the main EU states too -- think hard about the point and value of the union to them. (Ironically, the elections will come just a matter of days after the 300th anniversary of the creation of modern Britain when the Scottish and English parliaments were merged in 1707.)

Most people in England who think about these things assumed that the "Scottish question" had been dealt with when, as one of the first acts of the Blair government elected in 1997, it announced the creation of a devolved Scottish parliament with wide ranging powers over domestic matters. But disillusionment with the performance of that parliament (and the UK parliament in London), the long-standing belief that the English "stole" Scotland's oil and gas, and the postmodern temptations of identity politics, have put independence back on the agenda (a recent opinion poll found 51 percent of Scots favoring it).

And a new front has now been opened up in the independence debate from the political right. Writing in the latest issue of London-based Prospect magazine, Michael Fry, a conservative Scottish historian, argues that the only way to revive the moderate right in Scotland and to better reflect the country's conservative Calvinistic soul is for former Tories like himself to back the SNP. If enough Tories heed Fry's advice it makes the likelihood of a SNP victory in May even more likely.

That would be bad news for Gordon Brown, the British chancellor, who should be taking over from Tony Blair as prime minister soon after those May elections. Brown, who is a Scot, is well aware that following devolution many people in England question whether it is possible for a Scot to become prime minister -- hence he has been making many speeches about the importance of Britishness. (Unfortunately for him Britishness continues to become less meaningful, especially to the Scots, as those things that helped to create and sustain it such as empire, world wars, Protestantism and the labor movement, fade from memory and importance.) If the chatter about full independence started to grow louder, as it surely would with an SNP-dominated parliament, that could cast further doubt on Brown's standing as an all-British prime minister. It might also tempt David Cameron's reviving Conservative party to finally cast themselves as an English party.

Losing Scotland's 5 million people would not be a huge blow to England's size (more than 50m) and would not damage its main economic and cultural assets. But it would dent its standing in the wider world and might call into question things like the UK's permanent membership of the UN security council. More important it would be another depressing victory for tribalism. The Anglo-Scottish double act has been a rare example of successful multi-culturalism, with the moral earnestness of the Scots leavening the famous pragmatism of the English. On a more practical note, the Ireland model -- with its dynamic economy, and national self-confidence -- is increasingly popular in SNP circles. Yet Ireland looks far more like America than the social-democratic Scandinavian states that the left-wing Scots Nationalists admire. To emulate the Irish model, the Scots would probably need to cut public spending by one-third, not a good start to life as an independent nation.