Referendum on Scottish Independence

[funk de fino]

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.

Macedonia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and herzigovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Kazhakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Moldova, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikstan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, East Timor

 

[Fiona]

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)

Then perhaps you will cite. What is the legal opinion which is at odds with Maccormick v Lord Advocate?

I didn't say it was

Ok then the UN provisions for self determination apply. What is your point?

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.

No I do not have it. So far you have provided precisely nothing in support of your claim. You have pointed to the administrative mechanisms which must be addressed in order to implement the separation in the international arena: nobody denied that there are steps to be taken, but that is not what you are claiming. You are claiming that those steps would not be possible because of some legal obstacle which you have completely failed to demonstrate.

The only sense I can make of your position is an idea that the uk would veto Scotlands membership of the UN. I do not see that they can do this legally because article 1 part 2 (which you cited for reasons which are obscure to me given you position) says " “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."

The right to self determination is also included in the universal declaration of human rights. Many, many countries have achieved independence by invoking this principle and I do not think many would suggest that this is wrong.

The only way that your argument would be in play would be if you suggested that the uk is one country: in that case there is at least a legal argument in support of the idea that this is a matter for domestic law and not for the un or any other international body. However that is not your position and it is not the constitutional position. Since scotland is a separate country and is part of the united kingdom by treaty there is no difficulty in law, so far as I can see. Please show what legal principles and cases indicate there is a problem with particular reference to the former yugoslavia if you like.

You seem to be handwaving, to me. I do realise that you often rely on bare assertion and I have no objection to that in some contexts: but in this case you claim to have provided a legal basis for that assertion and you haven't.

 

[Francesca R]

Then perhaps you will cite. What is the legal opinion which is at odds with Maccormick v Lord Advocate?

See post 134.

Ok then the UN provisions for self determination apply. What is your point?

And 147.

You have pointed to the administrative mechanisms which must be addressed in order to implement the separation in the international arena: nobody denied that there are steps to be taken

Correct.

You are claiming that those steps would not be possible because of some legal obstacle which you have completely failed to demonstrate.

That's not correct.

The only sense I can make of your position is an idea that the uk would veto Scotlands membership of the UN. I do not see that they can do this legally because article 1 part 2 (which you cited for reasons which are obscure to me given you position) says " “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."

You want to demonstrate that residents of Scotland are a "people"? That's probably tougher than you think. The question (among others) is not yet adjudicated for the Kosovars (see ICJ link, post 147). It was rejected for Les Quebecois by Canada's own courts. I personally doubt that citizens of a 300 year old union treaty would easily be designated "a people". (And Article 1 would be no substitute for a resolution.)

 

[funk de fino]

See post 134.

And 147.

Correct.

That's not correct.

You want to demonstrate that residents of Scotland are a "people"? That's probably tougher than you think. The question (among others) is not yet adjudicated for the Kosovars (see ICJ link, post 147). It was rejected for Les Quebecois by Canada's own courts. I personally doubt that citizens of a 300 year old union treaty would easily be designated "a people". (And Article 1 would be no substitute for a resolution.)

Macedonia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and herzigovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Kazhakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Moldova, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikstan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, East Timor

 

[Fiona]

See post 134.

Yes, I saw it. Unless you can show a mechanism I do not see anything to support your contention. It might help if you quote the part you believe to be relevant

And 147.

Yes, I saw it. See above

That's not correct.

Keep saying it and it just might become true. I expect Tinkerbell will recover if you clap, as well

You want to demonstrate that residents of Scotland are a "people"? That's probably tougher than you think. The question (among others) is not yet adjudicated for the Kosovars (see ICJ link, post 147). It was rejected for Les Quebecois by Canada's own courts. I personally doubt that citizens of a 300 year old union treaty would easily be designated "a people". (And Article 1 would be no substitute for a resolution.)

I do not need to demonstrate they are a people,since it is already established that Scotland is a country. I see you have no case but do carry on believing what you like.

 

[malbui]

[derail]



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]

My grandfather was a native speaker and I am a keen amateur. If I understand Architect's badly slurred* question correctly, it's to do with the form of the noun. And that's easy to explain:

Common form is Éire

Dative is Éirinn (it's one of the few nouns to retain a distinct dative form)

Genitive is Éireann



* Only teasing. I can read Scots Gaelic more or less OK but it sounds distinctly odd to my western ears.

 

[Architect]

Common form is Éire

Dative is Éirinn (it's one of the few nouns to retain a distinct dative form)

Genitive is Éireann

Scots Gaelic which - all things normally considered - is closer to Donegal than standard Irish Gaelic, renders it Èirinn.

* Only teasing. I can read Scots Gaelic more or less OK but it sounds distinctly odd to my western ears.

Says the mob with the Anglo spelling and code switches.........

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Macedonia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and herzigovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Kazhakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Moldova, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikstan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, East Timor

You know, I don't think that's as helpful as you think it is (FTR: I am neutral on Scotland becoming the independent republic of scotland. Or what you'll chose as a name. Maybe the Independent Republican Kingdom of Scotland? Whichever.) This examines the countries you cited.

The following countries are from a 50 year federation and do not have the same background as Scotland:

Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro

Leaves:

Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Kazhakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova,Slovakia, Tajikstan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, East Timor

Moldova: Has been a country since ~1200's, a vassal state first of the Ottoman Empire. Passing relevance (but hey, can potentially be used. Since it has a similar history to Scotland, this is the first valid example. Side note: has not been official recognized by any UN member. It's de facto, not de jure.) [ALSO: Is trying to join the Union State. See Belarus]

Estonia: Wasn't formally independent until 1918. Appears to be a passed around territory. Also was guarenteed independence in 1920. Oops. Don't think is going to help you.

Belarus: Become it's own nation in 1991 (no identity), and .. has joined a Union State with Russia. The exact opposite of what you want Scotland to do. Would be hesitant to use this as an example.




Georgia: Historically independent until 1800's, forcibly taken over, freed at the fall of the USSR. Relevance: none. Unless you plan to claim that England forcefully took over the Kingdom of Scotland. Good luck with that argument.

Armenia: Same as Georgia (another USSR Republic)

Croatia: Independent, then joined Hungary, declared Independence in 1918, took over by USSR, declared independence in 1991. This is a /good example/ as it split from the union of Austria-Hungary. Points!

Azerjban: Okay, this might more helpful. Ancient nation, then took over by various empires in the area, then free /briefly/ 1918-1921, free again in 1991 (USSR Republic). Doesn't seem precedent binding to me, but hey.

Czech Republic: Known as Bohemia (...!) not really independent until they declared so when the Austria-Hungarian Empire exploded


You know what? Most of these become independent when the USSR collapsed. Let's see if ANY of these do not fit that example.

We get.. East Timor:

Colony, then made independent in 1975, taken over by Indonesia then a war of independence for 24 years until the UN forced Indonesia (somehow!) to let them go their own way.

.. I don't see much of any hope for precedent except the rule of self determination there.

 

[funk de fino]

Moldova: Has been a country since ~1200's, a vassal state first of the Ottoman Empire. Passing relevance (but hey, can potentially be used. Since it has a similar history to Scotland, this is the first valid example. Side note: has not been official recognized by any UN member. It's de facto, not de jure.) [ALSO: Is trying to join the Union State. See Belarus]

Is a member state of the UN.

Some of those countries held elections and sought and declared independence prior to the Soviet Union dissolution (collapse)

Some of them have less claim to be a country than Scotland, yet they are now independent and recognised. So, no oops there.

Some of these countries, regardless of how it came about, have declared independence and been recognised by the UN. Anyone who thinks the UN or the EU would not recognise an independent Scotland is kidding themselves. Why they would need to do this is beyond me, but it smacks of very sour grapes.

 

[malbui]

Says the mob with the Anglo spelling and code switches.........

Anglo spelling? Just because we decided that having consonant groups like chmhghd in the middle of words was a waste of ink. Progress, old chap. Progress.

 

[Architect]

Anglo spelling? Just because we decided that having consonant groups like chmhghd in the middle of words was a waste of ink. Progress, old chap. Progress.

Aye, right. And you forgot to deal with the whole code switch thing, of course.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Anglo spelling? Just because we decided that having consonant groups like chmhghd in the middle of words was a waste of ink. Progress, old chap. Progress.

Aye, right. And you forgot to deal with the whole code switch thing, of course.

I know it's not the subject of the thread, and I don't want to disrupt your Celtic squabble, but if either of you felt like posting a brief explanation of these two points, I would be interested.

 

[malbui]

I know it's not the subject of the thread, and I don't want to disrupt your Celtic squabble, but if either of you felt like posting a brief explanation of these two points, I would be interested.

To be honest I'm not quite sure what Architect is referring to when he talks about code switching, as although I'm familiar with it as a linguistic term (it usually refers to alternating between two or more languages, dialects, varieties or registers) I'm not a Gaeltacht-resident Irish speaker and I don't know precisely what the context is here.

The spelling reform is simpler: Irish spelling went through a couple of phases of reform with a circular in 1931 (I think) and a formal standard published in 1957. The aim was to simplify and standardise spelling, no easy task given the variety of local dialects and the historical baggage that the language carried. One big consequence was that the spelling of many words was rationalised and shortened: for example, áiteamhail (local) became áitiúil and ochtmhadh (eighty) became ochtú. This is what I was referring to above.

 

[Architect]

Scots Gaelic was standardised in the 70s but retained historic Gaelic spellings/orthography to a much greater degree that Irish Gaelic. To our eyes "standard" Irish now looks very anglified when written. Spoken it's much the same, but the further north you go in Eirinn the closer it gets to Scots Gaelic. The southern accents tend to be hard going.

Code switching is an issue in any minority language such as ours, indeed I use it for technical terms, but again I would suggest - and the Irish may well object strongly to this - they can be a lot more guilty than we are. And of course we see it is being all Anglo again.

So basically, it's all a bit of a "People's Front for the Liberation of Judea" kind of thing. Mixed in with some anti-Beurla chip on the shoulder stuff for good measure.

Mind you, you should see what the Manx do to their language!

 

[Cleon]

Mind you, you should see what the Manx do to their language!

My understanding is that there aren't any native Manx speakers left, which might make it difficult for the language to stay, ah, current.

 

[Lothian]

My understanding is that there aren't any native Manx speakers left, which might make it difficult for the language to stay, ah, current.

All we have left is the Mancs. A Poor imitation.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

To be honest I'm not quite sure what Architect is referring to when he talks about code switching, as although I'm familiar with it as a linguistic term (it usually refers to alternating between two or more languages, dialects, varieties or registers) I'm not a Gaeltacht-resident Irish speaker and I don't know precisely what the context is here.

The spelling reform is simpler: Irish spelling went through a couple of phases of reform with a circular in 1931 (I think) and a formal standard published in 1957. The aim was to simplify and standardise spelling, no easy task given the variety of local dialects and the historical baggage that the language carried. One big consequence was that the spelling of many words was rationalised and shortened: for example, áiteamhail (local) became áitiúil and ochtmhadh (eighty) became ochtú. This is what I was referring to above.

Scots Gaelic was standardised in the 70s but retained historic Gaelic spellings/orthography to a much greater degree that Irish Gaelic. To our eyes "standard" Irish now looks very anglified when written. Spoken it's much the same, but the further north you go in Eirinn the closer it gets to Scots Gaelic. The southern accents tend to be hard going.

Code switching is an issue in any minority language such as ours, indeed I use it for technical terms, but again I would suggest - and the Irish may well object strongly to this - they can be a lot more guilty than we are. And of course we see it is being all Anglo again.

So basically, it's all a bit of a "People's Front for the Liberation of Judea" kind of thing. Mixed in with some anti-Beurla chip on the shoulder stuff for good measure.

Mind you, you should see what the Manx do to their language!

Thanks, that makes sense, I was aware that the spelling of Irish and Scots Gaelic were different, but Irish doesn't look particularly 'Anglo' to me. As for the code switching, I can't comment except to say that as a non-speaker you come into contact with much more Irish here than you would Gaelic in Scotland, so it may well be more prolific just from people with an imperfect command of the language.

 

[Cleon]

Question: To what extent are Scots and Irish mutually intelligible?

 

[malbui]

Question: To what extent are Scots and Irish mutually intelligible?

That's a good question, and the best answer is that it depends. As Architect has mentioned, there are significant regional variations within Irish, and the usual way of looking at that language is to divide it into three regions: Munster in the south and south west, Connemara in the west, and Donegal in the far north. the situation is complicated by the existence of the Caighdeán Oifigiúil, the official standard language, which is a hybrid taking bits from everywhere.

As you'd expect, the further north you go, the closer Irish becomes to Scots. A good friend of mine is a native Scots speaker from the Isles and although I have trouble speaking with her in our usual forms of Gaelic, she can chat reasonably happily with a mutual friend from Donegal. It's a lot easier with written communications, though, and we exchange mail in Gaelic without too much trouble as long as we avoid forms or phrases unique to our own villages (ancestral villages in my case as I'm more French than Irish).

 

[malbui]

Code switching is an issue in any minority language such as ours, indeed I use it for technical terms, but again I would suggest - and the Irish may well object strongly to this - they can be a lot more guilty than we are. And of course we see it is being all Anglo again.

This has been a hot issue for as long as I can remember, but not really something I worry about. My working day is spent in French and German and I code switch all the time, feeling that being understood is more important that some kind of idea of language purity. I do know a lot of people who get very hot under the collar about it, though, and I alternate between respecting their viewpoints and trying to provoke them, depending on my mood.

So basically, it's all a bit of a "People's Front for the Liberation of Judea" kind of thing. Mixed in with some anti-Beurla chip on the shoulder stuff for good measure.

I think that's a pretty fair summary. I've always been amused that I get far more tolerance of my code switching and occasional anglicism when I'm viewed as a Frenchman who's made the effort to learn Irish than someone of Irish descent who's been contaminated by the English language.