This house supports Scottish independence - rebuttal speeches

Second proposing speech

Dear debaters, dear readers, we believe that Scotland should be an independent country, and in addition to the arguments my colleague opening proposition stated, I would like to insist on the long-lasting character of the Scots’ will for independence, the potential driving force of a Scottish Independence, come back to the North Sea oil resources revenues and spare some time (or rather words) to rebut some of my opponent’s arguments.

by AC (Continues below)

Second opposing speech

Dear readers, honourable members of the Government, and my fellow partners of the opposition, our debate about the Scottish independence is actually going far further than the referendum that is going to take place on September 18^th, 2014. In fact, this issue tackles the actual economic problems Europe is facing, problems that an independent Scotland might have difficulties to overcome, the issue of nuclear weapons and also the legitimacy of political leaders, even in our democracies

by KP (continues below)

Second proposing speech

Dear debaters, dear readers, we believe that Scotland should be an independent country, and in addition to the arguments my colleague opening proposition stated, I would like to insist on the long-lasting character of the Scots’ will for independence, the potential driving force of a Scottish Independence, come back to the North Sea oil resources revenues and spare some time (or rather words) to rebut some of my opponent’s arguments.

The desire for Scottish independence dates back to nearly as early as the unification with England, because of a bribery scandal involving the Scottish signatories of the Act of Union in 1707. The first claim for a Scottish Assembly was voiced in 1853. Yet, unlike what my fellow debaters on the opposing team asserted, it was not “quickly forgotten” since much later Scotland voted in favour of the Scotland Act 1978, even though the Act was repealed. Consequently, the Parliament passed a vote of no confidence forcing James Callaghan’s Labour government to resign. The new government – Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government – established the Scottish Office. Twenty years later, a new Scotland Act 1998 was passed establishing the Scottish Parliament.

The second key issue is that of oil resources. According to an article from the BBC, the year 2011/2012’s North Sea revenues for the UK Exchequer was one of the largest figures ever, and the tax income generated by oil production in Scottish waters is expected to soar by 2018 to £57bn. The core of the disagreement lies in the ownership of the oil deposits. Indeed, conformingly to international laws, the oil resources should accrue to the country in the national fishing waters of which they lie. Therefore, 90% of  the UK’s North Sea oil revenues should belong to Scotland. If such a dividing was made, Oil & Gas experts maintain that Scotland’s 2011 budget deficit would be around £4.8bn, which amounts to a significantly lower deficit per capita than the rest of the UK.

As the opposing team noticed, Scotland gaining independence would have to answer some essential questions, such as the currency it would have – amusing thing is Scotland currently has different banknotes from England –, the debt it would owe. Yet these questions are actually mere administrative formalities, compared to the fundamental questions England would have to answer if the independence was rejected, as deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon pointed out.

Last but not least, what consequences would such a decision have on other movements for independence? The Independence of Scotland would certainly set an example for other regions with strong cultural identity and dynamic economy – the two usually come together, as the former helps the latter through tourism – such as Flanders, the Basque Country or Catalonia. This would allow these cultures to express themselves through proper home rule, and full control over their territory and policies.

To conclude, we should offer Scotland the wonderful opportunity of home rule, so as to protect the richness of Scottish culture – its language, music, culinary heritage – and grant the people who inhabit the country control over the natural resources of its soils and power to decide on questions such as stationing armed forces and storing nuclear weapons.

Thank you, and vote for us !

AC

Second opposing speech

Dear readers, honourable members of the Government, and my fellow partners of the opposition, our debate about the Scottish independence is actually going far further than the referendum that is going to take place on September 18^th, 2014. In fact, this issue tackles the actual economic problems Europe is facing, problems that an independent Scotland might have difficulties to overcome, the issue of nuclear weapons and also the legitimacy of political leaders, even in our democracies.

But first of all, I’d like to come back on a terrible misunderstanding about the relationship between Scotland and the United Kingdom. In fact, the comparison made by the first member of the Government between Scotland and a colonized country is quite biased. As BL showed in his introductory speech, the grants given by London to Scotland are much higher than the taxes raised on North Sea oil. That’s why this relationship should be seen more like union than colonization, and this union is actually benefitting Scotland.

As HW pointed out, in a union between several countries, some decisions are imposed to a particular country and go against its own believes. The example given was the nuclear weapons. But I couldn’t disagree more with HW saying that “For a better, a more secure world, we need more countries like Scotland, that object to nuclear weapons.” Scotland not having the nuclear bomb does not make the world safer, it only makes Scotland weaker and more vulnerable. That would put Scottish people in the mercy of countries that already have or are developing nuclear weapons such as Iran… Nuclear weapons play a key role in the balance of terror, and giving up the nuclear bomb would tip the scales against Scotland. Especially as an independent Scotland might not be able to afford an army. The cost might be too high for a new independent country.

Economically speaking, we cannot support the independence of Scotland. In fact, it would be very hard for Scotland to be viable! The independence would mean a huge tax increase, because Scotland would have to pay its share of theBritish debt. This represents a 86% of the Scottish annual output that would be spent in obligations, without considering the public expenses. Thus Scotland would have no choice but get into debt, and have even more interests to refund.

The other problem with the economy is about the currency: what currency might Scotland adopt if it becomes independent? They cannot choose the euro, because they do not fit Maastricht criteria. They might choose to create a new currency, but it would be very hard to convince the investors that this new currency is strong, and a weak currency would not help refunding the debt. 

Finally they might keep the pound, but that would mean no control over the economic policies because they would not be able to set their own interest rates. From this point of view, the independence has no advantage over staying in the UK. Keeping the pound would also make the Scottish debt unsustainable, because the Bank of England interest rates are much higher for foreign nations.

From a political point of view, the independence would be much easier: indeed, Scotland already has its own government since 1999, and the Scottish National Party is actually at power. But the real political issue here is why the SNP is at power, and the actual tendency for the referendum is a “No” for independence. In fact, less than a third of the Scottish population is in favour of the independence. As BL said, paradoxically, this nationalist vote is not a vote for an independent Scotland, but it is a vote of protest. Scotland is far from being ready for independence.

From a European point of view, the independence of Scotland would not allow “the pro-Europe Scotland” (as said HW) to remain in the European Union, and to partially compensate an eventual exit of the UK. Indeed, more and more countries have applied to enter the EU, but the latest demands have been rejected because a large number of countries makes the decisions harder to make and so the union less efficient. Spain even threatened to oppose itsveto against the entry of Scotland, in order to avoid problems with Catalonia and the Basque Country. So being independent would mean, for Scotland, losing the strong British power and influence in UNO, NATO and EU. And this is no good for Scottish people.

As a conclusion, we should listen to the public opinion, and make the good choice for the future of the Scots. The independence of Scotland should not be supported, both economically and politically. Thank you for reading and please oppose the motion.

KP