AS scare stories go, Brexit is perhaps the most terrifying. It has destroyed confidence in the UK Government, brought down one prime minister in Theresa May and installed another in Boris Johnson.
It has seen big companies like Dyson – run by a man who championed leaving the EU – take steps to move their headquarters from the UK.
It has given rise to the Brexit Party and the right, it’s threatened the future of universities, scientific research, commerce and family life for those born elsewhere in the EU.
And, three years on from the vote, we are still no closer to establishing what the terms of withdrawal will be or what life in post-Brexit Britain will look like.
Farming, fishing, exports, human rights rules, even peace in Northern Ireland – there are no answers on any of these questions.
And that, the Unionist argument goes, shows why Scotland should never again seek independence – it’s simply too hard to disentangle long-standing legal frameworks governing law, trade and the movement of people.
But the big problem of Brexit is that the UK Government had no blueprint for leaving when they asked the public to go to the polls, having given them a matter of weeks to consider the question. That’s because they expected to win a Remain majority, and so all of the thinking on these crucial matters of day-to-day living and national security is only being done now.
And that’s why it’s all such a guddle.
They say breaking up is hard to do, but that really depends on the way you go about it. Brexit is the clearest example possible of the wrong way.
When Scotland voted on its future in 2014, it did so following a lengthy period of nuanced debate which generated never-before-seen levels of political engagement and got the public thinking – and, crucially, talking – about what kind of country they wanted Scotland to be.
That’s given rise to all kinds of things, including a laudable network of community projects aimed at connecting people and lifting them up, such as Back to School banks.
And since that result, we’ve seen a sizeable shift in voters moving from No to Yes, on account of the broken Westminster promises.
That level of engagement means we’re better placed to hold politicians to account and to set out what we want for the future of our country and our people.
That means our families, our neighbours and our colleagues – it’s about all of us.
It could be argued that independence for Scotland is the opposite of Brexit. The country has already made it clear that it wants to remain part of Europe and be, like most of the continent’s nations, an independent state within the world’s largest single market.
It has also roundly rejected the two biggest pro-Union parties, with support for both the Tories and Labour freefalling at the most recent elections.
Independence supporters are often accused of Scottish exceptionalism, of wrongly thinking the country is free of social problems or superior to others.
But Unionist arguments often present this same exceptionalism in another form – that Scotland, uniquely in the world, is incapable of governing its own affairs, running its own economy and thriving.
Most countries that were once under British rule have already achieved full sovereignty – Ireland, Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand, India, Singapore, Malta.
In fact, more than 60 states have done so.
And none is seeking to return to Westminster rule.
Some of these have populations in line with Scotland’s, others are larger but have less developed economies, lesser natural capital and educational establishments that are further down the international rankings.
If they can do it, so can we.
WHAT TO SAY
Independence has been achieved many times – Brexit is the result of an ill-prepared government scrabbling to cope with questions it hadn’t even bothered to consider. There is no reason Scottish independence would go the same way. In fact, we are better prepared for change than Westminster already.
This article is part of our BUSTED supplement, debunking nine Unionist myths about Scottish independence. It was made possible by support for our 10,000 Steps campaign – if you haven't yet subscribed to The National, click here to find out how it'll help us boost the case for Yes directly.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel