Referendum on Scottish Independence

funk de fino said:
Still no evidence to back up your false claim then?
Click to expand...
What on earth are you on about? I mean--of course--that the UN will not recognise Scotland as an independent state even if a majority of Scottish residents declare it to be one. If you believe otherwise, have fun lobbying the security council.
 
It's weird hearing people take the UN seriously. You don't see a lot of that in America. ;)
 
It comes from this amusing post whereby funk de fino appeared to suppose that the UN would respond to a unilateral vote for Scottish independence:
funk de fino said:
What does the UN say about self determination or independence for nations? Perhaps we should look at India for examples of countries who split from England and see where it all went wrong for them? Maybe we should look at the HDI index to see how poorly small nations do?
Click to expand...
Francesca R said:
Irrelevant. I don't believe it has anything to say about supporting the freedom of a subset of a nation to forcefully secede.
Click to expand...
 
Francesca R said:
What on earth are you on about? I mean--of course--that the UN will not recognise Scotland as an independent state even if a majority of Scottish residents declare it to be one. If you believe otherwise, have fun lobbying the security council.
Click to expand...

I believe otherwise and I do not see what makes you think this. You are presumably seeing this as a break of one nation: it isn't and that is not in dispute even with the uk

Do you have any reason at all to suppose it would be viewed differently from Maceodonia for example?
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
I believe otherwise and I do not see what makes you think this. You are presumably seeing this as a break of one nation: it isn't and that is not in dispute even with the uk.
Click to expand...

Seems like people can't even agree on what Scotland is, which is a problem if one is trying to figure out if and how it should become something else. I've always understood Scotland to be something akin to a US state. I hope I'm at least close. Either way though, what Scotland definately isn't is a nation. If it were, it wouldn't be thinking about taking votes for independence.
 
No: it is nothing like a us state, Cynic. I think you are confusing the notions of country, State, state and nation. Scotland is not going to "become something else" if it chooses independence. It is and will remain a nation. It is and will remain a country. It will become once again a nation state: a status which was altered by the treaty of union and which alteration has no other basis.
 
Fiona said:
I believe otherwise and I do not see what makes you think this.
Click to expand...
A referendum in Scotland isn't binding on the UK parliament. It's all detailed in this: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980046_en_1 Hence, I don't even see what there is for the UN to do if there was one, and "Yes" was carried. It would authorise the Scottish First Minister to start negotiations with the UK government on the basis of Scotland's own laws. Anything more radical than that would certainly be extra-legal.
 
Scotland is not bound by the sovreignity of the uk parliament, Francesca. This was established in Maccormick v the Lord Advocate

he Lord President, Lord Cooper of Culross, gave his opinion that “the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”. The case was thus constitutionally interesting as “the Lord Advocate conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of Great Britain ‘could not’ repeal or alter [certain] ‘fundamental and essential’ conditions” of the Act of Union (MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 at page 411).
Click to expand...

But even if that was not the case there is nothing relevant in what you say since all uk parties have already agreed that they will abide by the settled will of the scottish people. They can do no other constitutionally and they will not attempt to do otherwise for pragmatic reasons
 
Cynic said:
I've always understood Scotland to be something akin to a US state.
Click to expand...

Obama couldn't legislate to abolish state governments. Neither could the Australian government with our states. The UK parliament could end devolution if it wanted to just as it brought it into existence.
 
Fiona said:
Scotland is not bound by the sovreignity of the uk parliament, Francesca. This was established in Maccormick v the Lord Advocate
Click to expand...
I disagree with that. The Scotland Act could be used to supercede a Law Lords' ruling, or even the new Supreme Court, I believe. (Although this wouldn't be orderly)

But even if that was not the case there is nothing relevant in what you say since all uk parties have already agreed that they will abide by the settled will of the scottish people. They can do no other constitutionally and they will not attempt to do otherwise for pragmatic reasons
Click to expand...
"Constitutionally" means little under the parliamentary system. Moreover no party leader can bind parliament ahead of time so it is not relevant what they say now.
 
Indeed.

Francesca R said:
What on earth are you on about? I mean--of course--that the UN will not recognise Scotland as an independent state even if a majority of Scottish residents declare it to be one. If you believe otherwise, have fun lobbying the security council.
Click to expand...


You know, Francesca, I used to admire the intellect of your posts, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard.

Rolfe.
 
It seems to be your claim so I suggest you support it. I have already cited Macedonia (and of course there is the rest of former Jugoslavia). What is the difference you see that would lead the UN to take a different view now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom