Scotland Indyref 2

Well thats made your position clear molgrips. You see Scotland as a region and a subservient one at that.

That is literally the exact opposite of what I am saying. How on earth do you draw that conclusion? You aren’t interested in my point at all, you just want me to be wrong. You really need to read more carefully and calmly:

What I’m saying is that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should all have the same status. They don’t because of the devolution settlement, and that’s wrong.

Thats because the other political parties operating in Scotland ( apart from the greens) are refusing to take part. they could put their 2 bobs worth in but will not.

im convinced this is a massive mistake – they are squabbling amongst themselves over the unionist vote rather than trying to appeal to the Indy vote with either a better vision on Indy or a better version on the union.  I was hoping starmer would be the shake up needed to make that happen but I’m guessing he’s too much Westminster/Whitehall establishment to really understand the challenge up north.

Molgrips – I did read it carefully and calmly

Its clear that you do not grasp the basic concepts involved here.

Its not i want you to be wrong. Its that you are being really offensive. You could try listening and understanding. You could reconsider the words used because what you wrote does not say what you claim.

you refer to scotland as UK territory. Thats just wrong and offensive.

Poly – When Sarwar first became Scottish leader he made some good noises about this. About wanting Scottish labour to be able to develop a policy set for Scotland and to look at constitutional issues. Then total silence. I assume someone put him back in his hutch

you refer to scotland as UK territory. Thats just wrong and offensive.

But Scotland is part of the UK, isn’t it?

Mologrips

direct quote from you

The UK would lose nearly half it’s territory

I am assuming the “its” refers to the UK “territory” refers to ownership

So what that is saying is Scotland has no rights to ownership or control of the land mass / seabed) ( which is incorrect in law)and thus is subservient to the UK

There is no “UK territory” there are 4 constituent countries in a political union. Scotland ( unlike Wales IIRC) has its own legal system and Scotland and it surrounding seabed is under scots law not UK law. some UK law applies to scotland yes but thats applied thru Scottish courts under scottish jurisdiction

the UK does not own Scotland

I am assuming the “its” refers to the UK “territory” refers to ownership

No, it refers to thebfact that UK has a territorial extent like every country and Scotland falls within it. You’re making far more out of this than you need to.

There is no “UK territory”

Don’t be bloody ridiculous. The territory of the UK is the area within its borders. It’s that simple. You’re perfectly entitled to want Scotland to be within or without that border. But trying to justify it with semantic gymnastics is just weird. There are many far better points to make that this one.

the UK does not own Scotland

No, but Scotland is part of the UK which makes Scotland UK territory and governed in part by UK government. Yes, you may want to change that, that’s fine, but that’s simply the way it is now in the most basic possible terms. But whatever, this discussion has been reduced to pointless quibbling. Let’s move on.

Its not pointless quibbling Molgrips

Your statements show two things
1) you do not understand basic concepts
2) You will not listen to anyone else

No, it refers to thebfact that UK has a territorial extent like every country and Scotland falls within it.

So Scotland is a subservient entity ( not a country) and the Uk is a country ( not a union of countries) in your view?

Words are important which is why I suggested you might want to rephrase your statement. As it is you just keep on doubling down on being offensive.

Have you considered editing Wikipedia? I’m sure they need some of your constitutional expertise in this area.

So Scotland is a subservient entity

Subservient? Emotive word. Constituent, is more accurate.

Molgrips – I am not the only one who reads your posts as this. You have been consistently called out for this by me and others as you refuse to accept that they way you post on this.

You seem to view Scotland as a region in the same way as “the north west of england” is. You posts continually state this

Edit: – subservient is right because the way you state it is that the rights of the rest of the UK override the rights of scotland

You are a constituent part of STW. That’s not the same as a subservient one. You have to follow the rules set by STW.

You seem to view Scotland as a region in the same way as “the north west of england” is. You posts continually state this

It’s a country in the UK which is also a country. The UK is a country of countries. We’ve done this before. Last time I looked this up it turned out there isn’t a standar definition of the word “country” so it’s moot.

The point about e.g. Northumberland was an attempt to provoke thought about what Scotland is and isn’t and what those borders really mean.

I’m certainly subservient to STW as I have no say in the rules

Molgrips – I know you do not intend to be so offensive but please try listening.

You seem to feel slighted by my comments. Why might that be? Saying you’re part of the UK isn’t meant to be derogatory. Remember that I also live in a UK country that’s had a far shittier deal over the centuries than Scotland has. I’ve got far more grounds for grievance than you but I can accept the way things are whilst still considering change.

Fact is, the UK is a country of countries with a UK-wide government. That makes Scotland UK territory, quite logically. The law as it stands is clear, hence the judgement.

Scotland does need UK legislation to hold a referendum, but it’s morally wrong for the UK govt to withhold it.

That makes Scotland UK territory, quite logically. The law as it stands is clear,

Indeed the law is quite clear. Scotland and the seabed around it is Scottish under scottish law.

I am annoyed by your comments because the way you keep on commenting is saying Scotland has no rights and is just another region like “the north west of england”

I am also annoyed by your refusal to listen. Its not just me.

@TJ. You’re being needlessly argumentative, you know very well Moley was referring to landmass.

I wonder if part of your confusion over this Molgrips is because you do not understand the legal differences between Scotland and Wales?

Wales does not have its own legal system with its own laws ( and this predates devolution) Scotland does. This alters the relationship with the UK

Also please look up the acceptance of Scotlands territorial integrity and control of its own land and resources as is accepted under international law. This is why the sea bed around these islands has a separately defined Scottish sector because that scottish sector is under Scots law

saying Scotland has no rights

See, this is why I get cross. We’re arguing online, via forum posts which is pretty imperfect. It can be hard for any of us to get our points across. But rather than trying to figure out what I mean, you assume you know, and then try and shout down whatever bad position you think I am taking. It’s that assumption that is hard to deal with.

So rather than saying ‘that’s wrong’ try saying things like ‘what do you really mean?’ because suffice to say on the internet you probably don’t quite get what the other person means – this goes for all of us not just you.

Wales does not have its own legal system with its own laws

It used to, it was setup 300 years before it was annexed by England in 1282. The laws were in use until 1535 when they were abolished by Henry VIII. When you complain about oppression you might want to think about the Welsh perspective, but even more so that of the Irish and many other parts of the world.

Dyna ti – thats why I asked him if he wanted to rephrase it. landmass is fine as it is a geographical term not a political one

MOlgrips – which is why I asked if you wanted to rephrase it and you refused.

Its not a one off – you continually refer to Scotland in the same way as you refer to a region of the UK and that is wrong

That makes Scotland UK territory, quite logically. The law as it stands is clear,

Again perhaps sloppy language from you but the law is actually very clear on who controls the land and the seabed and its Scotland not the UK

The word territory implies ownership and control

the law is actually very clear on who controls the land and the seabed and its Scotland not the UK

Scotland isn’t under UK government? That’s news to me, which law are you on about?

Why are there 60-odd Scottish MPs in Westminster if they aren’t part of UK government?

Try reading it molgrips

Scottish law not UK law controls the territory that is the land and seabed of Scotland not UK law and this predates devolution and is clear in international law.

this is one of the things you do not understand

this is why the north sea is defined under international law in sectors one of which is the scottish sector

You keep on using “territory” in a way that is not the meaning of the word. this is why I asked you to rephrase your contentious statement

FFS, will the pair of you sod off and take a walk away from the keyboard rather than fill the thread up with your bickering

OK

I think you need to understand the difference between law and government.

FFS, will the pair of you sod off and take a walk away from the keyboard rather than fill the thread up with your bickering

Plus 1

Watching TJ and Molgrips on this thread is kind of like watching Kelvin and Ernie have at each other at the height of their animus. This entire page seems to have been nothing except arguing about the use of the word territory.

The difference between pro-indy and pro-union is as simple as the difference between lorne sausage and square sausage for me.

The laws were in use until 1535 when they were abolished by Henry VIII. When you complain about oppression you might want to think about the Welsh perspective

Although that in itself gets somewhat complex given the Tudors were Welsh originally (although Henry VIII older brother spent time there he didnt) and the main reason for the law change was to eliminate the marcher lords as a threat.

are you assuming that the “unionist” parties withdraw from Scotland if there is Indy and we are just left with snp?

No, I’m saying that, as with 2014-16, the only party that’ll be doing the negotiating will be the SNP because there isn’t much of a choice.
The UK deal with the EU wasn’t a stellar performance, but the SNP doesn’t have any stars either

Any negotiation will also have the greens from Scots side. Which will stir the nuclear weapons pot a bit more.
It won’t happen though as the UK gov will indicate that it’ll negotiate in bad faith before any referendum by playing the pensions, taxes, national debt card to encourage. ie we’re keeping the first two but you owe the latter. Which will worry enough voters.

You can always take a share of the debt and liabilities for a similar proportionate share in the assets…

pensions, taxes, national debt card to encourage. ie we’re keeping the first two but you owe the latter.

Well that’s a interesting statement for a couple of reasons. rUK won’t be getting any of the taxes raised by an independent Scotland after independance. Before that things will continue as normal, taxes will be raised and pensions and other expenditure will be paid for in real time from the taxes. There is no pensions pot to divy up. Of course there will be some division of the national debt, Scotland is currently part of the union.

Your statement sounds like project fear to me, vote for leave because the nasty rUK government will negotiate hard on behalf of its remaining citizens, much as politicians on the Scottish side will negotiate hard on behalf of Scotland. The fact Scotland is negotiating from a weaker position needs factoring into the decisions as to whether independance is a good thing or not. If you dont believe Scotland will be a weaker player in the negotiations it sort of undermines part of the argument for independance if you assert Scotland is an equal partner in the Union.

@argee

You separist bampot, ye 🤣🤣🤣

Where i come from, it’s known as “slice”. The wee woman in the roll shop in Glasgow got very confused when I asked for a “roll and slice, please”.

A slice of what, son?

🤣🤣🤣

The wee woman in the roll shop in Glasgow got very confused when I asked for a “roll and slice, please”.

@pandhandj – You should see the look on the faces of the canteen staff in our Glasgow office when I ask for a bacon sandwich… 😱

On debts and assetts

IIRC last time around the proposal from the SNP was we would take a proportionate share of the debt in exchange for a proportionate share of the assets. Better together said you are getting nowt that is not on Scottish soil and not even all of that. The reply was we won’t take any of the debt then and it became clear that the debt would belong in its entirety to rUK and Westminster had to confirm that.

So any division of debts and assets depends very much on the attitude of Westminster during the negotiation and Scotland does have two good bargaining chips – the nuclear subs and the debt. Play stupid games get stupid prizes

debt would belong in its entirety to rUK and Westminster had to confirm that.

Do you have a source for that?

One thing we can all be sure of is the rUK will not play nice when it comes to negotiations and now we’re out of the EU will continue to play nasty post independance. It might not be fair or right but it is true and and leavers need to factor that into the balance when insiting Scotland will be better off alone.

“The UK Government has stated that in the event of Scottish independence, it would in all circumstances honour its issued stock of UK debt.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-ruk-credit-rating-risk-1539973

(remember the Scotsman is a staunchly unionist paper)

In a separation, the continuing/successor state almost always takes on full ownership of the old state’s debt – a fact acknowledged by the UK during the 2014 independence campaign.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19151128.scotland-can-negotiate-separation-assets-debt-ruk/

(A highly nationalist paper)

Notwithstanding that the SNP stated they would take a fair share of the debt even tho most of that debt has not been spent in Scotland as it would be the right thing to do but in return Scotland would want a fair share of the assets and not just the physical assets on Scottish soil

Remember also that the bank of England is the UK reserve bank partly owned by scotland.

This is one of the problems. How fair and reasonable the rUk would be is an unknown and rUK stance alters a lot of the financial stuff. If they do play total hardball Scotland starts off with no debt but without a bunch of useful assets especially the non tangible assets but we would have the nuclear subs to sell to the highest bidder 🙂 ( joke)

Yes but if rUK plays hardball Scotland is screwed in the short to medium term as rUK is by far its biggest trading partner. Eventual membership of the EU may mitigate that but Scotland has 10 to 20 years of steep decline before things start to look up. Not a huge amount of time historically but a huge chunk of people’s lives.

If you want proof just see how well the UK is doing post Brexit now we’ve taken advantage of the freedoms of being untethered from the undemocratic ruling elite in Brussels, oh that’s right trade is down with Japan post free trade deal and even the Tories admit the free trade deal with Austalia is bad for the UK.