SCOTTISH SEPARATISM, ANYONE ?

The British devolution debate soon transformed into the Scottish Referendum debate. At a time that Sri Lanka is contemplating ‘devolution of power’ after a long running war in the Northern Province, the British are readying for a Referendum with regard to the fate of Scotland.

But things do get curiouser and curiouser from there on. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister who called for a Referendum among the Scottish people, is giving interviews to the British broadcast media saying that he thinks Scotland opting to secede from the British union will be a tragedy, no less.

Former premier Gordon Brown, a Labourite is making long speeches to the effect that Scotland seceding from the union will bring bad economic portends for both the English and the Scots. He says there will be a contestation among regions on issues such as minimum wages, all of which he asserts would make Scotland and England all the poorer for it.

But, first consider Cameron who called a Referendum which he says himself would bring about tragic results. In these parts they used to say that nobody but mad dogs and Englishmen would go out in the noonday sun. It appears only eccentric English Tories and their henchmen could think of something that would have ‘tragic consequences’ possibly, and then proceed to promote it as a ‘political solution.’

If the British Premier thinks that the possible consequences of a Scottish Referendum could be tragic, doesn’t he cut a tragic and perhaps at the same time a somewhat comic figure as well -- touting the Referendum ‘solution’?

Cameron and Brown both say that Scotland opting out of the union wouldn’t be good for the Scottish and the English as well. Well, if as they say the consequences are going to be tragic for everybody that’s British why ask the Scots alone to decide their fate -- and that of the English? Well, that may be called democracy and the realization of the Scots’ right to self-determination, including the Scots’ right to self-destruct -- tragically -- along with the British?

Speaking of mad dogs, sorry, eccentric English politicians, it’s important to remember that the Scot devolution model is what’s recommended for Sri Lanka by some of the local NGO elite, but please read on, and the story gets even more interesting from here.

David Cameron says that he will campaign tooth and nail to ensure that the Scots remain in the union therefore averting what he called ‘the tragic consequences.’

He says he will join anyone, and any opposition politician to make it possible to avoid this tragedy. Why Cameron didn’t save himself the trouble by not calling for the Referendum in the first place is not something that seems to have crossed the minds of Cameron’s like-minded and brilliant British democrats.

If Cameron had done half the campaigning that he intends to do before he called for the Referendum he would have probably been able to carry a majority of the Scots people with him in his view that Scottish separatism is a tragedy. So, at best Cameron could be called lazy in his attitude towards tragedy, and at worst, he could be called a lot of other names, all quite deserving perhaps.

If all this is in the name of the self-determination of the Scottish people however, shouldn’t Cameron be preventing them from doing what he deems is bad for them and will be bad for their eventual neighbours, if they opt out of the British union?

All of this sounds very curious and of course if the British don’t care, we don’t -- except that according to the devolution pundits in the NGOs, the Pakis-petti devolutionists of the CPA persuasion, it’s the Cameron model etc. that we need to follow for good governance and democracy. Any psychiatrist however would recommend that we’d do better to avoid schizophrenia, and avert tragedy altogether. Here is to importing from Scotland, Scotch whisky and nothing else.