BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialism has changed historically to meet the challenges of the moment and is addressing those of the 21st century in new ways

Trying to pretend that absolutely anyone who disagrees in some way with the architects of the banking bubble can be described as a Socialist is simply taking things too far. Many people are suffering as a result of austerity measures and it is interesting that in countries with left wing governments the protests support the right and vice versa. This has nothing to do with the emergence of Socialism for the 21st century – however desperately the Socialists of the 20th century may wish it. The closest even the most ardent supporters of the current protests can get is that ‘things should be different’ other than that it tends to be a round of decidedly nineteenth century solutions to nineteenth century problems
The idea that wealth should be more fairly and evenly distributed has never had so many supporters and the failure to do so has rarely been more keenly felt

Setting the crises of the last few years against decades of prolonged growth under market capitalism really shows the lie of this idea. There is no doubt that certain sectors over-reached themselves in the latter part of the last decade but to suggest that this is a collapse of the Capitalist model makes about as much sense as the idea that a handful of idealists camped outside St Pauls are the emergence of a new political movement. Both ideas are preposterous and  only give credence to some of the madder parts of the Right whom would like nothing more than to be able to demonise the protesters and their demands.
Class consciousness is an important aspect of Socialism, it would be hard to find a period in recent history when the majority have been so aware that their interests are not the same as the uber-rich

As has so often been the case in the history of Socialism, the moment one form is comprehensively beaten, its adherents announce, “Oh that wasn’t really Socialism”. The reality is that Socialism fell with the Berlin Wall it just took a few years for the impact of that to ripple all the way across Europe. The last stage of that process is now taking place as the economies that continued to believe that social systems would pay for themselves realize that not only is that fantasy not the case, it never was. It may have taken a crisis in Capitalism to demonstrate that Socialism is a luxury Europe cannot afford but the result is the same anyway.
Globalisation has made socialism impractical to implement

What investors want more than anything is a stable economy and skilled workforce. Ironically it is the European nations where socialist thought remains strongest (the Nordic Countries) that are consistently ranked as the most competitive economies in the world.[1] Careful state management of the economy, provision of infrastructure and investment in exceptional health and education systems through high taxation have created a dynamic and highly qualified workforce, and attracted huge investment from technologically advanced industries. [1] World Economic Forum, ‘The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012’, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_CompetitivenessIndexRanking_2011-12.pdf
It is impossible to acquire the information necessary to create a coherent economy

While there are a vast number of potential combinations of resources, the ones that are useless are mostly obvious and do not need a market to tell us so.  Nobody would attempt to generate power by burning bicycles, for example. An economy that is organised by prices will be organised by those with enough capital to out-bid all others, not those willing to pay the best price because they can make the most use of the resource
Although there are protests as a result of the banking crisis and the resulting financial meltdown, they have no cohesive ideology

There is clearly a difference between the general malaise of those protesting the result of the financial crisis and any form of coherent ideology or manifesto for government. The only people pretending that protesters in Athens or Rome – or the Occupy movement worldwide – are in some meaningful way Socialists are aging class warriors from the seventies. The Occupy movement may well count many social liberals[i] among its members, and these individuals are almost certainly unhappy about many aspects of modern Capitalism but that doesn’t make Occupy, or the Athens street protestors Socialist. [i] Occupy Wall Street Website. “Forum Post Liberalism is Not Socialism”. 12 November 2011.
Socialism was a twentieth century ideology which ran its course and ran out of steam when it became clear that Capitalism worked better

The world has moved on; it is inconceivable that the protests of the seventies and eighties could be refought again. This issue was settled at the end of the eighties. It wasn’t just the collapse of the Soviet Union, although that no doubt played a major role in shaping the future of socialism in Europe. In a globalised world the traditional ideas about class and the nature of the labour market have moved on and politics moved on with it. Socialists may have won many of the arguments over social issues, but arguments on the advantages of free trade, deregulation, the role of the state, the relationship between government and industry all line up firmly in the Capitalist column. There were some remnants of dogmatic, “classical” socialism left in continental Europe, especially amongst its union movements, which are now collapsing. As Margaret Thatcher put it, “The problem with Socialism is that you will eventually run out of other people’s money.”[i] [i] Quoted in: James Turk. “Will Sovereign Debt Defaults Bring The End Of Socialism?” Free Gold Money Report. 19 December 2009.
An independent Scotland would avoid having a referendum on EU membership

