Sovereignty or Slavery? The former impeccably and implacably upholding a people’s inalienable right and duty through their own consummate and immutable ability to decisively chart and without either external forces or intentionally divisive influences, even from within, unduly seeking to or actually interfering in such decision making processes imperative to the creation and consolidation of the future betterment in the lives of those endeavouring to make these choices, and whose wellbeing is directly affected by them, versus slavery that is the complete opposite of all such altruistic aspirations and which assiduously seeks to rigidly and coercively assert its own tenets of absolute control over and the unquestioning submission to them by those unlucky to fall within its grasp; basic commonsense alone, apart from everything else in the constructive armoury of logic, surely dictates what can only be the positive way forward.
Therefore, as someone whose ancestors were brutally enslaved, despicably mistreated and as “chattel” mercilessly and exclusively exploited for the collective societal, financial and crucially too the hegemonic benefit and personal aggrandizement of others, but whose descendants remarkably in the case of Barbados, for example, notwithstanding these myriad, wholly unjustifiable and barbaric adversities that were inflicted upon their people and even themselves under the aegis of colonialism but who nevertheless grasped the thorny nettle of misfortune, secured their independence and spectacularly transformed their homeland and society into the bastion of a modern, highly educated, exceedingly healthy, transparently equitable, financially prosperous, well-informed, vibrant, self-assuredly committed and stable democracy that it now is, there is no earthly reason then why Scotland and its people, notwithstanding that as part of the United Kingdom it was culpable for the ills and woes meted out to others in the former British Empire must, like a Siamese twin unfortunately joined at the hip to its sibling, forever stay shackled to England’s side.
The former colonies of England and then afterwards of Britain following the formation of the United Kingdom - other than a few minor ones like Montserrat, Gibraltar and Bermuda that voluntarily chose not to do so - are now independent and sovereign states in their own right, and I’m absolutely confident that although they’re all quite content to be, and are even enthusiastic about the actuality of being members of the Commonwealth with their erstwhile colonial ruler Britain, enjoyably sharing, consolidating and positively advancing their common and mutually beneficial interests, that none of them, and that discernibly includes the so-called kith and kin white Dominions of Australia, Canada and New Zealand - far less so the former North American colonies that morphed into the United States – logically wants to be again ruled from Westminster.
So firmly bearing that in mind why then should Scotland, similarly a country in its own right even though it voluntarily became a part of the United Kingdom, be arrogantly deigned by the elites in England, their likeminded satrapies within Scotland and their joint corporate paymasters not to have the same entitlement to exclude itself from Westminster rule and confidently plough its own political and sovereign independent furrow so to speak; just like all the others that opted to do so?