Devolution was supposed to end the desire for an independent Scotland, and with it, the threat of any border with England its achievement may have required. It's therefore ironic that Scotland's differing approach to the global COVID19 pandemic, as a result of using those devolved powers, is starkly highlighting the utility a border would bring.
In response to the prospect of temporary border controls between Scotland and England to help prevent the spread of coronavirus, Boris Johnson in early July dismissed the prospect by saying, 'there is no such thing as a border between England and Scotland'. However, the realities of the 1707 Act of Union, the 1997 devolution arrangements and the fact that policies of the different administrations end and begin at clearly defined lines in the sand, makes the Prime Minister's intervention just another off-handed remark in a long line of untruths.
With significant and evolving differences between coronavirus lockdown rules across the devolved nations of these islands, it can only be seen as a practical necessity to introduce temporary border controls to help prevent the spread of the disease.
Public opinion largely reflects that reasonable position. A recent Wings Over Scotland/Panelbase poll demonstrated 73% of Scottish voters think border restrictions are necessary to help combat the coronavirus. Unsurprisingly voters in England responded almost identically in the same poll.
So differences between Scotland and England are not in public opinions about borders but in the political realities of combating the disease. For instance, Scotland has a two-week quarantine requirement for people coming in from Spain, England doesn't. Why the difference? Because Spain's infection rate is X and Scotland's Y, so these temporary restrictions make perfect sense, north of the border but not south of it, where England's infection rate is equivalent to Spain's at Z. This begs the question as to why there is no two-week quarantine for visitors from England coming into Scotland as there is for Spain or, at the very least, temperature checks at Berwick?
As lockdowns are relaxed, the alternative approaches taken by devolved administrations, which have proven to be successful in combatting the spread so far, are now in jeopardy by the ideological fixations of some who are resistant to taking these temporary measures; out of fear it may embolden independence movements in the devolved nations. But what about public health practicalities? Why restrict travellers from Spain and not visitors from England when the difference in infection rates between those two countries is negligible?
In Europe 'The Schengen Borders Code' provides member states with the capability of temporarily reintroducing border control at internal borders, 'in the event that a serious threat to public policy or internal security has been established'. The reintroduction of border control is a prerogative of the member states, and this ability has been used to greatly reduce the spread across Europe.
Imagine how fast anti-EU sentiment would grow in countries who are otherwise staunchly pro-EU, if Brussels advocated against a reasonable temporary-border-framework, which would protect its citizens across the whole continent. The European Project would end up being added to the coronavirus casualty list.
The EU's temporary reintroduction of border controls to reduce the coronavirus transmission rate across its constituent members, is working. Practicality, not politics, should be the impetus to temporarily introduce them between the nations of the UK as well.
If any other reason than the reduction of COVID19 spread is needed, then the practical experience of intermittent border infrastructure developed during this crisis could benefit the UK in any unfortunate no-deal Brexit scenario; not least between Northern Ireland and the Republic, where a temporary border may well be needed in that eventuality.
Perhaps temporary borders are a sign of Devolution's maturity; the ability to freeze and unfreeze free-movement across internal borders when it serves the national interest of all or part of the constituent members of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
We find ourselves in a political house of mirrors at the moment, where advocating for a border on humanitarian grounds is seen as a political threat to the Union and therefore fiercely resisted by Unionists, despite the rationality behind the suggestion or the lives that will be protected in doing so.
It is also important to note that the internal border between Scotland and England has been closed by the UK Government before, in 1950 after the theft of the Stone of Destiny from Westminster Abbey, by Scottish Nationalists intent on returning the ancient coronation heirloom to Scotland. So there is a precedent to internal border checks and the political will, when it suits Westminster.
Nevertheless, the resistance to such a practical measure is likely to cause health pandemonium as a direct result of our laissez-faire-borders, which may then cause those resistant to independence to start considering it; grief-stricken at socially-distant funerals for loved ones, lost too soon, across the land. They may very well throw their Unionism into the casket as well, to be buried or cremated, at the thought Westminster was too proud to be practical; costing so many people so very dearly.
Alongside the civility shown by individuals to accept personal discomfort by wearing masks in public and self-isolating if feeling unwell, perhaps our politicians could show similar manners and practicality, despite political discomfort, by establishing border checks to help with the UK-wide effort to eradicate this dreadful disease.
So, dear politicians: Get sensible. Set up border checks. Save lives.