Forum menu
Lets defer to the written evidence:
[i]In the event of independence, Scotland would be a new state, and the rest of the
United Kingdom (“rUK”) would be the continuator state. I understand that Scottish
Ministers sometimes seek to resist this, but they have yet to put forward any
convincing legal argument to challenge it. As the continuator state, the public
institutions of the UK would, as a matter of law, automatically become the
institutions of the rUK: thus the UK Parliament would become the Parliament of
the rUK and the UK Supreme Court would become the Supreme Court of the
rUK. In contrast, the assets and liabilities of the UK would fall to be apportioned
equitably between an independent Scotland and the rUK. Again, this is a matter
of law. What “equitably” means depends on the nature of the asset.
Fixed assets belonging to the UK and located in Scotland would become the
property of the new Scottish state (this includes Government buildings in
Scotland and, of course, the Scottish Parliament). No compensation would be
due to the rUK or to rUK taxpayers. (Likewise, fixed assets in the rest of the UK
would become the property of the rUK.) Moveable assets and liabilities would be
apportioned most likely on the basis of share of population but possibly in some
instances on the basis of share of GDP. The precise apportionment of such
assets and liabilities would be a matter of negotiation.
Overseas assets, including the UK’s Embassies etc, would become the property
of the continuator state: the rUK. As the UK Government correctly explained in its
Scotland Analysis paper on EU and International Issues (January 2014), “an
independent Scottish state would not be entitled by right to any UK diplomatic
premises, equipment or staff”. This is because bodies that support the UK now
would continue to operate on behalf of the rUK in the event of Scottish
independence. Again, I stress that this is a matter of law. The relevant legal
position was fully and authoritatively set out in an opinion co-authored by
Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle, which was published in its entirety
by the UK Government in its first Scotland Analysis paper in February 2013.
Thus the statement quoted above from p.211 of the White Paper is legally
inaccurate. [/i]
Seems pretty clear that the 'Scotlands future' white paper is just plain wrong!
You mean they did a politically motivated piece.Amazingn politicians doing politically motivated "facts". I am stunned. I wonder if i can find anything from the UK doing the same
What do you think?
FWIW I would imagine, on that point, what they [ iS /scottish white paper] say is incorrect
Then again they probably hope, like rUK does over debt, that they can negotiate where the law is clear 😉
Even the BOD doesn't come out with such BS - the technical default is obvious hence the BOD is completely clear - "On Independence, Scotland will accept a fair share of existing UK debt."
So time to wrap up the crap. Scotland cannot under any circumstances walk away. Of course the freedom of speech allows those who want to continue to show their own ignorance to carry on.......for he rest, move on to real issues and facts.
Seems pretty clear that the 'Scotlands future' white paper is just plain wrong!
Pretty obvious even on the day of publication that it was simple wrong or deliberately misleading in many areas including the most substantial. But even the BoD doesn't get the debt issue wrong!
Have we covered iScotland keeping the national lottery? Salmond seems to think that they will. Is there anything that iScotland won't be keeping apart from nuclear weapons and a share of the national debt. In iScotland the oil will never run out and based on what I have heard from the yes campaign it would seem that they are never going to run out of blind optimism either.
Bloody hell, we might lose the national lottery.
Well, that's a game changer.
Keep the lottery what a ridiculous. idea.! I mean that would require charging the. same price wherever a ticket is sold, à network of lottery machines and a fair method of sharing lottery funding. That's just impossible.
It would also mean smaller prizes and less lottery funding for charities, the arts etc.It is almost as ridiculous as expecting the UK to act as a lender of last resort to iScotland.
That doesn't necessarily equate to less money spent in Scotland. As it would be a pot for Scotland and not the UK.
Of all the reasons that should enter the decision making process of a yes or no vote. The lottery really should be utterly irrelevant.
I've no doubt politicians will be total pricks and use it for cheap points scoring on both sides though.
I agree with piemonster the lottery is irrelevant.
Well there's gratitude for you - your whole campaign is being financed from a lottery win.
I think it is a Euro lottery win ernie.
So, Ruth Davidson is in favour of a currency union then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27840189
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/jun/ruth-davidson-backs-currency-union
This one? Will have a listen later.
It really doesn't matter how many Scottish politicians/businessmen/AN Other favours currency union, its essentially down to the UK electorate and their politicians post Scots Independence. The UK holds all the cards on this particular issue & no party will be going into a general election saying to the electorate "vote for us and we'll use your money to bail out the Scots if they drop a clanger".
