Opinion

Someone is planning to build a wall - at least in a figurative sense.

Of course, Scotland's pro-independence leader Alex Salmond doesn't want to turn the ancient Hadrian's Wall fortification between Scotland and England into an impermeable border, but he wants an independent state, and that would naturally have a proper border with England. No matter how porous this border would be, it would divide - mentally and in practical day-to-day life - what was united for more than 300 years.

And Scotland might just be the beginning.

If the Scots get to have their own state, why should Spain refuse the Catalans or the Basques independence? Why shouldn't Flanders secede from Belgium? That's a particularly difficult case because Flanders is the country's more populous and economically strong part, while Wallonia could hardly survive on its own. But what would happen to Wallonia? You can take the thought further: will Bavaria one day decide to take the "Free State" part of its name literally, and split from Germany? Is independence in store for South Tyrol and Britanny?

It's about money

Centuries, even decades ago, allegations of oppression may have been justified in many of the territories named above - but not today. London doesn't interfere with Scottish culture these days, and Scotland has its own parliament. Catalonia already has a similar form of independence. Regional decision-making authority can even be enhanced, as Prime Minister David Cameron belatedly conceded. But these days in the EU, no one needs to form their own state in order to assert themselves as a community within a nation.

On the other hand, the financial crisis showed that when push comes to shove, it is the national state that first creates a reference framework, not the EU. Incidentally, the Royal Bank of Scotland benefited from British support. That leaves the issue of money that allegedly, quite unacceptably, pours from Scotland into London.

That's what it all seems to be about in Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders: a relatively prosperous region wants to keep its riches instead of letting a central government distribute the gains to everyone else.

But is that enough to for demands of an independent state?

Many open questions

The economic argument is precarious.

If Scotland were to secede from the UK, both would be weaker. There would be two diplomatic services, two armed forces, and two sets of administration at all levels: that is not just much more costly than just having one of everything. Independence would also raise a host of individual questions that haven't yet been answered.

Can people keep British citizenship if they live in Scotland? How do you split joint enterprises, and how is the national debt shared? What will the national currency be? Salmond wants to keep the pound, which is an option London dismisses. Could an independent Scotland easily join NATO and the EU? European Commission Chief Jose Manuel Barroso argues Scotland would have to apply like anyone else: A single veto, be it British or Spanish, could prevent accession.

A real domestic single market

Even if all individual issues could be solved with a good deal of good will, the present insecurity is a strain on the pound and the entire British economy already.

In case of a "yes"-vote on independence, Scotland would face a transition period of months if not years of turbulence.

And for what?

Back to the EU: even in the eyes of the eurosceptic Brits, the bloc has the advantage of offering a single market allowing people, companies and capital to move freely across EU borders.

The small national domestic markets work even better than the European domestic market nowadays, for instance between Scotland the rest of the UK. Hampering this freedom with a new border would be a return to sectionalism.

Europe doesn't need new borders. Hadrian's Wall is almost 2,000 years old and a World Heritage Site. Leave it be as a tourist attraction.