Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

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

[archie guevara]

No, they are completely irrelevant. Unless he is planning to sit on the tribunal he claims will end up deciding the matter.

The negotiations will be complex - and will be considered along with a number of other negotiations (concerning splits of assets and debts for example), so cannot be looked at in isolation.

In international law terms, no border exists between NewScot and rUK because NewScot doesn't exist. It will be a new border on independence, and what that border will look like will be negotiated.

It may end up exactly as it is internally under Westminster law, it may become more favourable than the existing domestic line is to Scotland or it may become less favourable than the existing domestic line is to Scotland.

Does that mean that we might get Berwick back?

[Swampy]

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.

That was in 2006. Sturgeon most emphatically did not say that in response to Scheffer's words and it's extremely dishonest to imply that she did. She phrased that response very carefully so that she stopped short of saying "this is what we believe."

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.

Is it?

Also, how do you know Scheffer is impartial?

Because there's no evidence that he's not.

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.

But that's exactly what you're saying. "Scotland" doesn't have any waters, at all. It's all Westminster's. They can draw a maritime boundary in the shape of a cock and balls if they want to, with absolutely no comeback. Is that what you're saying or isn't it?

[Swampy]

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

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

Let's say the quote is completely fabricated by a journalist at the Independent. I know neither of us actually thinks this is the case, but let's say it was. What purpose would this fabricated quote serve?

[xbl]

Let's say the quote is completely fabricated by a journalist at the Independent. I know neither of us actually thinks this is the case, but let's say it was. What purpose would this fabricated quote serve?

...silence...

[Mr Rational]

Does that mean that we might get Berwick back?

Bloody hope so, it's the only reason I'm involved. Is the Black Bear still going?

[Ad Lib]

Let's say the quote is completely fabricated by a journalist at the Independent. I know neither of us actually thinks this is the case, but let's say it was. What purpose would this fabricated quote serve?

To fill column space and sell papers.

[glasgow-sheep]

1- I'm always right. Once I was misinformed, but that was his fault not mine

2- I'm curious to see how spiteful/magnanimous the UK government would actually be.

2- That's the thing that gets me, the Better Together campaign would be expected to play the fear and scaremongering card but alot of their pronouncements have a more than a tinge of vindictiveness - "if you vote yes we'll charge you loads for this, not let you have that, and make sure they don't let you join this international association"; not because it will be in rUK's interest but just to be spiteful.

I can't believe that would actually happen but claiming it will be like that must surely make them even more pathetic and churlish than ever

[Swampy]

To fill column space and sell papers.

And why would it sell papers?

You're almost there...

[Mr Rational]

It would be in the rUK's interest to make sure that Scotland got off to a fair start, the last thing it would want is a financial basket case on it's Northern border.

I think they would actually play fair or at least play reasonably fair once we voted yes, until that point it makes sense tactically for them to keep churning out the scare stories.

Although they are losing their impact.

[Ad Lib]

And why would it sell papers?

You're almost there...

Because if they didn't fill the column inches the paper would be too small and they would need to fill more of the space with adverts to have a clean multiple of 4 pages. And nobody likes adverts. Nobody.

[Swampy]

Because if they didn't fill the column inches the paper would be too small and they would need to fill more of the space with adverts to have a clean multiple of 4 pages. And nobody likes adverts. Nobody.

You're always so reliable, readily on hand to derail threads when a unionist is struggling.

Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

[Ad Lib]

You're always so reliable, readily on hand to derail threads when a unionist is struggling.

Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

I genuinely don't understand your point. Could you spell it out in words of three syllables or less? Are you seriously asking people why a newspaper would make up sensationalist quotes that distort the true situation?

[Swampy]

I genuinely don't understand your point. Could you spell it out in words of three syllables or less? Are you seriously asking people why a newspaper would make up sensationalist quotes that distort the true situation?

I'm asking what motivation a newspaper would have to publish these particular quotes. You said it was to sell papers. I'm asking why you think these particular quotes would sell papers. What is it about them that's interesting?

I assume you think these quotes were made up?

[Ad Lib]

I'm asking what motivation a newspaper would have to publish these particular quotes. You said it was to sell papers. I'm asking why you think these particular quotes would sell papers. What is it about them that's interesting?

I assume you think these quotes were made up?

Because they're sensationalist. Sensation sells. It's journalism, not peer reviewed academic debate.

[Swampy]

Because they're sensationalist. Sensation sells. It's journalism, not peer reviewed academic debate.

On what basis do you call these sensationalist? It is, or at least until very recently was, an orthodox union position that Spain would at least try to keep Scotland out of the EU, successfully or otherwise.

It's still a Unionist position that Eastern European countries will block Scottish membership.

Do you think the quote is made up?

[Swampy]

That's a fun rhetorical trick, though, to just call something you disagree with 'sensationalist'. I think I'll do that next time something conflicts ever so slightly with my worldview. It's much easier than, y'know, dealing with facts.

[Ad Lib]

On what basis do you call these sensationalist? It is, or at least until very recently was, an orthodox union position that Spain would at least try to keep Scotland out of the EU, successfully or otherwise.

It's still a Unionist position that Eastern European countries will block Scottish membership.

Do you think the quote is made up?

When they say Spain "will" block or "will threaten to block" or "could threaten to block" it creates the impression there's going to be an international Mexican stand-off. Exaggerating or playing up the likelihood of a big international squabble creates a story that sells more papers than the headline "EU constitution permits right of veto on accession of prospective member states by any existing member state" and the sub-line "Potential implications for the negotiating position of multi-national member-states reluctant to facilitate self-determination by sub-state actors"

I think journalists make quotes up all the time and unless there is an independent piece of evidence specifically showing to the contrary by identifying a named individual (or a piece of evidence indicating a specific reason why that individual could not be identified (e.g. legal reasons)) I work from the assumption that quotes attributed to unnamed persons are fabricated. I adopt this standard rigorously in all my dealings with newspapers, as equally to quotes from "a source close to Steve Lovell" as I do "a senior UK government source".

[Swampy]

I worked in journalism for several years. On precisely one occasion did we come across someone fabricating quotes, and after a quick trip to the HR department the person in question was fired the same week. It simply doesn't happen as often as you say it does.

[Swampy]

Meanwhile, Ad Lib, can you bring your spinning prowess to bear on the first article I linked above? The one you clearly didn't bother reading before responding.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/spain-could-veto-scotlands-eu-bid.1328065548

What motivation does Peter Hain have to sell papers?

Speaking in London, Mr Hain said he believed tensions in Spain could trigger a move to wreck Scotland's EU membership.

"Scotland, of course, can be independent if it wants to," he said. "Personally, I think it will be weaker, it won't have as much influence in the world, and it might not get back into the EU because I suspect the Spanish will veto it."

He went on: "Spain has real problems with the Basque country and Catalonia, and I think they would be opposed to granting EU membership and would veto it for a part of a country which had seceded."