The Scottish seccession movement is attempt at progress of a people who don’t know what the next paradigm of history should be. Their arguments for seccession are not terribly well founded since they could apply to any region with political and cultural differences of any country. They do vote largely center-left and have their own national culture but New England votes further to the left than most of America and they have their own culture. One of my primary reasons for opposing independence is it sets a precedent for nationhood as the basis for statehood which I oppose as it is contrary to the dictates of universal love and kinship which my religion commands.
States, insofar as they should exist, should have some cultural cohesion but beyond large linguistic and other macro cultural differences, economic, social, and other practical considerations should take precedent and Scotland is culturally similiar enough to the rest of the United Kingdom that I feel their independence would send the wrong message to places like Bosnia and Cyprus. Political and cultural differences should not mean that a people cannot coexist.
What is the aim, though, of Scottish Seccession? What do they want to do other than build another liberal social democracy? They may argue they can do it better than the English and Labour will argue they do it better than the Tories and I don’t see any difference in those comparisons. An independent Scotland will have the same system of government and almost the same standard of living. Literally, almost nothing will change. The reason they want change is because things are miserable and they want something to change and while voting for Donald Trump and voting for Scottish Seccession are very different, in one manner, they are identical: it is an attempt at a major shift in hopes it will bring about something other than the status quo which it will not do.
What it will do on a practical level is nothing more than make life slightly less conveinent because commuting between the south of Scotland and the north of England will require a customs or visa check. There is more travel between England and Scotland on a daily basis than between Britian and continental Europe. It’s going to turn one liberal social democracy into two and make life marginally more difficult for most people who are affected in any way by it.
They don’t think of it like that. Brexit was bad but it was not as bad as the left predicted it would be and the worst part about Brexit was not its effect on the economy because that was marginal and able to be worked out. They can and did hash out treaty arrangements to keep the lorries being ferried across the channel and the routes between Calais and Dover are almost as busy as before Brexit. The problem with Brexit, more than anything, was the weakening of Europe in the face of Russia and China. They turned one economic bloc into two and that definitely affected people’s lives in real ways as the Ukrianians and the gas pipelines can attest.
In fact, there is even an argument for the Irish to rejoin the British in a federal system because in the end, history isn’t terribly relevant. In the end of the day, they’re all liberal social democracies which, for all intents and purposes, are exactly the same. What is relevant are geopolitical blocs and the West needs to be as unified as possible. That and opposing nation-states as a principle owing to the history of nationalism are my primary reasons for oppsing seccession movements the world over. Countries need to be big to throw around geopolitical weight and a few big countries throw around more weight than lots of small ones. There is a reason the Holy Roman Empire was never an empire while Spain, France, and Britian were. The Congress of Vienna got that one right, countries, if they should exist, should be big. Liberal democracy needs to be as powerful as possible, right now. Europe needs maximum strength and balkanization makes it weaker.