You, along with everyone else who says things like 'why Scotland, why not let Skye go independent. Why not let Portree go independent. Why not let 14 Wentworth Street become independent? Why can't we all just set up tents and throw rocks at each other whenever someone comes too close?'
argumentum ad absurdum aside, the point is, we have not decided arbitrarily to draw the line at Scotland, instead of a lesser political division: the Union was a product of its time period, it was bitterly opposed by many, and most importantly, it was always just a political union between two kingdoms, for the sake of expediency, it wasn't ever supposed to be the creation of a new nation. That idea came later. (notwithstanding the huge dominance of English culture in Upper Class Scotland which is as old as England itself, though younger than Scotland).
What we are proposing is, simply, restoring Scotland to the way it was before 1707. There were people living in the newly independent USA who could still remember when Scotland was an independent country. That is why its Scotland, not Skye, that we want to be independent: its partly because we think Scotland would be doing better if not for London-centricity, mainly because we think the Union has served its purpose, and so we want to go back to the way it was, making our own decisions that affect only our own country. Any self-respecting British politician would favour propositions such as the high speed rail in the South, and pumping millions of pounds into things like Crossrail and Trident, because those are (arguably) beneficial for Britain as a whole, regardless of whether the MP is Scottish or English. The point is, when there are no longer any Scottish policitians in Westminster, they will all be here, and they will all be focussing attention onto Scotland, instead of on England.
This all eventually boils down to whether you think the Union is worth keeping, or whether you think that a temporary expenditure/investment is worth the dignity of being our own country with our own sovereign power. I think the latter. And I wouldn't be arguing the case if I thought that such dignity would come with the price of significantly reducing Scottish living standards and prospects: I think on the contrary, it will increase them, in the long term. But tbh that's secondary to breaking the unnecessary, inadequate, obsolete Union.
Not so much any more. There are no highlanders left npw, they all moved down to the lowlands during the clearances. I and others from the central belt am the direct descendent of highland clansmen as well as lowlanders, there is literally noone left in mainland Scotland who preserves the way of life or culture of the highlands any more. There are the Gaelic speakers in the Western isles admittedly, but firstly, an independent Scotland would put a huge focus on Gaelic culture, so it will be quids in for the Gaels if we become independent (take a look at the Gaeltachd community in Ireland to see the model for this), and secondly, they are fast dying out.
Indeed, Orkney and Shetland are not entirely convinced, but I don't think anyone is suggesting they become independent. They want to remain as part of the rUK iirc (and I'm sure we can talk them out of that).Thus to brush of so the Orkney's right to Independence doesn't work in the slightest. It's already been sourced that the Isles feel neglected by the Scottish government, thus they technically have every right for a referendum as We ourselves do.
Certainly, the super-localisation of government has a lot going for it, its worked in Finland for example and its working in London. But tbh I don't see why Scotland can't do that as an independent nation, and it still doesn't solve the main problems for us which are representation in Westminster not being appropriate while England does not have a parliament, and the problems with defence and other non-devolved policies.And the idea of the Scottish Parliament... its interesting here. As think about it, Poach has raised some very good points, if local councils were given great powers, a far more decentralized UK policy taken into account (theoretically), then the said local shire would be in a far better position to look after the issues of its inhabitants in a more relevant and direct way. This surely has much more to recommend than over any centralized national system?