THIS will probably surprise you, but strictly in terms of international law, Boris Johnson is right – there is no "border" between Scotland and England. Neither, for that matter, is there one between England and Wales.
Only the UK’s "border" – the thing you have to cross to enter Great Britain and Northern Ireland – is officially recognised as a "border" by the rest of the world. People in many countries know there is a difference between Scotland and England and that there is a border between them, but governments prefer to deal with states and their borders, and sadly for Scotland that means the UK defines the border and it’s not the one between the Tweed and the Solway.
By "border" the Prime Minister no doubt means the line on the map which distinguishes one sovereign entity from another, and as the UK Government’s Advocate General Lord Richard Keen reminded us in the Supreme Court last year, sovereignty resides with the UK Parliament – and you can argue with moral correctness that the Scottish people are sovereign, but Westminster and the courts say otherwise for the meantime.
In short, the Border as we know it is an irrelevance in international law at the moment, but the problem for the Prime Minister is that of course there is a border between England and Scotland. It’s just that as a Unionist he only sees the "border" as being the geographic boundary of the United Kingdom.
It comes back to the four countries, one state situation. It surprises many people to learn that the current incarnation of the UK – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – is less than 100 years old. The name was only formally adopted in 1927, five years after the 26 counties that became the Republic of Ireland seceded from the Union.
Most Unionists talk about "the country" of the UK. In fact it is a unitary state made up of four countries, and the border between Scotland and England is very real and has been for centuries.
Or else why did the Scots and English fight each other over the "border" from time immemorial? Hadrian’s Wall was for centuries seen as the "border", by the Romans if not the people then residing in what became Scotland, but gradually the line between the Rivers Tweed and Solway was accepted as the boundary, though of course the country of England only dates from nearly a century after Scotland.
The Border was not set in stone – literally, with border stones – until the Treaty of York in 1237 which ensured that Northumberland and Cumberland were part of King Henry II’s England, while Alexander II, King of Scots, was content to hold on to Berwick-upon-Tweed and what became the "Debateable Lands" north of Carlisle.
Berwick went to England in 1482 by right of conquest, but the Debateable Lands were only divided along Scots Dike in 1552, from when the Border has not changed.
So for 468 years there has been a clearly defined Border between England and Scotland. And Boris Johnson knows it – he just doesn’t want people to think of it in case we decide to make it a real internationally-accepted border by voting for independence.
This article is part of a new digital-only section of our website we are trialling, where we’ll bring you reaction, analysis and opinion pieces by our best writers in real-time, without you having to wait for the newspaper to be printed. Please send any feedback to callum.baird@thenational.scot!
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel