Scottish Independence... maybe

[Sturen]

As you may know, Scotland will be holding a referendum on independence in about a week. The Yes campaign recently "shocked" the UK with polls showing a 22 point no lead turn to a 2 point yes lead within a month as undecided voters migrate to yes and the no base weakens. This has left Westminister panicked as all three major party leaders head to Scotland to save the union and even Gordon Brown was wheeled out to promise Scotland new powers should she vote no.

The debate has consumed Scotland since it began and is the biggest topic in our news, streets, pubs and offices. Posters for Yes and No are in many windows and it's only very recently with the turnaround in the polls that the rest of the UK has sat up and realised that Scotland might actually go. Scotland is intoxicated by the realisation that our swing to yes has suddenly given us a voice and really made Westiminister listen, something a lot of Scots feel rarely happens. No matter what she votes Scotland is very much alive just now and whether through further devolution or complete independence will never be the same again. As a Scot leaning towards yes I'm interested to see what (if anything) other countries have reported or heard of the referendum and any opinions you might have, perhaps even breathe some life into off topic!

[Facade19]

I am passionately following this upcoming decision. I honestly can state from what I gather that here in the USA the coverage concerning the referendum has been abyssal at best and utterly worthless at worst. I guess we are more concerned with the departure of Ms Joan Rivers (though I really admire her and wish nothing but the deepest condolences to her family). As usual, the media will only bolster its coverage of the Scottish referendum when sensationalism has reached its acme. That is to say, if nothing else shocking is currently pulsating our neurotic collective senses. And just in case there is, we should be grateful if we get more than just the on the day coverage that is likely to occur.

I have listened to all the debates made available on youtube and other video streaming websites. Honestly, I can see viewpoints of both contesting campaigns. It is up to the people of Scotland to make the determination. I wish the Scottish nothing but the best. They seem like an amicable populace concerned with the future of their country like any other person would be. So long as the Scottish people have come to terms with whatever decision has taken place and they genuinely understand the consequences of either decision, I doff my hat in a salute of respect to ye good old admirable Scottish folk.

I have my own share of opinions, but since I am not a Scotsman nor a Scottish citizen, the right of suffrage precludes me from sharing my consternation. I also know a whole lot of good English folk here who may have their own divergent opinions and I do not wish to be the cause of any ill conceived misgivings that may or may not transpire in this thread. Suffice it to say that so long as this process of self-determination occurs in law-abiding and peaceful process then the very principles of democracy that we strive to adhere to and cleave unto will be accomplished. And as a patriotic citizens of the democratic enterprise, I will be nothing but pleased.

Cheers!

[Teledor]

In the USA there is very little coverage. In fact, the only coverage I had seen recently dealt with the drop in value of the Pound sterling after the yes vote pulled ahead in the polls. I guess there were some jitters about whether a currency union could work or not and whether Scotland might start a spending more than they can handle. All completely wild speculation.

Other than that, I've read a fair amount of coverage from Auntie B since I tend to avoid most of the American news sources like the plague these days since it's either liberal or conservative shrill. Honestly I don't know enough to form an opinion. I think at this point, perhaps extracting as much as Scotland can (in terms of sovreign powers) without separating would be the less risky path. But it's really up to the Scots to decide and however they do, I would wish them the best.

On the side, I read somewhere about who can qualify to vote - I think it was based on residency and not being native of Scotland, i.e. Scots living outside of Scotland can't vote - is that true?

PS - wonder what will happen to the Union Jack.

PPS - Does Scotland have a national anthem lined up in the case of independence?

[Loflar]

In Czech Republic, mainstream informs us that such a thing will happen, but its main interest is demonization of Putin. Fortunately, I am not dependent on mainstream, so I am served with selection of some interesting (mostly) Guardian articles on the subject. From what I could read about it, I think that if I was Scottish, I would vote for independence.

[Prince of Spires]

In the Netherlands there isn't much coverage either, though it does get some attention here and there. Mainly newspapers (who have a bit more room for this sort of stuff then tv news does) and also mainly from a semi-financial point of view.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if they do end up independent. I assume they'll want to join the EU. But that would probably have some implications most people don't realize. For instance, they would be forced to adopt the Euro (all new members are), they would have to join the Schengen treaty (all new members are) and they would lose all of the privileges Great Britain currently enjoys. Also, internationally, they would go from being (part of) a country that is listened to, to about finland (with roughly the same GDP and population). A very different place to be in.

Whichever way they chose, I doubt there will actually end up being a winner. Given how close the polls are, no matter the outcome, half the population will disagree with it and feel left out. Not really a good place to be in I think.

Best of luck either way.

Rod

[Giladis]

I have been following the entire thing quite closely inspite the fact Croatian media apart for an odd newspapaer article mostly ignore it.

Though this vote is important to Scotland it will much more important for Catalonia. Scottish win will give wings to the Catalans and the government in Madrit has already made it clear they will use armed forces to prevent the referendum (that is due in November) let alone independence.

Dark clouds are gathering over Europe and I hope blood will not flow.


Even fully aware of potential consequences I strongly support an independant Scotland for I believe each and every people should have their own free state.

[Prince of Spires]

Even fully aware of potential consequences I strongly support an independant Scotland for I believe each and every people should have their own free state.

Even if more then 50% of the people feel they already have their own free state? And if they don't consider themselves a separate people at all.

I agree that people have a right to rule themselves. And that they have their own country if they feel it so. The problem is of course that it is very hard to define when a group of people feels they are a nation and when they are just a group of people that is part of a nation.

And that the whole thing is as much dictated by media and campaigning as it actually is by how people feel. It is very easy to tell all the advantages without leaving out the disavantages or vise-versa. It creates a very polarised view of the whole thing and I don't think anyone actually gives a nuanced desciption of the pro and con arguments.

And, as mentioned, half the people don't actually want to be a different country at all. Which makes it difficult.

For the record, I support that Scotland gets to decide its own future. It's a great use of democracy.

Rod

[Sturen]

@facade Very diplomatic reply I do think that both sides do have some pretty convincing arguments and I wouldn't say I'm so strongly in favour of Yes that I wouldn't consider changing. The televised debates are both worth a look through for anyone interested to see a little of the arguments involved, though I found they too frequently descended into cheap point scoring and cutesy one liners. Salmond's second debate did play a large part in the swing in opinion polls however!

@teledor The pound drop was talked about plenty in Scotland, with some saying it shows that the UK is holding the currency to ransom and risking it's future as it would be weaker without Scotland using it while others claim it's all about the uncertainty and risks that independence could hit both Scotland and rUK. The BBC is a fairly neutral source, at least on their website. The more powers offer that has become a major point by the BT campaign is being supported by all three parties but it's being seen as a shaky bribe by a lot of people. And though I'm too young to remember it, when Scotland last voted on this we were promised more powers when voting no and then Maggie Thatcher came along and we didn't get anything for nearly twenty years, the cultural memory has still not forgiven that.

You're right that only those who live in Scotland may vote, therefore no expats but any who have moved here from abroad may vote. The voting age was also lowered from 16 to 18 for the referendum. There hasn't been any serious discussion of the Union Jack though I've seen it mocked up with the blue switched for both black and yellow, as well as entirely new designs. And we have several candidates for national anthem, most likely either Flower of Scotland or Scotland the Brave, though currently no official anthem.

@loflar The Guardian is mostly biased towards yes I think though they have very good coverage imo. Maybe balance it out with a glance over the daily mail

@prince Absolutely, EU membership is a pretty big no argument. There are some beliefs that Scotland would automatically be granted EU membership (rUK would be so why not) but it seems pretty unlikely and based around pretty big assumptions. Whatever happens it will set a precedent for seceding nations within the EU. The UK EU perks you mentioned are also at risk, it is possible that Scotland would be required to use the euro which we mostly see as a bad thing. The UK also enjoys certain VAT exemptions and still has passport control for EU nationals but I believe that rUK would have to negotiate some form of free travel with iScotland, international travel between the two is too common. There is a lot of uncertainty over EU membership overall and I can see both sides.

@Giladis The precedent Scotland may set will have repercussions everywhere. I wasn't aware Catalonia was at risk of armed intervention if they made a bid for independence, and I have also read that China sees Scottish independence as a threat as there are several areas (like Tibet) with claims to their own independence. Both Wales and Northern Ireland are watching very closely also. It is very fortunate that Scotland has put itself on the path to independence very peacefully and with only political fighting. I hope this continues and really only worry that on the 19th independence day parties will cause havoc!

And @prince again, it is very clear within Scotland that almost every person considers themselves Scottish, often before they consider themselves British. The debate has very little character of emotional nationalism, and I wouldn't say strength of "feeling Scottish" particularly correlates with voting either no or yes. To many people the decision is very utilitarian and pragmatic. While a narrow yes vote would possibly lead to discontent among those voting no it's also true in the case of a narrow no vote. At this point it looks like half of Scotland won't be happy, no matter what. Such is democracy. At least it's not 80%+ of the country unhappy as happened in 2010.

[BorkBork]

With all respect for the Scots (i do love Scotland)....but i think that within 5 years after independance they will be begging those English to take them back.

[Prince of Spires]

@prince Absolutely, EU membership is a pretty big no argument. There are some beliefs that Scotland would automatically be granted EU membership (rUK would be so why not) but it seems pretty unlikely and based around pretty big assumptions. Whatever happens it will set a precedent for seceding nations within the EU. The UK EU perks you mentioned are also at risk, it is possible that Scotland would be required to use the euro which we mostly see as a bad thing. The UK also enjoys certain VAT exemptions and still has passport control for EU nationals but I believe that rUK would have to negotiate some form of free travel with iScotland, international travel between the two is too common. There is a lot of uncertainty over EU membership overall and I can see both sides.

From what I have read, membership to the EU will not be automatic. There is a clear difference between a country seceding (sp?) from a EU country and a country from which a part leaves that country. The leaving country has an actual choice in the matter.

So for the country from which a part leaves (GB in this case) nothing changes. EU status remains the same. Privileges remain the same. The leaving country on the other hand has to reapply for membership. And while I think the acceptance will be fairly fast, assuming all countries agree of course, privileges are not.

Since Scotland would be a new EU country, they would need to meet all EU new country criteria. Which means Euro, passport union etc. To put it bluntly, while GB leaving the EU can pose some serious problems, Scotland not joining the EU will have no impact at all. The EU doesn't need Scotland, which would be a country of 5 million people and decent GDP. There is no reason to give them special privileges on joining.

There is also a political reason for not making it easy for Scotland, part of that is the precedent mentioned by Giladis, and the fact that some political leaders (GB for instance) could very well be a bit spiteful. Why should GB make life easy on Scotland? If they wanted easy they could have simply remained part of GB. Why would Spain encourage Scotland leaving GB when there is then a big chance it will cause similar problems in Catalonia or the Basque country? Why would any of the more recent EU countries (who all had to accept the Euro if they wanted to join) allow Scotland to keep their own currency when they couldn't?

Why would GB need an open border treaty with Scotland? As with the EU, they don't really need Scotland as much as the other way round. Sure, they will notice not having Scotland and not easily traveling to it. But GB, without Scotland, will have an economy and population about 10 times as big as Scotland. In what way do they depend on Scotland? The other way round however, Scotland is a pretty minor country. Population 5 million, decent GDP, mainly dependant on oil and some tourism perhaps. They have a lot to gain/lose with an open border treaty. Already simply because I can imagine a lot of important companies in Scotland have headquarters in London (things like banks and such, no idea really). Those things matter on a world economic scale. The British PM will still be able to pick up the phone and call any world leader. The Scottish PM? He'll end up at the back of the queue.

Is that a reason not to vote for independance? No, probably not. Unless those things really matter to you (and to most people they don't). But they shouldn't just be glossed over either.

Rod

[Sturen]

The argument for Scotland remaining automatically in the EU is something along the lines of removing Scot's EU citizenship being ruled illegal. There is no precedent and the argument doesn't sound that convincing to me so I could definitely see Scotland having to apply as a new member nation. And the potential losses of the UK perks shouldn't be understated. But travel agreements between the UK and Scotland seem pretty certain. Ireland and Northern Ireland have a free travel agreement despite not being within the Schengen area. Whether using the euro would be a requirement is something that is unclear from the media in the UK. The SNP seems confident that iScotland would have many options including a likely eventual offer of a sterling currency union. If the EU would accept this I don't know. Denmark has avoided the eurozone despite a population and GDP of similar size to the UK.

Of course the tories have promised a referendum on UK EU membership so it's possible that remaining in the UK is even riskier in terms of the EU.

With the amount of trade between Scotland and rUK in both directions it is in both countries interest to maintain a good diplomatic friendship and I think that were Westminister perceived as acting to spite Scotland that would not be well received. I would like to believe that an independent Scotland would maintain good diplomatic ties with most countries that the UK previously held, there is no reason they would not except in special cases like Spain as you mentioned.