The Scottish National Party (SNP) has said that they would not hold an EU referendum in an independent Scotland. Scotland is [quote=Nicola Sturgeon] regardless of the direction of UK policy - Scotland is strongly committed to continuing within the EU as an independent nation[1] [/quote] A vote for independence would therefore be a vote for a stable relationship with Europe. Interestingly should Scotland become independent and accede to the EU there would have to be a treaty change to provide for Scottish representation in EU institutions.[2] This could well trigger an EU referendum in the remainder of the UK (rUK) under the 'referendum lock'. [1]    Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/scot-europe-sturgon-26022013  §9 [2]    Avery, Graham, ‘HC 643 The foreign policy implications of and for a separate Scotland, Foreign Affairs Select Committee, 24 September 2012, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm point 6.
Scotland is more pro-EU than the rest of the UK

According to a February 2013 Ipsos-mori poll Scots want an EU referendum but 53% would vote to stay in the EU and only 34% would vote to leave. Indeed if Scotland became independent those who wanted it to be in the EU rose to 61% and the number who wanted out fell to 33%.[1] In England 48% would vote to leave (as of November 2012) and 44% would vote to stay in.[2] The UK Independence Party whose principal policy platform is a desire to leave the EU has performed considerably worse in Scotland than in England. In the 2010 general election UKIP received 3.1% of the vote[3] whereas in the Scottish election the next year they only received 0.9% of the vote.[4] Similarly in the 2009 European Parliament elections UKIP came second nationally receiving almost 2.5 million votes, 16.5%[5] of all votes cast but in Scotland it came 6th, beaten by all four main parties and the Greens receiving only 5.2% of the vote.[6] Scots clearly believe their interests lie with Europe and it would be better for Scotland not to be tied to a country where sentiment is considerably more negative towards the EU. [1]    McLean, Christopher, ‘Scots want EU referendum but would vote to stay in’, Ipsos MORI, 14 February 2013, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3131/Scots-want-EU-referendum-but-would-vote-to-stay-in.aspx    [2]    Social Research Institute, ‘British public split on our future with the European Union’, Ipsos MORI, 15 November 2012, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3075/Ipsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-November-2012.aspx [3]    BBC News, ‘National Results’, Election 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/ [4]    BBC News, ‘Scotland elections’, Vote 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/region/html/scotland.stm [5]    BBC News, ‘European Election 2009: UK Results’, Elections 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_999999.stm [6]    BBC News, ‘European Election 2009: Scotland’, Elections 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_10.stm
Scotland has different interests to rUK

States are often seen as having one single unitary interest, however this is not the case the interests of different regions can be very different. It should therefore not be surprising that Scotland and rUK have different interests with relation to the EU. For example on climate change Scotland has the greatest potential for the generation of renewable energy in Europe with 25% of Europe’s tidal potential and 10% of wave potential[1] yet the UK is in favour of scrapping European targets for the generation of renewable energy.[2] UK ministers have also been accused of “working against Scotland” on agriculture being willing to accept reductions in farm support meaning that Scotland receives the lowest level in Europe.[3] Scotland’s own interests would therefore be better represented by having its own government at the negotiating table than a UK government. [1] ‘Energy in Scotland: Get the facts’, The Scottish Government, 10 July 2013, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Facts [2] Harvey, Fiona, ‘Britain resists EU bid to set new target on renewable energy’, The Observer, 25 May 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/25/uk-blocks-eu-target-renewable-energy [3] McLaughlin, Mark, ‘SNP Conference: UK ministers ‘working against Scotland’’, The Independent, 19 October 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snpconference-uk-ministers-working-againstscotland-8891458.html
The Scottish relationship with the EU is likely to change after independence.

The UK's various opt outs exist because of the strong negotiating position that the whole of the UK had at the time of the signing of the various relevant treaties. Had Scotland been independent then it would not have been in the same position. It is also argued that if Scotland wants to join the EU then it implicitly wants to join the EU as it is now and could retain exceptional status only in the very short term.[1] The change in relationship would probably change the Scottish attitude to the EU, although it is hard to say whether this would be automatically in a negative way. The implication of Jose Manuel Barroso's comments quoted earlier is that Scotland will be unlikely to retain the UK's opt outs from certain areas of EU policy. Most obviously it is likely that if joining as a new state Scotland may have no choice but to join the Euro at least in the long term when it meets the convergence requirements.[2] Several polls show Scots less likely to vote for independence if Scotland would then have to join the Euro.[3] The other main sticking point would be Schengen, it has been suggested that Scotland would have to join the EU's free travel zone which the UK is not currently a member of and the main consequence of this would be border controls between Scotland and England.[4]Were Scotland to seek to avoid joining the Euro and Schengen then it would prolong the application process meaning that Scotland would be unlikely to be ready to join the EU upon independence. This point was made by the ambassador of the EU's newest member Croatia [quote=Ambassador Ivan Grdesic] if you decide to opt out on many things, you are not ready actually... [/quote] so warning that attempts to opt out of the Euro and Schengen would prolong negotiations.[5] [1]    Engel, Arno, and Parkes, Roderick, ‘Accommodating an independent Scotland: how a  British-style constitution for the EU could secure Scotland’s future’, European Policy Centre, 24 October 2012, http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_3017_scotland_s_future.pdf  pp.6-7. [2]    Thorp, Arabella, and Thompson, Gavin, ‘Scotland, independence and the EU – Commons Library Standard Note’, parliament.uk, 13 July 2012, http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06110 [3]    What Scotland Thinks, ‘If an independent Scotland had to join the Euro, how would this effect your vote in a Scottish independence referendum?’, January 2013, http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-scotland-had-to-join-the-euro-how-would-this-effect-your-vote-in-a-scottish http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/adopting-euro-after-scotland-joing-eu-will-make-you [4]    Barnes, Eddie, ‘Scottish independence: EU may force border terms’, The Scotsman, http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-eu-may-force-border-terms-1-3165731 [5]    BBC News, ‘Scottish independence: Warning over EU membership plan’, 3 November 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24794438
An independent Scotland would avoid having a referendum on EU membership

The SNP's strongest argument, repeatedly made, is that independence would allow Scots to make their own decisions. It would therefore be only right that Scots whether independent or not should be allowed their own referendum on EU membership. The principle of a referendum on EU membership is supported by 58% of Scots with only 36% opposing a referendum.[1] A vote for independence would therefore seem to be a vote in favour of the validity of referendums legitimising the need to have referendums on similarly large issues in the future. A vote for an independent Scotland is not necessarily a vote for a stable relationship with Europe. [1] McLean, Christopher, ‘Scots want EU referendum but would vote to stay in’, Ipsos MORI, 14 February 2013, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3131/Scots-want-EU-referendum-but-would-vote-to-stay-in.aspx
Scotland is more pro-EU than the rest of the UK

Just because the Scots are less Europhobic than the English does not mean they are actually natural Europhiles. There is still a fair amount of euroscepticism in Scotland [quote=Prof. John Curtice] The rise of UKIP is also evident here albeit at a lower level[1] [/quote]. When Scots were asked 'Which institution do you think has most influence over how Scotland is run?' in 2012 9% thought the EU did, when the question was changed to 'Which institution do you think ought to have most influence over how Scotland is run?' Only 1% said the EU, which certainly implies a degree of Euroscepticism.[2] One poll asking the question 'if Scotland were independent do you think it should join the EU?' even got a no answer, with 49% saying no and 32% saying yes.[3] Indeed Scotland was more anti-european in the 1975 referendum on Europe than England. 41.6% of Scots voted no to joining the European Community compared to 31.3% of English.[4] Scottish attitudes towards the EC/EU changed in the 1980s as Thatcher was becoming increasingly Europhobic. Because of this shift some academics think that the Scottish pro-european sentiment is a result of anti-Tory feeling rather than a judgement on Europe itself.[5] If this is the case then once independence removes the threat of Tory government Scottish attitudes to Europe might well shift back into a more anti-European position. [1]    BBC Newsnight Scotland, 25 October 2013 01:12 am [2]    What Scotland Thinks, ‘Which Institution do you think has most influence over how Scotland is run?’, 2012, http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/which-institution-do-you-think-has-most-influence-over-how-scotland-is-run#line http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/which-institution-ought-to-have-most-influence-over-how-scotland-is-run#line [3]    What Scotland Thinks, ‘If Scotland were independent do you think it should join the EU?’, 2012 http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-scotland-were-independent-do-you-think-it-should-join-the-eu [4]    Wikipedia, ‘United Kingdom European Community membership referendup 1975’, accessed 4 November 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975    [5]    Carrell, Severin, ‘Salmond’s EU crisis: polling suggests Scottish voters care’, theguardian.com, 7 November 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/scotland-blog/2012/nov/07/scotland-alexsalmond-europe-polls
Scotland has different interests to rUK

On the vast majority of issues rUK and Scotland have the same interests. Scotland wants to retain the UK’s opt outs on issues such as the free movement of people and the Euro. Scotland also has the same interests on the main issue for the EU; trade. Nicola Sturgeon has highlighted the benefit to Scotland of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership something that the UK is also strongly in favour of.[1] [1] Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/scot-europe-sturgon-26022013
Scottish independence might be a faster route out of the EU than a referendum.

The SNP argues that the transition from being a constituent part of the UK inside the EU and being an independent state within the EU would be seamless.[1] While 'the Scottish government does not take the process of EU membership for granted' they hope to notify the EU of their intent to join the EU before the referendum and then use the period between a yes vote and independence to negotiate their accession.[2] They would have 18 months to sort out the transition between the referendum on independence on 21 September 2014 and independence in March 2016. It should be remembered that an independent Scotland should already meet all the criteria for membership as a result of having already been a member so should be able to go through membership negotiations quickly. [1]    The Scotsman, ‘Scottish independence: Hague EU claims criticised’, 31 October 2013, http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scottish-independence-hague-eu-claims-criticised-1-3168121 [2]    Sturgeon, Nicola, ‘Scotland’s Relationship with Europe’, The Scottish Government, 26 February 2013, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/scot-europe-sturgon-26022013 §42-5.
The UK or rUK is not going to leave the EU.

Polls consistently point to a vote to leave the EU in a prospective referendum.[1] Whether this actually happens is a moot point, such a referendum would still bring about instability in the relationship with the European Union. Scotland if independent could avoid this turbulence. At the same time a renegotiation does not mean that Scotland’s interests would be safeguarded as a British Prime Minister would be negotiating with an eye to winning any referendum. The result is that such renegotiations would likely favour English interests over Scottish ones as it is English votes the Prime Minister would need to win over. [1]    UKPollingReport, ‘YouGov/Sunday Times – Con 29, Lab 40, LD 9, UKIP 14’, 19 May 2013, http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7473 http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7463 http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7435 and others on the same site.
The Scottish relationship with the EU is likely to change after independence.

The Scottish Government claims that an independent Scotland would be able to join the EU with all the UK's various opt outs intact. Scotland indeed could not be forced to join the Euro because in order to do so it would have to demonstrate currency convergence for at least two years which the newly independent state obviously would not be in a position to do.[1] Therefore if Scotland retained UK opt outs there would be only a positive change in relationship with Scotland receiving greater representation in EU institutions through having its own seat in the Council of Ministers, possibly its own Commissioner, and also a reallocation of European Parliamentary constituencies that would increase its representation there (and paradoxically increase rUK representation as well).[2] [1]    Noon, Stephen, ‘Euro membership’, 10 November 2011, http://stephennoon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/euro-membership.html    [2]    Engel, Arno, and Parkes, Roderick, ‘Accommodating an independent Scotland: how a  British-style constitution for the EU could secure Scotland’s future’, European Policy Centre, 24 October 2012, http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_3017_scotland_s_future.pdf p.7
Increased workforce diversity

While there is a benefit to diversity it does not have to be obtained by employing younger people but instead by having racial and gender diversity. Companies have the right to choose their own recruitment practices. It is up to them, and them alone, who they choose to recruit. If they believe in such benefits and that they outweigh any other priorities then they will already be recruiting young people. That they are not doing so shows that businesses do not believe the benefits are as high as they are made out to be. Government should not be compelling business to employ people government should only be interfering with business in order to create a level playing field between companies.
This policy is good for EU economies.

These placements will only be for six months. This combined with the intent not to make the program too expensive means that the benefit will be limited in terms of the fiscal boost provided. Those who are getting a salary only for six months are not likely to feel rich from getting that money so will probably try to save any they can. Also, these roles would be most likely to be unskilled. The benefit in terms of investment would therefore not be particularly great. Yes the young people involved are getting experience but this is different from providing them with technical skills that make them competitive in a global marketplace.
Temporary employment for youth acts against freedom of choice for businesses

Businesses are already regulated in who they can hire and on what terms– for that reason there are child labour, minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws. These kind of regulations come both from national governments and the European Union. Governments have always had this right. This policy is therefore not damaging freedom of choice any more than many other regulations. It will most likely not be necessary to make taking on the temporary jobs compulsory because the government is paying for it and how many companies will turn down something that is essentially a subsidy?
This policy would only serve to discriminate against unemployed people older than 25

It should not be assumed that today’s unemployed youth will be the target for recruiters in the future. In four or five years’ time there will be more graduates from high schools and universities looking for work and those companies that want to employ young people will look to them rather than people who have been out of work for several years. The result then will be a generation who have never worked and never picked up the skills for a job and may never get the opportunity to do so without government help. Older people who are unemployed at least have the skills they have learned in the workplace and a past record to fall back on.