The Argumentative Essay: The Independence Of Scotland

A subject I have recently analysed is the possible independence of Scotland where I found very strong and opposing opinions about this recent topic. Scottish independence is a relevant and important matter that has been debated for many years but is now at the pinnacle of debate. Both public and politicians have very strong and opposing opinions about independence and throughout this essay I will evaluate the most current and most emotive arguments: those of wealth and cultural identity. Scotland’s finances will always have a massive impact on the decision of independence, and those in the country for the change believe so due to the significant financial increase this could have. A journalist for The Guardian stated that: “In 2004-05,
North Sea oil revenues amounted to £5.2bn, which would roughly halve the Scottish deficit. This year, the treasury expects it will be double that, at £10.4bn, as oil prices and taxes on the North Sea have risen sharply. That looks almost enough to plug the deficit”. This highlights that it could be possible for Scotland to survive financially without handouts from the Westminster government and would sequentially, improve the country in many different aspects. If Scotland is given full control over its oil revenues the country could pay off its debts. It is interesting to note that Scotland has 70% of Europe’s energy reserves in the form of North Sea oil. The Guardian journalist also stated that: “Scotland may actually enjoy more robust economic growth than at present, were it not for the policies of the UK government which are usually based London and the South-East of England”. This overtly shows that Scotland would be able to survive financially because of the revenue from oil bound up with English revenue. A more financially secure country is an obviously attractive aspect of independence.

There are opposing opinions that think Scotland would not be able to financially survive if it split from the British government. The Guardian reported that: “Scotland spends more public money than England, especially on education and public-sector employment, and has a substantial and persistent public deficit”. This contrasts with the statement that Scotland could survive without England as it explains that Scotland will have to pay a substantial amount of money just for education and employment. Some believe this is a problem for Scotland to pay this amount of money. There are further obstacles for Scotland to financially survive. Jern-Fei Ng from debatabase stated that “Scotland does receive subsidies and development aid from the UK government annually to boost its economic growth. Scotland receives more from the UK government than it gives to it. The income derived from oil reserves alone would be insufficient to maintain Scotland’s present rate of growth, much less propel it to greater heights”. This tells us that a large amount of Scotland’s money comes from the UK government and if it was removed there would be disastrous economic consequences for Scotland as it would be unable to support vital services such as schooling, hospital care and perhaps even law and order. This is an obvious contradiction to the argument outlined in paragraph one. One thing remains clear, that the revenue generated from oil is essential to the Scottish economy and could financially support independence.

Those who are in support of an independent Scotland think that Scotland has its own unique identity and own unique culture.
It is a historic nation with a strong heritage that the country should take pride in. There are certain aspects of Scottish culture that are very distinct and very uniquely Scottish. No where else in the world is tartan made and fashioned into a kilt – that even Scottish men nowadays wear with pride and nostalgia for a time when Scotland was free. Scottish food has almost mythological status as tourists are attracted by the Haggis, expecting to eat a rare Highland animal but instead find out that it is just a mix of offal and oats. However, the tradition of eating Haggis, neeps and tatties on Burns day celebrations is not a laughing matter – as Scotland celebrates one of its most prized poets and writers. Scotland’s literary heritage is something to be extremely proud of: from Sir Walter Scott and Sir Arthur Conan to Liz Lochhead, Carol Ann Duffy and Edwin Morgan Scotland have a rich and diverse literary heritage. With such a strong sense of identity Scotland must surely wish to come out from the shadow of Britain without having to be associated with
England.

In opposition to this idea there are many people who are born Scottish who are also proud of being British.
In football matches at clubs in Scotland the main flags paraded there are British flags instead of Scottish flags. This also may be due to Scotland being a part of the British army as many people feel it is necessary for them to say they are British if they maybe know someone who is serving their country in the military. Even though Scotland is a part of Britain it has maintained its own identity as a nation. This would not change if it continued to be part of Britain. Scotland would still have their famous writers and famous foods. They have had them when they were independent and still have these foods and these writers now. As haggis is still a regularly used food and we still have new exciting Scottish writers such as JK Rowling. Scotland will continue to be known for this in the
future.

Scotland’s wealth is tied to its oil revenues – some believe this will help the country gain independence, while others think it is not enough. I believe that if Scotland were given the opportunity to financially manage its own resources it would prove to Britain and the rest of the world what a profitable small country it is. We have a strong identity, and although this identity would still be there if the nation was still part of Britain, think of the opportunities and ways this identity could develop and heritage could be celebrated if we could manage our own political affairs without the interference of Westminster. I strongly believe in an Independent Scotland.