The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Hmmm support for independence at a 15 year high

No it isn't.

http://www.scotcen.org.uk/media/563071/ssa-2014-has-the-referendun-campaign-made-a-difference.pdf

Support for independence was higher in 2005 (page 5) innit.

2016 minus 2005 is not 15. **sighs**

What 10 an' 9? Twenny won, twenny won!

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No I wasn't proposing anything. I was pointing out there are more than just the one possibilties regarding successor/continuator states etc. Why you said yourself that Scotland isn't obligated to take any debt. Only by negotiations. What you're proposing above is that Scotland leaves the UK, not as a successor state. But a brand new one. With no debt.

You're trying to have it both ways, which is impossible. String is touting the same tired old nonsense from one legal opinion as well. The Vienna convention isn't even ratified in the UK as you correctly stated. In actual fact no one knows where anyone would stand. So let's not pretend otherwise. Boyle and Crawford are only interpreting the law as they see it. Other experts differ. The only thing we do know is that Scotland absolutely does have the right to succession within international law. The rest is just legal arguments and theories put forward as to what happens afterwards.

It would/will, as it always was going to, come down to negotiations in the end. And since we were discussing this in the context of Scotland and debt. Lets just say, as you established yourself, that any debt Scotland takes or not, isn't written in stone.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13091840.Independent_Scotland_would__inherit_share_of_UK_national_debt_/

"the same tired old nonsense from one legal opinion".

No - it was advice from two independent world experts, Shakey; what have you got to offer?

Those experts examined all the possibilities and examined each to see what precedents there were and how they applied to Scotland.

You clearly have not read it.

You have nothing, just the normal SNP claptrap. What other opinions outside separatist imagining? Your cat? Scattering bones?

If you have another opinion that goes into the same detail and has the same authority as the the legal advice I linked to, post your link here.

The only thing I agree with is about your hypothetical scenario needing negotiations. It would not, however, be a negotiation about whether the UK is the Continuator State, that would be a matter for rUK, not Natland.

elantan

Generali wrote: »

No it isn't.

http://www.scotcen.org.uk/media/563071/ssa-2014-has-the-referendun-campaign-made-a-difference.pdf

Support for independence was higher in 2005 (page 5) innit.

2016 minus 2005 is not 15. **sighs**

What 10 an' 9? Twenny won, twenny won!

Tell that to ITV then

Rinoa

Bookies odds for independence before 2024 are still in favour of No.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-politics/scotland-to-vote-for-independence-by-end-of-2024

So you're stuck with us for quite a while.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Nice try.

From the same survey:

• Independence 33%
• Devolution 50%
• No Parliament 7%

The survey doesn't list the don't knows. I suspect the final figure should be 17% instead. SNP run surveys eh? Ach.

As for answering the referendum question (still biased as more people will vote 'Yes' than 'No' than '1' or '2'):

• Yes 25%
• No 43%
• Meh 32%

Excluding Meh:

• Stomp off to glorious poverty 39%
• Remain in the mighty UK 61%

(The final point may not reflect the question accurately).

So what do we draw from the survey overall? Scottish people want to remain in the UK. Oh and when you look at the demographics, Scottish women really don't like the idea of independence at all. Barely a quarter are supporters.

Nice try too. But John Curtice does it better.

Two key points emerge from this exercise. First, as we might anticipate, support for independence is now at an all-time high. At 39% it is four points higher than the previous record high on SSA, recorded as long ago as 2005. Morever, this represents no less than a 16 point increase in support for that option as compared with the position in 2012, just as the referendum campaign was taking off and when support was at an equal all-time low. Here is confirmation, if confirmation were needed, that the referendum campaign did indeed take support for independence to an unprecedentedly high level.

Here we obtain a very different picture of the balance of opinion on how Scotland should be governed. Once again, we discover that the referendum has left its mark. Whereas in 2012 just 35% said that the Scottish Parliament should make all decisions for Scotland (and indeed in 2013 just 31% did so), now the figure stands at 51%, far higher than the 39% who explicitly chose independence. At the same time another 30% say that the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for all of Scotland’s domestic affairs.

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/03/what-difference-did-the-referendum-make-to-scotlands-constitutional-debate-2/

There's only one direction of travel apparent here. And it's between Devo-Max and Independence. Not rising support for the union/UK/Westminster. Oh and you got this wrong incidentally.

Support for independence was higher in 2005 (page 5) innit.

It's four points higher than in 2005.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

"the same tired old nonsense from one legal opinion".

No - it was advice from two independent world experts, Shakey; what have you got to offer?

Those experts examined all the possibilities and examined each to see what precedents there were and how they applied to Scotland.

You clearly have not read it.

You have nothing, just the normal SNP claptrap. What other opinions outside separatist imagining? Your cat? Scattering bones?

If you have another opinion that goes into the same detail and has the same authority as the the legal advice I linked to, post your link here.

The only thing I agree with is about your hypothetical scenario needing negotiations. It would not, however, be a negotiation about whether the UK is the Continuator State, that would be a matter for rUK, not Natland.

I've read it several times. At the time it was all over the media also. I love the way you seem to take 'independent experts' legal opinion as gospel when it suits your view. Then completely dismiss it for others. The above IS one legal view. The Vienna Convention hasn't been ratified in the UK. They know no more than you do re continuator states. More so now that the direction of travel in the polls re a Brexit is heading in the wrong direction, even with phone polls.

Why not then, listen to these experts regarding the EU ?

In this post, we turn to the crux of their enquiry: would Scotland have to reapply to join the EU? In a word, their answer is “yes”.

However, Crawford and Boyle are at pains to emphasize that this is, in legal terms, unknown territory:

http://europeanlawblog.eu/?!!!!!crawford-and-boyle-opinion

or some of this ?

Far from declaring that the remainder of the UK would continue as before, and Scotland would form a new, separate state, it is explained on in the first page of the Executive Summary of Crawford and Boyle’s legal advice that in international law there are three possible outcomes for the status of Scotland and the rest of the UK in the event of Scottish independence.

The outcome preferred by the UK government is regarded as ‘most likely’, whereas the one favoured by the Scottish government would, we are told, only be likely if the UK were to agree to it. (The third possible outcome is Scotland’s return to its pre-1707 status in international law, which is deemed to be highly problematic.) As far as international law is concerned—as distinct from politics—therefore, it would appear that the Scottish government’s position is not ruled out.

or this

This is the crunch. International law is not set in stone. It is clear from the legal advice published by the UK government that it is in their power to do what Czechoslovakia did and define the nature of their country, now and in the future, in the eyes of international law.

By promoting the legal opinion in a public forum, the UK government has accepted either that England as well as Scotland does not exist, or that the UK is simply England by another name.

But they can change this. The trouble is that, if they do, they will have to recognise that both Scotland and the rest of the UK would both become new states in the event of Scottish independence.

http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1767&articleType=ArticleView&articleId=2514

Have fun.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I've read it several times. At the time it was all over the media also. I love the way you seem to take 'independent experts' legal opinion as gospel when it suits your view. Then completely dismiss it for others. The above IS one legal view. The Vienna Convention hasn't been ratified in the UK. They know no more than you do re continuator states. More so now that the direction of travel in the polls re a Brexit is heading in the wrong direction, even with phone polls.

Why not then, listen to these experts regarding the EU ?

http://europeanlawblog.eu/?!!!!!crawford-and-boyle-opinion

or some of this ?

or this

http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1767&articleType=ArticleView&articleId=2514

Have fun.

This conversation is getting really annoying.
You have nothing to offer related to the issue at hand. You have presented no authoritative report, just non-sequiturs and false assertions based on looking only at the preliminary ground work of what was examined and not the conclusions reached.
I doubt you have actually really read the legal opinion; you may have glanced at it but without taking the effort to understand its structure and reasoning and seen where the various possible scenarios of secession had been examined, what had happened in the past, how they compared with the likely reality.
You asked me a couple of posts back what I thought and my reply was to remark that it was not what I thought but to refer to the expert legal advice. I have also recommended it should be read so that the nuances could be seen. The value of other “opinions” is not that they exist but whether they are based on comparable well researched deductive reasoning. Blathering on with party slogans and wishful thinking does not cut it I’m afraid.
Get it into your head, Shakey that whether the UK would be the Continuator State is not in any way a matter for the SNP to negotiate, it is a result of how the international community reacts to the rUK and whether it believes it remains as the de facto heir to the agreements made previously by the UK.
You are basing your opinion on false hopes and false (in fact absent) logic, trying to substitute what may be remote possibilities for what is actually likely to happen and claim the remote possibility as almost an established fact. Bluster, nothing but bluster. Par for the course methinks.

elantan

You getting a national tomorrow Shakey and Leanne ?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

This conversation is getting really annoying.
You have nothing to offer related to the issue at hand. You have presented no authoritative report, just non-sequiturs and false assertions based on looking only at the preliminary ground work of what was examined and not the conclusions reached.
I doubt you have actually really read the legal opinion; you may have glanced at it but without taking the effort to understand its structure and reasoning and seen where the various possible scenarios of secession had been examined, what had happened in the past, how they compared with the likely reality.
You asked me a couple of posts back what I thought and my reply was to remark that it was not what I thought but to refer to the expert legal advice. I have also recommended it should be read so that the nuances could be seen. The value of other “opinions” is not that they exist but whether they are based on comparable well researched deductive reasoning. Blathering on with party slogans and wishful thinking does not cut it I’m afraid.
Get it into your head, Shakey that whether the UK would be the Continuator State is not in any way a matter for the SNP to negotiate, it is a result of how the international community reacts to the rUK and whether it believes it remains as the de facto heir to the agreements made previously by the UK.
You are basing your opinion on false hopes and false (in fact absent) logic, trying to substitute what may be remote possibilities for what is actually likely to happen and claim the remote possibility as almost an established fact. Bluster, nothing but bluster. Par for the course methinks.

It's getting annoying because you can't refute it. Either the 1707 Union negated both England and Scotland as separate states in law, or it didn't. Just because England/rUK is bigger, doesn't give automatic precedence in international law. It was bigger in 1707 too.

To be brutally honest I don't really care what Scotland ends up as or not in international law. But from posting here over the last few years it's become obvious that there's some sort of mindset going on whereby if Scotland votes to leave that all debt will be heaped upon forthwith from midnight after the vote, treaties and EU membership negated instantly. But, also, Scotland will get sod all in the way of UK assets because Westminster says so.

That's not the way it's going to play out should it ever happen. It's well past time that you disabused yourself of that particular notion. If Scotland leaves, she will take a fair share of the debt. But will be looking for compensation in return for 300 odd years of shared UK assets.

So, negotiations and unknown fiscal black holes depending on said negotiations. Mean predictions of an independent Scotland's accounts, are pretty much guesswork all round.

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

You getting a national tomorrow Shakey and Leanne ?

I subscribe anyway. But can you feel it all starting to ramp up again already ?