While I'm struggling to find statistics I believe that Scotland is the rUK's largest or second largest export market, there are close ties across the border in business and communities as well, the labour party has specifically denied claims that they would suggest or implement border control. The UK has many reasons to want a close relationship with an independent Scotland. Loss of our position in the international community and so on is relevant but I see that as a loss of something I never really felt we had. Westminister has had a say in the international community, Holyrood has a little voice in the back of Westminister. While David Cameron can phone world leaders, Alex Salmond cannot and if anything, independence will increase his or his successor's voice.

[Ricold]

iScotland

Is that the apple branded one?

[Elithmar]

I read that the EU announced it won't accept any new members for (can't remember the number, but almost definitely less than 10 and probably around 5) years. So Scotland wouldn't be able to join the EU immediately. Plus, if Scotland decided to use the Pound without a currency union, apparently they wouldn't be able to join the EU because of some rule. Sorry for the vagueness.

Personally, I think countries should aim for more integration with each other. I would definitely support a United States of Europe (I'm probably in a very small minority, being in the UK ). We should all be trying to work together, rather than breaking off into smaller groups.




And anyway, losing Scotland would mean losing a load of Labour voters. Please, Scotland, vote No!

[Sturen]

I read that the EU announced it won't accept any new members for (can't remember the number, but almost definitely less than 10 and probably around 5) years. So Scotland wouldn't be able to join the EU immediately. Plus, if Scotland decided to use the Pound without a currency union, apparently they wouldn't be able to join the EU because of some rule. Sorry for the vagueness.

Personally, I think countries should aim for more integration with each other. I would definitely support a United States of Europe (I'm probably in a very small minority, being in the UK ). We should all be trying to work together, rather than breaking off into smaller groups.




And anyway, losing Scotland would mean losing a load of Labour voters. Please, Scotland, vote No!

I've not heard that about the EU, do you have a link, googling wasn't turning much up. Scotland wouldn't actually be independent until 2016 so there is a decent amount of time to negotiate and see what the options are there as the EU doesn't seem to have made a statement of anything yet.

I would agree in principal with that idea, borders should be freely travelled and trade, people, services and communication flow as easily as possible between nations. But for all that, countries should also govern themselves, integration does not mean (what Scotland usually sees as) distant, foreign rule. It is unfortunate that UK is one of the most insular of EU countries, it makes a more open Scotland seem a very big step. I believe that Scotland would be better served by more open borders anyway, the population is in need of young, working immigrants to balance the rapidly ageing baby boomers.

It's interesting you mention a "US of Europe", the federal system of America is one that has been suggested as an alternative to independence, with each UK country forming it's own "state". If Scotland votes no I would like to see this option seriously looked at, as it would also appease the English who complain that Scotland, Ireland and Wales are all getting devolved while they have only Westminister.

Edit: what I really mean is, in international policy I believe an independent Scotland would be more open and integrated (even if only because the EU requires them to be) while internal affairs should be decided by Scotland itself, independence doesn't mean separation and breaking off anything except Westminister control.

[Loflar]

With all respect for the Scots (i do love Scotland)....but i think that within 5 years after independance they will be begging those English to take them back.

That is what we thought 20 years ago when Czechoslovakia was going to split. But Slovakia (country of 5 000 000 people as well) seems to be doing just fine (or at least not much worse then us).

[Elithmar]

I've not heard that about the EU, do you have a link, googling wasn't turning much up. Scotland wouldn't actually be independent until 2016 so there is a decent amount of time to negotiate and see what the options are there as the EU doesn't seem to have made a statement of anything yet.

I read it in a paper, so I can't give the exact article I read but a Google search brought up this:

http://inserbia.info/today/2014/09/no-n ... ive-years/

And this:

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=56585
"there will be no enlargement of the European Union for the next five years" - fourth paragraph from the bottom.

[Sturen]

I've not heard that about the EU, do you have a link, googling wasn't turning much up. Scotland wouldn't actually be independent until 2016 so there is a decent amount of time to negotiate and see what the options are there as the EU doesn't seem to have made a statement of anything yet.

I read it in a paper, so I can't give the exact article I read but a Google search brought up this:

http://inserbia.info/today/2014/09/no-n ... ive-years/

And this:

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=56585
"there will be no enlargement of the European Union for the next five years" - fourth paragraph from the bottom.

That is interesting. I feel iScotland (Apple inspired perhaps ) would be an exception to this no enlargement policy: accepting a people that are already EU citizens could be considered not an enlargement. Either way I feel much of the scepticism about EU enlargement is about eastern european nations that many western countries feel are poorer.

