My Take | Independence is way, way overrated for the likes of Scotland

I rather miss my old colleague Tom Holland's daily insights and erudition in the business section. What's more, he often sparred with our fellow columnist Jake van der Kamp and kept him occupied.

Now that Holland has gone, my friend Jake must be feeling bored and decided to have a go at not one but two of my columns. Oh well, it would be impolite not to reply.

If I understand Jake correctly, his point is that "most people naturally form themselves in much smaller communities", so why not let them go independent if they want to? Flanders and Wallonia, Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec, Texas, Taiwan: why try to stop them? Well, let me put it this way, I think independence is way, way overrated. As Jake has pointed out, "the nation state is an artificial creation of the last few hundred years". Yes, but through a series of historical accidents, we have all come to equate independence with nationhood and sovereignty. Much bloodshed, tears and sorrow flowed and continue to flow from this tragic equation.

As it is, whether through being clever, reckless or just lucky, I think Scotland got the best of both worlds - devolution max. It will get all the perks and powers but leave the scraps to the English like defence and disproportionate health care spending. After two plebiscites on independence in the 1980s and 1990s, Quebec got something similar.

The native Indians in Canada got a raw deal for two centuries, but in recent decades, the First Nations, as they are now called, have been learning fast from Quebec.

Such deals could be extracted not only from liberal democracies, but from an occupying force or an authoritarian government as well with the right conditions. The per capita income of the West Bank, which has essentially accepted peace with Israel, is 95 per cent higher than Gaza's.