A once proud imperial power and one of six founding members of the European Union may be about to come apart at the linguistic seams.
A hoax last year caused panic when a Belgian TV station reported the Dutch-speaking Flemish part of the country had declared independence and the king and queen had fled.
Now a notion that was once a fantasy of fringe politicians is suddenly on everybody's lips: is Belgium about to split? And for the debate about Scottish independence, it raises an interesting precedent regarding what happens when an EU member forms two states.
Almost three months after elections, Belgium has no government, efforts to form one are on hold and unity appeals by King Albert II have been ignored - eroding the prestige of a monarchy often hailed as the glue holding together this bilingual nation.
Such is the deadlock between Dutch and French-speaking parties that politicians and media are openly airing the view that Belgium's linguistic camps may be better off divorcing.
"I don't want the end of Belgium, but I fear it will happen," says Gerard Deprez, a former Christian Democratic leader from French-speaking Wallonia. Elio di Rupo, the Francophone Socialist leader, says the danger of Belgium's disintegration "is greater now than it was on June 10", when elections triggered the haggling over forming the government.
In the June 10 ballot, Christian Democrats and Liberals won 81 of the 150 parliamentary seats and agreed to form a coalition. But the composition of the government has been stalled because of bickering over Flemish demands for more autonomy Belgium's 6.5 million Dutch speakers and four million Francophones have enjoyed broad self-rule since the 1980s; only Brussels is officially bilingual. In European councils of ministers, one part or the other can represent the whole country.
Many Flemish complain their wealthier, service-based economy subsidises Wallonia. Dutch speakers view the Francophones' dilapidated cities and 14% unemployment - double their rate - as the legacy of hard-line Socialist rule.
Dutch speakers are demanding autonomy in health care, justice and transport, some of the last bastions of control from Brussels. Many feel the next logical step would be full independence.
"Living together in one country is impossible if year after year the minority prevents the majority from realising its most important desires," Het Laatste Nieuws, Belgium's largest daily, argued recently.
Chris Peeters, an Antwerp resident, sees widespread support for Flemish independence "because all the difficulties we have had over the last 10 years in Belgium . . . are coming from the French part. So it would be a solution for Belgium to split apart."
A TV poll found 46% of Flemings favouring independence, the highest in years.
The daily De Standaard recently devoted pages to how to shut down Belgium. Given its healthy economy, it said, Flanders could easily join the EU, but divvying up national icons such as the Royal Library or the city of Brussels would be difficult.
The demise of Belgium would bring this country full circle. In 1912, Jules Destree, a Francophone Socialist, wrote King Albert I a letter saying his nation - made independent by the Netherlands in 1830 - was artificial, with no regard for reality on the ground.
Flemings and Walloons are opposites, Destree argued: "What excites one, leaves the other stone-cold . . . The Walloon belongs to the Latin civilisation, the Fleming to the Germanic culture. We have in Belgium Walloons and Flemings. There are no Belgians, sire."
Developments across the North Sea carry significance for Scotland, as no member of the EU has split before. SNP claims that Scottish representatives could neatly fit into councils of ministers, the commission and the parliament have not been tested.
Labour has countered that an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership. There could be resistance from large states that want to discourage their own separatist movements, and France has passed a constitutional amendment requiring a referendum each time a new member joins the EU.
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