Unionist Fallacy #1: uncertainty on how Scotland would be run after indy
Staying with Westminster is just as uncertain
Unionist Fallacy #1 is when unionists state that we don't know in detail how Scotland would be run after indy, and conclude that independence is too risky. This is a fallacy because the unionists cannot give the same detail of how Scotland will be run if we stay with Westminster rule.
The future is always uncertain, but one thing is certain: if Scotland rules itself, we'll be ruled in the interests of Scots but if we continue to be ruled by Westminster we'll be ruled in the interests of Westminster.
Example 1: Ian Murray
Here's one from @RunningLine1 listing 10 questions Labour MP Ian Murray has about independence:
To which I replied replied:
This genre of attack is basically asking how Scotland would be run after indy in detail, with the implication that if we don't have all the answers indy is too risky.
The reason it is dishonest is that unionists don't think the same argument applies to them: if we stay with Westminster, how will Scotland be run over the next 50 years? They can't say, so by their own argument it is too risky to continue to be ruled by Westminster.
In fact, it's worse. Ian Murray can't even say how Scotland under Westminster will be ruled less that one year ahead. Did he in December 2021 predict that Liz Truss would be come prime Minister, issue a disastrous mini-budget which crashed the economy, and was then forced to retract it? He did not. Did he predict that UK would have 4 (and counting) Chancellors of the Exchequer in 2022? Again, he did not.
Example 2: Douglas Ross
A more recent example is this from Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross (aka Dross). @Douglas4Moray:
Again, Dross is saying there is uncertainty about how Scotland will be run after independence, and concluding that therefore we shouldn't be independent.
I’m making a series of posts on unionist fallacies. Do you have any examples of unionist fallacies? Write them in the comments.
Unionist Fallacy #1: uncertainty on how Scotland would be run after indy
I think it's pointless to approach these kind of discussions with anything other than pragmatic realpolitik, which is why we can conclusively say that answering any of these questions would be a bad idea. The whole appeal of an independent Scotland, much like a post-Brexit UK, is as a blank canvas on which to project one's own idealised imaginings of future nation.
Giving details makes the prospect less appealing to some segment of the people currently in favor, which is why people who are opposed to the change will keep asking these questions, and people who are advocating it will keep ignoring them.
Not the author of this post by the way, you have a pretty clear vision of how it should go, but I guarantee that if it does happen it won't happen exactly as you imagine in. Strategically, if you want an independent Scotland it's probably best not to worry too much about the kind of independent Scotland you'll end up with, just leave those decisions to whoever ends up in power at the time.
I think Murray's comments fall in two different categories. Your objection is valid for one category but not the other. Objections like "will taxes go up or down" are obviously ridiculously specific and your objection is valid.
However, I think questions about currency are perfectly fair. Ask Ian Murray to predict what currency rUK will be using in five years and I think he could tell you. Ask Nicola Sturgeon what currency an independent Scotland will use and she can't.
My point is that currency (and possibly a few others) is a big deal that it's worth having a discussion about before making one's mind up about indy.