Scotland Should be an Independent State

Thanks again to Kylar for the debate. I will now respond to Pro's case. Again, I apologize for any errors due to C/Ping.PRO's CASEC1. ResponsibilityBasically, the argument given here is that by becoming independent, the Scots will have greater control of their own affairs. Sure, that is the definition of "independence." The question that is more pertinent, however, is whether Scots having greater control of their own affairs is actually worth the inherent costs that come with it. So, in away, Pro is begging the question in this contention. She is essentially saying: independence is good because independence is good. There is no justification for why the benefits outweigh the costs of independence, or why self-rule is such a compelling goal that Scotland should pursue it regardless of the costs. There is just absolutely no analysis here, just a bunch of rhetorical and unanswered questions.Furthermore, there are ways to gain greater home rule without independence. For instance, Scots can elect more SNP members to Westminster who can then advocate for their interests. So, this is going to mitigate Pro's argument.C2. Government of ChoiceC1 and C2 are basically the same claim: returning power to the home government over that in Westminster. And, regarding the Tory argument, yes, Scotland is left but is under a right-leaning party government in London. However, I don't think this makes a great case for secession. To use an inapt example, should Texas secede every time a democratic Congress/President is elected? The answer is no. Part of being a member of a union like the United States or the United Kingdom is that the constituent members are freely able to engage in the process, knowing that they may not always get who they want in office. The benefits of union are worth occasionally having to accept governments of parties that you're not enthused about. The basic point here is that this contention yet again does nothing to show that the benefits to Scotland actually outweigh the harms of independence. This contention can also be mitigated by the fact that (a) Tories are not always in power, and (b) Scots can vote for the SNP in order to balance out the equation ins London.C3. NukesThere is actually a good case to be made that Scotland leaving the UK would cause it to also lose its nuclear deterrent. Part of the reason that countries don't use nuclear weapons is that they know that if they use those weapons against a country that also happens, there will be Mutually Assured Destruction. This deters all countries from actually using the weapons, and makes everyone safer.The article asks whether we believe in peace and not war. If we do, then MAD and nukes seem like a good way to help ensure peace.C4. Oil(a) There is less likely less oil than the Scots say there is. The Scots claim there are about "24bn barrels of oil equivalents (boe) of reserves" [1] in Scotland worth around £1.5 trillion. However, "The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has predicted recoverable reserves of 10bn boe and North Sea tax revenues of £61.6bn between now and 2040. The Office for National Statistics put the worth of untapped reserves to the UK Treasury at closer to £120bn while Sir Ian Wood, a leading offshore oil industrialist in Aberdeen, put the figure at 15bn-16.5bn barrels." [1] Even if you don't buy these other figures, they still cast serious doubt on wether the SNP's figures were correct.(b) Companies will siphon off some of the benefits that Scotland hopes to retain. "Small countries dependent on oil find it difficult to negotiate with massive international oil companies. Salmond must know an independent Scotland would have to give more lucrative tax treatment to Big Oil if he is going to encourage them to extract the 3bn barrels highlighted by BP or the 24bn that the first minister hopes for." [1] (c) Drilling rates were already falling. "The cost of operations has soared in recent years and drilling is currently at very low levels, with estimates that the North Sea could produce less than 800,000 barrels this year compared to the near 3m in 1999." [2] So, not only is Scotland projected to produce less, but high costs may chase away oil companies to other, cheaper areas. And, because only one oil company (which produces only a fraction of the total oil output) in Scotland is actually natively Scottish, [2] meaning that most companies in Scotland have no political or social reasons not to leave Scotland for somewhere cheaper.C5. FinancesThe article discusses a debunked myth, but never really elucidates as to what that myth was an why it was wrong. Arguably, Scotland doesn't have the finances to be independent, as I've shown already in my case.C6. Job CreationPro never gives any statistics showing that the jobs lost by independence would be offset or outweighed by the jobs gained through such a move. So, Pro cannot claim that independence would have actually yielded net benefits to job creation.C7. Personal Benefits"Indeed, the Yeses are counting on an oil windfall to pay for 1) free childcare for three and four year-olds, 2) indexing benefits and tax credits to inflation, 3) small pension and caretaker allowance increases, 4) shoring up health and education spending, and 5) creating a sovereign wealth fund. So if there isn't as much oil money--and there probably won't be--then there won't be as much of a welfare state as the Yeses hope for." [3] In other words, this contention collapses without Pro first showing that Scotland's economy can sustain these plans.C8. Wage-GapThere are ways to solve this within the UK system, including working with groups like Plaid Cymru, the Greens, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats to implement reforms. Independence seems like an extreme solution (i.e. overreaction) to the problem.C9. England-ScotlandCompromise is the hallmark of democracy. The argument presented here is that compromise is a bad thing, but it's not--it's just how democracy works. If compromise were a bad thing, then every single state should be independent in the United States, for instance. We could even take that further, since many county and city governments have to compromise to appease various groups within them. So, maybe every household should be independent? I mean, you can reduce this argument to the point where it would support every single individual person being an independent country. Pro really doesn't give any reason why English and Scottish relations would be particularly harmed by compromise any more than compromises in every effective democracy.C10. Voting "No" is BadSure, people may have less control over things if they vote no than if they vote yes. But, given the promises made by Westminster politicians during the campaign, even after a no vote Scotland will have more power than ever before. Powers won't be withdrawn from Scotland in light of the UK politicians' promises, and so there really isn't a compelling argument to be made by this contention.OtherAdditionally, many of Scotland's main firms are not indigenously Scottish, which poses a significant problem for independence-seekers. "According to the study, the level of outside ownership means that Scotland’s actual income is as much as $5,000 (£2,990) less per head than Salmond suggests. The study uses a measure for national income that puts Scotland at 20th among the 34 countries in the OECD group of developed nations, behind Ireland, Denmark and Japan. Salmond’s argument that Scotland’s gross domestic product (GDP) places the country 14th in the OECD has been a crucial plank in the case for independence." [2] "More than 70% of Scotland’s total economic output – excluding banking and finance and the public sector – is controlled by non-Scottish-owned firms, according to Scottish government data. Of firms in Scotland employing 250 or more people, 83% are owned by non-Scottish companies." [2] Also, 80% of Scotland's whiskey and salmon industries (which a re major industries in Scotland), are foreign-owned. [2] This means that much of Scotland's wealth is NOT in Scottish hands. So, while Scotland's economy may appear rich on paper, the assets don't stay in the country. It also means that if doing business in Scotland becomes more expensive after independence, which is not an unreasonable assumption to make, then major employers may not remain in Scotland or may reduce their presence there in order to avoid those higher costs of doing business. The companies have no ties to Scotland which would keep them in the country.Cross-apply this to Pro's C5 and her C6.SOURCES1 - http://www.theguardian.com...2 - http://www.theguardian.com...3 - R2, S1Thanks to Pro! The resolution is negated. I hand the floor back over to her...