Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Does that count?
If it's got fingers, it can probably count.
Double post
Nick - yu have got this all confused and I may have helped confuse.
There are the ethnic scots. You know those ginger folk with pale blue skin :-). Then there are the people who live in Scotland such as me.
You cannot get a vote based on being an ethnic scot - the qualification for voting must be residence as in all elections.
Nationality in an independent Scotland would be a different issue. the diaspora and folk such as you would be entitled to apply for scots citizenship.
If you want a vote that badly come to Scotland and pay taxes here
since about 10 minutes when ransos decided to make one up.
You really don't have much of an argument if you're reduced to inventing things I never said.
You cannot get a vote based on being an ethnic scot - the qualification for voting must be residence as in all elections.
If you want a vote that badly come to Scotland and pay taxes here
Look, I'm pretty sure I asked for people not to just state the rules. I know what they are, but I feel they're unjust. At the moment I [b]do[/b] pay my taxes - it all goes the the same Exchequer, unfair though you may feel this to be.
And this is not an ordinary election, where you vote for a local MP/MSP/council - it concerns the identity of the country. As such, those people who are, or consider themselves to be, Scottish (and by that I reckon those who'd be entitled to live in the newly independent Scotland) should have a right to vote.
nickf - I have some sympathy with your view but I'm not sure where the line would/could be drawn.
How much Scottish "heritage" would be necessary to guarantee a vote?
Scottish parents but never lived there?
Born in Scotland but not been there for 50 years?
Born English but lived in Scotland for 20 years before returning to England - perhaps temporarily?
Any idea what you think would be fairest?
As such, those people who are, or consider themselves to be, Scottish (and by that I reckon those who'd be entitled to live in the newly independent Scotland)
How are you going to define and administer that?
Its impractical if not impossible to do so.
What about second generation ex pats? third?
😀
I'm not sure if that was a dig at a post of mine in a previous thread. But I'll repeat it here anyway.igm - Member
Next up can we have a learned discussion of the difference between treaties and acts? Surely between two countries it should have been a treaty not an act? Was it legal in the first place?
There were two Act[b]s[/b] of Union. One was passed in the English Parliament, one in the Scottish. They put into place the Treaty of Union drawn up in 1702.
Just like any other international treaty, it can be cancelled by either party by a follow up Act in parliament. The irony is that only through Devolution is there a Scottish parliament able to progress this.
It wasn't actually Rasnos who invented the English Navy it was elzorillo. And thank god he did. If it wasn't for the English Navy we would have taken a hell of a beating in [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars ]The Cod Wars![/url]
Just like any other international treaty, it can be cancelled by either party by a follow up Act in parliament. The irony is that only through Devolution is there a Scottish parliament able to progress this.
This is incorrect, treaties generally trump domestic law , whilst a treaty can contain a provision for withdrawal (the EU treaties do), many don't so for obvious reasons (i.e. what value is a contract if the other party can walk away).
I don't recall the Treaty of Versailles having a "provision for withdrawal" - or was that trumped by invading Poland?
So, what about dissolving the UK? Everyone for themselves?
What would it take to get this ball rolling?
ransos - MemberReally? You want to do this again?
If you like. We could once again have a go at explaining "you can't have it both ways".
The simple fact is that who gets what is a matter of negotiation, not entitlement.
You better get used to this argument. You want the oil, you are gettting RBS.
or was that trumped by invading Poland?
Here is Wiki, saves me providing chapter and verse:
Article 42 of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that "termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention"[2]. Article 56 states that if a treaty does not provide for denunciation, withdrawal, or termination, it is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:
it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.
Any withdrawal under Article 56 requires 12 months' notice.
The Vienna Convention does not apply to all nations; the United States, for instance, is not a Party[3]. This makes it unclear exactly how much notice the U.S. must give when withdrawing from treaties lacking a termination clause. For example, on March 7, 2005, the U.S. announced that it was withdrawing from the Consular Convention’s Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, a treaty that lacks a termination clause.
An English Parliament?wrecker - Member
So, what about dissolving the UK? Everyone for themselves?
What would it take to get this ball rolling?
Druidh - no dig intended. Just stirring.
On a serious point - Scotland has a vibrant and (largely) distinguished financial services industry (excluding Fred, Jimmy Cameron and McCocckup). Leaving aside the yah, boo, sucks of the specifics with RBS, lets consider what options a major financial services company would consider in the run up to independence.
So if, as I have read, the Scottish economy post-independence would be broadly the same scale as Serbia (currently rated BB if google is correct). So you are a large FS company that requires a combination of retail and wholesale funding. You credit rating (assuming they still exist in 2106 or whenever) would be capped by the Scottish ceiling - the same goes for any large 'Scottish' company that funds itself in the markets. What would you do in the run up to independence? Would you want to be domiciled and considered Scottish or part of a larger economic union? Ditto a major oil company with massive capital investment plans etc.
How many PIG multi-nationals would have been able to fund their growth ex-EU without Germany led funding costs (Ok the germans stiched them up with uncompetitive labour costs, but forget that for a moment)?
mcbooYou better get used to this argument. You want the oil, you are gettting RBS.
ditch_jockey - MemberMcBoo - seriously, do you have some kind of cognitive impairment that prevents you from processing the information that is presented to you time and time again? RBS currently has UK government as its majority shareholder as a consequence of the 'bailout' - The money borrowed to buy the shares, and the shares themselves are part of the overall assets and liabilities of the UK as a whole, and the SNP independence proposals accept that Scotland should shoulder a proportion of the liabilities as part of the arrangements.
Conflating the RBS and oil revenues just adds to the obfuscation, whether it's being done deliberately to cause mischief or because people simply can't think clearly.
Comparison with serbia teamhurtmore? - weak. really weak.
How about a comparison with Norway. a more reasonable comparison
OK, WIP on the comparisons but scale hardly going to be Norway either. But it will be interesting to see some proper analysis on the matter. This is a serious point that I doubt has been properly thought through.
Unlikely that the credit rating would be AAA - happy to be corrected though, with proper analysis mind!
But TJ, always good to keep an [b]open-mind[/b] on these things. I have a clear view on self-determination, but unsure on economic case. So rather than start with a closed mind, I will continue to investigate if that's ok.
Please give me the link if you know where the analysis has been done properly.
One start but more heresay than analysis
edit and another
AAA is extremely likely - an oil producing nation with a balanced budget?
Whats Norways rating? Norway being a very good comparator.
thm - any analysis I've read suggests an AA rating for Scotland.
Open-minded, TJ, c'mon. Have a little read first, lots of imponderables and variables to consider first. The bright guys in the Treasury and the City haven't got there yet, so doubt you want to close your mind too early.
This is where things like Oil and RBS liabilities actually do become relevant rather than pawns in a scabby points scoring contest.
AA could well be correct druidh, but I look forward to some further analysis.
I tend to trust druidh on money matters relating to Scottish independence- and the reading and knowledge I have from following this for years.
Well he should contact the Treasury, S&P and Goldman Sachs quickly. Unlike you, they don't know so he could make a fortune!! 😉
This is what TJ does well; pretends he's clued up about something, presents his opinions as solid facts whilst furiously googling.
Mefty - Article 4
Just a thought on this 'Right of a people to self-determination' thing.
If we all agree that the People of Scotland have a right to self-determination, then why can the Peoples of England, Wales and N.I. not have the same right - i.e. whether to vote Scotland out of the Union?
Does seem a little one-sided, Scotland can vote to leave but if they vote to stay the rest of the Union has to accept her?
well mount a campaign and get elected to power then negotiate with the PM for a vote ,simples.
I'd have no problem with that 😛
If we didnt want to leave, however, you'd need to convince the UN that the rest of the UK are one 'people'. Good luck with that.
Wrecker - i hope that is not true because I would like to understand this balanced budget idea a little further. Again it will be an important variable in the credit rating post independence.
The one source I quoted above suggest that Scotland was a negative contributor but points to an Oxford Economics paper that is rather out-of-date. It would good to have some reliable up-to-date data.
To be fair, this
gives the other side. Don't you just love the first comment - imagine if that alx1 was running a company that employed you. Time to move on quickly!!
What i'm referring to is the fact that the People of Scotland have the right of self-determination but the rest of the UK hasn't on this issue - why is this?
Coming into this very late, but Paxman's aggressive questioning was probably partly inspired by the fact that Salmond's wiped the floor with every other Newsnight interviewer he's had recently. Like him or loathe him, he's good at that stuff and it gets a response, Paxman would rather look biased than silly.
muddydwarf - MemberIf we all agree that the People of Scotland have a right to self-determination, then why can the Peoples of England, Wales and N.I. not have the same right - i.e. whether to vote Scotland out of the Union?
Assuming just for one second that this wasn't a joke, the clue is in the "self" part.
Article 4 of what? Thought it might be Treaty of Union but does not seem to be
THAT all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall, from and after the Union, have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any Port or Place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging; and that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges, and Advantages, which do or may belong to the Subjects of each Kingdom; except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles.
We do have the right muddy. What we don't have is any particular interest in asserting the right.
Precisely Northwind - the People of Scotland get to determine their future with regards to the Union, but the rest of the UK don't get the chance to determine their own position as regards the Union.
Given that rather more English people* than Scots currently want to dissolve the Union why is it the question is only available to Scots?
*Not sure of how the Welsh and Northern Irish feel about the subject.
EDIT: @Ian Munro - how would it work then if Scotland voted to remain, would the rest of the UK (assuming enough of an impetus) have the right to vote to create a new Union sans Scotland?
muddydwarf - MemberPrecisely Northwind - the People of Scotland get to determine their future with regards to the Union, but the rest of the UK don't get the chance to determine their own position as regards the Union.
Given that rather more English people* than Scots currently want to dissolve the Union why is it the question is only available to Scots?
It isn't. [i]Any[/i] part of the union can opt to leave, that's self-determination. Opting to throw someone else out, or to annexe someone else, is the complete opposite.
So in other words, the rest of the UK can't kick Scotland out, but they can withdraw from the Union and create a new Union without Scotland whether Scotland wanted that or not?
That's what i wanted to know.
Create a new union, who would want to join that, pmsl.
Seriously TJ - what is all the reading from over the years? Can you point me in the right direction - there cant be that much as the issues affecting the credit rating have all changed recently. Links to any historic stuff would be helpful but more recent analysis would be better. Thanks in advance.
Article 4 of the VCLT
...the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.
who's the almighty authority stating that the right electorate is the "people of Scotland"
[img] 
[/img]
Nice to see the discussion still rolling along. I thought I'd look back in while I wait for the good lady to prepare my evening meal - Sea Bass tonight, yummy!
Stevewhyte - just a musing on a theoretical process nothing more. I was just wondering what the mechanisms were for self-determination for the various Nations in the Union and how one Nation's decision could affect the others.
Personally i have no great feelings either way on Scottish Independence.
The problem you have is that there is nowhere for such a discussion to take place, nowhere to pass any legislation. You'd need to first of all create an English Parliament. (Not that I'm saying that's a bad idea).muddydwarf - Member
So in other words, the rest of the UK can't kick Scotland out, but they can withdraw from the Union and create a new Union without Scotland whether Scotland wanted that or not?That's what i wanted to know.
Well Druidh, i would imagine that in the event of Scottish Independence things would change in England and Wales and NI in regards to their relationship with each other so why not?
Actually, if the Westminster Parliament (theoretical musing only here) were to ask the people of the UK if they wanted to dissolve the Union and then in due process create a new Union of E/W/NI and the electorate said yes, how would Scotland (assuming again that Scotland had voted to remain in the UK) be legally able to prevent that?
Just musing here as i don't understand the processes involved.
Out of curiosity, as a non-eu foreign national, permanently resident in the UK, how would this potentially affect my right to come live and work in Scotland?
thm - another one for you
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9008246/An-independent-Scotland-would-struggle-for-AAA-rating.html
On muddy dwarfs line of questioning; can the scots legally select devo max without the support of the UK?
Could the UK prevent this from happening?
Just seen on the news that the Spanish might well veto the scots joining the EU anyway!
Open to anyone but stevewhyte.
muddydwarf - Indeed. I'm actually rather surprised that there (to my view) has been little analysis of the impact of SI on NI and Wales.
As regards a UK-wide referendum, I don't see why Westminster could legislate for such a thing. But the question would be rather difficult to put in order to cover all the potential options. For instance, you'd have to ask if each nation wanted it's own independence or to join a new 3-way union.
Wrecker - i was of the understanding that Westminster has reserved the powers needed to change the Constitution/Devolution process, so if that is correct it may be that Scotland could (if she acheived the aim of the DevoMax option in the referendum) vote for extended devo powers and Westminster refuse... (maybe)
Thanks Druidh - I had seen that, but if I get accused of posting RW propganda from the IFS and the New Statesmen ( :wink:) it seemed a little too much to post the Torygraph.
The trouble is this mostly goes back to one guys work which also quotes historic data from Oxford. Need some more contemporary analysis. Hopefully, your mate will give us the links.
BTW - have you thought about a new lucrative career? Sell yourself to the Devil - GS or AS? They both probably need your help!! 😉
Druidh - i would imagine that is exactly how it would go. The Assemblies in Wales and NI could be asked to put the questions to the Nations and Westminster English MP's to vote on asking the question to England. Assuming each Nation voted to create a new Union i wonder how it would be possible to create one?
TBH - I don't see how, but then it's not that much different from the current Devolution. There would have to be a concrete set of proposals, agreed at Westminster, to vote upon.wrecker - Member
On muddy dwarfs line of questioning; can the scots legally select devo max without the support of the UK?
I reckon so.Could the UK prevent this from happening?
Complete bollocks. That's already been dismissed by the Spanish Government directly.Just seen on the news that the Spanish might well veto the scots joining the EU anyway!
[url= http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/referendum/4183-spanish-foreign-minister-reports-spain-would-veto-scots-membership-of-eu-are-qabsolutely-falseq ]
[/url]The Spanish Foreign Minister gave an assurance that "in no instance" had the Spanish government expressed "any disquiet" to the British government over the question of Scottish independence. He stated that the referendum in Scotland is an internal matter for the United Kingdom which would be resolved "in accordance with British constitutional norms, which have nothing to do with Spanish constitutional norms".
thm - I don't think there's any doubt about the way I'll cast my vote in the referendum. However, I'm trying (desperately) to remain as impartial in these threads as I can be 🙂
Anyway - teatime for me. No Haggis tonight (can't eat a full one on my own) but i'll have some Jura Prophecy later 🙂
And therein lies the problem. There is no mechanism for an English-only vote in the UK parliament.muddydwarf - Member
and Westminster English MP's to vote on asking the question to England.
Just seen on the news that the Spanish might well veto the scots joining the EU anyway!
They might. They might also suggest that as the country admitted to the EU was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and as that country might or might not exist then we're all out. Or that Scotland always was in the EU, it's just chopping out a layer of unnecessary (and to be fair, incompetent at present) management and reporting direct.
I don't know - and I suspect neither do they.
Edit - too slow. It appears they have (wisely) decided not to have an opinion.
At the moment Druidh, things may change in regards to the West Lothian Question and related matters. If Cameron is willing to change the law so that any Scots referendum is legally binding, then it is theoretically possible to change the rules so that English MP's can vote to ask their electorate a question - or is there a block to this?
(i AM going for food!)
Complete bollocks. That's already been dismissed by the Spanish Government directly.
Possibly, but it was just reported on the news with some Spanish politician saying quite clearly that they may well have a problem with it and would consider vetoing a Scottish application. This was due to fears of a breakaway by the basques.
I'm guessing that it wouldn't. I can't see why Scotland would want to bar you from taking up residency. In general, this and previous Scottish Governments have been much more positive about immigration than their UK equivalents. of course, this might be a problem for rUK depending on what level of border control was put in place post-independence.vinnyeh - Member
Out of curiosity, as a non-eu foreign national, permanently resident in the UK, how would this potentially affect my right to come live and work in Scotland?
Ahhh... the West Lothian Question. A problem thrown up by a lack of devolution for England.
Going into the depths of time is not really a worthwhile pursuit, however it is a fundamental tenet of international law that treaties cannot be freely revoked, so your initial premise was wrong and that is why I posted. I don't have an axe to grind on this issue (and when I do I rarely do on here because it is a futile pursuit).
What the state of international law was and indeed whether it existed in the 18th Century, I have no idea and don't plan to look up, obviously wars were more frequent so breach of treaties was often dealt with militarily. My instinct is that international lawyers would follow the principles of the Vienna Convention, even if its provision do not theoretically apply.
It seems that the Spanish don't recognise Kosovo for the same reasons
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/spain-could-wield-veto-over-scotlands-eu-membership-6292846.html
wrecker - un-named Whitehall "sources" & Spanish "officials", or a direct statement from the Spanish Foreign Minister. I'll let you decide how much weight to assign to each report.
If Cameron is willing to change the law so that any Scots referendum is legally binding,
he does not make laws parliament oes and it is debatable as to whether scotland can do this without the UK's say so. Perosnally I think it would be impossobe for them to ignore the vote irrespective of the legality...are they really going to ignore a vote for devolution by just saying no you dont have the right to ask so the answer is irreleavnt? Just cant see it personally.
then it is theoretically possible to change the rules so that English MP's can vote to ask their electorate a question - or is there a block to this?
Apparently scotland would need to decide this and select the question 😉
Hmmmm, newsnetscotland or the independent. Choices, choices 😀
As this will effect the rest of the Union as well as Scotland, why can't we all have a vote, considering the potential risks and implications? And if not, perhaps England/Wales can have an unofficial referendum, and if the answer is no, Westminster has to take this into account in negotiations?
🙄
Go back and start reading the thread from the top 😛
And start reading about WW2 and the English Navy? No thanks 😉
😆
And start reading about WW2 and the English Navy? No thanks
Please do go back and read again.. maybe then the pedantic and completely incorrect drivel can stop.
I said '[b]historically[/b]' and '[b]primarily[/b] the English navy' has protected this islands coastal waters. For your information, history didn't start with Mel Gibson. The [b]English[/b] navy had existed in various forms for at least 800 years before the union between England and scotland resulting in the renaming to the royal navy.
THAT is what I meant, and that is what I wrote.
They didn't do a very good job in 1066.elzorillo - Member
I said 'historically' and 'primarily the English navy' has protected this islands coastal waters. The English navy had existed in various forms for at least 800 years before the union between England and scotland resulting in the renaming to the royal navy.
Junkyard - Member
...it is debatable as to whether scotland can do this without the UK's say so. Perosnally I think it would be impossobe for them to ignore the vote irrespective of the legality...are they really going to ignore a vote for devolution by just saying no you dont have the right to ask so the answer is irreleavnt? Just cant see it personally.
OK JY - take that idea to its logical conclusion (and outside the current debate) and where does that leave you? Not a pleasant place I would think.
Druidh - good for you for remaining impartial. More interesting that way!!
elzorillo - Member
For your information, history didn't start with Mel Gibson.
Fantastic - now we get to talk about the Brits being the people (well one of the peoples) who inhabited these islands before the English arrived. 🙄
Technically correct - but not helpful in any constructive debate. Oh wait a minute "constructive debate"... 😕
People have a right of self-determination, whether I support the union or not.
And can the "you'll never survive without us" brigade try to sound a little less like jilted lovers - it's not helping your case (a case that I don't necessarily disagree with). At the moment you mainly sound angry that your being rejected.
Out of curiosity, as a non-eu foreign national, permanently resident in the UK, how would this potentially affect my right to come live and work in Scotland?
I would imagine the scenario would be that if you lived in Scotland, your visa would be converted to a Scottish one in a few months (again - nothing unusual in this - been through it myself with other countries), or if you lived in England, it would remain as a "British" one.
Out of curiosity, as a non-eu foreign national, permanently resident in the UK, how would this potentially affect my right to come live and work in Scotland?
You will be put to hard labour then ask to kiss the tail of the fish ...
Proclaim Scotland as the greatest land on earth and Scots are better than you or the land where you were born.
Whisky is your holy water ...
😆
this might be a problem for rUK depending on what level of border control was put in place post-independence.
There would have to be a common visa area - it would be impossible to police (for both sides) otherwise anyway.
I was thinking of problems arising from Schengen if Scotland was in the Schengen area and rUK not. All new entrants to the EU are obliged to sign up for Schengen, so either Scotland is not a "new" entrant and it doesn't apply, Scotland gets an exemption, or England has to put up some form of border control