The only desperation is continued sliding of the yes camps position on what we're actually voting for.
First of all it's for an "independent Scotland inside the EU"
Then it's an "independent Scotland which no-one could imagine outside of the EU"
Then it's "an indepedent Scotland and we'll negotiate within 18 months what status we will have"
Then it's "an independent Scotland but can we have a minority share in the bank of England and use the pound even though this will take away our ability to set interest rates and inflation targets"
"Oh and can you lend us a few billions to tide us over"
It keeps flip flopping between the status quo (including the new powers in the Scotland Act) and additional unspecified powers for the parliament of Scotland some time in the future (jam tomorrow - the 1979 promise, which took 20 years to give us any control at all)
Now, it's we ceased to exist in 1707 and so would be a shiny new state in the eyes of the law -
Suits us!
No burden of UK debt and no responsibilities for anything signed by the UK but all of Scotland's current assets and resources within her territory.
Shame that the parliament of the UK continued to recognise that Scotland was different by passing legislation for Scotland separately.
That undermines the case that Scotland ceased to exist as a entity.
It keeps flip flopping between the status quo (including the new powers in the Scotland Act) and additional unspecified powers for the parliament of Scotland some time in the future (jam tomorrow - the 1979 promise, which took 20 years to give us any control at all)
Now, it's we ceased to exist in 1707 and so would be a shiny new state in the eyes of the law -
Suits us!
No burden of UK debt and no responsibilities for anything signed by the UK but all of Scotland's current assets and resources within her territory.
Shame that the parliament of the UK continued to recognise that Scotland was different by passing legislation for Scotland separately.
That undermines the case that Scotland ceased to exist as a entity.
The no campaign is quite simple.
No to an independent Scotland outside of the UK.
Can't talk about anything else until the referendum is decided. The referendum was the yes campaign's idea in case you missed that.
The problem with Scotland as a separate entity argument is that its laws were not determined by its own representatives. The old "West Lothian" question. Laws in the UK were made by represenatives from across the UK and were applied differently in certain areas by the UK.
Scottish based representatives voted on laws affecting England and vice versa. The same argument applies to England. There is no "England" as a nation state since 1707, only Great Britain and its successor states
Maybe Scotland STILL has an international Treaty in her name.
In 2011, British historian Dr Siobhan Talbott published the result of her research on this matter and concluded accordingly that the Auld Alliance is actually unrevoked after all. [11]
Maybe Scotland STILL has an international Treaty in her name.
In 2011, British historian Dr Siobhan Talbott published the result of her research on this matter and concluded accordingly that the Auld Alliance is actually unrevoked after all. [11]
Sorry, wiki fail
Westminster terminated the alliance in 1906 - this comes from Talbott herself
If we go on to nah nah de nah nah then I think we have reached the current level of the political debate:D
I can see that you have reached your level now:D
So let me get this clear. Scotland will become a new state that happens to have the same name as an old, no longer existing state. This Scotland would not be recognised as a successor state of the Old UK.
It would not inherit any treaties or memberships of any international organisation .
It would not be liable for any debts of the old UK, which would fall on the successor state.
Have I got it right?
"Scottish based representatives voted on laws affecting England and vice versa. The same argument applies to England. There is no "England" as a nation state since 1707, only Great Britain and its successor states "
That's the logical position AFAIC but NOT the one expressed in Westminster's legal advice.
I think Better Together shot themselves in the foot with that paper yesterday but more damaging were the interviews given by Professor Crawford.
He blew away the trawling through 14,000 treaties for years and years argument when he made clear that all the processes between a yes vote and independence would not be difficult and time consuming, that the Scottish Government's 18 months' timetable seemed realistic and that Scotland would negotiate with Europe from WITHIN the EU.
"Scottish based representatives voted on laws affecting England and vice versa. The same argument applies to England. There is no "England" as a nation state since 1707, only Great Britain and its successor states "
That's the logical position AFAIC but NOT the one expressed in Westminster's legal advice.
I think Better Together shot themselves in the foot with that paper yesterday but more damaging were the interviews given by Professor Crawford.
He blew away the trawling through 14,000 treaties for years and years argument when he made clear that all the processes between a yes vote and independence would not be difficult and time consuming, that the Scottish Government's 18 months' timetable seemed realistic and that Scotland would negotiate with Europe from WITHIN the EU.
Sorry - you're wrong.
