Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 ROFL. Name the statute of the Parliament of Westminster that incorporates the provisions of Art 8 of the '83 Treaty into domestic law, please. We're dualists here. We're not cretinous monists like the French. I never said it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 In the event of what? Look, I won't claim to know much about this, but... You appear to be saying that under "internal law" - Scots or reserved I assume you mean - that these treaties are included. Yet when we leave, these laws, which will be part of the old UK, will be applicable? Sorry if I'm missing the point here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 What? Put it this way, just what do you think "rights and interests" are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Sorry, in the event of what? Are you seriously suggesting that laws made in Westminster governing the UK will be in place when Scotland leaves the UK? I think (and I can understand your confusion) that he is suggesting that treaties such as the EU one being ratified by Westminster has turned them into state property, as detailed by Article 8 of the Convention we aren't a party to. As Santa might say "Ho ho ho" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Labour starting their own wee group is a weird one. You'd assume with the money already in the BT campaign, and with labour activists already providing the bulk of BT's presence on the ground, then this new Labour group will probably not amount to more than the same BT campaigner putting through the odd extra leaflet that says 'honestly, we're not the Tories!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Freud Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I think (and I can understand your confusion) that he is suggesting that treaties such as the EU one being ratified by Westminster has turned them into state property, as detailed by Article 8 of the Convention we aren't a party to. As Santa might say "Ho ho ho" Errr...OK. Just so long as we're clear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Labour starting their own wee group is a weird one. You'd assume with the money already in the BT campaign, and with labour activists already providing the bulk of BT's presence on the ground, then this new Labour group will probably not amount to more than the same BT campaigner putting through the odd extra leaflet that says 'honestly, we're not the Tories!'You do wonder why, given the great success of the No campaign so far. Apparently. This, combined with the weird mood of panic almost seems like they know something we don't. It'll be interesting to see how this develops, and whether the media actually look into it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Look, I won't claim to know much about this, but... You appear to be saying that under "internal law" - Scots or reserved I assume you mean - that these treaties are included. Yet when we leave, these laws, which will be part of the old UK, will be applicable? Sorry if I'm missing the point here... Well Scots law wouldn't change, would it? All I'm saying that as a successor state Scotland would inherit the "rights and interests" of the predecessor state according to the Treaty of Vienna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Sorry, in the event of what? Are you seriously suggesting that laws made in Westminster governing the UK will be in place when Scotland leaves the UK? To be fair to him, domestic laws enacted between 1707 and 2016 with territorial effect in Scotland would persist (e.g. the Abortion Act would continue even though it's a UK statute) but the right to legislate to alter the effect of the provisions insofar as they relate to Scotland would fall to our Parliament. The problem with what he's saying is that, although it is true many of our treaty obligations are mirrored in domestic law (especially our obligations in respect of honouring free movement and anti-discrimination in an EU context, and not infringing upon the rights laid out in the ECHR) it is not true to say that our ratifying treaties concerning the secession of states has any effect on our obligations under domestic law, nor does it in any way empower us to thrust a settlement in respect of membership of international organisations on the rest of the European or global community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 According to wings incidentally, this wee doozy of a quote appeared on BBC news: “Organisers of the ‘United With Labour’ campaign say they’re arguing for a fairer, better Scotland that stands strong within the United Kingdom. They’ll work with the ‘Better Together’ campaign run by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.” http://wingsoverscotland.com/quoted-for-truth-15/ (with mp3 link) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 You do wonder why, given the great success of the No campaign so far. Apparently. This, combined with the weird mood of panic almost seems like they know something we don't. It'll be interesting to see how this develops, and whether the media actually look into it properly. Apparently Labour have jumped ship from BT which will now be run exclusively by the Lib Dems and the Tories. Splitters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 For how long? Looks like they are taking the ba' hame..... Looks like they are running their own distinct campaign as well as being a part of BT. which gives them distance from the "standing side by side with the tories" line. The SNP could be looking to do similar to seprate themselves from YesScotland (and mitigate the criticism that YesScotland is an SNP front) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Well Scots law wouldn't change, would it? All I'm saying that as a successor state Scotland would inherit the "rights and interests" of the predecessor state according to the Treaty of Vienna. You are suggesting that UK statutes implenting EU laws into domestic law and practice with territorial effect in Scotland is enough to allow Scots Law to force the EU to accept it as a member-state. What do you think this is? Narnia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Baxter Parp, on 13 May 2013 - 16:14, said: Apparently Labour have jumped ship from BT which will now be run exclusively by the Lib Dems and the Tories. Splitters! I don't understand it at all. Will they still be in Better Together, or will they be leaving it? And what about Alistair Darling? What happens to him? I'm amazed the media haven't portrayed this as civil war or confusion! It just doesn't make sense to me at all, but then, what do I know? I'm just another "nattard". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Put it this way, just what do you think "rights and interests" are? Oh, so you now want me to take a spade and did you out of this mire of stupidity? It could be for example gold reserves, or shares. What you probably want to do is read Section G of the following link. I'm sure you will find it informative. Whilst not in point with the UK situation (for a number of reasons), it should at least give you a starting point. http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/4/751.full.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 You are suggesting that UK statutes implenting EU laws into domestic law and practice with territorial effect in Scotland is enough to allow Scots Law to force the EU to accept it as a member-state. What do you think this is? Narnia? Nope, just an EU member state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Oh, so you now want me to take a spade and did you out of this mire of stupidity? It could be for example gold reserves, or shares. What you probably want to do is read Section G of the following link. I'm sure you will find it informative. Whilst not in point with the UK situation (for a number of reasons), it should at least give you a starting point. http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/4/751.full.pdf What do you think this is, Yugoslavia? "Rights and interests" clearly does not refer to gold reserves or shares since those come under the "property" heading. As in "movable property of the state" so give it another go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Looks like they are running their own distinct campaign as well as being a part of BT. which gives them distance from the "standing side by side with the tories" line. The SNP could be looking to do similar to seprate themselves from YesScotland (and mitigate the criticism that YesScotland is an SNP front) Question is, who is going to run the Labour only campaign? Brown? He was speaking at the launch today - and hasn't otherwise been seen within a million miles of Better Together. Darling? will he extricate himself from BT more and more to focus on the labour side of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Question is, who is going to run the Labour only campaign? Brown? He was speaking at the launch today - and hasn't otherwise been seen within a million miles of Better Together. Darling? will he extricate himself from BT more and more to focus on the labour side of things? Lamont and Sarwar presumably. I think distinct campaigns from all the parties would be a good thing, as well as the umbrella's groups they come under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 What do you think this is, Yugoslavia? "Rights and interests" clearly does not refer to gold reserves or shares since those come under the "property" heading. As in "movable property of the state" so give it another go. Again, your ignorance shines through. This has been a depressingly poor effort. These interests can be held externally. For example, in the case of Yugoslavia, it included the 8,000 shares held in the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) You will note that in the Yugoslav case there is (suprisingly enough) no mention of treaty rights and obligations as property. It was instead divided into broadly:- 1) Internal Financial Assets 2) Immovable Assets in the territory of a Successor state 3) Immovable assets situated abroad 4) Movable property Movable property included :- SFRY quotas at the World Bank, the BIS and the IMF. In short, assets to be divided up can be subdivided into "bricks and mortar" and "rights and interests", the latter of which includes shares and quotas in external bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.