[Celtic_Anthony]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
UN law trumps Westminster, and the UN grants all peoples the right to national self-determination. Westminster has ****-all to do with it.

What's the enforcement mechanism for United Nations law?

[lyrical_lie]

Oh look another independence thread. I think what we've determined at this point, a lot of Scottish people say no, a lot of Scottish people say yes. Someone will bring up oil. Then someone will insult Scottish people and the whole thread will go to mush.

As a Scottish person I say no.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
UN law trumps Westminster, and the UN grants all peoples the right to national self-determination. Westminster has ****-all to do with it.

No. There is no such thing as UN law, for a start. Secondly, international law has no real enforcement mechanism short of sanctions and war. Westminster has recognised the Scots' right to self-determination and would act if they chose independence, but that doesn't mean that the vote is the end of the matter, or automatically gives effect to it. Only Westminster can do that, no matter how much you wish otherwise. If it weren't the case Scotland would already be independent.

[Nick100]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
UN law trumps Westminster, and the UN grants all peoples the right to national self-determination. Westminster has ****-all to do with it.

UN law trumps nothing; in fact many of its members are authoritarian dictatorships. In any case; how many people need to belong to a group before it can declare itself independent? And why are the Scottish a "people" but the British aren't? I spend a lot of time in both countries and find that I have as more in common with many English people than I do with fellow Scots.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Nick100)
UN law trumps nothing; in fact many of its members are authoritarian dictatorships. In any case; how many people need to belong to a group before it can declare itself independent? And why are the Scottish a "people" but the British aren't? I spend a lot of time in both countries and find that I have as more in common with many English people than I do with fellow Scots.

Because the Scottish people wish to be one. That's what self-determination means. If Scots felt more "British", they would be British. International law trumps Westminster law, you are quite patently wrong on that count.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
International law trumps Westminster law, you are quite patently wrong on that count.

But, presumably, its anti-slavery provisions don't trump Tuareg culture, nor the Russian desire to keep control of Chechnya despite the desire of Chechnyans to be independent. How can that be if UN law trumps that of the locals?

I suggest you read up on the UN charter and the problems with self-determination, one of which is the definition of the word "nation". Others are that thorny question of enforcement, and how the decison is to be made, neither of whichy are addressed. That doesn't sound like a law that is easy of enforcement to me.

In any event, even if you were correct, the UK has a power of veto in the UN (which Scots would be inexplicably giving up if they became independent) so it doesn't strike me that Scotland would get very far in trying to get the UN to back it up.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Good bloke)
But, presumably, its anti-slavery provisions don't trump Tuareg culture, nor the Russian desire to keep control of Chechnya despite the desire of Chechnyans to be independent. How can that be if UN law trumps that of the locals?

I suggest you read up on the UN charter and the problems with self-determination, one of which is the definition of the word "nation". Others are that thorny question of enforcement, and how the decison is to be made, neither of whichy are addressed. That doesn't sound like a law that is easy of enforcement to me.

In any event, even if you were correct, the UK has a power of veto in the UN (which Scots would be inexplicably giving up if they became independent) so it doesn't strike me that Scotland would get very far in trying to get the UN to back it up.

Because the UK would be dissolved, Scotland and the rUK would both have to apply to the UN or EU- or neither would.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
Because the UK would be dissolved, Scotland and the rUK would both have to apply to the UN or EU- or neither would.

Do you really believe that?

Did Russia have to re-apply to join the UN (or lose its veto) when the Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine were given independence? Did Lithuania, Latvia or Esthonia get a veto as well?

To take one example, Lithuania became independent on 11 March 1990; it became a UN member on 17 September 1991. Russia (as the successor state of the USSR) at no time ceased to be a member of the UN, and did not lose its veto.

The non-Scottish part of the UK is a bigger proportion of the whole than Russia was to the USSR.

Why will Scotland and the UK be any different?

[Psyk]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
It isn't. We have to sit and watch as neoliberal snobs that we didn't vote for get elected to office and ruin the country.

That's democracy for you. Not everyone gets to have who they voted for in power.

And anyway, the majority of Scotland did get the party they voted for in 1997, 2001 and 2005. If the fact that there is now a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition in government means Scotland is not free (despite Lib Dems actually winning several seats in Scotland), then by the same logic South East England was not free for the 13 years of Labour before then.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Do you really believe that?

Did Russia have to re-apply to join the UN (or lose its veto) when the Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine were given independence? Did Lithuania, Latvia or Esthonia get a veto as well?

To take one example, Lithuania became independent on 11 March 1990; it became a UN member on 17 September 1991. Russia (as the successor state of the USSR) at no time ceased to be a member of the UN, and did not lose its veto.

The non-Scottish part of the UK is a bigger proportion of the whole than Russia was to the USSR.

Why will Scotland and the UK be any different?

Well, Russia took on the entirety of the USSR's debt.

In any case, why should the size of the rUK matter at all? The UK was formed by the Treaty of Union, an agreement between equal kingdoms to form a united country- it wasn't led by England, and England has no more rights than Scotland has regarding the future of the Union. England and Scotland are the two legs the UK has to stand on (Northern Ireland and Wales not exactly reaching the ground), and it is absurd to suggest that upon the breakup of the union, one area will have more rights than the other. And yes, I do believe this. Not even the Tory lords are harping on about this anymore. There is no reason why Scotland would lose any of its international standing upon independence; anyone who thinks so is merely parroting old unionist fear-mongering.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Psyk)
That's democracy for you. Not everyone gets to have who they voted for in power.

And anyway, the majority of Scotland did get the party they voted for in 1997, 2001 and 2005. If the fact that there is now a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition in government means Scotland is not free (despite Lib Dems actually winning several seats in Scotland), then by the same logic South East England was not free for the 13 years of Labour before then.

New Labour is hardly in line with Scottish political attitudes. Do want to talk about Scotland "not being free"? May I draw your attention to the McCrone report? Or the 1999 theft of Scottish ocean borders? Or the 1979 devolution referendum hijacking? For a country that's supposed to be on equal terms with England, we've sure gotten a lot of **** thrown on us. But it doesn't matter, because the discussion on Scotland's future is supposed to be a positive one.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
In any case, why should the size of the rUK matter at all? .

It doesn't. I was talking about the proportions of the constituents.

The UK was formed by the Treaty of Union, an agreement between equal kingdoms to form a united country- it wasn't led by England, and England has no more rights than Scotland has regarding the future of the Union.

Quite true. But the union is composed of more constituents than England and Scotland, and it is Scotland that would be leaving (if it does). Leaving involves giving up the benefits of being a member of that union which, in this case, would include any influence of sterling and the UN membership.

England and Scotland are the two legs the UK has to stand on (Northern Ireland and Wales not exactly reaching the ground), and it is absurd to suggest that upon the breakup of the union, one area will have more rights than the other.

So Scotland is important to the union and Wales and Northern Ireland aren't, eh?

There is no reason why Scotland would lose any of its international standing upon independence

We'll see. I'll make some predictions and we'll see which of us is right: (a) Scotland will have to apply to join the UN, the UK rump won't; (b) Scotland won't have a Security Council veto, the UK rump will; (b) Scotland will have no real influence on the currency it uses, whether that currency is sterling or the euro (thus giving up a vital economic tool), the UK rump will, and Scotland's needs will be largely ignored when currency decisions are made.

An independent Scotland is likely to lose significant income from the UK's nuclear armaments programme (as the UK rump won't be able to risk an independent country hosting it), and will export some of its taxes because Scots will continue to be employed in the UK armed forces or other industries in large numbers, paying tax and buying goods in England.

[Psyk]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
New Labour is hardly in line with Scottish political attitudes. Do want to talk about Scotland "not being free"? May I draw your attention to the McCrone report? Or the 1999 theft of Scottish ocean borders? Or the 1979 devolution referendum hijacking? For a country that's supposed to be on equal terms with England, we've sure gotten a lot of **** thrown on us. But it doesn't matter, because the discussion on Scotland's future is supposed to be a positive one.

So why did so many people in Scotland vote for Labour then?

At least Scotland got their own parliament eventually. England still doesn't.

England and Scotland (as well as Wales and Northern Ireland) are equal in the sense that every person is equal. A Scottish person's vote is equal to an English person's vote.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Good bloke)
It doesn't. I was talking about the proportions of the constituents.




Quite true. But the union is composed of more constituents than England and Scotland, and it is Scotland that would be leaving (if it does). Leaving involves giving up the benefits of being a member of that union which, in this case, would include any influence of sterling and the UN membership.




So Scotland is important to the union and Wales and Northern Ireland aren't, eh?



We'll see. I'll make some predictions and we'll see which of us is right: (a) Scotland will have to apply to join the UN, the UK rump won't; (b) Scotland won't have a Security Council veto, the UK rump will; (b) Scotland will have no real influence on the currency it uses, whether that currency is sterling or the euro (thus giving up a vital economic tool), the UK rump will, and Scotland's needs will be largely ignored when currency decisions are made.

An independent Scotland is likely to lose significant income from the UK's nuclear armaments programme (as the UK rump won't be able to risk an independent country hosting it), and will export some of its taxes because Scots will continue to be employed in the UK armed forces or other industries in large numbers, paying tax and buying goods in England.

The UK was created by Scotland and England! The two countries are the entire reason for its existence, and if Scotland decides to dissolve the treaty of union, there is no more UK. rUK stands for "residual UK", btw. If that affects our international standing, it does so as much for the rUK than it does for Scotland.

As for currency control, doesn't Scotland own like half of the Bank of England, which is an apolitical institution anyway? Scotland has a variety of options- we could keep the pound sterling, which is as much Scotland's currency as it is England's, as it was the currency of the UK; we could create our own currency and have it pegged to Sterling; we could create our own currency and let it float on the international market; we could join the Euro. That last bit will probably only happen if Europe stabilizes, but we have options, and we wouldn't be without influence over our currency.

Take your nukes. We don't want them. So we might lose some tax money. You can't buy or sell self-determination, but regardless, Scotland is richer than the UK and richer than England. We operate on a surplus that gets turned into a deficit by the UK's mishandling of affairs. For being 8% of the population, we contribute over 9% of revenue, and more than we get in spending powers as well. Scotland is a rich country, and we're already welcoming the thought of being one of the Nordic league.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Psyk)
So why did so many people in Scotland vote for Labour then?

At least Scotland got their own parliament eventually. England still doesn't.

England and Scotland (as well as Wales and Northern Ireland) are equal in the sense that every person is equal. A Scottish person's vote is equal to an English person's vote.

Our own parliament that has to rely on pocket money from Westminster? ****'s sake.

People in Scotland voted for Labour because it was hammered into us culturally. It's been long enough, however, to see the effects of New Labour's neoliberal *******s, which is why the SNP are getting votes everywhere.

Why are you questioning this? Do you not believe that Scots want a welfare state more than the English?

[Good bloke]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
The UK was created by Scotland and England! The two countries are the entire reason for its existence, and if Scotland decides to dissolve the treaty of union, there is no more UK..

Take a fresh look at the name of the union: it contains the words and Northern Ireland which should indicate that, from 1801, it became a union of three crowns, not two.

rUK stands for "residual UK", btw. If that affects our international standing, it does so as much for the rUK than it does for Scotland.

I wondered why you kept making the same typo.

As for currency control, doesn't Scotland own like half of the Bank of England, which is an apolitical institution anyway?

Scotland owns no such thing, and the name should give you clues as to its provenance.

Scotland has a variety of options- we could keep the pound sterling, which is as much Scotland's currency as it is England's, as it was the currency of the UK; we could create our own currency and have it pegged to Sterling; we could create our own currency and let it float on the international market; we could join the Euro. That last bit will probably only happen if Europe stabilizes, but we have options, and we wouldn't be without influence over our currency.

Look at the options: sterling, no influence; Scottish currency, not realistic; Scottish currency pegged to sterling, more realistic but no influence; Euro, no influence. Where does your claimed influence come from?

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Take a fresh look at the name of the union: it contains the words and Northern Ireland which should indicate that, from 1801, it became a union of three crowns, not two.



I wondered why you kept making the same typo.




Scotland owns no such thing, and the name should give you clues as to its provenance.



Look at the options: sterling, no influence; Scottish currency, not realistic; Scottish currency pegged to sterling, more realistic but no influence; Euro, no influence. Where does your claimed influence come from?

The UK still exists because of the Treaty of Union, and again, for the nth time, if Scotland dissolve the treaty, the UK no longer exists. Lord Forsyth himself claimed this.

I've got to get back to you on the Bank of England thing, but from what I understand, it's a privately owned corporation with secret shareholders. Not really "English". What is it about Sterling that would remove all influence? Currency unions are real and successful things- it would be in the BoE's interest to satisfy both countries on the island. As for the Euro, go to Italy, and then Germany, and have a look at the financial management of the countries- even with the Euro, there is much more space for financial governing than Scotland is currently allowed by its wee hand out.

Do you have any positive arguments for retaining the union?

[Psyk]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
Why are you questioning this? Do you not believe that Scots want a welfare state more than the English?

More than the average English person perhaps. But not more so many areas in the North of England. If this was about differing political opinions then surely the proposed state would be Scotland + North England. It's not like there is a sudden change in opinions the moment you step across that border. There is a more gradual shift the further away you get from South East England.

Look at this proportional map of the 2010 election results:



The problem is you think of England as a single entity. But in reality it's a region of millions of people with different political opinions. Large areas have opinions more similar to Scottish ones than other areas of England.

[Bukhatir]

(Original post by lyrical_lie)
Oh look another independence thread. I think what we've determined at this point, a lot of Scottish people say no, a lot of Scottish people say yes. Someone will bring up oil. Then someone will insult Scottish people and the whole thread will go to mush.

As a Scottish person I say no.

So you still want to remain a part of the UK and not independent,Right?

[Good bloke]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
The UK still exists because of the Treaty of Union, and again, for the nth time, if Scotland dissolve the treaty, the UK no longer exists. Lord Forsyth himself claimed this.

Er, no. The treaty (1706) declared an intention, which wasn't put into effect until 1707 when two parliaments passed Acts of Union. Further acts were passed in the UK and Irish parliaments in 1800, giving rise to the new union of 1801. This later union, still in existence, should give you clues as to how things will happen as southern Ireland later left that union, leaving the UK behind. This is exactly what Scotland would do. You really don't seem to understand the mechanisms involved, which leads you to have rather high expectations of what Scotland can hope to obtain in terms of legacy.

Scotland will take a legal system, territory, people, some treaty obligations and debt. Nothing more. No UN membership initially and certainly no veto, probably no EU membership initially.