In the New York Times Sunday Review, Neal Ascherson summarizes the independence debate in Scotland --
This referendum, the third, dares the Scots to go the last mile: proposing an independent Scottish state within the European Union, sharing a monarch (after the fashion of Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia), and possibly a currency, with the rump of the old United Kingdom.
Other than the first clause (an independent Scotland would be outside the EU for a long time), the second (Alex Salmond has used a bogus Ireland analogy to explain Scotland's status after leaving the UK), and the third (England will not agree to a sterling union), he's right!
Indeed, the problem with the independence proposal is precisely that it doesn't go the last mile and frankly propose full sovereignty and accept that international relations would have to be evolved from risks of isolation and ambiguity -- as the Irish Free State did.
So he's right about that last mile thing too!
This referendum, the third, dares the Scots to go the last mile: proposing an independent Scottish state within the European Union, sharing a monarch (after the fashion of Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia), and possibly a currency, with the rump of the old United Kingdom.
Other than the first clause (an independent Scotland would be outside the EU for a long time), the second (Alex Salmond has used a bogus Ireland analogy to explain Scotland's status after leaving the UK), and the third (England will not agree to a sterling union), he's right!
Indeed, the problem with the independence proposal is precisely that it doesn't go the last mile and frankly propose full sovereignty and accept that international relations would have to be evolved from risks of isolation and ambiguity -- as the Irish Free State did.
So he's right about that last mile thing too!