Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Damien Evans]

And how many of those powers have been delivered?

 

[Darat]

And what, pray is that constitution we have? Recall Theresa May as quoted in the Telegraph

Mrs May said that after Brexit the UK will be “a fully-independent, sovereign country” that will no longer be in the “jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”, suggesting that Britain is preparing to leave the single market.​

Following Brexit the U.K. Will become "independent", "sovereign".

These are not minor changes. The Scottish electorate evidently voted to remain within a subservient subordinate country, which is about to change utterly, according to no less than the head of government. So where is the constitution we said "yes" to?

We had a national referendum at the correct level for what we were deciding. I.e. It is the UK that is a member of the EU not Scotland, but not London and so on, and so the UK "self-determinated" to leave the EU.

In summary what you are really saying is "I believe in self determination when it results in an independent Scotland but not when it results in something I don't want"

 

[Darat]

It truly amazes me the hackles that the mere idea of scotland expressing its democratic right to independence raises amongst a certain type of Englishman. You wonder what motivates them to demand against all evident facts that scotland isnt a country that we are all bigots that we dont deserve the right to self determination that its England who will decide what we are entitled to and even to obhect to our national anthem while all the time sneering and condescending and still beyond all sense of irony insisting that they occupy the moral high ground.

And this is somehow supposed to make us more endeared to the union or convince us that we are welcomed partners or make us think twice about distancing ourselves from these fellow citizens??

If it was Jews Muslims or homosexuals spojen about in such terms then the classification of such people and such opinions would be obvious.

As ever it is revealed to be an anti-English sentiment. Shame but there you go.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As ever it is revealed to be an anti-English sentiment. Shame but there you go.

Sorry but thats not anti English sentiment. Thats anti English people who want to deny Scotland its rights sentiment.

Your post is equivalent to accusing gay marriage campaigners of anti christian sentiment.

I live in England. I deal with English people every day. Im not anti them in any way.

I dont include you in the group I am referring to. I thought we were having a sensible conversation on which we disagree. Until the post above.

Eta... id love to know what specifically you see as anti english in my post as opposed to for example claiming that scotland isnt a country and that they dont have a right to self determination.

Reflect on what your view might be if a Russian insisted that the Ukraine wasnt a real country. Or an Iranian that Israel wasnt.

Then please reflect on the motivations that drive the anger and vitriol towards independence supporters here and elsewhere in this debate. Why would someone be angry about Scotland seeking independence? Why would someone seek to thwart it if thats what Scotland wants? Why would someone insist that its not our right to self determine our own fate?

Could you imagine them expressing the same sentiment towards kosovo? Would you think them reasonable if they did.

I read the wiki page on kosovos udi declaration at the icj its good stuff. Incidentally it also shows the lie of lots of comments made here by some commentators regarding international law but aside from that look at the sentiments expressed by the countries on either side of the argument. Look at who was opposed to it and consider their motivations. Look at who supported it and their motivations. Most important of all our own uk declaration.

Which side of that argument would you prefer to be on and what kind of individual would be on the other.

Then reflect on why this should be different for Scotland in respect of basic principles.

Its fine to argue that scotland shouldnt wantbto be independent. That it would be worse off. That it would be a mistake.

But that it doesn't get to decide for itself? That it shouldnt be allowed to? That the whole notion is illegitimate? And to be angry at the mere thought of it? That takes a certain type of Englishman and its not a group anyone should aspire to place themselves in.

 

[Craig B]

We had a national referendum at the correct level for what we were deciding. I.e. It is the UK that is a member of the EU not Scotland, but not London and so on, and so the UK "self-determinated" to leave the EU.

In summary what you are really saying is "I believe in self determination when it results in an independent Scotland but not when it results in something I don't want"

We had a national referendum at the correct level for what we were deciding. I.e. It is Scotland that is a member of the United Kingdom, and signatory of the Treaty of Union; not Mull, or random streets in London ... and the UK that the voters decided to remain in was a member of the EU; and Scottish voters were misdirected that the only way they could stay in the EU was by voting to remain in the UK ...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We had a national referendum at the correct level for what we were deciding. I.e. It is the UK that is a member of the EU not Scotland, but not London and so on, and so the UK "self-determinated" to leave the EU.

In summary what you are really saying is "I believe in self determination when it results in an independent Scotland but not when it results in something I don't want"

No I think what he is saying is that he believes in Scotland's right to self determination and that the EU referendum result may be a trigger for them to decide their path is separate to that of the rUK

Thats my position anyway. I shouldnt speak for others.

For example I think it would be undemocratic and against basic principles of the constitution if scotland were allowed to veto brexit by the UK government but its absolutely right that nicola tries to do so because she's not answerable to the UK only to Scotland.

Its situations like that which show why independence is the only real solution. The bickering can finally stop and we can get on with our lives.

 

[ceptimus]

It's all nonsense on stilts. It's just an excuse to hold another IndyRef because the SNP didn't get the answer they wanted on the first one.

The EU has already told Scotland that they can't 'remain as an EU member' as Scotland has never been an EU member yet. Scotland is only in the EU currently by virtue of the fact that it is part of the UK.

If Scotland becomes independent of the UK, whether or not the UK is still in the EU at that point, then Scotland will have to apply to JOIN the EU, not remain in it.

The EU may grant favorable terms to allow Scotland a quick path to EU membership. But then again it may not. Spain is worried that Catalonia may want to separate from Spain and join the EU as an independent state. Spain will oppose easy entry for Scotland so as to discourage Catalonia from trying the same thing.

 

[Craig B]

It's all nonsense on stilts. It's just an excuse to hold another IndyRef because the SNP didn't get the answer they wanted on the first one.

If May thinks that's a bad idea, why is she boosting Brexit as a fundamental constitutional change? You can't have it both ways. If it has liberated or otherwise profoundly changed the UK, then the UK that Scots voted to remain in no longer exists, and a very strong argument in favour of Indyref2 is handed to the separatist parties.

The EU may grant favorable terms to allow Scotland a quick path to EU membership. But then again it may not. Spain is worried that Catalonia may want to separate from Spain and join the EU as an independent state. Spain will oppose easy entry for Scotland so as to discourage Catalonia from trying the same thing.

Catalonia is not very easy to threaten into submission. Quiz question: who is "the only incumbent democratically-elected president in European history to have been executed"?

The EU may very well display indulgence towards Scotland. Spain may object. But Catalonia is even more significant within Spain than Scotland is within the UK, and continual repression of Catalan aspirations, if these are clearly and democratically expressed, would be a foolish policy for Madrid to pursue indefinitely; and that is the light in which Catalans would presumably view an attempt by Madrid to impose its opinions about the constitution of the UK on the rest of the EU.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's all nonsense on stilts. It's just an excuse to hold another IndyRef because the SNP didn't get the answer they wanted on the first one.

The EU has already told Scotland that they can't 'remain as an EU member' as Scotland has never been an EU member yet. Scotland is only in the EU currently by virtue of the fact that it is part of the UK.

If Scotland becomes independent of the UK, whether or not the UK is still in the EU at that point, then Scotland will have to apply to JOIN the EU, not remain in it.

The EU may grant favorable terms to allow Scotland a quick path to EU membership. But then again it may not. Spain is worried that Catalonia may want to separate from Spain and join the EU as an independent state. Spain will oppose easy entry for Scotland so as to discourage Catalonia from trying the same thing.

Just to check can you point me to where the Eu said Scotland won't be an eu member if it secedes? I know pkenty of people weighed in on it but I dont remember anything official.

 

[ceptimus]

Just to check can you point me to where the Eu said Scotland won't be an eu member if it secedes? I know pkenty of people weighed in on it but I dont remember anything official.

I don't have anything as official as an EU statement on it. Just news reports of what happened when Sturgeon tried to hold meetings with the EU, and of statements made by EU president Tusk and so on.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...ng_of_EU_states_refuse_to_commit_to_meetings/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/684142/Nicola-Sturgeon-meet-EU-leaders-Brussels-Brexit-vote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ing-to-brussels-for-talks-with-european-parl/

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-summit-idUKKCN0ZF0LI

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't have anything as official as an EU statement on it. Just news reports of what happened when Sturgeon tried to hold meetings with the EU, and of statements made by EU president Tusk and so on.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...ng_of_EU_states_refuse_to_commit_to_meetings/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/684142/Nicola-Sturgeon-meet-EU-leaders-Brussels-Brexit-vote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ing-to-brussels-for-talks-with-european-parl/

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-summit-idUKKCN0ZF0LI

I understand that officially the eu won't negotiate withScotland on anything right now but I dont think that relates to the situation discussed here.

The reality of one part of a member state seceding has never been dealt with so its obviously open to debate but again I think this is another case where people are overstating and overreaching.

Scotland is currently in the eu. And yes I understand its not a member but its people are eu cituzens. It would be strange for the eu to be hostile to that entity remaining and making provision for that. Though I understand why they might want to appear hostile during the debate. If Scotland voted yes I think the discussion would change.

 

[LondonJohn]

As ever it is revealed to be an anti-English sentiment. Shame but there you go.

They still can't (or, more probably, won't) see that this has nothing whatsoever to do with "the English", as if it's some sort of "us vs them" battle (which in their heads it is, based as it is on ancient wars between warring nation states of the time.....).

Rather, it's everything to do with "the people and government* of the UK" and "the people and government* of the Scottish region". This is everything to do with whether the UK and its people have a say over whether or not a region of the UK - Scotland - leaves the UK.

Everything else is extreme-nationalistic - and pretty close to straight-out racist - claptrap. And it goes without saying that this previous sentence will draw more ridiculous (and strawman-based) invective along the line of "Racist?!?!?! Look who's talking, you English bastard!!!!! You're the one who hates the Scots!!!!!!!!!!!!"... and so on......



* Note that I use "government" in its lower-case general form to mean the system of running and legislating a jurisdiction (in terms of a country, this would include the executive (c.f. the Government), the legislature (c.f. the Parliament) and the judiciary).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They still can't (or, more probably, won't) see that this has nothing whatsoever to do with "the English", as if it's some sort of "us vs them" battle (which in their heads it is, based as it is on ancient wars between warring nation states of the time.....).

Rather, it's everything to do with "the people and government* of the UK" and "the people and government* of the Scottish region". This is everything to do with whether the UK and its people have a say over whether or not a region of the UK - Scotland - leaves the UK.

Everything else is extreme-nationalistic - and pretty close to straight-out racist - claptrap. And it goes without saying that this previous sentence will draw more ridiculous (and strawman-based) invective along the line of "Racist?!?!?! Look who's talking, you English bastard!!!!! You're the one who hates the Scots!!!!!!!!!!!!"... and so on......



* Note that I use "government" in its lower-case general form to mean the system of running and legislating a jurisdiction (in terms of a country, this would include the executive (c.f. the Government), the legislature (c.f. the Parliament) and the judiciary).

Fact free as always. Found that part of international law that backs up your claim that scotland isnt a country yet?

 

[LondonJohn]

Fact free as always. Found that part of international law that backs up your claim that scotland isnt a country yet?

1. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States was a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26 1933.

The convention set out the definition, rights and duties of statehood. Most well-known is Article 1, which set out four criteria for statehood, as quoted below.

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

(a) a permanent population;

(b) a defined territory;

(c) government; and

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Article 3 of the Convention also declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states, so a country can exist even if other countries don't recognize it.

2. The Declarative theory of statehood is based on the 4 criteria specified in the Montevideo Convention.

3. The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state or country as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This means that so long as enough other countries recognize you as a country, you ARE a country, even if you don't have control over your territory or a permanent population.

So, you can see that the two definitions allow for different numbers of countries to exist.

Today a common way to define a country is to avoid these two definitions and say that if it's a member of the United Nations, it's a country. However, the Holy See, or Vatican, isn't a member of the United Nations, but it certainly is a country. The United Kingdom is a member of the United Nations, but the countries of England, Scotland and Ireland aren't, so by the UN rule, they aren't countries.

http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/country_definition.html



Question: Is Catalonia a country?

 

[Craig B]

The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States was a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26 1933 ... <snip> ... Question: Is Catalonia a country?

Your citation indicates that Scotland is not a "state". That is agreed. The official organs of the UK, however, including those concerned with collection of data, describe it as a "country". That means, it is a country that is not a state. That makes it a possible candidate to become a state by gaining independence, and distinguishes it from Mull or random streets in London, which are not anywhere described as countries.

Scotland already a country, is acquiring the character of a state, bit by bit. It has a parliament, and its native political traditions and predispositions are different, and becoming yet more different, from those of its southern neighbour. In this it resembles perhaps Ireland or Hungary, that became States gradually through "compromises" and similar devices: but these places were countries before, in more recent times, they became independent states. So also is Scotland.

NB I can't find the word "country" in any of the articles of the Montevideo Convention shown here. Only "state". Who among us is saying that Scotland is as yet a state in international law? We are trying to make it one. And we are entitled to, because Scotland - not Mull or random streets in London - already is a country. Statehood is therefore a right which it is justified in striving to secure.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

1. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States was a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay, on December 26 1933.

The convention set out the definition, rights and duties of statehood. Most well-known is Article 1, which set out four criteria for statehood, as quoted below.

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

(a) a permanent population;

(b) a defined territory;

(c) government; and

(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Article 3 of the Convention also declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states, so a country can exist even if other countries don't recognize it.

2. The Declarative theory of statehood is based on the 4 criteria specified in the Montevideo Convention.

3. The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state or country as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This means that so long as enough other countries recognize you as a country, you ARE a country, even if you don't have control over your territory or a permanent population.

So, you can see that the two definitions allow for different numbers of countries to exist.

Today a common way to define a country is to avoid these two definitions and say that if it's a member of the United Nations, it's a country. However, the Holy See, or Vatican, isn't a member of the United Nations, but it certainly is a country. The United Kingdom is a member of the United Nations, but the countries of England, Scotland and Ireland aren't, so by the UN rule, they aren't countries.

http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/country_definition.html



Question: Is Catalonia a country?

Goalpost move noted. Statehood is not what is being discussed. Nor common ways to define things. Scotland is not a un member thats for sure.

As for catalonia to be honest I dont know enough about it to comment in detail and would refer you to a Catalan for a more informed view. Id also take a view from the spanish government. I certainly wouldn't insist it wasn't for no good reason if both of those parties told me that it was and id wonder about my mental health if I was getting angry at Catalans on the net for saying it was.

 

[Craig B]

Catalonia is most certainly a country, but not an internationally recognised state. It was part of the Kingdom of Aragon under personal monarchical union with Castile until 1714, when its parliament was suppressed. It had and has its own language, suppressed under fascism, and was effectively independent during the Spanish Republic, suppressed under fascism. As I have noted already, its president, Lluis Companys is the only democratically elected president in European history to have been executed. Exiled in France in 1940, he was deported to Franco's Spain by the Gestapo, and executed by the fascists.

Whether Catalonia ought to become an independent state is a matter for its people to decide. If they do so decide, I think that, given the rather unpleasant history of Madrid's treatment of Catalonia in the past, it would be foolish for Spain not to recognise the Catalan decision with good grace.

As with the UK, there are many countries once ruled by Spain, which are now independent. These include Portugal, Netherlands and Belgium, no less, as well as most of the Americas. So Spain will survive the loss of Catalonia.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They still can't (or, more probably, won't) see that this has nothing whatsoever to do with "the English", as if it's some sort of "us vs them" battle (which in their heads it is, based as it is on ancient wars between warring nation states of the time.....).

Rather, it's everything to do with "the people and government* of the UK" and "the people and government* of the Scottish region". This is everything to do with whether the UK and its people have a say over whether or not a region of the UK - Scotland - leaves the UK.

Everything else is extreme-nationalistic - and pretty close to straight-out racist - claptrap. And it goes without saying that this previous sentence will draw more ridiculous (and strawman-based) invective along the line of "Racist?!?!?! Look who's talking, you English bastard!!!!! You're the one who hates the Scots!!!!!!!!!!!!"... and so on......



* Note that I use "government" in its lower-case general form to mean the system of running and legislating a jurisdiction (in terms of a country, this would include the executive (c.f. the Government), the legislature (c.f. the Parliament) and the judiciary).

And just to counter this nasty post point by point.

1 who are they in your opening line?

2 this is nothing to do with us vs them or scotland v england. Its scotlands discussion to have and decide. It is english posters on this thread who have sought to make a conflict by insisting that it is not scotlands right to decide the issue. It is us vs them. Where them refers to those particular english voices. Who are by far a minority even in their own land.

3 the views espoused by certain posters on this thread are minority extremist views. That Scotland is not a country that it has no right to self determination that the UK government could or should prevent it independence following a democratic vote. Again parallels with extremist religionists who try to paint their extreme views as being mainstream religious ones in an effort to make criticism of their ideas criticism of their religion. Saying that christians have no right to deny homosexuals their rights is not an attack on Christianity or christians but sign attack on those extremists who would try to deny homosexuals their rights.

4the idea that this is the people and the government of the UK vs the people and government of Scotland is fundamentally illogical. Firstly the UK government doesnt agree with these extremist views. Nor do most of the people of the UK. And secondly the people of scotland are included in the people of the uk. So its not even a battle of two mutually exclusive groups. Unless of course you are trying to exclude scotland from the people of the uk?

5the idea that countering your view is racist is errant nonsense and id challenge you to support your claim or withdraw it. Several of your pists on this thread have already crossed the line. Even your claim of racism contains nasty stupid stereotypes which woukdnt be allowed here if they were aimed at black posters or jewish posters.

6 you repeat deliberately your offensive and incorrect claim that scotland is merely a region of the UK. And as such has no right to secede. Kosovo as one example proves this point wrong. And scotland has a stronger claim to historical nationhood than kosovo.

 

[LondonJohn]

Goalpost move noted. Statehood is not what is being discussed. Nor common ways to define things. Scotland is not a un member thats for sure.

As for catalonia to be honest I dont know enough about it to comment in detail and would refer you to a Catalan for a more informed view. Id also take a view from the spanish government. I certainly wouldn't insist it wasn't for no good reason if both of those parties told me that it was and id wonder about my mental health if I was getting angry at Catalans on the net for saying it was.

Who's "getting angry on the net" at Scottish people insisting Scotland is a country? I only see one set of people getting angry on the net in respect of this whole issue, and they are on the opposite side of the argument.......

 

[Craig B]

Who's "getting angry on the net" at Scottish people insisting Scotland is a country? I only see one set of people getting angry on the net in respect of this whole issue, and they are on the opposite side of the argument.......

Ah, collective ad hominem, or perhaps ad Caledonienum.