Back to article

Scottish independence



See article

Readers' comments


chris macrae

There seems to be an assumption that a breakup would not lead to a win-win between scots and english. I wonder what the queen of england and the duke of edinburgh might have to say if they were free to value how royaltu has done a much more valuable job for we the peoples than the politicians

I wonder if anyone has compared the values of the Olympic Games with the CommonWealth Games. I found it quite touching that Scotland that would never be valued as big enough by the Olympics Committee was perhaps the most democratically joyous host of the Commonwealth's international sporting event.

By the way if there is a yes vote and "negotiations' - is the queen free to vote which side of the border to reside on. It was The Economist itself that pointed out nearly half a century ago that if the UK was to truly represent all of its peoples equitably, moving parliaament up North to a new city Elizabetha would be vaut le voyage.

Seriously its a dismal mediation when you bully people not to "dream to" be free and happy -due to the macroeconomic altar "of dont disturb currency monopolies". This is a sickness caused by big banking lobbyists.


UK news headlines this week make it clear that Westminister has finally woken up and realized how tight the vote is going to be. It remains to be seen if last minute party leaders frantic efforts, scurrying North to turn the tide of public opinion, will save or sink the Union. I'm a Swiss with English roots and friends and family in Scotland and though I left England as a lad, I'm still proud of my British heritage. In Switzerland as a Swiss national you get to vote on community, regional and national votes 3 to 4 times a year. So I have alot of sympathy about how many Scots feel about UK central government and it's short-comings. How often do people in Scotland (or the rest of the UK) get a direct say in what effects their future? Having caught Westminister by "the short & curly" many may be tempted to vote for an independent Scotland. On the other hand the bargaining chips now accumulated by the independance movement (regardless which party local people subscribe to) provides the unique chance to push through a long overdue reform of how the UK is run - with a stronger influence of regional and community government. If I was entitled to vote in Scotland on September 18th, I'd vote in favour of the Auld Acquaintance - because this is not a vote note just about Scottish identity but about the future of Britain and it's place in the modern world.

Vanbrugh in reply to guest-sejmlei

Speaking as a fellow Swiss with intimate knowledge of the UK, I would agree with your assessment. The choice has now become further devolution (to an extent that our own fiercely nationalist cantons would certainly approve of) or independence. If devolution wins, the Scots would effectively have the self-rule they crave with the stability, security and clout that comes from being in the UK.
I see this extending to the other regions and nationalities of the UK, which would be most beneficial.

guest-sejmlei in reply to Vanbrugh

Thanks. You probably also agree Scottish and Swiss rural communities share similiar traits: a cherished and proud identity, resourcefulness and a strong community spirit. This combined with a healthy sceptisism for distant central government is an ideal basis for a directer democracy and stronger regional involvement.
I hope the vote remains narrowly in favour of the Union - and Scotland leads the way to a more dynamic and forward-looking UK. Ironically, I believe Scotland can give a new meaning to what it means to be British!

gFQViQMxqP in reply to Vanbrugh

I think Vanbrugh has hit the nail on the head, the solution is a federal UK which will be the next stage of evolution for the UK, a positive step speaking as an Englishman, so we can thank Scotland.


Yes, the referendum will turn on (mystic) identity and (greedy) power. Not only in Scotland. Look at the ferment in Catalonia, in Veneto. If this goes on for another ten years Italy will return to be a "geographic expression". Why are national States unable to avoid their disintegration? What is wrong with them? What could / should they do to restore faith? How come that so many people prefer some times folkloristic local politicians to the traditional power elite? Why are so few capable and courageous women and men in the first line? Where do they hide? What should be done to get them in, selected, coopted, elected? Henri writing from Milan

some dead man in reply to guest-henrico

In the EU, Italy and Belgium are the two states which would most benefit from regional breakup.

In Belgium, it's Flanders and Brussels that create all the wealth; Wallonia exists as a malign parasite. Wallonia's presence in Belgium results in higher taxes and transfer payments away from productive parts of the Belgian economy (retarding business activity, investment, consumption, public investment & growth). Wallonia's concentrated receipt of transfer payments results in a bloated public sector and prevents the region from developing economically.

Likewise on the North-South split in Italy (with the extra dynamics whereby bureaucracy, broken courts and a dysfunctional Rome government are destroying the vast wealth of Italy's North).

For more competition, economic growth and prosperity, we need to stop the inter-regional transfer payments. In extreme cases that requires breakup.

(If you are a proud Italian, you should probably demand the breakup of the Italian nation state. You can still enjoy Italian culture, business connections, frequent travel & friend/ family associations without a centralized and unitary state. Rome has failed and is killing the Italian economy.)

guest-henrico in reply to some dead man

You misunderstand (and miss) my point. I entirely agree on your general view. I do not think though that Belgium should be a model. And unlike you I fear that the regional breakup might imply more byzantine power structures (dysfuncuntional buureaucracies) that will lead us to the opposite we both maybe wish. Is it regional autonomy and accountabilty or is it the independency myth? Why are "democratic principles" arguments so out of date?

guest-henrico in reply to some dead man


guest-henrico in reply to some dead man


some dead man in reply to guest-henrico

By "independence", I mean all the advantages of small government without having dozens of layers of government (the mess introduced by partial autonomy).

Small states are a problem (dysfunctional bureaucracies) only if they all live in their own bubbles and invent their own unique solutions and procedures for everything (potentially adds to complications for multi-state businesses). But they shouldn't - the best thing about small states is that, besides labs of democracy (hundreds of separate policy experiments) they are also able to rapidly adopt best practice demonstrated elsewhere (e.g. the Estonian online id system; the Estonian online land registry; Swedish payments regulation/ framework; etc).

With modern technology, bureaucracy should be getting less onerous every year, as our interactions with government units are increasingly automated. Any barrier to that automation and simplification (e.g. large & slow moving legacy nation states) must be destroyed.

(Really, it is the economic and social outcomes I care about. Democracy isn't really about principles; democracy is not an end in itself. Rather, democracy is a general approach towards seeking increased popular involvement & buy-in, consensus building, acceptance of outcomes and inclusive dispute resolution. Any "right of succession" has to be judged pragmatically on a case-by-case basis.)

guest-henrico in reply to some dead man

You probably misunderstand and miss my point. I entirely agree on your general view. The "Rome government" is not only "killing the Italian economy" but is an uncontrolled and underestimated risk for the whole Euro-area. Have you seen or heard any European leader who publicly acknowledges this? All fear (each other? their electorate?) and are uncapable to fix things; some even absurdly support the solutions proposed by the "new" Italian government. If the solution is not reform it will be breakup. If it is breakup, is it accountable regional autonomy or is the myth of independence? Why are the fiscal accountability and democracy arguments on national and regional level overun by the local independence slogans?

guest-henrico in reply to some dead man

Small States (Luxembourg, Switzerland, Estonia, tomorrow maybe Scotland, after tomorrow Veneto) are easier to manage than big States (France, UK, Germany, Italy), but work and survive only as long as they are "protected", "guaranteed" by strong friendly States, around them or above them. We tend to behave like spoiled kids, we want to have, but forget about what it costs to preserve and to defend.

michleman in reply to guest-henrico

"Look at the ferment in Catalonia, in Veneto."
Start with looking at Kosovo, whose independence the UK so wholeheartedly supported. Even went on a bombing campaign over a sovereign country to achieve this goal (ok, admittedly as US puppet, but still...).
Oh well, Panta Rei...

MilovanDjilas in reply to some dead man

Let's not get off subject.

Italy, as ever, is more complicated. And in some ways unique. We are just about the only place to have had a theocratic state on European soil for a thousand years.
If the peninsula were to break up, it would not be because of the North-South divide, which these days is less of a political problem (but quite an economic one). Really, for those who truly know our country, the East-West divide (let's say, between Genoa and Venice) is even stronger.
Nor would the peninsula break up over some phantomatic Venetian separatism, which is always more bark than bite.
The real problem is Rome - and the real problem is the age-old power behind the scenes that always works to castrate civil government in Rome - the Men in Black (or Mafia in Black, if you prefer - ahem!)
Ultimately, our Southerners are as much victims of bad Roman government as we are up North. "The Southerners" are not the problem, the Vatican and its minions in politics is the problem. In that sense, the chief attraction of northern separatism is that it would leave Rome and the Vatican in someone else's state... (one of several unmentionable truths here.)
Of course, we can thank Washington and London for putting us back under the heel of the Vatican after our defeat in WWII.
Did you see Elizabeth's visit to the Vatican? First time ever for a British Monarch. The English aristocracy is getting ready for the Long War with China - and shoring up its working alliances, including with the Vatican. Ha! Yet another reason for Scots to vote for independence...


A separate Scotland would be similar in size and influence to countries like Denmark or New Zealand. It would have to administer vital public functions itself which are currently paid for by taxes shared with the rest of the UK. The national identity of Scotland which is already famous and admired throughout the world will not be enhanced by becoming a smaller more heavily taxed state, nor would it be diminished by remaining in the union.

"We the People" will not be in charge. "We the new cash strapped Government" will be in charge.

In reality there is nothing to be had by voting "yes" except a brief ego trip, followed by a long hangover.

Nebelwurfer in reply to guest-soeimws

Well, I do know what I am talking about. I myself separated from the U.K. 45 years ago and live in Ottawa Canada, the province of Quebec is just across the river, I often ride my bike there, beautiful scenery in the Gatineau hills, reminds me a bit of Scotland.

Quebec has flashed the separation card a few times to gain major concessions, but it has never played it, because by doing so it would vote itself out of the game, and the rest of Canada would never allow it back in.

Keep your options alive and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.


If the Scots decide to bid farewell to the United Kingdom, it would be because of two names that has nothing to do with today:
Culloden, and William Augustus Cumberland.

Culloden had nothing to do with Scotland vs England. It's a misconception fed by Scottish Nationalists. My English wife was recently abused by a Scottish Nationalist about this. Myself being a true Scot who worked at Culloden for a number of years could tell you the real story. And that is utter guff


This article goes against the usual quality of The Economist. Are your writers being clouded by the nature of the independence issue because it's close to your interests? Hope this is an exception.


If Scotland goes independent in next week's binding referendum on independence from Britain, there's always a chance that the so-called United Kingdom, like the United States did to fight its Confederate States, will start a civil war to keep the union together.
Which side would the United States and Nato support -- politically and perhaps with money, troops and weapons?
And would such a civil war interfere with America's ability to fight wars in places like the Middle East where British forces play a key military role?


About three months ago I started talking to friends here in the New York area about Scotland leaving the UK. It was, to quote one of my good friends and a smart observer of the international scene, "not on my radar screen." NOW they are paying attention, albeit with a sense of horror. From my narrow perspective here in Rye Brook, New York, Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and upending 300 years of unity is nothing short of an international calamity, for it will render what's left (what will it be called then?) a shell of its former self - militarily, economically, and worst of all, shorn of its great and noble voice of conscience. This would be an act of national self-suicide. I remain absolutely appalled that it remains a possibility at this hour.

some dead man in reply to DickHubert

"Militarily" - down with the Empire:
(A rickshaw playing the Star Wars Imperial March as an appropriate backdrop for 60 Labour MPs walking through Glasgow)

"Economically" - this is just a change of jurisdiction. The economic activity won't vanish. If better policy results in better economic outcomes, then Scottish independence would even add to the economic weight and soft power of America's closest allies.

Ultimately, global power projection must be a secondary concern. Social inclusion, accountable government and economic progress in Scotland are far more central to this referendum decision - hence my "yes" vote.

DickHubert in reply to some dead man

Too bad I can't vote and be part of the opposition to this madness, and yes Shaun39, it's madness. "Bagehot" said it all for me in this week's edition. What you are voting for is as stupendously destructive as the crazies who from time to time want one state or the other here in the USA to go their own way (and this after our Civil War, no less). And if you think economic progress for Scotland is on the way with a "Yes" vote - I have a bridge to sell you.


