This house supports Scottish independence - closing speeches

Third proposing speech

Dear debaters, many questions about the Scottish independence issue have been raised during this debate, and economic and political arguments were brought to hopefully show us why we should support Scottish independence. But first of all, I’d like everyone concerned with the well being of the Scots to seriously consider what Scottish identity is. (Continues below.)

by AA

Third opposing speech

Ladies and gentlemen, I must confess something. The Proposition nearly got me. Their lyrical accents when they talked of the principle of “self-determination”, their brave battle for the revival of traditional languages, their dreams of a “better and safer world”, their claims over 90% of North Sea oil resources… It all seemed to work quite well. Except that it is all false. We might agree with the objectives pursued, but they are fighting the wrong battle. (Continues below.)

by HA

Third proposing speech

Dear debaters, many questions about the Scottish independence issue have been raised during this debate, and economic and political arguments were brought to hopefully show us why we should support Scottish independence. But first of all, I’d like everyone concerned with the well being of the Scots to seriously consider what Scottish identity is. No one can deny that the culture of this country is rich and at the same time different from its neighbours’, and that the Scottish identity is being overshadowed since three centuries. Scotland, ladies and gentlemen, has expressed its will to gain independence and is ready to fight for it. So let’s ask ourselves: wouldn’t be unfair for them to remain a part of the UK against their will? Absolutely, being a poorly represented population – as HW mentioned - does not give us the right to force our opinions on them.

The time has come to let Scotland decide their destiny and build a strong autonomous country, 307 years after they joined the United Kingdom. We cannot ignore the multiple times Scotland tried to leave the union, nor can we deny their potential to succeed as an independent country. In addition to the unique culture, Scotland is rich in resources given its small size and population: they possess roughly 90% of the Oil reserve in the North Sea, and wouldn’t need taxes from London if they could entirely benefit from their own natural resources.

Simon Anholt, the renowned expert on national identity and reputation, described Scotland as being “among a few shining examples of countries which have successfully ‘rebranded’ themselves or at least demonstrated competent management of the way their attributes are perceived abroad…to the enormous benefit of the country’s economic health and self-respect. " This quote and many others show us that we need to let the Scottish people make their own choices. It is up to Scotland to decide whether they want to become independent or not, whether they aim for a continued membership in the European Union or wish to leave it, and whether they agree to renounce their proud history or instead, choose to promote their culture and preserve it.

And Scots have spoken; the country wants to stay as a member of the European Union, while Great Britain expresses its intention to withdraw from the union. Thus, were Britain to leave the EU, Scotland will be forced to leave as well, against its will and interests. Therefore, Independence is definitely the right way to avoid such a situation.

As pointed out by my fellow partners, Scotland is now forced to adopt British ideas, like those on nuclear weapons. However, there is a general consensus in Scotland that the presence of nuclear weapons is completely immoral. And allow me to point out that not having nuclear weapons will not make Scotland a weak country, as claimed by the opposing team. It will instead open the world’s eyes on a small country that has long been held back, a country willing to make independent decisions regardless of what others think; it will also set an example for other countries willing to oppose ideas that go against their beliefs. No one can argue that forcing Scotland to take part in nuclear weapons is beneficent for them, that’s for sure.

So, before making any decision, we should think of Scotland’s future and ask ourselves: why isn’t Scotland doing better, given all the natural and human wealth they have? The answer is quite simple, the Scottish voice has long been held back and needs to be finally heard, and independence is definitely the way to do so.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, and vote for us.

AA

Third opposing speech

Ladies and gentlemen, I must confess something. The Proposition nearly got me. Their lyrical accents when they talked of the principle of “self-determination”, their brave battle for the revival of traditional languages, their dreams of a “better and safer world”, their claims over 90% of North Sea oil resources… It all seemed to work quite well. Except that it is all false. We might agree with the objectives pursued, but they are fighting the wrong battle.

Can you actually compare Scotland’s membership of the United Kingdom to a form of colonialism, where London seems to steal all the oil from Edinburgh? Assuredly not. Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the population of the UK, produces 8.3% of its output, and receives 9.2% of its public spending. Does Scotland need to be independent to ensure the protection and development of its rich traditions and culture? No again. Just turn on your TV next month and listen to the national anthem “Flower of Scotland” during the Six Nations rugby tournament. You will never hear any English fan whistle, when they hear this: “But we can still rise now /And be the nation again /That stood against them /Proud Edward's army /And sent them homeward /To think again.” That’s quite a direct and violent threat to England don’t you think? And yet the UK, far from deterring the protection of a national culture, respects this rallying cry of the Scottish nation and showcased it during the London Olympics Opening Ceremony.

As my colleagues have pointed out, becoming independent would simply be a total catastrophe for Scotland. The whole case for Scotland leaving the UK is based on the chimera that they could live off North Sea oil. Firstly, the claims for 90% ownership of the available resources is but a populist fable. Precise calculations estimate this share a little over 50% under current international law. Secondly, the economical model depending almost solely on oil exportation would not be viable. Scotland would be far too much dependent of the continuation of high prices and soaring demand. “In the UK, a fall in oil prices is not ideal for public finances, but it is not a disaster (and of course it has its advantages!). In an independent Scotland, it could easily wipe 15% from the planned public expenditure budget,” wrote the specialist Barney Gray in the Oil&Gas Financial Journal. The trends are not as optimistic as the supporters of independence would like them to be: demand is diminishing, and the prices are falling.

By leaving the UK, Scotland would only isolate itself further and would lose any influence in the world of diplomacy. Thanks to the UK, they seat in the G8, the G20, the Security Council, and are a member of the European Union. At a time where organizations group more and more to form strong and coherent entities to weigh more in the globalized world, it would be pure suicide to choose isolation and regionalism. The only real dependence that Scotland faces, the only rule that it will have to face, is the worst rule of all. It is the rule of market finance that will dictate what will happen in the country once it goes bankrupt, as it is with Greece and Spain.

By Saint Andrew, for the sake of the Kilt, of bagpipes, of Haggis, Whiskey and Andy Murray, we must not let this nation shoot such a bullet in their own foot. Forget de Gaulle, long live British Scotland! Thank you and vote for us.

HA