Disintegrate is the United Kingdom? If the Scottish national party (SNP) succeeds, so be it. The collapse of the Union was its main task, the purpose, the meaning of existence, and now it’s closer to success than ever before in its 85-year history.In October Nicola Sturgeon (Nicola Sturgeon), the leader of the party, said he will ask to hold a second independence referendum within a few days after the voting results announced December 12. Prime Minister Boris Johnson (Boris Johnson) said, that the refuse at the appropriate resolution: but in October, Sturgeon said at a meeting of his party that “the refusal of Westminster is not justified, They know that the referendum is to be.” She mentioned the lawsuit, which will help to push the issue.Nationalists with a small margin vote for Pexit (51,9% for output) across the UK, and in Scotland, the majority vote for it to stay (62%), which indicates two completely different political cultures, demanding a separate, independent state. The instability of the policies of Westminster last three and a half years in combination with a low opinion of the Scots on Johnson allowed the nationalists relatively openly raise the question of independence and to Express regret about the dominance of the English elite.They expect that the elections will be good. The Scottish conservatives have prevented the hegemony of the nationalists in the elections of 2017, increasing its presence in Westminster from one to 13 seats. But in August they lost their popular leader, when Ruth Davidson (Ruth Davidson) resigned — she can’t keep up with Brexton and Johnson, and also waited for refill. It is believed that neither the labour party nor the liberal Democrats do not represent a big threat in Scotland for the SNP. “What they will take about 40-50 seats (59 seats of the Scots in Westminster), said in an interview with “financial times” (Financial Times) the sociologist John Curtis (John Curtice), — at the moment it seems quite probable.”Scottish independence would mean the end of Britain — the Union formed between England, Wales and Scotland in 1707 — and without the UK the United Kingdom is in the present sense will cease to exist, although it could be “United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland”, while the province would maintain communication with London.Nationalists believe that 50 percent plus one vote is all they need to find “freedom” by destroying the nation-state. However, since the stakes are so high, the future claims of the nationalists must meet more stringent rebuff of the Union than a sentimental request. “We ask on behalf of us all, please vote for it to stay together” — this request was voiced by Prime Minister David Cameron (David Cameron) before agreeing with Alex Salmond (Alex Salmond), the then leader of the SNP to hold a referendum in 2014.The Union is not only monetary issues, but on the field of Finance the fight will be in the first place. Before the referendum in 2014 was issued on 650 pages entitled “the Future of Scotland”. The Scots were convinced that everything — including the economy, education, democracy, health, civil society, transport, environment, culture, social services and relations with neighbors will improve dramatically. When the oil will be under the control of the Scots, that compensate them for the loss of an annual subvention from the UK Treasury. While the Scots voted, the price of oil began to fall.The SNP has sent a draft “Future of Scotland”, a fantastic nature which is everywhere ridiculed, on a dusty shelf. Now, as a plan for its future economy based on the report of the 2018 Commission on sustainable growth, chaired by Andrew Wilson (Andrew Wilson), a former member of the Scottish Parliament from the SNP, who now heads a consulting Agency in communications Charlotte Street partners (Charlotte Street Partners).Report of Wilson’s less pretentious than “the Future of Scotland”, but the economists give it a low rating due to the constant departure from reality. The Institute for fiscal studies (Institute for Fiscal Studies) where is Wilson, noted that “the regime of austerity”, against which the SNP has consistently, considering its imposed by the British, after independence, will become, by his own forecast of the Commission, is deeper than at Westminster.John McClaren (McClaren John), an independent economist who participated in the writing of the report of the Commission, said that the report pays too little attention to sharply increasing costs of health care, social assistance and education. He believes that “there is not enough analysis of the negative consequences of the destruction of the free trade area of the UK.”Warwick Lightfoot (Warwick Lightfoot), a former adviser to the conservative government, writes that “the loss Treasury subsidies will bring the country to a difficult choice financing solutions: either significantly reduce costs or significantly increase taxes.” These arguments and many more.The economic causes of the secession was the Central issue of campaigning during the campaign of 2014. Then, when restrained in the statements of the former Chancellor Alistair darling (Alistair Darling) struggled with bubbling energy, First Minister Alex Salmond, and when the nationalist campaign “For” seemed all the more