Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 If only there was a college course that covered it... Yes, you might be a little less ignorant if you could attend such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 When did 'Ireland' 'secede' from the UK? Be very specific, because the entity that is 'Ireland' today is not even remotely the same as the Irish Free State. Ditto yourself, though it was cute to see you playing a miserable lower postgraduate qualification against the likes of Professor David Schaefer. Ah yes. David Schefer. Who was completely and utterly put in his place by Professors Crawford, Boyle and Happold, amongst others. Still, I'm sure a History graduate understands more about International Law than Professors Crawford, Boyle and Happold (actually, I lie, I don't think you do). In 1922, Ireland seceded from the UK. Northern Ireland then exercised their right under the Anglo-Irish Treaty to opt out of the Irish Free State. The UK changed its name in 1927. Incredibly enough, all of the UKs treaty obligations and rights continued to apply, despite this secession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Why ought the economic comparison not be made on a geographic basis? Do you think an independent Scotland would have a substantially reduced territory from that of the Kingdom of Scotland and the current offshore division? A simple yes or no answer for the second part will suffice. I'd love it if comparisons were made. Did you see any comparisons being made in the posted article? OP asked what we thought of the article, I've only answered that it cherry picks the best figures and completely omits any other data sets. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Yes, you might be a little less ignorant if you could attend such a thing. I live in hope. I stay relatively near Forth Valley College, so there may be hope for me yet should they have one of their Crayons and Colouring In courses on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I've never claimed to have understanding of such but I am aware that law can be open to dispute. We would need to agree boundaries in accordance with international law. I'd expect both sides to advance claims affecting licensed areas. It could be that international courts decide this as rUK is now 'foreign' in relation to an independent Scotland. International Court of Justice boundary cases, on average, take around 3 - 10 years. Let's assume this results in uncertainty during the time period involved. It may affect the figures presented in the original article. You mean the kind of uncertainty that was predicted in the run up to the referendum and has instead shown a marked improvement in the economy and unprecedented foreign investment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 In terms of David Schefer, I think the most damning indictment of his hilarious contribution to this debate is that even Nicola Sturgeon seems to have distanced herself from the nonsense he was peddling. I hope he makes a reappearance in 2014. He is much missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 You mean the kind of uncertainty that was predicted in the run up to the referendum and has instead shown a marked improvement in the economy and unprecedented foreign investment? You can thank Gideon for not listening to socialist economic illiterates like Ed "too far too fast" Balls and John "shovel ready levers" Swinney for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Ah yes. David Schefer. Who was completely and utterly put in his place by Professors Crawford, Boyle and Happold, amongst others. Still, I'm sure a History graduate understands more about International Law than Professors Crawford, Boyle and Happold (actually, I lie, I don't think you do). I'm sure Professor David Schaefer is devastated at the news that he doesn't enjoy the support of a Glasgow Law School graduate. Has this 'put in place' been established here, in the media, in Professor Schaefer's academic advancement or indeed anywhere outside the Glasgow Law School? Erm, no. Still - seems legit though. I lied too. It doesn't. In 1922, Ireland seceded from the UK. Northern Ireland then exercised their right under the Anglo-Irish Treaty to opt out of the Irish Free State. The UK changed its name in 1927. Erm no it didn't. Irish and British representatives created a 'free state' alongside the other dominions. The treaty determined that the Free State would continue with the British monarch, and Britain would continue to be represented by a governor-general. The governor-general approved the FS Parliament's candidate for Prime Minister. That is not in any sense of the word a secession: rather Home Rule crossed with Dominion status. Ireland seceded in the form of decades of unilateral treaty dismantling, culminating in the final act of secession: The Republic of Ireland Act of 1948. Only at this stage were the final ties of Dominion status removed from the state. Though who would really expect a mere Law School graduate to know about it compared to a History post-graduate, supported by the rather excellent historical discussions of the process. None of the above even remotely correlates to the devolved status of Scotland, nor with the terms set for the independence referendum and any subsequent negotiations. Get your facts straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 You mean the kind of uncertainty that was predicted in the run up to the referendum and has instead shown a marked improvement in the economy and unprecedented foreign investment? It's basically the kind of uncertainty which abounds because we're debating a topic which would only be an issue if a yes vote was victorious. I'd be as wary of pro UK statistics produced in such a manner as the article produced Yes data. The government documents cited provide comparative statistics because it allows us to see both sides as no one can accurately predict the future. Sorry to keep referring to this point but I was replying to what I thought of the article posted online. The article, at first glance, allows readers to see one side of the economic modelling. Unless you have to time to read over the cited articles or care to examine them, the article panders to the it's brilliant in every way rhetoric. As I said originally, it's unsurprising both sides choose to pick data which suits their stance. I simply thought the original article is poorly written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Sigh. Wrong. No it won't. See for example when Ireland left the UK. I never knew the EU was in existence in 1922, thanks for the info though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I'd love it if comparisons were made. Did you see any comparisons being made in the posted article? OP asked what we thought of the article, I've only answered that it cherry picks the best figures and completely omits any other data sets. No. I see plenty of such 'comparisons made in your uncertainty-o-rama below. I've highlighted your comparisons as you appear to have conveniently forgotten them: Fact 2 - Scotland is a net contributor to the UK (only if the, yet to be confirmed, full geographical share is used. If a different assumption was made, Scotland is not a net contributor to the UK. We would receive 9.3% of Treasury spending but only generate 8.2% of revenue). Fact 3 - Scotland generates far more tax than the UK average (if you're applying the geographical share, correct. If total revenue are shared equally among the nations of the UK according to population size, then the same figures show that Scotland would be taking more out than putting in, compared to rUK. Scottish contributions can be viewed smaller than the UK average if another data set is chosen). Fact 5 - Scotland has a lower deficit and lower public spending than the UK (only if data is taken from geographical inclusion. Using the per capita share data, the UK spends 45.5% of GDP whilst Scotland would be spending 50.6%). So, once again, I'll ask for straightforward answers to my questions: Why ought the economic comparison not be made on a geographic basis? Do you think an independent Scotland would have a substantially reduced territory from that of the Kingdom of Scotland and the current offshore division? A simple yes or no answer for the second part will suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I'm sure Professor David Schaefer is devastated at the news that he doesn't enjoy the support of a Glasgow Law School graduate. Has this 'put in place' been established here, in the media, in Professor Schaefer's academic advancement or indeed anywhere outside the Glasgow Law School? Erm, no. Erm, yes. Professors Crawford, Boyle and Happold have all published material that completely and utterly refutes Shefer's lunatic outpourings. He's been comprehensively put in his place. None of the above even remotely correlates to the devolved status of Scotland, nor with the terms set for the independence referendum and any subsequent negotiations. Get your facts straight. None of which changes the fact that the secession of Ireland was treated as a change in the UK's territory, not a break in the continuity of the UK. It's heartwarming that you wish to ally yourself with the tinfoil hat wearing fraternity that pretend a Scottish secession will not result in one new entity (New Scotland) and the UK continuing. Highly amusing. Almost makes me yearn for a Yes vote, just to show you how horribly wrong you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I never knew the EU was in existence in 1922, thanks for the info though. International Law was. Unlucky. And in this regard the International Law of State Succession is very clear. The UK's international law personality would be unaffected by a Scottish secession. Scotland would begin life as a new entity - rUK would continue with theUK's current legal personality. See for example South Sudan's secession from Sudan and the effects on membership of the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Erm, yes. Professors Crawford, Boyle and Happold have all published material that completely and utterly refutes Shefer's lunatic outpourings. He's been comprehensively put in his place. Not here, not in the media, not in the political blogging - where, specifically, would that be? It must be a source of great shame for the Law team that their pet opinions have until now completely and utterly failed to shape the altogether tedious legalistic ramblings at the edges of this national debate. So much for providing academics able to impact upon policy and engage the media. None of which changes the fact that the secession of Ireland was treated as a change in the UK's territory, not a break in the continuity of the UK. None of which establishes the extremely messy secession of Ireland as a relevant comparison with Scotland post-independence. Swing and indeed a miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 So in the event of a yes vote I lose my passport? I'll repeat for thicky thicky shit