SCOTLAND

The country of which I am a citizen is formally called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is made up - at least for political and football purposes - of four bits; England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Wales has been under England's thumb since at least Henry VIII's time. The island of Ireland, having been treated essentially as a colony for centuries, was formally joined to the mainland from 1 January 1801. This was not a satisfactory relationship, and a large part of the British politics of the late 19th century was taken up with the "Irish Question". Eventually Ireland was divided into two, the northern part remaining with the mainland and the southern going its own way; but the consequences of that decision are still being worked out today.

Scotland was an independent country for much of the Middle Ages, and a resolute enemy of England, often teaming up with England's arch-enemy France and often (notwithstanding Robert the Bruce and Braveheart) getting a bloody nose from the English for doing so. But in 1603, Henry VIII's daughter Queen Elizabeth died, having never married; and the throne passed to her cousin James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England and the founder of the Stuart dynasty. The union of the two countries was a personal union; there were two separate countries, who happened to have the same king. However, this was considered unsatisfactory and there were various attempts (in 1606, 1667 and 1689) to formalise the arrangement. These all failed, and it was not until the early eighteenth century that the political establishments in both countries could agree on a merger. This took place on 1 May 1707, after acts of union had been passed by the Parliaments in each country. The two Parliaments were abolished and replaced by the Parliament of Great Britain, sitting at Westminster.

Although Great Britain has now been one country for 300 years, there are significant differences between Scotland and England/Wales, most notably in law and education. The law of England is the common law, later exported to the English-speaking world (the U.S., Australia and so on); while Scots law, with its "delict" and "subjects", is based much more on Roman law, and so is closer to the civilian systems in continental Europe. In education, English students sat 'A' levels and went on to do three-year university courses; in Scotland they did 'Highers' and went on to four-year courses. The differences are being eroded with time, but they exist nevertheless; there is, for example, no concept of a trust in Scots law.

The 1707 union was engineered by Scots aristocrats anxious to get money and influence in London, and was unpopular with the population at large. So there has always been a movement in Scotland to reverse the process and become independent again. That movement, headed by the Scottish National Party, gained in influence first with the discovery of North Sea oil (most of which lay in Scottish waters) and secondly with the U.K.'s entry into the European Union. Under Tony Blair, both Scotland and Wales were at the end of the 1990's given devolution powers. The former's are more extensive than the latter's, and provided for Scotland to have its own Parliament and effective autonomy in most areas of domestic policy. In the years since then, the SNP has gradually increased its support, and at the last Scottish election in May 2011, it secured an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament. There was now a clear path to a referendum on Scottish independence, long the SNP's aim.

But by whom? By the Scots, of course, says the SNP's leader and First Minister Alex Salmond. By securing an absolute mandate, he has unquestioned support for his flagship policy, which allows him to call the referendum at a time of his choosing and on a question of his choosing. Not so fast, say politicians at Westminster, including the Prime Minister (of the United Kingdom) David Cameron. The Scotland Act which devolved power to Scotland specifically reserved constitutional matters to the U.K. Parliament. Recognising the SNP's popular mandate, Westminster is happy to delegate the legal power to hold a referendum. But the question and timing would not be Mr. Salmond's alone.

Mr. Salmond is well aware that any judicial dispute between Scotland and the U.K. would in all probability go in the latter's favour, not least because the law is pretty clear and the issue would be decided by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdon, which sits in London. It suits his purpose to portray the powers at Westminster as "interfering in Scottish affairs", something Scots dislike. But if and when this skirmish is sorted out, and it comes to a definitive decision, would Scotland really choose to become independent again? To do so, the SNP would have to overcome two awkward facts. The first is that most of the oil in the North Sea has already been extracted, so there would not be the natural resource bonanza in (say) 2020 that there could well have been in 1980. Secondly, under the so-called "Barnett formula", Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) has always been generously treated in terms of public spending, receiving a significantly higher dollop of cash per person than the U.K. as a whole (in the fiscal year 2009-10, £11,370 versus £10,320). This would disappear if Scotland were to become independent and had to finance itself. True, independence is not just, or even mostly, about money. Nevertheless, there remains a suspicion that the Scots are in fact happy to have it both ways; effective independence under the leadership of a party continually pushing for more, while accepting subsidies (and other things, such as defence) from the more numerous English south of the border.

I have lived all my life as a citizen of a unified Scotland and England. But I also spent the first 40 years of my life in a Europe divided between East and West. The latter disappeared in 1989; might the former also? If and when the referendum comes, it will be an exciting moment.

Walter Blotscher