Independence is only about democracy

Some nationalists are very honest about their case for independence. They fully accept the disruption, the deeply damaging and painful consequences of independence and argue that the debate is simply that full democracy for Scotland is a price worth paying. In other words independence no matter what the cost, no matter how painful it is it's worth it because you can't put a price on democracy. 

That's a fair enough principle, it's a heck of a statement to put your ideology before people's welfare but if that is so important to you then who am I to argue. 

The trouble is very few nationalists actually really mean that, indeed it's often accompanied by a considerable amount of inconsistency which generally shows it up as anything but a principle. In the vast majority of cases it's a just a rational judgement call on the debate between sovereignty and the efficiency of pooling and sharing. 

Pooling and sharing
Let's start at the most obvious level - the SNP do not subscribe to this principle. If they did they would not support being in the EU. 

You cannot argue that the case for independence is all about democracy and Scotland controlling its own affairs only to simultaneously argue that Scotland should "pool some sovereignty for mutual advantage". Indeed the Currency Union from the SNP's Fiscal Commission Working Group was full of the same sentiment, both nations should pool their resources and work together to maintain a common currency, monetary policy and fiscal framework. 

Pooling and sharing for benefit is perfectly natural. The EU operates on the basis of it (it could do more in my view) and many multinational states such as Germany (with the nation of Bavaria) or Canada (with the nation of Quebec) all recognise the advantages of pooling and sharing for their common good. 

The trouble for many nationalists is in terms of principle the benefits of losing some sovereignty for the gain of pooling and sharing is an entirely Unionist position: Scotland and rUK should pool sovereignty for mutual benefit. 

Now it is entirely reasonable for Unionists and nationalists to dispute the extent of the sovereignty that should be pooled to create that mutual benefit, however that is a efficiency argument and not a point of principle. 

This causes considerable difficulties for nationalists arguing that Unionists don't have any "faith in Scotland". If the measure of faith that someone has in Scotland is the extent to which one believes that sovereignty should be concentrated then why support membership of the EU? 

If the point of principle is that independence for Scotland is about democracy and faith in the country then you can't maintain that principle whilst arguing for fishing, agriculture, competition policy, monetary policy and the overall fiscal framework (to give a few examples) not being under the control of the Scottish Parliament. 

The strawman
When confronted with the inconsistency of this position the argument usually degenerates into something along the lines of a strawman such as "Oh so you are saying that the UK is just like the EU are you?" This is usually accompanied by several emojis on social media to show just how clever the response has been. 

The trouble is, like all strawman propositions, is that it is not what is being said. It's really simple, if you think Scottish independence is just about democracy and democratic control for Scotland then you can't very well just give it away again. 

Does that mean that a nationalist can't want a Scotland that is as "independent" as, say, Greece in the EU? No of course it doesn't, again that is a perfectly rational position to hold, it's just not a position that is compatible with independence is only about democracy.

The true nationalists
Of course some nationalists do believe in this principle and apply it correctly. They remain skeptical about the EU and would prefer an independent Scotland outside of the EU, and NATO, the UN and ECHR presumably. For them it really is about democratic control for Scotland. 

Scotland should only be subject to the authority of the people of Scotland. So if Scotland doesn't get the government, laws or regulations it wants then it breaches their fundamental, immutable law of democracy. 

Fair enough, except why does that principle only apply at the level of Scotland? The answer of "because Scotland is a nation" won't really cut it, because I don't see many nationalists calling for the forcible merger of Northern Ireland into Eire, or North and South Korea into a single sovereign state. In the case of Scotland itself, for example, the Orkney Isles have a far greater claim to nationhood than Northern Ireland would so should the principle apply to them and they should be forcibly broken off from Scotland? 

Go back far enough and you can find many historic reasons why Scotland itself can be broken up many different ways. So why shouldn't democracy apply at those ancient levels as well. If this really is the principle then why should the people of the Borders (say) be subject to a government in Holyrood that they may not elect?

Why pooling and sharing matters
Before you know it you are boiling it down to community council level and then to individual house level. Why should my house not have complete control over all the policies enacted in my name?

Now, of course, that is getting stupid and it's supposed to! 

But the reason why it's stupid is that government of any level, short of anarchy, is all about pooling and sharing, we pool our individual sovereignty for mutual advantage. The question is what level that pooling and sharing is most appropriate and efficient. 

Some nationalists may well argue that this principle can only apply at the level of the nation and no other, but cant really answer the question of why. Why is that pooling and sharing only works at the level of one historically fluid border? No amount of stamping of feet and typing of emojis will actually answer that question. 

That's not to say that Scotland isn't a nation (another ridiculous strawman) it's just that there is no rational reasoning why pooling and sharing can only apply at that level. 

The sovereignty & integration spectrum
At the end of the day then, nearly everyone agrees with the principle that pooling and sharing is important for efficient and effective government. As soon as you conceded this point you are simply arguing about the appropriate place Scotland should find itself on the spectrum between complete sovereignty and complete integration. 

We can all have an argument about that, but it's a tactical and efficiency one, it's not a point of principle, the nationalist movement long ago conceded the high ground on that one. 

So if we agreed that this is an entirely pragmatic debate then we should conduct the debate on rational grounds seeking to find the best level of benefit for a given level of pooled sovereignty. Clouding the issue with flags, "faith in Scotland" or saying it's just about democracy doesn't help and just makes the person proposing the line look like a hypocrite.