I think it is a Euro lottery win ernie.
Oh was it - the UK national lottery not good enough for them ?
Presumably an independent Scotland will be deemed to have left the EuroMillions Zone and will have to apply for membership ? I hope they're sent to the back of the queue . Not that I do the lottery, which is clearly a mug's game.
Spitting the dummy ernie 🙄
What, are you denying that an independent Scotland will have to apply to be included into EuroMillions Zone ?
I expect that you probably also think that an independent Scotland will automatically qualify for the Eurovision Song Contest don't you ? I suspect that Scotland won't even be allowed to televise the Eurovision Song Contest until all the formalities have been completely. Not that I reckon you stand any chance of winning it anyway. It's been 45 years since Lulu won it.
What is the "euromillions zone"? As far as I know the euromillions is a commercial enterprise run by a number of lottery companys.
What is the "euromillions zone"?
This is the Euromillions Zone :
The blue countries are the original members and the red ones are the ones which joined later.
I can see that this is another consequence of voting Yes that you haven't thought about. Sterling, NATO, the EU, the BBC, Euromillions Zone, Eurovision, it's all starting to stack up.
I read the wiki article and saw the map of participating countries. There is no mention of membership requirements that I can see.
[quote=fasternotfatter ]Is there anything that iScotland won't be keeping apart from nuclear weapons and a share of the national debt.
They won't be keeping governments formed by parties they didn't vote for, sitting in a parliament 100s of miles away.
(this doesn't apply to Shetland, obviously)
There is no mention of membership requirements that I can see.
All new participating countries must meet the Euromillions Convergence Criteria (ECC). According to the Euromillions President it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the Euromillions Zone. You haven't even established your own currency and Westminster says it won't permit Scotland to use the pound, so how would prizes be paid ?
But ernie, what about all those Scottish people who are currently Euromillions members - surely Euromillions can't just kick them out?
Ok I fell for that one 😳
Have we covered iScotland keeping the national lottery? Salmond seems to think that they will.
It would be better to walk away from the lottery entirely.
[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-keener-than-english-to-keep-trident-on-clyde-1-3446204 ]The Scotsman Trolls Bencooper[/url]
(Faslane content)
And the [url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/blow-for-snp-after-new-poll-reveals-support-for-trident.24514174 ]Heralds[/url] take on it.
The Lottery has been a huge success. It would make sense for Scotland to continue with euro-millions. I don't think with a 5m population a Scottish National Lottery makes sense though, so either Scotland negotiates an ability to buy UK tickets (currently illegal as they can only be sold in the UK so if Scotland leaves the rules/law will need to be changed). The Wier's lottery win has provided virtually all SNP's funding for their yes campaign.
Trident. I know there are those here that wish the weapons be removed from Scotland but I cannot help but think that the SNPs position is more political than conscientious, Trident is very British and the SNP think there is political and negotiating capital in the topic (ie those nasty English put their dangerous weapons in our country). The base is somewhat symbolic as the submarines and their weapons are generally at sea
I don't know if anyone noticed that the Scottish Government outlined their draft interim constitution yesterday? Its a pearler:
24. [b]Incorporation of European law: [/b](1) Directly effective EU law forms part of Scots law.
(2) Scots law is of no effect so far as it is inconsistent with EU law.
(3) In this section—
(a) “EU law” means—
(i) all those rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to
time created or arising by or under the EU Treaties, and
(ii) all those remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or
under those Treaties,
(b) EU law is directly effective if, in accordance with the EU Treaties, it is to be
given legal effect or used in Scotland without further enactment.
How's about that for independence? 😆
what a bunch of F'ing mugs!
piemonster - MemberThe Scotsman Trolls Bencooper
(Faslane content)
That's a brilliant bit of Scotsman writing. "40% of Scots want to keep Trident" becomes "Scots keener than English to keep Trident".
Thought you'd like it
Edited following the edit
I thought this thread had died a happy death 😉
All that story shows is that the lie that thousands of jobs depend on Trident has some people worried. People don't want Trident because they like nukes, they want it because they've been told (wrongly) that tens of thousands of jobs depend on it.
How's about that for independence?
How's that much different from what the UK is currently signed up to with the EU?
It's independence because, in the future, Scotland could decide to change it's constitution and leave the EU if it wanted. Independence is being free to do what you want, even if what you want is to agree to be part of a larger union.
