[Quady]

(Original post by Electronica)
To and from the Scottish government? I would have thought that would be obvious?

No, no. I mean logistically, how?

The Scottish Govt doesn't hold a record of its citizens, let alone have a mechanism to collect tax or distribute pensions.

[Electronica]

(Original post by Quady)
No, no. I mean logistically, how?

The Scottish Govt doesn't hold a record of its citizens, let alone have a mechanism to collect tax or distribute pensions.

That's the point I'm making though. For an independent Scotland to work you would need to completely rewire the political system and records of this data will need to be handed down from Westminster to Holyrood. I didn't say it would be easy to make Scotland an independent nation, I just support it for economic and political reasons. A record of its citizens would be fairly easy to obtain from Westminster and I assume the tax would be instantly rerouted to Scotland the moment independence is declared as will the burden of pensions.

[Celtic_Anthony]

(Original post by Electronica)
That's the point I'm making though. For an independent Scotland to work you would need to completely rewire the political system and records of this data will need to be handed down from Westminster to Holyrood. I didn't say it would be easy to make Scotland an independent nation, I just support it for economic and political reasons. A record of its citizens would be fairly easy to obtain from Westminster and I assume the tax would be instantly rerouted to Scotland the moment independence is declared as will the burden of pensions.

It's a pretty major constitutional change. You're going to have to give us more than assumptions if you want to convince us.

[L i b]

(Original post by Celtic_Anthony)
Authority?

You're making a legal argument, back it up.

If you are relying on the Declaration of Arbroath, I despair.

I rather hope he is, it'd be good fun.

Mostly because the Declaration of Arbroath, much like the Magna Carta, essentially gives powers to the nobility rather than the people. But I will also enjoy picking him up on the overt racism, nonsense history, huzzahing at genocide and other bull**** in there. It also mentions nothing about the people or realm in particular: if it were to be some sort of political tract - which it ain't - then it would be just as suitably applied to our modern realm, the UK, as our historic one.

[Quady]

(Original post by Electronica)
That's the point I'm making though. For an independent Scotland to work you would need to completely rewire the political system and records of this data will need to be handed down from Westminster to Holyrood. I didn't say it would be easy to make Scotland an independent nation, I just support it for economic and political reasons. A record of its citizens would be fairly easy to obtain from Westminster and I assume the tax would be instantly rerouted to Scotland the moment independence is declared as will the burden of pensions.

You didn't say anything like that, you said 'Scotland is perfectly capable of standing on it's own two feet as an independent country'.

Yet you need Westminister to let you know who lives there and to collect tax for you.

If the 'new UK' has to collect Scottish tax, pay Scottish pensioners and others in reciept of welfare then in what way would Scotland be standing on its own two feet'?

[Electronica]

(Original post by Celtic_Anthony)
It's a pretty major constitutional change. You're going to have to give us more than assumptions if you want to convince us.

Never said I wanted to convince you.

That's what politicians are for silly!

I can't tell you for sure what's going to happen in the next few years with the campaign. I wish I knew.

[Electronica]

(Original post by Quady)
You didn't say anything like that, you said 'Scotland is perfectly capable of standing on it's own two feet as an independent country'.

Yet you need Westminister to let you know who lives there and to collect tax for you.

If the 'new UK' has to collect Scottish tax, pay Scottish pensioners and others in reciept of welfare then in what way would Scotland be standing on its own two feet'?

It wouldn't be paying for them. Income tax that was paid to Westminster would begin to be paid to Holyrood after Scotland becomes independent. How is that Westminster paying for Scotland? Westminster disclosing the details of the last census is hardly much of a burden on the UK. Come on.

[Electronica]

(Original post by Celtic_Anthony)
Shytebag.

You bet I am.

[L i b]

(Original post by Electronica)
It wouldn't be paying for them. Income tax that was paid to Westminster would begin to be paid to Holyrood after Scotland becomes independent. How is that Westminster paying for Scotland? Westminster disclosing the details of the last census is hardly much of a burden on the UK. Come on.

You understate how expensive and complicated it would be to create a Scottish Treasury, Revenue body and - indeed - Scottish citizenship. For one, it has nothing to do with the census.

Being resident in the UK on a certain day has very little bearing on whether or not you are a taxpayer. It is, in fact, a rather complex system. For one, there's residence in the UK for certain numbers of days in a tax year: how would that be calculated for the transitional phase of independence? It quite simply couldn't be.

[FrigidSymphony]

I'm just arguing on the principle of popular sovereignty, which exists in Scotland, unlike England, which has parliamentary sovereignty. If Scotland wishes to become a republic, we do not need a parliamentary mandate to do so.

[Quady]

(Original post by Electronica)
It wouldn't be paying for them. Income tax that was paid to Westminster would begin to be paid to Holyrood after Scotland becomes independent. How is that Westminster paying for Scotland? Westminster disclosing the details of the last census is hardly much of a burden on the UK. Come on.

That info (NI number as the unique identifier) isn't in the census - if you get given the census data you have all the people's names at the address at which they spent that night.

You don't get their claim history for DLA (for example) or their car registration details (from the DVLA to use a similar acronym).

But the real problem is we can give you guys the data (and clerical files), but you won't have a computer (or clerical) system to do anything with the info.

[Celtic_Anthony]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
I'm just arguing on the principle of popular sovereignty, which exists in Scotland, unlike England, which has parliamentary sovereignty. If Scotland wishes to become a republic, we do not need a parliamentary mandate to do so.

And nobody is going to believe you unless you start posting authority. Nobody listens to faceless monikers on the internet unless they show their working.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Celtic_Anthony)
And nobody is going to believe you unless you start posting authority. Nobody listens to faceless monikers on the internet unless they show their working.

I thought it was common knowledge.

Anyways, you've already mentioned the declaration of Arbroath, although it's probably a bit too old too have modern relevance, but I could point to the Scottish Government's many pronouncements that they abide by the principle of popular sovereignty.

In any case, if I am in fact, incorrect in what I thought to be the case, all the more reason for independence, so that we may achieve popular sovereignty.

[Celtic_Anthony]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
I thought it was common knowledge.

Anyways, you've already mentioned the declaration of Arbroath, although it's probably a bit too old too have modern relevance, but I could point to the Scottish Government's many pronouncements that they abide by the principle of popular sovereignty.

In any case, if I am in fact, incorrect in what I thought to be the case, all the more reason for independence, so that we may achieve popular sovereignty.

There is no common knowledge when you're making an argument. If something can be taken for granted, authority for that proposition is surely easy to find?

Probably a bit too old? The Declaration of Arbroath is only a youthful 700 years old, I'm sure we can let you off. What about the fact it's a letter to the Pope written by noblemen? Hardly the product of a democratic process. I'm not sure it survives the Reformation never mind 700-****ing years of constitutional upheaval and evolving thought.

It doesn't exist. Guess what? Scotland doesn't exist. See that State that produced that Declaration and had all those wars with its neighbours and all that? Aye, it passed an Act of Parliament (see, that's democracy for ya, sort of...) extinguishing itself for eternity. Nice. England did the same.

Then the United Kingdom was formed. It had Parliamentary Sovereignty for a while. It's fallen by the wayside in recent years; Factortame II and all that (or was it III, not much of a public law fan myself).

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Celtic_Anthony)
There is no common knowledge when you're making an argument. If something can be taken for granted, authority for that proposition is surely easy to find?

Probably a bit too old? The Declaration of Arbroath is only a youthful 700 years old, I'm sure we can let you off. What about the fact it's a letter to the Pope written by noblemen? Hardly the product of a democratic process. I'm not sure it survives the Reformation never mind 700-****ing years of constitutional upheaval and evolving thought.

It doesn't exist. Guess what? Scotland doesn't exist. See that State that produced that Declaration and had all those wars with its neighbours and all that? Aye, it passed an Act of Parliament (see, that's democracy for ya, sort of...) extinguishing itself for eternity. Nice. England did the same.

Then the United Kingdom was formed. It had Parliamentary Sovereignty for a while. It's fallen by the wayside in recent years; Factortame II and all that (or was it III, not much of a public law fan myself).

Not even the unionists follow this line anymore. Holyrood was reinstated, and Scotland is by all accounts a country. I guess we might be approaching this from different points if you're a law student- I study International Relations so my take on this is much more theoretical and abstract. A main difference that we see here though is how the Act of Union is seen by England and Scotland- for England, it's an eternal union, whereas for Scots, then and now, it was always seen as something that could be gone back on.
EDIT: Wait, I see what you mean- independent modern Scotland would be a successor state to the UK, not a seceding one. This is nice because AFAIK it means we get to keep our UN and NATO positions.

As for the declaration, I said it was too old to be relevant legally, but it is a nice historical factor that plays along with the vast difference in political attitudes and culture that exist between Scotland and the rUK.

[FrigidSymphony]

FYI:

Tory Lord Forsyth, on the 28th of February, 2012, said:

In 1603, we had the union of the Crowns. In 1707, we had the union of the Parliaments. The kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707 because the United Kingdom was created. Therefore, it is illiterate as well as misleading to suggest that there would still be a United Kingdom. If Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would cease to exist. Whether or not the monarch went on to become the head of Scotland as head of state, the relationship would be similar to that enjoyed by Canada and Australia, but it would certainly not mean that the United Kingdom continues. For many people this may seem a kind of historical fact, but it is very important that we understand this, particularly when we have people in high office who seem determined to mislead people. I repeat that if Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, there will be no United Kingdom. I do not know what a kingdom represented by England, Ireland and Wales would be called.

[Celtic_Anthony]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
Not even the unionists follow this line anymore. Holyrood was reinstated, and Scotland is by all accounts a country. I guess we might be approaching this from different points if you're a law student- I study International Relations so my take on this is much more theoretical and abstract. A main difference that we see here though is how the Act of Union is seen by England and Scotland- for England, it's an eternal union, whereas for Scots, then and now, it was always seen as something that could be gone back on.

As for the declaration, I said it was too old to be relevant legally, but it is a nice historical factor that plays along with the vast difference in political attitudes and culture that exist between Scotland and the rUK.

Holyrood wasn't a reinstatement. It was a new creation, it is not the old Parliament, nor does it bear much of a resemblance to it.

Unionist politicians might not go down the track because Scots generally don't like to hear it. I'm sure Lib would echo it, though. And it is correct, in international law as much as Scots law.

I don't think you can portray Scots, through the Declaration, as more liberty-loving, for want of a better term, than the country that produced the Magna Carta.

Law students will approach this issue differently. However, we are governed subject to the rule of law, the constitution is a legal feature and any changes must be effected legally. The law is what gives abstract notions a reality check.

[Celtic_Anthony]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
FYI:

Tory Lord Forsyth, on the 28th of February, 2012, said:

And?

I think he was going for a stating the obvious award. It was, however, a response to SNP claims that political independence for Scotland would leave the UK intact due to the Union of the Crowns.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Celtic_Anthony)
Then the United Kingdom was formed. It had Parliamentary Sovereignty for a while. It's fallen by the wayside in recent years; Factortame II and all that (or was it III, not much of a public law fan myself).

II, and no it hasn't. Historically illiterate judges think it has.

[Celtic_Anthony]

(Original post by Norton1)
II, and no it hasn't. Historically illiterate judges think it has.

All I know is Dicey would be rolling in his grave...

Spoiler:

Show

Public law is no longer my bag, but I just remember my lecturer saying this over and over again