Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

LondonJohn said:
And by the way, let's address this "union" nonsense further, to try to put it to bed. I suggest another business analogy. Suppose, in 2005, one company ("A") merged with another company ("B") to form a new company: "The United AB Company". Let's suppose, for the sake of the analogy, that the old "A" was a factory making nuts based in Lincoln, and the old "B" was a factory making bolts based in Newcastle. Importantly, the newly-merged company, The United AB Company, now owned and ran both factories with a single executive board, although each of the two factories had its own local-level management boards.

Now suppose that in 2016, the management board of the "old B" factory (in consultation with the workers at the "old B" factory) decided that they didn't want to be part of The United AB Company any longer - they wanted to declare independence from The United AB Company and trade separately as B.

I'm rather hoping that I don't have to explain the rest.

It matters not one bit that the UK was created by a "union" over 300 years ago. What matters is that the UK is, in 2016, a sovereign state with constituent (and nested) regions - those regions range from what are euphemistically (and politically-expediently) referred to as the "nations" of Scotland, Wales and NI, through large metropolitan regions such as Greater Manchester, London or Merseyside, through more granular regions such as county council areas, though even more granular regions such as town and parish councils, through to each individual citizen. But there is just one overarching "executive board" overseeing "The United Kingdom Company". It's called the UK government and parliament, sitting in Westminster.
Click to expand...

None of which changes the fact that Scotland could leave.
 
Also by the way and for the record, UDIs are very interesting under international law. In reality, the International Court of Justice is the ultimate arbiter. And while it has ruled that UDIs are not de facto in breach of international law, the ICJ uses stringent criteria to judge the legal validity of UDIs. These include whether the seceding region has had things like freedom of assembly, freedom of regional politics or freedom of regional information/media suppressed by the parent nation (and more obvious larger issues such as whether the parent nation has actively imposed economic or political hardships upon the seceding region, or has waged internal war against the peoples of the seceding region).

Frankly, I don't fancy Scotland's chances of meeting the ICJ criteria if it idiotically goes down the UDI route. But it would be fun to see, I guess :)
 
LondonJohn said:
Also by the way and for the record, UDIs are very interesting under international law. In reality, the International Court of Justice is the ultimate arbiter. And while it has ruled that UDIs are not de facto in breach of international law, the ICJ uses stringent criteria to judge the legal validity of UDIs. These include whether the seceding region has had things like freedom of assembly, freedom of regional politics or freedom of regional information/media suppressed by the parent nation (and more obvious larger issues such as whether the parent nation has actively imposed economic or political hardships upon the seceding region, or has waged internal war against the peoples of the seceding region).

Frankly, I don't fancy Scotland's chances of meeting the ICJ criteria if it idiotically goes down the UDI route. But it would be fun to see, I guess :)
Click to expand...

Scotland's place in the UK would be all over bar the shouting if they went that route, no matter what the ICJ ruled. You can't hold them in the UK against the will of the majority there, and that's that, so the most civilised way to deal with it is to allow a referendum where both sides get their say.
 
Strawberry said:
Scotland's place in the UK would be all over bar the shouting if they went that route, no matter what the ICJ ruled. You can't hold them in the UK against the will of the majority there, and that's that, so the most civilised way to deal with it is to allow a referendum where both sides get their say.
Click to expand...


What if I, a single citizen, was being "held in the UK against the will of the (100%) majority" against my desire to become a separate sovereign nation, LJ-Land? You're saying the UK authorities would have no reasonable choice at that point but to grant me independence?

(I'm hoping at least that this is recognised as a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the principle at play here.........)
 
LondonJohn said:
What if I, a single citizen, was being "held in the UK against the will of the (100%) majority" against my desire to become a separate sovereign nation, LJ-Land? You're saying the UK authorities would have no reasonable choice at that point but to grant me independence?

(I'm hoping at least that this is recognised as a reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the principle at play here.........)
Click to expand...


Who cares? One individual nobody is going to notice or care what you call yourself.

Now let's get back to the subject at hand - if Scotland is pushed to the extent that the majority want to leave and Westminster deny them the right to a referendum, they could feasibly declare UDI. And if they do that, the UK is finished in all but name, because you can't hold a country of 5 million people or so against their will. The most sensible thing for the government to do is agree to a referendum and let the unionists at least have a chance of persuading people out of it.
 
Strawberry said:
Who cares? One individual nobody is going to notice or care what you call yourself.

Now let's get back to the subject at hand - if Scotland is pushed to the extent that the majority want to leave and Westminster deny them the right to a referendum, they could feasibly declare UDI. And if they do that, the UK is finished in all but name, because you can't hold a country of 5 million people or so against their will. The most sensible thing for the government to do is agree to a referendum and let the unionists at least have a chance of persuading people out of it.
Click to expand...
LJ is simply being provocative and naughty, I think. Best let him get on with it.
 
LondonJohn said:
See my previous post. No it couldn't.
Click to expand...

Who was it that used the term 'ludicrous and arrogant' earlier?

Your repeating of your own opinion as if it is fact certainly falls into that category. As is your insistence that Scotland is not more than a region of the UK or, it seems, any single English person.

You are simply wrong in a number of things that you say. Including on whether or not Holyrood can hold a referendum without permission from Westminster. They can. And it appears they will if they have to.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
And let's once and for all put this bogus talk of "partnerships" and "unions" to an end. The mechanics of the situation in 2016 are that Scotland is a region of the UK. Just as the area covered by Swindon town council is a region of the UK.
Click to expand...
You want to cause disquiet to Scottish separatists by suggesting that Swindon - or London! - seceding from England is as likely - and as legitimate - as Scotland seceding from the UK?!?

Well, there's a piece of good news! While England's dealing with the defection of Swindon, the British Union will of course fall immediately and entirely to bits, and make our escape from it an affair of trivial simplicity.

Can you imagine how much easier things would have gone in Ireland if London had declared itself independent of England in 1916?
 
Craig B said:
You want to cause disquiet to Scottish separatists by suggesting that Swindon - or London! - seceding from England is as likely - and as legitimate - as Scotland seceding from the UK?!?

Well, there's a piece of good news! While England's dealing with the defection of Swindon, the British Union will of course fall immediately and entirely to bits, and make our escape from it an affair of trivial simplicity.

Can you imagine how much easier things would have gone in Ireland if London had declared itself independent of England in 1916?
Click to expand...


I suspect the hard logical reality of the situation will come home to you sooner or later. In the meantime, do feel free to enjoy your separatist pipe dreams :)
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Who was it that used the term 'ludicrous and arrogant' earlier?

Your repeating of your own opinion as if it is fact certainly falls into that category. As is your insistence that Scotland is not more than a region of the UK or, it seems, any single English person.

You are simply wrong in a number of things that you say. Including on whether or not Holyrood can hold a referendum without permission from Westminster. They can. And it appears they will if they have to.
Click to expand...


Oh dear. It is fact that if Scotland (stupidly) were to make a UDI, then the matter would be arbitrated by the International Court of Justice. That's a fact. It's not my opinion.

And the ICJ has already explicitly set out in previous judgements in this area that there are certain criteria to be met if a region making a UDI is to be legally allowed (in international law) to do so. That's also a fact. Not my opinion.

It's fair to say that it comes down to my opinion that Scotland would fall about....ooooh.....a million miles short of the criteria laid out by the ICJ. And therefore it's also fair to say that it's my opinion that any UDI by Scotland would be declared illegal under international law by the ICJ. That would indeed be fun and funny!

Hope this makes things clearer!
 
LondonJohn said:
I suspect the hard logical reality of the situation will come home to you sooner or later. In the meantime, do feel free to enjoy your separatist pipe dreams :)
Click to expand...

I suspect you will one day realise the days of Empire ended long ago and your insignificance grows every day.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh dear. It is fact that if Scotland (stupidly) were to make a UDI, then the matter would be arbitrated by the International Court of Justice. That's a fact. It's not my opinion.

And the ICJ has already explicitly set out in previous judgements in this area that there are certain criteria to be met if a region making a UDI is to be legally allowed (in international law) to do so. That's also a fact. Not my opinion.

It's fair to say that it comes down to my opinion that Scotland would fall about....ooooh.....a million miles short of the criteria laid out by the ICJ. And therefore it's also fair to say that it's my opinion that any UDI by Scotland would be declared illegal under international law by the ICJ. That would indeed be fun and funny!

Hope this makes things clearer!
Click to expand...

Did you quote the wrong post? Your reply references nothing in mine.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh dear. It is fact that if Scotland (stupidly) were to make a UDI, then the matter would be arbitrated by the International Court of Justice. That's a fact. It's not my opinion.

And the ICJ has already explicitly set out in previous judgements in this area that there are certain criteria to be met if a region making a UDI is to be legally allowed (in international law) to do so. That's also a fact. Not my opinion.

It's fair to say that it comes down to my opinion that Scotland would fall about....ooooh.....a million miles short of the criteria laid out by the ICJ. And therefore it's also fair to say that it's my opinion that any UDI by Scotland would be declared illegal under international law by the ICJ. That would indeed be fun and funny!

Hope this makes things clearer!
Click to expand...

There is nothing the ICJ could do to force Scotland to stay in the UK, no matter how it ruled. Why would you even want them to? Would you regard it as desirable for the people of Scotland to be kept in the UK against their will?
 
And yes. No matter how you wish it to be otherwise, Scotland is, in law and in politics, a REGION of the United Kingdom. You can bandy around "culturally-important" historic terms such as "nation" and "country" as much as you like, but they have zero standing in international law in respect of Scotland.

England is also a region of the United Kingdom. The UK is not a Federal Republic, you know (or DO you know that?). Perhaps it would be helpful to look at a country like Germany, which IS a Federal Republic consisting of member states. But even there, a regional state such as Bavaria is still, in international law, considered nothing more than a region of the sovereign state of Germany in international law. Incidentally, there are many in Bavaria who still pine to talking about it as the "Kingdom" of Bavaria. That makes them happy, I suppose, and makes them feel all nostalgic and warm about the times in the distant past when Bavaria did have a King. Just like all those who like to pretend that Scotland is a "nation" or a "country" in any real sense of the term with any legal weight.

By all means, refer to Scotland as the Kingdom of Scotland if you like. Or the Galactic Empire of Scotland. It doesn't chance what Scotland actually is in international law. And that is a region of the United Kingdom.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I suspect you will one day realise the days of Empire ended long ago and your insignificance grows every day.
Click to expand...


See, this is exactly what I'd expect. Just because I'm pointing out how the constitution of the UK actually works, and how international law treats the issue of secession, you somehow illogically leap to the "conclusion" that I must be some sort of Empire-loving, Scots-hating imperialist dreaming of the days when the Sun wouldn't go down on the British Empire without asking permission first.

Suffice it to say that the drawing of such an inference is as bone-headed as it is incorrect. Try again.
 
LondonJohn said:
And yes. No matter how you wish it to be otherwise, Scotland is, in law and in politics, a REGION of the United Kingdom. You can bandy around "culturally-important" historic terms such as "nation" and "country" as much as you like, but they have zero standing in international law in respect of Scotland.

England is also a region of the United Kingdom. The UK is not a Federal Republic, you know (or DO you know that?). Perhaps it would be helpful to look at a country like Germany, which IS a Federal Republic consisting of member states. But even there, a regional state such as Bavaria is still, in international law, considered nothing more than a region of the sovereign state of Germany in international law. Incidentally, there are many in Bavaria who still pine to talking about it as the "Kingdom" of Bavaria. That makes them happy, I suppose, and makes them feel all nostalgic and warm about the times in the distant past when Bavaria did have a King. Just like all those who like to pretend that Scotland is a "nation" or a "country" in any real sense of the term with any legal weight.

By all means, refer to Scotland as the Kingdom of Scotland if you like. Or the Galactic Empire of Scotland. It doesn't chance what Scotland actually is in international law. And that is a region of the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...

Would you see it as desirable for Scotland to be forced to stay in the UK against the will of the majority of Scottish people?
 
Strawberry said:
There is nothing the ICJ could do to force Scotland to stay in the UK, no matter how it ruled. Why would you even want them to? Would you regard it as desirable for the people of Scotland to be kept in the UK against their will?
Click to expand...


Would you regard it as desirable for the person of me to be kept in the UK against my will? Is there "nothing the ICJ could do" to force me to stay in the UK, even though I voted with a majority of 100% on a turnout of 100% to declare independence from the UK?

If you can at least attempt to answer this question seriously, we might make some progress. After all, the principle is exactly the same. Or are you seriously going to try to suggest that there's some sort of minimum number of people in a group who want to secede for it to be essentially a done deal? If so, what is that number? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000? 10?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom