Scotland – Ascherson still not decided on independence…

Always liked the bloke – but at 79 years old I thought he might have made his mind up…..
From the New York Times.

Even larger questions would loom. Would there still be a place called “Britain”? Would Scottish independence finally force the English to rediscover their own national voice, instead of hiding their problems under the cloak of “Britishness”? Would a reduced “England” still rate a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council?
It may not happen. The referendum is more than two years off. Mr. Salmond is prone to fits of wild over-optimism; one major blunder and the S.N.P. bubble could deflate. And his nightmare must be the “Quebec syndrome”: that, as in Canada’s “French” province, people would go on voting for the Nationalists as their best government but narrowly decline to vote for independence at a referendum. The Scots are a canny, wary people.
But if Scotland votes “yes,” the responsibility will fall less on Mr. Salmond than on the incompetence of the Unionist campaign. Its tactless bluster has been hardening the Scottish impression of near-colonialist arrogance and deafness to their wishes. Paradoxically, Scottish independence could turn out to be the best guarantee of a friendlier relationship between England and the ancient, obstinate little nation on its northern border.

Come on Neal – what are you voting?