Is Scottish independence a &#x27;good or bad&#x27; thing?

Original post by punani

Who said seccession has to be peaceful or amicable?

After wars end, debts are still settled between warring factions.

Why has no-one enforced the debt payments you believe Pakistan still owes then?

Russia or the USSR never signed the Vienna Convention so how do you propose they would be held accountable by it?

I think you'll find if you research into the Act of Union and how it came about it wasn't quite as straight forward as you pretend it to be.

Any precedents for any of your assertions?

I don't think you have a sound understanding of this. You are either a successor state, a predecessor state or a new state. Seccession is the name of the process. To secede you need to be the successor state. Scotland will not be the Successor state unless it is agreed that there are two successor states i.e. Co-Successor States.

Just so we are clear. You believe that Scotland will not remain members of the EU, Nato, UN etc. You believe that Scotland will not remain party to any treaties signed while part of the Union. You believe that Scotland will not keep any embassies. Yet you believe that Scotland will inherit the debt. Is this correct?

Nice sources by the way.

Yes that was the reason for the second world war. What happened to Germany's debts after they lost this war then? I assume they had to pay them all back and inherit new debts for the cost of the war, yes? Oh dear, that didn't happen did it?

After wars finish, debts aren't settled. Debts get written off in many cases as there's no way to enforce payement. We're still owed money by the Argentinian government from before the Falklands, it hasn't been paid. All of the examples you've given are examples where armed conflict hasn't resolved the financial issue. India has not been able to enforce the debt payement. The cost to enforce it would be too high, as in armed conflict between the two nations with India being the decisive victor.

scotland in Europe.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20664907

A further example is catalonia.

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/catalan-eu-claim-may-impact-on-scots-independence-1-3096498

Nato has already come out and said we'd need to reapply.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10244873/Nato-blow-to-SNPs-defence-plans-for-independent-Scotland.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/15/alex-salmond-nuclear-nato-ban

It's a bit difficult to own 8.6% of an embassy. No doubt they'd be some sharing as has happened with Canada recently, but 8.6% of an embassy would involve one room. Not really conducive to a functioning scottish embassy.

yes I'm fully aware that its a successor and succession state, but as lib has pointed out numerous times, there's international precedent about successor states. The examples you've quoted of debt free successor states were all conquered nations and as such had a clean slate. But even then the majority of those former soviet states then had to reapply to join organisations like the UN and WTO. Only those nations that were original signatories such as Russia, belorus and the Ukraine got automatic entries. All the others had to join.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_of_states

Reply 2922

Original post by MatureStudent36

After wars finish, debts aren't settled. Debts get written off in many cases as there's no way to enforce payement. We're still owed money by the Argentinian government from before the Falklands, it hasn't been paid. All of the examples you've given are examples where armed conflict hasn't resolved the financial issue. India has not been able to enforce the debt payement. The cost to enforce it would be too high, as in armed conflict between the two nations with India being the decisive victor.

scotland in Europe.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20664907

A further example is catalonia.

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/catalan-eu-claim-may-impact-on-scots-independence-1-3096498

Nato has already come out and said we'd need to reapply.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10244873/Nato-blow-to-SNPs-defence-plans-for-independent-Scotland.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/15/alex-salmond-nuclear-nato-ban

It's a bit difficult to own 8.6% of an embassy. No doubt they'd be some sharing as has happened with Canada recently, but 8.6% of an embassy would involve one room. Not really conducive to a functioning scottish embassy.

yes I'm fully aware that its a successor and succession state, but as lib has pointed out numerous times, there's international precedent about successor states. The examples you've quoted of debt free successor states were all conquered nations and as such had a clean slate. But even then the majority of those former soviet states then had to reapply to join organisations like the UN and WTO. Only those nations that were original signatories such as Russia, belorus and the Ukraine got automatic entries. All the others had to join.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_of_states

These states had to re-apply because they were not the Successor states. They did not inherit debt because they were not successor states. That's the whole point.

Russia was regarded as the successor state and fought to be regarded as such, that is why it inherited all the assets and the debt.

I think you may be confusing secession with succession.

You can secede through war or peace. Usually it is through War. This is the process by where you break away from another state.

Succession is the process where other states acknowledge you as a state.

They are two different things.

Reply 2923

Original post by punani

These states had to re-apply because they were not the Successor states. They did not inherit debt because they were not successor states. That's the whole point.

Russia was regarded as the successor state and fought to be regarded as such, that is why it inherited all the assets and the debt.

I think you may be confusing secession with succession.

You can secede through war or peace. Usually it is through War. This is the process by where you break away from another state.

Succession is the process where other states acknowledge you as a state.

They are two different things.

Sorry. Your right. I got the names mixed up. But basically we get to share assets and liabilities but don't inherit membership tto international body's.

Anyway, although its well shown in international law, it looks like we're staying. Common sense seems to be shining through.

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-no-change-in-vote-intention-1-3099626

Reply 2924

Original post by MatureStudent36

Sorry. Your right. I got the names mixed up. But basically we get to share assets and liabilities but don't inherit membership tto international body's.

Anyway, although its well shown in international law, it looks like we're staying. Common sense seems to be shining through.

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-no-change-in-vote-intention-1-3099626

But then what you are describing is the process of two new states emerging from a predecessor state that no longer exists, such as the break-up of Yugoslavia. In that scenario the assets and liabilities would be split but no one state would get the embassies and all states would technically have to re-apply to IGO's and resign/negotiate all previous treaties.

Of course in practice this process is sped up as it is impractical to do all this. This is also why many academics/experts etc are now proposing a Co-Successor solution whereby both countries remain party to all treaties and memberships etc. It just makes the whole thing simpler for all parties.

Out of curiosity do you think Scotland would have any difficulty in being accepted into the UN, EU, NATO etc? Surely this would just be a formality?

And yes, it appears as if the NO campaign will win, as it always has done. I think it would be very bad for Scotland if it was a landslide though.

Reply 2925

Good bloke

19

Original post by punani

Out of curiosity do you think Scotland would have any difficulty in being accepted into the UN, EU, NATO etc? Surely this would just be a formality?

I'd say that two of those might present problems, for entirely different reasons. The first is the EU where it is conceivable that Spain may be silly about not encouraging her Catalonian separatists; Spain has a history of being silly about such things. The second is NATO, where Scotland is deeply enmeshed in the nuclear defences; this would be a potential real problem if the Scottish government is SNP-led and the constitution bans such weapons, as Salmond says it will. Other than that, Scotland could expect easy entry, though not on the same terms as those enjoyed by the UK. It is unlikely to get the opt-outs Britain has, for instance.

Reply 2926

Original post by punani

But then what you are describing is the process of two new states emerging from a predecessor state that no longer exists, such as the break-up of Yugoslavia. In that scenario the assets and liabilities would be split but no one state would get the embassies and all states would technically have to re-apply to IGO's and resign/negotiate all previous treaties.

Of course in practice this process is sped up as it is impractical to do all this. This is also why many academics/experts etc are now proposing a Co-Successor solution whereby both countries remain party to all treaties and memberships etc. It just makes the whole thing simpler for all parties.

Out of curiosity do you think Scotland would have any difficulty in being accepted into the UN, EU, NATO etc? Surely this would just be a formality?

And yes, it appears as if the NO campaign will win, as it always has done. I think it would be very bad for Scotland if it was a landslide though.

The RUk remains. We'd be seceding. Academics can offer whatever option they like but it doesn't have any legal precedence and it ignores national politics. We're on the outside trying to get back in and that's a given. The rUk maintains its existing position.

I'm sure we'd get into the UN, EU and NATO but there would be a degree of negotiations involved.

The EU requires all member states to agree and when it comes to national politics any member state will do whats best for it. So that will require concessions being made. It's most likely that we'd loose our current opt outs and as a new member state we'd have to accept the euro.

Reply 2927

NorthCountryMod

10

One year to go...

