The United Kingdom is now on a “knife edge,” according to the front page of the London Times. This is because of its latest poll, which the Times has taken with the London Sun. It shows that support for Scottish independence has soared eight points in the past month alone, leaving it but six points behind the “no” camp. The leader of “Yes Scotland,” Blair Jenkins, is calling it a “breakthrough” and kvelling that when voters go to the polls for the referendum September 18, “we only need another three-point swing to achieve a Yes for Scotland.”

We may have missed something, but blamed if we’re not the only newspaper in town that’s pulling for the Yes camp. We understand that a yes vote could be the first step toward sundering a union of England and Scotland that has obtained for more than 300 years. But it could also be the first step in liberating the more conservative England from more left-leaning Scotland. Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland, is vowing that if the Scots gain independence they would join the European Union in their own right.

This, by our reckoning, would increase the chances — or at least the logic — that England would leave. Imagine the possibilities that would open up were America to deliver the leadership of the Senate to the Republicans and then follow it up by electing a Republican as president. We could be in a position to reach out to a newly liberated England and establish by treaty a “special relationship” that has existed, so far, mainly in the rhetorical sphere. Call it a retreat to of those inclined to hew to the fundamental principles of English and American liberty.

Now we understand that there are those on the right who are not so comfortable with the prospect of Scottish secession. Just last month, the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, declared that those plumping for an independent Scotland as were “not the friends of justice, the friends of freedom.” The spokesman for the “Yes” camp’s shrugged it off, saying Mr. Abbott has a “reputation for gaffes.” Mr. Abbott’s remarks struck us as passing strange from the leader of a country that enjoys the same independence that so many in Scotland crave.

After all, the question that will go to the Scots does not get into the details. They are being asked: ““Should Scotland be an independent country?” The result, if yes, will be in the nature of a statement in principle. A lot of details will have to be worked out, including whether Scotland will stay in the Commonwealth that is headed by Elizabeth II, who, after all, signed off on her Scottish subjects going to the polls on the question in the first place. An independent Scotland in the Commonwealth would not be so different from Canada or Australia. It could go its own way and still bow to the Queen.

President Obama, who heads a country that took a radically more independent course, is against a “yes” vote for Scotland. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” he proffered. The problem with his statement is not only the coarse grammar but the substance. The current union between England and Scotland is broken. This is one of the reasons why Nigel Farage’s campaign for an exit from the European Union is surging so dramatically. We understand that the Scottish vote and the possible referendum on Europe are technically separate issues, but Scotland has an affinity to Europe that is alien to England.

A “yes” on the two questions, in any event, could leave America with the chance to making a meaningful pact with Britain and other countries, like Canada and Australia, that hew to classical liberalism. Not that a “no” vote would be the end of the game. There will still be the question of whether Britain should exit the European Union. That is, by our lights, an even easier call. Britain would be wise to leave Europe at the first nanosecond it is able to do so. The old world is seething with the old hatreds. Britain would be in a better position to stand for freedom were it independent of Europe and in partnership with America of the kind from which Europe has always shrunk.