Second Scottish independence referendum Watch

L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#81
Report 2 years ago
#81
(Original post by elitepower)
I am not going to have respect for a colossal mistake.

If they want to leave fine. But they aren't taking my rights away.
It's the people's mistake to make and you have no rights beyond what this liberal democracy grants you in law.
0
quote
reply
Midlander
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#82
Report 2 years ago
#82
(Original post by L i b)
All nationalists have the same ideology, they just have different tribes.
Bang on the money there.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
username2766878
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#83
Report 2 years ago
#83
Not necessarily, all states have the right to self-determination. Under the provisions of international law the Scots could hold their own referendum and if they voted for independence then Westminster would have to respect it. But then again, the SNP's logic isn't really for independence, it does after all want Scotland to be a member of the EU, which at this stage would involve a commitment to joining the single currency, and the Eurozone is well on its way to becoming a fully fledged federal state.
0
quote
reply
Midlander
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#84
Report 2 years ago
#84
(Original post by Sycatonne23)
Not necessarily, all states have the right to self-determination. Under the provisions of international law the Scots could hold their own referendum and if they voted for independence then Westminster would have to respect it. But then again, the SNP's logic isn't really for independence, it does after all want Scotland to be a member of the EU, which at this stage would involve a commitment to joining the single currency, and the Eurozone is well on its way to becoming a fully fledged federal state.
States are defined by lines on a map drawn long ago. The SNP's stance is related to a fundamental blame of people on the other side of that line for their own shortcomings.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#85
Report 2 years ago
#85
(Original post by Sycatonne23)
Not necessarily, all states have the right to self-determination. Under the provisions of international law the Scots could hold their own referendum and if they voted for independence then Westminster would have to respect it.
I'm sorry, that's simply not true. Scottish people self-determine as part of a democratic United Kingdom. There is no international law requirement for anything of the sort. Indeed, this question was fairly conclusively addressed in the Reference in re: Secession of Quebec.

The UK Parliament has exclusive competence over issues of the constitution and the union. The Scottish Parliament does not and is not capable of acting in that way. Which is why they didn't and got UK Government agreement ahead of 2014.
0
quote
reply
elitepower
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#86
Report 2 years ago
#86
(Original post by L i b)
It's the people's mistake to make and you have no rights beyond what this liberal democracy grants you in law.
Really showing your right wing screw the people side now aren't you?*
0
quote
reply
Midlander
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#87
Report 2 years ago
#87
(Original post by elitepower)
Really showing your right wing screw the people side now aren't you?*
What is right wing about enacting what the majority voted for? More to the point, what is left wing about building a fence at Berwick upon Tweed and throwing rocks at those on the other side?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#88
Report 2 years ago
#88
(Original post by elitepower)
Really showing your right wing screw the people side now aren't you?*
Not really, it's a statement of the position of the law in respect to the enforceable rights that people have. It's neither left nor right.
0
quote
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#89
Report 2 years ago
#89
Scottish voters / On a choice between a Scotland...
In the EU and not part of the UK: 37%
Part of the UK and not in the EU: 46%
(via YouGov)
0
quote
reply
FredOrJohn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#90
Report 2 years ago
#90
It would definitely be in the 48% best interest for Scotland to go Indy AND for them to offer passports to any UK passport holder who wanted the new Scottish passport.

Scotland would be at a HUGE advantage to take all the EU City work off London without the need of it leaving this Island.

Its in everyones best interest for Scotland to go Indy otherwise the London work will go abroad.
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#91
Report 2 years ago
#91
(Original post by FredOrJohn)
Scotland would be at a HUGE advantage to take all the EU City work off London without the need of it leaving this Island.

Its in everyones best interest for Scotland to go Indy otherwise the London work will go abroad.
Ridiculous nonsense. You're not going to have major financial institutions move to a country that doesn't have a credible currency, has a small market for their business, few assurances about the future and an insurmountable fiscal crisis.

Instead, Scottish independence will see major financial service companies based in Edinburgh - like the life insurance sector - whose markets are overwhelmingly in the rest of the UK, leave.
0
quote
reply
Midlander
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#92
Report 2 years ago
#92
(Original post by FredOrJohn)
It would definitely be in the 48% best interest for Scotland to go Indy AND for them to offer passports to any UK passport holder who wanted the new Scottish passport.

Scotland would be at a HUGE advantage to take all the EU City work off London without the need of it leaving this Island.

Its in everyones best interest for Scotland to go Indy otherwise the London work will go abroad.
Not in the Scottish interest to cut its nose to spite its face. The very high public funding it gets from the central pot at present would have to be maintained by cuts, tax hikes or both. That is the great advantage of pooling resources across the UK.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#93
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#93
(Original post by Midlander)
Not in the Scottish interest to cut its nose to spite its face. The very high public funding it gets from the central pot at present would have to be maintained by cuts, tax hikes or both. That is the great advantage of pooling resources across the UK.


Posted from TSR Mobile
It's also the reason they joined in the first place


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
username2766878
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#94
Report 2 years ago
#94
(Original post by L i b)
I'm sorry, that's simply not true. Scottish people self-determine as part of a democratic United Kingdom. There is no international law requirement for anything of the sort. Indeed, this question was fairly conclusively addressed in the Reference in re: Secession of Quebec.

The UK Parliament has exclusive competence over issues of the constitution and the union. The Scottish Parliament does not and is not capable of acting in that way. Which is why they didn't and got UK Government agreement ahead of 2014.
Not true, speaking from the perspective of international law, there is something called the Kosovo precedent, whereby the UN Court of Justice found it legitimate that Kosovo could secede from Serbia without the permission of the central authorities of Serbia (albeit the secession took place in bloodier circumstances). However the UN Court of Justice ruled that "No general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be ruled by the security council", meaning if the declaration of independence is made under similar circumstances to Kosovo (whereby a state decides to secede due to years of violent repression) or where a referendum is held and international observers agree that the referendum isn't rigged, a state CAN secede without the permission of the central authority. Now obviously in the case of Scotland nobody expects a war, the more likely outcome would be that the Scottish Assembly votes in favour of holding a referendum, the referendum is held and meets international criteria to not be rigged, and if a vote for independence is in the majority then that's what legally should follow. Not endorsing Scottish independence but I am pointing out that Scotland can secede without the permission of Westminster. How Westminster would respond is a different question, but can it be done legally? Yes.
0
quote
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#95
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#95
(Original post by Sycatonne23)
Not true, speaking from the perspective of international law, there is something called the Kosovo precedent, whereby the UN Court of Justice found it legitimate that Kosovo could secede from Serbia without the permission of the central authorities of Serbia (albeit the secession took place in bloodier circumstances). However the UN Court of Justice ruled that "No general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be ruled by the security council", meaning if the declaration of independence is made under similar circumstances to Kosovo (whereby a state decides to secede due to years of violent repression) or where a referendum is held and international observers agree that the referendum isn't rigged, a state CAN secede without the permission of the central authority. Now obviously in the case of Scotland nobody expects a war, the more likely outcome would be that the Scottish Assembly votes in favour of holding a referendum, the referendum is held and meets international criteria to not be rigged, and if a vote for independence is in the majority then that's what legally should follow. Not endorsing Scottish independence but I am pointing out that Scotland can secede without the permission of Westminster. How Westminster would respond is a different question, but can it be done legally? Yes.
Well we're into a different realm now someone would have to uphold that law for it to be binding plus the circumstances for that simply wouldn't happen anyway


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
quote
reply
FredOrJohn
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#96
Report 2 years ago
#96
(Original post by L i b)
Ridiculous nonsense. You're not going to have major financial institutions move to a country that doesn't have a credible currency, has a small market for their business, few assurances about the future and an insurmountable fiscal crisis.

Instead, Scottish independence will see major financial service companies based in Edinburgh - like the life insurance sector - whose markets are overwhelmingly in the rest of the UK, leave.
That makes no sense.otherwise how does the Channel Islands make so much money from finance (the Jersey pound is not legal tender in the UK). You're being disingenuous due to your biased politics against the ordinary people of UK
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#97
Report 2 years ago
#97
(Original post by Sycatonne23)
Not true, speaking from the perspective of international law, there is something called the Kosovo precedent, whereby the UN Court of Justice found it legitimate that Kosovo could secede from Serbia without the permission of the central authorities of Serbia (albeit the secession took place in bloodier circumstances). However the UN Court of Justice ruled that "No general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence may be ruled by the security council", meaning if the declaration of independence is made under similar circumstances to Kosovo (whereby a state decides to secede due to years of violent repression) or where a referendum is held and international observers agree that the referendum isn't rigged, a state CAN secede without the permission of the central authority.
I'm sorry, but that's the strangest interpretation of the Advisory Opinion given by the ICJ that I've ever heard. I also note that your quote there is a fabrication, it appears nowhere in any ICJ judgment.

What the ICJ held, quite reasonably, is that there is no prohibition in international law to declare independence. It also noted of course that declarations of independence often have no effect - they do not create rights in international law either. Making one has no legal effect whatsoever in international law in these circumstances.

