Basil Fawlty, anticipating the arrival of German tourists to his hotel, famously warned his staff:
"Don't mention the war". It became a widely used mantra that could with good reason be paraphrased by the Yes Campaign as: "Don't mention Ireland".
For decades Scottish Nationalists looked to Ireland as an example of how Scotland could also make a success of independence. They watched how Ireland managed to remain neutral in the Second World War and how it diversified its economy in the 1960s. They saw Ireland's high-profile role in the UN and in the EU.
When the economic boom, of the so-called Celtic Tiger period, proved that a small independent country could achieve enormous economic progress, it seemed to clinch the argument. Then, suddenly, in the autumn of 2008 the Irish economy imploded. Unemployment soared, the banks were put on a life support machine and the entire population were left with a debt burden that will take a generation to clear.
The Scots watched as the Irish economy went down. They saw the abyss opening under Ireland, and the country being kept in an induced economic coma with loans from the EU and the IMF.
For Scottish Nationalists, the demise of the Irish Celtic Tiger could not have come at a worse time. Overnight, Ireland had become an economic basket case, untouchable with the proverbial barge pole. Ireland was no longer a role model for an independent Scotland.
While Scotland could benefit from Ireland's experience in so many areas, the dilemma for the Yes side is that it cannot point to the Irish experience without reminding the Scottish electorate of the mess the Irish made of their economy.
In the hard-fought referendum campaign, it is clear that any mention of Ireland could feed ammunition to the No campaign.
The currency issue is one example. The threats from the UK Government to exclude an independent Scotland from the sterling area could easily be confronted by quoting that an independent Ireland's successful participation in, and subsequent departure from, the sterling area did not cause any major problems for either the UK or Ireland.
It is all a matter of timing. Six years ago, the Yes campaign could have swept aside most of the economic arguments against independence by pointing out the massive success of the Irish economy.
Ireland had effectively eliminated unemployment, raised the living standards of the entire population and had become a world acclaimed success story.
But any mention of Ireland, at present, is likely to focus on its economic problems. No campaigners could use this issue to remind voters what can happen to a nation that breaks from the safety net of the UK. The irony is that Ireland is emerging from recession with its economy growing again, ticking all the boxes that a recovery is well on the way.
So, perhaps Ireland can still be quoted, after all, as a positive example for an independent Scotland? The fact that it is emerging out of recession is a success story in itself. Crucially, because Ireland is independent, it has been able to negotiate directly with the EU and the IMF, securing a framework for an economic recovery.
Moreover, the Irish have shown that they are willing to support tough economic reforms under national political leadership (both Government and Opposition) that puts the Irish national interest first.
At the heart of the momentous decision to be taken on September 18 are two key issues: Scottish identity and Scottish confidence to go it alone. The resilience the Irish have shown in adversity should reassure the Scots that they, too, could make a success of independence.
However, my gut feeling as a sympathetic outsider is that the referendum will ultimately be decided on the strength, or otherwise, of a separate Scottish identity.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article