Choose food banks, choose the Bedroom Tax, choose illegal wars and indiscriminate bombings of civilian societies for economic gain, choose nuclear weapons, choose trident submarines, choose healthcare cuts, choose welfare cuts, choose slowly selling off the NHS, choose privatising the Royal Mail, choose church and state being undemocratically presided over by the monarchy, choose constant debates about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry, choose wage labour, choose workfare programmes, choose using fracking as a source of our energy, choose the prevalence of racist parties and organisations (EDL, BNP, UKIP), choose constant media scrutiny towards the unemployed, the disabled and the homeless, choose continued funding of The Armed Forces - while science, medicine and literature are merely overlooked, choose xenophobic propaganda regarding immigration, choose tax breaks for unlawful corporations and the richest 1%, choose between New Labour and Tory, choose the same old ****e. Choose Better Together. Choose a No vote.

Reply 2928

Kj91

6

Original post by MatureStudent36

The RUk remains. We'd be seceding. Academics can offer whatever option they like but it doesn't have any legal precedence and it ignores national politics. We're on the outside trying to get back in and that's a given. The rUk maintains its existing position.

I'm sure we'd get into the UN, EU and NATO but there would be a degree of negotiations involved.

The EU requires all member states to agree and when it comes to national politics any member state will do whats best for it. So that will require concessions being made. It's most likely that we'd loose our current opt outs and as a new member state we'd have to accept the euro.

We will not adopt the Euro
.
No Euro, even if we wanted to

In order to adopt the euro a country needs its currency to be committed to the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) for two years. Scotland doesn’t have a currency to commit to the ERM, and as Scotland plans to keep the pound, we therefore cannot adopt the euro, even if we wanted to, and so certainly can’t be forced to either.

Alistair Darling has said we would have to reapply to the EU from outside, and that means being forced into the euro – however that is inaccurate and even David Cameron can’t help but say he was wrong.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/euro-pound-or-scottish-pound/

Reply 2929

Maths Tutor

Original post by MatureStudent36

One thing that did get me was it seemed to be a Scotland England thing. No real mention of Wales and Northern Ireland.

Original post by MatureStudent36

notice he's tried turn this into an anti English rant.No mention of Wales orNorthern Ireland.

Why does the flag of the United Kingdom only incorporate the flags of England and Scotland?

Why are the flags of Wales and Northern Ireland missing from the flag of the United Kingdom?

What is MORE SIGNIFICANT:

- The inclusion of the Wales and Northern Ireland flags in the United Kingdom flag

OR

- The mention of Wales and Northern Ireland in a debate on Scottish independence?

If it is the former, have you made any attempt to get the Wales and Northern Ireland flags included in the United Kingdom flag?

Reply 2930

Original post by Kj91

We will not adopt the Euro
.
No Euro, even if we wanted to

In order to adopt the euro a country needs its currency to be committed to the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) for two years. Scotland doesn’t have a currency to commit to the ERM, and as Scotland plans to keep the pound, we therefore cannot adopt the euro, even if we wanted to, and so certainly can’t be forced to either.

Alistair Darling has said we would have to reapply to the EU from outside, and that means being forced into the euro – however that is inaccurate and even David Cameron can’t help but say he was wrong.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/euro-pound-or-scottish-pound/

It would be really nice if people would stop
quoting yeSNP campaign websites as fact.

Lets see what the EU has to say on it.

All member states except Denmark and the UK have to join the euro.

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/

Reply 2931

Original post by NorthCountryMod

One year to go...

Choose food banks,

See below

choose the Bedroom Tax,
Why should I pay for somebody to have spare bedrooms when I don't get that luxury

choose illegal wars and indiscriminate bombings of civilian societies for economic gain

Which Illegal wars? I'm assuming that you're talking about Iraq that hasn't been declared illegal that we went to wih a Scottish born PM, a Scottish Chancellor and an overly Scottish represented cabinet. But lets look at who also went along to Iraq. There's many on that list that the SNP tell us we should be more like. Norway, Denmark & Iceland for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

, choose nuclear weapons, choose trident submarines,

Sadly, they've kept the peace in Europe since 1945. Sad, I know, but true.

choose healthcare cuts,

Devolved

choose welfare cuts,

See Below

choose slowly selling off the NHS,

You May want to see what's happening on the continent with their healthcare systems to see what the futures like.

choose privatising the Royal Mail,

Why is nationalised better? Again, you seem to forget EU anti competition laws. Most EU states have privatised their mail delivery organisations. Those that haven't will do shortly

choose church and state being undemocratically presided over by the monarchy,

Most of us don't have a problem with this. The UK is the only nation in Europe that hasn't adopted dictators.

choose constant debates about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry,

Debates over. They can

choose wage labour,

No idea what you're saying about this

choose workfare programmes,

Still waiting for those shovel ready projects the SNP keeps promising. Seems that they're hoarding the money to give away before the referendum

choose using fracking as a source of our energy,

Because renewables aren't going to cut it. Seems like the claim about being the Saudi Arabia of Renewables was rubbish.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/alex_salmonds_fantasy_of_a_tidalpowered_scotland_washed_away/

choose the prevalence of racist parties and organisations (EDL, BNP, UKIP),

Like Settler watch

choose constant media scrutiny towards the unemployed, the disabled and the homeless,

Is Salmond still cozied up to Murdoch?

choose continued funding of The Armed Forces - while science, medicine and literature are merely overlooked,

You need to investigate the R&D investment in Science related to defence spending. You may also want to see how many Scots have benefited financially and training wise from serving.

choose xenophobic propaganda regarding immigration,

Like Settler Watch?

choose tax breaks for unlawful corporations and the richest 1%,

The top 1% pay 45%. There's been significant tax breaks for low income families. Corporations aren't given tax breaks although Alex Salmond has promised to lower Corporation tax even more.

choose between New Labour and Tory, choose the same old ****e.

Whereas the SNP is promising old Labour policies from the 70s that didn't work and that's why the elctorate turned their back on them

Choose Better Together. Choose a No vote.

Or if we choose the YeSNPs approach we can

See a poorer economy, no understanding of what interest rates we'd be charged on our national debt, see an economy based on volatile oil revenues that will see us financially worse off by 2016/2017, see oil production decline, promise spending increases but plan for spending cuts, give control of the economy to third parties with no say,forced entry in Europe and adoption of theh Euro ignore the costs of setting up a new state, huge risks to pensions, risk ship building on the Clyde.

This is what the SNP are saying in private.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-s-secret-plans-to-cut-spending-revealed-1-2822794

http://b.3cdn.net/better/c1d14076ee08022eec_u9m6vd74f.pdf

Reply 2932

Original post by Good bloke

I'd say that two of those might present problems, for entirely different reasons. The first is the EU where it is conceivable that Spain may be silly about not encouraging her Catalonian separatists; Spain has a history of being silly about such things. The second is NATO, where Scotland is deeply enmeshed in the nuclear defences; this would be a potential real problem if the Scottish government is SNP-led and the constitution bans such weapons, as Salmond says it will. Other than that, Scotland could expect easy entry, though not on the same terms as those enjoyed by the UK. It is unlikely to get the opt-outs Britain has, for instance.

I don't think it's just Spain. There's every other nation in Europe with Secessionist movements who don't want to see themselves under similar pressure in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe

I think that other nations will have a bit of an issue if we get fast tracked that have been waiting to get in.

We'll get in, but at the moment we have a high degree of say what's going on in Europe with some quite significant opt outs. We lose all of that.

Reply 2933

ENNGUF

Original post by Maths Tutor

Why does the flag of the United Kingdom only incorporate the flags of England and Scotland?

It doesn't, it includes St Patrick's flag too.

Reply 2934

Original post by Mockery

Yes, because it was part of Britain...

I can only assume that Scotland will retain a joint military with the rest of the UK, in which case you will be obliged to do as we tell you.

If we are responsible for your safe-keeping, so you don't require the need for your own military, simply because you won't be able to afford anything more than state police, then Scottish servicemen will remain in the British forces.

Like there's a joint military with Ireland?

Militaries do more than go off to fight wars. They are key in foreign policy. Joint militaries have never worked.

