Should Scotland Be Independent?

I have always held that if the Scots want to be independent, they should be independent. The demand for independence is part of nationalism and in small doses nationalism is a useful antidote to oppression which is not always guaranteed to work. However, the debate about Scottish independence does not seem to centre around freedom, liberty and protection from oppression, which were the driving forces that made The United States of American Mexico, India, Pakistan, Cyprus and many other nations become self governing states. The debate centres around economic interests.

The Scottish Nationalists seek to persuade people to their view not just by an appeal to their nationalism, their heritage and their unique culture, freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but by an appeal to their pockets. The Nationalists  argue that Scotland would be wealthier, more prosperous and better of if it was independent of the rest of the United Kingdom so that it could appropriate the oil and gas reserves that would belong to it, if it were an independent nation. Those oppose deny this argument.

Of course, during the period when the United Kingdom has been a Union there have been times when the Scots benefited economically from the Union and now they see a prospect of benefiting from separation, that argument seems to prevail.

There are good times and bad times. there are times when the oil and gas flow freely and times when it dries up. There are swings and roundabouts in all economies. Making a decision to be independent because a politician tells you that you will be £500 a year better off with independence seems to me to be madness. Scots should vote on whether they wish to be independent according to whether they will be happier pursuing their own destiny free from the United Kingdom, not on whether a bunch of sleazy politicians tell them that they will be better off or worse off.