Editorial:  Will Scotland choose independence?

Voters in Scotland this week could end their country’s 300-year-old union with England. That possibility perplexes not only many Britons but also President Obama, the leader of a country that chose to “dissolve the political bands” with England in 1776. In June, Obama said that the United States had a “deep interest” in ensuring that the United Kingdom remained “strong, robust, united and an effective partner.” (More recently, the State Department said that Thursday’s referendum is “an internal United Kingdom matter.”)

At first glance, the case for independence seems underwhelming. Unlike their cousins in the Republic of Ireland, Scots have not been the victims of prolonged political discrimination or religious persecution. Unlike pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine, they don’t long to join another nation. Unlike secessionists in Catalonia or the Basque country, they aren’t driven by ethnic, linguistic or cultural distinctiveness.

What’s more, Scotland already enjoys considerable autonomy, with its own legal and educational systems and established (Presbyterian) church. Advocates of independence also say they want Scotland to remain in the European Union.

Paradoxically, advocates of independence portray continuity as an argument for secession. The Scottish National Party cheerfully assures Scots that after independence “the queen will be our head of state, the pound will be our currency and you will still be watching your favorite programs on TV. As members of the EU, there will be open borders, shared rights, free trade and extensive cooperation.” It’s also possible that an independent Scotland would remain in NATO, though advocates of independence have sent mixed signals about whether British nuclear-armed submarines could still be stationed in Scotland.

So why bother? The centerpiece of the case for independence is the claim that Scots are ill-represented in the British parliament. The Conservatives, who currently govern the UK in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, have minuscule support in Scotland, where there is more backing for public investment and a strong social safety net.

On the eve of the referendum, Britain’s three major parties — the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the Labor Party — are offering to give the Scottish parliament increased ability to levy taxes and make budgetary decisions. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne called this “the best of both worlds” — greater self-government without the uncertainties of independence. Chief among those uncertainties is the fear that Scotland’s separation might drive investors and the financial services industry to move south.

It’s not for the U.S. — or an American newspaper — to tell Scots how to vote. But it’s notable that both supporters and opponents of independence are stressing continuity, not rupture. If Scotland becomes independent, it will do so in a very British way.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion