Independence - how would you vote?

[Swampy]

I think this is very true. And (ignoring the aliases) it's vital.

For example, we've had Nats reposting nonsense on this thread from the likes of Wings Over Scotland and breathlessly quoting morons like David Scheffer, which, were they not corrected by others, would lead posters to believe that for example an Independent Scotland would be a "co-equal successor state" with rUK post breakup and would be inheriting the UK's EU opt outs.

This is something the SNP have also lied to people about. We've also had some complete dross spouted about the maritime boundaries also, from people who cut and paste from the internet without having the first idea what they are talking about. Urrrr, median line!!!!

It's really important that these errors are corrected, and posters who are neutral have all the facts at their disposal. Not just the seals clapping wildly at the latest "Reverend" Stuart Campbell exclusive.

There was plenty of discussion over Scotland's successor status. For what it's worth I never thought Scotland would be treated as a co-equal successor state by the EU, but I can fully understand why people would want to fight that corner. Scotland's EU status will come entirely down to politics rather than procedure, and it makes sense to start from a strong position.

On the maritime boundary, what dross in particular are you referring to?

[~~~]

Hmm,i believe in a fair Union between Scotland and England.So "equal" as in "fair".

All people being equal.I would support more powers for Scotland,more self decision making and the cash to do it,but only within the UK Union and only if it were fair to the rest of the Union.I think as things are it probably would be.Same goes for other parts of the UK.

An independent Scotland would not be in Union with anyone except themselves.

That's for sure.

It's a simple yes or no question, from your deflection I can only assume you believe the answer is No

[Colkitto]

Hmm,i believe in a fair Union between Scotland and England.So "equal" as in "fair".

All people being equal.I would support more powers for Scotland,more self decision making and the cash to do it,but only within the UK Union and only if it were fair to the rest of the Union.I think as things are it probably would be.Same goes for other parts of the UK.

An independent Scotland would not be in Union with anyone except themselves.

That's for sure.

As things stand right now is it an equal Union?

[NorthAyrshireKillie]

It's a simple yes or no question, from your deflection I can only assume you believe the answer is No

I think its safe to assume in this instance.

[DeeGas]

As things stand right now is it an equal Union?

No.

Too many examples in Scotland,Wales and England to say otherwise.

[H_B]

There was plenty of discussion over Scotland's successor status. For what it's worth I never thought Scotland would be treated as a co-equal successor state by the EU, but I can fully understand why people would want to fight that corner. Scotland's EU status will come entirely down to politics rather than procedure, and it makes sense to start from a strong position.

On the maritime boundary, what dross in particular are you referring to?

1) That's correct. There was a lot of discussion. but the only reason there was a lot of discussion is because Ad Lib and I took to task the clapping seals Indy voices posting WoS rubbish, which a neutral poster reading the thread might reasonably have believed was a viable proposition.

As we know, and as Ad Lib and I told people at the time, this was complete and utter bullshit. The co-equal successor state garbage Sturgeon and cronies tried to peddle was and is absolute drivel.

Which is why you need posters to be able to say "Wait a minute here" when there are attempts to suggest this is a plausible scenario.

I note how the Yes campaign peddling factually incorrect nonsense is "fighting their corner. Mmmm.

2) We've had the "they are going to give us some of our sea" stuff, and we've had utter nonsense talked about the North Sea maritime dispute which was factually incorrect, along with the frequent touting of the "median line" as being some sort of definitive solution, when this is specifically stated in international law not to have precedence over any other solution.

We also had the sustained failure to understand the difference between domestic law and international law and what is and is not within the competence of Westminster to arbitrarily decide. I'm not sure why this has proven to be a longstanding problem of understanding.

[H_B]

As things stand right now is it an equal Union?

No.

Is the EU an equal union?

[xbl]

I see that HB gave Swampy a full and detailed answer to one of his posts, but seems to have missed this one:

Well obviously he didn't go on record as saying it, since he wasn't a named source. So the possible options are:

1) The quote was completely made up by the Independent

2) The quote is legitimate, but given with the understanding that the minister's name wouldn't be used

Can you explain which of these doesn't completely validate the proposition that unionists were scaremongering about the prospect of Scotland being shut out of the EU, and using Spain as the reason why?

I'm not accepting this goalpost-shifting to 'UK government line', by the way. We are talking about "Unionists", who in this context will include not just members of the UK government but members of Better Together, their various confederates, and much of the media.

We've been waiting a couple days for a response now.

[H_B]

I see that HB gave Swampy a full and detailed answer to one of his posts, but seems to have missed this one:

We've been waiting a couple days for a response now.

I gave you a response earlier, which was based on an unnamed source, which I don't accept as evidence. I never use unquoted sources, nor do I accept them.

I hadn't seen the Rennie quote - I will gladly accept that as evidence that a Unionist has indeed used the "Spain veto" line and am happy to admit I was wrong in this instance.

[xbl]

H_B: evidence has been provided above, by one of BitterTogether's scaremongers in chief. So either read the thread properly next time and admit you were wrong here, or slither off the thread again for several months: it's your call.

Oh, and this comment from VT too. You DO seem to be missing a lot of posts today. Must be those reading problems of yours.

[xbl]

I gave you a response earlier, which was based on an unnamed source, which I don't accept as evidence. I never use unquoted sources, nor do I accept them.

I hadn't seen the Rennie quote - I will gladly accept that as evidence that a Unionist has indeed used the "Spain veto" line and am happy to admit I was wrong in this instance.

:: swoon ::

I think we can also take it as read that you have also had to accept the unnamed quote too. After all, even if it is an invented quote, it is still there for that exact purpose.

[H_B]

:: swoon ::

I think we can also take it as read that you have also had to accept the unnamed quote too. After all, even if it is an invented quote, it is still there for that exact purpose.

No, I don't accept unattributed quotes as evidence.

Quotes from actual people on record I am quite happy with.

[Swampy]

1) That's correct. There was a lot of discussion. but the only reason there was a lot of discussion is because Ad Lib and I took to task the clapping seals Indy voices posting WoS rubbish, which a neutral poster reading the thread might reasonably have believed was a viable proposition.

As we know, and as Ad Lib and I told people at the time, this was complete and utter bullshit. The co-equal successor state garbage Sturgeon and cronies tried to peddle was and is absolute drivel.

Which is why you need posters to be able to say "Wait a minute here" when there are attempts to suggest this is a plausible scenario.

I note how the Yes campaign peddling factually incorrect nonsense is "fighting their corner. Mmmm.

That an impartial international law professor said co-equal statehood was a possibility is not factually incorrect nonsense.

2) We've had the "they are going to give us some of our sea" stuff, and we've had utter nonsense talked about the North Sea maritime dispute which was factually incorrect, along with the frequent touting of the "median line" as being some sort of definitive solution, when this is specifically stated in international law not to have precedence over any other solution.

We also had the sustained failure to understand the difference between domestic law and international law and what is and is not within the competence of Westminster to arbitrarily decide. I'm not sure why this has proven to be a longstanding problem of understanding.

I think most people understood the domestic/international law distinction just fine, but being repeatedly told 'domestic law means the UK can take all of Scotland's waters without recourse' simply doesn't matter in reality, where it'll be down to horse trading.

[H_B]

That an impartial international law professor said co-equal statehood was a possibility is not factually incorrect nonsense.

I think most people understood the domestic/international law distinction just fine, but being repeatedly told 'domestic law means the UK can take all of Scotland's waters without recourse' simply doesn't matter in reality, where it'll be down to horse trading.

1) Nicola Sturgeon telling people, and I quote, "An independent Scotland would automatically inherit EU membership on the same terms as the remainder of the UK” is factually incorrect nonsense.

Sturgeon also said :-"Conversely, in the case of the Czech Republic and Slovakia (ignored by the UK government), both countries agreed to be co-equal successor states."

This is also factually incorrect nonsense.

Also, how do you know Scheffer is impartial?

2) There is no Scottish waters currently, other than those which are demarcated by Westminster. Westminster can currently subdivide UK waters as it chooses. It has no requirement to subdivide at all at the moment, if it chooses not to.

Until Scotland is an actor in international relations there are no Scottish waters.

'domestic law means the UK can take all of Scotland's waters without recourse" - literally no one has said this. I would love to see evidence to the contrary if you can provide it.

[AberdeenBud]

 

1) That's correct. There was a lot of discussion. but the only reason there was a lot of discussion is because Ad Lib and I took to task the clapping seals Indy voices posting WoS rubbish, which a neutral poster reading the thread might reasonably have believed was a viable proposition.

 

As we know, and as Ad Lib and I told people at the time, this was complete and utter bullshit. The co-equal successor state garbage Sturgeon and cronies tried to peddle was and is absolute drivel.

 

Which is why you need posters to be able to say "Wait a minute here" when there are attempts to suggest this is a plausible scenario.

 

I note how the Yes campaign peddling factually incorrect nonsense is "fighting their corner. Mmmm.

 

2) We've had the "they are going to give us some of our sea" stuff, and we've had utter nonsense talked about the North Sea maritime dispute which was factually incorrect, along with the frequent touting of the "median line" as being some sort of definitive solution, when this is specifically stated in international law not to have precedence over any other solution.

 

We also had the sustained failure to understand the difference between domestic law and international law and what is and is not within the competence of Westminster to arbitrarily decide. I'm not sure why this has proven to be a longstanding problem of understanding.

The person taking utter nonsense about the maritime border today has been your good self.

Sent from my C5303 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

[H_B]

The person taking utter nonsense about the maritime border today has been your good self.

Sent from my C5303 using Pie & Bovril mobile app

Is that so. What exactly (very specifically) have I said about the maritime border that is "utter nonsense"?

I expect a tactical retreat incidentally - not a reply. Let's see if I'm right.

[archie guevara]

Poor Ken McIntosh. Sacked for telling the truth.

[archie guevara]

As an aside the chair of the Better Together campaign at Dundee University decided that he will now be voting yes.simply because he realised there was no arguments against independence.

More details on this please. Has it been reported anywhere? Eg the Tully?

[St. Elmo's Fire]

Bitter Together. Fucking hilarious.

If Scotland votes anything other than yes, then we surely must average one of the lowest IQs in the world.

[xbl]

Yep. HB has had his credibility utterly smashed in recent weeks.