- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Finally this brings me to the case about the economics. Scotland does 4 times more trade with the UK than with the rest of Europe. A Scot-exit is estimated to cost 6. 5%-8. 7% of the average income of the Scottish person. A similar problem is likely apparent in a NI exit as well. So a withdrawal from the UK would likely have a painful economic net negative for either Scotland or NI
I look forward to hearing your thorough rebuttal to my argument.
Supreme Court - https://scc-csc. Lexum. Com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index. Do
Scot-exit Cost - https://cep. Lse. Ac. Uk/pubs/download/brexit17. Pdf
As for Northern Ireland, It was once a part of Ireland, But chose to stay in the union when Ireland left. This was due to the unionist in the north, As well as the British unwillingness to fully leave the island. Today NI is recognized as a province of the UK, Including by Ireland and the people of NI. The actual muddy issue of NI in relation to Ireland and the EU is an ongoing issue to this day and deserves to be looked at separately. But essentially, If the people of NI or Scotland want to secede, A few important things must occur -
1) The referendum must be a clear majority. About 80 to 90% if I was to guess a number, But it must be an unquestionable majority due to the seriousness of the matter. To put it another way, If NI or Scotland were to secede, They wouldn't 20 years down the line hold another referendum on whether to join the UK or not.
2) An understanding that the referendum itself is non binding, And it will be up to the UK as a whole to determine it would be better if Scotland and/or NI were to leave the union, And what that would mean for England and Wales. A majority approval of the UK government will be needed.
Moving to the second reason why the UK is caught up in independence fever is the observation of the UK's division between the 4 countries. Most countries, Have many more divisions, Including countries comparable to the UK's size like France and Italy. The division of England, Wales, Scotland and NI into smaller bodies would accomplish this goal of dealing with the larger issue of secession.
Ideologically, Neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland has a right to secede. Some will point to the fact that Scotland was an independent country when it joined England and Wales to become Great Britain in 1707. To refute this point, We can look at the USA. Several states have once been independent countries at one point including, Vermont, Hawaii and my home state of Texas. None of these states have the right to secede and the vast majority here accept that. Just because one was a nation when going in doesn't mean that the territory now annexed has or should have the ability to leave whenever they want. The nation will go through good times and will also go through bad times, But we will go through them together, That's what makes a nation.
The first point is quite simple. The Uk government can choose to either set the bar for seccession much higher than it already is, Or it can outlaw secession altogether. Option B is an option taken by most nations around the world including the USA. This option is still much better than what the UK has now, But the main problem is that there isn't a way to alert a nation when a region is too economically and politically disconnected from the rest of the country, Until it's too late. Option A is the more preferable option, Since actual succession is unlikely, But if there's a serious problem that a region has with the country at large, The problem will have to be examined and solved. Canada for instance has a supreme court ruling stating what succession would mean for Quebec, Once the 2nd and last referendum failed. The opinion of the court was that Quebec couldn't secede unilaterally based on a referendum. In addition, If secession did happen, The people of Quebec would be allowed to use Canadian passports, Will have to take their share of the national debt, And other clarifications. Once this clarification was made, Quebec never had another referendum, Nor expressed a desire for one.
I don't believe that Scotland and Northern Ireland should be allowed to secede. Not to mention I don't think doing so would be beneficial overall. This is the argument I will be making.
Scotland and Northern Ireland are "countries" that are part of the UK, Which itself is officially a political union between 2 countries (England, Scotland), 1 principality (Wales) and 1 province (NI), But acts as a unified nation. I put "countries" in quotes due to the fact that even though the former two have control over their domestic affairs, The UK as a whole controls the foreign policy. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU despite the rest of the UK voting against them, And both of the former have very strong independent movements. A large part is due to the fact is due to a couple reasons -
1. The UK continues to entertain the idea of parts of its territory leaving and becoming independent.
2. The UK is split into 4 smaller independent countries/provinces, While most other nations are split into many more provinces. For reference, France has 18 while Italy has 20. The UK has more subdivisions as well, But they are under the full control of the 4 countries/province/principality.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!