Should Scotland become an Independent Country

I would like to note that he begins by suggesting the main thrust of his case is that Scotland could survive on its own without the United Kingdom (UK). I do not see this as being the issue on which this debate turns, since no-one believes an independent Scotland would become Somalia overnight. The question at hand, rather, is one of whether Scotland is better off in future as an independent state, or part of the UK. I will present the case for the latter. THE QUESTIONS OF TAXATION, SPENDING AND NORTH SEA OILIf this debate had taken place 40 years ago, the North Sea oil argument might have been persuasive. The problem here is that the oil is running out. Production in the Scottish sector has fallen by 6% a year for the last decade [1] and is likely to run out entirely within thirty years of independence. The academic consensus is that Scotland's balance sheet would be largely similar to what it is now with the repatriation of oil money but the loss of English tax subsidy. This graph shows that even factoring in North Sea oil, government in Scotland still spends more than it raises in revenue. As David Phillips of the Institute of Financial Studies (IFS) concludes, "In the short run its higher public spending than the UK average could be covered by oil and gas revenues if these are assigned on a geographic basis. In the longer run the loss of these revenues would lead to tougher choices than those faced by the UK as a whole. "[2] There are also significant risks when a country is overly reliant on a single industry, particularly resource extraction - I will develop this point further in subsequent rounds. In addition, there are significant costs associated with the North Sea which my opponent has ignored. By 2040, all the current platforms will need to be decommissioned and the costs of this are estimated at £30bn. [3] Currently these costs will be born largely by Westminster- an independent Scotland would presumably be on the hook for most if not all of them. MONETARY UNION WITHOUT POLITICAL UNION IS HARMFUL TO THE SMALLER PARTNERUnder Pro's proposed model, Scotland would remain in currency union with England, while dissolving the political ties. This would harm the Scottish economy. Why? Under this model, as with the status quo, Scotland would be required to follow the interest rate policies prescribed by the Bank of England. It would be in the same position vis-a-vis England as Portugal or Greece are in relation to Germany. The difference would be that without political union, the Bank of England would no longer factor Scottish conditions into its decisions, and English taxation revenues would no longer be available to stabilize the Scottish economy should a crisis hit Scotland particularly hard. The first of these issues means that if the English economy is going well while Scotland's was going badly, then the Bank would be able to pursue high interest rates with no concern for the fact that this might retard recovery north of the border. Conversely, if England was struggling while Scotland succeeded, Scotland would be faced with the risk of inflation. On the second point, The UK government in the last few years spent £45m bailing out the Royal Bank of Scotland, and £20bn on Lloyds (which had taken over Halifax Bank of Scotland in order to save it). [4] £65m is more than Scotland's annual tax receipts. Therefore, an independent Scotland would have great difficulty bailing out institutions of that size. Accordingly, either the Scottish banking sector would have to contract significantly, which would cost thousands of jobs, or Scotland would risk ending up in the same position as Iceland if another crisis hit its financial sector. Neither of these outcomes are good for Scotland. Pro mentions several sectors of the Scottish economy which might sustain an independent nation. What he does not do is offer any analysis for whether or how independence would benefit these sectors, which already exist. Contrast with the significant harms of no longer having the UK government around to prop up things like the banks. BORROWING COSTSIt is safe to assume that an independent Scotland would have to take on a share of the UK debt in proportion to its share of population, or about £90bn. Brian Ashcroft at Scottish Economy Watch [5] notes that an independent Scotland could be expected to have higher borrowing costs on its debt than the UK as a whole, for three reasons:- The Scottish government does not have hundreds of years' worth of track record of fiscal responsibility as does the UK- Smaller nations in general pay a premium for borrowing because they are by their nature less economically diverse- Scotland will not be in control of its own currency (see the monetary union argument above) and therefore cannot loosen its own monetary policy during a downturn. Higher borrowing costs mean less money to pay for things like schools, hospitals, and pensions. IMMIGRATIONFree movement of people as well as goods and services is a central tenet of the EU and permitting it a requirement of membership. "All Union citizens have the right to enter another Member State by virtue of having an identity card or valid passport. Under no circumstances can an entry or exit visa be required. "[6] Since his model involves staying in the EU, this would still be the case in an independent Scotland. Pro has therefore not shown any link between independence and reduced immigration, even if for the sake of argument we accepted that this would be a good thing (which is highly debatable given that Scotland has anaemic population growth and an ageing workforce). [1]. http://www.economist.com...[2]http://www.ifs.org.uk...[3]http://www.economist.com...[4]http://www.guardian.co.uk...[5]http://www.scottisheconomywatch.com...[6]http://europa.eu...