Is Scottish independence a 'good or bad' thing?

Does the City of Nottingham have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

Does Shefield have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

Does Wokshop have an internationally recognised legal boundary and its own jurisdiction?

No?

Well, in that case they cannot become independent even if they would like to.

Just as Spain is claiming that Catalonia is an integral part of Spain and cannot have an independence referendum, Westminster would claim that Nottingham, Sheffield and Wokshop are an integral part of England and cannot have an independence referendum.

The independence of Scotland is therefore a slightly different matter than the independence of Nottingham, Sheffield and Wokshop, to say the least.

Even unionists have to admit that Scotland has a legal boundary with England and her own juridiction:

You seem to define being fully independent only by the factor that a country should control its own borders. Why?

As for the United States, you say they have full control of their borders. How effective is that at preventing illegal immigrants?

Germany is an independent country, and to suggest they are not because they welcome open borders is nonsense.

Oh dear. I think you're misunderstanding things again. Indeed you're absolutely right that it's unlikely those areas would have a legitimate claim for independence. But I can't see anything which really gives Scotland a more legitimate claim than any other part of the UK in terms of the principles of self-determination. They've achieved a referendum thanks to democracy and Westminster respecting the fact that the SNP won a majority of seats at the last Scottish election (if not a majority of votes), in terms of international law and the UN, the UK government would have had a legitimate reason for denying such a referendum. Scotland had no legal right to one. So you're argument about 'legal boundaries' is, once again, made up as you go along:

http://www.referendum.ed.ac.uk/does-scotland-have-the-right-to-secede/


Posted from TSR Mobile

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/28/alex-salmond-fisheries-eu-scotland

Scotland's First minister loves to deal threats to other countries doesn't he? I wonder how this will pan out.

Full Speech: http://news.scotland.gov.uk/Speeches-Briefings/Scotland-s-Place-in-Europe-bdf.aspx

all this crap about whether or not Scotland has a legal boundary (which it does) or whether it would be becoming fully independant (what does that even mean?), can somebody explain why Scotland should stay in the UK other than the UK's own selfish needs and greed?

And if you read the whole speech for yourself, you can see it is a speech embracing the EU.

Saying if Scotland wasn't in the EU, then the Common Fisheries Policy wouldn't apply to Scottish waters is no threat but obvious reality.

He was selling Scotland in Europe. To label it as threatening other countries is preposterous!

Just like the SNP saying that no currency union equals no taking on of national debt. No threats at all...


Posted from TSR Mobile

all this crap about whether or not Scotland has a legal boundary (which it does) or whether it would be becoming fully independant (what does that even mean?), can somebody explain why Scotland should stay in the UK other than the UK's own selfish needs and greed?

He was selling Scotland in Europe. To label it as threatening other countries is preposterous!

And if you read the whole speech for yourself, you can see it is a speech embracing the EU.

Saying if Scotland wasn't in the EU, then the Common Fisheries Policy wouldn't apply to Scottish waters is no threat but obvious reality.

He was selling Scotland in Europe. To label it as threatening other countries is preposterous!

It was a threat but also a fact. Still I wonder how it will pan out, I personally believe if Scotland does vote for independence they will be in the EU.

And if you read the whole speech for yourself, you can see it is a speech embracing the EU.

Saying if Scotland wasn't in the EU, then the Common Fisheries Policy wouldn't apply to Scottish waters is no threat but obvious reality.

He was selling Scotland in Europe. To label it as threatening other countries is preposterous!

Unfortunately, he has misplayed his hand by implying iScotland could bar free passage to Norwegian waters (it couldn't) and by forgetting that Scottish fishermen (likely to be outside the EU at independence until let back in) wouldn't be able to fish in EU waters - and this is likely to be a net loss to iScotland.

Actually we would gain significantly. If all the fish caught in Scottish waters were caught by Scottish boats with Scottish crews, we could create thousands of jobs overnight.

Actually we would gain significantly. If all the fish caught in Scottish waters were caught by Scottish boats with Scottish crews, we could create thousands of jobs overnight.

It was a threat but also a fact. Still I wonder how it will pan out, I personally believe if Scotland does vote for independence they will be in the EU.

(a) a lack of boats (which cannot be conjured up overnight),

(b) the disincentive to invest in a boat when later entry to the EU would lose the opportunities

(c) the inherent danger of the industry, which will act as a disincentive for men to get involved.

You may want to ask the EU that. They've already officially answered the question. As well as being consistent with their not so obvious hints.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf