A

copy of John Arnold'€™s article on the Scottish referendum (The Jakarta Post, Sept. 10) was sent to me for comment, and, as a Scot now resident in Scotland, and someone possibly more informed on what is happening today throughout the Scottish nation, if I may, I would like to have the opportunity to reply.

I am not sure exactly what the idea was behind the writing of an article on this referendum being held in a country of 12,000 square kilometers on the other side of the world.

The 1,200 year old Scottish nation, having been joined at the hip for the last three centuries to England, is now seeking to terminate the partnership, and this is being done in a democratic and peaceful manner, without bombs, bullets or bodies in the drain.

Those eligible to vote in Scotland have been '€œpermitted'€ (by the UK government) to hold a referendum on whether they want to dissolve the partnership; this is not so much a divorce, as a wish to leave home, move just down the street, but still be friends.  

The Scots are a very well-educated people (more universities per head of population than anywhere else in the world), essentially hard-working and have ambitions for a better future for their families; this is no different from the ambitions of many folk around the world. With a population of less than 5.5 million living in the country today, but perhaps 15 million living elsewhere, something is very far wrong with the economic structure of this part of the United Kingdom.

The Scots are not accepting this sort of dismissive language from anyone, and will, on a '€œYes'€ for independence vote on Sept. 18, have nothing to fear, except fear itself.

This is the first poll that Scotland has ever had in its long history where we will be voting on just the one question '€” '€œDo you wish Scotland to be independent '€” yes or no?'€

There will be no royalty dictating terms, no nobility voting on our behalf, no large companies threatening us on our voting instructions and no political parties bribing us with promises of boundless prosperity.

The structure of the United Kingdom we believe, with this referendum, whichever way it goes, will have to change dramatically. Political, financial and civil service systems, certainly from a Scottish perspective, are seen as not to be trusted, corrupt, avaricious and generally not fit for purpose. The mere fact that an unelected House of Lords can dismiss the devolved Scottish parliament is an anachronism that we will be glad to be shot of.

The idea that Great Britain is today a great power is a myth. The British Empire, described by some as the '€œgreatest the world has ever seen'€, has melted away, but the UK still dreams of its days of glory, with flag-waving and displays of jingoism, which to many of us is quite embarrassing.

It is '€œ propped up by an unshakeable and uncritical belief '€” with monarchy at its core, ignoring its continual decline, irrelevance or redundancy [ '€¦ ] sustained by pageantry, tradition and rhetoric of a kind it does really well ['€¦] with its bearskins, corgis, royal babies, commemorative tea towels, horses and Ascot, and more horses,'€ as the blog Bella Caledonia described it.   

What the voters in Scotland will be voting yes to is the desire for it to be independent to make its own decisions on health, education, the alleviation of poverty, avoiding going into illegal wars and getting rid of the US-controlled obscene weapons of mass destruction (a thermo-nuclear Trident missile system that does not discriminate between warring armies and women and children), keeping its European ties, using the skills of its people and its natural resources for the benefit of the nation and the good of the world.

Those who vote '€œNo'€ wish to retain the status quo, and so far in the campaign, have shown little enthusiasm to support any of the above. And that is fine. It is a clear choice.

Scotland is on its way '€” the genie is out of the bottle '€” whatever the result of the referendum.