Scotland Should be an Independent State

Thanks to Kylar for the debate. Given the lateness of the hour here, and that I am running out of time to post, my arguments will be brief. I also apologize for any errors due to C/Ping and I hope that the pound symbol comes through...ARGUMENTSC1. Currency"The Yeses want to leave Britain, but keep the pound. This, as Paul Krugman points out, is a miserable idea. If the euro crisis has taught us anything, it's that sharing a currency without sharing a budget can turn recessions into depressions. That's because it forces countries to pick up all the costs of a slump, while preventing them from actually doing so--or from using monetary policy to help. See, unless the government has a lender-of-last-resort--i.e., its own central bank--a self-fulfilling prophecy of financial doom can force it into austerity at the worst possible moment. That's what happened to the euro crisis countries, and it's what could happen to independent Scotland if it stayed on the pound." [1]"But a sterling zone would face big problems. Its members’ business cycles are reasonably well aligned, but not perfectly in step...hat means that as it is, monetary policy is often too tight on one side of the border and too loose on the other. This divergence is likely to increase, since the budgetary transfers and shared fiscal policy that help to synchronise the two economies would cease. The SNP is planning to increase spending by 3% a year in Scotland, whereas the Conservative-led government in Britain wants to balance its books by 2019. Yet Scotland already has a bigger deficit than rUK, and its fiscal position is forecast to worsen as its population ages. Lacking a common fiscal policy, the sterling zone could easily become a mini euro area, with Scotland in the part of Greece." [2]C2. Monocultures"Independent Scotland would--crucially--be a less diversified economy than it is as part of Britain today. That, as Adam Posen points out, would make it more vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the global economy. Not only that, but the big banks that make up a big part of Scotland's economy would likely migrate south to the safety of the Bank of England, starving its economy of credit." [1] In a monoculture economy, the economy is based largely on a single good. In this case, that good would be oil. That means that if oil does well, Scotland does well. But, it also means that if oil prices fall (as they eventually would), then they will drag the Scottish economy down with them. Pinning an economy on one core product means that if anything happens to that product, the whole system is disproportionately impacted. Remaining a part of the UK keeps the overall economy diversified, so if one sector falls, the UK's other sectors can prop up the economy as a whole, as well as regions like Scotland which may be adversely impacted.In fact, falling oil prices have already hurt Scotland: "New IFS analysis of the latest Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) data shows that a sharp fall in oil revenues in 2012-13 left a gap between North Sea income and Scotland's public spending of £468 a person." [7]C3. Debt"Scotland would be saddled with £143 billion of debt after independence and forced to make deeper spending cuts than seen under the Coalition's austerity drive, academics have warned. Extra North Sea oil revenues would only cover a third of that shortfall and leave Holyrood paying billions of pounds in 'IOUs' to Westminster for debt interest payments, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR)." [3]"Since 2007-08, Scotland has run an average net fiscal deficit of £8.3 billion (5.9% of GDP)." [4] So, Scotland already doesn't have enough money to pay its bills, and it would then be asked to pay an additional 143 billion pounds on top of that? It doesn't seem feasible.C4. DefenseSCA. Recruitment"A July 2013 report by the Scotland Institute thinktank concluded that independence 'will lead to difficulties in recruitment and retention'. It argued that Scotland’s diminished role on the world stage would make its armed forces an 'unattractive' prospect for potential recruits." [5, 6]SCB. Defense Employment"Defence is a big employer in Scotland. According to the quarterly location statistics for April 2014, published by the Ministry of Defence, there were 14,510 MoD personnel based in Scotland, 7.5% of the UK’s total, of whom 10,600 were military (4,210 navy; 3,690 army; 2,700 air force) and 3,910 civilian. The MoD says that by 2020 the number of personnel in Scotland is due to increase to 12,500 (8.8% of the UK total), though overall numbers across the UK are decreasing." [5]If Scotland leaves the UK, the UK will no longer be keeping such large numbers of troops there. This will remove an important source of employment from Scotland's economy. Even if the soldiers themselves are British, Welsh, or North Irish, the money they spend while stationed in Scotland feeds the local economy, producing and sustaining jobs. Leaving the UK directly imperils the wellbeing of Scotland's economy as a result.SCC. Defense Spending"Would an independent Scotland – with a much smaller budget – be able to support, for example, the three squadrons of Tornado jets currently housed at RAF Lossiemouth, and the three squadrons of Typhoon jets it is due to receive? The £2.5bn proposed budget would cover just 7% of the overall UK budgets for defence, intelligence and cyber-security. Westminster has pledged investments of £100m for army basing in Scotland, £85m for development of RAF Lossiemouth and hundreds of millions of pounds for the naval base at Clyde, which would be scuppered by a yes vote." [5] The question is: can Scotland afford to keep up its own defense forces without the rest of the UK, and wouldn't Scotland be benefited by the extra defense money it recieves from the other constituent nations of the UK?C5. Bargaining PowerIf Scotland remains in the UK, then it can use the fact that the referendum is close to coerce the Westminister government into giving concessions to Scotland as a means of placating them to stave off another such referendum. "No" campaigners also made many sweeping promises, and only staying in the UK will allow Scotland to cash in on those promises, including further devolution of power.SOURCES1 - http://www.washingtonpost.com...2 - http://www.economist.com...3 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk...4 - http://www.gov.scot...5 - http://www.theguardian.com...6 - http://www.scotlandinstitute.com...7 - http://www.theguardian.com...Thank you! The resolution is negated. Over to Pro...