 Welcome back to debate 4. If I can just remind everyone of the motion, it is, this house believes that Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. Felly, mae gynllunio'r Moseong, All Ness Academy, am en diet caenth, Kelsey McCrae, Andrew Beca McLement, Cynusi High School, Beth Mickel, Polina Pologava, Rory MacDonald. We have Allness and Can You See, and I would like to open the debate by inviting the first speaker from Allness to talk about the proposition. Good morning, Madam Chair, judges, fellow delegates and audience, and welcome to today's debate. My name is Amnip Kynth, I am myself, Mr Rebecca McLeimont and Ms Kelsey McRae, are representing Allness academy today in proposing the motion today, which is, this house believes that Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. We strongly agree with this motion and believe that Scotland should most certainly stay ahead in marine energy technology for the various reasons that my colleagues and I will soon state and explain. First of all, I would like to define this motion. By this house, we mean the people in this room. By continuing to lead the way, we mean that Scotland should stay at the number one position in marine energy technology development and deployment, and by marine energy, we mean wave and tidal power. I will be talking about the excellent natural resources that Scotland has, which makes it one of the best places to harness power from marine energy. I will also be discussing the low-carbon footprint and the reliability of those technologies. My colleague, Ms McLeimont, will be expanding on those points, as well as discussing the investment and job opportunities that continue to lead the way in marine energy will bring our country. My first point to support the argument is that Scotland benefits in many ways by being the leader of marine energy technology. One factor is that Scotland has an excellent environment for wave and tidal power. For example, there is plenty of coastline around Scotland to install the technology. In fact, there is more than 6,000 miles of it. It is a clean... Yes? We are talking about our amazing coastlines in Scotland, but those coastlines are home to thousands of different species of animals. Why should our needs go before theirs? As I was saying, there is plenty of coastline to install technology. The companies that develop those technologies carry out lots of surveying and careful considerations to make sure that they are not affecting the area that they are installing in. As I was saying, it is a clean and reliable technology, and it does not depend on the weather like other renewable sources. It only makes sense to take advantage of our incredible environment. Ladies and gentlemen, did you know that the waters around Scotland hold 25 per cent of Europe's total tidal power potential? We know that the technology is under development, but it is rapidly expanding. According to BBC researchers, very soon it alone will be able to meet 50 per cent of Scotland's energy needs. Engineers from Oxford University and Edinburgh University have identified Scotland as one of the best places for marine energy technology. It has significant renewable energy potential. The idea also has exceptional environmental quality. The Pentland Firth is recognised as the best site for tidal energy. Energy from this site has the potential to meet 50 per cent of the country's current electricity demand. Energy from tidal technologies such as lagoon enclosures could supply another 12 per cent of our power. Some of the best resources are located off the northwest coast and northern tip of Scotland. The Scottish Government believes that wave and tidal energy make an important contribution towards meeting our future demand for electricity. The placement of wave and tidal projects here will not affect tourism in the same way that other energy sources such as wind turbines or nuclear plants do, which tourists find ugly. To conclude, we have been provided by nature with the perfect environment for harnessing safe, clean and reliable energy. To not take advantage of this would be illogical. Ms McFlymont will be talking about the cleanliness of these technologies, as well as investment on job creation. I am confident that you will agree with our viewpoint towards the motion for the various seasons that I have stated and for those that my colleague Ms McFlymont will discuss with you in her speech. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for listening. Thank you for opening our debate on this, and I am now going to invite the First Opposition Speaker to outline their case from Can You See? Good morning. Ladies and gentlemen, Honourable Chair, esteemed judges and fellow delegates, my name is Rudy McDonald and I shall start by introducing our argument. First, I would like to start with a point of rebuttal for the other team. Mr Keith, you said that marine technology holds many benefits for Scotland, but why do not we use our other technologies that are much more developed to lead the way in? That would be a much better choice for Scotland. As I was saying, the proposition has already defined the motion, but we are going to explain to you why Scotland should not lead the way in marine energy technology. We are going to convince you that Scotland should be stepping down from leading the way and that we should be investing this money into things that will really benefit Scotland's people. My colleague, Ms Mikkel, shall go on to depth about our arguments, and Ms Paliegova shall summarise our points and close the argument. Marine technology. Let's start from the beginning. What is it and how does it work? When marine energy is created by the waves of the ocean, harvesting the kinetic movements using tidal turbines, tidal barages and wave power devices, the questions that we ask are is it predictable, is it affordable and is it