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

Shakethedisease

Arklight wrote: »

Oh jeez. Again?

Scotland ceased to be a country after its absorption by England. Paradoxically, so did England. The new country that was created was called the United Kingdom.

It could also have been called Steve.

If, 300 years later, Scotland is declared as politically separate from Steve, Steve is still called Steve.

Try and understand (really do your best Shakey, you silly seditionist sausage) that the name of a country doesn't actually have to be a grammatically accurate representation of what it is.

You'll be surprised to find, for example, that Turkey isn't actually a bird, and New Zealand, is actually millions of years old. As old as this stupid discussion in other words.

You're right about the oil though. Steve has no chance of keeping that. :money:

The UK is a state consisting of 4 countries. It's an oddity in the modern world. The state was first brought into being in terms of the joining of parliaments in 1707. Scotland wasn't absorbed, and neither was England. We simply joined parliaments, the crown already having been joined by James I/V earlier.

The joining of parliaments into one is that which many Scots now wish to see reversed asap ( thank you Theresa,Boris and Brexit ).. Meantime you and others can dance on the head of pin as much as you wish re countries/nations and states.. the fact is, half of Scotland doesn't want to be a player in the joined parliament anymore. We'd like our own back please with the full powers any other normal ordinary country/nation takes for granted.

Scottish independence is as simple as that. MP's in Holyrood instead of Westminster. Job done and no need for posts about Steve or any other patent meaningless nonsense.

Shakethedisease

westernpromise wrote: »

Your post is such total gibberish that it is not worth a response except to note the typically poor quality of thought that characterises the nationalist.

Rep of Ireland 1922. They broke away from Westminster and even got their own sea borders too ! Look it up.


Scotland gets the oil/gas/tidal and any other resources ( fishing grounds) in its own territorial waters after independence. Time for those revenues to head to Edinburgh. You've been telling us Scots for years it's worth b****r all and running out anyway so you'll not miss it.

Arklight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The UK is a state consisting of 4 countries. It's an oddity in the modern world. The state was first brought into being in terms of the joining of parliaments in 1707. Scotland wasn't absorbed, and neither was England. We simply joined parliaments, the crown already having been joined by James I/V earlier.

The joining of parliaments into one is that which many Scots now wish to see reversed asap ( thank you Theresa,Boris and Brexit ).. Meantime you and others can dance on the head of pin as much as you wish re countries/nations and states.. the fact is, half of Scotland doesn't want to be a player in the joined parliament anymore. We'd like our own back please with the full powers any other normal ordinary country/nation takes for granted.

Scottish independence is as simple as that. MP's in Holyrood instead of Westminster. Job done and no need for posts about Steve or any other patent meaningless nonsense.

I know that's what you believe. It's just that as has been pointed out to you, many many times, what you believe has no basis in law, precedent, statute, UN recognition, or international treaty obligations.

Your (perhaps intentional) confusion over the definitions of states and countries, appears to be your main failing here.

Shakethedisease

Arklight wrote: »

I know that's what you believe. It's just that as has been pointed out to you, many many times, what you believe has no basis in law, precedent, statute, UN recognition, or international treaty obligations.

Your (perhaps intentional) confusion over the definitions of states and countries, appears to be your main failing here.

No I'm afraid it's you that's confused and as previous, dancing on heads of pins over definitions.

Scotland gains independence when Scotland votes for it and Scotlands elected representatives leave Westminster, in effect reversing 1707. Neither Scotland nor England ceased being in 1707, the border remained and Scotland retained it's own legal/education systems and other things later like NHS and policing have always been completely separate.

Scotland joined a political union with England in Westminster in 1707. It's this political union that many in Scotland now want to leave. If you think the rUK can still claim any sort of sovereignty or pass any legisilation whatsoever when Scotlands elected representatives have left Westminster then I'm afraid you're very much mistaken. The same applies to those future precendents, statutes, or international treaty obligations you're talking about. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution.

It also won't matter what you chose to think of Scotland as either ( nation/country or state ). Once Scottish MP's leave Westminster that's that. Many, many other countries have left the 'UK state' seceded or gained independence from, especially in the last 100 years. I don't think many of them were fretting over precedent, statutes or international laws at the time of gaining their independence do you ? Why should Scotland be any different ?

westernpromise

Many, many other countries have left the 'UK state' seceded or gained independence from, especially in the last 100 years.

Go on then. List some of the "many, many" countries that have left the UK.

I count one, and the UK remained the UK.

Arklight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No I'm afraid it's you that's confused and as previous, dancing on heads of pins over definitions.

Scotland gains independence when Scotland votes for it and Scotlands elected representatives leave Westminster, in effect reversing 1707. Neither Scotland nor England ceased being in 1707, the border remained and Scotland retained it's own legal/education systems and other things later like NHS and policing have always been completely separate.

Scotland joined a political union with England in Westminster in 1707. It's this political union that many in Scotland now want to leave. If you think the rUK can still claim any sort of sovereignty or pass any legisilation whatsoever when Scotlands elected representatives have left Westminster then I'm afraid you're very much mistaken. The same applies to those future precendents, statutes, or international treaty obligations you're talking about. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution.

It also won't matter what you chose to think of Scotland as either ( nation/country or state ). Once Scottish MP's leave Westminster that's that. Many, many other countries have left the 'UK state' seceded or gained independence from, especially in the last 100 years. I don't think many of them were fretting over precedent, statutes or international laws at the time of gaining their independence do you ? Why should Scotland be any different ?

I'm simply not arguing with you about this anymore.

You're just wrong.

Scotland's removal of statehood may be neither just nor fair but it is what happened.

Shakethedisease

westernpromise wrote: »

Many, many other countries have left the 'UK state' seceded or gained independence from, especially in the last 100 years.

Go on then. List some of the "many, many" countries that have left the UK.

I count one, and the UK remained the UK.

Sure. I thought you might be able to use Google yourself though. Didn't realise you needed spoon fed. You can look up the 62 yourself, they're all listed on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The below is from the Guiness Book of World Records. The UK holds the world record for the most amount of countries going independent from it.

Before 1914, the UK exercised authority over one fifth of the world's entire population with the British Empire made up of 88 million subjects. In 1939, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand were the first to be given independence within the Commonwealth. Since then a total of 62 countries have gained independence from the United Kingdom. This is followed by France with 28, Spain with 17, The Soviet Union with 16, Portugal with 7 and the USA with 5.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-countries-to-have-gained-independence-from-the-same-country

Shakethedisease

Arklight wrote: »

I'm simply not arguing with you about this anymore.

You're just wrong.

Scotland's removal of statehood may be neither just nor fair but it is what happened.

No you were saying Scotland was 'absorbed'. You failed to show any evidence to back up your claim and are now imo trying to shut down the 'argument' because you actually can't.

Scotland did indeed give up being a sovereign nation when it joined parliaments with England in 1707. But you are trying to argue the toss that this current state of affairs cannot be reversed because 'something something precedent, statute something something international law' ? I'm simply pointing out to you that the current state of affairs will be reversed and Scotland a sovereign nation again ( and I'm saying that as a fact not with the Corries or Braveheart on in the background ).. as soon as Scotland votes to remove it's MP's from Westminster.

In other words what you or anyone else choose to call or think of Scotland as now, be it 'absorbed', a 'nation', a 'country' a 'region of the UK' or whatever else including Steve...is completely irrelevant after that vote. Scotland will just be a nation/country like any other in the world, with it's own govt and parliament ( and the oil fields ).

antrobus

Arklight wrote: »

Probably. Though as far as I can see, Scots already get a fair amount of Scottish oil revenue back through the extremely unequal allocation of government spending due to the Barnett Formula.

It seems many Nats think they are going to get all the Barnett windfall plus extra again in oil revenue, ignoring the fact Barnett already gives them a large chunk of the oil.

It's actually not down to the Barnett Formula but, never mind Scotland does receive an annual subsidy of some £8 billion plus a year from mainly English taxpayers. That will obviously cease on independence,

Total UK North Sea oil revenues were £1.2 billion for 2017-18. They were even negative in 2015-16. Irrespective of what share of revenues any hypothetically independent Scotland believes it can negotiate, it's unlikely to be enough to cover the loss of the subsidy unless the price of Brent Crude is well north of a $100 a barrel. It's currently about $70.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-2017-18/pages/4/

This is the reason why any hypothetically independent Scotland will have to impose austerity plus from the get go, in order to get the fiscal deficit down to something sustainable. Independence would be very painful for the Scots, but wonderful for the rest of us. That £8 billion plus would be enough to sort out the NHS and social care.

That's why I'm rather disappointed at the lack of enthusiasm for independence north of the wall. And the lack of any real action from the SNP.

westernpromise

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sure. I thought you might be able to use Google yourself though. Didn't realise you needed spoon fed. You can look up the 62 yourself, they're all listed on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The below is from the Guiness Book of World Records. The UK holds the world record for the most amount of countries going independent from it.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-countries-to-have-gained-independence-from-the-same-country

You do not understand the Wikipedia article you have cited. It lists countries previously ruled by the United Kingdom, not countries that were members of the United Kingdom. There are four. The definition of one changed in 1922 when what is now Eire departed from the Irish component.

I suspected that you did not understand what you were saying, and you have demonstrated as much. You don't understand the difference between national and international waters. You don't understand the international treaties governing mineral finds in international waters. And now it transpires that you don't in fact understand what the UK is.

So let's take the one instance that exists of a country that was a part of the UK but that no longer is, i.e. the Republic of Ireland. What treaties were rendered null and void by this change in the composition of the UK? What treaties were set aside and had to be renegotiated because the definition of the UK - but not its existence - had changed?

I count zero. Go ahead and entertain us with your count.