SNP Referendum Nonsense

[[TW]Fox]

it works in that analogy - not quite sure it's the same (and a lot more complex)

You are right, it isnt the same and it is a lot more complex but I was struggling to make my point.

using the same analogy, what if you were a senior partner in Bob ltd, and you approached the trade body, saying, we are splitting Bob Ltd into two parts can we renegotiate our membership as the two parts

Ah, and this is my point - thats not what is happening. You'd be a senior partner in Bob Limited but you'd be leaving to set up a separate company. Bob Limited isn't being split, you are leaving - Bob Limited would carry on without you.

 

[the_r_sole]

I think several posters have either alluded to or directly stated that the preferred position may not mean anything; it is far from guaranteed and in fact is arguably less likely than it is likely to happen. It is frustrating in the extreme when preferred outcomes are dressed up as likely outcomes or, even worse, guaranteed outcomes.

i don't think anyone has said either way is guaranteed, there is uncertainty at every turn, we could have a bit more information if Westminster would agree to some discussions which have been offered... but they are relying on uncertainty to swing the vote so they won't give the people with the vote the information we need to make an informed choice

 

[Biohazard]

Indeed, Greenland has HOME RULE, which is comparable to a very high level of devolution.

I wish posters such as Biohazard would at least do cursory research before proclaiming this as evidence to support his case. It absolutely does NOT support it.

It was Weaver that offered it as a previous example of constitutional change not resulting in automatic ejection from what is now the EU.

Although I do understand the crowd haste to accuse me of well everything, and I'm flattered.

 

[Biohazard]

No, but it would be negotiating a scenario for when it was an independent country surely? It's not negotiating FOR the UK, it's negotiating FOR an independent Scotland?

We weren't discussing what it was negotiating for, just that it would be negotiating from within the UK.

Thus evidently not from outside the EU.

It's blindingly obvious that Holyrood would be negotiating for Scottish membership of the EU for the future independence date. That doesn't change the fact it would be happening within the UK and the EU.

 

[Biohazard]

It's complex this, I'm trying to think of the best way to illustrate my point and not making an awfully good job of it

Lets say you wanted to join, I dunno, a trade body. You work for Bob Limited. Bob Limited is already a member, and you hand your notice in to quit and set up on your own. You are thefore negotiating to join as you, not Bob Limited, even though you might begin 'setting up' before you've finished serving your notice. The fact you are currently part of Bob Limited has no bearing on what you are trying to negotiate - which is membership of the trade body for your new entity. Does that make sense? It might not but hopefully you can see my point.

Once you get your P45 thats it, you are not a member of the trade body anymore. If you wanted to become a member in your own right its like starting from fresh...

Interesting analogy, except flawed. There would be no P45 because there was no employment of one to the other, but a partnership of equals. Equally and severally liable.

The partnership would dissolve.

 

[[TW]Fox]

That doesn't change the fact it would be happening within the UK and the EU.

Which IMHO makes not the blindest bit of difference.

 

[the_r_sole]

Ah, and this is my point - thats not what is happening. You'd be a senior partner in Bob Limited but you'd be leaving to set up a separate company. Bob Limited isn't being split, you are leaving - Bob Limited would carry on without you.

I don't agree with that position at all - I'd be leaving as a founding member of Bob ltd - so we should both receive the same treatment based on our existing membership.
It is a split from a Union - and the assets (or debt!) will be split accordingly, if I left Bob ltd to set up a new company would I be expected to carry a share of the debts that company ran up?

 

[[TW]Fox]

If thats how it would be, is it not a bit unfair then that only you would be able to decide whether to split Bob Limited? Why don't the other founders get any say in the matter?

 

[Biohazard]

Which IMHO makes not the blindest bit of difference.

Well, I think it does. Because it clearly wouldn't be negotiating from outside in.

 

[the_r_sole]

If thats how it would be, is it not a bit unfair then that only you would be able to decide whether to split Bob Limited? Why don't the other founders get any say in the matter?

no, not really, if I was (supposedly) an equal partner in a business, and I wanted to split the company because of very different ideas of how to run the company, I would expect the other partner(s) to the negotiate the split of the business we had both spent years establishing...

 

[Biohazard]

If thats how it would be, is it not a bit unfair then that only you would be able to decide whether to split Bob Limited? Why don't the other founders get any say in the matter?

It isn't a limited company, that's a very poor analogy. A partnership of individuals is a far better way to analyse it in business parlance.

One partner decides to go, end of partnership. Don't like that idea, don't get yourself involved in one in the first place.

 

[Phantom Shadow]

Interesting analogy, except flawed. There would be no P45 because there was no employment of one to the other, but a partnership of equals. Equally and severally liable.

The partnership would dissolve.

Apart from that the post you quoted doesn't mention a partnership...

Bob Limited in the example would imply a private limited company not a partnership.

I don't agree with that position at all - I'd be leaving as a founding member of Bob ltd - so we should both receive the same treatment based on our existing membership.
It is a split from a Union - and the assets (or debt!) will be split accordingly, if I left Bob ltd to set up a new company would I be expected to carry a share of the debts that company ran up?

Surely it would depend on whether you and the other founding members are deciding to go your separate ways. If you just decide you want to leave, even if you are a founding member that wouldn't force the rest of Bob Ltd to stop trading. You wouldn't expect to carry a share of the debts ran up as you are separating yourself from a company which itself is continuing to exist.

edit: didn't see the last few posts made while typing this, fair enough with the points made about partnership perhaps being a better representation.

 

[Biohazard]

Apart from that the post you quoted doesn't mention a partnership...

Bob Limited in the example would imply a private limited company not a partnership.

I've explained this.

The UK in terms of the Union 1707 is far better described as a partnership than a limited company even though it was an incorporating union.

His reference was the ability for Scotland to make such a decision, that's what happens when two nations partner equally.

 

[Biohazard]

Because it makes things more difficult for their own separatist movements?




It wont be victimising Scotland, it will be sticking up for their own interests, sending a message to the separatists saying "Push further for independence and it will be difficult for you."

Of course it would be, by the definition of your actions it would be victimising Scotland to make an example of 'self determination' aka dirty separatism.

As I said, once the horses have bolted. I can't see it having much correlation personally, and the chances are this will effect the UK as well so we probably would have a good fight together

 

[spudbynight]

You are right, it isnt the same and it is a lot more complex but I was struggling to make my point.




Ah, and this is my point - thats not what is happening. You'd be a senior partner in Bob Limited but you'd be leaving to set up a separate company. Bob Limited isn't being split, you are leaving - Bob Limited would carry on without you.

Tom, Dick and Harry, the remaining parties in Bob Limited are all staying where they are as well.

 

[Weaver]

James and Barnaby try to convince First Minister Alex Salmond that independence from the UK is a bad idea.

------

 

[Angilion]

See my other post?
[..]

Lots of them. None with anything to substantiate your claims. You're not a reliable source on this issue.

 

[Angilion]

well, if you look at our population I don't see it being an issue, edinburgh whilst our capital isn't our largest city and aberdeen plays a fairly significant role in scotland... and there isn't such a difference in any area as between scotland/england or london/any other uk city - I think we would be capable enough of not bickering if we could implement policies that were supported by the general population...

That's a big 'if'.

I think it would still be an issue. Less of an issue than in England, for the reasons you mention, but still an issue. There would undoubtably continue to be various problems in Scotland (like everywhere else) and scope for people to blame problems in their area on some other area getting better treatment from central government (whether or not that actually happens). The "independence" proposed would probably make it worse because many Scots expect it to solve those problems (because they're been told it will) and of course it won't (if they were easily solved, it would have been done already).

 

[Angilion]

Doesn't really matter, that's the nub of what you had to say. [..]

As I showed with evidence, it isn't.

Evidence. The thing you pay no attention to because it's more politically useful to just keep making the same claims with complete disregard for whether they're true, false or uncertain. Making things up and claiming that other people said them is dishonest but can be politically useful. You're a politician.

 

[Woden]

Scottish independence isn't looking all that independant? British monarchy, British currency, piggy-backed British EU membership.

Even the Falklands don't rely on Britain this much and they don't want independance.