This article has the sad scent of hypocrisy which has permeated the half contemptuous somewhat alarmed response to what is essentially a watered down version of Russia's attitude towards Ukraine.
I would sum it up as 'why would you do that it is not in our - sorry we meant your interests'. It smells of self interest dressed up as mutual interest.
Many departing spouse's and progeny as well as almost every detaching national regions going on to an independent and adult suffer similar arguments the emotional core of is - how dare you think of yourself as separate of me. Your leaving diminishes me subordinate / dependent / chattel.
I don't have a dog in this fight but throughout I have heard something rare in the economist - a false tone , self interest dressed up as objective analysis or friendly advice.
What right do the English have 'to be furious' that the Scots - long an independent nation themselves before subdued to junior partner status have decided to stand on their hinder legs again stop blaming Westminster for all their ills and toss away the nappy under the kilt.
The self righteous and self seeking tone of the No campaign and the paternalistic streak demonstrated over the last months had not just diminished my respect for the objectivity of the Economist but much of the English Establishment.
I initially thought the Scots might be doing something foolish I now see they probably are better being out of this not as much abusive but more patronizing
I now feel it will be healthy for both (ex) partners.


On the 18th it will be the end of one of the most despicable regimes of the world, the UK.

She was formed with gunpowder and blood for the only purpose of using more gunpowder and blood. Now, she will depart on the ballot box.

Good riddance, no one will miss her.


A yes vote will reflect badly on Scotland. It will send a message
loud and clear that multiethnic society in a globalized world is unworkable.
Over 300 years Scots played a prominent role in British empire. It
is hard to argue that they were exploited and suppressed like a colony.
Tax and revenue issue can be worked out.If Scotland joins EU, as it will,
there will be lot of restrictions from Brussels on running a socialist
state. It is a fantasy that independence will give Scotland a free hand
in running their country. Brussels could be worse than Westminister.


I think you have to hear what Scottish citizens are trying to say. To me the view seems to be 'we are tired of being pushed around by our larger cousin, where the bottom line is, we have ultimate say in what should be the predominant policies in your state.' I think it is right to want to hold onto ones culture, and be the ultimate authority in ones homeland. That should not mean the centuries of cooperation and shared identity should stop, however, we would be an independent country who works in very good friendship with their cousins to the south.



Abraham Lincoln, Speech to Congress, 12 January 1848 (on the secession of Texas from Mexico).

Lincoln fought a brutal war involving 600,000 dead and thousands injured, south devastated to keep the union together. He didn't look upon the rights of the south approvingly to rise up in a territory they inhabited andform their government.Speech sounds good.

emmafinney. in reply to kiratwan

The South broke away not because it was being repressed by the North but when an anti-slavery candidate (Lincoln) won the presidency.

Ironically the Scottish heritage was dominant in the South, even the confederate flag was based on the Scottish flag.

The secession was triggered by a loss of political power by the southern states when Breckinridge (southern-Democrat) and Douglas (northern Democrat) split the vote which allowed Lincoln (newly formed Republican party) to fill the gap.

The treat of the loss of the "southern states" political power and the threat to their "lifestyle" were greater issues than the abolition of slavery. Emancipation came to the fore later.

It is a modern phenomenon to make the civil war a solely about slavery...

Get your history from Shelby Foote not Hollywood.

Mighty Mohawk

Since Westminster voted to deny the citizens of the UK a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 the Scottish referendum will be the first opportunity since the 1975 EEC referendum that a significant portion of the population of Britain will have a say on constitutional change.

We have all been cheated by the EU and the nation states of Europe now only exist as part of an undemocratic federal system of government .
Proof that Europe's leaders are part of the Bilderberger cabal was demonstrated this summer when they all, with the notable exception of Slovakia ,the Czech Republic and Hungary ,supported self-harming sanctions against Russia at the behest of Obama even though not a shred of evidence indicates that Russia downed flight MH-17 or indeed launched an invasion of Ukraine just prior to the NATO meeting in Wales earlier this month.

The status quo is untenable,the EU is corrupt and co-opted by the globalists and Westminster is being used by the United States to talk up a new cold war with Russia.

Scotland stands to benefit enormously by taking full responsibility for its own taxation,public expenses ,domestic and foreign policies.
The fact that Scotland will not have automatic membership of the EU or NATO is definitely a bonus.

