Yeah, even as I wrote it I was thinking emotional wasn’t the right word. It is a rational postition, as you say. But it also does have more concrete and immediate associations which makes it work in terms of pathos as well as logos.
“You are being screwed over in this specific way by those specific people and this is how you get free” convinces on more levels than “I admit things are bad, but taking matters into your own hands will just make it worse, so let’s wait for things to get better.”
An independent Scotland will never be allowed into the EU. Countries which broke away from larger states because their citizens were being subject to genocide can’t even get in. Spain is never going to allow the precedent of part of a liberal democracy being allowed to break away because they don’t like who won the last election or they have vague ethnic grievances.
In the 2014 referendum pointing out hard facts about Scotland’s absolutely zero-percent chance of EU membership, the economic effects of severing from the UK, the history of the SNP’s attitude towards minority groups as they blithely promised that This Nationalism Is Different, was written off by the zoomers as “Project Fear” - basically, the act of making the case for the No side was itself proclaimed to be unfair and disloyal. The tactic didn’t work then. Why do they expect it to work now?
If the English-Scottish Union is dissolved, I don’t think Spain would have any reasonable objection to make.
OK, keep telling yourself that.
Why would I need to tell myself that? What’s the reason for the hostile tone?
The EU contains numerous countries which broke away from larger countries - Ireland, Belgium, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Slovakia. Such states are in fact an absolute majority of EU member states. At least one of them - Ireland - broke away from a liberal democracy; indeed, from the same liberal democracy that Scotland would break away from. All of these states would be, um, unsympathetic to the alleged Spanish viewpoint on states that have seceded from larger states being admitted to membership.
In theory Spain could veto Scottish membership; any member state could. But in practice Spain would pay an enormous political and diplomatic price for doing so, and the notion that by doing so they would discourage the Catalonian independence movement is just silly.
While many people have asserted that the Spanish government would veto Scottish membership, so far as I am aware no Spanish government spokersperson has ever said that. Spain’s position is that Socttish independence is an internal matter for the United Kingdom (which is of course consistent with their position that Catalonia’s future is an internal matter for Spain, on which other states should not take a position) and that an independent Scotland could apply for EU membership like any other state, and would have to satisfy the same criteria for membership as any other applicant.
Emphasis added. I think you meant one of those Slovakias to be Slovenia 
.
Like a good SDMB irritant I could get pedantic about a few others on that list. You’re digging back into history a ways on a couple of them. Countries like Hungary and Poland have very complicated histories. But in general I agree with you. If Slovenia can get in, Scotland should theoretically be able to as well. Just depends on the politics of the day.
Ah, you’ve spotted my deliberate error.
To cut to the chase, if Ireland can get in after seceding from the UK it’s hard to construct a respectable argument that Scotland wouldn’t be able to. I think the real issue is whether Scottish accession would be facilitated by a generous latitude in the application or interpretation of some of the entry criteria. I suspect yes, it would, but the contrary view is respectably arguable. But the view that Scotland will never be allowed in because it has seceded from a liberal democracty is not.
Countries which broke away from larger states because their citizens were being subject to genocide can’t even get in.
As already noted, Croatia and Slovenia are already in (Croatia has already had its turn in the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, and Slovenia will next year), and the other ex-Yugoslav states are in the pre-accession queue. What makes it a long and slow process is the business of reforms and legal adjustments each country needs to make to adopt/align with EU standards in a whole host of areas, and the resolution of outstanding inter-state problems like Serbia/Kosovo. That doesn’t mean a “never”, and few of those issues (other than adoption of the euro and its fiscal requirements) would apply to an independent Scotland.
They tried to rename the British sausage to the “emulsified high-fat offal tube”!!
They really didn’t want to know how laws about sausages were made.
Cite (because I think that’s a line from Yes Minister). It is true that there was a dingdong about whether some forms of milk chocolate in the UK justified the name, but that was resolved somehow.
And it wasn’t even true in the “Yes Minister” episode.
There is Welcome to Scotland sign on the road and not much else. The landscape around the border is very lovely hill country. It is known as ‘The Borders’ and is full of castles old battlegrounds and monuments. It has a very ‘Game of Thrones’ history (but with less dragons).
These days the sites of the bloodiest battles have cute little tea rooms and gift shops.
Are there Christians in Liddesdale, now?
Continuing this slight hijack, George Macdonald Fraser’s The Steel Bonnets is a fascinating look at the history and culture of the Border families. Which is as bloody and violent as any Highland clan or Viking sea-rover.
But more dragoons.