Was it embarrassment or a healthy absence of bombast that led to a low-key ceremony to mark the 300th anniversary of the Acts of Union that brought Scotland and England together? Was it awkwardness or a healthy choice of priorities that led Gordon Brown to miss the event and travel to India instead?

There will be more events in the coming months. The timing is sensitive. In May, the devolved Scottish parliament, which has been in existence for a mere eight years, will hold its third election. A long period of Labour hegemony north of the border is likely to end, and the time for the Scottish Nationalists may finally have come.

The SNP, reborn under the excessively exuberant Alex Salmond, has pledged to introduce a bill that will pave the way for a referendum on full independence. It will face a number of hurdles. Scotland's voting system makes it virtually impossible for any party to gain an overall majority. The SNP will struggle to convince the Lib Dems to enter a coalition with a referendum attached. A legal battle is also predicted. Should secession be determined only by voters in the seceding part of the country? What about Scots living in England, and the English living in Scotland?

The independence movement has ebbed and flowed. Current opinion polls show Scottish voters split fairly equally between those in favour, those against, and those either ambivalent or yet to make up their minds. There is an important and legitimate debate to be had, and developments in recent years have made it more so.

All parts of the debate are complex, particularly the questions of identity and integration. Brown's new ardour for "Britishness" could be dismissed as political exigency - the Scotsman who would run the United Kingdom and who therefore has to try that little bit harder.

Whatever Brown's motivation, the question of Britishness has been brought to the fore as the UK becomes more diverse in race and religion, as it increases its links with the EU, and as a consequence of devolution itself. It has become fashionable to talk of multiple identities and shared values. Thus the Glaswegian is proud of his/her race, religion, city, Scottishness, maybe European-ness. Britishness, too? This final part is perhaps the hardest.

Two other aspects of the debate are more quantifiable - the economic and the constitutional. Scotland has won and lost as a result of the iron economic grip of the UK (for that, read London). People in Scotland receive about a fifth more per head in state spending than those in England. Yet Scotland's growth rate has been lower. Salmond likens his ideal Scotland to states such as Iceland, Norway and Ireland. The ultra-free-market Celtic Tiger bears little resemblance, however. It is not the fact of independence that would necessarily have an effect on Scots' standard of living, but the practical arrangements that would have to be made with the UK and EU on currency, interest rates and more.

Finally, the constitution itself. Britain's various parliaments, voting systems and layers of power between nations, regions and localities are a mess. A settlement encompassing all of these is overdue, and it should be seized with alacrity, even if some questions will produce difficulties for Labour as a party. Why should MPs who represent Scottish seats vote on matters that relate only to England and Wales? What about an English parliament?

That these questions are often raised by people on the right with an ulterior motive does not mean they can be wished away. After all, at the 2005 general election, more people in England voted Conservative (even with Michael Howard) than Labour, but the UK still returned a Labour government - yet is this any more of an injustice than Scotland never granting a majority to the Tories, but having to live under them for 18 years?

The NS does not believe independence is the way forward for Scotland in these interdependent times. But we believe that if the SNP takes power in Edinburgh it will be its democratic duty to hold a referendum. The debate must be had, and it will be won only if the UK's arrangements are seen to become more fair, democratic and modern.

A bleep to one is a bleep to all

We were overjoyed to learn that a recent incident on Celebrity Big Brother had provoked thousands of complaints from viewers and we enjoyed guessing which aspect of the stultifyingly infantile reality show had finally provoked viewers to action.

Was it the celebrities' clear lack of celebrity? The disturbingly vulgar diary-room chair (not that we watch)? Or that no contestant has ever lamented the absence of books, magazines or radio?

Apparently, none of these.

This is what viewers had heard:

Jack Tweed (unknown boyfriend of former BB contestant) to Shilpa Shetty (beautiful Bollywood film star unknown in this country): "BLEEP!"

This seemed innocent to us, but CBB devotees here (there are a few) insist that it was indeed outrageous. As Shilpa has been called, correctly but gratuitously, "the Indian", the inference must be that the bleep hid a racist slur, possibly "Paki".

Not so, Channel 4 told the NS. "The bleep concealed the C-word. Ofcom says such expletives must come out." If the word had been racist, it would not have needed to be bleeped over, Channel 4 confirmed. Ergo, it wasn't racist.

Have we understood? We are protected from C- and F-words, but racial abuse, clearly offensive to most viewers and even against the law, is OK? These are murky waters and we are anti-censorship. But let's have some BLEEPING consistency.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website