Forum menu
No junky - its not a scribble, its a bloody fair question, you've asserted that there's some magical and mythical difference between a 'country' wanting independence from the kingdom/state/sovereign nation of which it has been politically embedded for several hundred years, and a 'region' demanding the same
I don't see it!
If the ancient Kingdoms of Wessex, Northumbria & Kernow don't have the right to leave the political union, why should Scotland? (and of course as we've already discussed without any adequate answer, why shouldn't the islands have the right to F' off and take their huge oil and fishing rights with them)
If the ancient Kingdoms of Wessex, Northumbria & Kernow don't have the right to leave the political union, why should Scotland?
It's a fair question, I think it came about a few thousand posts ago too, like most of the discussions it is hard to keep track 🙂
I have said there is a difference between a nation state that is part of a union wishing to have independence from the union and a region wishing to have independence from a country. Regions are different from countries and I really dont believe a word you say and i dont believe you believe much of what you say - though of course you no longer say that in your profile now you are no longer Zulu *
I also find it unlikely that you require an explanation of the difference between states that used to exist and no longer do with ones that still exist.
you are many things but stupid is not one of them.
There is no engaging in debate with you but you love to try and act all sincere and wounded or whatever you think is required to get a response. I will happily keep giving long winded explanations of why I wont engage, why your question is silly and why i dont believe you are confused but without actually answering you 😉
* I’m me, and no-one else but me, my comments do not reflect on anyone but me, and are not the opinion of my employer, my family and friends, and more often than not even my own opinion
http://singletrackworld.com/members/zulu-eleven/profile
** I wont I will get bored soon
All this talk about magic and myths Ninfan are you trying to prove that Scotland and Scots do not exist.Maybe these people can help you out
[url= https://www.mebyonkernow.org/ ]Link [/url] 😉
Regions are different from countries
Why?
I mean really - why? The concept of nationhood is really just nominal. That's why there are so many disputes about sovereignty all voe rthe world.
molgrips - Member
...I mean really - why? The concept of nationhood is really just nominal...
I think even the so called "Proud Scots" would argue with you on that.
the difference between [u]states that used to exist[/u] and no longer do with ones that still exist.
Its an interesting point you make:
[i]i) 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
iii) That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be Represented by one and the same Parliament to be stiled the Parliament of Great Britain
[/i]
So, like you say, states that used to exist and no longer do - like Scotland - don't have a right to call themselves a country or leave the union - I'm glad we're now both in agreement!
😀
Nicely played but i am still fairly sure it still exists as a country despite what that - i assume it is the act of union- said.
Own laws being an obvious one and also - and I am sure this will appeal to you - passing the tebbit cricket test 😛
ninfan - MemberIf the ancient Kingdoms of Wessex, Northumbria & Kernow don't have the right to leave the political union, why should Scotland?
And who says they don't?
If they can get a majority of the locals to agree to leave the UK, they can piss off any time they like.
On Question Time there was the expected "why can't we have a referendum about whether Scotland is allowed to stay ?".
Ditto.
And who says they don't?
Anybody with any sense.
Scotland doesn't have a right to leave the Union either. The UK parliament has to allow them to leave. Likewise those other ancient Kingdoms. If Scotland had a right to unilaterally declare independence it would have tried to do so decades ago. That's why the Scots where so unhappy when Mrs Thatcher broker her (non) promise, they weren't given permission to consider leaving.
Scotland doesn't have a right to leave the Union either.
You are completely right - but that just underlines why Scotland has to leave. A union where one party isn't free to leave isn't exactly a union of equals.
It pretty much sums up the No campaign, though. There's no positive case being made for why Scotland should want to stay in the Union, apart from the most vague "better together" waffle. It's all about how the rUK will make things harder for an independent Scotland.
@ben - we are better together as we are a larger country so enjoy economies of scale in so many areas. We have guaranteed freedom of movement and employment and many close business links. Pointing out that Scotland would be worse off as a small independent nation and that the actual shape of that nation organisationally, its currency, its finances and it's relationships with its neighbours isn't actually known or knowable isn't negative campaigning, its pointing out a glaring truth.
My bank account and 50% of my pension is managed and administered in Scotland (Livingstone and Edinburgh). If there is a yes vote I'll move the lot as there no clarity as to the regulatory framework or what protections I may have, I imagine the existing providers will offer me a UK managed alternative rather than loose the business. Why take the risk that it will "all be worked out" sometime in the future. If you want to see that as a negative reason campaigning then so be it. Being part of the Union is good for Scottish businesses.
Being part of the Union is good for Scottish businesses.
Not if the Union takes us out of the EU, it isn't.
We have guaranteed freedom of movement and employment and many close business links
Which we already have with Ireland, France, Germany and other EU countries. An independent Scotland would be in the same position. Again, the only thing risking that would be for the UK or rUK to leave the EU.
@ben fair enough on the EU point but I imagine others would not agree. You'd rather be in the EU with the euro than outside the EU, as you know I think that's actually your choice ?
I think most Scots would value the ability to work South of the border above being able to work in France/Germany etc. I appreciate the likelihood of Scots not being granted the right to freely live and work in the UK is negligable but you never know. I do anticipate a material grass roots backlash in the event of a Yes vote.
The UK parliament has to allow them to leave.
I agree that would be the commonly argued and held belief - however there we get into an interesting discussion on the true extent of parliamentary supremacy, and whether a parliament can ever bind its successors, which is an ongoing constitutional dialogue that has never been successfully 100% put to bed - There's certainly a strong school of thought within the law that some of the provisions of the Acts of Union of 1707 are so fundamental that they lie beyond Parliament's power to legislate.
Not if the Union takes us out of the EU, it isn't.
Ah, And since when has anyone suggested abandoning EFTA or the EEA - implying that the UK leaving the EU would end free trade could best be described as [i]project fear[/i], non?
Sorry to go back a bit but I had to go and do some work:
Scotland is a country so asking how to divide a country is a different questions all together- no one is suggesting breaking down a country here - its moving the goalposts to get us to discuss a similar but not identical area
We all accept countries have rights that areas within a country dont
It is isn't moving the goalposts. Scotland as a country is a fairly recent notion. Until 13th Century the Lords of the Isles were effectively independent and their allegience was to Norway. It was only in the 15th Century that they were broken (If my memory serves, that was for trying to get the English to assist them in the overthrow of the Scots King). Is that irony?
Arguably, the country of Scotland within its current boundary existed for less time as a single nation than it has done within the Union.
So the question of how far back or how small you go is valid as we're rewinding the clock - do we go back to 18th Century boundaries, or 15th Century or 12th Century?
implying that the UK leaving the EU would end free trade could best be described as project fear, non?
As would implying that Scotland leaving the Union would end free trade 😀
There's certainly a strong school of thought within the law that some of the provisions of the Acts of Union of 1707 are so fundamental that they lie beyond Parliament's power to legislate.
Winnie Ewing's words when she opened the Scottish Parliament (or, to be more accurate, reopened) were a nod in that direction.
Arguably, the country of Scotland within its current boundary existed for less time as a single nation than it has done within the Union.
Use that argument, and the map of Europe would look very, very different.
The borders of a country are where everyone agrees the borders are. Not where they were in the 12th Century or where they have been for the longest time.
The concept of the Islands gaining independence from Scotland has been ridiculed on here. There is no difference between 20,000 islanders deciding they want independence from Scotland and 5M Scots deciding they want independence from the UK.The borders of a country are where everyone agrees the borders are.
By your argument, the 62M people of the UK agree what the boundary of the UK is so we shouldn't fragment that. Because that's where the borders are now.
The concept of the Islands gaining independence from Scotland has been ridiculed on here
It's ridiculed because it's a spoiling tactic by Tavish Scott, the Lib Dem MP, which has minimal local support. nevertheless, if the people of Shetland want independence and can muster a referendum to say so, fine with me.
[quote=bencooper ]
Scotland doesn't have a right to leave the Union either.
You are completely right - but that just underlines why Scotland has to leave. A union where one party isn't free to leave isn't exactly a union of equals.
Are you suggesting that England has the right to leave the union?
And what if Borders / D&G clearly votes No within an overall Yes vote? Is that a referendum to split from Scotland and remain with rUK?if the people of Shetland want independence and can muster a referendum to say so, fine with me.
if the people of Shetland want independence and can muster a referendum to say so, fine with me.
i) Does the referendum have to be Scotland wide or just Shetlands wide?
ii) What proportion of their 'natural resources' do they get to keep?
[img] 
[/img]
Are you suggesting that England has the right to leave the union?
England has far more MPs at Westminster than Scotland, so yes - if English MPs decided that England should leave the Union, Scotland would not be able to stop it if we wanted to. The contrary is not true.
@ben - I think we have to give you that last point. Sadly, begrudgingly 😥
It is interesting as in my mind without any doubt an independent England would be far richer than is the UK now. I would not be for it all but its worth noting. My argument for England to remain in the UK is largely emotive which in my view is exactly the same as the Yes/No referendum.
Ah, so the issue is simply that you're smaller and you're complaining that means you're not equal?
And what if Borders / D&G clearly votes No within an overall Yes vote? Is that a referendum to split from Scotland and remain with rUK?
By that logic, Scotland should already be independent from the UK.
Anyway, no - the referendum is being held on a country-wide basis. Scotland is the country unit here.
That would be in the same way that the UK elections you don't like the result of are held on a country-wide basis? It seems you're quite happy with a minority not getting the result they want as long as you're not part of that minority.
bencooper - Member
Being part of the Union is good for Scottish businesses.Not if the Union takes us out of the EU, it isn't.
We have guaranteed freedom of movement and employment and many close business links
Which we already have with Ireland, France, Germany and other EU countries. An independent Scotland would be in the same position. Again, the only thing risking that would be for the UK or rUK to leave the EU.
So over the course of this thread, we've gone from iScotland would likely leave the EU, to no-one knows what would happen as it's unprecedented, to our new position of definitely will remain in the EU with no doubt whatsoever.
Care to show me a copy of this new contract Ben?
And you pretend not to be an acolyte of Salmond...
It seems you're quite happy with a minority not getting the result they want as long as you're not part of that minority.
I'm happy* not getting the result I want, as long as the process is fair and democratic. At the moment, with the way Westminster is set up, the process is not fair and democratic.
As I've said before, if the UK introduced a federal system of government with proportional representation, I'd lose almost all interest in Scottish independence.
*for a given value of happy 😉
[quote=bencooper ]At the moment, with the way Westminster is set up, the process is not fair and democratic.
Are we back onto the House of Lords thing again?
if the UK introduced a federal system of government
How would that be different from what you've got in place already? (bearing in mind here that you don't use many of the powers available, like setting different tax levels!)
proportional representation,
We had a referendum on that, and it was roundly rejected - including in Scotland, remember?
I appreciate the likelihood of Scots not being granted the right to freely live and work in the UK is negligable
'Specially when they're all UK citizens. It's going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.
[quote=ninfan ]
if the UK introduced a federal system of government
How would that be different from what you've got in place already?
Apparently because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution. It seems Ben et al would actually be happy with just a constitutional change which made no practical difference whatsoever.
because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution.
Ah, project fear again!
'Specially when they're all UK citizens. It's going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.
err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?
jambalaya - Member'Specially when they're all UK citizens. It's going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.
err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?
In your opinion, is that likely to happen? No, I didn't think so either.
Probably more likely than devolved powers being removed in the event of a No vote. The prospect of which is the only reason Ben is voting Yes.
err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?
They're not the easiest things to enforce, would be unprecedented in UK law, and would put a fair number of rUK citizens in a tricky position...and would also have some unintended consequences when it came to the integration of immigrants (cf Turks in Germany)...and would involve stripping citizens of UK citizenship, which has been a pretty rare thing in the UK...I think you might run into some difficulties with the Anglo-Irish Agreement but I might be wrong...but "err" you could give it a try...
err pass a law that says you cannot have dual citizenship ?
I already have dual citizenship 🙂
Probably more likely than devolved powers being removed in the event of a No vote. The prospect of which is the only reason Ben is voting Yes.
Devolution isn't a federal system - it's a bodge on top of a first-past-the-post system. I assume - perhaps optimistically - that if the UK had a properly accountable democratic system of government then the other stuff I want* would happen as well.
*see the Green party manifesto for a list.
Specially when they're all UK citizens. It's going to be interesting to see how rUK would propose to strip Scottish-resident UK citizens of their citizenship.
Hey you poo pooed me whn I said this about the EU 😈
FWIW - as it affects me - rUK has said there response is dependent on iS response but the worst must be an Ireland type scenario
the worst would be me having to choose to naturalise here - i assume after 35 years they might just let me.
Brilliant we are now discussing fantastical what if scenarios about countries and regions and what of re a vote.
because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution
What do you mean purely theoretical - its a real power they can withdraw it.....can i say straw man pretty please 😉
[quote=bencooper ]Devolution isn't a federal system
According to the sources I checked the difference is that the central government can withdraw the devolved powers, so clearly given you're in favour of one but not the other that's the bit you're bothered about.
[quote=Junkyard ]What do you mean purely theoretical - its a real power they can withdraw it.....can i say straw man pretty please
Hang on, I saw a good response to that recently - oh here we go:
Brilliant we are now discussing fantastical what if scenarios