BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An independent Scotland has enormous economic potential to join other small European nations, especially as a leader in technology and renewable energy

Firstly, if these industries are already emerging under the devolved powers then there seems to be little reason for expanding those powers. Nationalism has always relied on the fantasy that magically everything about the country will change the day after independence.[i] The reality is not quite so rosy; with a disproportionately high level of employment in the public sector[ii] as well as consistently high levels of multi-generational unemployment, pretending that these problems would be swept away following autonomy is just fantasy. These constitutional wrangles are a distraction from the real issues of addressing employment and chronic ill-health are much higher concerns. [i] Chakrabortty, Aditya, ‘Can Scotland pay its own way?’, The Guardian, 20 May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/20/can-scotland-pay-its-way [ii] Simon Rogers. “The public sector employment  map of the UK: the full data.” The Guardian. 21 November 2011.
Deliberately turning away from the international clout the UK brings to play on the global scene is simply odd

Scotland already has a distinct global profile including world-class national brands such as whiskey and salmon. Arguing that Scotland would have ‘less influence’ as an independent state is frankly absurd as, at the moment, it has none. Westminster leads in international negotiations and rarely considers Scottish interests. Additionally, considering the damage that the UK government has managed to do to its international reputation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan putting some clear, tartan water between Edinburgh and London would seem to be quite a strong diplomatic move.
The union has worked for over three hundred years and most people feel comfortable with the joint Scots/British identity

Ignoring the fact that Opp is putting forward a version of history that is decades rather than centuries old there are other flaws. Scottish cultural traditions were actively destroyed by English dominance and continue to receive very limited support. Linguistic traditions such as Scots and Gaelic were completely ignored and frequently suppressed. In addition it has not been 300 years of mutual benefit as Scotland has been largely overwhelmed by its more populous neighbour. Scotland’s resources, including its intellectual ones, have been – and continued to be – effectively stolen by England.
Scotland needs English economic muscle as through the Barnett formula England, especially the Southeast effectively subsidizes the rest of the UK in general and Scotland in particular

The Scottish budget runs at a surplus of about 1%, unlike the UK’s, and so the Scots are actually subsidizing their neighbours.[i] It is also important to take into account the vast amount of wealth that has fled south in the shape of North Sea oil revenue and the talent that has been sucked up by London in terms of not only work but also with the number of Scots soldiers sent to fight English wars. Perhaps the best example of this historically is Glasgow which literally built the British Empire – mostly to English benefit – only to be discarded to some of the worst poverty in the developed world when it was no longer useful [i] Chakrabortty, 2011
Scotland has a proud history and has demonstrated since devolution different political interests

The Union has now passed its 300th birthday and throughout that time Scotland has maintained as distinct role and identity. This is grounded in a tradition and history that is quite different from that south of the Border and includes legal and education systems that have always been separate. That has manifested itself in a distinct policy agenda since devolution and areas such as free care for the elderly and the abolition of student tuition fees. Despite the opinions of doomsayers before devolution it has been proved as a remarkable success and massive approval throughout the UK with 70% saying it has been a success.[i] [i] The Scotsman. “70% of Britons support devolution for Scotland, poll suggests” 8 May 2009.
Devolution has demonstrated the ability of Scots to govern themselves not only as well as Westminster but with more civility

Not only has the policy agenda been different in Scotland but so has the model of politics. It has seen the emergence of new political parties and a better representation of the diversity within existing ones. The nature of political discourse, although vigorous and not as consensual as initially hoped, has proved to be more consensual – both during the time of the SNP minority administration and the preceding coalitions than politics south of the border.[i] The contrast between the coalition governments at Holyrood, the Scottish parliament, where Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats were allied between 1999 and 2007, and the internecine warfare going on between Conservative and Liberal members of the current Westminster coalition could not be more stark. [i] Cairney, Paul, ‘Coalition and Minority Government in Scotland’, Political Studies Associations Conference, 1 April 2010, http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2010/121_820.pdf
An independent Scotland has enormous economic potential to join other small European nations, especially as a leader in technology and renewable energy

Many of Scotland’s problems are grounded in the fact that its potential has consistently been held back. Because the focus for economic development from a Westminster perspective has focused for generations on North Sea oil and the coal fields of Lanarkshire, huge opportunities were missed and the best and the brightest tended be dragged down south for jobs worthy of their skills. Even with the limited powers allowed by devolution a burgeoning life-sciences sector, a growing IT sector in silicon glen are adding to the traditional industries. Since 2003 Scotland has generally had faster economic growth than the UK with 13% during the period from 2003-2007 compared to the UK’s 11.4%.[i] Independence would stretch people still further. [i] CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, ‘The changing pattern of Scotland’s economic growth since Devolution’, CPPR Briefing Note, June 2011, http://www.cppr.ac.uk/media/media_202573_en.pdf
Deliberately turning away from the international clout the UK brings to play on the global scene is simply odd

The UK acts as a big player on the international scene sitting at the top table of most international institutions. It is questionable as to whether the remaining part of the UK would continue to sit on the UN Security Council; one thing that is certain is that Scotland would not. Equally they would have little clout on European bodies, damaging their influence on key Scottish interests such as fisheries policy. It would also lose the advantage that many companies see Edinburgh as a convenient base within the UK but would be unlikely to see much benefit to it as a base in an independent Scotland[i]. [i] David Sinclair. “Issues surrounding Scottish independence.” September 1999. Published by the Constitution Unit, Tavistock House.
The union has worked for over three hundred years and most people feel comfortable with the joint Scots/British identity

For over three centuries the two nations have cooperated much to their mutual advantage. The majority of Scots are happy with their British-ness. In terms of culture and art the two nations have maintained distinctive traditions but ones which have been enhanced by their interaction. There are many people who have relatives from Scotland and another of the Home Nations for whom British is the more obvious identity.[i] After centuries of fighting with each other the Union brought peace and mutual benefit. [i] Mitchell, David, ‘If Scotland does secede, I won’t be alone in mourning for my country’, The Observer, 15 May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/15/david-mitchell-scotland-secession-britain
Scotland needs English economic muscle as through the Barnett formula England, especially the Southeast effectively subsidizes the rest of the UK in general and Scotland in particular

The Barnett established the model by which money is divided up within the regions and nations of the UK. The formula works greatly to Scotland’s advantage with a net flow of funding heading north. The English taxpayer subsidizes Scots to the tune of £19bn a year (2009-10).[i] Without that subsidy The Scottish government would not have been able to give away the many benefits that have been handed out by the devolved authorities. Scotland needs English support financially just as she does in terms of diplomatic representation or political muscle. [i] McLaren, John et al., ‘Financial Implications of Different Fiscal Arrangements For Scotland’, CPPR Centre for Public Policy for Regions, June 2011, http://www.cppr.ac.uk/media/media_202570_en.pdf
Scotland has a proud history and has demonstrated since devolution different political interests

There are many differences between devolution and independence. Surviving events such as the banking crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis are much easier within the confines of a larger, richer state such as the UK. Nobody denies that devolution has, broadly speaking, been a success. However, it’s been achieved in quite a different context than that facing a nation state. It has left difficult decisions to Westminster. It allows the Scottish Executive the luxury of being oppositionist on issues such as nuclear power, fantasists on renewables while leaving the problem of how to keep the lights on to politicians at Westminster.
Neither citizen nor subject, consumer nor customer: the supremacy of the individual

A sensible Libertarian position accepts the rights of people to do whatever they like as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the life of anyone else. That may sound like something that anyone could sign up to but the reality is not so simple. The Right may defend corporate greed and the Left government intervention but there is a clearer principle; I have the right not to have my air poisoned by your chemical company which means I don’t have to pay for any government body to clear up the mess. The Oglala Sioux activist and actor, Russell Means has argued that “A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility.” All too often the line between consumer and citizen is blurred because the interest of both state and private actors have become conjoined leaving little or no room for the individual between them. A libertarian approach would break that cozy consensus.
A growing alliance that defies party lines and the definitions of the last century

