Every Scotsman knows the significance of 1314: In that year Robert Bruce, leading an outnumbered highland army, crushed the hated Sassenachs at Bannockburn and won his country's freedom. For a while.

England eventually recovered its lost colony, but ever since, rumblings of unrest have stirred the Gaelic consciousness. In 1998, to quiet the latest round of clamouring, the British government granted limited self-governance to Scotland.

Of course, sovereignty movements are rarely pacified by meeting them halfway, as anyone familiar with the ferment in Quebec can testify. Now the Scots are going all-in.

In 2014, the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn, they want a referendum on full-scale independence.

Mel Gibson and his movie Braveheart notwithstanding, does any of this make sense?

To have a chance of succeeding, nationalist campaigns must pass three tests. The first is historical. Is there a plausible claim to statehood, based on past evidence of self-government?

Let's agree the answer here is yes. Dunfermline Abbey, where Bruce lies buried, was founded in the ninth century.

And the words King Robert The Bruce are chiselled around its battlements. Sounds like there was some governing going on there.

The second test is more difficult to adjudicate: Do the present-day residents of Scotland have a legitimate grievance with the status quo?

In times gone by, they certainly did. England financed its empire by ruthlessly collecting together the wealth of the many into the hands of a few.

As late as the 1930s, Britain was a country of stark contrasts. Rich, landed families presided over government, business and the professions. Their lifestyles were built on the labours of an impoverished lower class kept firmly in its place.

There's a reason so many Scotsmen made names for themselves abroad. There were no jobs worth having at home. But how valid those concerns are today is less clear. Unemployment in Britain is still geographically aligned, being high in the north and lower in the south.

But that's because most of Britain's trading partners are located southward, across the Channel in Europe. An independent government in Edinburgh can't change that.

Let's give this second test a middling grade, and move on to the third. Will independence remedy those grievances? Until recently, the answer to this question was unambiguously no.

Had Scotland separated 30 years ago, it would have been impossible to replace the intangible benefits associated with Britain's name and standing. These include access to a stable currency, trade agreements built up over many years and London's powerful banking centre.

However, the crisis gripping the European Union may change that assessment somewhat. It appears the EU will solve its problems by binding the member states closer together.

In a more tightly structured union, the wiggle room enjoyed by individual countries will decrease. Ironically, the cost of gaining independence may decline, because in the Europe of tomorrow, there may be less independence to gain.

So yes, it may be feasible for the Scots to leave the United Kingdom and go it alone. Denmark and Finland survive with populations and economies of no greater size.

Whether it's worth the enormous upheaval and risk-taking is another matter. But this is not, by any stretch, a project based on reason. Far different emotions are in play.

It's no accident that Scotland's southern border closely follows Hadrian's Wall - a Roman fortification built in the second century to keep out the highlanders. Even in those days, subduing the tribes of Alba wasn't found worthwhile.

So the Scots will hold a referendum - their history demands it. How it will go remains to be seen.

Perhaps, with honour satisfied, they'll make their peace with England. If they do, there will be for the first time a genuinely united kingdom.