Scottish Independence

[Burma]

Which supports your point in what way?

Are you aware of the advisory opinion on Quebecois secession?

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning certain questions relating to the secession of Quebec from Canada, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 1996-1497, dated the 30th day of September, 1996

Do you take some pleasure in being embarrassed day after day on things you don't understand?

Are you aware that Quebec is a very different matter than Scottish Independence.

I do enjoy humiliating you daily.

[ayrmad]

Scotland already self-determines.

Self-determination is confusing, because some idiots associate that with Independence. Both a Yes and a No vote are consistent with self-determination.

And that's exactly what we're doing regardless of the result.

[H_B]

Really? In what way is it "a very different matter"?

This should be enlightening.

Do you want to just give me the link to the blog you are going to cut and paste from? Cut out the middle man?

[H_B]

And that's exactly what we're doing regardless of the result.

Well, yes. Exactly.

[AUFC90]

Certainly not a category of people you need to trouble yourself with!

Nor you MR IT.

[AUFC90]

Which supports your point in what way?

Are you aware of the advisory opinion on Quebecois secession?

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning certain questions relating to the secession of Quebec from Canada, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 1996-1497, dated the 30th day of September, 1996

Do you take some pleasure in being embarrassed day after day on things you don't understand?

Scotland was a nation long before the UK.

Quebec, South Sudan and Catalonia have never been separate states.

[Burma]

Really? In what way is it "a very different matter"?

This should be enlightening.

Do you want to just give me the link to the blog you are going to cut and paste from? Cut out the middle man?

I refer you to the post above. Basic basic stuff.

[strichener]

H_B was here, and has now disappeared without answering my question.

Maybe he will be up all night writing an opinion on it and we will be blessed with his insightful advice. Or maybe he doesn't like the fact that he has somehow contradicted himself again.

[Ad Lib]

What an absolute fucking embarrassment you are. Why do you do this? Every bloody time the No side get torn a new one you have to leap in and try and limit the damage as best as you can.

I don't "try and limit the damage as best as I can". I correct people for being fucking WRONG about what No were actually saying and what their argument is at its strongest. That's called calling for Yes to be smart rather than retarded. That's completely different.

Who gives a shit about the terms? They aren't going to be bad, or else we wouldn't bother with the EU.

This is ought therefore is nonsense. The point is that the terms of membership to which the UK are (uniquely) entitled under the Treaties, and those terms which cannot be altered without their consent in the ratification of a new Treaty settlement are in several respects demonstrably better than those offered to accession member-states post, well, Maastricht and beyond. Those terms were on the basis of consent and relative preferences well in excess of 20 years ago, so your little head of a pin dancing earlier in this thread about those terms being "enjoyed" is neither here nor there. The point is Scotland would either have to successfully negotiate these special terms (with the unanimous consent of 28 member-states) or forgo them.

Nicola Sturgeon previously asserted that we would inherit them as of right. She was... wrong. And unless she was negligent or an idiot, also lying. Until every serious Nat on this forum admits this, they have no credibility on the more intelligent, more nuanced points about EU membership. This is demonstrably something that has to be taken into account, because inferior or different membership terms have a material effect on our relationship with the rest of the EU. That matters, and people should take it into account.

No one is suggesting this should be solely determinative. All I am suggesting is that people are more pragmatic in their defence of how relatively speaking any of the range of likely EU membership terms will not materially disadvantage us to a noticeable extent in the long run. Which is a perfectly easy argument to make but one you have steadfastly refused to make in preference for perpetuating the mythical surroundings of a Nicola Sturgeon bullshitfest.

This idea that we won't hold any of the cards in any negotiations with the UK government and bodies such as the EU and NATO is absolute rubbish.

Just as well I didn't say that then, isn't it?

We would be a valued member of these groups. Maybe we'll want certain conditions attached to our membership as well, and they'll have to give way on these. The way unionists go on you'd think that there wouldn't actually be any proper negotiations, just a group telling us these are our terms, and if we don't like them then tough shit. That isn't how it works.

Except for pretty much all post Maastricht accession countries, "a group telling us these are our terms, and if we don't like them then tough shit" is pretty much exactly what the EU's attitude has been to new member-states, if anything being more restrictive about when they can and cannot enjoy full rights of membership (see the immigration restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians). I think it's very unlikely that we will have adverse terms imposed upon us as a condition of unanimous consent to our member-statehood, but it's far from clear that we'd be able to preserve an equally as good settlement as that the UK presently enjoys.

Now instead of telling us what a terrifying process independence is going to be, get out there and win some votes. After all, you are a Yes voter.

No. I don't believe in trying to win votes. I believe in articulating the argument I think is correct and leaving it at that. I am not a slave of the Yes machine. I will do what I please. I don't consider this to be something I should enthusiastically do anything for. So don't tell me what to do.

[Ad Lib]

Well said. I have not once seen Ad Lib say a single positive thing about independence. For an alleged Yes voter this just seems a little too unlikely.

I have said several positive things about Scottish independence. On this thread and its predecessors. It provides the path of least resistance to more accountability over how taxes and revenues are spent in Scotland, towards proper constitutional entrenchment of fundamental freedoms, getting rid of Parliamentary sovereignty. And it has the potential to shift the narrative about the exercise of power in this country away from fights between different types of central government and prompts a much larger debate about making local communities more responsible for raising revenues and providing their own services.