Reply 2935

Original post by Good bloke

I'd say that two of those might present problems, for entirely different reasons. The first is the EU where it is conceivable that Spain may be silly about not encouraging her Catalonian separatists; Spain has a history of being silly about such things. The second is NATO, where Scotland is deeply enmeshed in the nuclear defences; this would be a potential real problem if the Scottish government is SNP-led and the constitution bans such weapons, as Salmond says it will. Other than that, Scotland could expect easy entry, though not on the same terms as those enjoyed by the UK. It is unlikely to get the opt-outs Britain has, for instance.

I would imagine Spain may have bigger fish to fry, but realistically if all the other countries are in favour, the best Spain could do is delay the process. The nuclear issue has been handled appallingly by the SNP. It is a massive bargaining tool for Scotland and played correctly could lead to a big chunk of the debt being reduced and pretty much guarantee a seat in NATO.

If it is decided that we will be Co-successor states then no memberships will need to be renegotiated.

Reply 2936

Original post by MatureStudent36

The RUk remains. We'd be seceding. Academics can offer whatever option they like but it doesn't have any legal precedence and it ignores national politics. We're on the outside trying to get back in and that's a given. The rUk maintains its existing position.

I'm sure we'd get into the UN, EU and NATO but there would be a degree of negotiations involved.

The EU requires all member states to agree and when it comes to national politics any member state will do whats best for it. So that will require concessions being made. It's most likely that we'd loose our current opt outs and as a new member state we'd have to accept the euro.

Except that you can't have the RUK carrying on as before and then expect Scotland to split the debt. This isn't even on the table, it is not an option at all. If Scotland has to start from Scratch so will RUK, it is that simple. It would be in both of our interests to follow a Co-Successor solution.

Or we could just do as Sweden, make a commitment to join at some point but never have any intention of doing so. A currency of our own would be the better option. I think most are agreed on this. I believe Scotland would be served better by negotiating for its own position. Currently Scotland's assets are all negotiated away to sweeten deals for the south east. This would not happen id independent.

Reply 2937

Good bloke

19

Original post by punani

Except that you can't have the RUK carrying on as before and then expect Scotland to split the debt. This isn't even on the table, it is not an option at all.

It is the only thing on the table. There will be no independence if Scotland doesn't take the debt. This is the reality.

Reply 2938

Original post by punani

Except that you can't have the RUK carrying on as before and then expect Scotland to split the debt. This isn't even on the table, it is not an option at all. If Scotland has to start from Scratch so will RUK, it is that simple. It would be in both of our interests to follow a Co-Successor solution.

Or we could just do as Sweden, make a commitment to join at some point but never have any intention of doing so. A currency of our own would be the better option. I think most are agreed on this. I believe Scotland would be served better by negotiating for its own position. Currently Scotland's assets are all negotiated away to sweeten deals for the south east. This would not happen id independent.

You're argument is the same tired argument that the SNP and nationalists have been banging on about for years. This isn't however a discussion over a pint in the pub , this is the real world. And the real world has legal implications.

rUK remains the UK as far as the world is concerned. We split Assets and Liabilities but we're on our own. As the rUK is the largest nation in term of economy, size and population it gets to keep going as normal, with a small bit missing.

This is what happened with Russia. It maintained all of the positions on the International scene that the USSR had as it was the largest body. It took all of the debt as it had been deemed that the Soviet Union was a byproduct of colonialism. All of the other nations with the exception of Belorus and Ukraine had to rejoin all other international bodys.

Yes, we could do a Sweden and say we'll join the Euro, but not. But I don't think it bodes well if one our first forries onto the international scene is based on a lie. After all, we'd somehow have to keep that quiet, which won't be possible, and other InternationalOrganisation would be keeping a close eye on that one as if we sign up to a treaty and refuse to abide by it, then that will most likely cause concern that we're signing up to gain the benefits but won't abide to those treaty obligations. Imagine that one with NATO. An Article 5 incident arises and we decide to not bother supporting it.

I'd dearly love for you to explain how the SE gets all of the good stuff and we loose out. Please do explain.

Reply 2939