And of course this is only a first draft of the constitution.
"40% of Scots want to keep Trident" becomes "Scots keener than English to keep Trident".
Since it goes on to say that only 37% want rid, doesn't that actually become "Scots keener to keep Trident than get rid of it"
How's that much different from what the UK is currently signed up to with the EU?
Parliament remains supreme and is free to derogate from EU law provided it makes its intention sufficiently clear. eg. prisoner voting. The recent HS2 judgement confirmed that EU law is also subservient to UK constitutional and common law
The Scottish constitution would make all Scottish law subservient to EU law
But we'd still be able to alter the constitution later and change that if we wanted. So the Scottish parliament would still remain supreme.
The Scottish constitution would make all Scottish law subservient to EU law
Already is.
In fact it'd be better. at the moment EU law is developed in consultation with member states, and Scotland doesn't have a say apart from as a part of the UK. After independence we'd have our own voice in the development of EU law.
The UK is actually in a better position vs EU law than will iS be as iS will not have all the opt outs. Fundamentally though EU law overrules UK law too, that's UKIPs point.
How about the published policy that an iS will keep the Queen as head of state - thoughts gentlemen ?
It's independence because, in the future, Scotland could decide to change it's constitution and leave the EU if it wanted
You'd have to join the EU first, to be able to leave it.
What was the latest, official line on the subject?
The UK is actually in a better position vs EU law than will iS be as iS will not have all the opt outs.
The UK might be, Scotland at the moment is not as our needs are overruled by the rest of the UK.
How about the published policy that an iS will keep the Queen as head of state - thoughts gentlemen ?
Meh, not fussed. It's the union of parliaments that we want to dissolve, not the union of the crowns.
EU law overrules UK law too
Nope we can leave and they cannot stop that Parliament is sovereign.
Its rules may over rule our rules but only because we agreed to play by their rules. We can withdraw this consent and they can do nothing about this.
I liked this from the sctosman - its dangerously on topic so forgive me
In England and Wales, 38 per cent of those questioned said if Scotland left the UK it should “definitely be allowed” to continue to use the pound, while 31 per cent believed it should “probably be allowed” to do so.
So rUK want them to have the pound as well.
AS has been correct all along they will share the asset 😛
continue to use
Which is of course not the same as currency union ...
Nope we can leave and they cannot stop that Parliament is sovereign.
Its rules may over rule our rules but only because we agreed to play by their rules. We can withdraw this consent and they can do nothing about this.
Which is exactly the same position as iS or will be if/when they join the EU. My point was that the iS constitution was being criticized above for placing EU law above iS, what I was saying is that just the same position as the UK is in now and will be post independence.
y point was that the iS constitution was being criticized above for placing EU law above iS, what I was saying is that just the same position as the UK is in now and will be post independence.
No, its not
EU law does not overrule UK constitutional law
Under the Scottish Constitution, EU law overrides all.
I liked this from the sctosman - its dangerously on topic so forgive meIn England and Wales, 38 per cent of those questioned said if Scotland left the UK it should “definitely be allowed” to continue to use the pound, while 31 per cent believed it should “probably be allowed” to do so.
So rUK want them to have the pound as well.
AS has been correct all along they will share the asset
Junkyard your figures are out of date. The article states that the survey was from 2013. This article [url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/non-scots-against-independence-currency-union-idea-1-3372879 ]LINK[/url] shows that 53% of people in the rest of the UK are against a currency union and the data is from a poll in April 2014.
So AS is still wrong about a currency union and nats such as yourself should check your facts.
Is Junkyard a nat? I thought he was equally pointing out political fibbing on both sides 😉
He needs to come out of the closet Ben.
EU law does not overrule UK constitutional law
@ninfan in practice it does independent of the argument made in your link.
Here's one from the party everyone loves to hate, 75% they say ...
[url= http://www.ukip.org/the_truth_is_out_at_least_75_of_our_laws_are_made_by_eu_institutions_says_senior_european_commissioner_viviane_reding ]Laws made in Brussels[/url]
The fact that the majority of Scots surveyed indicated a preference for keeping the £, is clear testament to what the answer to poll should be. To argue in the way that AS does, is counter-intuitive as well as poorly targeted.
I thought he was equally pointing out political fibbing on both sides
Yet more of the nationalist lies 😉
we did the 75% and the UK H of C report clearly states that figure is incorrect and gives a range 55% was the upper limit iirc.
Also Radio 4 More or Less did it as well and she is at best confusing in what she means.
It is amusing how UKIP hate the EU but are happy to usean unlected beuricrat as an authority when it agrees with them and ignore the sovereign and elected UK parliament report which disagrees with them
Bloody foreigners coming over here [s]stealing [/s]making up our stats eh
THM AS is trying to win votes not loose them. If this is his goal then his approach is the correct one. He is not the first nor the last politician to fib in the campaign.
Moving slightly along, I always thought that a constitution was about fundamentals, e.g. right to life, right to a fair trial, etc. I don't see a right to a free university education or no to nuclear as fundamentals. They are political arguments and the attempt to drive them through is an attempt by the current Scottish Government to set limit what future governments want to do. Look at the ECHR (convention not court) as to human rights.
Moving slightly along, I always thought that a constitution was about fundamentals
But that view is, in itself, a political position. Some people want a bells-and-whistles constitution, some do not. That's why there's a consultation on it.
But we'd still be able to alter the constitution later and change that if we wanted. So the Scottish parliament would still remain supreme.
It depends how the Constitution is amendable.
I thought this thread had died a happy death
You love it....
It was merely resting. I get bored of it from time to time but I'm always back for more !
Scottish voters - so what about the Yes campaign / constitution saying you'll keep the Queen ? I thought you'd be dead against that and turn Balmoral into something more egalitarian, right to roam and all that ?
Another one for Ben
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/17/china-li-keqiang-scottish-independence
Would the Queen be expected to spend her time in Scotland vs rUK based on population ratios, GDP or contribution to the royal purse?
Would the Queen be expected to spend her time in Scotland vs rUK based on population ratios, GDP or contribution to the royal purse?
I know it's a 'shopped up picture but I still chuckled,
[img] 
[/img]
Scottish voters - so what about the Yes campaign / constitution saying you'll keep the Queen ? I thought you'd be dead against that and turn Balmoral into something more egalitarian, right to roam and all that ?
Personally I'm a republican so I'd be happy to get rid of them. However we'd probably end up like Canada, New Zealand, Australia or any other Commonwealth country that still has the queen as nominal head of state.
Would the Queen be expected to spend her time in Scotland vs rUK based on population ratios, GDP or contribution to the royal purse?
Dunno, how does it work with Commonwealth countries? Though since she owns Balmoral she's probably likely to visit more frequently.
Another one for Ben
Ironic, isn't it, just after the 25th anniversary of Tiananmen Square - he's the last person I'd ask about how to run a democracy.
Still add the Chinese and the Pope to the list of united parties Ben.
Some talent that wee eck has after all. He can follow T Bliar into a global role of conciliation after Nicola has grabbed power in 90 odd days or so!
he's the last person I'd ask about how to run a democracy.
I think you'll find that when Mr Li said that he'd like to see a "united United Kingdom" that he wasn't offering advice on how to run a democracy but offering a business proposition.
I'm sure that Mr Li couldn't give a monkeys if the UK disintegrates as long as it doesn't effect business between China and what is at the moment the UK.
Now of course an independent Scotland could tell the Chinese to go and poke their business, reminding them about Tiananmen Square and informing them that an independent Scotland doesn't need them,
but good luck with that.
So the Chinese leader is not a fan of letting people decide whether to be independent. What a real revelation that is.
Lets be honest who would not want to be using the Chinese as evidence of the merits of their argument?
Now what does Kim Jong Un think ?
Dont worry Ben you get the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader and he is way cooler than the Pope
Still add the Chinese and the Pope to the list of united parties Ben.
That'll be the list entitled "People who's opinion I couldn't care less about regarding the referendum"
The referendum is about the people who live in Scotland. It's a decision for us.
I think you'll find that when Mr Li said that he'd like to see a "united United Kingdom" that he wasn't offering advice on how to run a democracy but offering a business proposition.
We're not a business to be bought or sold.
[quote=bencooper ]In fact it'd be better. at the moment EU law is developed in consultation with member states, and Scotland doesn't have a say apart from as a part of the UK. After independence we'd have our own voice in the development of EU law.
😆 I wonder how much say you'll get.
[quote=Junkyard ]AS is trying to win votes not loose them. If this is his goal then his approach is the correct one. He is not the first nor the last politician to fib in the campaign.
Hmm, I reckon he might have been the first and I certainly wouldn't put it past him to be the last 😉
[quote=bencooper ]That'll be the list entitled "People who's opinion I couldn't care less about regarding the referendum"
Ooh, am I on that list? 😛
Though I reckon Mr Li is just worried that an independent Scotland might give Tibet ideas.
I wonder how much say you'll get
How much do we have now?
Though I reckon Mr Li is just worried that an independent Scotland might give Tibet ideas.
Bingo.
aracer, drawing a loose comparison between Scotland and Tibet will only ecourage more fanciful notions in the heads of those that peddle the subjugation of a nation nonsense. Will be hearing of human right abuses on the streets of Inverness next.
See what I mean aracer. Happily I have not seen any self immolations on my travels around Scotland yet.
bencooper - MemberHow much do we have now?
Way more than a country that isn't a member state of the EU! 😀
[quote=bencooper ]How much do we have now?
About as much as you'll have as iS, so admittedly not a lot.
So the Chinese leader is not a fan of letting people decide whether to be independent.
Well I think everybody apart from you already knew that JY. What appears to be news is that China, according to Mr Li, would rather deal with a "united United Kingdom", despite Ben heroically announcing "We're not a business to be bought or sold". Although unfortunately I fear that Ben won't be Scotland's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Scotland has a share of the UK rebate negotiated in the 80's. A rebate that Scotland wishes to retain, however there is no reasonable argument to suggest the rebate should still stand, however the UK has some clout in seeking to retain it. iS would not have such clout.
Could it be argued that Scotlands higher level of GDP from agriculture over rUK actually prevented the UK receiving a higher level of rebate?
aracer, drawing a loose comparison between Scotland and Tibet will only ecourage more fanciful notions in the heads of those that peddle the subjugation of a nation nonsense
Nonsense, I'm sure the Tibetans are keenly following the Scottish independence debate and its outcome to decide whether they should demand independence from China.
Presumably if Scotland fails to vote for independence the Tibetans will give up all simular ambitions and the Chinese will breathe a huge sigh of relief.
I'm sure Alex Salmonmd is a bit like Nelson Mandela when it comes to giving inspiration to oppressed peoples throughout the world.
I wonder whether Tibet will be seeking a post-independence currency union with China?
Will Scotland enter into a currency union with Free Tibet?
Though I reckon Mr Li is just worried that an independent Scotland might give Tibet ideas.
I doubt he is that worried - China will do what it always does with new small UN members and just buy their vote.
We in iYorkshire will not be bought be China. We'll be happy to trade we em though but they'll need to be bloody cheap. We'll not be ripped off y knows. Our share of EU rebate should come in handy, reckon itud not be wasted on rebuild the Barnsley Bitter brewery. If there's going to be a free Tibet then were havin some of that.
Well I think everybody apart from you already knew that JY.
Oh my aching sides ernie. Having china on your side is unlikely to make you correct in a democratic exercise. Were it any other issue none of you, IMHO, would be jumping around excitedly going oh look I mist be correct as China agree with me,
Few [s]Scottish[/s] voters are going to be influenced by the views of the Chinese.
drawing a loose comparison between Scotland and Tibet
I dont think anyone is they are merely suggesting that the leaders view may have more to do with his own domestic matters than any view on the UK union.
Few Scottish voters are going to be influenced by the views of the Chinese.
I think the reality is, that almost nobody in China (including the leadership) really gives a **** about Scottish Independence either.
I'm curious as to what the more hard line yes voters amongst us(you know who you are) are thinking of the increase in chatter about Devo +
I'm guessing "we've heard this before, and we don't trust it to happen, and it's not what we want" to varying degrees?
MY view on devo max - though I doubt I count as hardcore* - is that it will likely be given in order to put the issue to bed once and for all and to get the SNP to shut the **** up. However the vote goes a large number of the population wants to leave the union/more freedom so they will probably attempt to appease them.
Anything else and we will have this rumbling on for another generation and another vote in 1035 ish
I guess the SNP will accept is as a slow drift to their goal.
* my view remains I would vote for almost anything that ensured I never got a Tory govt tbh. I am not a fan of any form of nationalism.
JY it is of course possible an independent Scotland could have a right wing government. If the country becomes as wealthy as AS/SNP claim that's likely. The Tories are seen as the rich southern English by many. Once you strip that out it seems very possible the Scots could elect a centre-right government.