Scottish independence took a huge leap forward after the Bliar government fulfilled its election pledge and followed the sensible trend [since the tenth amendment in 1791 of the United State Constitution] of devolving
regional control. In Canada and Australia, devolution of regional powers to make decisions locally by the local residents was underway from the 1960’s through the 1970’s. [as examples.]
After hesitation [or ignoring the recommendation] by
the review commissioned by the Wilson government in 1969, the Thatcher government during the 1980’s and then the Major government refused to consider any independent governing for the countries of Scotland or Wales.
Of course, it is right that
local region administrations are best served by the people of the region. The details, specifics and representations are best served by the people that know the land, its specific differences and needs. From a cultural point of view, the individual culture
of a people of a region is best expressed in the preferences and choices for their society and land. Individual differences in the culture of peoples is a cultural asset and a tapestry of the variety of local distinction and beauty. Multi culturalism accepted
and included is not meant to destroy or eliminate local cultural distinction, [or is it?] it [multiculturalism] certainly should not mean that.
The Scottish people have many Great distinctive positive attributes. The word Canny, is used by Scots to
describe a particular trait that is underlined and superseded beyond good and careful management of money. The underlying carefulness is based upon a sensible, cautious, logical approach to a land that is as dangerous as it is challenging. The lands of Scotland
led to a hardy, tough, pragmatic breed of people distinctive by their region. Scottish people bring with them good thinking and skills [not unique but] founded amongst the most resilient and successful of peoples.
Not only should Scotland’s administration
be in the hands of Scottish people but their skills would be an added asset to machinations by the varied representatives of the British Union.
In the angst and frustration of dealing with the English in Westminster, in the dried tarmac
of their attitude to evolutions of administration and the cement of their authority in the idolisation of stubborn deafness, the Scottish independent minded group have developed a personality and attitude to Westminster akin to a granite chair being sat on
by an elephant while it sits blithely admiring its southern view.
This reactive irate long-term annoyance seems to be causing a lapse in Canny thinking. While Scotland deserves and [all of the U.K] would benefit from Full Scottish regional governing
and representation in the administrative decisions for the Union, Scotland is a country of only a few people and therefore it has [would have] an economic size limited by its per capita cycle potential.
A Scotland of 5 million people would find it difficult
to maintain social, medical and educational funding, particularly under the legacy of Westminster’s recent apathy to the lack of national industrial and service investment and planning.
A Scotland separating fully from England / Westminster and
perhaps introducing its own currency would likely lead to the hardship of an economic recession with government debt or national expenditure restructuring to feel like Philip Hammond had declared himself King of Scotland. Certainly, until Scotland were to
reinvent itself as an Isle of Man or another union such as South Korea and America or Romania and Brussels.