[Teledor]

I've not heard that about the EU, do you have a link, googling wasn't turning much up. Scotland wouldn't actually be independent until 2016 so there is a decent amount of time to negotiate and see what the options are there as the EU doesn't seem to have made a statement of anything yet.

I read it in a paper, so I can't give the exact article I read but a Google search brought up this:

http://inserbia.info/today/2014/09/no-n ... ive-years/

And this:

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=56585
"there will be no enlargement of the European Union for the next five years" - fourth paragraph from the bottom.

That is interesting. I feel iScotland (Apple inspired perhaps ) would be an exception to this no enlargement policy: accepting a people that are already EU citizens could be considered not an enlargement. Either way I feel much of the scepticism about EU enlargement is about eastern european nations that many western countries feel are poorer.

I think I would agree with this sentiment. When I think of EU "enlargement" I think countries like Turkey, their entry has been discussed since I was in the UK last in 2003, Serbia, and Moldova (?). In reality accepting Scotland into the EU really wouldn't be enlarging it's just another name on the list, there aren't any additional citizens being brought into the system.

Scotland may not get the special privileges granted to the UK since it is unclear how the currency situation will play out. But some of the normal sticking points should already be solved - financial practices should be in place, democracy, etc. Also many of the trade agreements the UK has signed up for will apply to Scotland. I know from my work on International Tax treaties, that most of the time these treaties have provisions to remain in force between the signatories and any successor states that's may come out of it. Happened with Yugoslavia and it's slow break up - most recently when Serbia & Montenegro went their separate ways.

I think that it isn't nearly as daunting as some people point out, but there are some significant unknowns and unintended consequences.

[Sturen]

I think I would agree with this sentiment. When I think of EU "enlargement" I think countries like Turkey, their entry has been discussed since I was in the UK last in 2003, Serbia, and Moldova (?). In reality accepting Scotland into the EU really wouldn't be enlarging it's just another name on the list, there aren't any additional citizens being brought into the system.

Scotland may not get the special privileges granted to the UK since it is unclear how the currency situation will play out. But some of the normal sticking points should already be solved - financial practices should be in place, democracy, etc. Also many of the trade agreements the UK has signed up for will apply to Scotland. I know from my work on International Tax treaties, that most of the time these treaties have provisions to remain in force between the signatories and any successor states that's may come out of it. Happened with Yugoslavia and it's slow break up - most recently when Serbia & Montenegro went their separate ways.

I think that it isn't nearly as daunting as some people point out, but there are some significant unknowns and unintended consequences.

This sums up my views well. EU membership and it's terms may be one of my largest doubts but I have perhaps a too idealistic view that it would not be a great risk.

[Prince of Spires]

This sums up my views well. EU membership and it's terms may be one of my largest doubts but I have perhaps a too idealistic view that it would not be a great risk.

I definitely the sky won't fall if they become independent. Most things will keep working as they always have. And I doubt EU membership will be a big issue. The main requirements for joining the EU are things like having the right bunch of laws in place, not having too much corruption, a decent law enforcement, solid government financials. And while Scotland might change a few things when becoming independent, all of that is currently and will probably remain in place. Also, the rest of the EU probably considers them part of the EU anyway, which means there won't be any social outcry over their joining, unlike a potential Turkish membership would have for instance.

I do doubt that they will retain the privileges the UK currently has. The reason the UK (and Denmark) was able to not have the Euro was that they were a member before the currency came into effect. And that they had a veto over the actual introduction of the Euro. So it was either a case of making an exception for them or simply not having it at all. This is not the case for new members. They want to join. Scotland probably needs the EU more then the other way round. So they don't have much of a say in the matter. Especially given that they will likely end up with a new currency anyway. I do very much doubt that the UK is willing to share any power concerning the pound with external countries after all.

Rod

[Giladis]

Actually EU membership might be impossible to obtain for Scotland for Spain was rather clear they would not ratify such a thing.

[Teledor]

Can a single country in the EU veto a new country's admittance if other members approve? Other than Spain and maybe Italy, due to Venice, I don't see all that many countries caring and/or objecting. So unless Spain can block the whole thing by themselves, I think Spanish opposition will be rather lonely.

[Giladis]

All 28 members must ratify the agreement before a new country can join. That was also one of the reasons Croatia had to wait more than necessary due to a border dispute with Slovenia and the delays that followed.

[Prince of Spires]

Yes, each member of the EU has veto rights on all important decisions. This includes new treaties and new members joining. So a single member can block a country from joining.

Being lonely or not in your opposition then rarely matters to countries. While I don't have an example of a country not being allowed to join by a single veto, there are multiple examples of treaties being rejected by a single one. If it hurts your own interest you veto.

Apart from Spain, there is also France, which shares a part of the Basque country and has Corsica where there are nationalist feelings, there is Belgium where Flanders has a nationalist movement and then there are probably a few others.

And then there is a case of equal rights. Why would a country like Poland (or any other of the "new" countries) agree to giving Scotland all sorts of privileges when they didn't get them when they joined? After all, rules of the EU are clear. If you want to join, then you get the Euro and Schengen treaty etc as part of the deal. There is no opting out of those. And Scotland doesn't actually have a lot to bargain with. If you're Germany with a huge economy and strong industry, then you can make some demands. If your GPD is about 1% of the total EU GDP, then not many people will care.

Also, in general sentiment, many EU citizens feel that Britain staying out of a lot of EU measures, like the Euro is silly. A bit a "either you're in or you're out, no half way kind of thing" feeling. This will definitely apply to new countries.

I wouldn't worry too much as Scotland about not being able to join. They'll be allowed to join. I just wouldn't count on actually getting any special treatment.

Rod

[Teledor]

Wow. Never figured a single member could hold up a vote. I guess I've never rigorously followed the EU ins and outs before.

[Aerendar Valandil]

I must admit that I find Scottisch independence (and most other independence movements) a bit of an unnecessary and unnecessarily complicating fighting of a past war. Britain is already devolving, as are Spain and Belgium, and a Europe in which regions become more important at the expense of national states is already forming. What will happen is, after an expensive secession, the new countries will end up as relatively unimportant partners in a larger unit, namely the EU. That would have happened anyway. It's about a passport and waving a flag, probably followed by expensive and unnecessary toil to conform to the rules of entering the EU and the Eurozone.

But I'm not really against it either. But I don't see the point. It's throwing a hell of a lot of good money towards an ideal of a nation state that is already on the brink of obsolescence.

[Aicanor]

It's about a passport and waving a flag...

'In this sorry world, the symbol is the thing.'

Coming from a country that got divided in two peacefully, I must say that looking back, it was not worth it if you look at it only rationally. But there is a lot of long standing emotions that would not allow cold rationality to prevail anyway. Even nations have their own 'psyche'. When all is said and done, I believe it was a good thing as it healed some old grievances.

[Sturen]

An IMS poll actually showed that no voters were most likely to be motivated by feelings towards UK. Yes voters are moved by dissatisfaction by UK government.

Further devolution is something that has been promised in some ways, but with no consensus and no actual guarantee. Were it on the ballot it would probably win by a landslide. Westminister chose not to do that, arrogance on their part.

[Facade19]

I find it highly comical that countries such as Spain and France, are insinuating against Scottish independence in order to prevent any possible adaption of secessionist movements in their own countries. And yet, these same European countries want nothing more but the progress of democratic and self-suffrage rights to be diffused in Middle Eastern countries.

So let me get this straight, democracy is great if they go along with your national interests, but not grand when they go against your national interests. So, what exactly is the difference between this and dictatorship? The false illusions of an inane liberty?

Thank you EU for showing us again how farcical all enlightenment projects are!

[Aerendar Valandil]

I don't think you can say that Spain, France and Britain are not democratic. I find it an oversimplicication as well to assume the battle is agains 'Westminster' or Madrid. It's not agains politicians alone. It's also agains all those people - Belgians, British, Spaniards - who grew up in a country and are confronted with groups breaking their country up. Perhaps they shouldn't have a say, but you can't dismiss it in a whim. In addition to the political an organisatorial havoc that may ensue. No, the lights will not go out nor will war break out. But it will be an expensive managerial excercise, with possible equally expensive and tedious (and perhaps more dangerous) repercussions elsewhere in Europe where other people will pay for financially and in terms of security ansd social upheaval.

This is, moreover, not about suppression. It was in Scotland a few hundred years ago and in Spain until the seventies, but not anymore. It's about flags, hymns and the colour of a passport. But go ahead, throw your money away for a piece of paper and a rag on a stick. But I think it's out of date, burning money and attention that could have been used more constructively elsewere. Building a future, not destroying a past.