secure? Can we answer those questions fully? No, because this technology is in the early stages of development, meaning—yes, please. You asked if it was reliable and if we could really say that we could power Scotland alone on this, but are there other renewable energies that rely on the weather that is really reliable that can catch fire at any second, such as solar? Please bear with me while I confer with my colleagues. Solar energy is actually more beneficial because we are not harming the environment very much. Yes, please. You may not be harming the environment, but solar panels do actually cause harm to humans because the silicon used to build these solar panels can actually give humans serious illness such as silicosis. No, thank you. My colleagues and I strongly feel that this money could be put into a more worthy cause. After the recent cuts in education, we feel that this could be put there to improve. Every three years, countries of the world participate in PISA exams organised by the OACD, the organisation of economic cooperation and development to show which countries are leading the way in maths, science and reading. I am not even going to begin sugarcoating the bad result that the UK achieved in last year's exams. We are supposed to be a well-developed country and we failed to gain a place in the top 20. Why is this happening? The answer is so straightforward. We are putting projects in a leading the way before the education of our youth. We are saying that leading the way in marine technology is a negative for our country. As a future student and future voter, I feel that we could develop a child's understanding for renewable energy, something that we might be very reliant on in the future, or have better facilities for children to study renewable energy. With this new generation of knowledge, we can ensure that we fully understand this technology before we make the mistake of standing forward and end up drowning in a sea of our bad mistakes. Madam Chair, for those reasons, I beg to oppose this motion. Good morning to everyone in attendance, chairs, Madam Chair, judges, audience and, of course, my fellow delegates. As you all know, we are for the motion that this House should continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. We are here to prove that we are correct to agree with this motion. My colleague Mr Cainth has already discussed with you the fact that we are in the perfect environment to harness the energy from wave and tidal movement. As my colleague, but first of all, I would like to take issue with what Mr McDonald said about how we should rely more on other renewable energies, such as solar, rather than on our marine energy. Yes, they may not cause harm to environment, but what about the harm that they cause to human lives, as I said, the silicon that is caused by the silicon, and that they can catch fire at any point in time, such as May 14 this year. A solar panel is on top of a school named Faith Lutheran middle school and high school caught fire, causing about an estimated $60 million in damage. That is equivalent to about £40,000 in damage. As my colleague Mr Cainth has mentioned, marine energy technology is very clean. The emissions that are created from the technology are minimal, and it costs much less to install and run than any other renewable power. The technology does not affect the environment, for example. A wave power system simply floats on top of the surface of the water, preventing serious impact upon wildlife. As far as maintenance is concerned, tidal energy does not need to be regularly maintained, as the technology is modern and newly built. If the technology is modern and just built, how do you know that it is not going to take a lot to maintain? We have not had this technology long enough to be sure. Yes, it is in its infancy, but it has been tested before. As by what is being tested, it has been proven that it does not need that much input from humans. We have already had it for 10 years. Therefore, it requires little human input once installed. Marine projects cause little damage to land, unlike fossil fuels such as coal that cause massive destruction. For example, coal mines leave large holes in result of their extraction. However, wave power does not cause any damage to earth. It is safe and it is clean. You say that it is safe, but it is actually endangering many species under water. As Mr Cainth has already said in his speech, that careful consideration has been put into where these technologies are placed to prevent minimal damage to the wildlife, sea life, sorry. In creating power from waves creates no harmful byproducts such as carbon dioxide. Through being leader of marine technology, Scotland will become well known on the global map. That attracts a lot of investment into Scotland's renewable energy sector. At the start of 2014, many major companies such as ADF Energy invested millions in the technology. Latest figures released by the UK Government shows that, over the past two years, Scotland has seen more than £2.3 billion worth of investment in renewables, which supports more than 2,500 jobs. ADF Energy has invested £3 million in the development of underwater turbines, with its strategic partner Marine Current Turbines. Because of Marine Energy technology, thousands of jobs are being created across Scotland. Scottish Enterprise has led the development of the national renewables infrastructure plan. The plan aims to help the development of a globally competitive marine renewables industry in Scotland through the creation of infrastructure to support large-scale manufacturing, assembly and deployment. We now have the ability and resources to create an industry that delivers significant investment and jobs throughout Scotland, including in some of our most remote communities, such as St Kilda's, where there is great potential for marine renewable projects. What about all the jobs that are lost for the fishermen who rely on the coastlines to get money? As you were saying, there are a lot more jobs that are created through the renewables industry, and, as we have said, there are 6,000 miles of coastline. I think that there would be quite a bit of space to continue. The entire industry is forecast by Renewable UK to be worth £6 billion by 2035. That will also create around 20,000 jobs. Since the 1980s, unemployment figures in Scotland have risen extremely high, as have the crime rates, drug and alcohol abuse and domestic abuse figures. There is no doubt that those factors are related. When unemployment goes up, sales go down. That is because, in most cases, the unemployed simply do not have enough money to buy the things that they usually would down at their local shops. That has directly affected many businesses, with thousands becoming bankrupt sometimes overnight in the past few years, bringing some areas from 100 per cent employment to 100 per cent unemployment in one day. Marine energy companies, as of Renewable UK's 2013 end-of-year report, employ 18,465 people full-time. Three times the number of people working within the UK's coal industry. Ladies and gentlemen, keep in mind that marine energies are still in their infancy, so those employment figures are set to rise even higher in the next few years. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for listening. You have all heard my points and Mr Cain's here, and you will soon hear Ms Kelsey McRae's. I hope that you will agree that this and all our other points clearly show that marine energy is the way to go for Scotland, not just to benefit our environment, but the Scottish industry as a whole. Thank you very much for listening. I will now call on the second speaker to make the case for the Opposition from Can You See. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, honourable chair and fellow delegates. My name is Beth Mickel. My colleague Mr McDonald has already responded to the motion for today's debate, so I am going to explain to you why Scotland should not continue to lead the way in marine technology. Before I start my speech, I would like to say a quick point of rebuttal. You are saying that lots of jobs are created by renewable energy, but you are not taking into account the people who have trained all their lives to work in areas such as the fishing industry, the coal and mining industry. Those people do not have any other qualifications. They would be left unemployed. Marine technology has a huge potential. Yes, that may be true, but it is not down to Scotland to lead the way. We simply do not have the financial backing to do so. Scotland is not a very big country, and before we start blowing the small budget we have on fancy new technology that we do not actually know enough about, we need to focus on things that are really necessary, things like healthcare, education and the military. As you will all be aware, the referendum this September will determine whether or not we will become an independent country. If we were to go independent, we would have a lot more pressing issues to deal with rather than leading the way in marine technology. It is just not that important. No, thank you. We will already be spending £13 million on the referendum. Having just come out of recession, the last thing we want to do is go back. More financially stable times are ahead of us if we can just be sensible about these things and not blow all our money on unnecessary things. With things like the massive £15 million cut to our education budget and plans for a £226.7 million cut to our NHS, how do you expect us to find the money to continue to lead the way in such trivial areas as marine technology? Yes, please. There's lots of investment from major firms for our marine energy technology, such as EDF energy. That may be true, but we're still going to need massive investment from the Scottish Government, and if we want to continue to lead the way, we're going to need even more investment and more money, and we just don't have it. No, thank you. Renewable energy is by all means a good thing, but in comparison to other types of sustainable energy, marine energy is not in its prime. Currently, marine power systems are not as well developed or practical as other renewable energy sources. If we were to invest in renewable energy, surely we should pick a type which is cost-ejective, practical and advanced. I hate to break it to you, but marine energy is none of the above. To have Scotland leading the way in marine technology may sound like a nice idea, but in reality it is a waste of money that could be spent on more worthy causes. We are just too busy to continue to lead the way in this field. We have done our bit, and it's now time to pass the button on to another country. How would you feel if you were a fish? Just going about your fishy day when suddenly a giant turban gets in the way, the fans will suck you in and bam, sushi for two. Yes, please. Fish would not be as stupid as that to go into a current that they are not familiar with. They would rather just stay in their part instead of swimming towards a turban current. Are fish come back to the same place to breed every single year? If we install more marine harvesting facilities, they are not going to know. Nobody is going to tell them. They will come back and find these turbans in their breeding areas and they will get sucked in. No, thank you. It is not fair on our marine wildlife for these harvesting facilities to be put in place. We have already done enough damage to our marine life. If we were to continue to lead the way in marine technology, it would mean installing a lot more marine harvesting facilities. Have we not done enough damage already? Do we not owe our planet a new, safe type of renewable energy? No, thank