I VOTED no for the same reasons that I voted no to Brexit: there was no adequate economic case made to cut ourselves off from our biggest trading neighbour.
I am a committed European and I am suspicious of populist “nationalism”.
So, what has changed my mind? The anti-immigrant, racist and lying Brexit campaign of 2016; the lack of planning for a post Brexit world and my uneasiness with the malign undertones of “Take back control” and “make the UK great again”.
Simply put, an isolationist England cutting itself off politically, culturally and economically from its biggest and closest trading neighbour, at a time of health and environmental crisis, is damaging to us. A perfect illustration of this is its potentially catastrophic handling of Covid-19.
READ MORE: From No to Yes: The BBC has become the voice of Unionists
Scotland needs immigrants. Our agriculture, fishing, hospitality and creative industries and the NHS and care sector depend on them.
So does our GDP growth. Trading on WTO terms with customs, tariffs and border controls will not only enormously damage agricultural and fisheries exports but also present and future manufacturing and service businesses interacting with Europe.
Our exclusion from Europe’s advanced environmental and employment policies, security and judicial linkages would be damaging Scotland’s environmental and societal wellbeing.
Voting for Brexit, like voting for independence, was easy.
Getting Brexit Done is another matter. In Scotland’s case, the voters, must know what we are voting for BEFORE the next referendum so that we are not surprised at what we get afterwards.
Firstly, we need a robust and honest estimate of the costs of running our new state to at least maintain the status quo in Health, Education and Infrastructure, informed by the issues arising from the Growth Commission Report.
Secondly, we need to see a realistic implementation plan so that we know how Scotland will resource these estimates.
Thirdly, Government must demonstrate intellect, leadership, courage and openness in that planning if it is to retain credibility. No bluster, bombast, populist rhetoric, most importantly, no surprises afterwards, when we vote YES.
READ MORE: Covid-19 social measures could be needed for at least a year
The Thundercloud above all of this is the need to plan for climate change, which must be part of the prospectus for independence for our young people.
The FAO has stated that soil degradation, due to erosion, water losses and industrial scale agriculture, will severely restrict our capacity to sustain the ever-increasing requirement to produce food in the lifetimes of our children.
The World Economic Forum has stated in 2020 that environmental issues are the top five risks facing the world, compounding issues of soil degradation.
What is Scotland’s grounded thinking now, if any, on environmental sustainability, soil resilience and food production so that we can plan for the future of our young?
Put even more simply, much of Scotland’s food supplies are warehoused in, and transported through, England.
Much of their food reserves are coming from overseas and are measured in days rather than weeks. What will Scotland’s food security policy be to ensure that we are well fed and healthy as soon as we are independent?
READ MORE:Spain and Italy struggle to cope with coronavirus cases
Any evidence that we are even thinking about these issues will encourage me to vote YES for a hopefully viable future for our young people.
In an increasingly sophisticated, technologically advanced and vulnerable world, remembering that, as with Brexit, an ungrounded vision of independence is not ambition, it is simply hallucination.
Do you somebody who’s gone from No to Yes? Contact carla.jenkins@newsquest.co.uk
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