Referendum on Scottish Independence

Cynic said:
It's weird hearing people take the UN seriously. You don't see a lot of that in America. ;)
Click to expand...

When I see the UN do something other than run away tucking tail when fighting starts then maybe....................:D

I won't be holding my breath on that.:D:D:D:jaw-dropp
 
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...


This is too funny for words. You said it was illegitimate, prove it. Dont just make crap up.
 
Cynic said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only people who cannot agree on what Scotland is seems to be the English.

It's a country. It has the right to self determination if that is what the people want. The US state analogy does not apply.
 
[derail]

Architect said:
Oh chan eil fhios agamsa......nach eil e "Eirinn" air ghaidhlig?
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll own up, you hav caught me like a Treen in a disabled spaceship. I wasn't educated here so my Irish is worse than rudimentary and my Gaelic non existent (pogue mahone excepted).

If you are saying what I think you are, then Eirinn is indeed the name for Ireland in Gaelic, however Eire is its official name in Irish.

WP has an article on it.

If on the other hand you are saying I'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny I have nothing else to add.

[/derail]
 
Fiona said:
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?
Click to expand...
Scotland is not recognised as an independent state by the UN, so the "self-determination" articles apply to the United Kingdom, not Scotland. External secession is not covered by the self-determination concept, at least not yet. Kosovo could set a legal precedent but the case is still with the ICJ

As for why the UN would not recognise a secessionist Scotland not backed by the government of the UK, the difference I see from your examples is the UK's Security Council veto power (admission of a new member state has to be recommended by the Council).

None of this would likely be a problem if the UK was on-side, but that was not the context in which this was brought up (post 21)
 
Last edited:
And the difference between this and Jugoslavia is what? Macedonia and Slovakia etc were not recognised as independent states: Jugoslavia was. The situation looks directly comparable to me

As to your final paragraph: it does not much matter because the UK will not oppose this: even if it did it might take some time but legally there is no doubt about the matter. That will be established in court if necessary: it wont' be necessary
 
Macedonia ("Former Yogoslav Republic of") and Slovakia's membership of the UN was recommended by its Security Council and adopted by resolution of the General Assembly. Scotland would need to be. I outline the scenario in which this would not happen, and one in which it probably would.

From your posts 132 and 135 you don't think the matter is consequent on whether the UK opposes it or not. I disagree.
 
It does not matter because the legal position is quite clear: you are just wrong in thinking the uk is one country, though like yugoslavia it is one state at present.

There is a possibility that the uk would oppose it: it is so vanishingly small that it is not worth worrying about and I really cannot see why you think it important: I am content to cross that bridge if and when we come to it. They will not oppose it because it makes no sense to do so: and also because they would lose the legal argument which would inevitably ensue and they know that.

If the other countries which comprise the uk went mad and decided to invade they could get themselves another nice guerilla war: and that is the only way they could prevent scottish independence if that is what we choose.

I presume even you can see that is not a good idea: but if you don't then there is not much I can say in face of that kind of imperial mindset
 
If Scotland votes for independence it will get it. Sure there are a few administrative hurdles to overcome and it would take a while for formal recognition, but I think it naive to think that that the UK government would stand in its way especially bearing in mind who is likely to be in power next year.

At the moment the Tories have 1 Scottish MP out of 57. Getting rid of Scotland is worth a 2.7% swing to the Tories in seats and 1.55% in the national vote. While that is unlikely to be the difference next time it is a handy long term gain for them.
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
It does not matter because the legal position is quite clear
Click to expand...
Disagreed. (Disagreed in general by the way. It is not clear and legal scholars are not unanimous, nor is there a consensus. Your view/interpretation might be clear but that is of little bearing)

you are just wrong in thinking the uk is one country
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was

though like yugoslavia it is one state at present.
Click to expand...
Correct.

There is a possibility that the uk would oppose it: it is so vanishingly small that it is not worth worrying about and I really cannot see why you think it important
Click to expand...
You asked for the legal foundation for the statement that a Scotland-only referendum verdict was illegitimate [insofar as being the only requirement for independence]. You have it.

I am content to cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
Click to expand...
Well, you do not even think it is a bridge. Yes it is.

And, none of this is of current importance since it is highly unlikely that there would be a yes vote for independence.
 
Francesca R said:
Macedonia ("Former Yogoslav Republic of") and Slovakia's membership of the UN was recommended by its Security Council and adopted by resolution of the General Assembly. Scotland would need to be. I outline the scenario in which this would not happen, and one in which it probably would.

From your posts 132 and 135 you don't think the matter is consequent on whether the UK opposes it or not. I disagree.
Click to expand...

You said it was ilegitimate and Scotland would not be recognised by the UN. We have showed you instances that show your claims to be claptrap. It does not matter one jot what you want to happen.

Was there opposition to declarations of independence, in the past, of certain countries now recognised by the UN or did everyone all join hands and agree on it?
 
Francesca R said:
You asked for the legal foundation for the statement that a Scotland-only referendum verdict was illegitimate [insofar as being the only requirement for independence]. You have it.
Click to expand...

No we do not. You claimed it was an illegitimate referendum and the UN would not recognise Scotland as independent.

You have proved neither.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom