It sometimes seems that the case for the continuation of the Union of 1707 is simply ignored or belittled by those who oppose it.Thus Paul Scott (1992a: 55) has written of those who defend the Union that 'they produce no satisfactory explanation of this position, which is more an act of faith than a reasonable policy'.Again Andrew Marr (1992: 240) states: 'Because I cannot take the central political arguments against Scottish Home Rule seriously, I remain of the view that it will one day come about.'Although the heady days preceding the General Election of 1992, when some thought independence imminent, may now seem somewhat remote, both history and events since the election suggest that the issue of Scottish self-government is unlikely to disappear.In the present work Patrick Hodge has gathered together a team of distinguished writers who provide thoughtful, serious and carefully-researched arguments in defence of the Union, although not necessarily of the status quo.In consequence it should henceforth be impossible to make remarks such as those of Scott and Marr quoted above if the case for Scottish independence is to retain true intellectual integrity.Naturally, and as always, The David Hume Institute takes no collective view on the merits of the arguments here put forward, or of those which may be opposed to them.The Institute has however always prided itself on the fact that it is a Scottish and not a metropolitan organisation, and it is a pleasure to assist in this important contribution to the debate about how Scotland should be governed.
Read more