This house supports Scottish independence - poll result and moderator's report card

Ye Jacobites by Name, Lend an Ear, Lend an Ear! The stain of Culloden is forever erased, and a free Scotland will rise again!

Moderator's report, by ZG

Dear readers, dear debaters, this debate has come to an end. Both sides have defended themselves with conviction. Every speech had its relevant arguments, and each debater in his turn intended very successfully to make you rely by his side. But the huge question raised in this debate about Scottish independence, has it really been answered yet? This is therefore the purpose of this speech. I will try to pick the arguments that stood out from the crowd, and analyse them objectively. And then, we shall find which side is mostly right. (Continues below.)

During this debate, some points appeared to be really controversial. On the one hand, there was the economical sustainability and particularly the question of oil resources. On the other hand, the political status and influence of and independent Scotland. Then, the question of self-determination of this people, making its own choices (and particularly about the nuclear fleet) and preserving its culture. And the last but not least, is this claim of independence really representative of the whole nation (according to history and polls)?

Let’s start with the question of economical sustainability. In fact the majority of oil production comes from Scotland, as it was said in the first proposing speech, therefore the current system seems to be a sort of exploitation of this nation’s resources.  Argument rebutted in de first and third opposing speeches as the grants given back from London to Scotland are much higher than the taxes raised in the North Sea. This should be seen more like an economic alliance which Scotland could benefit from. Argument rebutted too in the second proposing speech, because the independence of Scotland would imply this nation ruling itself those 90% of oil resources it owns thanks to sole sovereignty, which would mean economic independence from London taxes.

Nevertheless, even if the proposing team seems to be right concerning this point, they forgot that oil production would be their more important source of benefit. Consequently, the independence of Scotland would leave an economically dependent country on a not really sustainable resource, putting in jeopardy a whole nation’s living standard. Whereas, an economically healthy nation could spend its extra money to preserve its traditions. 

The independence of Scotland would imply a change in its political status, concerning its membership in the EU, NATO, UNO…and therefore a weakening its political influence worldwide. Britain expressed the eventuality of leaving the EU, whereas Scotland still wants to be part of it, thus independence is the only way for Scotland to be part of the EU. Still, the topical tendency is for the EU to reject new applications for membership. So there is far from sure that independent Scotland could be part of the European Union, and all the more as Spain is threatening to oppose its veto since it fears the uprising of nationalism in its own country. 

Now, let’s tackle the question of self-determination of this nation. Scotland (as said in the first proposing speech) is a real nation with its identity kept over centuries, its territory,  a remaining language and traditions, a nation that should have the opportunity of expressing itself and having its own choices about its own way of living heard and respected. I am thinking about Scotland strongly opposing nuclear weapons, but forced to welcome a nuclear fleet in its territory and live with this burden. This argument was firstly rebutted (2^nd opp speech) saying that it would not be secure since there is a balance of terror, and that such a pacific country is utopic. Nevertheless, the proposition comes with a final rebutting argument: “No one can argue that forcing Scotland to take part in nuclear weapons is beneficent for them, that’s for sure.” If you are immoral you can’t force someone who wants to be moral to be like you, pretending it is for its own safety. 

To finish, the claim of independence has been present since the creation of the union 307 years ago, we can’t deny it (proposition team). It is sure that most of Scotts would like their opinions and choices more taken into account, but do they all want independence? Polls concerning the referendum of next September showed that less than a third of Scotts really are in favour of independence. Perhaps people, even if they would like to be an independent nation in their hearts, are aware that in the actual world their nation is not ready for such a step (opposition team).  

To conclude this review of the debate, I would give the victory to the opposition team, since according to me they won the majority of the clash points. But we shall agree that there are agreements to be made.

 ZG