independence.

why does it have to be one or the other? why does it need to be scotland tearing itself away from england or being begrudgingly kept together? can’t there be another option, another solution? if scotland is so capable of being financially independent, why aren’t we using this to help england and use it as leverage to gain more power in Westminster, something we apparently lack much of. why can’t there be less of an opposition, more of a compromise, coalition even? i know, i know, “look how this one is turning out”. but who says it’s to be that way? if scotland is so full of pioneering leaders as the Yes campain claim then surely they won’t roll over and take it, a la Mr Clegg? why can’t we use our assets in a more co-operative, less destructive way?

starry-eyed? perhaps. unrealistic? maybe. but impossible?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.