Cameron's provocative visit to a restive Scottish province highlights England's endless occupation
How Scottish independence looks from the Middle East
An occasional series reporting the affairs of Britain, America and other places using the same language employed to report on the Middle East
The restive Scottish town of Portlethen narrowly avoided a potentially violent confrontation this week as bitter rivals Alex Salmond and David Cameron rallied their respective supporters in the small eastern town.
Salmond, the leader of the separation-minded Scots, and Cameron, the head of the long-running English occupation, clashed over the north's oil wealth. Expecting trouble among the angry Scots, Cameron was surrounded by a heavily-armed entourage and traveled by military aircraft.
The English leader's provocative visit marks the end of a period of uneasy calm, after a tumultuous few years for the northern European nation. A heavy recession toppled the left-wing government of Gordon Brown, bringing to power the right-wing Tories. Like their Tunisian counter-parts, the Tories have been forced into an uneasy alliance with left-wing allies the Liberal Democrats.
The Scottish north has been under occupation by the majority south for several centuries, although it has retained customs and some aspects of language. Under a previous right-wing leader, Tony Blair, the English majority ceded some powers to the Scots, but the leadership in London still retains financial powers over the Scots, as well as controlling their borders.
In a show of force, the English majority has even stationed its nuclear submarines in the Scottish north, a sore point for the Scots.
Now, led by the firebrand Salmond, the Scots have forced a referendum on secession, scheduled for later this year. Assuming the September election is free and fair - the UK has refused outside monitors for its elections - and the Scots do vote for secession, there could civil strife.
The English majority has warned Holyrood, the northern seat of power, that it intends to retain Faslane, the heavily-guarded military town that houses its controversial nuclear weapons programme, even if that means a prolonged occupation. The leadership of the English majority has even suggested that it might simply ignore the Scottish decision, as Algeria did following its 1992 vote.
The Scots are in a difficult situation economically. Just like in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, where the Sunni majority took the benefits of the oil fields in the Kurdish north, the English majority under the hardline leadership of Margaret Thatcher siphoned off the majority of the Scottish oil throughout the 1980s. Recently released documents have shown how Thatcher conspired to hide the evidence of the scale of North Sea oil, fearing an uprising.
Nor are regional leaders in any mood to help the Scots, distracted as they are with economic problems and a rebellious population in the south of Europe. A national uprising in Ukraine, just outside Europe's borders, has rattled regional countries, raising the prospect of armed conflict with Europe's long-time foe Russia.
In particular, the right-wing leader of neighbouring Spain has warned the Scots that they would not be welcome in the European Union, a regional political and economic bloc. Mirroring the language of Turkey and Iran over Kurdistan, the neighbouring countries of the UK all have domestic reasons for opposing Scottish independence.
Still Salmond has refused to back down. Faced with the prospect of an armed confrontation with the English majority, Salmond has appealed to Scots to remain calm and pursue a political path. But as tensions increase ahead of the election, the chances of a confrontation between these two historic enemies increases.
(These thoughts, rather obviously delivered tongue-in-cheek, reflect only my opinion, not that of any organisations or institutions I am affiliated with.)
