Independence - how would you vote?

[Swampy]

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. 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, and 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, 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.

And I have no problem with rational actors sitting down and doing just this. What I reject, though, is this idea that Scotland must - counter to literally every other independenve movement in the 20th century - accept as a starting point that because it currently, legally has nothing, it should demand and expect nothing, completely ignoring centuries of meaningful, internal precedent that any observer would easily be able to point to and say 'that is Scottish.'

Once again - let's call it the 31st time - I'll ask the maritime boundary question. Why do these matter; why were they redrawn in secret; why can't we put them back to how they were if they really don't mean anything?

Oh, and another thing: I don't regard Scotland as being a new Cyprus. I mean, for f**k's sake, people. Have a bit of self-respect.

[Swampy]

The only people here talking up any Balkanisation of the UK are the MOD (and Cameron- thanks Guardian) and of course Tavish Scott.

If we're lucky, they'll at least let us pick the color we want for the map.

edit: although Scotland's rights to select a color were extinguished by the Treaty of Union so we'd be chancing our arm to ask for it

[Swampy]

~How the Liberal Democrats work~

Things Scotland is

• Cyprus
• Alsace-Lorraine

Things Scotland isn't

• Scotland

~

Places unsafe for nuclear submarines

• Faslane
• Devonport

Places nuclear submarines shouldn't be kept

• Devonport

[Ad Lib]

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.

I'm not saying their claims are (politically) analogous. I'm saying they're legally analogous. Two states, arguing about the sovereignty (a legal doctrine of international law) of a particular piece of territory, politically associated with one country but legally recognised by the international community as being part of another, and the inherent powers of sovereignty, to use abuse and dispose, being left as a matter completely for that state with title, subject to the soft political limits on its power that might necessitate it to enter into agreements to deal with it in a particular way.

[Swampy]

I'm not saying their claims are (politically) analogous. I'm saying they're legally analogous. Two states, arguing about the sovereignty (a legal doctrine of international law) of a particular piece of territory, politically associated with one country but legally recognised by the international community as being part of another, and the inherent powers of sovereignty, to use abuse and dispose, being left as a matter completely for that state with title, subject to the soft political limits on its power that might necessitate it to enter into agreements to deal with it in a particular way.

Legally Scotland has no right to secede whatsoever, so let's just call the whole thing off.

Do you have any idea how stupid all this sounds?

[DeeGas]

I really don't though. I live in Cambridge, but I work in Tower Hamlets. In fact, the boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets are amongst the poorest in the UK, never mind London. And of course Scotland is split - it's part of the UK - the same UK where the poorest pay a higher percentage of their income than the ultra wealthy. A UK where a public school education virtually buys you a job. I can't believe I'm saying this, but xbl is right about one thing - Scotland and England are very different. UKIP will never get traction there. The Tories are all but an extinct breed. If you want any chance of your vote counting for anything, you have to vote yes up there. I'm not happy about it, but there you go.

I have no argument against the unfairness of the Eaton mob rule Pink Freud,that is I thoroughly dislike it and them.

I do not believe Scotland and England are different where it counts and that is we share our beautiful islands.

Come on,there are millions of English who share a socialist sense of fair play as many Scots do.

To suggest otherwise is simply not true.Maybe amongst 53,000000 million down south they are harder to spot,but they are there.

I think it a shame Thatcher "bought so many off" though!

I think you are part of over 800,000 Scots who live in England.

That's a lot isn't it.

England and the Englsih are not too different for these people obviously.

Footnote.

Off the top of me 'ead.

Scot/Anglo,Welsh,N irish likeness'.

Football,rugby,golf,music,boxing,pubs,literature,poetry,Harry Potter fans,fish n chips,film,cricket,hockey,a love and endless fascination of the wheather,beautiful and varied versions of the English language,we beat the Nazi together,we beat an earlier version in Napoleon and perhaps the top one we share is Mums,Dads,brothers,sisters,cousins,2nd cousins friends and neighbours.Etc

[H_B]

And I have no problem with rational actors sitting down and doing just this. What I reject, though, is this idea that Scotland must - counter to literally every other independenve movement in the 20th century - accept as a starting point that because it currently, legally has nothing, it should demand and expect nothing,

Who has said this? That was an xbl type point.

