Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Myopia is not a country. Thats for sure.
Indyref 2: This time it's personal.
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
Myopia is not a country. Thats for sure.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
All nonsense. And with respect to your last point, "historical right to statehood" is all part of the ultra-nationalist myth here, isn't it? Scotland wasn't colonised or invaded by "England" (or, more accurately, the UK). Scotland willingly "merged" with England & Wales - several hundred years ago - to form a whole new country, the UK. And just as when (say) Glaxo and Smithkline Beecham in around 2000 to form GlaxoSmithKline, the two separate entities of Glaxo and Smithkline Beecham ceased to exist as ring-fenced companies (even if many of the business units of both the Glaxo and SB parts of GSK still operated in a similar way to how they'd operated before the merger). And just as if the notional Smithkline Beecham part of GSK sought, in 2016, to split off from GSK, you bet your bottom dollar that the board, shareholders and employees of GSK would have the total right to be involved in that decision and to veto it if it was not in their best interests. Note: NOT the board, shareholders and employees of Glaxo (cf. "the English"). The board, shareholders and employees of GlaxoSmithKline, the entity into which both Glaxo and Smithkline Beecham had merged in the past (cf. The United Kingdom).
Oh, and once again you're unable or unwilling to understand that a region such as Kosovo was suffering significant cultural, political and military oppression/suppression by Serbia (and Yugoslavia before it) at the time of its UDI secession. Indeed, the UN had already intervened in Kosovo to protect it and its people, and to force the Yugo/Serbian forces to withdraw, and NATO had bombed Serbia as part of the effort to get Milosevic to lay off Kosovo. Subsequently and consequently, the UN placed Kosovo under direct UN administration. The situation with Kosovo in the decade up to its UDI independence in 2007 couldn't possibly be much more different than the situation with Scotland in the decade or so up to 2016. Unless the UN has recently taken administrative control of Scotland and NATO has bombed London to try to stop UK forces from oppressing the Scottish people, and I just didn't notice that.........
As I've said a number of times before, it's both interesting and a small amount shocking to watch this level of take-no-prisoners ultra-nationalism in action.
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Kosovo was not sufferring oppression at the time of its udi hearing at the icj and several representations noted this and its general irrelevance to the point at hand. So again your facts are anything but.
The fundamental point to the Kosovo decision was that secession was not a breach of international law in principle. And our own uk government agreed with that point noting that you dont force unhappy marriages to stay together.
No attempt made to address the actual points made. Repeating the same incorrect analogy as if its a trump card (pun intended).
Lying about things to try to keep another country in a situation its people dont want to be in? Again I ask what motivates this kind of behaviour in people? Its genuinely alien to me.
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
They want to free themselves from the weight of a far away administration and regain their own sovereignty.... You as a brexiter surely understand that ?
or do you understand regaining sovereignty ONLY when it goes your way ?
Eh? Not during the period of "historical right to statehood" was Scotland ever invaded by England?
Eh?
Some of the money was used to hire spies, such as Daniel Defoe; his first reports were of vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against the Union. "A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind," he reported, "for every Scot in favour there is 99 against" ...
The Treaty could be considered unpopular in Scotland: Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that "The whole nation appears against the Union" and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom. Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union as proposed ... Not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carilloner in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells in the tune Why should I be so sad on my wedding day Threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law ...
The matter of continuity remains ambiguous in the records. The authoritative 19th-century parliamentary historian William Cobbett considered the First British Parliament a new and distinct parliament, and separated it from the Anne's last English parliament. Collections of statute records treat it inconsistently, e.g. the Statutes at Large collections of both Pickering and Ruffhead label the last English session as "5 Anne", and the first British session as "6 Anne" (albeit dating its beginning on October 23, the date of meeting, and not April 29, the date of Anne's proclamation) By contrast, the Statutes of the Realm(an official collection) does not differentiate the statute labels, and lists both sessions on the same roll, merged into one act, with the last English statute labelled 6 Anne c.34 and the first British statute labeled 6 Anne c.35.
If the UK is indeed a new country and not an expanded England, why has that fact not been made known to its current head of state, Elizabeth II, as it was also unknown to her predecessors William IV, Edward VII and Edward VIII?
The Treaty could be considered unpopular in Scotland: Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that "The whole nation appears against the Union" and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom. Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union as proposed ... Not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament. On the day the treaty was signed, the carilloner in St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh, rang the bells in the tune Why should I be so sad on my wedding day Threats of widespread civil unrest resulted in Parliament imposing martial law ...
The matter of continuity remains ambiguous in the records. The authoritative 19th-century parliamentary historian William Cobbett considered the First British Parliament a new and distinct parliament, and separated it from the Anne's last English parliament. Collections of statute records treat it inconsistently, e.g. the Statutes at Large collections of both Pickering and Ruffhead label the last English session as "5 Anne", and the first British session as "6 Anne" (albeit dating its beginning on October 23, the date of meeting, and not April 29, the date of Anne's proclamation) By contrast, the Statutes of the Realm(an official collection) does not differentiate the statute labels, and lists both sessions on the same roll, merged into one act, with the last English statute labelled 6 Anne c.34 and the first British statute labeled 6 Anne c.35.
A state is not a commercial enterprise like a limited company.
What you're watching is mere readers' indignation at the preposterous and inaccurate remarks that fill your posts.
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Its not even that. Whether we do or dont become independent is not even the topic at hand but rather whether we can if we want to.
I know it seems ridiculous in this day and age to even be discussing it but there you go some people still think that they can hold a nation against its will if they want to.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
It's interesting that you cite the Montevideo Conference, which supports the declarative theory of statehood. According to that theory, if Scotland tomorrow would declare its independence, it would be a sovereign state because it clearly satisfies those conditions: it clearly has a permanent population and defined territory, and it already has a government which has the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
I'm pretty confident that the same holds for Catalonia.
BTW, I see a lot of confusion in this thread over the words "nation", "country" and "state". Nation is an ethnographic concept, not a legal concept; it means a group of people with common language, culture and tradition, or the region where they live. There's no dispute here, I think, that Scotland qualifies as a nation, or Catalonia.
The English language makes a dog's breakfast of the other two. Sometimes a state means a sovereign state, like the UK or the USA, and sometimes it means a subdivision of a sovereign state, like California or Bavaria. Country in everyday parlance is mostly used as a synonym for sovereign state, in other contexts it means some subdivision, like Scotland, or like "Curacao is a country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands".
So, to keep it clear, may I humbly suggest using "sovereign state" when you mean that, to avoid confusion?
Strawberry
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
I think the only person confused about the words "nation", "country" and "state" is LondonJohn, and his confusion is probably deliberate. The rest of us know full well that Scotland is a country, and always* has been even though it hasn't been a nation state since 1707.
*Since the 9th century anyway.
*Since the 9th century anyway.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
I think the 'probably' could have been dropped some time ago. What I don't really understand is the motivation. I can only think it's some kind of double-bluff to encourage Scots to leave the Union.
Strawberry
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
Probably, but there are people who actually think like that. Most of them aren't Londoners though, they're from places like East Belfast and parts of Glasgow and usually avid followers of Rangers FC, (or whatever its called now).
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
More 'ultra-nationalism' here from Ian Jack:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...alism-belonging-britain-scottish-independence
Interesting to see elsewhere even guys like Henry McLeish talking about having the Britishness squeezed out of him and seriously considering supporting independence.
The direction of travel and its true causes for people like these are clear. Some will continue to insist otherwise but some people will insist white is black in the face of all contrary evidence
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...alism-belonging-britain-scottish-independence
Interesting to see elsewhere even guys like Henry McLeish talking about having the Britishness squeezed out of him and seriously considering supporting independence.
The direction of travel and its true causes for people like these are clear. Some will continue to insist otherwise but some people will insist white is black in the face of all contrary evidence
ddt
Mafia Penguin
And possibly the most influential supporter and catalyst of the resurgence of Catalan national aspirations is a Dutchman.
And by the measures of that esteemed British international legal scholar, Lord Carrington, a referendum organized by the Scottish government, or by the Catalonian government, that results in a vote for independence, would suffice for the right to independence.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
And possibly the most influential supporter and catalyst of the resurgence of Catalan national aspirations is a Dutchman.
And by the measures of that esteemed British international legal scholar, Lord Carrington, a referendum organized by the Scottish government, or by the Catalonian government, that results in a vote for independence, would suffice for the right to independence.
I think there is reasonable debate around elements of that. What is clear is that anyone who insists they know it isnt sufficient is not being honest.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
The ultras still don't understand (or don't want to understand) my position. Here, once again, is my position:
1) If the elected representatives of me and every other citizen of the UK in the UK national parliament feel it is in the best interests of the UK for Scotland to become independent, then it is right and proper that this will happen (assuming, of course, that the majority will of the Scottish people is for independence).
2) The elected representatives of me and every other citizen of the UK in the UK national parliament might well make that assessment on nothing more than the rationale that if the majority of Scottish people want Scotland to become independent of the UK, that in an of itself means that it is in the best interests of the UK to allow Scotland to become independent (cf. Lord Carrington). And if that is the assessment of the UK parliament, then we are democratically encouraged to agree with and abide by that decision - or to vote in different parliamentarians if we don't think they're doing a job that chimes with our best interests.
3) My personal view is certainly that it would not, in raw political, economic and cultural terms, be beneficial to the UK for Scotland to become independent of the UK. Of course, that would have to be balanced against discontent with any majority of Scottish people who wanted independence. But my personal view is of little relevance to my acceptance of the group view. For example, I might, for some reason, have a view that criminals who kill police dogs in the line of duty should be charged with an offence equivalent to the murder of a police officer. But if my parliament does not share my view, then I defer to my national parliament - in a representative democracy, parliament's role is to represent the interests of me and every other UK citizen and to immerse themselves in issues then draft and enact legislation which is, to the best of their abilities, in the best interests of the collective of UK citizens as a whole.
4) Scotland, without a shadow of a doubt, does not have the right in law or international politics to make a unilateral declaration of independence. But (as the ultras constantly fail to understand), this is an entirely different matter from the UK parliament looking at the position in Scotland, noting the desire for independence, and assenting to independence (even somewhat automatically) based on nothing more than that the will of the Scottish people should be the prevailing factor here. And, once again, if the UK parliament comes to that conclusion, then that's all well and good by me personally (FWIW).
5) This is not, and never has been, about trying to throw spanners into the spokes of Scottish independence, and nor has it been anything whatsoever about being "anti-Scots" (ironically, in many ways it's quite the opposite). It's about understanding that, absent real, demonstrable oppression of Scotland and its people by the UK authorities (not, note, "the English"....), the binding decision on Scottish independence will be, and should be, made by the UK parliament (again assuming that the majority Scottish will is for independence). And as I say, it's entirely possible - probable even - that the UK parliament will decide that the pragmatic and correct thing to do will be to agree to Scottish independence almost automatically, based on an assessment of the current majority will of the Scottish people. If so, then that's all well and good. That's the job they are elected to do on behalf of me and every other citizen of the UK.
1) If the elected representatives of me and every other citizen of the UK in the UK national parliament feel it is in the best interests of the UK for Scotland to become independent, then it is right and proper that this will happen (assuming, of course, that the majority will of the Scottish people is for independence).
2) The elected representatives of me and every other citizen of the UK in the UK national parliament might well make that assessment on nothing more than the rationale that if the majority of Scottish people want Scotland to become independent of the UK, that in an of itself means that it is in the best interests of the UK to allow Scotland to become independent (cf. Lord Carrington). And if that is the assessment of the UK parliament, then we are democratically encouraged to agree with and abide by that decision - or to vote in different parliamentarians if we don't think they're doing a job that chimes with our best interests.
3) My personal view is certainly that it would not, in raw political, economic and cultural terms, be beneficial to the UK for Scotland to become independent of the UK. Of course, that would have to be balanced against discontent with any majority of Scottish people who wanted independence. But my personal view is of little relevance to my acceptance of the group view. For example, I might, for some reason, have a view that criminals who kill police dogs in the line of duty should be charged with an offence equivalent to the murder of a police officer. But if my parliament does not share my view, then I defer to my national parliament - in a representative democracy, parliament's role is to represent the interests of me and every other UK citizen and to immerse themselves in issues then draft and enact legislation which is, to the best of their abilities, in the best interests of the collective of UK citizens as a whole.
