Scotland Should be an Independent State

Thanks to Kylar for the debate. I apologize for using the wrong pronoun for him in this debate--the only Kylar that I knew in real life was a female, so that's were the mistake was made. At this time, I will defend my own case and crystallize the round. ARGUMENTSC1. CurrencyPro says that there is no reason to believe that Scotland would not adopt its own currency. Remember that this debate is set in the context of the 2014 referendum, wherein the SNP specifically advocated for keeping the pound after independence. [1] So there is good reason to believe that Scotland would at least attempt to do so. Moreover, having a different currency would be equally problematic: "Scotland would have to, as The Economist argues, create its own currency with its own central bank. But this would have its own difficulties. They'd probably want to peg their new currency to the pound, at least at the beginning, to ease the transition and preempt any capital flight. This means, though, that Scotland would need to run significant fiscal and trade surpluses to defuse any fear that they'd break the peg, and defend it if needed. Independence, in other words, could force Scotland into the same austerity it's trying to escape. " [2]C2. MonoculturesPro writes: "The economy yes is weak, and needs reformed. However, if Scotland's people showed determination they could pull out of debt and build a nation. "Pro basically CONCEDES my entire argument regarding monocultures, and agrees with me that the Scottish economy is weak. Pro then talks about determination, but mere determination is not sufficient to sustain a monoculture system; the system itself is rigged such that it is out of their control. Actions elsewhere in the world can cause the prices of oil to fall, harming the Scottish economy. Even if reform is done, there is no guarantee that it will work, and it will take time that Scotland doesn't have. Scotland will need the oil money NOW if they are going to be able to provide public services, build a defense force, and so forth. If the oil prices plummet as they are already doing (as I showed last round), Scotland won't have the money to sustain these critical services and will lose legitimacy as a government as a result. It will also likely result in some form of economic collapse. C3. DebtScotland is already running a budget deficit, and so there is no reason to believe that they could even begin to pay off the debt it would owe (which would accrue interest as well) for years, possibly decades, to come. It would force Scotland to divert money from their economic and defense development to debt repayment, meaning that Scotland's public services, quality of life, and defense capabilities would noticeably shrink. And, because public services employ about 1/5th of all Scotts [3], cuts to this sector necessary to repay debts could result in large levels of job loss and further economic woes for an independent Scotland. C4. DefensePro talks about the will of the people to create a military, but this really doesn't address SCB or SCC, which talk about tangible economic and financial difficulties faced in the defense sector. These points are DROPPED. Remember, wanting to create a military is not enough if you simply can't afford it. But, even so, the poor economic condition Scotland is in, as well as the fact it is much smaller than England, and so will likely have a smaller armed service, will reduce its role on the international stage, which will, as noted earlier, likely negatively impact recruitment. C5. Bargaining PowerPro AGREES Scotland can bargain for more power. This is going to mitigate a lot of Pro's points, because Scotland will at least have more freedom after the election, if not total self-rule. VOTING ISSUESPro's arguments in this debate have been full of warrantless and underdeveloped assertions. My arguments are supported by evidence, and show that the economic and defense situation would be significantly worse for an independent Scotland than for a Scotland that is part of the UK. Given that Scotland can get more freedom within the UK due to the promises UK leaders have made and its ability to elect SNP MPs, the reason for self-rule seems less compelling. More freedom without severe economic and defense problems is better than total sovereignty with both of those problems, at least from a cost-benefit standpoint. Thus, I urge a Con vote. Thank you. SOURCES1 - . http://www.theguardian.com...2 - R2, S13 - . http://www.gov.scot...-----------------------------Just a reminder to Pro: you must waive in the next round. You cannot post arguments or summarize your position.