It is not the case that there is no continuing state. there is - it's called the United Kingdom. You cannot confuse England with the United Kingdom (FFS we've been moaning about the BBC doing that for decades so lets not catch the same disease now!)
Of course Scotland will negotiate from within the EU - it will be part of the UK after all! The referendum does not change that. Onl;y when Scotland seceeds from the UK will there be a question of Scots status vz EU. The plan is not to do that until the treaties are sorted out.
The uncertainties are not what the status of Scotland will be during negotiations but what the accession arrangements will be at independence. Will Scotland have to commit to use the Euro? Will Scotland "inherit" the UK rebate (or a portion of it)? etc.
I can see that you have reached your level now:D
So let me get this clear. Scotland will become a new state that happens to have the same name as an old, no longer existing state. This Scotland would not be recognised as a successor state of the Old UK.
It would not inherit any treaties or memberships of any international organisation .
It would not be liable for any debts of the old UK, which would fall on the successor state.
Have I got it right?
Yes and No.
Scotland could declare independence and repudiate all previous debts, obligations and treaties. It could nationalise all resources owned by foreign companies (including UK).
It would have the economic status of North Korea as the EU and everyone else would not trade with it. Quite possibly some nations could take action to secure their own assets by seizing "Scottish assets" outside of Scotland. Scotland would not be able to bank or finance its own currency
Essential services would break down and there would be mass unemployment (and probably UN intervention to feed the starving masses of Scotland).
Alternatively Scotland would do the sensible thing and negotiate an amicable transition to the community of nations. With its own relationships and finances as defined by treaty. Scotland would deliberately choose to avoid UDI to avoid the scenario I outlined above.
It is not the case that there is no continuing state. there is - it's called the United Kingdom. You cannot confuse England with the United Kingdom
Have you read the below? James Crawford is an expert in the status of national minorities and state succession. I am only extracting parts but the full thing can be read in the link below.
Annex A. Opinion: Referendum on the Independence of Scotland – International Law Aspects
3.1 Since the rUK would be the same state as the UK, questions of state succession would arise only for Scotland.
(a) Whether the union of 1707 created a new state
33. There are two possible answers to this question. It is a question not of the position of Scotland within domestic law – under which Scotland clearly retained a distinct constitutional status, in particular a separate legal system – but of how the union of 1707 should be treated as a matter of international law.
34. One view is that the union created a new state, Great Britain, into which the international identities of Scotland and England merged and which was distinct from both.
35. An alternative view is that as a matter of international law England continued, albeit under a new name and regardless of the position in domestic law, and was simply enlarged to incorporate Scotland. In support of this view, among other things [then continues to list three points]
37. For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.
43. The same result follows from the alternative possibility, discussed above, that Great Britain was the continuator of England rather than a new state...
50. We will therefore focus on the possibility that the rUK – comprised of England, Wales and Northern Ireland – would be the continuator state of the UK and an independent Scotland a new state. This is the position of the UK Government and the position on which we have been particularly asked to advise.
Can't talk about anything else until the referendum is decided. The referendum was the yes campaign's idea in case you missed that.
The problem with Scotland as a separate entity argument is that its laws were not determined by its own representatives. The old "West Lothian" question. Laws in the UK were made by represenatives from across the UK and were applied differently in certain areas by the UK.
Scottish based representatives voted on laws affecting England and vice versa. The same argument applies to England. There is no "England" as a nation state since 1707, only Great Britain and its successor states
Problem for you of course is that Scotland has a seperate legal and education system and has always done so.
No England eh! And who just lost to New Zealand today and beat Ireland on Sunday?
Have you read the below? James Crawford is an expert in the status of national minorities and state succession. I am only extracting parts but the full thing can be read in the link below.
Annex A. Opinion: Referendum on the Independence of Scotland – International Law Aspects
3.1 Since the rUK would be the same state as the UK, questions of state succession would arise only for Scotland.
(a) Whether the union of 1707 created a new state
33. There are two possible answers to this question. It is a question not of the position of Scotland within domestic law – under which Scotland clearly retained a distinct constitutional status, in particular a separate legal system – but of how the union of 1707 should be treated as a matter of international law.
34. One view is that the union created a new state, Great Britain, into which the international identities of Scotland and England merged and which was distinct from both.
35. An alternative view is that as a matter of international law England continued, albeit under a new name and regardless of the position in domestic law, and was simply enlarged to incorporate Scotland. In support of this view, among other things [then continues to list three points]
37. For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.
43. The same result follows from the alternative possibility, discussed above, that Great Britain was the continuator of England rather than a new state...
50. We will therefore focus on the possibility that the rUK – comprised of England, Wales and Northern Ireland – would be the continuator state of the UK and an independent Scotland a new state. This is the position of the UK Government and the position on which we have been particularly asked to advise.
Scotland could declare independence and repudiate all previous debts, obligations and treaties. It could nationalise all resources owned by foreign companies (including UK).
It would have the economic status of North Korea as the EU and everyone else would not trade with it. Quite possibly some nations could take action to secure their own assets by seizing "Scottish assets" outside of Scotland. Scotland would not be able to bank or finance its own currency
Essential services would break down and there would be mass unemployment (and probably UN intervention to feed the starving masses of Scotland).
Alternatively Scotland would do the sensible thing and negotiate an amicable transition to the community of nations. With its own relationships and finances as defined by treaty. Scotland would deliberately choose to avoid UDI to avoid the scenario I outlined above.
Who said anything about UDI. The legal advice given to Westminster was, I believe, is that Scotland would not be considered a successor state. That Scotland would not be a continuance of the old Scottish state and would become a brand new country that would be using the name of the old state, only.
Well it stands to reason that if this new Scotland does not inherit any rights to treaties and memberships then it cannot inherit any portion of the debt owed by the successor state of the UK ( rUK).
RUK might want to negotiate for us to assume some of that debt but Scotland would be under no obligation to . What would the rUK use as a bargaining tool , I don't know.
The alternative to shiny new state is negotiation in good faith.
I'm sure we can come to some agreement where Scotland is recognised by the UK as the inheritor of the ancient Kingdom of Scotland but the UK retains all its most precious status positions like veto on Security Council, member of World Bank, opt outs from the EU etc and in addition the rUK agrees to help Scotland establish its membership, as Scotland, of all the international bodies of which its citizens are currently members like the Commonwealth, EU, UN etc
All other divisions of UK assets and liabilities can be the subject of negotiation between Scotland and the UK, with each party respecting the other and international law.
The alternative to shiny new state is negotiation in good faith.
I'm sure we can come to some agreement where Scotland is recognised by the UK as the inheritor of the ancient Kingdom of Scotland but the UK retains all its most precious status positions like veto on Security Council, member of World Bank, opt outs from the EU etc and in addition the rUK agrees to help Scotland establish its membership, as Scotland, of all the international bodies of which its citizens are currently members like the Commonwealth, EU, UN etc
All other divisions of UK assets and liabilities can be the subject of negotiation between Scotland and the UK, with each party respecting the other and international law.
The alternative to shiny new state is negotiation in good faith.
I'm sure we can come to some agreement where Scotland is recognised by the UK as the inheritor of the ancient Kingdom of Scotland but the UK retains all its most precious status positions like veto on Security Council, member of World Bank, opt outs from the EU etc and in addition the rUK agrees to help Scotland establish its membership, as Scotland, of all the international bodies of which its citizens are currently members like the Commonwealth, EU, UN etc
All other divisions of UK assets and liabilities can be the subject of negotiation between Scotland and the UK, with each party respecting the other and international law.
what reason would rUK have to help scotland with it's international aspirations?
Scotland should also concede that the UK would retain the name UK, provided the term Great Britain is not included in the longer form of the name , nor should it infer any other claim on Scottish territory.
The alternative to shiny new state is negotiation in good faith.
I'm sure we can come to some agreement where Scotland is recognised by the UK as the inheritor of the ancient Kingdom of Scotland but the UK retains all its most precious status positions like veto on Security Council, member of World Bank, opt outs from the EU etc and in addition the rUK agrees to help Scotland establish its membership, as Scotland, of all the international bodies of which its citizens are currently members like the Commonwealth, EU, UN etc
All other divisions of UK assets and liabilities can be the subject of negotiation between Scotland and the UK, with each party respecting the other and international law.
what reason would rUK have to help scotland with it's international aspirations?
It's called negotiation - give and take.
The alternative is Scotland as a shiny new state on England's border with no input from England about which relationships Scotland forms with which international bodies or countries.
I wonder if Russia would be interested in a Scottish base say Lossiemouth.
what reason would rUK have to help scotland with it's international aspirations?