professional and energetic than calm Against, victory was suddenly left precisely because of this calm. In a world where the level of uncertainty is higher than five years ago, the situation could be repeated. There is a potential danger that the market will be launched a small economy with low productivity and generally lower growth rates than in the UK overall, and the currency or pound, or a currency tied to sterling — which she can’t control.However, it has not yet reached the next stage of the struggle, the Union must be maintained. Those who want to continue to exist, should criticize a “democratic” point of view about what an insignificant advantage with this vote must lead to the disintegration of the UK. In Ratovsky readings 2019 former Supreme court judge Jonathan Sampson (Jonathan Sumption) said that the democratic government “may not act on the basis that a small majority takes one hundred percent of the trophies.” This observation deserves to rely on it in their actions.If the vote for secession over 50 percent of the electorate, it would lead to unrest in Scotland and beyond. There is no way to quickly and painlessly separate the two so closely intertwined with the country in economic, industrial, legal relations in employment, family and friendship ties, joint projects. The world of business and Finance would be more concerned about this decision than the city of London solution Bracito, and might tend to transfer the headquarters and operations to England. If the forecast Lightfoot confirmed, raising taxes will only increase the number of people leaving the country, and the reduction in services is likely to entail even greater tax increases.The collapse of the UK is the decision that Scotland cannot make it alone. The office will affect every British citizen, because it will radically change the structure of the state.The position of the Scottish nationalists — that the right to vote belongs only to those who live in Scotland at the time of the referendum implies that recent immigrants, who know little or nothing knows what is at stake, will have an advantage over the Scots living elsewhere in the UK, and before all other British voters. Immigrant if he / she intends to reside permanently in the country, should have the right to vote, but also a first generation Scots living outside Scotland should also have the right to vote, and British citizens in General should get it right. This right should be granted to them by the British government, whose responsibility is to check the depth and strength of intentions to secede.There is a ready example of how this can be done: the canadian Law about the clarity [of the wording, the referendum] (Canadian Clarity Act), enacted shortly after the government of the French-speaking province of Quebec almost succeeded — for 49.4% against 50.6 per cent to gain a majority of votes of independence in 1995. The act reserves for the Federal government to clear or no to the question before the citizens in a referendum, and the right to cancel the result of the referendum if it was agreed that he was held in violation of this law. This act established that the question should be only one — for or against secession — and should not contain additional meaning; that consensus should be reached before the start of negotiations on secession; and that the negotiations should involve all other provinces.Thus it is possible to solve two problems: reduce the likelihood that a potentially independent state will start its existence with a deeply divided population, and to recognize that the national government generally has the right to participate in decision-making. The law in some respects vague, but because the desire for separation in Quebec has declined significantly, the law never had to put it into practice.Need to adapt a similar law for the UK. The majority in the referendum on Scottish independence should be not less than 60%. This, or a more serious advantage, if it were achieved, would speak about serious intentions of the public, even her thirst for change. It is necessary to add the obligation to consult and debate in Parliament and throughout the country, and, at least 60% should remain the threshold required for a possible transition to a completely different situation.Even then, you must undergo some period before an agreement will be concluded between representatives of both sides of the referendum. The UK government may be forced to admit a strong desire for independence, but it will be responsible for the fact that the transition was as consistent and as free as possible from partners in other part of the UK, has suffered damage.If and when they will be admitted to any following referendum, the current representation of 50% plus one must be radically revised. Referendums, as we now know, are a gross driving force of democracy.The separation of Scotland, if she truly wants it and understands the consequences, ultimately it is impossible to prevent. But you must be aware of the tremendous importance of this decision, and it needs to check, to examine, discuss as long as possible, is proved — or disproved — that this separation is a deliberate will of the Scots; and until, as far as possible, the recognition of former citizens that the way it is. Now, we are still far from it.