A libertarian agenda is one that draws people from across the political spectrum. The crisis in the financial sector has confirmed for many that government and large financial institutions have simply got too close. Republicans say they can reduce the size of government but never do, Democrats say they can regulate corporations but show no sign of doing so. The primary reason why people can approach libertarianism from across the political spectrum is that, as a philosophy, it doesn’t seek to judge individual policies. So policies traditionally associated with the left – the legalization of drugs or gay rights – as well as those of the right - independence for schools and reducing taxation – both fall within a Libertarian agenda that simply says that none of these issues are any business of the state[i]. [i] Brian Micklethwaite. “How to Win The Libertarian Argument”. 1990
There is very little meaningful choice left in many societies with the major parties all singing from the same score

One of principal reasons for the growth of libertarian parties, especially in the West, is the dominance of one particular ideological viewpoint that is broadly shared by all the major parties. As a result anyone who does not share this viewpoint are effectively disenfranchised and have the world view of a de facto governing class imposed upon them. The only sensible response is to reduce the impact of that government altogether. Indeed in the United States, where the libertarian argument has been made most vociferously, the entire political system is designed on the predicate of a minimalist state and is poorly designed to deal with the behemoth that the Federal Government has become.
Libertarians would return society to a state of nature where ‘life is cruel, bloody and short’.

There is no denying that government is ultimately responsible for maintaining the series of compromises that we all adopt as part of the social contract. Destroying that capacity would, in effect, destroy the contract it underpins. The process of governance may at times be cumbersome and apparently interventionist but the results of those interventions are collective security. Without it society as we know it would return to a state of nature where all except those with the means to pay for their own protection – physical and financial – would be at risk.
Libertarianism is really a coalition of the unwilling; the fringes of the left and right, happy to criticize but without a single policy on which they can agree

The alliance supporting libertarianism is an interesting one, consisting mostly of right-wing pragmatists who don’t want to pay taxes and left wing idealist who think that everyone would be kind and helpful in a free society. What both groups simply ignore is that there are many issues, such as the redistribution of income or prohibition of drugs, where there is a settled will of society that supports the status quo. Even the very presence of, for example, wide-spread drug use  would be an offence to very large numbers of people and unfairly impinge upon their lives which is why so few people actually vote for libertarian parties once they find out the realities.
Libertarianism only works – even in theory – if you start off with a level pl

It is entirely possible, if one were constructing a hypothetical society from scratch, that you wouldn’t end up with one looking like an actual society that has evolved over centuries or millennia. However in the real world there are interest groups and those who to a greater or lesser degree are advantaged or disadvantaged, everyone may have equal rights but we do not always naturally have an equal capability to defend our rights. The role of the state is to provide some degree of balance. Simply removing the mechanisms in place would accentuate those differences that existed within society at the time of their removal.
Neither citizen nor subject, consumer nor customer: the supremacy of the individual

It is impossible in any modern state to pretend that the state simply isn’t there or that individuals on their own can act against multinationals or government departments and agencies. The Libertarian perspective is the stuff of fantasy; neither taxes nor markets are going anywhere anytime soon however much a ragbag of theorists may wish for it. Benjamin Franklin argued that “All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it.”[i] The point is that an individual cannot walk up to a chemical plant and tell them to move it, only a government, elected through collective action can do that. [i] Franklin, Benjamin, ‘Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris’, 25 December 1783, in The Founders’ Constitution, Vol. 1. Chapter 16, Document 12, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html
A growing alliance that defies party lines and the definitions of the last century

Experience teaches us that if you simply remove the government then those who are currently strong get stronger and those who are weak get destroyed. Tackling issues such as prejudice in the workplace, health and safety, protecting the vulnerable, managing immigration and a million others require not only the involvement of the state but for a government that is actively engaged in countering private interests. To allow the market to run unfettered seems unlikely to protect the rights of the individual but, rather would cede hard fought rights to the rapacious interests of corporations. Without compulsion by government, it is unlikely that the disadvantaged in society would be paid much heed[i]. [i] "Libertarianism". Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
There is very little meaningful choice left in many societies with the major parties all singing from the same score

The appropriate response, in a democracy, to a hegemonic political class is not to scrap the State altogether but simply to vote for someone else. It is also interesting to note the large number of people who are claiming that ‘nothing can be done’ or that ‘voting never changes anything’ are themselves elected representatives. In those countries where there is a dominance of two major parties, those parties also tend to reflect a wide diversity of views, thus in the United States and Britain there can be as much division within the parties as between them. The fact that there is a broad consensus on certain key issues, such as the general structure of the economic model, reflects not the imposition or a worldview but the assumption of a worldview shared by the vast majority in those societies.
Libertarians would return society to a state of nature where ‘life is cruel, bloody and short’.

Libertarianism is not about abolishing the state, simply about returning it to an appropriate size. In the era following WWII the state in most Western nations expanded into almost every area of citizen’s lives. In the USA in 1929 government expenditures accounted 9.46% by 2008 this had risen to 35%, this is mirrored elsewhere, in Sweden at the beginning of the 20th century government expenditure was 7% of GDP, it has now risen to over 50%.[i] The period of high expenditure is the historical anomaly, not the norm. The libertarian movement seeks to return the level of governance to the more traditional ‘night watchman state’ where the government has responsibility for protecting the borders, maintaining domestic security and the provision of a level of support that prevents destitution. Beyond that the state should not really have a role. It certainly does not have the moralising, semi-parental role it has taken on. [i] Hyman, David N., Public Finance A Contemporary Application of Theory to Policy, Tenth Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, 2010, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rB1MBVA7GBAC&lpg=PA14&ots=d3yCq04CFZ&... pp.15-16
Libertarianism is really a coalition of the unwilling; the fringes of the left and right, happy to criticize but without a single policy on which they can agree

It is absolutely the case that an individual has the right not to be harmed by the actions of another but it would be impossible to argue that they have the right not to be offended. The presumption should always be in favour of the fact that people are free to do in their own lives whatever they wish so long as it doesn’t cause harm. That is an attractive position to many but, inevitably, those interested in lifestyles or policies that do not fall within the ‘standard model’ as a result libertarian policies have tended to receive their most vociferous support at the margins of the policy agenda, that does not mean however, that the approach is not equally beneficial to those with a more mainstream view.
Libertarianism only works – even in theory – if you start off with a level pl

The reduction in the size of the state is a process and not an event. Rolling back the state can be done over time giving people responsibility and power over their lives on a growing range of issues. The presumption that the state should only act when individuals can’t, however, would reverse the direction of legislation which has tended to see the intervention of the state into the lives of its citizens as beneficial in and of itself – not just the nanny state but the further assumption that ‘nanny knows best’. The role of government should only to be that all have equal access to the available freedoms and that those freedoms are not abused. These principles are known as the law of equal liberty and the non-aggression principle between the two of them they comfortably control and define the role of the state.
Faith schools can be necessary for a religious upbringing.

Sometimes faith schools are necessary for children to get a full picture of the religion that they have been born into, particularly religions, like Islam, that are based mainly in societies unlike our own and far away from our countries. In these cases, banning faith schools is tantamount to preventing parents from bringing their children up in the faith they want them brought up in. The opposition believes that this legislation is, therefore, equivalent to depriving people of religion.[1]   [1] Glenn, Charles L. “The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies.” Princeton University Press. 2002.
Faith schools are inherently divisive.

Faith schools create a sense of community. This entire argument is based upon the fact that faith schools create a close sense of community within the school themselves. The opposition does not accept that this is harm and firmly believes that anything that creates a close sense of community is a force for good as it creates more accountability for actions within the community and a better support system in the case of anything going wrong.[1]   [1] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006. http://www.cesew.org.uk/standard.asp?id=4464
Creates animosity towards religious groups

To be encouraged not banned. The idea of closing down schools because they are performing better than other schools seems ridiculous. Rather than banning faith schools so all schools are on an even, but lower, playing field, a logical course of action would be to try and determine exactly what it was about faith schools that made them perform so well and attempt to emulate that in ordinary schools to improve their performance. It may be possible to convert the schools but they would loose their ethos. Without these schools religious ethos their standards would slip and the students would be worse off.
Faith schools perform better than ordinary schools.

Creates animosity towards religious groups. The fact that faith schools perform better than ordinary schools is an advantage only for the children who are lucky enough to attend. This causes feelings of resentment on the part of parents and children who were not of the correct faith and were, therefore, forced to go to a more poorly performing school. This resentment grows into a general feeling of animosity towards the religious group running the school and to religion in general. The proposition believes this is far more harmful in the long run than a minor reduction in quality of education for a small number of children.