Because whether you like it or not, we're on this island together so it would make sense to help our neighbours. We do want a good relationship with them do we not?
On a side note, I don't agree that Scotland should have a stake in the Bank of England and should accelerate the process to adopt their own currency and their own central bank.
On a side note, I don't agree that Scotland should have a stake in the Bank of England and should accelerate the process to adopt their own currency and their own central bank.
It's the central bank of the UK, and as such is part of both the assets and liabilities that are everybody is talking about
The alternative to shiny new state is negotiation in good faith.
I'm sure we can come to some agreement where Scotland is recognised by the UK as the inheritor of the ancient Kingdom of Scotland but the UK retains all its most precious status positions like veto on Security Council, member of World Bank, opt outs from the EU etc and in addition the rUK agrees to help Scotland establish its membership, as Scotland, of all the international bodies of which its citizens are currently members like the Commonwealth, EU, UN etc
All other divisions of UK assets and liabilities can be the subject of negotiation between Scotland and the UK, with each party respecting the other and international law.
It looks the likely outcome. However, there is the issue of the maritime border which was moved in 1999. Do those borders become Scotland's borders or do the borders as at 1707 become Scotland's borders?
Comments
It keeps flip flopping between the status quo (including the new powers in the Scotland Act) and additional unspecified powers for the parliament of Scotland some time in the future (jam tomorrow - the 1979 promise, which took 20 years to give us any control at all)
Now, it's we ceased to exist in 1707 and so would be a shiny new state in the eyes of the law -
Suits us!
No burden of UK debt and no responsibilities for anything signed by the UK but all of Scotland's current assets and resources within her territory.
Shame that the parliament of the UK continued to recognise that Scotland was different by passing legislation for Scotland separately.
That undermines the case that Scotland ceased to exist as a entity.
Incisive contribution to the debate there.........
About as incisive as yours:D
The no campaign is quite simple.
No to an independent Scotland outside of the UK.
Can't talk about anything else until the referendum is decided. The referendum was the yes campaign's idea in case you missed that.
The problem with Scotland as a separate entity argument is that its laws were not determined by its own representatives. The old "West Lothian" question. Laws in the UK were made by represenatives from across the UK and were applied differently in certain areas by the UK.
Scottish based representatives voted on laws affecting England and vice versa. The same argument applies to England. There is no "England" as a nation state since 1707, only Great Britain and its successor states
If we go on to nah nah de nah nah then I think we have reached the current level of the political debate:D
In 2011, British historian Dr Siobhan Talbott published the result of her research on this matter and concluded accordingly that the Auld Alliance is actually unrevoked after all. [11]
Sorry, wiki fail
Westminster terminated the alliance in 1906 - this comes from Talbott herself
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/researchersnight/sites/default/files/Siobhan%20Talbott%20-%20English_0.pdf
Although if you still want French citizenship...........
I can see that you have reached your level now:D
So let me get this clear. Scotland will become a new state that happens to have the same name as an old, no longer existing state. This Scotland would not be recognised as a successor state of the Old UK.
It would not inherit any treaties or memberships of any international organisation .
It would not be liable for any debts of the old UK, which would fall on the successor state.
Have I got it right?
That's the logical position AFAIC but NOT the one expressed in Westminster's legal advice.
I think Better Together shot themselves in the foot with that paper yesterday but more damaging were the interviews given by Professor Crawford.
He blew away the trawling through 14,000 treaties for years and years argument when he made clear that all the processes between a yes vote and independence would not be difficult and time consuming, that the Scottish Government's 18 months' timetable seemed realistic and that Scotland would negotiate with Europe from WITHIN the EU.
Sorry - you're wrong.
It is not the case that there is no continuing state. there is - it's called the United Kingdom. You cannot confuse England with the United Kingdom (FFS we've been moaning about the BBC doing that for decades so lets not catch the same disease now!)
Of course Scotland will negotiate from within the EU - it will be part of the UK after all! The referendum does not change that. Onl;y when Scotland seceeds from the UK will there be a question of Scots status vz EU. The plan is not to do that until the treaties are sorted out.
The uncertainties are not what the status of Scotland will be during negotiations but what the accession arrangements will be at independence. Will Scotland have to commit to use the Euro? Will Scotland "inherit" the UK rebate (or a portion of it)? etc.
Yes and No.
Scotland could declare independence and repudiate all previous debts, obligations and treaties. It could nationalise all resources owned by foreign companies (including UK).
It would have the economic status of North Korea as the EU and everyone else would not trade with it. Quite possibly some nations could take action to secure their own assets by seizing "Scottish assets" outside of Scotland. Scotland would not be able to bank or finance its own currency
Essential services would break down and there would be mass unemployment (and probably UN intervention to feed the starving masses of Scotland).
Alternatively Scotland would do the sensible thing and negotiate an amicable transition to the community of nations. With its own relationships and finances as defined by treaty. Scotland would deliberately choose to avoid UDI to avoid the scenario I outlined above.
Have you read the below? James Crawford is an expert in the status of national minorities and state succession. I am only extracting parts but the full thing can be read in the link below.
Annex A. Opinion: Referendum on the Independence of Scotland – International Law Aspects
3.1 Since the rUK would be the same state as the UK, questions of state succession would arise only for Scotland.
(a) Whether the union of 1707 created a new state
33. There are two possible answers to this question. It is a question not of the position of Scotland within domestic law – under which Scotland clearly retained a distinct constitutional status, in particular a separate legal system – but of how the union of 1707 should be treated as a matter of international law.
34. One view is that the union created a new state, Great Britain, into which the international identities of Scotland and England merged and which was distinct from both.
35. An alternative view is that as a matter of international law England continued, albeit under a new name and regardless of the position in domestic law, and was simply enlarged to incorporate Scotland. In support of this view, among other things [then continues to list three points]
37. For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.
43. The same result follows from the alternative possibility, discussed above, that Great Britain was the continuator of England rather than a new state...
50. We will therefore focus on the possibility that the rUK – comprised of England, Wales and Northern Ireland – would be the continuator state of the UK and an independent Scotland a new state. This is the position of the UK Government and the position on which we have been particularly asked to advise.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79368/Scotland_analysis_Devolution_and_the_implications_of_Scottish_Independance-annexA_acc.pdf
Going with 35, England continued and was enlarged to incorporate Scotland. Therefore...
* If you vote yes, then you agree to Scotland being declared a new state [3.1 & 50]
* If you vote no, you argee that Scotland is to remain incorporated into England [35 & 43]
Problem for you of course is that Scotland has a seperate legal and education system and has always done so.
No England eh! And who just lost to New Zealand today and beat Ireland on Sunday?
There are alternative opinions out there.
Who said anything about UDI. The legal advice given to Westminster was, I believe, is that Scotland would not be considered a successor state. That Scotland would not be a continuance of the old Scottish state and would become a brand new country that would be using the name of the old state, only.
Well it stands to reason that if this new Scotland does not inherit any rights to treaties and memberships then it cannot inherit any portion of the debt owed by the successor state of the UK ( rUK).
RUK might want to negotiate for us to assume some of that debt but Scotland would be under no obligation to . What would the rUK use as a bargaining tool , I don't know.
I'm sure we can come to some agreement where Scotland is recognised by the UK as the inheritor of the ancient Kingdom of Scotland but the UK retains all its most precious status positions like veto on Security Council, member of World Bank, opt outs from the EU etc and in addition the rUK agrees to help Scotland establish its membership, as Scotland, of all the international bodies of which its citizens are currently members like the Commonwealth, EU, UN etc
All other divisions of UK assets and liabilities can be the subject of negotiation between Scotland and the UK, with each party respecting the other and international law.
Drat, someone has their sensible head on.
what reason would rUK have to help scotland with it's international aspirations?
Because it is not a country filled with nasty little xenophobes
And also so that we would take a share of the rUK's debt
It's called negotiation - give and take.
The alternative is Scotland as a shiny new state on England's border with no input from England about which relationships Scotland forms with which international bodies or countries.
I wonder if Russia would be interested in a Scottish base say Lossiemouth.
Or maybe China would outbid them.
Because whether you like it or not, we're on this island together so it would make sense to help our neighbours. We do want a good relationship with them do we not?
On a side note, I don't agree that Scotland should have a stake in the Bank of England and should accelerate the process to adopt their own currency and their own central bank.
It's the central bank of the UK, and as such is part of both the assets and liabilities that are everybody is talking about
It looks the likely outcome. However, there is the issue of the maritime border which was moved in 1999. Do those borders become Scotland's borders or do the borders as at 1707 become Scotland's borders?