4 ms·
> But the point is this: in an independent Scotland, crucial decision-making power will rest with the people who live here – not with Westminster governments th
by maratc 4y ago
> But the point is this: in an independent Scotland, crucial decision-making power will rest with the people who live here – not with Westminster governments that do not command the support of people in Scotland, and which pursue policies, for example, Brexit, that are deeply damaging to Scotland's interests.
So, the Scots don't want that the people who make the decisions would be in Westminster — they want the people who make the decisions to be in ... Brussels, Strasbourg and Hague?
- jenscow 4y agoThere are at least 2 factors you miss: - The EU would have less of an influence than Westminster does. - The people of Scotland believe their desires are more aligned with those of other countries, than with England.
- maratc 4y agoIf the Scots want to leave a declining Empire A and to join a rising Empire B, I don't have issue with that. What I have issue with is calling that "independence", because that's not what that word usually means.
- mvc 4y agoYou ignored this part of parent's response. "The EU would have less of an influence than Westminster does" For example. Did the UK require permission from the EU in order to hold the Brexit referendum?
- maratc 4y agoIs your argument that there would be less dependence on Brussels than there is on Westminster? Because my argument is that “less dependence” is not what independence is.
- mvc 4y agoI'm not particularly interested in debating what exactly independence means in the abstract. But to my untrained political eye, it seems that countries are free to choose political and economic unions and those unions tend to come with benefits and obligations. Are members of the UN or WTO independent? If a body consisting of representatives elected only by "Scottish citizens" can decide which unions to associate with, and which to leave, we'll have independence in my book.