The Sparrow considers the state of the union...

Three hundred years ago today the Scottish Parliament ratified the treaty that hastened its own end; January 16^th 1707. The act declared: "The two kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1^st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN: And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land."

It was a momentous achievement (although far from popular north of the border), paving the way for peace at home and the building of the Empire. Three Hundred years on, however, the union is at its weakest ebb since the defeat of the last Jacobite uprising in 1746. Discontent in Scotland is common but this time it is matched by growing dissatisfaction in England.

For the Scots, losing the independence they had fought for over the centuries was an insult. Make a trip to Scotland and you will find the long shadow of it's pre-union past falling over you, with Bannockburn and Robert the Bruce held in the kind of reverence that England fans hold 1966. It is an independent country in attitude and always has been, even if the laws were made in London.

In 1999 in an attempt to make the Union fairer and pacify the protests for a Scottish Parliament, the Labour Government devolved some power to a new Scottish Assembly. Far from making the system fairer, however, this parliament has led to a system with even more imbalances.

The West Loathian question is one of the key issues. It is the name given to the problem that Scottish MPs can vote on matters that do not affect Scotland. The Prime minister has been known to rely on their votes to pass bills for England that a majority of English MPs have rejected. One of the cornerstones of Westminster democracy is the fact that all MPs can vote in all votes (with the exception of the Speaker and Tellers). To change the rules would mean making different classes of MP.

The problem seems to be coming to a head since Gordon Brown is a Scottish MP who as Prime Minister would have power to create laws and bills that rule over England, yet would not effect his own constituency. Add to this the fact that Scottish constituencies now have two MPs, one for Westminster and one for Hollyrood, and you have a sufficiently confusing and unfair system to cause an even greater desire for change, as opposed to pacifying it.

The Scottish Nationalist Party has been gaining popularity before the forthcoming Scottish Parliamentary elections this May, and their raison d'etre is the abolition of the act of union and the establishment of Scotland as an independent country again.

While in the past conditions have not been right for them to gain both popular support at home and a desire for change on both sides of the border, it seems that this may be the year that they finally break through. If they do they will seek a referendum in Scotland on independence and, should that win approval of the people must then appeal to Parliament at Westminster to dissolve the Union.

This makes matters complicated, because the Scots MPs at Westminster would be surely inclined to vote to keep their jobs, rather than for independence, however surely true democracy dictates that in the situation of an elected Scottish Parliament holding a referendum and demanding independence, the only just thing to do is give it to them.

It seems that for Mr Blair, the question of what could be his lasting legacy may have been taken out of his hands completely, and he may forever be remembered for presiding over the break up of the Union. A fitting way to end a shambolic decade at the top.