Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 "Facts" furnished by that oracle of disinterested neutrality, the UK Ministry of Defence? Aye OK then. Are you accusing the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament of conspiring with the MOD to con the general public into believing that Devonport is unsuitable for arming Trident missiles to Vanguard submarines when it is in fact safe and suitable for those purposes as set against detailed disaster contagion criteria subjected to international standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I refer you to the thirty or so previous debunkings of this mantra. As as I recall, the last quote-unquote debunking centered around the fact that you didn't like this' being pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 As as I recall, the last quote-unquote debunking centered around the fact that you didn't like this' being pointed out. It centred around it being literally incoherent to talk about "Scottish land" in international law because Scotland isn't an international legal person and only international legal persons "own" sovereign rights over land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Are you accusing the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament of conspiring with the MOD to con the general public into believing that Devonport is unsuitable for arming Trident missiles to Vanguard submarines when it is in fact safe and suitable for those purposes as set against detailed disaster contagion criteria subjected to international standards? The CND has for years been saying that, among other things, nuclear waste storage at Faslane is unsafe. If you're that eager for the UK to continue to occupy Faslane, but you also want the CDU on your side, justify that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 It centred around it being literally incoherent to talk about "Scottish land" in international law because Scotland isn't an international legal person and only international legal persons "own" sovereign rights over land. Yes, everyone understands this. Scotland was 'extinguished'. However, where reasonable people differ is that they think that Scotland's present, internal boundaries are a good starting point, rather than whatever fucked-up, gerrymandered Bantustan you and your Lib Dem buddies have envisioned for the people of Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Yes, everyone understands this. Scotland was 'extinguished'. However, where reasonable people differ is that they think that Scotland's present, internal boundaries are a good starting point, rather than whatever fucked-up, gerrymandered Bantustan you and your Lib Dem buddies have envisioned for the people of Scotland. But that's the point. They can be a starting point for negotiations, but Scotland at present has no land and no sea. The United Kingdom does. So when people takl about "keeping" some of "our" sea, it's just arrant nonsense. You can't "keep" what you don't own yet, especially when there is no "you" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The CND has for years been saying that, among other things, nuclear waste storage at Faslane is unsafe. If you're that eager for the UK to continue to occupy Faslane, but you also want the CDU on your side, justify that. I don't dispute what they say about Faslane and nuclear waste. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to re-iterate the fact that I'm against our having a military purpose nuclear presence whether on the Firth of Clyde or anywhere else. They do say that Devonport is even less suitable by safety and logistical assessment on the specific question of a site to arm and then deploy armed Vanguard submarines with Trident missiles. And they're right. Because this isn't a point of dispute among serious people with opinions in the debate about the UK's nuclear deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Stop trying to play the "suffer together" card. I doubt whether any Independence minded person has any particular grievance with ordinary working people anywhere else in these Islands, or the Republic of Ireland, or Bulgaria or the man on the street in Ulan Bator for that matter! It's shite being poor, disenfranchised and feeling that you have no control over your own destiny. Let's not f**k about here with your cliched 300 years of history pish. If you were a peasant working the land for a laird in 1780, some illiterate kid in a dark satanic Lancashire mill in 1880, or an unemployed Clydebank shipyard worker in 1980 waving a wee paper union flag like we'll all be prompted to do next week does not alter the fact that things were/are shite for these examples......and now. How long do we wait for things to improve? Gideon should have had the debt repaid by round about now, but in fact he's borrowing more and the UK is bankrupt. The cuts haven't even begun in earnest but we already have the bedroom tax, targeted attacks on the disabled, people on zero hour contracts and the like. How long do we wait for things to turn around? Five, ten, twenty years? Longer? We've the prospect of another Tory Government taking us out of Europe (possibly in cahoots with the risible UKIP). Legislation in the pieline to ban non English MPs from voting on English issues, so you can rule out Labour riding out to the rescue (!) if you're that way inclined. We'd have a puppet Labour administration in office, but not in power having policy after policy defeated by the English right. Labour need Scottish seats .How would that help our common friends over the nation? Be even worse for Scotland as Barnett gets obliterated with right wing policies ripping the shit out of any consequentials. We've got a chance to do things our own way, elect a Government that we want to enact policies that the Scottish people approve of. That is simply not going to happen under the current arrangements, or under halfbaked wishy washy unspecified "more powers". England has been moving steadily right for years. We have not, but that's not to say we wouldn't have a conservative government after independence. We could vote them out though. Unlike now. No amount of patriotic drivel can cover the fact the United Kingdom has, and is increasingly being run by an elite, for an elite. Enjoy dreaming of Waterloo or Kate and Wills (themselves an elite) newborn because in the greater scheme of things it actually means the square root of f**k all. For f**k sake Deegas open your eyes. You support the fact that Britains all over the UK are the same.Some have it good,some are doing okay and some have it hard. An inde Scotland will be no different,except the Brits would of lost their British identity. We live in a potentially dangerous world and we should work towards working together more. This dangerous and selfish Scottish nationalism plan is about 300 years too late. You want a currency Union ay. Well what follows that? Political Union and we're then back to where we are now! Stop wasting Britains time! The SNP are full of nationalist drivel,look at the main muppet at Wimbledon FFS! I bet Rab C dreams of Scotlands World Cup qualification and then onto the last 16.He can see himself heading towards rich retirement and a seat at the German Empire table on the wave of Scottish World Cup fever,patriotism and a D Fletcher 20 yarder against and wait for it......................................England! Then he wakes up. I see us as 4 countries together as one in a United Kingdom. Scottish nationalists are trouble makers trying to run out the back door and desert because things are a little bit tough and hey,let's not share the oil! Disgusting,pathetic and ugly. I want my island to remain United. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 But that's the point. They can be a starting point for negotiations, but Scotland at present has no land and no sea. The United Kingdom does. So when people takl about "keeping" some of "our" sea, it's just arrant nonsense. You can't "keep" what you don't own yet, especially when there is no "you" This. The independence settlement, effected by Act of UK Parliament, will DEFINE the sovereign territory apportioned by the United Kingdom to the new sovereign state it permits to come into existence. Appealing to the internal subdivisions of the UK for domestic legal purposes is like Germany throwing a strop at the fact Alsace and Lorraine were once defined as sub-state territories of their state but are now part of France. Political, and in need of justification, and would be laughed out by any court of law, international or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 The big bad Engerlish, as I have been brainwashed to think they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 But that's the point. They can be a starting point for negotiations, but Scotland at present has no land and no sea. The United Kingdom does. So when people takl about "keeping" some of "our" sea, it's just arrant nonsense. You can't "keep" what you don't own yet, especially when there is no "you" Scotland 'owns' it in the context of having an area designated to it as a constituent country of the United Kingdom. This is, in international law terms, not very meaningful. Morally, on the other hand, it's pretty clear-cut, unless for whatever reason you're interested in ensuring that it's not. I've asked this a few times over the last supposed thirty debunkings and have yet to have an answer - if these borders are meaningless and everything is the UK's to give away anyway, why was the maritime boundary redrawn in the first place; why was it done in secret; and why is there such fierce opposition from Unionists and their fellow-travelers to switching it back? After all, it's all the UK's regardless, these things don't mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 This. The independence settlement, effected by Act of UK Parliament, will DEFINE the sovereign territory apportioned by the United Kingdom to the new sovereign state it permits to come into existence. Appealing to the internal subdivisions of the UK for domestic legal purposes is like Germany throwing a strop at the fact Alsace and Lorraine were once defined as sub-state territories of their state but are now part of France. Political, and in need of justification, and would be laughed out by any court of law, international or otherwise. This would be analogous if Yes Scotland had territorial ambitions towards, say, Berwick. Or the CDU had imperial designs on, say, Faslane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I don't dispute what they say about Faslane and nuclear waste. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to re-iterate the fact that I'm against our having a military purpose nuclear presence whether on the Firth of Clyde or anywhere else. They do say that Devonport is even less suitable by safety and logistical assessment on the specific question of a site to arm and then deploy armed Vanguard submarines with Trident missiles. And they're right. Because this isn't a point of dispute among serious people with opinions in the debate about the UK's nuclear deterrent. CDU say Devonport is unsafe = we can't have nuclear subs at Devonport! CDU say Faslane is unsafe = oh mumble mumble some of your land and a bit of your sea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 You support the fact that Britains all over the UK are the same. Thats not true, Someone from Brighton isn't the "same" as someone from Belfast, and they are not the "same" as someone from Cardiff etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 This would be analogous if Yes Scotland had territorial ambitions towards, say, Berwick. Or the CDU had imperial designs on, say, Faslane. Except the division of lands were not agreed by moral principles of whether these territories were quintessentially French or German. They were settled by treaty as to what was equitable and necessary between the parties, in light of the relative geopolitical positions and negotiations between them. Sovereignty over Alsace and Lorraine were ceded by Germany under a treaty. They were not inherently French. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 CDU say Devonport is unsafe = we can't have nuclear subs at Devonport! CDU say Faslane is unsafe = oh mumble mumble some of your land and a bit of your sea I don't think we can have nuclear subs at Faslane safely. There's no mumbling here. I just agree with the informed opinions of those both in favour of and against the Trident system being placed at Faslane that Devonport is even less suitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Except the division of lands were not agreed by moral principles of whether these territories were quintessentially French or German. They were settled by treaty as to what was equitable and necessary between the parties, in light of the relative geopolitical positions and negotiations between them. Sovereignty over Alsace and Lorraine were ceded by Germany under a treaty. They were not inherently French. Germany and France are not analogous to Scotland and the rest of the UK. Scotland's demands are not analogous to this weird, irredentist scenario you're trying to taint the Yes camp with. It is extraordinary that you think the UK's current internal boundaries are completely without meaning or symbol, but you think that a completely made-up alternate history of western Europe is in any way compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I fully expect to see this line of thinking represented in the Scotsman, by the way. 'Scottish claims towards lands pretty much universally recognized as Scottish for several centuries a chilling reminder of German imperialism, prominent Lib Dem warns." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Germany and France are not analogous to Scotland and the rest of the UK. Scotland's demands are not analogous to this weird, irredentist scenario you're trying to taint the Yes camp with. It is extraordinary that you think the UK's current internal boundaries are completely without meaning or symbol, but you think that a completely made-up alternate history of western Europe is in any way compelling. They are analogous for the narrow purposes I referenced them, namely the question of what constitutes land and how it attaches to sovereign states as a matter of international law and practice. You yourself concede that internal subdivision of a sovereign state's territory is only a "starting point" for the land that should be apportioned to a seceding part of it that has sought to form its own sovereign state. Alsace isn't French because the French have an inviolable moral claim to it or because it was an internally administered region of France in the distant past. It's French because a treaty says so, and the political arguments and horsetrading in the aftermath of WWII was won in respect of its claims for it. The case has been made that military bases are not necessarily subject to the same political or moral assumptions about who has a sovereign claim to a piece of land. Scotland must justify against those claims, should it wish to, why it is such a moral or political aberration that such a temporary retainer of sovereignty over a unique military base for UK defence purposes should be asserted or insisted upon or sought by the state agreeing to implement the broad, indeterminate, moral claim of Scotland, not inherently, historically or ideologically limited to one permanent territory, through a referendum, to claim the right to set itself up as a sovereign state with a defined and internationally recognised boundary not overlapping with any other already existing or subsequently existing sovereign state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speckled tangerine Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I fully expect to see this line of thinking represented in the Scotsman, by the way. 'Scottish claims towards lands pretty much universally recognized as Scottish for several centuries a chilling reminder of German imperialism, prominent Lib Dem warns." The only people here talking up any Balkanisation of the UK are the MOD (and Cameron- thanks Guardian) and of course Tavish Scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.