Free prescriptions might have to go for those who can afford them but the possibilities for a newly independent Scotland are far more promising than free drugs that cost a fortune!
Scotland could be like Switzerland and Norway which are similarly sized European nations that are not bound by EU restrictions but are still strong trading partners with the EU.
Scotland will have the added freedom to decide with whom it chooses to make trade deals without at first requiring Brussels' permission.

The Ukrainian crisis is relevant to the Scottish referendum because it revealed the UK Prime Minister to be a supporter of Petro Poroshenko's brutal military campaign against a breakaway republic that was not even given a chance to vote in the general election that brought him to power.Although I am not suggesting that Cameron would do the same to Scotland ,it is significant and somewhat ominous that he seems to approve of Poroshenko's assault on the Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians.

Scotland has just one Tory MP sitting in the House of Commons .

Austerity measures imposed upon the poorest communities whilst the culprits in the City of London were paid off by the British tax-payer and have been engrossing themselves with huge salaries and bonus packages as if the credit crunch were just a bad dream.
Not so for the low income families north of the border who bear the brunt of the welfare cutbacks and austerity measures that haven't even made a dent in the national debt, and the rising cost of food and basic utilities which drive families further into poverty and hopelessness.

So much for the proud shared heritage of 300 years of Union-in reality for the majority of working class Scots it has meant rule under the iron boot of the establishment.First came the Highland clearances ,then the forced industrial labour at gunpoint in return for a cramped and unhealthy lifestyle in an inner city tenement and just enough wages for a meagre diet and basic clothing.
Then came the First World War and the enforced military conscription of all men over the age of 16 who weren't regarded as essential in farming and manufacturing.The most that Scotsmen could ever hope to gain from going to war was to come back alive in one piece.
Then again in the Second World War-countless brave Scots gave their lives in the fight against Nazi tyranny only then to be betrayed by the Conservative PM Ted Heath who duped the UK into joining the EEC.
The Bilderberg group founded the EEC as part of the eventual aim to subsume the nation states of Europe into a centralised federal and fundamentally undemocratic system whilst going through the motions of a parliamentary democracy.The Bilderbergers were founded by Prince Bernhart of the Netherlands who had been been the CEO of Bilder Faben of the I.G. Farben industrial and chemical conglomerate whose security and intelligence network formed the Gestapo after the Nazis got to power in 1933. I.G. Farben;s wartime factories in Auswich Birkenau were worked by Jewish slave labour and where over one million men ,women and children were murdered in the gas chambers .

Auswich was liberated by the Russians and now ,70 years later, the leaders of Europe ,the United States and the UK have betrayed the memories of those who died fighting the Nazis by supporting the neo-fascist junta in Kiev and blaming Russia for MH-17 and for the war that Poroshenko started that killed 1,800 civilians and forced 800,000 Russian-speaking Ukrainians to flee to Russia.

Scotland should use this chance to choose freedom and independence from the corrupt control of the power centres of London and Brussels.

And then maybe England and Wales will decide to do the same.

compass2k in reply to Mighty Mohawk

Nowhere can we escape Russian trolls ye gods !.
Note 'Mighty Shapka' the English have not taken Edinburgh at night with masks and guns claiming the highly objective and legalistic 'because its always been ours' nor have they hired ex IRA terrorists and sent SAS in to border towns to kill, torture and steal.
The English (hopefully British) response to the Scots ambitions has been reluctant but adult.
No one has ever seen anything but violent moody and self obsessed behavior from the Russian teenage gang.


Oh God of earth and altar
bow down and hear our cry
our earthly rulers falther
our people drift and die

the walls of gold entomb us
the swords of scron divide
take not thyu thunder form us
but take away our pride

If Scotish leaders torn the United Kingdom apart they surely will have failed. National pride, a little gold, until it lasts at least..

At times when chovinism is the past they would be throwing Scotland into yet a tougher union´s arms. The European Union with interest so disimil than those of Scotland as one cannot imagine.


So long Scotland and thanks for all the fish.....

some dead man in reply to guest-slosawm

"thanks for all the oil and fish" (Scotland contributes over 60% of the UK's territorial waters; and over two thirds of the fish catch.)

But hey, as this article elucidates, didn't we have some great times together as proud Britania, dominating the seas and ruling a third of the world's land surface:

Time to move on - in a liberal globalized world, we need a more agile set of government institutions capable of adopting new technologies, responding to local needs, investing in human capital & development, experimenting with new policies and competing with the best. "Yes" to Scottish independence.

guest-slosawm in reply to some dead man

Be my guest. Have fun being agile with a new currency, the EU application, junior status in said EU and of course later on the Euro. With respect it's a poorly researched, abysmally debated vanity project but hey, that's democracy. No one ever said that democracy makes the right choices.

chris macrae

I wonder how james wilson would vote, and indeed Adam Smith. As Keynes said only economists and media people design what futures a places next generation are chained to. I don;t see the political in-classes in London or Brussels designing future Scottish youth can thrive on. I think Scotland, Catalonia and others can network pro-youth jobs futures quite simply if we race to reorganise education and the Scotish BBC.


A quick scan of the Economist archive shows a number of articles in 1922 and 1923 with a remarkable similarity to this one.

At that time, the Economist decried the imminent independence of Ireland from Britain as a disaster for the Irish and the British alike. Economic gloom would follow for both, British power and prestige would be diminished and Ireland would be an unviable state. For two peoples with so much in common and such similarities in every way, how could anyone want to leave the union? Disaster awaited an independent Ireland.

Sound familiar?

Lubumbashi in reply to wd3vvfKU6L

In many ways it was a disaster for Ireland.

Independence was a long and very difficult road for Ireland. But those were different times. Instead of love-bombing to encourage the Irish to stay there was actual bombing by the Black and Tans. In many respects Britain behaved as Russia has done lately in the Ukraine, arming loyalists to ensure they could keep as much territory as they could.
In the 1930s there was economic warfare. Ireland's membership of the UN was blocked by the Soviet Union for years. Ireland's membership of the EEC (ancestor of the EU) was held up by De Gaulle.

Ireland essentially remained a failed region of the the British Economy until the 1970s when membership of the EEC and access to the world economic system.

Despite decades of hardship a civil war in the North and the more recent banking crash, you would have a lot of difficulty finding an Irishman south of the border that would want his country back in the UK. Even an all-Ireland poll held today would have a huge majority for independence.

Asprin in reply to Lubumbashi

There are not many regions of the world where the native population was starved to death, evicted and resettled in bare mountains and caves and well as massacred man women and child to the point of near extintion by Norman\British with no rights to the soil and done over the period of 800 years, father to son. Of course the natives do not want to be in the UK under the Feudal Monarchy which did the deeds and they are also welcoming Scotland into the non UK fold as brothers supporting their entry into the Eurozone.

There has been a financial disaster for Ireland in that they do not understand the fundemental property of money, that it does not have to be supported by debt issued by Government and sold to private banking, but few have since banks have the entire education system locked down and Irelands Catholic Church believes poverty is not an evil and RE is more important.

Debt creates poverty through interest paid on negative money over time and since banks are allowed to issue unlimited amounts of debt you create poverty through debt repayment, now if they had banned Ursury in 1918 and issued debt free FIAT Ireland would be as rich as the IOM or Channel Islands per capita instead or being a tax haven for the very wealthy corporation.


This is such a panic stricken, partisan article instead of independent journalism that the Economist should be espousing. Did the British Parliament commission this article?

In it's heydays, UK colonized and then arbitrarily sliced and diced other nations. Why such heart-bleeding when it comes to own "Kingdom"?

Asprin in reply to UCpMsqk2U8


:Wikipedia - I think this answers your question, and is the main reason why I do not buy it anymore and you still get the state shrills trolling you in the comments section, especially when you mention people have rights, including the right to break away from the UK because often they belive they can shape public opinion if not in Scotland but in the rest of the UK to preserve the status Quo, their Weltanschauung in that their 1688 regime controlled by Jew owned private banks in the city state of the Corporation of London has done everything right for the last 300 years and everyone else is a deserving slave to their capitalist debt system.

Converts all, the world should have a boot in its face and they should be able to do the same to anyone they see fit to be beneath them.