4) Scotland, without a shadow of a doubt, does not have the right in law or international politics to make a unilateral declaration of independence. But (as the ultras constantly fail to understand), this is an entirely different matter from the UK parliament looking at the position in Scotland, noting the desire for independence, and assenting to independence (even somewhat automatically) based on nothing more than that the will of the Scottish people should be the prevailing factor here. And, once again, if the UK parliament comes to that conclusion, then that's all well and good by me personally (FWIW).
5) This is not, and never has been, about trying to throw spanners into the spokes of Scottish independence, and nor has it been anything whatsoever about being "anti-Scots" (ironically, in many ways it's quite the opposite). It's about understanding that, absent real, demonstrable oppression of Scotland and its people by the UK authorities (not, note, "the English"....), the binding decision on Scottish independence will be, and should be, made by the UK parliament (again assuming that the majority Scottish will is for independence). And as I say, it's entirely possible - probable even - that the UK parliament will decide that the pragmatic and correct thing to do will be to agree to Scottish independence almost automatically, based on an assessment of the current majority will of the Scottish people. If so, then that's all well and good. That's the job they are elected to do on behalf of me and every other citizen of the UK.
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Wow. None so blind as though who will not see. Not even worth engaging with this. Needless to say it's fact free as always. I won't get an answer from the poster so I hope someone can help me understand the motivation of such unpleasantness.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Since you're (repeatedly) accusing me of personal unpleasantness, do me the courtesy of pointing out the "unpleasantness" of my post, would you, and precisely and explicitly how/why you consider it to be "unpleasant"? Thanks.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Some thoughts of the international community regarding secession - i.e. ACTUAL international lawyers talking actual international law.
Albania:
There is no rule of international law prohibiting secession.
It would be a severe violation of international law if intervention by third states, forcefully or otherwise, was decisive for a declaration of independence.
Germany:
The existence of the state of Kosovo cannot be ignored. Its existence is based on the right of self-determination by the people of Kosovo.
The principle of effectiveness,[81] is "the only principle that can be applied in the case of Kosovo, since Kosovo fulfills the elements of statehood and its people, territory and government have nation-building qualities
Saudi Freaking Arabia!:
The declaration of independence was not a violation of international law
Austria:
In international law there is no rule that prohibits the declaration of independence, or secession. The declaration was adopted by elected representatives who have expressed the will of the people of Kosovo and international law does not prohibit this.
BUlgaria:
International law does not prohibit declarations of independence nor secession.
Croatia:
Kosovo was a constituent part of Yugoslavia and therefore had the right to self-determination and declaration of independence.
The will of the people should be the basic element in determining the final status of Kosovo.
Denmark:
The proclamation of independence is not in contradiction with international law because international law does not prohibit declarations of independence.
USA:
The United States invites the International Court of Justice to leave the declaration of independence intact as an expression of the will of the people of Kosovo, either by refusing to comment on its legality, or by determining that the international law does not prohibit declarations of independence. The declaration of independence did not violate any principle of territorial integrity because under international law, only states must comply with this principle, and not internal entities.
Finland:
The Declaration of independence is a political act.
Independence of Kosovo is a fact and is a consequence of the failure of negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina carried with the mediation of the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland.
International law does not address declarations of independence and the principle of respect of territorial integrity applies only between states, not for internal entities
France:
The secession is not in contradiction to international law
The failure of negotiations is no reason for a declaration to be declared illegal, because it is not the cause but the consequence of failure
Norway:
The entities within the state are not bound by the principle of protection of territorial integrity.
Any declaration of independence is one-sided by nature, and in the case of Kosovo it was also the result of a multilateral political process.
UK:
There is, however, no reason whatever to believe that an agreed outcome would be any more achievable now than it was in the past.
Serbia has made it quite clear that it will never accept an independent Kosovo. Kosovo, for its part, has made it quite clear that, it cannot again become part of Serbia. Courts do not order estranged spouses to continue in a broken marriage.
Note carefully - because others will try to lie to you - that none of the above is based upon any history of oppression.
The view of the UK:
The top-level division of administrative geography in the UK is the 4 countries – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
Thatcher herself:
In her memoirs, she had noted that “[a]s a nation, they [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way”.
John Major:
“no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will”
Facts. Pure. Simple. Facts. Don't believe the myths and nonsense peddled by others for their own apparently warped ends.
