The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Scottish Independence

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Areisx has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 346 times Debate No: 98387
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




In terms of independence, what you need to know is that around 10-20% of the "no" vote are a definite "no", and will not change under any circumstances. This is because, they consist of British Jingoists (those whom care more about their British identity than anything else), those pushing their own agenda (i.e. the Conservative and Unionist party, which, many of their policies could not come true, without the backing of Westminster to overrule, such as renewing Trident, introducing Grammar Schools, etc), or those against the EU (knowing full well an independent Scotland will almost definitely rejoin the EU). However, around 50-60% of the vote, will most likely be comprised of the "uncertainty vote". This includes voters whom don't know whether the pros outweigh the possible cons. However, what needs to be fully acknowledged is that the majority of the independence cons are entirely chance-based, i.e. unknown territory (e.g. Scotland's economy MAY suffer [however, this also means the economy could do amazingly well]). Proving to these voters that the confirmed pros far outweighs the possible cons, will decide the outcome of the next referendum. So far, what we know is the difference in the EU and the UK, and although rejoining the EU is only a possibility, given EU country support, Scottish support, and detrimental reasons on both sides to not allow Scotland to rejoin (i.e. letting Scotland rejoin will make thus 'end the old UK', proving that being outwith the EU is far worse), its almost definite. As such, comparing the EU and the UK in the 4 most discussed areas: Tax, Control, Economy and Democracy; will highlight the benefits of being within the EU.

UK: Scotland has control over 9% of their powers, meaning, English voters have the outright say over Scottish voters, even if the law/ruling does not affect England; whilst having 20% of powers semi-devolved, where MSPs vote with English MPs, however, often are voted against. An example of this is Trident.
EU: Scotland would take part in a consensus proportional representation vote where no one country has absolute say, with all non-fixture bills having a VETO option, whereby the Scottish representatives can opt out of following. An example of this is British reps opting out of the Schengen Area and joining the Euro-Zone. Scotland would control well over 95% of all powers and laws; with the rest being semi-devolved through the EU.

UK: Scotland has a voting age of 16 with the AMS system, whilst England uses the FPTP system and all other countries having a voting age of 18; meaning in GEs, not all eligible Scottish voters will be allowed to vote. All Scottish representatives for Parliament is elected, whilst in the HoL, it is an aristocrat oligarchy, whereby, you get a seat by either being appointed the position and thus swinging bias for the party that put you there, or inherit the seat due to being wealthy enough and thus have their own personal interests at heart. The HoL is undemocratic, and can vote for and change laws as they please without any repercussions, with strong bias for the leading party.
EU: ALL EU reps that debate laws and regulations are elected, this is through the d'Hondt system for Scotland. These reps also must file under no form of corruption investigation and have equal say to one another through proportional representation. With consensus and opt-outs, it means countries like Germany does not have absolute control due to having a high population, whilst countries like Malta get no say.

UK: 64% of all trade is through the UK, however, as shown on HMRC, this is misleading. Any and all Scottish exports sold via and English port is classed as UK trade; this is because any Scottish export sold as such is taxed as an English export, with the profit post-tax is then returned to Scotland, thus showing further UK trade. This UK trade is grouped as "unknown source", which makes up around 50% of oil exports [meaning 50% of all Scottish oil is taxed as English with a further proportion of the profit removed as English profit, equating to around 10% of the total profit]. Scotland's biggest exports however are not just oil, so to say they rely on the oil industry is a lie: medicine, engineering, research and food (alcohol & water) all supersede oil profits; however, removing this UKMF (as explained prior), would result in oil, even at its current low rate value, would overtake engineering and research.
EU: Oil prices are currently rebounding back up again; and with Russian sanctions, the EU, especially the East and Central, is heavily dependent on North Sea oil from the UK [Scotland]; so a trade deal for oil is almost guaranteed. Many have also argued that Scotland would have to pay to bail out Spain, Greece, Portugal etc, which is not the case. Whilst, post-IC, Greece is leaving the EuroZone, whilst Central Spain and Southern Italy face cuts to expenditure due to high benefit claim and low employment. So no, Scotland would not, in anyway, be bailing out any country. Whilst Scotland receives more from the EU than they put in, due to the EU funding research and medical sciences, whilst supporting the Scottish government in subsidising the lowest populated [and poorest] regions of Scotland: Shetland, Orkney, Eilean Siar & the Highlands. Whilst, Scotland, even with the UKMF and tax reduction see tax revenue, Scotland still has the lowest unemployment rate, high uni-graduate rate, highest income, highest QoL rating and highest GDPpc value; with spread of wealth being much more equal, resulting in middle class Scots being the equivalent to upper class English citizens in terms of wealth.

Tax Revenue:
UK: Scotland had a tax revenue in 2015 of ~"56bn but only had a budget of ~"42bn, so this would be a surplus of ~"14bn; however, England required ~"30bn from Scottish tax revenue for subsidies and to make up for budget costs, and as a result, Scotland ended up with a deficit of ~"15bn, to which, England is not paying any money towards.
EU: This means, minus this subsidy to England and UKMF explained in economy; Scotland would have a much larger tax surplus, and in fact, would not only be able to pay off its external debt of ~"91bn [as of 2015], whilst increasing the budget and/or even reducing taxes. Scotland would no longer have to pay off English debt nor pay so much of its economy to England unfairly.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.