Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

I am honestly beginning to think H_B's tactic on this thread is to, as soon as something pro-independence comes along, derail the thread into something so mind-numbingly boring that people stop reading.

[H_B]

Now, given that it appears you are going to blank Ad Lib's questions, perhaps we can limit it to one(or even two!), to help you out a bit.

What happened to South Sudan and Sudan as regards UN Membership?

What happened to South Sudan and Sudan as regards agreement on assets and debts?

[xbl]

Better Together appears to have split in two, but meanwhile:

I am honestly beginning to think H_B's tactic on this thread is to, as soon as something pro-independence comes along, derail the thread into something so mind-numbingly boring that people stop reading.

[Baxter Parp]

Again, your ignorance shines through. This has been a depressingly poor effort.

These interests can be held externally. For example, in the case of Yugoslavia, it included the 8,000 shares held in the BIS (Bank of International Settlements)

You will note that in the Yugoslav case there is (suprisingly enough) no mention of treaty rights and obligations as property.

It was instead divided into broadly:-

1) Internal Financial Assets

2) Immovable Assets in the territory of a Successor state

3) Immovable assets situated abroad

4) Movable property

Movable property included :-

SFRY quotas at the World Bank, the BIS and the IMF.

In short, assets to be divided up can be subdivided into "bricks and mortar" and "rights and interests", the latter of which includes shares and quotas in external bodies.

You will note that the Yugoslav case has nothing to do with the UK case. It's just the one you like quoting because it suits your purpose.

[H_B]

Yes, sadly when you get beyond the "shiny shiny coins" level, there requires to be an element of correctness. And this can be a little bit complex, for the stupid. I cannot be hled responsible for the idocy of poster who believe that treaties are property of the signatory, to be assigned internally.

On the plus side, we have advanced from "none of the assets and some of the debt", so today has been worthwhile, albeit laborious from an instruction point of view.

[H_B]

You will note that the Yugoslav case has nothing to do with the UK case.

That is correct. It does not.

But it is an example of an international tribunal seeking to establish what constitutes divisible property on the break up of a state.

The Sudanese situation is a lot more in point. If obviously more contentious and violent.

[Mr.Bojangles]

At the risk of starting another few pages of discussion about whether XBL is going to answer a question or not, I'll repost this because this is actually important.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/12/two-speed-britain-london-soars

The UK government is going down the road of centralisation again. In fact, they're hurtling towards it. That's the bare bones of why Euro skepticism is becoming a mainstream issue again. Even major infrastructure projects that are being undertaken are for the benefit of London. HS-2 is just going to make Birmingham a suburb of London.

[H_B]

Decent article, and definitely a concern.

[Baxter Parp]

That is correct. It does not.

But it is an example of an international tribunal seeking to establish what constitutes divisible property on the break up of a state.

The Sudanese situation is a lot more in point. If obviously more contentious and violent.

There could be nothing more contentious and violent than the break-up of Yugoslavia, and the Sudan situation is almost the same. Do you think it's just a coincidence that your both of your favourite examples involve civil wars? Or is it the fact that neither of them would reflect the reality of what would happen if Scotland voted yes that attracted you?

[Baxter Parp]

Decent article, and definitely a concern.

Then vote yes!

[H_B]

There could be nothing more contentious and violent than the break-up of Yugoslavia, and the Sudan situation is almost the same.

And again. Fail. No it isn't.

In the case of the Yugoslav break up there was no continuing entity emerging from the rubble. Serbia sought to be that, but was rejected by the international community.

Sudan on the other hand have continued to exercise the rights and obligations of Sudan, despite the secession of South Sudan.

South Sudan have had to apply to , inter alia, the United Nations, as a new member.

They also had to negotiate with Sudan vis a vis debts and assets resulting from their secession.

I'll try again, why did South Sudan have to apply to the United Nations as a new member?

[H_B]

Then vote yes!

It's not enough of a problem for me to want secession, and I don't believe an Indy Scotland would be any better or seek to implement a Scandinavian model of social contract. If I thought they would, I'd be absolutely in the Yes camp.

But it is one of the more persuasive arguments.

[Baxter Parp]

There could be nothing more contentious and violent than the break-up of Yugoslavia, and the Sudan situation is almost the same. 

 

And again. Fail. No it isn't.

 

In the case of the Yugoslav break up there was no continuing entity emerging from the rubble. Serbia sought to be that, but was rejected by the international community.

 

Sudan on the other hand have continued to exercise the rights and obligations of Sudan, despite the secession of South Sudan.

 

South Sudan have had to apply to , inter alia, the United Nations, as a new member.

 

They also had to negotiate with Sudan vis a vis debts and assets resulting from their secession.

 

I'll try again, why did South Sudan have to apply to the United Nations as a new member?

I'm guessing being at war with Sudan had something to do with it. That or the other ten wars that are raging in the area. You can't compare a situation where the two parties involved are essentially enemies and in dispute over land and resources with what will happen in our case.

[Ad Lib]

I'm guessing being at war with Sudan had something to do with it. That or the other ten wars that are raging in the area. You can't compare a situation where the two parties involved are essentially enemies and in dispute over land and resources with what will happen in our case.

Please explain why "the fact there was a civil war" alters the questions:

1. Whether the seceding state had to apply to join the UN

2. Whether the seceding state had to enter into negotiations to share debt and assets equitably

[Baxter Parp]

Then vote yes!

 

It's not enough of a problem for me to want secession, and I don't believe an Indy Scotland would be any better or seek to implement a Scandinavian model of social contract. If I thought they would, I'd be absolutely in the Yes camp.  

 

But it is one of the more persuasive arguments.

Funny, Yes Scotland & the SNP are forever pointing to Scandinavia as a model for the future. Voting no is just a guarantee for the status quo (or worse).

[H_B]

I'm guessing being at war with Sudan had something to do with it. That or the other ten wars that are raging in the area. You can't compare a situation where the two parties involved are essentially enemies and in dispute over land and resources with what will happen in our case.

Yes you can. Because International Law applies regardless. Again, for the millionth time see Quebec:Canada.

Your premise here is just all wrong. It has shades of David Scheffer wrong, and is coloured by your previous wrongness about the breakup of Czechoslovakia.

In pure International Law terms, it's a pretty simple case. Scotland would secede from the UK and the remainderUK would continue to exercise the previous competencies of the current UK.

This means Scotland would have to reapply to the UN (As South Sudan did, being a new country) and it would have to negotiate a settlement with rUK concerning assets and debts, both corporeal and incorporeal.

Membership of the former isn't an asset to be debated between the two.

This is where you are going wrong. You don't understand the consequences of secession, and what that means internationally. This is the easy bit though. The hard bit is, as with Yugoslavia, valuing the numerous assets the UK has currently at home and abroad, and offsetting that against debts, including liabilities for future pension rights. It will be very drawn out and costly to accurately agree a settlement.

[H_B]

There have been a lot of interesting papers written about this, and dealing with very real world situations much worse than we will have to deal with.

For example, seceding entities seeking to disassociate themselves from war crime reparations of the larger entity they are seceding from.

[Mr Rational]

I see Jackie Bird's wearing a lovely blood red shirt tonight, lead story being Capability stepping in to debate.

If you believe in all the stories, it's hardly subtle......

[Baxter Parp]

And yet in a very real sense it doesn't really matter why South Sudan had to join the UN. They had their referendum in January and were members by July. UN membership is clearly a non-issue.

[Baxter Parp]

I see Jackie Bird's wearing a lovely blood red shirt tonight, lead story being Capability stepping in to debate.

 

If you believe in all the stories, it's hardly subtle......

I take it Sturgeon's speech is getting all the attention it deserves?