Scotland should expect, and agree in any negotiations, an equitable maritime border with its neighbour. In the same way every other nation which shares the North Sea with the UK did. No one is "stealing" anything from Scotland. If such a time arises that Scotland becomes an international law person, it will join the club of nations and negotiate as a sovereign territory.

But it can't have stolen from it what it doesn't yet have.

[archie guevara]

Is it safe to come back to this thread yet?

I guess not

[Saor Alba]

~How the Liberal Democrats work~

Things Scotland is

• Cyprus
• Alsace-Lorraine

Things Scotland isn't

• Scotland

~

Places unsafe for nuclear submarines

• Faslane
• Devonport

Places nuclear submarines shouldn't be kept

• Devonport

[Ad Lib]

And I have no problem with rational actors sitting down and doing just this. What I reject, though, is this idea that Scotland must - counter to literally every other independenve movement in the 20th century - accept as a starting point that because it currently, legally has nothing, it should demand and expect nothing, completely ignoring centuries of meaningful, internal precedent that any observer would easily be able to point to and say 'that is Scottish.'

Straw man. No one is saying that it "should demand and expect nothing". Try again.

Once again - let's call it the 31st time - I'll ask the maritime boundary question. Why do these matter; why were they redrawn in secret; why can't we put them back to how they were if they really don't mean anything?

The UK can do what it likes with its internal administration and it changed those boundaries for probably a number of reasons, of administrative, political and economic rationales. And yes, one of the reasons might have been to skew any potential future independence debate. I consider debates about territory and borders to be relatively arbitrary, because states are just legal constructs. No state has a moral claim over any land or sea at all. It's just horsetrading and who holds the cards, contained by what they can politically get away with.

Oh, and another thing: I don't regard Scotland as being a new Cyprus. I mean, for f**k's sake, people. Have a bit of self-respect.

No one is saying it's a "new Cyprus". Again with the straw men. You could cause one hell of a fire with these.

~How the Liberal Democrats work~

Things Scotland is

• Cyprus
• Alsace-Lorraine

Things Scotland isn't

• Scotland

~

Places unsafe for nuclear submarines

• Faslane
• Devonport

Places nuclear submarines shouldn't be kept

• Devonport

List of things Scotland is:

1. a nation

2. a series of different territorial subdivisions of the United Kingdom for different purposes

3. a former state extinguished in the 18th century for the purposes of international law

List of things Scotland isn't:

1. a sovereign state with international legal personality

2. Cyprus

3. Alsace-Lorraine

List of places safe for nuclear warhead armed Vanguard submarines in the British Isles

*Empty*

List of places which would currently pose a higher and even more unacceptable risk to arm Vanguard submarines with Trident missiles in the United Kingdom when compared to current military practice

1. Devonport

2. Everywhere else except Faslane-Coulport, because it represents the current risk level

[Baxter Parp]

declining to permit

And pray, just how would they do that? They've agreed to abide by the referendum and by definition Scotland includes Faslane, so what legal measure would they take to separate Faslane from the rest of Scotland?

[Saor Alba]

I do not believe Scotland and England are different where it counts and that is we share our beautiful islands.

[Swampy]

The UK can do what it likes with its internal administration and it changed those boundaries for probably a number of reasons, of administrative, political and economic rationales. And yes, one of the reasons might have been to skew any potential future independence debate. I consider debates about territory and borders to be relatively arbitrary, because states are just legal constructs. No state has a moral claim over any land or sea at all. It's just horsetrading and who holds the cards, contained by what they can politically get away with.

OK, so, we acknowledge, finally, that the internal boundaries are actually meaningful. Great stuff. Now we can move ahead and...

... oh, we're onto first year common room discussions of how, like, states are just a construct, man, so... f**k it, back to the Dee Gas pile with you until you're willing to engage in good faith.

[Ad Lib]

Legally Scotland has no right to secede whatsoever, so let's just call the whole thing off.

Do you have any idea how stupid all this sounds?

As a matter of international law, Scotland has a right to self-determination up to and including a unilateral declaration of independence if the United Kingdom violated that right to the extent of the use of military force to suppress any meaningful political process to give effect to it.

[Baxter Parp]

Donald Finlay QC is a very intelligent and talented individual. He has this to say to you.

Correct. If we vote Yes we'll just have corrupt Holyrood governments that more than 70% of Scotland didn't vote for ruling over us instead. I gently remind you that the SNP only have a mandate from 45% of those who voted and about 25% of those eligible to vote in this country.

Westminster is corrupt, and beyond repair, but let's not pretend Holyrood is a panacea.

Just to be clear, you're voting Yes, is that correct?

[H_B]

In terms of "why was the boundary redrawn" it created a Scottish zone within British fishery limits, in which Scots law applies, not English law. It relates also to taxes and license fees used for GERS figures.

[DeeGas]

How does Scottish representation add up per population?

I'm not putting this forward to suggest all is rosey for Scotland,when it clearly is not,just curious to know.

[Swampy]

Who has said this? That was an xbl type point.

Scotland should expect, and agree in any negotiations, an equitable maritime border with its neighbour. In the same way every other nation which shares the North Sea with the UK did. No one is "stealing" anything from Scotland. If such a time arises that Scotland becomes an international law person, it will join the club of nations and negotiate as a sovereign territory.

But it can't have stolen from it what it doesn't yet have.

Scotland has no territory because it isn't sovereign.

Scotland can negotiate as a sovereign territory when it becomes an international law person.

Scotland will become an international law person when it has sovereign territory.

This is all very clearly circular. It completely ignores how virtually every other peaceful separation has worked since the 1960s. And it still doesn't address why changing the internal maritime border was necessary if these borders don't have symbolic and preceding importance. (Ad Lib, to his (partial) credit, at least tried to engage on this point, but overplayed his hand significantly by then dismissing the concept of statehood altogether. Funny how that only seems to happen when it's Scotland that's up for debate.)

edit: you touched on the maritime boundary point while I was typing this reply - thank you. But what you said is only partially true. The fisheries boundary comprises only half of the bill: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1126/contents/made

[Ad Lib]

And pray, just how would they do that? They've agreed to abide by the referendum and by definition Scotland includes Faslane, so what legal measure would they take to separate Faslane from the rest of Scotland?

Scotland does not, by definition, include Faslane. Some internal territorial divisions of the United Kingdom assign a territory called Scotland the territory containing Faslane, but that isn't the same thing. They could separate Faslane from Scotland with one line in an Act of Parliament: "For the purposes of this Act [the Secession of Scotland Act], "Scotland" shall not include all and whole of the territory contained by HMNB Clyde and RNMB Coulpourt and the waters surrounding them".

OK, so, we acknowledge, finally, that the internal boundaries are actually meaningful. Great stuff. Now we can move ahead and...

I've never denied their political significance in framing the debate. Just their relevance to what is "ours". That's a legal question. Not a moral one. Not a political one.

... oh, we're onto first year common room discussions of how, like, states are just a construct, man, so... f**k it, back to the Dee Gas pile with you until you're willing to engage in good faith.

Sovereign states are LITERALLY a legal construct. It's a legal term of art. It is a concept that is invented for the regulation of autonomous governments on a territorial basis. That's what it is.

[speckled tangerine]

Off the top of me 'ead.

Scot/Anglo,Welsh,N irish likeness'.

Football,rugby,golf,music,boxing,pubs,literature,poetry,Harry Potter fans,fish n chips,film,cricket,hockey,a love and endless fascination of the wheather,beautiful and varied versions of the English language,we beat the Nazi together,we beat an earlier version in Napoleon and perhaps the top one we share is Mums,Dads,brothers,sisters,cousins,2nd cousins friends and neighbours.Etc

Everything you've listed there (bar one) is applicible to Australia. They even produce the one in bold.

Great argument for staying in a broken, uneven suffocating sham of a union by advocating a list of things loved by another British Imperial outpost that fucked off a hundred years ago and is doing better than we are.

Try again.