Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wee Bully

Independence - how would you vote?

Independence - how would you vote  

1,135 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

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?

Under the treaty of Vienna, successor states retain assets including treaties and membership of organisations. Like that kind of settlement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty certain you don't.

Incidentally, I could be wrong, but was it not you that schooled Ad Lib and HB on this issue on the last thread? Which no doubt they will have no memory of. Memory being such a fickle thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I could be wrong, but was it not you that schooled Ad Lib and HB on this issue on the last thread? Which no doubt they will have no memory of. Memory being such a fickle thing.

Nah, I didn't participate in the last thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the treaty of Vienna, successor states retain assets including treaties and membership of organisations. Like that kind of settlement?

The Vienna Convention isn't relevant as the UK isn't a signatory, and it's not customary international law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty certain you don't.

Well, you have already thoroughly embarrassed yourself on this thread on legal matters, so it's no surprise that you are willing to do so again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vienna Convention isn't relevant as the UK isn't a signatory, and it's not customary international law.

So you're saying that the rump UK will deny Scotland successor state status?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Vienna Convention isn't relevant as the UK isn't a signatory, and it's not customary international law.

Really? Really now? Thats funny, because you and Ad Lib haven't been shy in mentioning it, have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you have already thoroughly embarrassed yourself on this thread on legal matters, so it's no surprise that you are willing to do so again.

Wholly incorrect, I've barely mentioned legal matters, you're either thinking of someone else or making it up as badly as Better Together do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the treaty of Vienna, successor states retain assets including treaties and membership of organisations. Like that kind of settlement?

Just for funsies though, perhaps you could link to exactly this part of the treaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that the rump UK will deny Scotland successor state status?

Again, you understand nothing about this. Please stop.

It's not rUK who will deny Scotland successor state "status". rUK will seek to be recognised as the sole continuing state on Scotland's secession.

It's the international community who will determine the validity of this claim.

Scotland are welcome to seek to be the continuing state also. No one is stopping them from doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wholly incorrect, I've barely mentioned legal matters, you're either thinking of someone else or making it up as badly as Better Together do.

Yes, very good. Whilst I can understand why you wish to airbrush your contribution to this thread, let's look at your 11th April contribution shall we :-

"As far as NATO and the EU go, either there are two successor states and we have automatic/negotiated membership or we're a completely new nation with none of the obligations and treaties of the UK, which means we have none of the debt either. The truth is that there will be a ton of negotiation and quid pro quo and we'll end up with membership of both and a fair share of the debt."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else have the feeling that christmas has just come early on this thread! :lol:

I wonder if Ad Lib, a man who has cited the Vienna Convention many, many, many times will disagree with his fellow law expert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am aware of how to google.

You bolded this :- Under the treaty of Vienna, successor states retain assets including treaties and membership of organisations.

I want you to show me exactly where it says that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you understand nothing about this. Please stop.

It's not rUK who will deny Scotland successor state "status". rUK will seek to be recognised as the sole continuing state on Scotland's secession.

It's the international community who will determine the validity of this claim.

Scotland are welcome to seek to be the continuing state also. No one is stopping them from doing so.

You don't know what a continuator state is, do you? A continuator state is a continuation of the current state (will continue to use the name "UK" for instance), a successor state succeeds the old state but inherits a share of the assets. Including treaties and membership of international bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Ad Lib, a man who has cited the Vienna Convention many, many, many times will disagree with his fellow law expert?

He won't. Ad Lib is well aware that the Vienna Convention doesn't bind the UK, as we are not a signatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I, at some point in the past, mistook one iteration of the Vienna Convention for another, the former which the UK had ratified but the latter which they hadn't, I admitted my mistake immediately, and withdrew that specific line of my argument, continuing to rely on the international legal norms not enunciated in specific treaties, but which broadly correlates anyway, and which at no point ever endorsed Scheffer's "continuator state theory" that has zero basis in law or precedent. Note that this experience conflicts with a long-standing claim of xbl's, never retracted, that I don't fess up when I get things wrong. On the other hand, when he makes a false statement, and gets called out on it, his record is very poor indeed.

H_B, on the other hand, never sought to rely on the Vienna Convention to argue the (non)continuation of international rights and duties following an independence event. He relied solely on the precedents and normative legal framework.

I am not drawing arbitrary lines as to what are assets. There is a difference between being an asset in the political sense (e.g. "He's a cracking Secretary of State who enhances our international image: he's a real asset"), and being an actual asset when we're talking about the division, in law, of assets and liabilities between sovereign states (e.g. "That gold is worth £36billion and those RBS shares are worth £0.50. I want 10% of them or the proceeds").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am aware of how to google.

You bolded this :- Under the treaty of Vienna, successor states retain assets including treaties and membership of organisations.

I want you to show me exactly where it says that.

If that's too complicated, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_of_states

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...