The Scottish people have been seeking sovereignty for many centuries without success, but they will soon have another opportunity.
And, this time the charge will not be led by Mel Gibson (Braveheart) with sword held high running across a grassy field at Falkirk, but by ordinary Scottish voters who have long-believed that they should be in charge of their own destiny.
David Cameron, on the other hand, has other ideas and is caught in an ironic dilemma. He has unconditionally affirmed his belief that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and now Syria have the right to self-determination and self-government - and in some cases has sent in his military to back up their claim - but when it comes to Scottish independence he balks, stalls and stumbles in his speech.
Scottish history is extremely rich and the Scottish people are orderly, highly educated, extremely intelligent, civilized and cultured, and after centuries of trying to escape the yoke of English rule, they finally deserve the right to self-government. When a Scottish referendum for independence is mentioned, Cameron suddenly appears nervous, tongue-tied and uncomfortable.
Secession by referendum is always a tricky business; to wit: Quebec's decades-old separatist movement which lost its last referendum by a hair-width.
The result of any such vote is never known until the last vote is counted.
The waters are further muddied by England's assertion that Scotland cannot hold its own referendum, but must do so under the auspices of the U.K. which will set out the terms of granting independence. This does not sit well with the Scottish National Party (SNP) or the Scottish people.
Another bone of contention between Cameron and Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, is how the referendum question is to be framed. Cameron wants a simple "yes" or "no" to separation, but Salmand and the SNP want a third option, "independent-lite," on the ballot which would allow Scotland sovereignty except for control over foreign policy and national defence.
This third option has not gone over well in England or with many Scots. For them, it's all or nothing. Each side ponders its next move like adversaries in a world-title chess match.
At some point one must wonder whether Cameron's [i.e. England's] reluctance to grant Scottish independence is more closely tied to dollars and cents than a conviction of the value of unity.
Should they win the referendum, Scotland will automatically be granted all the rights, privileges and entitlements granted to all sovereign nations under international law.
This will include the 200-mile offshore fishing limit as well as mineral rights to the edge of the continental shelf, and beyond.
In Scotland's case, this will include ownership of extensive, valuable rights to rich oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
In its present status as a member of the U.K., oil and gas profits enter U.K. coffers with partial distribution back to Scotland. England is now the greatest beneficiary, with other smaller portions distributed to Wales and Northern Ireland. Scottish separation would
drastically change this.
The two adversaries are now jockeying for political position to choose a referendum date favourable to them.
Cameron prefers a date within 18 months and not later than the summer of 2013 when England would realize a patriotic advantage through London's 2012 Olympic Games.
Salmand, the SNP's First Minister, on the other hand, wants the referendum held not sooner than the autumn of 2014 to capitalize on patriotism generated by the Ryder Cup at Gleneagles in Perthshire and the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in the summer of 2014.
A 2014 victory at the polls would coincide with the 700th anniversary of the Scottish military victory over England at Bannockburn (A.D. 1314) and provide for a double-barrelled celebration.
What couldn't be accomplished by the sword over many centuries can perhaps be achieved by a simple ballot.
Scottish independence is only an X mark away.
