But the emotional element in nationalism isn’t just atavistic; it points to something more practically and prosaically desirable, which is the possibility of true self-government. Of course larger entities as well as smaller ones can be self-governing; again, nobody is arguing that Scotland is being tyrannized or seeing its rights and interests trampled. But as anyone involved in American politics can attest, scale and diversity and complexity and centralization are all impediments to feeling like your government is actually your government — something in which you have a stake, a sense of ownership, a genuinely meaningful say. And while of course the U.S. is far vaster than the U.K., we also don’t possess regions or states (yes, Texas and Greater Deseret and the Deep South and New York City notwithstanding) with the kind of distinctive sense of political identity that more than a thousand years of history supplies to Scotland; none of our constituent parts would have nearly so easy a time swiftly reconstituting themselves as nations as an independent Scotland would if “yes” prevails today. That has to count for something, it seems to me
Source: The New York Times
