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

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.

Post-secession Scotland will be a new state and inherit none of the UK's treaty rights and obligations.

Now, where is that quote from?. I want to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

A wikipedia link! Wow - now I'm impressed.

You linked to the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (interestingly not the 1983 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts).

So, where is the part of the treaty you quoted from? About assets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post-secession Scotland will be a new state and inherit none of the UK's treaty rights and obligations.

Now, where is that quote from?. I want to see it.

It wasn't a quote and I never said it was. I wrote it based on the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna and international law. Successor states inherit the assets of the predecessor state including participation in treaties, membership of international bodies and debts. It's in black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wikipedia link! Wow - now I'm impressed.

You linked to the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (interestingly not the 1983 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts).

So, where is the part of the treaty you quoted from? About assets?

I linked to the convention in respect of treaties because we were talking about treaties, fuckwit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems we've gone somewhere beyond scrambling for relevance. We're now into desperately flailing for relevance. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't a quote and I never said it was. I wrote it based on the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna and international law. Successor states inherit the assets of the predecessor state including participation in treaties, membership of international bodies and debts. It's in black and white.

Oh right!! Even better.

So this was based on your super duper understanding of a hugely complex area of international law. That's just great.

Where to start...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I linked to the convention in respect of treaties because we were talking about treaties, fuckwit.

No, we were talking about assets, you moron. Being a signatory to a treaty is not an asset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we were talking about assets, you moron. Being a signatory to a treaty is not an asset.

Is he a "nattard" as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he a "nattard" as well?

I have no idea of his political persuasions.

He's just not the brightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh right!! Even better.

So this was based on your super duper understanding of a hugely complex area of international law. That's just great.

Where to start...

Look, just admit you're wrong and we can all get on with our lives. Either Scotland is the successor state and rUK is the continuation (getting to keep the seat on the UN security council, etc.) and everything is negotiated nicely like adults or rUK acts like a spoilt child and we have a fight over everything, in which case Scotland can play hardball as much as rUK and nothing is off the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we were talking about assets, you moron. Being a signatory to a treaty is not an asset.

Under international law it is. Just saying the same thing over and over does not make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BaxterParp:

Could you please point us to the specific provisions of the Vienna Treaties and international law more generally that state the following things:

1. Scotland would be a "continuator state" or "successor state" (or similar), whether alongside rUK or to its exclusion

2. That assumption shares in state liabilities is determined by whether or not a state has been given the rights of a continuator or successor state (i.e rights and obligations in respect of other treaties like, say, the Lisbon Treaty).

Could you also please explain why South Sudan both had to apply to join the UN and all other international bodies founded on treaties and yet is also having to negotiate a settlement of debts and assets with Sudan, who did not have to reapply to join the UN or these other international organisations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it true"

Take note, xbl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under international law it is.

No. It. Isn't.

Show me the word "asset" used anywhere in the 1979 Treaty (Ignoring for the moment that it has been signed by about 2 people and a small terrier dog) and does not constitute the International Law position.

Anywhere at all will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland cannot "play hardball" if the UK refuses to share things it literally has no right to share (like membership of international organisations, stipulating that you must be the single named signatory and sovereign state to be a member) or for that matter it refuses to share sovereign institutions emanating from its state like the Bank of England.

Refusing to pool sovereign power does not entitle Scotland, unilaterally, to secede from the Union, free from debt and in sovereign control of territory. Read the Quebec secession reference and perhaps you might understand the interface of domestic and international law. Unilateral secession is only a legal right under international law in instances like genocide, and all other disputes are left to negotiation and domestic settlement, including the divvying up of actual assets and liabilities. Institutions and treaty signatures are not assets and liabilities in and of themselves and have a completely different set of rules applied to them in facilitating continued operation and function in law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland cannot "play hardball" if the UK refuses to share things it literally has no right to share (like membership of international organisations, stipulating that you must be the single named signatory and sovereign state to be a member) or for that matter it refuses to share sovereign institutions emanating from its state like the Bank of England.

Refusing to pool sovereign power does not entitle Scotland, unilaterally, to secede from the Union, free from debt and in sovereign control of territory. Read the Quebec secession reference and perhaps you might understand the interface of domestic and international law. Unilateral secession is only a legal right under international law in instances like genocide, and all other disputes are left to negotiation and domestic settlement, including the divvying up of actual assets and liabilities. Institutions and treaty signatures are not assets and liabilities in and of themselves and have a completely different set of rules applied to them in facilitating continued operation and function in law.

So we scotch should Know Our Place eh? Be grateful for whatever crumbs we can get? Hope the magnificent and glorious British Government are kind to us? Pish. We keep their lights on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your determination to misrepresent anything that might just suggest Scotland has to play by the rules to become a strong independent state properly integrated into the international community as "know your place" is impressive: I'll grant you that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Baxter here is demonstrating is in some ways the value of xbl's "too difficult, will just spam with triteness" approach.

If in doubt, when you are miles out of your depth, it's really best to adopt the "voice of the common man" approach. It has a lot of merit.

Sadly, his views aren't really out of step with the SNP's own, as we've seen similar levels of understanding coming from Nicola Sturgeon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should also be compulsory for everyone with >50 posts on this thread to read the Quebec secession legal and economic considerations.

It will answer a lot of questions.

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...