There's been debate on both sides as to whether it would be better for Scotland to stay or go, and if Scotland did go, what that would mean for Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Personally I think the wrong questions are being asked on both sides. Scotland could re-draw the borders and detach itself from the top of England, but what's the issue with separating? Is it just that Scotland wants to be wholly independent from Westminster, but doesn't have a grudge with the rest of the UK, or is it a more a historical matter and a case of national pride?
In my mind, and what my argument entails, is that a lot of resources, material and financial are directed towards London from the rest of the UK, constantly feeding it, making it a bloated and disproportionate city compared to the rest of the country. There is even a brain drain towards London, more and more of the good jobs are based there, and house prices are still soaring compared to the UK. It seems as if everything is being built there and projects to improve infrastructure in the rest of the country (namely HS2) are still linked to the nation's capital. The only thing London is giving back to the rest of the country are its poor and destitute.
You look at other countries and they aren't primarily known for one city, usually (there are exceptions, I admit). Spain has Madrid, but also has Barcelona. Russia has Moscow, but also has St. Petersburg. Holland has Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Germany has Berlin but also has Munich and Frankfurt. Also China with Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. With Britain it is London and occasionally Edinburgh.
And the US has New York, but also has Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston,etc etc before you even get to Washington DC. The main point is that you can be a great and powerful country, people can come to visit you from everywhere AND you don't have to devote your resources to one city alone. Even with other countries that only have one major city (and that city being the capital) tend not to put the greatest things of their country there.
Don't get me wrong, I like visiting London. You can get anything there and do anything, eat anything, drink anything etc (as long as you have the money) but I wouldn't live there. Living spaces (as opposed to things like apartments and houses elsewhere) are small and expensive, and are only small and expensive due to demand. Cuz of everything going there.
Anyway, I wondered whether the best thing for the biggest part of England, Wales, Scotland and not forgetting Northern Ireland is to redraw the borders a little differently.
Here we go:
Greater Scotland, with its capital in Edinburgh, would be a new country where no individual city has an unbalanced level of power towards any other. Power could be devolved to different districts, creating a more federal type of country, more like the US. Wealth would be more evenly distributed and the people who are annoyed at Westminster ruling over them would rule no more. And Greater Scotland could also be a republic. Independence from Westminster without much of an effect on the economy either.
Londonia would be a city state, bloated and corpulent, a bit like a grimy version of Monaco. It would have to be more dependent on the rest of the British Isles for support (especially as the only escape route is down the Thames) but it would isolate all the Russian oligarchs from everyone else (then when the weather is nice, they'll go sun themselves in Monaco). It would still be a place of wealth, but it would have to fund its own development. As Londonia would lean towards becoming more of a tax haven for the rich, though, it would all have to be privately funded. A capitalist's dream, then.
So it's win/win basically. Greater Scotland citizens would no longer need to sing that terrible dirge "God Save The Queen", and the Greater Scotland football team would actually be more of a terrifying presence. And Londonia, nothing much will change, really.
And that Alexander Salmond seems such a nice guy. Sorry - President Salmond.
