EVERY country that has been subjected to English domination has endured a rough road to freedom.
Scotland’s struggle for independence did not begin this year, but since the medieval times during, for example, the battles of Falkirk, Methven, and Bannockburn in 1314.
In 1305, King Edward I captured a Scottish warlord, William Wallace who was later charged with treason and executed in 1305.
He was charged with treason despite the fact that William Wallace, and Scotland, owed no allegiance to England.
The Treaty of Union, (won by 110 votes to 69) signed on January 6 1707 officially entered a marriage of economic and political convenience between the Scottish and the English.
By signing the treaty, the Scottish not only lost their sovereignty to the UK, but they also lost their parliament and their currency and taxation and trade laws (economic issues) were made in London.
They lost their economic independence.
The English were not genuine partners in the political communion, for between 1707 and 2014, the UK has had only three Prime Ministers (PM) with Scottish ancestry.
Notably, the duration of premiership of each of the three Prime Ministers with Scottish ancestry lasted no more than three years.  
Harold Macmillan was only PM from 1955-1957, the same applied to Alec Douglas-Home (1963-64) and Gordon Brown (2007-2010).
The truth is Gordon Brown lost the 2010 general election because the English-dominated Westminster Parliament could not fathom a Scottish PM.
The economics: The row over oil
Scotland became a more strategic partner in UK politics when huge reserves of oil and gas were discovered in the North Sea in the 1970s.
Since 1974, the Scottish National Party (SNP) has been running a campaign “It’s Scotland’s Oil.”
Since the discovery of gas and oil beneath the Scottish waters, about 40 billion barrels of oil have been extracted from the North Sea, thereby generating about £3 000 billion for the UK Treasury (BBC News April 14 2013).
But how much of that money has been used to develop Scotland or create jobs for the Scottish?
Under the current system the revenue generated from the Scottish oil and gas goes to the UK Treasury while Scotland is allocated a budget for her own expenditure from the Westminster Parliament.
The budget is not based on how much revenue is generated from the gas and oil, but how much Westminster decides should go to Scotland.
The ‘Yes’ campaign is blaming the UK’s English dominated government for investing less in Scotland, thus creating very few jobs for the Scottish people.
Since the campaign for the referendum, the UK government has been downplaying the importance of the gas and oil under the Scottish waters.
In July this year, the Financial Times maintained that Westminster was “deliberately downplaying the potential for oil and gas returns from the North Sea ahead of the referendum”.
On the other hand an Edinburgh-based firm estimates that there are about 15,3 billion barrels of oil reserves still remaining under the Scottish waters.
The Oil & Gas UK also estimates that the figure could be as much as between 15 billion to 24 billion barrels remaining.
The ‘Yes’ campaign believes that the remaining gas and oil reservoirs (which they estimate to be between 15 and 24 billion barrels) will generate about £1 trillion, 90 percent of which will be used to develop Scotland and create employment for the Scottish people.
The debate and referendum to decide Scotland’s future is of interest to Zimbabwe.
Cecil Rhodes who spearheaded our colonisation was English.
In that respect, the Scots might after all be our unlikely comrades-in-arms: sharing the same history of subjugation and domination by the English.