I WAS a No voter. Having been incredibly impassioned by the issues surrounding the referendum, and despite feeling that a break away from the UK might come with many positive outcomes, I felt that Alex Salmond was not specific enough with the economic policy and how we would fare without Westminster’s funding, further intensified by seeing John Curtice deliver his own bipartisan analysis at a youth politics evening.
It was a very difficult time for Scotland, and I have certainly had to argue my case many times. It certainly seemed I was heartless in my decision to vote No. It was a divisive and politically charged time and I was working the Edinburgh Fringe festival. I went on a (terrible) Tinder date that turned particularly ugly when he found out I was a No voter.
I had never experienced such a polarising political event in such a real way before!
READ MORE: Questions raised over Russian bot use during Scottish indyref2
I have always felt having Scottish-centric representation within Westminster has been important and certainly devolution has proved positive, but ultimately, I felt that the water was too murky, especially with regards to the economic plan, in order to confidently vote Yes. At this time, I was fresh out of School and just finding my feet in terms of my political leanings and still needed to have confidence in Salmond to vote yes, a confidence which I ultimately did not have.
Following the 2016 EU referendum, this forced me to reconsider my choice. Scotland wanted to remain (in fact, a major part of why I voted No initially, in case it threatened our position within the EU) and obviously the fact that we are now having to leave seems incredibly unfair.
Having lived and taught on the Isle of Wight since 2017, I have realised that Scottish society has a lot in place which I would otherwise take for granted. Free prescriptions, better education funding, a much better and more efficient health care system comparative to England. I have developed a pride in being Scottish, born out of the fact that for the first time in my life, it is a defining characteristic.
I regularly express my desire to be back in Scotland when the time comes to have a family. The issues that in 2014 were so easily rationalised have become unequivocally entangled with my heart.
Being so far away has made me realise that ultimately, what Scotland prioritises for its people is, in a very real and tangible every-day way, incredibly different from England. If ever we had a second referendum, I would seriously consider voting Yes.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel