The Instigator
scots
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Robkingofbongo
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Should Scotland get independence from the UK?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
scots
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,080 times Debate No: 58916
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

scots

Pro

first round is acceptance.

I will be arguing that Scotland should become it's own independent nation.

good luck to my opponent :P
Robkingofbongo

Con

Cool, I accept the debate.

Good luck to you too Scots.
Debate Round No. 1
scots

Pro

Taking Responsibility by moving all Governing Powers to Scotland

You would like to get the opportunity to move more responsibilities to a more local Scottish Democracy instead of accept the fate of Westminster's plans? With all the powers moved to Scotland, we can make a fairer Scotland.

Get the Government we choose

The Tories are in power in the UK, although the majority of Scots have chosen the opposition. The Scots are outnumbered ten to one, so whatever government the Scots will vote for in a UK General Election, it's highly unlikely that a Scottish Political Party will ever be part of a UK Government representing Scotland's needs. With the rising votes for UKIP in England, our goals towards a fair and harmonious society will diminish even further.

No more building Nuclear Weapons

We should stop building Nuclear Weapons in Scotland, it is unethical and morally wrong. Under "The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" the UK expects all other countries to sign this agreement to disarm Nuclear Weapons, but has excluded itself. Under the treaty it continues to build more Nuclear Weapons in Scotland. If you believe in peace instead of war, let's stop building weapons of mass destruction and start caring for the people and the planet.

Securing Oil Funds in North Sea

Scotland's Oil reserves are vast. Most of the revenue and tax made from Oil goes directly to Westminster. There are claims that Scotland will be one of the wealthiest nations in Europe if we become independent.

Scotland has the resources and finances

Scotland has the resources and finances to become independent. One of the early myths created by the No Campaign has been debunked and even the Unionists agree that Scotland has what it takes to become independent and the Scottish people will be better off financially

Believing in the creation of more jobs

With an ever rising energy and electricity demand in Europe, Scotland could be one of the global leading suppliers. Scotland has many natural resources that allow sustainable energy for which more jobs are created. Furthermore when Scotland becomes Independent, many centralized services and offices, like Tax Offices, DVLA etc have to be set up in Scotland. This will create many jobs and jobs provide an income, which is good for the economy and beneficial for us all

Believing in the benefits for Scotland and yourself as individual

Not only will there be more jobs, the future Government already has plans for creating better Health care and improve the situation for Pensioners and people with children. We'll keep the minimum wages, scrap the bedroom tax, etc.

Believing in a more equal wages

The difference in wage in London compared to Scotland for example is huge. This gap is growing and with the current UK Government the richest only seem to get richer and the poor becoming poorer. With a smaller gap between the highest and lowest incomes, there will be less jealousy, greed and more happiness if we're have more equal wages.

Believing that Scotland and England have opposite Political and Social views

We love Scotland and we love England. Why should both countries suffer from having to compromise political decisions to please both sides. Let's respect each other and go our own way. In doing so, we'll become better friends and neighbours then we are ever going to be in a forced political marriage.

Understanding that NO may lead to changes for worse

Change is going to happen, whether you vote Yes or No. By voting NO for independence, you will have less control over the changes that are going to change, because the government who makes these decision is still in Westminster. A No Vote for independence will be almost certainly be used by the UK government to withdraw powers form Scottish Government, withdraw funding for Scotland and will be seen as as an act of 'no confidence' in the current Scottish Government. So by voting NO, not only will things be changing, things might be changing for worse.

http://www.yesscotland.net...
Robkingofbongo

Con

I believe that breaking up not just a political union, but a nation that has existed for 307 years and been a great world leader is a very radical and irreversible measure that should only be undertaken in the last resort and we are simply not at that point.

It is not true that Scotland and England have opposite views politically. The north of England and parts of the south (especially London) consistently vote for Labour just as Scotland does. If Scotland leaves it may condemn the rest of the UK to ten thousand years of darkness (Tory rule), does it really want that on it's conscience?

Of course it's well known there are more Pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs, but the Scots still have a lot of power in the union. The last two British prime ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, are Scots (thanks for that). Scotland has a disproportionately large number of MPs at Westminster. Scottish MPs can vote on English matters but English MPs can't do the same in revers. Edinburgh already has an independent legal system and its parliament has power over a wide range of policy areas, including health, education and housing. Its leaders have not exercised their right to vary income tax: that hardly suggests a Scottish administration straining at a leash held tight by Westminster.

Independence comes with may uncertainties, not least of which is economic. Nationalists say that Scots will be "1,000 a year better-off per head if they go it alone. That number, however, is based on implausible assumptions about the oil price, Scotland"s debt burden, demography and productivity. The British government"s estimate that Scots would be "1,400 a year better off per head if they stay in is based on more realistic assumptions. Scotland"s population is older and sicker than the British average, and productivity 11% lower than that of the rest of Britain. As a result, the state spends around "1,200 more per head on Scots than on the average Briton. Depending on what happens to the oil price, North Sea oil could more or less cover those costs in the short term, but the oil is running out.(1)

Many businesses have also expressed concern over an independent Scotland, casting doubt on the strength of their economy.(2)

Far from being a socialist paradise, an independent Scotland may be forced to swing to the right. Deprived of subsidies from the Union, it will have to cut back on public spending drastically.

Spain, which has it's own secessionist movement will certainly impede an independent Scotland's attempts to re-enter the EU, meaning the Scotland will be left out in the diplomatic and economic wilderness.

The UK is a powerful force internationally, much more powerful than either two newly created, small states would be. The UK is a linchpin in NATO, without Scotland, the alliance will be sent into disarray and with the UK would almost certainly losing it's place on the UN security council without Scotland, world peace would be much at risk. However unpopular Nuclear weapons might be, they kept the peace for 45 years during the Cold War and give Britain muscle on the international stage. I believe MAD (mutually assured destruction) actually prevents the kind of all-out war we saw in WWII.

The Union represents the idea that different peoples can live together peacefully and their differences make them stronger. I believe that to be a far more powerful idea than the petty nationalism of the pro independence side. In an age of religious, ethnic and national conflict that Union embodies an ideal to be treasured.

(1)http://www.economist.com...
(2)http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 2
scots

Pro

I believe that breaking up not just a political union, but a nation that has existed for 307 years and been a great world leader is a very radical and irreversible measure that should only be undertaken in the last resort and we are simply not at that point.

Yet this nation was not always fair to the Scottish people, for one thing the votes when Scotland voted one way and England voted the other the English would win because of their much greater population and that the government was based in Westminster. Also many Scots voted heavily against Margaret Thatcher yet she still won.

It is not true that Scotland and England have opposite views politically. The north of England and parts of the south (especially London) consistently vote for Labour just as Scotland does. If Scotland leaves it may condemn the rest of the UK to ten thousand years of darkness (Tory rule), does it really want that on it's conscience?

We have lived through 307 years of darkness being tied up with the UK. We did not want to enter the UK but James I of England was also James VI of Scotland was the one who brought us into the union. Sure we got reward out of the union but we lost our government, independence, liberty, equality. We did not get our parliament back until July 1999. And every day on wages day the average Scottish worker would receive much less than a worker in England for doing the same job it has gotten better but their is still a problem. Also we lost a lot of our population because people were leaving because they could barely survive, the Scots had some of the worst living conditions in all of Britain.

Of course it's well known there are more Pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs, but the Scots still have a lot of power in the union. The last two British prime ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, are Scots (thanks for that). Scotland has a disproportionately large number of MPs at Westminster. Scottish MPs can vote on English matters but English MPs can't do the same in revers. Edinburgh already has an independent legal system and its parliament has power over a wide range of policy areas, including health, education and housing. Its leaders have not exercised their right to vary income tax: that hardly suggests a Scottish administration straining at a leash held tight by Westminster.

Aye we have a parliament but we did not get it back that long ago, as I said we got it on July of the year 1999. But Westminster still takes major thing in Scotland, but don't you think it is to far to govern effectively over Scotland? the distance from Westminster to Edinburgh is 330.75 miles, and 287.23 nautical miles.

Independence comes with may uncertainties, not least of which is economic. Nationalists say that Scots will be "1,000 a year better-off per head if they go it alone. That number, however, is based on implausible assumptions about the oil price, Scotland"s debt burden, demography and productivity. The British government"s estimate that Scots would be "1,400 a year better off per head if they stay in is based on more realistic assumptions. Scotland"s population is older and sicker than the British average, and productivity 11% lower than that of the rest of Britain. As a result, the state spends around "1,200 more per head on Scots than on the average Briton. Depending on what happens to the oil price, North Sea oil could more or less cover those costs in the short term, but the oil is running out.(1)

Aye who shared this oil all of Britain but with the split we get most of Britain's oil. a bit more than 90%. Why do you think the average Scottish person is older and sicker than the average Briton? Because remember the terrible living conditions and food shortages well what Westminster did was basically help the Scots to late and of course after most of the English people were living better.

Many businesses have also expressed concern over an independent Scotland, casting doubt on the strength of their economy

If we did not have a strong enough economy do you think we would have so many supporters for an independent Scotland?
We are not idiots following a dream, we know we can survive without UK. We will lose funds and Britain will lose some but it is worth what we are doing we are making history we are honoring those who fought so hard to keep this nation free. Our relations with England today a great, but as I said if we lose the referendum will be almost certainly be used by the UK government to withdraw powers form Scottish Government, withdraw funding for Scotland and will be seen as as an act of 'no confidence' in the current Scottish Government. So by voting NO, not only will things be changing, things might be changing for worse.

Spain, which has it's own secessionist movement will certainly impede an independent Scotland's attempts to re-enter the EU, meaning the Scotland will be left out in the diplomatic and economic wilderness.

not necessarily especially since the UK was thinking of leaving the EU an way, the EU is also in decline.

The UK is a powerful force internationally, much more powerful than either two newly created, small states would be. The UK is a linchpin in NATO, without Scotland, the alliance will be sent into disarray and with the UK would almost certainly losing it's place on the UN security council without Scotland, world peace would be much at risk. However unpopular Nuclear weapons might be, they kept the peace for 45 years during the Cold War and give Britain muscle on the international stage. I believe MAD (mutually assured destruction) actually prevents the kind of all-out war we saw in WWII.

it is unethical and morally wrong. Under "The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" the UK expects all other countries to sign this agreement to disarm Nuclear Weapons, but has excluded itself. Under the treaty it continues to build more Nuclear Weapons in Scotland. If you believe in peace instead of war, let's stop building weapons of mass destruction and start caring for the people and the planet and it may have helped us in the past but nothing good will happen if we keep building these in the future. and if you want them so much build them elsewhere. Also after these wars that we helped win was were you can most see how Scotland plunged into poverty, most of Britain was mostly in poverty but the Scots were the worst hit.

The Union represents the idea that different peoples can live together peacefully and their differences make them stronger. I believe that to be a far more powerful idea than the petty nationalism of the pro independence side. In an age of religious, ethnic and national conflict that Union embodies an ideal to be treasured.

I disagree the union as I mention earlier cause many Scottish people to go into poverty and starve also drastically shrank our population. Also the Scottish people never wanted the union, if you noticed even after the union we fought against it we lost but it shows you that we are not happy and will never be happy until we have independence.
Robkingofbongo

Con

Robkingofbongo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by scots 3 years ago
scots
"For as long as one hundred of us shall remain alive, we shall never in any wise consent submit to the rule of the English, for it is not for glory we fight, nor riches, or for honour, but for freedom alone, which no good man loses but with his life." -Robert the BruceA279;
Posted by scots 3 years ago
scots
Posted by scots 3 years ago
scots
Posted by scots 3 years ago
scots
Posted by scots 3 years ago
scots
#t=14
Posted by DannyCliff 3 years ago
DannyCliff
Scotland! :P
Posted by scots 3 years ago
scots
Thank you
Posted by CookieMonster127 3 years ago
CookieMonster127
Go Scots!!
Posted by drewsaphor 3 years ago
drewsaphor
Go Scots
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Conservative101 3 years ago
Conservative101
scotsRobkingofbongoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I understand the Scottish independence movement as well as the reluctance of many to dissolve the UK, but pro failed to quote his rebuttals of con's arguments which made pro's argument hard to follow.
Vote Placed by Adam2 3 years ago
Adam2
scotsRobkingofbongoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: It's hard for me to say... both of you guys put up a good argument. I'd give it to Scots for not FF.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
scotsRobkingofbongoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF