Greetings, my fellow port swillers!

Amidst all the fresh clashes and crises boiling up around the world – and thank Heaven we have Top Men working on them (Top. Men.) –  Ol’ Robbo noticed a small nooz article this week about David Bowie creating a minor kerfluffle by including some anti-Scottish independence rhetoric in a speech at some musick awards to-do.

I’ve been hearing mutterings about Scottish independence for ages but hadn’t realized that it’s got as far as the scheduling of a referendum later on this year.  I suppose I ought to read up on things in order to better understand what exactly the Scots mean by “independence” here, because at first glance the idea appears…what’s the word?…insane.

I’m assuming that their own parliament in Edinburg is a given.  But would an independent Scotland still be part of the Commonwealth under the Queen?  Somebody mentioned that this might be an excellent opportunity for the revival of the House of Stuart.  (Okay, to me that would almost make the effort worth it.)

Would an independent Scotland be responsible for the provision of her own armed forces?  A revival of the Highland regiments, for example?  Again, that might make it worthwhile.

But here’s the thing that I don’t quite get and is at the bottom of my off-the-cuff assessment.  Scotland’s entire economy, from what I can see, is dependent on sheep, tourism and great big fat subsidy checks from London.   Without funding from the South, she’s really a pretty poor place.   And the people have been on the dole for so long that I don’t get the sense there’s a pent-up spirit of rah-rah entrepreneurship just champing at the bit to be turned loose.  How does she propose to, you know, feed herself if she makes a clean break with the rest of G.B?

I’m guessing, however, that the pro-independence types don’t actually want that kind of independence, and that the movement is really more of the Get Out Of My Life, But First Could You Drive Me & Cheryl To The Mall variety.

Advertisements