Albania:
There is no rule of international law prohibiting secession.
It would be a severe violation of international law if intervention by third states, forcefully or otherwise, was decisive for a declaration of independence.
Germany:
The existence of the state of Kosovo cannot be ignored. Its existence is based on the right of self-determination by the people of Kosovo.
The principle of effectiveness,[81] is "the only principle that can be applied in the case of Kosovo, since Kosovo fulfills the elements of statehood and its people, territory and government have nation-building qualities
Saudi Freaking Arabia!:
The declaration of independence was not a violation of international law
Austria:
In international law there is no rule that prohibits the declaration of independence, or secession. The declaration was adopted by elected representatives who have expressed the will of the people of Kosovo and international law does not prohibit this.
BUlgaria:
International law does not prohibit declarations of independence nor secession.
Croatia:
Kosovo was a constituent part of Yugoslavia and therefore had the right to self-determination and declaration of independence.
The will of the people should be the basic element in determining the final status of Kosovo.
Denmark:
The proclamation of independence is not in contradiction with international law because international law does not prohibit declarations of independence.
USA:
The United States invites the International Court of Justice to leave the declaration of independence intact as an expression of the will of the people of Kosovo, either by refusing to comment on its legality, or by determining that the international law does not prohibit declarations of independence. The declaration of independence did not violate any principle of territorial integrity because under international law, only states must comply with this principle, and not internal entities.
Finland:
The Declaration of independence is a political act.
Independence of Kosovo is a fact and is a consequence of the failure of negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina carried with the mediation of the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland.
International law does not address declarations of independence and the principle of respect of territorial integrity applies only between states, not for internal entities
France:
The secession is not in contradiction to international law
The failure of negotiations is no reason for a declaration to be declared illegal, because it is not the cause but the consequence of failure
Norway:
The entities within the state are not bound by the principle of protection of territorial integrity.
Any declaration of independence is one-sided by nature, and in the case of Kosovo it was also the result of a multilateral political process.
UK:
There is, however, no reason whatever to believe that an agreed outcome would be any more achievable now than it was in the past.
Serbia has made it quite clear that it will never accept an independent Kosovo. Kosovo, for its part, has made it quite clear that, it cannot again become part of Serbia. Courts do not order estranged spouses to continue in a broken marriage.
Note carefully - because others will try to lie to you - that none of the above is based upon any history of oppression.
The view of the UK:
The top-level division of administrative geography in the UK is the 4 countries – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
Thatcher herself:
In her memoirs, she had noted that “[a]s a nation, they [the Scots] have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way”.
John Major:
“no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will”
Facts. Pure. Simple. Facts. Don't believe the myths and nonsense peddled by others for their own apparently warped ends.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Trying to deny a nation its right to self-determination by insisting that the rights of its people are subserviant to the rights of another people is as unpleasant as it comes.
Continually lying or repeating falsehoods that have been challenged without acknowledging or countering the challenge is unpleasant.
Insisting any nation is not really a country is unpleasant.
Insisting that people are anti-English for standing up to your incorrect assertions is unpleasant.
Repeating lazy national stereotypes is unpleasant.
Personal insults at posters and characterising reasonable rebuttals as ultra-nationalism is unpleasant.
Do you need me to go on?
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
I'll write the following in capitals, since you still don't understand:
THE UK (AND ITS PEOPLE) ARE NOT A "SEPARATE PEOPLE" FROM SCOTLAND AND ITS PEOPLE. RATHER, SCOTLAND AND ITS PEOPLE ARE A SUBSET OF THE UK AND ITS PEOPLE.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCOTLAND VERSUS ENGLAND.
If nothing else, please, please try to understand and assimilate the above.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Repeating your unpleasantness in any typecase doesn't make it any kind of fact. The people of kosovo weren't a separate people from the Serbs either. Except they were. And are.
Both Holyrood and Westminster have agreed that the people of Scotland are separate and different and have the right to self-determination. Your single extremist unpleasant view doesn't change that.
I'll write this in caps since you suggest its a way to communicate that might work on you.
THE SELF DETERMINATION OF THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE IS A MATTER ON WHICH THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE WILL DECIDE.