"DIVIDE AND RULE"

It seems there is a lot that can be made out of politics, too. Of course, this is a rather unpredictable form of profit but, on the other hand, it is no more risky than any other financial investment with the hope of making a dividend. The bookmakers William Hill are prepared to offer such a chance to all who so desire. The winners will be named on 18 September 2014 when a referendum on Scotland's independence from Great Britain will take place. One gambler from the Scottish Borders has apparently already bet 5,000 pounds that the Scots will want to break away from the United Kingdom. The biggest stake - 200,000 pounds - on a "no" vote has been placed by a man from Glasgow.

So there you have it - it's all extremely simple. In the 21st century, without getting out of your chair, you can decide under whose banner you want to stand and then calmly follow the outcome of the battle on the Internet. The times of the famous Battle of Bannockburn have long since been consigned to oblivion. But, of course, next summer the Scots will be marking the 700th anniversary of this event which, it is believed, ensured Scotland's independence from Britain, paved the way for the country's restoration and had a considerable influence on the formation of a self-awareness of the Scottish nation. But seven centuries later the Scots may once again become independent and now, thank God, everything will be civilized and peaceful.

The question that will be asked during the September referendum is an extremely simple one: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" It will be recalled that Scotland and England are linked by the Act of Union of 1707 when the two states signed an agreement to create the Kingdom of Great Britain. Three centuries later, in 1999, Scotland again achieved the right to elect its own single-chamber parliament. Now another step has been taken - according to the "Edinburgh Agreement" of 15 October 2012, the government of Great Britain passed to the Scottish parliament limited rights to hold the above-mentioned referendum. At the same time, both governments commit themselves to work constructively together in the interests of the people of Scotland irrespective of the outcome of the ballot.

The driving force behind the separation is the Scottish National Party (SNP), the centre-left party now in power which stands firmly on the positions of Scottish nationalism. The party rose in the 1970s on statements that the state may, of course, be a common one of English and Scottish people, but the oil extracted off the coast of Scotland is still Scottish. The current Scottish First Minister, the head of the SNP, Alex Salmond sees for his fellow countrymen the example of Norway - the only country in Europe which not only does not have a budget deficit, but has also managed to create a solid foundation for future generations. Salmond counted up all the contributions made by a Scotland rich in natural resources and possessing a very developed economy to the British Treasury and is now firmly convinced that it is worth the while of his fellow-countrymen to try to live independently. On 26 November this year the Scottish government published its plan to secede from Britain - everything was set out in detail in a 670-page document. First and foremost, the Scots are prepared to remain under the nominal authority of the British monarchy (for example, they generally have great affection for Queen Elizabeth II), although they intend to reserve the right to become a republic if the need arises. They also plan to keep sterling as the national currency and the Bank of England in the role of a central bank. Nor are the Scots ready to part with the BBC. At the same time, this new country, if it comes into being, has already proclaimed unilateral nuclear disarmament whilst maintaining the country's membership of NATO (the main base of the British submarine fleet, including ships carrying ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads is deployed at Faslane on the west coast of Scotland. The lease of the base has been extended until 2020). A recently published report says that the creation by Scotland of its own army would require considerable efforts but, in principle, this was a realistic task.  

The SNP's plans with regard to social policy have come in for much more criticism: many people believe that they are not very practical. However, the main doubts concern Scotland's future relations with the EU - because Edinburgh has decided firmly that if it becomes independent it will remain part of a united Europe. The difficulty lies in the fact that such a procedure (where a state that is split in two is a part of the EU) has not been prescribed in Brussels. Most probably, in order for Scotland to join/remain in the EU it will need to get the approval of the other members of the union. The question is whether such countries as Spain, Belgium, Italy and others, which also have their own "Scots", will give this approval. It is also unclear what will happen to the financial contributions to the EU budget - London has privileges here, but will they remain for a free Edinburgh? And, finally, how might Scotland's secession impact on London's voice in the EU?

Incidentally, it is significant that references to the disintegration of states have emerged and strengthened over the past decade, and within the European Union, too. For example, Catalonia - one of the most developed regions of Spain in the socio-economic sense (a quarter of the country's GDP) - is also contemplating independence. And the worse things get in Madrid financially, the more active the "dreams" of the Catalonians, who are confident that although they contribute much more than other Spanish regions to the overall budget, they still receive less state funding than the rest. A Catalonian referendum on independence has been fixed for 9 November 2014, the head of the autonomous region, Artur Mas, has announced. However, unlike London, Madrid is not prepared to embrace the separatist movements of the Catalonians. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy described these demands as illegal and said "there will be no referendum because it runs counter to the Spanish Constitution". It will be recalled that earlier the Constitutional Court had already rejected a similar request from the people of the Basque Country in 2008. "The government is doing immense work to strengthen the unity of the nation and I very much regret that forces within the country are trying to oppose this. The illegal demands of the Catalonian authorities are aimed at splitting society and weakening the state which concerns me a great deal," Rajoy stressed. However, Mas is confident that in the time remaining before the ballot he will succeed in finding common ground with Madrid.

Meanwhile, all those same doubts about Scotland's secession also concern Catalonia in full measure, as well as every other independently minded region in any country of the EU. When you come to think about it, there are quite a few of them. In Britain there are Gibraltar and Northern Ireland, in Spain the Basque Country, Galicia, Castilla, Andalucia, the Canary Islands and other regions; the Faroe Islands and Greenland in Denmark, Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium, Bavaria in Germany, a number of regions in Northern Italy, territories settled by the Hungarians in Romania, Illyria in Macedonia, Corsica and Alsace in France, Moravia in the Czech Republic…And this is by no means the complete list.

 The same problem even exists in the self-proclaimed Kosovo from Serbia (which has not even joined the EU). When Yugoslavia disintegrated into ethnic parts the European capitals viewed this process with stoic calm. However, despite a second half of the 20th century that has been seemingly smoothed by process of integration, the history of Europe should not be perceived as a matter of course. For centuries this territory (especially Germany and Italy) was divided into "specific fiefdoms", and the big states fought each other for territorial slices of the pie. So is it possible that the period of tranquillity has again come to an end? After all, a financial and economic crisis is the engine of nationalistic sentiments. In the years of plenty and stability one couldn't be bothered about splits, and it was all rather inconvenient. But when it comes to tightening the belts questions start to be raised about the very rich, the pure-blooded and the worthy who have or don't have the right…

One wonders who will win the jackpot - the sceptic of Scottish independence from Glasgow or the optimist from the Scottish Borders? But it could be the other way round - the optimist from Glasgow and the sceptic from the Scottish Borders? The fact is there is a view that the splitting up of the countries of Europe is of advantage to Brussels. There has long been a well-known, rather hackneyed slogan that has never let anyone down, and that is "Divide and Rule". Only those states that are big and strong in the military, economic and political sense can set the tone in the EU and can "shove through" decisions that suit them. With the way things are Brussels will never have real power.