ChatterBank2 mins ago
Scots: Why Do You Think Independence Would Be Beneficial To Scotland?
72 Answers
With Nicola chomping at the bit for a second Scottish Independence referendum, clearly supported by many Scots here, I’ve yet to see any of them offer a rational explanation for that support. Such a move has to be economically damaging to Scotland at the very least. For the benefit of those who cannot see the sense in it, can anyone explain it please?
Answers
Here are 10 reasons to support Scottish independence
15:15 Sun 02nd Feb 2020
I wasn't intending to get into the EU argument again. But the fact remains that there are plenty of comparisons to be drawn between the two. A smaller entity within a larger one feels that its voice is being suppressed and that decisions it has, in many cases, explicitly voted against are nevertheless being imposed on it. The legal question is harder to address although as a matter of fact some recent pieces of Brexit legislation, where they touch on Scotland, have handed powers to Westminster in favour of Holyrood. I can't be more specific as the legislation isn't opening but I well remember this debate at the time that the EU Withdrawal Acts 2018 and 2020 were being passed; I'll try to be more specific later.
All I'm saying is that you can get some way towards understanding why the Scottish may wish to leave and go their own way by articulating your reasons for wishing to leave the EU. The two are comparable as matters of emotion and philosophy -- and in turn that addresses the economic point. It may be, and probably is, the case that Scotland (and the rest of the UK) would be damaged by Scotland leaving, but the message of 2016 should surely be that warnings of economic pain will be ignored in questions such as this, either because they aren't believed or because they are judged a price worth paying to reassert sovereignty.
All I'm saying is that you can get some way towards understanding why the Scottish may wish to leave and go their own way by articulating your reasons for wishing to leave the EU. The two are comparable as matters of emotion and philosophy -- and in turn that addresses the economic point. It may be, and probably is, the case that Scotland (and the rest of the UK) would be damaged by Scotland leaving, but the message of 2016 should surely be that warnings of economic pain will be ignored in questions such as this, either because they aren't believed or because they are judged a price worth paying to reassert sovereignty.
I'm neither Scottish nor do I support a second Independence referendum. I briefly did, in the wake of 2016, when I was too upset about the outcome to be rational. But ever since the 2014 campaign, and into its lead-up, the parallels between that and the at-the-time approaching 2016 referendum, while not perfect, were very strong indeed.
And it is the size that makes the difference. There is an optimum range of sizes where one balances strength against the right to make the decisions one feels is right. Continent wide has no ability to feel all of us are one and much the same. Small area has little power. The UK is happily in the goldilocks zone for area. (Furthermore all UK nations elect representatives to the UK parliament. In the EU all one elects are rubber stampers for an Elite's legislation. Hardly comparable.)
Not so, anneasquith. As I said this is a perfectly serious question. I think a lot of people are at a loss to understand why Nicola and her supporters want a second referendum. I understand patriotism and I understand the ill-feeling generated by history - but I don't understand why those who support independence think it's a rationally viable option in today's world. How would it work?
There’s been quite a lot of discussion on this subject in the past which has brought to attention the views of some of AB’s Scottish contingent. A quick search for ‘Scottish independence’ brings up over 100 questions with either direct or related discussions, some as recent as last November (you actually joined in, Naomi). I’ve no reason to suspect their views have altered.
if the scots get their second referendum, and if the result is independence, it's a certainty that nobody alive today, save possibly the very young, will live long enough to celebrate an independent Scotland's accession to the EU. a "yes" vote doesn't mean "we're oot the noo" - it will take years to unpick the union, and even longer for Scotland to demonstrate compliance with the EU's entry requirements.
jim: "Explain to yourself why you wanted to leave the EU, replace Brussels with Westminster, and you'll be more or less where you need to be to understand the Scottish Independence movement. " - you may have a point if the EUSSR was continually pumping money into the UK, Instead we were a net contributor to a club that we had very little control over.
I certainly don’t support Scottish independence (though enjoying the irony of the objections from some quarters) but I think the assessment that it would take -effectively decades - to “unpick” Scotland from the UK and possible many more years to “meet the standards for EU entry” is rather pessimistic.
On the latter point, it took Estonia 13 years from being an occupied and impoverished subject state of the USSR to membership of the EU.
Scotland would start from a much stronger position.
On the latter point, it took Estonia 13 years from being an occupied and impoverished subject state of the USSR to membership of the EU.
Scotland would start from a much stronger position.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.