Surely Reynard, Ad Lib or H_B between them can provide the people of P&B with 5 positive and truthful reasons why we should all vote NO next year.

It's like they're all mysteriously busy at the same time.

I don't think people should vote No.

[Ad Lib]

So, it has been stated that Scotland was "extinguished" but yet we are in a position to "formally withdraw from a membership of a federation or body, especially a political state"

Explain to me in international law how something that has been extinguished can even have membership let alone withdraw said membership".

ETA: Lord Glennie ruling opinion?

The territory by the name of "Scotland" that would be removed from the territory of the United Kingdom in the event of a Yes vote for independence has no international legal continuity with the Scotland that extinguished itself (as a matter of international law) in 1707.

The word "membership" isn't actually necessary in the definition of secession and in the case of removal of territory from a unitary state is unhelpful, but even then, "membership" is construed as a matter of domestic law (i.e. the constitutional order), with international legal consequences. This is the opposite of the Union itself, which was a matter of international law, with domestic legal consequences (i.e. on the constitutional order).

Other definitions of "secession" do not rely upon a concept of membership rather than simply prior belonging.

So for instance here we have the Cambridge Dictionary definition, which simply says that to secede is "to become independent of a country or area of government"

Or the Chambers dictionary, which instead says that to secede is: "to withdraw formally, eg from a political or religious body or alliance"

[xbl]

What did that latest poll have Yes sitting at?

Oh dear, desperate stuff. Lets face it, it followed exactly what myself and other independence supporters predicted. There is a clear movement from No, to Undecided, and then to Yes, without any equivalent movement the other way. The No side is losing people hand over fist, and we've seen they can't even put up people to speak in debates any more. The odds are being cut, the polls are closing in, and everything is progressing nicely. It must be tearing the Unionists apart.

[xbl]

The territory by the name of "Scotland" that would be removed from the territory of the United Kingdom in the event of a Yes vote for independence has no international legal continuity with the Scotland that extinguished itself (as a matter of international law) in 1

"Extinguished itself" eh?

Why is it that you and HB jump up and down and have tantrums whenever I comment on Scotland being extinguished?

[Ad Lib]

"Extinguished itself" eh?

Why is it that you and HB jump up and down and have tantrums whenever I comment on Scotland being extinguished?

It did extinguish itself as a matter of international law. When the Scottish Parliament ratified the Treaty of Union 1706 with the Union with England Act, it gave effect to a provision which clearly stated that:

The Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land

The Kingdom of Scotland is no more. It case ceased to be. It is bereft of life. It rests in peace. It is an ex Kingdom. International law gives zero fucks for it because it is dead.

[xbl]

I think the big story today has to be the energy figures. Despite artificial barriers being put up by successive governments, we are propping up the CDU with our energy surplus. And yet apparently (according to the Lib Dems), upon independence, they might not buy our surplus!

Added to that, they've done a deal to buy nuclear power at a ridiculous cost with what is effectively a subsidy, meaning that Scotland will very much be in a position to undercut them and provide energy.

40% renewable energy.

36% of all of the CDU's electricity, and thats with artificial charges.

25% of all electricity generated in Scotland exported.

[H_B]

So, it has been stated that Scotland was "extinguished" but yet we are in a position to "formally withdraw from a membership of a federation or body, especially a political state"

Explain to me in international law how something that has been extinguished can even have membership let alone withdraw said membership".

Sigh.

Where to begin. Scotland has no international legal personality. It cannot therefore withdraw from say the United Nations, or the EU. Because it isn't a member. Only the UK can do these things.

That doesn't mean that Scotland cannot secede from the UK. Or Quebec from Canada.

[~~~]

Oh dear, desperate stuff. Lets face it, it followed exactly what myself and other independence supporters predicted. There is a clear movement from No, to Undecided, and then to Yes, without any equivalent movement the other way. The No side is losing people hand over fist, and we've seen they can't even put up people to speak in debates any more. The odds are being cut, the polls are closing in, and everything is progressing nicely. It must be tearing the Unionists apart.

If would be interesting to see how many people have went from Yes to No.

I suspect the answer will be zero

[H_B]

Oh dear, desperate stuff. Lets face it, it followed exactly what myself and other independence supporters predicted. There is a clear movement from No, to Undecided, and then to Yes, without any equivalent movement the other way. The No side is losing people hand over fist, and we've seen they can't even put up people to speak in debates any more. The odds are being cut, the polls are closing in, and everything is progressing nicely. It must be tearing the Unionists apart.

So 27% is Yes "closing in"?

Which organisation ran the poll?

[xbl]

Can anyone hear the grunts of someone trying to shift goalposts?

Like it or not, its all going as we expected.

[Burma]

The territory by the name of "Scotland" that would be removed from the territory of the United Kingdom in the event of a Yes vote for independence has no international legal continuity with the Scotland that extinguished itself (as a matter of international law) in 1707.

But Scotland isnt a "territory". It's a country. And as an Independent one will be both subject to and a participant of International law. Whats so hard to grasp about this?