Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[3point14]

Scotland isn't independent and hasn't declared independence for anyone else to recognise.

However the government of the UK recognises Scotland is a country.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives...nistrative/the-countries-of-the-uk/index.html

What's the legal, international definition of 'country'?

Does the USA recognise Texas as a country?
Does Australia recognise New South Wales as a country?

No. That's why I said 'like', as in 'akin to but not the same'.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Scotland isn't independent and hasn't declared independence for anyone else to recognise.

However the government of the UK recognises Scotland is a country.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives...nistrative/the-countries-of-the-uk/index.html

Does the USA recognise Texas as a country?
Does Australia recognise New South Wales as a country?

But I am not the UK so why should I call it a country when it clearly isn't? I get it instead of states, provinces, prefectures and so on you like calling your second largest political units countries but that doesn't make them as if they are really countries as in the synonym of nations.

 

[Castro]

But I am not the UK so why should I call it a country when it clearly isn't? I get it instead of states, provinces, prefectures and so on you like calling your second largest political units countries but that doesn't make them as if they are really countries as in the synonym of nations.

Apparently you are not Wikipedia either: Countries of the United Kingdom:

The United Kingdom (UK) comprises four countries: England, Scotland, and Wales (which collectively make up Great Britain) and Northern Ireland (which is variously described as a country, province or region)...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But I am not the UK so why should I call it a country when it clearly isn't? I get it instead of states, provinces, prefectures and so on you like calling your second largest political units countries but that doesn't make them as if they are really countries as in the synonym of nations.

You are free to call bananas oranges if you wish. You would be wrong and people would be confused why you insist on being wrong about something that you have been corrected on.

You are of course free to continue to do so if wish to appear to be either stupid or ignorant or deliberately acting the ****.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No. That's why I said 'like', as in 'akin to but not the same'.

Great so we can agree that in some ways it is like Texas and in some other ways it is not.

In some ways it is like Slovenia and in other ways it is not too.

What it IS is a country in the UK.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Great so we can agree that in some ways it is like Texas and in some other ways it is not.

In what way is it not? What does Scotland have that Texas doesn't? You are asserting there is a meaningful distinction other than quaint pretending by the UK that it is 4 nations instead of 1, so what is this distinction?

 

[Dutchman]

In what way is it not? What does Scotland have that Texas doesn't? You are asserting there is a meaningful distinction other than quaint pretending by the UK that it is 4 nations instead of 1, so what is this distinction?

It has the Scotland National Football Team, which competes in the FIFA World Cup tournament, among others, representing Scotland, and not the UK. So there's at least the FIFA recognizing Scotland as a country, like it does Wales and Northern Ireland. I admit, it's not earthshattering, but there you go.

 

[3point14]

Great so we can agree that in some ways it is like Texas and in some other ways it is not.

In some ways it is like Slovenia and in other ways it is not too.

What it IS is a country in the UK.

What exactly does that mean though?

Why is being a 'country' a significant or relevant thing? That is, what's the legal, international definiton of a country and, according to that law, what can a country (Scotland) do that a notcountry (i.e. Texas, NSW) can't?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What exactly does that mean though?

Why is being a 'country' a significant or relevant thing? That is, what's the legal, international definiton of a country and, according to that law, what can a country (Scotland) do that a notcountry (i.e. Texas, NSW) can't?

Technically "country" is a geographic designation.

"Nation" refers to a cultural-linguistic grouping of peoples.

Then we have "government" for the political entity.

The term for a sovereign power acknowledged by other sovereign powers is "state."

This last one gets confusing (as seen in this very discussion) because federal systems often refer to their constituent parts as states.

 

[The Don]

If there was any doubt that the UK will be anything other than a low-tax, low wage, low benefit country attempting to compete with the developing world on price rather than the developed world on quality and innovation, this latest announcement of 10 free ports is a clear indication.

The government is planning to create up to 10 free ports across the UK after Brexit.

They allow firms to import goods and then re-export them outside of normal tax and customs rules.

The UK last had such zones in 2012 and Prime Minister Boris Johnson believes they could create jobs in "left-behind areas".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/49198825

If the Adam Smith Institute thinks something is a good idea, then it's likely to benefit the 1% and screw over the rest of us:

Eamonn Butler, from free market think-tank the Adam Smith Institute and a member of the new panel, said the zones would set the UK "on the right course" after Brexit.

He said they "provide safe harbour for trade in turbulent times and show that hi-tech hubs of enterprise, low taxes, deregulation and trade without restriction can rebalance the economy".

I agree with the shadow trade minister's sentiments:

Responding to the government announcement, shadow international trade secretary Barry Gardiner said the planned UK zones did not constitute new investment.

"It is a race to the bottom that will have money launderers and tax dodgers rubbing their hands with glee," he said.

"Free ports and free enterprise zones risk companies shutting up shop in one part of the country in order to exploit tax breaks elsewhere, and, worst of all, lower employment rights", he said.

"The British people did not vote for this new administration and they certainly did not vote to see their jobs and livelihoods threatened in favour of gifting further tax breaks to big companies and their bosses."

 

[3point14]

Technically "country" is a geographic designation.

Does that make the term meaningless, politically speaking?

 

[Nessie]

Like a State in the USA.

Yes. What makes Scotland a nation is that for centuries it was an independent country that in 1707 joined with other nations to form a new larger nation.

A better comparison would be all the independent nations such as Prussia and Bavaria that unified in 1871 to make up Germany. In 1945 Germany then split into two nations, which then reunified in 1990.

 

[The Don]

Doubtless this will be dismissed by Brexiteers as Project Fear

A no-deal Brexit would result in an instant shock to the UK economy, the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has warned.

Items such as petrol and food would become more expensive if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, he said.

He predicted the value of the pound would fall in response to what he described as a "real economic shock".

"The change in trading relationship means that real incomes will be lower," he told the BBC's Today programme.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49203426

Remember, "sunny uplands" and "no downside, only a considerable upside".

 

[Nessie]

In what way is it not? What does Scotland have that Texas doesn't? You are asserting there is a meaningful distinction other than quaint pretending by the UK that it is 4 nations instead of 1, so what is this distinction?

I think Texas is closer to Scotland's historic status, because at one time Texas was an independent nation.

Otherwise, the various states in the USA, Canada and Australia were more like regional administrative areas within an existing nation. AFAIK, none were independent and recognised as independent nations.

 

[Tolls]

Remember, "sunny uplands" and "no downside, only a considerable upside".

Oh, but we weren't supposed to believe any of that. After all, the referendum simply said Leave or Remain...and since it never specified what Leave meant then the voters should have realised that it could mean anything, no matter what the pro-Leave campaigns said.

I mean, we all knew they were liars and charlatans so what could we expect?

 

[The Don]

Oh, but we weren't supposed to believe any of that. After all, the referendum simply said Leave or Remain...and since it never specified what Leave meant then the voters should have realised that it could mean anything, no matter what the pro-Leave campaigns said.

I mean, we all knew they were liars and charlatans so what could we expect?

As a pointed out upthread, apparently Dominic Raab made it abundantly clear that a no deal was a distinct possibility during the referendum campaign.

Project Fear must have hacked all social media and edited all his recorded interviews because there is no evidence of this whatsoever.

It beggars belief that we're sailing blithely towards the "doomsday" scenario. I'd really like to know whether the government really believes that everything will be fine or whether they're just saying it to preserve their jobs and/or enhance their fortunes.

 

[ohms]

Leaked Whitehall slide on first month of No Deal Brexit :

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1156989930477953025

EXC: On Sky News now: we’ve obtained a “sensitive” internal Whitehall slide which makes sober reading about the first month of a no deal brexit. It warns of
- “consumer panic”
- “law and order challenges” in NI
- security gaps
- Brits abroad return

Produced before BJ became PM

 

[Tolls]

Well, yes...Raab is one of the aforementioned liars and charlatans.

And, no. They don't believe it's all going to be fine for the country as a whole. They just think they'll be fine, which is all that matters to them. And if lots of useful idiots fall by the wayside? Who gives a toss.

Of course, having said that, part of them being "fine" includes Johnson remaining PM, and that won't happen is we crash out at the end of October. So he's going to have to do a rather spectacular volte face assuming parliament doesn't force his hand before then.

 

[Lothian]

Leaked Whitehall slide on first month of No Deal Brexit :

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1156989930477953025

Yes, yes, yes but look at all the benefits. We have already signed fantastic* trade deals with the Faroe Islands and 11 other areas.





*No. Obviously these deals are not better than the ones we currently have. Do you know how long trade deals take to agree? Jesus!! They are the same terms as the EU agreed, rolled over.

 

[Craig B]

Like a State in the USA.

It's not like a US state, and the UK is not in any sense a federal union. That is the main constitutional problem with the UK. The power of parliament to make whatever decision it likes at whatever time it likes can not be constrained by any written constitution. Here is what the relevant authority says about the situation.
"That Parliaments have more than once intended and endeavoured to pass Acts which should tie the hands of their successors is certain, but the endeavour has always ended in failure,” he wrote (Law of the Constitution, p.65). Dismissing what may have been thought of as one contender for higher status with a degree of mockery, he argued that “neither the Act of Union with Scotland nor the Dentists Act 1878 has more claim than the other to be considered a supreme law”. So it's not like a state. It's like a joke.

Thread closed due to size; continues here

Posted By: zooterkin