I’m grateful to Leah Gunn Barrett for drawing my attention this letter in the Scotsman, confirming a lack of at least monolithic institutional SNPbadism at the Scotsman, just the presence in its columns of too many Scotland in Union activists:
Louis de Bernieres lists a dozen questions that the “people of the UK are entitled to have answers to”.
The first thing to note is that some of the questions presuppose that the UK is not a union of equals. There is an assumption that the 1707 Act of Union was an act on annexation; that the UK’s currency and the embassies are owned by one party to the union. It is unlikely that all the women going through separation would agree that the assets are owned by the husband.
The question of currency is a red herring. It is also difficult to understand why the non-Scots part of the UK should worry if an independent Scotland is worse off financially or unable to rejoin the EU.
If Scotland is such a burden on the UK, then the rest of the UK should welcome separation. The fact that it does not indicates that the real economic relationship between England and Scotland is highly beneficial to England, despite the creative accounting of the Barnett Formula.
As for passports issues to residents of Scotland, it is perfectly possible for rUK to issue passports to residents of another country, as the UK is now doing with Hong Kong residents. The question of a border with England can be settled in various ways. One of these is to adopt the procedures that the Benelux countries used before the formation of the EU.
Separation can be smooth or bumpy, depending upon the attitudes and expectations of the separating partners. If one partner wants to keep all the assets, then it will be bumpy.
Dr. Francis Roberts