Turn on thread page Beta

Does the SNP allow English people to join it? watch

    • PS Helper
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Green And Blue)
    You are not ethnically indigenous to these islands,, is that hard to understand of something ?

    The only indigenous ethnic groups in the UK, are the Scots, English, Welsh, and Irish.
    So you don't leap on my ethnicity also, I am a Scot.

    However, I disagree with almost all the points you are making. I think that anybody who is a citizen of the United Kingdom is entitled to a say in how the country is governed.

    Think of other countries in the world. Almost the entire population of America is descended from people who emigrated from Europe and other areas of the world. By your theory, the only people who would be entitled to determine how America is run would be the native Americans, which according to Wikipedia would be just 0.9% of the total population. Would you support that?

    And to put my opinions on the independence debate, I'm a unionist. I think Scotland is best off as a member if the UK, as do I believe England is better off with Scotland as a member of the UK.

    I think the most irresponsible thing we could do would be to split the nation up over a mere whim.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Can you genuinely not see the logical flaws in his statement?

    “There is no precedent and no provision for the expulsion of a member state"

    True enough. No-one is arguing that a member-state be expelled. They are arguing that a member-state will remain and a new state be created. This apparent lack of understanding of the situation suggests that he is attempting to reframe the question in his own terms so as to avoid addressing the root of the issue.

    "therefore Scottish independence would create two new member states out of one"

    There is no 'therefore' there at all. The two points have no logical relation to each other. This is a logical fallacy.

    "The remainder of the United Kingdom would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland…Anyone attacking the claim in respect of one country is attacking the claim in respect of the other. It is not possible to divide the cases.”

    The United Kingdom is the member-state. It was granted membership. Of course it has a more powerful position. It is a member. Scotland is not.

    Again, if he believes these cases cannot be divided, why is Georgia not a permanent member of the UN Security Council? Why did the Irish Free State have to apply for League of Nations membership when it left the UK?

    "That's good enough for me."

    So, in other words, you're going to put the word of a no-mark European civil servant who has never qualified in the law and who clearly makes logical fallacies in his argument - that even someone who is not in the possession of the fact of the situation can see - ahead of your own rational judgement? If that's good enough for you, then you're clearly not much good for anything.

    Indeed, you'll also have to tell me why you're taking the word of this Eurocrat without taking the word of the one I mentioned earlier, or indeed how about Dr Joe Borg, a European Commissioner and expert of EU law, who said: "Legally speaking, the continuation of the membership would remain with the rest of the UK - less Scotland. And, therefore, Scotland, as a newly independent state, would have to apply for membership."

    If you're going to accept an argument based on who said it, you can at least be rational enough to say why you accept it over arguments from better placed people.
    Have to admit I overlooked your comment about Neil Mitchison earlier. This is clearly an issue over which there is a lot of debate, and at any rate if Wales or Scotland were to not be granted immediate EU membership then they should be granted it after applying, I am aware that that doesn't take place immediately.

    It seems to me though that it's a different case regarding Ireland or Georgia and the UN. The UN and the EU are totally different organisations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laroch)
    So you don't leap on my ethnicity also, I am a Scot.

    However, I disagree with almost all the points you are making. I think that anybody who is a citizen of the United Kingdom is entitled to a say in how the country is governed.

    Think of other countries in the world. Almost the entire population of America is descended from people who emigrated from Europe and other areas of the world. By your theory, the only people who would be entitled to determine how America is run would be the native Americans, which according to Wikipedia would be just 0.9% of the total population. Would you support that?

    And to put my opinions on the independence debate, I'm a unionist. I think Scotland is best off as a member if the UK, as do I believe England is better off with Scotland as a member of the UK.

    I think the most irresponsible thing we could do would be to split the nation up over a mere whim.
    I am not American, nor do I live in America. I have no say about the running of America, nor do I care, go and take up whatever argument you are trying to spew with them.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Green And Blue)
    I am not American, nor do I live in America. I have no say about the running of America, nor do I care, go and take up whatever argument you are trying to spew with them.
    I'm merely pointing out, using America as an example, that your arguments against the threat starter are a load of rubbish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laroch)
    I'm merely pointing out, using America as an example, that your arguments against the threat starter are a load of rubbish.
    Then we will agree to disagree.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Scotland would have crumbled under the recession if it wasn't for the rest of the UK, fact.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Curzon)
    I think you'll agree with me that the case of the flooding of Capel Celyn was a very extreme case. What I am saying is that we as a nation can't get the leverage we want in Westminster regarding things that only affect us, and that the devolved assembly gives us that power to look after ourselves. I also feel that it is highly undemocratic that Welsh and Scottish MPs can vote on England-only issues in parliament (at least issues that are devolved to Wales and Scotland).
    What things are there that only affect Wales? Generally speaking, most "Wales only" issues are "Wales only" simply because a while ago someone decided to treat Wales as a separate entity to England.

    The flooding of Capel Celyn wasn't really a "Wales only" issue, it only affected a particular part of Wales. Saying that all people in Wales should have got a say in that is just like saying all people in the UK should have a say in things that affect Wales only.

    (Original post by L i b)
    The flaws are plain to see: for one, Scotland would not be a member-state. It would cease to be part of the member-state, which is the UK. The UK would still exist, and its membership would thus remain intact.
    But how do you decide which state is the UK and hence the existing member? I suppose in this case it's fairly obvious, since England has a considerably larger population and it would remain in a state together with Wales and Northern Ireland. But suppose Northern Ireland had already left the UK, and there has been a massive population shift. Now the population of Scotland is comparable to that of England and Wales. In this situation it's not so obvious which is the continuation of the UK, and which is a new state.

    To me it seems fairly arbitrary which one counts as the new state. Simply based on which on is bigger or more well known.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    But how do you decide which state is the UK and hence the existing member? I suppose in this case it's fairly obvious, since England has a considerably larger population and it would remain in a state together with Wales and Northern Ireland. But suppose Northern Ireland had already left the UK, and there has been a massive population shift. Now the population of Scotland is comparable to that of England and Wales. In this situation it's not so obvious which is the continuation of the UK, and which is a new state.

    To me it seems fairly arbitrary which one counts as the new state. Simply based on which on is bigger or more well known.
    That tends to be the position where states break up and a successor state is appointed: the USSR to the Russian Federation, for example. Although as I recall, the international community was reluctant to appoint successor states for Yugoslavia during its break-up.

    In your British scenario, there is no break-up of any state. The UK continues, constitutionally unaffected, simply with less territory - as it did when Southern Ireland went its own way in 1922. Successor states don't come into it. There would be no way that the UK Government would allow a theoretical Scottish secession to break-up the UK: indeed, since the UK isn't a federation, it's hard to see how it could effectively break-up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    In your British scenario, there is no break-up of any state. The UK continues, constitutionally unaffected, simply with less territory - as it did when Southern Ireland went its own way in 1922. Successor states don't come into it. There would be no way that the UK Government would allow a theoretical Scottish secession to break-up the UK: indeed, since the UK isn't a federation, it's hard to see how it could effectively break-up.
    Why would England automatically be the continuation of the UK? What it both Scotland and England claimed to be the continuation of the UK?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Why would England automatically be the continuation of the UK? What it both Scotland and England claimed to be the continuation of the UK?
    The Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707. If Scotland left the UK, then there would be two states: the UK and Scotland. England would still be part of the UK.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707. If Scotland left the UK, then there would be two states: the UK and Scotland. England would still be part of the UK.
    Ok, but how do you know which one left the UK, and which one is the UK? In this hypothetical example we are assuming NI is no longer in the UK (for simplicity's sake) and that Scotland's population is roughly equal to that of England and Wales combined. What if the governments of Scotland and "England and Wales" both considered themselves to be the continuation of the UK?

    I guess what I'm asking is, if a country is split up, who gets to decide whether which part is the new country, and which is the old one with less territory?
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.