The case against Scottish independence

What lies at the heart of the ‘Yes’ campaign? The idea that we could forge a fairer, more representative society that would serve Scottish people sounds not only tempting, but necessary. Scotland could achieve this with independence, but, as the ‘Yes’ campaign seems so unwilling to acknowledge, this could also be achieved through further devolution – an option that could have been on the ballot paper and has been promised for the country should we not secede from the Union.

On top of this there is a strong sentiment both within the SNP and amongst ‘Yes’ supporters to keep the pound sterling, a decision that has always confused me, as it encourages the idea that an independent Scotland would be independent only in name and spirit, and would still seek the financial security of being linked with the greater financial power of the United Kingdom. If the currency union is so wanted, surely the best way to safeguard this would be to remain in the Union. However, this issue highlights my main point: Alex Salmond desires Scottish liberty in name and in name only. Independence is the only thing that has any permanence in an independence argument: politics and the economy change, and Scotland is most certainly not an anti-right country. It is an anti-Conservative Party country.

Because of this I attribute the actual act of partition, the breaking away from British identity, to be central aim of an independent Scotland. This seems like a rather obvious point to be making but it’s incredibly important because I feel that these beliefs are not justified; to feel Scottish you are also feeling British. This is because Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the Union has been so intertwined throughout her history and beyond. We are called British because we live on the British Isles, which were settled by Britons, and from this medieval cultural foundation we have a shared identity but admittedly a divided one.

But this is no bad thing; ever since the 1707 Acts of Union the United Kingdom has, by its definition of being a sovereign alliance of separate nations, successfully nurtured and protected the Scottish culture and the Scots’ identity of themselves. Indeed, I would go so far as to say the Union has highlighted the differences in its cultures and due to this, what was once an unthinkable defiance of ancient divisions has become a figurehead of what the collective, diverse, multicultural people of the modern age are capable of: moulding friendships from aggression and ardently forging one of the safest, most desirable places to live in the world.

I am sure an independent Scotland could achieve great things but so can any country with the right leadership and mentality, and in breaking away from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, I wholeheartedly feel we are ruining something special and unique for reasons with such great transience as the political and social environment.

By voting ‘No’ you are maintaining a friendship that stands testament to both world history and to what modernity has achieved and can still achieve. We are not just supporting a political Union that works well. We are bringing light to the frailty of division and the strength of not just any cultural identity but one which stands proudly despite being a small country in a much larger Union: the Scottish.

Image courtesy of http://nationalcollective.com/2013/11/04/alan-bissett-a-footnote-in-history-a-yes-scotland-supporter-attends-a-better-together-launch/