It would appear that if one has a differing opinion, their opinion is not respected and disregarded.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I don't think anyone in this thread would say otherwise. But people are
not entitled to have their opinions unchallenged, nor, indeed, to have
opinions accepted as unqualified
facts.
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that many things are uncertain.
That's very true, and it's part of the problem we'll always face with this issue-- it's really all hypothetical! Which means that, for every 'expert' who weighs in one one side of the debate, the other side has its own 'expert' claiming the exact opposite. It leaves voters in a very tricky position, which is only complicated when mainstream media chooses only to present one side's evidence, and to present it as fact, rather than (albeit educated) opinion.
What do the yes voters intend to gain by continuing membership with the EU?
Well, one of the most obvious points in favour of
continued membership would be retaining the ability to travel and work freely within the EU. Scotland, unlike the south of England, is much more pragmatic about immigration, and most people recognise that European migrants help support our economy, particularly in agriculture and tourism. Likewise, there are plenty of Scots who take the opportunity to work abroad, whether temporarily or permanently. To suddenly lose access both to migrant labour, and to opportunities abroad, would be unfortunate.
Then, of course, there are all the other economic benefits of a large, open marketplace, and the fact that quite a few businesses and industries rely, in part, on EU subsidies (this is true throughout the UK, and is one reason why, for all their bluster, I really doubt that the UK would ever actually leave the EU, as it would be against corporate interests).
Many people also value and benefit from legal, social and cultural aspects of the EU. The Declaration on Human Rights, for example, is generally viewed as a good thing. Various EU bodies also provide a lot of support and networking opportunities for those involved in culture & heritage-- things like protecting local brands (i.e. Stornoway Black Pudding) or preserving minority languages (Gaelic, Scots).
I'm sure I'm missing quite a bit, but off the top of my head, those are a few reasons I think it's worth
remaining in the EU.
According to the European Commission's website, adopting the Euro is a requirement for new member states. Only the United Kingdom and Denmark have an opt out clause.
Well, this is where those battling experts come in, isn't it? For every person who steps forward to claim Scotland would be out on its ars*, and have to crawl back and apply for new membership, there's another, equally qualified person who argues that, actually, we wouldn't. Opinions there range from 'we'd be grandfathered in' to 'we'd have to make some kind of application to normalise our status, but it wouldn't be treated as a new application.' Of course, you don't see those opinions reported nearly so often by the BBC and other media outlets.
So, when you've got competing opinions, how do you sort them out? Well, one step is to examine bias. Now, almost everyone has
some sort of bias, so it doesn't really make sense to completely disregard what someone's said on that basis. However, when the person talking is, for example, an official of a government that's desperately trying to fend off it's own separatist movement (i.e. Spain), I think a generous pinch of salt is justified.
Beyond that, common sense applies. You've asked what Scotland would have to gain from continued EU membership. Well, here's a question for you: What would the EU have to gain by excluding Scotland? There's all sorts of things they'd lose, from the stuff I mentioned above (migration, markets), to things like access to fishing grounds (a key reason why Spain is pretty much all talk) and oil fields. And as far as the Euro goes, 'new member' rules aside, I don't know that they'd be in a big hurry to add another potentially volatile economy just now. I'm pretty sure there's some room for negotiation there.
I know many of you think Scotland would be a shoe in for continued membership, but how can you be certain? If EU membership is something an independent Scotland is betting on, and by the look of the White Paper they are, then how would you want to make such a gamble?
Good questions as well. First off, it's been in the SNPs best interest to stress the EU as a way to show that things will carry on the same as always. They've seemingly been trying to assure people that almost nothing will change after a Yes vote-- which, frankly, might not be the best tactic to take, but I digress. That said, while the white paper assumes EU membership, I don't think it would be accurate to say that Scotland's success is dependent on the EU. A fairly persuasive model for an independent Scotland is Norway, which is not part of the EU, and which is doing just fine. Certainly, loss of EU membership would cause a bit of a shake-up, but I don't think it would make-or-break Scotland.
So why make a gamble? Well, why does anyone, ever gamble? Short answer: because they think they stand to gain more than they could lose. Longer answer: People keep obsessing about the economic implications of independence, as though the only criteria anyone should consider is the net change in their bank account. The truth is, I can't imagine anyone voting solely because they think they'll make an extra few hundred pounds. I suppose some might, but for myself, and I think for a lot of other people (including my husband, who's also a Scot) it's a lot more complicated, and yet, oddly, simple: Scotland is Scotland. It's a country, its own country. It has different needs than England, it has a different culture, different languages, different demographics, a different economy and (depending on who you ask) different values. And as long is it remains in the UK, none of those differences will matter, or will be given any real consideration, because Scotland's needs and wishes will always come a distant second to London's.
And yet, even with all that in mind, there's more to it. It's not just a political calculation, it's an emotional one, and I can't honestly express is any better than this guy can:
Vote BritainI hope that answers some of your questions, at least from one perspective. As I said, everyone (even you!) is entitled to an opinion, though ultimately, it's only people
living in Scotland who get to make the decision (which I know has upset some expat Scots, who are understandably nervous about being separated from their homeland, even if they've no intention of ever going back to it).
I also hope you don't feel you've been somehow hated or victimised by my response. I have to admit, though I re-read the thread to try to understand, I simply can't see where anyone's been hateful or disrespectful-- just engaged in lively debate. I guess some people just have thicker skins than others.