The domestic law of states, however, tends implicitly to prevent this.

Now obviously in the case of Scotland nobody expects a war, the more likely outcome would be that the Scottish Assembly votes in favour of holding a referendum
Which the Scottish Parliament cannot do, because it is ultra vires. Your "likely outcome" falls at the first hurdle.

Your legal point is also patent nonsense, not to mention offensively daft given that you're comparing the circumstances of a territory under international administration set up to prevent a genocide with the position of an integral part of a liberal democracy. Kosovo may create lessons for those interested in international politics, but they are not the lessons you're suggesting.
1
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#98
Report 2 years ago
#98
(Original post by FredOrJohn)
That makes no sense.otherwise how does the Channel Islands make so much money from finance (the Jersey pound is not legal tender in the UK). You're being disingenuous due to your biased politics against the ordinary people of UK
It's quite amusing to see people suggest things "make no sense" while simultaneously having to ask questions about them.

The Jersey Pound is pegged to Sterling, based on a currency board arrangement. All local notes are backed 100% by sterling. Most currency pegging arrangements involve holding reserves around 20-30% of GDP - given Scotland's fiscal position, it would realistically have to be higher to support a peg.

The Jersey example is even more extreme, and only operates because it is in essence a micro-state.

There is no way an independent Scotland could hope to accumulate vast foreign reserves to support a pegging arrangement. For a start, they would need to be present at the outset, and for another they would require excessive fiscal constraint over and above the £15 billion that an independent Scotland would need to find to fill the fiscal gap created by ending transfers from the UK.

If Scotland could find the Sterling reserves to 100% back a currency peg, then that would be all well and dandy. It, of course, could not. As such, it cannot be remotely like Jersey.
1
quote
reply
1420787
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#99
Report 2 years ago
#99
The basis for a second independence referendum is, in the eyes of many eligible voters, a fairly narrow No vote in 2014 being undermined by Brexit. Arguing that an independent Scotland would struggle economically is not all that relevant to the those calls for a second referendum to be held on that basis.
1
quote
reply
username2766878
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#100
Report 2 years ago
#100
(Original post by L i b)
I'm sorry, but that's the strangest interpretation of the Advisory Opinion given by the ICJ that I've ever heard. I also note that your quote there is a fabrication, it appears nowhere in any ICJ judgment.

What the ICJ held, quite reasonably, is that there is no prohibition in international law to declare independence. It also noted of course that declarations of independence often have no effect - they do not create rights in international law either. Making one has no legal effect whatsoever in international law in these circumstances.

The domestic law of states, however, tends implicitly to prevent this.



Which the Scottish Parliament cannot do, because it is ultra vires. Your "likely outcome" falls at the first hurdle.

Your legal point is also patent nonsense, not to mention offensively daft given that you're comparing the circumstances of a territory under international administration set up to prevent a genocide with the position of an integral part of a liberal democracy. Kosovo may create lessons for those interested in international politics, but they are not the lessons you're suggesting.
So do you mean to tell me, that if the Scottish Assembly passed a bill (whether or not the parliament in Westminster recognises it) which stipulated the holding of an independence referendum, and the referendum is held, and there is the same or higher turnout in this referendum than the independence referendum of 2014, and the referendum is held under no circumstances of duress or fraud or anything which could rig the result (and confirmed unanimously by international observers), and in that situation a majority of voters opt for independence, then the Scots do not have the right to secede from the UK without the permission of the the British parliament? In that case, we might as well throw out of the window the right of a peoples to self-determine their sovereignty. If by suggesting that Scotland's secession in such a scenario would be illegitimate, are you also suggesting that the British parliament could (or should) authorise the use of force to prevent the Scottish government from carrying out that mandate? Of course the SNP got approval from Westminster in 2014 because although the SNP is a pro-nationalist party, its desire for independence wasn't overwhelmingly desperate and so to keep the process cordial (if a vote for independence were to have gone through) it would have made much more sense to have an agreement with the British government beforehand. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, if for whatever reason the Scottish government felt Scottish independence was urgent and had to be done immediately and they seeked in the manner described above (completely clean and legitimate with backing from the majority of Scottish citizens), then it doesn't matter whether Westminster agrees/recognises it or not, Scotland would be fully within its rights to secede even if it were a messy process. Like it or not, states have the right to secede from larger states if there's a democratic mandate to do it, permission of the central authority granted or not.
1
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (75)
27.68%
No (196)
72.32%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed