1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: Scottish independence vote

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Biohazard, Sep 23, 2013.

?

Scottish independence, yes or no?

  1. I'm Scottish and in favour of independence

    137 vote(s)
    10.9%
  2. I'm Scottish and against independence

    167 vote(s)
    13.3%
  3. I'm from another part of UK and in favour of Scottish independence

    273 vote(s)
    21.7%
  4. I'm from another part of UK and against Scottish independence

    682 vote(s)
    54.2%
  1. Pinkribbonscars

    Hitman

    Joined: Dec 30, 2005

    Posts: 902

    Location: Calgary

    The rUK can afford to call Scotland's bluff on that one - what's an extra 9% debt really? We've ran deficits higher than that in recent years. 9% more debt and rUK gets to keep whatever it wants? Sounds like a better deal than what iScotland would get out of that scenario.
     
  2. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    I think rUK can more than afford to call a bluff - it would probably be in their best interests.

    9% extra debt is a known, closed-ended committment.

    A currency union with full fiscal underwriting is open ended and unvalued.

    Given the choice, I know which I would pick. And, of course, if iScotland shirks 140bn debt then it would make sense for them to receive 140bn less of the shared assets in the split.

    But iScotland won't do that. Starting off our independent life with the markets viewing us as defaulting would not be good. We will need access to debt from day one (if not earlier!).
     
  3. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,726

    But have the SNP not said this is the plan if they don't get a currency union?
     
  4. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Indeed. They aren't going to get a currency union and their proposed default would hurt iScotland more than rUK

    I'm not sure Kosovo is the best example - the SNP and Yes oppose "illegal wars" and Kosovo was perhaps the most legally dubious conflict we have been involved in in recent times. The justification boils down to doing the right things - all other conflicts have had their basis in international law (grey as that may be).

    Unilateral declarations (there have been several - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_independence) are not legal, but not illegal. As with almost any international politics, it comes down to recognition from other states. China is perhaps a good example. Kosovo isn't univerally recognised, nor are Abkhazia and South Osettia.

    It certainly isn't the route to a leading Western state with membership of some large and important treaty groups. A unilateral declaration would rule out NATO membership completely and make EU membership rather hard. Even the trade we do now could become a tad difficult.
     
  5. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    25% of a Nation cannot legally secede on the behalf of the other 75% particularly where a referendum has been issued.

    That is not what happened in Kosovo where the secession was overwhelmingly in support of the breakaway, in any case Kosovo was not, and remains outside of the EU, whereas the UK is within the EU so it is unlikely that there would be any change in the precedent set in Quebec, also Scotland remains part of the constitutional process of the United Kingdom..Kosovo and the other former states of Yugoslavia were no longer under that umbrella Constitution and the Constitution of Serbia isn't binding as Kosovo was never actually part of Serbia whereas Scotland is part of the United Kingdom...Current polls suggest that currently and historically in Scotland the nationalists have been and are still in a significant minority...under those circumstances the Scottish Government could not reasonably declare Independence on behalf of the entire nation and expect it to be recognised or upheld under international law...which as you said, doesn't specify legislation on this, but legal precedence is currently on the side of the UK Government as illustrated in Canada and that in general terms International Law draws from the Constitutional Legislation of the recognised States in the absence of recognised legislative precedence of its own from which to determine the legality of an action. Serbia had no actual constitutional claim on Kosovo as Kosovo and Serbia were part of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia no longer existed..Serbia's own constitution also supports the ICJ advisory (not a ruling) due to the annexation of Kosovo never have being passed under the Serbian Constitution in the first place. All things that are the opposite to the constitutional situation between Scotland the rest of the United Kingdom.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2014
  6. Tefal

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 30, 2007

    Posts: 66,560

    Location: Wales


    is it not the vast amount of commercial shipping thats the issue with Portsmouth?
     
  7. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    I don't think it is deep enough either.
     
  8. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    You should really grow up Moses...

    In response however, actually I said the Scottish Parliament have no legal powers to unilaterally declare independence and you mentioned Kosovo and he ICJ opinion, I pointed out the differences between Kosovo and Scotland and the legal position regarding Quebec (A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity.)

    I could have mentioned that the ICJ itself stated that its opinion on Kosovo does not infer that an entity within a State has the right to break away from it, but I expected you have done at least a modicum of research before posting.

    I also earlier said the UK can simply dissolve the Scottish Parliament if they did so, and the UK Constitution allows for this and International Law, as I pointed out defers to such constitutions in recognised legal systems unless they conflict with specific legislation which you yourself recognise doesn't exist in International Law. Again this is supported by the Quebec ruling ("does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their 'parent' state.").

    Effectively The Scottish People are represented in an existing democratic nation state and retain the means to exercise their right to self determination so there is no right under international law to unilaterally secede. This is supported by the Supreme Court ruling regarding Quebec and there has been no conflict between this ruling and international law on the subject thus far so currently international law is on the side of Westminster, which is what I said.

    So perhaps instead of trying to insult your way through a discussion for a change you could just accept that perhaps your interpretation of the facts is somewhat limited or at the very least others may just have a different reasoning of the position than you do.

    On a side note relevant to the Independence thread, the court ruling on Quebec also said and a I quote

    "Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole."

    Interesting how that would relate to Scottish Independence should a referendum be positive and Westminster do wish to play hard all, so to speak.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2014
  9. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    I rather think that they should.

    Post-yes, the job of Westminster would be to obtain the best possible settlement for rUK. I doubt there is a win-win scenario, so a good settlement for rUK is probably a bad settlement for iScotland.

    But apparently iScotland holds all the cards. Except we don't. I mean, we could cripple our new state by defaulting, followed by illegally blockading our EEZ to foreign traffic (as Alex has threatened the EU with). That'll teach em!
     
  10. Shadez

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 23, 2002

    Posts: 2,808

    Location: Bristol

    In that scenario what will he blockade with? all military assets would still be in the hands of rUK :D
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2014
  11. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    Dear Vlad...
     
  12. Mickie

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 25, 2009

    Posts: 2,272

    Why does the majority vote to keep Scotland part of the UK on this forum when the majority of members here vote conservative and Scotland vote labour ?

    Shouldn't you vote for what Scotland want and how you think they feel about pulling out or not and not voting for what you think is best for England or you..

    If Scotland stay within the UK they'll continue to be the minority in the UK vote and continue to have little say on how they want Scotland to be run..
     
  13. El Capitano

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 2,577

    What proof do you have of that?
     
  14. Bear

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 24, 2002

    Posts: 12,432

    Location: Bucks and Edinburgh

    Scotland didnt vote for Labour last time, in general I dont think the Scots are very happy with Labour at all. Also the forum does not translate to the country at all as most of the community here are young and its well known statistically they dont vote.

    We are not allowed to vote so your other point is irrelevant but that aside, the cost to the UK to break everything up will be money wasted and could be better spent on things that matters more to the general populous.
     
  15. Hg80

    Associate

    Joined: Jan 15, 2010

    Posts: 54

    I have family in Scotland so want it to stay part of the UK
     
  16. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195

    We have quite a lot of say in how Scotland is run. We even have our own Parliament would you believe!

    60% of all expenditure in Scotland is controlled by the Scottish Parliament and that is set to increase.

    Since the establishment of the devolved parliament, more and more powers are steadily being devolved. That is set to continue - the question is how much? In any case, these things are best done slowly as large changes can be rather disruptive.

    To say that we Scots have little say in how Scotland is run is simply incorrect (as much as Yes would like it to be true).
     
  17. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2005

    Posts: 28,871

    Location: Canada

    And you're stuck navigating the English channel for a couple of hundred miles. Devonport would be the better option as it gets deep quick and has quicker access to the Atlantic, which is the main reason they are where they are now AFAIK.
     
  18. eddiemcgarrigle

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 13, 2006

    Posts: 3,734

    Location: Inverkip

    Oh dear, pretend grass roots organisation No Borders has closed the comments on it's funding page due to 'a sustained and vile nat attack' which was simply a few posts debunking all of their claims.

    To see some truly nasty attacks regarding the independence debate try visiting the BritNatAbuseBot on twitter. Strange that the media are blaming all the alleged abuse on Yes supporters.
     
  19. Mickie

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 25, 2009

    Posts: 2,272

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/7.stm

    Did they not vote labour ?

    I understand Scottish Conservative's run Scotland but Scotland's people hadn't vote them in..

    England did, the view the conservatives hold isn't the view Scotland holds.. Isn't that right ?
     
  20. grumpysculler

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 23, 2009

    Posts: 1,195