David Cox has written a provocative piece on the state of the United Kingdom. With both England and Scotland wanting to split, it seems, could the Scottish parliamentary elections in May prove to be the separation that precedes the divorce?

Nobody down here would, it seems, care much.

“The English have far more cause to do the deed. For a start, the money they currently spend appeasing the Scots could sort out London Underground’s problems or lend some succour to the Kingdom’s poorest districts, which are to be found not in Glasgow or the Western Isles but in the eastern boroughs of the Capital. The English would also be freed from the drag on their development caused by backward attitudes north of the border.”

Cox spoils his piece towards the end by sounding a little too piqued at the success of those with Scottish-sounding names…

“Even the Tories are led by a man called Cameron. Andrew Marr, Andrew Neil, Jim Naughtie, Alistair Stewart and Eddie Mair, together with various Kirsties and Fionas, keep us abreast of these gentlemen’s doings.”

But by then he’s made his key point…

“In the voting booths, the subsidy bawbees that keep public spending in Scotland 30% higher than in England are likely to weave their usual counterspell. Indeed, their persuasiveness will be greater than it has ever been. As Michael Fry notes in the current issue of Prospect, the margin by which public spending exceeds revenue in Scotland increased from £5 billion in 1997/1998 to £11 billion in 2003/2004. Scots are well aware that this is why, unlike the English, they can enter care homes without selling their houses, send their children to university without paying tuition fees and consume medicaments whatever their cost.”

This could be Gordon Brown’s biggest problem; a barrier to him being elected leader in the first place (Labour MPs may spot the danger of having an untelegenic Scot in charge) and a handicap for him should he make office (An England under the glare of his rule might start feeling it’s suffering from the democratic deficit that Scotland suffered from, under Maggie, all through the 1980s and most of the 1990s). Yet Labour can’t afford to lose the safe seats Scotland ponies up at every General Election, one of which belongs to Gord.

Will Scotland vote to go it alone? I find it hard to tell - I, obviously, don’t live there now. This nationalistic fervour has risen up before, most notably in the late 1970s and early 1990s, but quickly subsided. Scotland now seems to be more inward looking than then, so maybe things won’t deflate so quickly. Plenty of Scots also seem to be unaware of the subsidy the country receives, and cling to the naive notion that all of, or most of, the tax revenues from the North Sea will come to Edinburgh.

It all depends on how the border is drawn as it heads east, and the most likely scenarios I’ve seen don’t leave much to the North. But not much of this argument looks likely to be settled by rational debate; this one will be wrapped in all the paranoia, petty jealousies and rancour that accompanies talk of national identity and pseudo ethnicity.

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « Death of Press Gazette is a glimpse of the future
• » Broken blog

• BROWSE / IN Scotland
• « Scotland 1 France 0
• » Third degree burns