The push for Scottish independence is gathering steam, but the break-up of Britain is unlikely to happen soon, writes Alex Bellin Edinburgh.
Coronation Streetor bust? That is one of the questions on which the future of the union between Scotland and England rests. The destiny of the UK, much agonised-over as the 300th anniversary of the Act of 1707 is marked, is being decided on silly notions such as whether soap operas will stop broadcasting in Glasgow, and border posts at Berwick will repel anyone eating a jellied eel.
In truth there are a multitude of debates taking place about the union, some high-brow and technical, and others, often conducted by respected politicians, risible. Should Scotland become independent within the next few years, any pride from this achievement will be tinged with embarrassment that it came down to such a petty squabble.
Three hundred years ago, Scotland, bankrupt by a foolhardy bid to create an empire in central America, went cap-in-hand to London asking for marriage. In return for financial support, Edinburgh would no longer threaten England's northern border, or its Protestant crown. This was approved by the Scottish Parliament in January 1707. The poet Robert Burns would subsequently describe the parliamentarians who voted in favour as a "parcel o'rogues".
The union that followed was responsible for the world's largest empire, but when that global reach began to shrink, and the major industries withered over the course of the 20th century, Scots wondered if the deal was such a good one. Nationalists called for independence. The unionist Labour Party argued for a middle course of devolution, in the hope it would snuff out the cries for freedom. The Tories under Margaret Thatcher said the status quo would do just fine. She was wrong.
In 1997, just after Tony Blair's victorious skip into Downing Street, Scots voted overwhelmingly to have a devolved parliament. As a leading Labour politician George (now Lord) Robertson said at the time, devolution would kill the nationalists "stone dead". It might have, if Labour hadn't made quite such a bad fist of running the new body.
Tragedy struck when the architect of devolution and Scotland's first First Minister, Donald Dewar, died suddenly in 2000, a year after the new parliament was born. Farce followed when his successor, Henry McLeish, was, after much backstabbing, eventually forced to fall on his sword over a scandal about rent for parliamentary offices, which was so arcane political correspondents still challenge each other to recall what the whole thing was about. Then a party apparatchik by the name of Jack McConnell beat the bright and talented Wendy Alexander, a former aide to Dewar, to the vacant leadership and the post of First Minister.
McConnell promised to "do less, better" and is regarded as having honoured the first two words of that pledge.
What does any of this have to do with the Rovers Return? This is the first major divide in the argument over Scotland's future. While the debate about Britain rarely emerges in England, among Scots it is wearily familiar. So it's not unusual to hear Scots wondering, should they be independent, will they get to watch Coronation Street? While Home Secretary John Reid warned of people "overnight becoming 'English' or 'Scottish', but not British, being forced to choose which passports to hold".
Were such utterances given UK coverage, people would giggle, but it is only the Scottish media that bothers to cover this weird dialogue.
For the past decade Labour has operated a principle of trying to scare Scots out of independence. Thus the campaign in the 1997 UK general election, and the two subsequent elections to the Edinburgh Parliament, have been fought on a unionist platform of not wanting to "divorce" England. Divorce in this context means painful break-up, ruinous costs and bitter recriminations.
Despite the possibility of never seeing an English soap opera again, Scots have warmed to the notion of greater self-governance. Opinion polls show a steady increase in support for independence, and a mild gain in following for the Scottish National Party. Many surveys show more than 50 per cent in favour of the former. The SNP, however, commands only about 32 per cent of the people's backing. So, with another Scottish general election in May, it seems unlikely that Scots will be free once the votes have been counted.
This is where the debate takes another turn. Gordon Brown wants to succeed Tony Blair as Prime Minister. Blair may have been born in Scotland and educated at Edinburgh's posh public school Fettes, but UK voters only notionally see him as a Scot. Brown, however, is almost stereotypically Scottish. The son of a Church of Scotland minister, he's fiercely bright, good with money and extremely dour. Once this would have been reassuring to Middle England, like a Doctor Finlay of politics. Now it may be a handicap.
Over the past 10 years England has woken up to quite how many Scots do govern the UK. Further, people have realised how much Scotland is subsidised. The public spend north of the border is around 50 per cent, among the highest of any developed nation. Go south and the government's largesse shrinks to around 44 per cent. That is why the long-dormant issue of an English devolved parliament now gains over 60 per cent support among the English, according to a BBC poll out this week.
In this context, Brown worries his chances of being elected to lead a UK administration are fragile, and he knows that, should Scotland become independent, they are as good as over. So the future of Scotland is intimately tied up with the machinations of the Labour party and the current Chancellor's bid to look more John Bull than Gordon Brown.
So, in another twist, he argues that at the Olympics in London in 2012, Britain should field a united football team. While it might rid the world of daft predictions that England is set to win everything, as so often occurs before a tournament, it is a blasphemous suggestion to Scotland, with its own proud record of failure at international football. When Brown said his favourite goal of all time was by Paul Gascoigne at the 1996 European championship, he might as well have spat on the Saltire; Gazza's brilliant score was against the Scots.
OCCASIONALLY THE DEBATEtakes a more high-minded note. Gordon Brown is wont to refer to the "Balkanisation" of the UK, suggesting nationalism is a petty and "narrow" agenda. This argument unravels when he goes on to extol the wonders of Britain. As political discourse, it's a battle between Scottish nationalism and British nationalism, with a small 'n'.
The SNP, meanwhile, praises the economic possibilities of independence, casting an envious eye to the Celtic Tiger. In response, the British government produces figures which show that, under its stewardship, Scotland has an £11 billion (€17 billion) annual deficit and would go bankrupt if left to its own devices. Quite how this is a recommendation for 300 years of union has yet to be explained.
Which brings us to the coming election in May. With Labour and the SNP polling neck and neck, the fight is on. The proportional representation system for the Scottish parliament is acknowledged to favour Labour. The chances are good that Labour will still be the largest party, but on a reduced number of seats. For the past two administrations, the Liberal Democrats have joined Labour in a coalition. Should Labour's representation fall too low, the Lib Dems might choose to align with another party.
In the morning after the ballot, it may be unclear exactly who has the mandate to govern. The Lib Dems, also unionist, may be reluctant to side with the SNP. However they may choose not to cuddle up to Jack McConnell either, forcing Labour to stagger on in power as a minority.
So the UK is probably safe for another short while. What fascinates politicians, and makes Scottish politics so riveting at the moment, is what might happen next. The Union is unlikely to be torn asunder in one election, but may continue to tear apart little by little. On policy there are myriad differences between the two nations. Scots are overwhelmingly against ID cards, opposed to the Iraq war, against nuclear rearmament, pro-immigration and against privatisation of public services; Labour, the party most likely to form the next UK government, takes the opposite view to all of the above.
The other likely source of tension, as in so many relationships, is money. The Scottish government effectively gets a cheque from London to pay for the disproportionately large public sector and generous services. Indeed only Northern Ireland has a higher per-capita government spend. How might Gordon Brown PM react if Edinburgh starts spending the cash in direct conflict to his own policies? If all this makes you think that families are riven in two and grown men are picking fights in bars about the destiny of the nation, you would be wrong. The Scottish media, largely owned by outside interests, is sceptical if not openly hostile to the idea of independence.
However, the people are sanguine. The greatest change in Scotland since devolution is that the prospect of power is no longer regarded as a harbinger of doom. In all likelihood Scots are being canny to the last, getting the maximum cash out of England while gradually easing in to self-government. Romantic it is not; the union will die with a whinge.