xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Still no answer to post 7500. Engage with the substance of the difference between things which are assets and things which are not assets or issue a grovelling and unqualified apology and vow never again to use the wholly incorrect term "none of the assets".I don't even know what post 7500 is. If it was one of your 200 paragraph epics, then I probably didn't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Aye, posted that up yesterday. Thats why the Unionists and Apologists are lining up to deflect attention away from it!On the contrary, I would encourage everyone to read into this as much as possible. Because much like pretty much every other utterance on questions of law in relation to Scottish independence and referendums, Matt Qvortrup has been found spectacularly wanting, so much so that even prominent Nationalist bloggers have torn his shit to shreds. I would strongly encourage people to read up on his academic credentials before buying The Sun's claim that he is a "lawyer" (he did an MA in history and politics and a PhD in political science). I want everyone to read as much into him and this as possible because it does more damage to these zombie arguments than anyone else could.ETA: you see, sane nationalists recognise that whilst they are entitled to their own opinions, no one is entitled to their own facts. Something you don't understand. Better watch out. Ad Lib will be on your case for using the term "up for grabs".If anything I am the one person on here who understands how negotiations work. Ad Lib would like us to roll over and accept whatever scraps Michael Moore offers us, the likes of Reynard and HB cheer on anything that looks like Scotland will get less, whereas I understand that both sides need to establish a negotiating position. You can throw many things at me, but not that.The use of up-for-grabs is misleading, though in the technical sense not necessarily wrong. There are hard outer limits to what you can negotiate, and state-specific membership of organisations is beyond that hard line. Everything else will be negotiated within the realms of what the two sides can agree is fair and equitable in all the circumstances, assuming they both negotiate in good faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I don't even know what post 7500 is. If it was one of your 200 paragraph epics, then I probably didn't read it. It isn't difficult to look up, champ. I've asked you to answer it SEVERAL times now. If you refuse to read it, fine, but then your "none of the assets" trope carries no force as you necessarily acknowledge the fact that you don't have an answer to what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Phoenix Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 High time Ad Lib issued xbl with a serious warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Tick tock. Still no answer to post 7500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAFC Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 It's too big and rambling to answer. Can you put the key questions forward please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Why? I've already done this. It doesn't prevent the quote being skipped over, and the lie repeated again the following day. The UK government report states :- “The continuing UK would need to seek to ensure that a fair settlement applied to assets and liabilities." There is no debate here. No one has said, other than lunatic Nationalists, that a settlement will involve no assets, just debt. The matter ended here weeks ago. But you can't stop people deliberately lying I'm afraid, for whatever purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Assets are things that the government physically owns or owns a transferable legal right to. Gold. Bricks. Mortar. Land. Shares in a company. Assets are not membership of international organisations or sovereign rights. These are both, to use the legal jargon, "delectus personae" or in layman's terms, specific to an individual with legal personality. They aren't rights "in things" but rights to do things in relations with other people and bodies. Bad start - assets can be intangibles such as goodwill and, yes, membership of a body, professional or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 It's too big and rambling to answer. Can you put the key questions forward please? It's not too big to answer and it doesn't, by any coherent definition, ramble. xbl asked what an asset was. I answered it. Q: What is an asset? A: "Assets are things that the government physically owns or owns a transferable legal right to. Gold. Bricks. Mortar. Land. Shares in a company. Assets are not membership of international organisations or sovereign rights." I explained specifically why, by analogy, EU membership is not an asset. Q: Why is EU membership not an asset A: Because it isn't something that has intrinsic value, its corollary rights and obligations can't be "traded" and it's specific to a state with international legal personality. I then explained why the Bank of England was an arm of a sovereign state, and not an asset. Q: Is the Bank of England an asset? A: Not the Bank itself, no. But its reserves and deposits are. This equally applies to bodies like the DVLA Q: Is the DVLA an asset? A: No, but its buildings and other physical things are. This then all feeds into the bigger question Q: Does Scotland get "none of the assets but a share of the debt" A: No. The settlement of both assets AND liabilities is subject to negotiation. There will be an expectation that that settlement is fair and equitable, but the specifics of each set of assets and liabilities will have to be individually agreed, or horse-traded off against one another. Scotland ought to get a share in the value of institutions not already replicated north and south of the border, so if the DVLA has a single HQ in Slough or whatever, we'd be entitled (politically speaking, in these negotiations, all else equal) to a pro-rata share of the value of that building, so that we can buy an office in Glenrothes from which to run the SDVLA. Alternatively, we could agree to share a DVLA across borders, and to set-up a funding formula between the governments to make appropriate contributions to it relative to use, and to take shared ownership in the assets. xbl has completely failed to engage with this substance. It's in post 7500. It's completely readable. It makes complete sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Bad start - assets can be intangibles such as goodwill and, yes, membership of a body, professional or otherwise. Not under International Law they can't. Bad luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Bad start - assets can be intangibles such as goodwill and, yes, membership of a body, professional or otherwise. States and international organisations do not have goodwill. Membership of bodies is not in and of itself an asset. The benefits that are incidental to that membership, on the other hand, insofar as they are of a general nature upon which a monetary value can be placed, however, can be. That's the distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Trigger Warning for Enraging, Vacuous Pish Labour's effort at a campaign. If this sort of thing ends up winning the referendum then I despair for the level of debate. They do realise that you're not supposed to stand in front of a projector screen, right? Facepalm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Why? I've already done this. It doesn't prevent the quote being skipped over, and the lie repeated again the following day. The UK government report states :- “The continuing UK would need to seek to ensure that a fair settlement applied to assets and liabilities." There is no debate here. No one has said, other than lunatic Nationalists, that a settlement will involve no assets, just debt. The matter ended here weeks ago. But you can't stop people deliberately lying I'm afraid, for whatever purposes. Thats good news then. So if we're going to get a share of the assets, does this mean we're a successor state? Bad start - assets can be intangibles such as goodwill and, yes, membership of a body, professional or otherwise.Indeed. I've heard intelligence described as an asset, but apparently it isn't! Essentially, an asset, for the purposes of p&b is anything that Ad Lib defines as an asset. Its how he avoids awkwardness, and the whole presentation of his post is fundamentally dishonest. Still, its good to know that the CDU's membership of the UN security council is not an asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 So if we're going to get a share of the assets, does this mean we're a successor state? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Not under International Law they can't. Bad luck. Could you quote that particular law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Thats good news then. So if we're going to get a share of the assets, does this mean we're a successor state? Indeed. I've heard intelligence described as an asset, but apparently it isn't! Essentially, an asset, for the purposes of p&b is anything that Ad Lib defines as an asset. Its how he avoids awkwardness, and the whole presentation of his post is fundamentally dishonest. Still, its good to know that the CDU's membership of the UN security council is not an asset. For fucks sake! Of course intelligence, talent and a ten inch cock are all assets, but try defining that in law or in settlement. Why do you insist on being so deliberately obtuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Trigger Warning for Enraging, Vacuous Pish Labour's effort at a campaign. If this sort of thing ends up winning the referendum then I despair for the level of debate. "A home you can't be chucked out of" Irony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 For fucks sake! Of course intelligence, talent and a ten inch cock are all assets, but try defining that in law or in settlement. Why do you insist on being so deliberately obtuse?Well it appears the CDU are. They might not "let" us use "their" currency. What?It isn't a hard question. Are we a successor state of the CDU? You say we are going to get a share of the assets, so therefore, are we a successor state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Could you quote that particular law? I don't think you understand this do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I don't think you understand this do you?Is that a "no"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.