shits like yourself. There is no such thing as a citizen of the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I see plenty of such 'comparisons made in your uncertainty-o-rama below. I've highlighted your comparisons as you appear to have conveniently forgotten them: So, once again, I'll ask for straightforward answers to my questions: Why ought the economic comparison not be made on a geographic basis? Do you think an independent Scotland would have a substantially reduced territory from that of the Kingdom of Scotland and the current offshore division? A simple yes or no answer for the second part will suffice. As I mentioned on P&B once before, 'arguing' on the internet is like winking at a girl in the dark, you know what you're doing but no one else does. The problem isn't with geographical figures being used. I do have a problem with the are singularly used to advance the argument. My posts all refer to the original posting - what do people think of the article? The article only makes the narrower comparison between being independent or not. A more developed article, rather than being so selective, would include the geographical figures alongside other experimental data sets to allow readers to see one independence scenario in comparison to another. I included the other data sets to allow for such comparisons. The debate has different facets, independence v status quo. I've tried to say it could also venture into independence scenario one versus independence scenario two. The original article is using 'historical experimental data'. In other words, our nation could have been like that during such time periods if the geographical principle was 'law'. It leaves out any comparisons of what Scotland could have been like if another principle was in place. I think putting No when I'm asked for a simple yes or no answer would have been sufficient! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Due to the existence of two separate legal systems in Great Britain that of Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales, constitutional law in the United Kingdom has provided for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits. Recent evidence by Kemp and Stephen (1999) has tried to estimate hypothetical Scottish shares of North Sea Oil revenue by dividing the UK sector of the North Sea into separate Scottish and UK sectors using the international principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - such a convention is used in defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and resolving international maritime disputes. The study by Kemp & Stephen showed that hypothesised Scottish shares of North Sea oil revenue over the period 1970 to 1999, varied to as high as 98% dependent upon the price of oil and offset against taxable profits and the costs of exploration and development. to simplify my explanation of Scottish waters as defined by UN Convention, Scots Law instrument and ratified by English Law as it pertains to England and Wales, I include this handy diagram that i found online. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Scottish_eez.PNG/300px-Scottish_eez.PNG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I've tried to say it could also venture into independence scenario one versus independence scenario two. I think putting No when I'm asked for a simple yes or no answer would have been sufficient! Given you have de facto stated that you don't think geographic boundaries will substantially change (even H_B admitted this to the relief of everyone with the will to live), then the basis of an 'independence scenario two' is vanishingly small. Why ought any publication on either side of the debate - aimed at general consumption - clog it up with meaningless experiments as to what an independent Scotland would be like if it conquered the Isle of Man, or Edinburgh seceded, or any other equally unlikely and therefore not relevant starting point? We know what Scotland incorporates and what it doesn't. And thanks to GERS and other economic forecasts we also know the economic output of Scotland, and can clearly compare it to the rest of the UK. The figures stand for themselves based on what we know now: which as historical debates about state independence go is probably the most advanced and well-informed basis for discussion that has ever been compiled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I'll repeat for thicky thicky shit shits like yourself. There is no such thing as a citizen of the EU. So I'll lose my freedom of movement around the EU if Scotland doesn't get in the EU? Will my passport be amended accordingly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 International Law was. Unlucky. And in this regard the International Law of State Succession is very clear. The UK's international law personality would be unaffected by a Scottish secession. Scotland would begin life as a new entity - rUK would continue with theUK's current legal personality. See for example South Sudan's secession from Sudan and the effects on membership of the UN. I was hoping that my original question wouldnt get too far off topic but hey ho, can you answer me some questions please? Do you not believe that Scotland is a Country at the moment? If not do you believe it is a region of the UK? Do the above 2 also apply to England? Was South Sudan in a political union with the rest of Sudan? Do you really believe that Scottish Independence can be compared to South Sudan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.