you. Marine energy is not actually as clean as it seems to be. To have the facilities out in the first place will take lots of boats to bring the parts. What powers these boats? Fossil fuels. To have the facilities regularly manned will take boats and cars to bring them in. What powers these methods of transport? Fossil fuels. And to have all the parts made in the factories, what will power the machinery? You guessed it. Fossil fuels again. Installing more of these marine harvesting facilities will mean burning more fossil fuels and doing more damage to our environment. The proposition may say that this is a short-term loss for a long-term gain, but marine facilities are not actually advanced or even commercially viable. We are losing a lot and only gaining a little. Leading the way is really not in Scotland's best interest. We should let other countries take the leading role and make the mistakes. We should watch and learn from these mistakes. Mistakes are good. You can improve them from them, but when these mistakes could lose us billions of pounds, we do not want to be the ones making them, lessing bigger countries with bigger budgets and less to lose make the mistakes before us. We can make sure that in the future we will not be making them. Scotland relies on its beautiful coastlines for jobs and money. New marine power stations could have disastrous effects on coastal towns and villages. People visit those coastal areas and generate jobs and income. Who is going to want to visit Scotland to see the majestic looking power stations and breathtaking machinery? No, thank you. Alness, for a village near the coast, I am shocked and ashamed that you could support such a motion. Not only will marine technology affect tourism, but it will affect the fishing industry as well. The noise pollution from those facilities will scare away the fish on which people rely for their income. That could prove to be catastrophic for coastal towns and villages. But hey, what does it matter? No, thank you. The Government will look eco-friendly, so destroying marine life tourism in fishing industries really does not matter. And of course, causing mass unemployment does not matter either. Oh no, the proposition does not care. They are just trying to make themselves look good and are not taking into consideration the lives of the Scottish people. If you care about your country and your environment and the Scottish people, I beg you to oppose this motion. Thank you very much indeed, can you see? And we are now moving on to the summations, so I am going to call on the third proposition speaker to sum up the case for Alness. Good morning or nearly afternoon to everyone in the room. Honourable chair, audience, judges and, of course, my fellow delegates, I am Casimacrae, third speaker of the opposing team. The statement at debate today is this house believes Scotland should continue to lead the way in marine energy technology. My colleagues, Ms McLeimont, Mr Cainth and I, believe this statement to be true. As third speaker, it is my job to read back what the other team has said, and when thinking about what they have said, some words spring to mind. I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong. The first speaker of the affirmative team, sorry, of the negative team has tried to tell us that there are better alternatives, such as solar panels. Solar panels are not a better alternative at all, as they can cause illnesses such as silicosis and can catch fire any minute because they are not turned off. There are other alternatives, of course, that he may have discussed, such as winter bends, but they release lots of oil waste and destroyer, can't she say? The second speaker of the team opposing the motion talked a lot about the investment that needs to be put in to marine energy technology. We accept that this is a valid point, but we have had investment from major firms, and EDF energy is only one of the examples. Also, the Scottish Government has put millions of pounds aside for marine energy technology. She also spoke about the independence vote and how we will need our money if we do indeed go independent, but there are no stats to prove that the majority vote is for independence, so therefore that is a relative factor in this argument. She spoke about the sea life that is affected by marine energy technology, but there are nets and ladders and lots of careful consideration and planning to protect them from wind turbines. As for the jobs lost, we have over 6,000 miles of coastline, which is something that the Opposition has failed to recognise. There is enough room for fishing and our new clean source of energy. As for tourism, that has put Scotland on the global map. That means that it will attract tourists from bigger countries after seeing this. Surely the more we expand on marine energy technology, the more we will get in the tourist industry. I apologise in advance for whatever the third speaker tries to say or bring to this argument. The arguments that have been made by the Opposition have been what we feel pointless. My first speaker, Mr Amadik Kane, spoke to you about how marine energy technology is the best and most clean way to power Scotland. He made points about the excellent natural resources that we have here in Scotland and how they are reliable and produce a low-carbon footprint. As for the excellent natural resources that have already been mentioned, we have over 6,000 miles of coastline. I cannot stress that enough. As for the low-carbon footprint, marine energy technology only releases CO2 in the transportation. Workers do not have to travel to it to maintain it because it can run by itself. The only thing that needs human impact input is the installation of it. My second speaker, Mr Beckham Clymont, informed you that marine energy technology has put our weak country on the global map, attracting investment from major firms such as EDF Energy. She also spoke to you about the jobs that renewable energy can bring in. Marine energy companies, as of renewable UK's 2013 end-of-year report, employ 18,465 people. Madam Chair, members of the audience and, of course, the judges, our team strongly convinced that this statement is true and that we hope that you have not been swayed towards the lies of the Opposition. Very much indeed on this. Finally, to close the debate, I am going to call on the third Opposition speaker to sum up and close the debate. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, honourable chair and fellow delegates. My name is Polina Payugova. My colleagues, Mr MacDonald and Ms Mikkel, have already explained why it is not in Scotland's best interests to lead the way in marine technology, and I will continue to argue that this should be the case. Before I begin, I would like to start with a few points of rebuttal. Your first speaker has said that marine energy is better because it does not rely on weather. Solar power can work without the sun using diffusive solar radiation, and this disease is extremely rare. You also say that nets will protect our ocean species when nets are actually a big hazard to them and cause harm to the ocean life that gets trapped inside. You also say that our arguments are pointless, but what is pointless is leading the way when we do not actually have to. You also say that the Government has put money aside when they could be using this money for education, things that are actually necessary for the Scottish people. As I was saying, Scotland is a country that stands proud for its natural beauty, and so it should, because we have so much to be proud of. One of our most iconic sites is our beautiful coastline. How can we preserve this beauty when the Government plans to clutter it with marine technology? For one thing, marine technology is a number one harm to our ocean wildlife, as well as the starting point of a negative food chain. Allow me to explain. The fish will be harmed by the blades, chopped up, gone, bye-bye. Fishermen rely on fish to run their businesses, which will suffer majorly if nothing is caught. Tourists from all over the world travel to visit Scotland's coastlines. Who will want to see a cluttered, lifeless landscape? I certainly would not make the effort for that journey. As you can see, leading the way in marine technology is the start of our spiralling way down a set of stairs that spell disaster. The proposition is rattling on about saving the world, when in fact they are doing quite the opposite. Unless I know that my home is important to me, surely your home is important to you too, especially where you live, a beautiful coastline. I am surprised that you are willing to sacrifice the beauty of your home for such an unworthy option. Scotland is certainly not in the position to blow its finances and projects from which we will gain so little. Let's invest our money on a more worthy cause, a renewable energy type with more potential. How about hydro energy, which Scotland has been studying and developing for some time, or wind power, which is successful up and running? We should concentrate on what we have and make the most of it before we start on something new. Speaking of using our budget wisely, there are more important issues that we need to focus on—things that are actually necessary. Scotland is an economically developed country, living in the advanced 21st century, and yet one in seven families live in poverty. Scottish education is also falling behind, as Mr MacDonald has explained. How can we expect a good future when we are so poorly preparing our use for life ahead? It is time to face our problems before things go worse. It is time that we learn how to stand on our own two feet. It is the people of our country that matter most. You must agree that Scotland's people deserve a standard life and an education that will prepare individuals such as me for the real world. The future is to be put in our hands. It may as well be one that we can trust and depend on. Renewable energy is the door that opens towards a brighter and better future. However, to open that door, we need a key. The key to open that door is a successful and skilled generation that we need to build. Marine technology should not be the centre of our tension. Like Ms Mikkel has said, it is time to hand the baton to another country. One wrong turn, and it could be millions of pounds down the drain. Let's not be the country labelled for making that big mistake. I hope that my colleagues and I have been able to convince you that leading the way in marine technology is not the way forward. Being the intelligent people you are, you must agree that to think otherwise is utterly ridiculous. We need to show the world that we are worthy of making the right decisions. This is the right decision. It is for these reasons that I beg you to oppose this motion. Thank you very much to Can You See. The debate has now closed. Thank you to both Can You See and All Ness for certainly giving it everything on our last debate. Nothing was left unsaid. We are now going to take a break for lunch, which is going to be served in the area just outside the room here, whilst the judges, the poor judges, are going to have to deliberate and come to some decisions, because all eight of you have been absolutely fantastic. The standard is just so high, and they have the very difficult job of deciding which four teams are going to go through to our semifinals and our afternoon debates. They will be making that announcement in around 30 minutes' time, and then the teams will have some time to prepare. However, we have now a half-hour break, and then we will convene in here for that announcement. Thank you to all of you for the debates this morning. Thank you very much indeed to everyone who took part.