H_B Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 And it still doesn't address why changing the internal maritime border was necessary if these borders don't have symbolic and preceding importance. If it comes to a tribunal on the drawing of the maritime boundary, what is currently in place internally within the UK will have no standing as it hasn't been tacitly or otherwise agreed between two sovereign nations. The UK believed at the time it had drawn the current line as per international law precedent and believed that the current line would be what is agreed by a tribunal. They may or may not be proven correct on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Just to be clear, you're voting Yes, is that correct? Yes. Because Westminster's institutions are irreparably worse than Holyrood's. It doesn't mean I have to be a cheerleader for Scotland and its institutions, because it's still really shit. Just not quite as shit as the United Kingdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp 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? That's like choosing between UKIP and the SWP. Any idiot can see that they both have agendas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Just to be clear, you're voting Yes, is that correct? I think there are loads of Scots who are cautious to answer this question because their answer would be "i'm voting no" and this would unfortunately 'invite' a shouting down or "quisling" type insult from a Nationalist bully. It's trendy in Scotland to be loud about your love of Scotland and how Brits are quislings or lesser Scots isn't it. Hmm,does'nt sound to good does it. Well no worries,the more modest Unionists are just waiting to cross the Union box come Sept 2014. Too many bullies in the Nats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 . 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. So it'll take a war then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 If it comes to a tribunal on the drawing of the maritime boundary, what is currently in place internally within the UK will have no standing as it hasn't been tacitly or otherwise agreed between two sovereign nations. The UK believed at the time it had drawn the current line as per international law precedent and believed that the current line would be what is agreed by a tribunal. They may or may not be proven correct on that. And it should be pointed out again at this stage that the only tribunal with capacity to deal with these issues cannot bind a single state in any part of the world under any circumstances to accept or be bound by any line that it recommends. That's like choosing between UKIP and the SWP. Any idiot can see that they both have agendas. Well if they're wrong, you'll presumably be able to provide evidence that the safety assessments carried out in respect of Devonport are defective and that it is in fact both operationally and in terms of safety, equally as good as or better than Faslane at discharging the duties currently attached to Faslane? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 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. Australia is on the other side of earth. Scots share small islands together with the Welsh,English and other 'tribes' who have joined us. Australia,another example of Scottish influence achieved whilst being part of the British United Kingdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 How is DeeGas allowed to troll the bottom out of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp 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. Good lord. Alsace was part of France from 1639, Lorraine was French after 1766. The Germans annexed Alsace-Lorraine after the French lost the Franco-Prussian war and it was handed back to the French after WWI as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Are you really giving this as an example of how the UK government could annexe Faslane? I'm starting to lose what scant respect I had for you in the first place, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Good lord. Alsace was part of France from 1639, Lorraine was French after 1766. The Germans annexed Alsace-Lorraine after the French lost the Franco-Prussian war and it was handed back to the French after WWI as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Are you really giving this as an example of how the UK government could annexe Faslane? I'm starting to lose what scant respect I had for you in the first place, frankly. What you're talking about is political claims to land. And this is precisely my point. It's not that the weight and nature of the political claims in these two situations are the same. It's that the existence of political claims actually demonstrates the process and argument that has to take place before screaming definitively with your fingers in your ears "FASLANE BELONGS AND MUST ALWAYS BELONG TO SCOTLAND" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 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". So to all intents and purposes, after a yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum, the rump UK will decide what size and shape Scotland is? You do realise just how stupid this is, don't you? Even David Cameron knows it's a non-starter, what on earth are you defending it for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 How is DeeGas allowed to troll the bottom out of this thread? I dunno, I suspect he's some mod's cousin or brother-in-law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Well if they're wrong, you'll presumably be able to provide evidence that the safety assessments carried out in respect of Devonport are defective and that it is in fact both operationally and in terms of safety, equally as good as or better than Faslane at discharging the duties currently attached to Faslane? Right? I've already pointed out that the acceptable number of casualties is a political decision. If they get backed into a wall they can always change the guidelines and the number and nationality of the acceptably dead. Devonport is not defective in any manner. If subs are safe at Faslane then they're just as safe at Devonport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 What you're talking about is political claims to land. And this is precisely my point. It's not that the weight and nature of the political claims in these two situations are the same. It's that the existence of political claims actually demonstrates the process and argument that has to take place before screaming definitively with your fingers in your ears "FASLANE BELONGS AND MUST ALWAYS BELONG TO SCOTLAND" No I'm not, I'm talking about the spoils of war, which is what Alsace-Lorraine was. Twice. There's nothing comparable to the current situation in Scotland, and you're a fool for mentioning it in that context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 If the UK is getting Faslane can we have Salisbury Plain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I've already pointed out that the acceptable number of casualties is a political decision. If they get backed into a wall they can always change the guidelines and the number and nationality of the acceptably dead. Devonport is not defective in any manner. If subs are safe at Faslane then they're just as safe at Devonport. That's like saying "Chernobyl was no less safe than a newbuild nuclear reactor because the acceptable radius of pollution is a political decision". Don't be such a cretin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 been away for a wee bit, have I missed anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 Is Micheal Moore still peddling the H2S train link is an investment in scotland? http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/the-hidden-cost-of-the-union-hs2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 That's like saying "Chernobyl was no less safe than a newbuild nuclear reactor because the acceptable radius of pollution is a political decision". Don't be such a cretin. Except the MOD aren't likely to be doing experiments without safeguards are they? We're assured that nuclear subs are perfectly safe if properly handled and maintained, are we not? Chernobyl was, by definition, not properly handled and maintained, so once again, your comparison is bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 I dunno, I suspect he's some mod's cousin or brother-in-law. I don't know the Mods,but after 300 years of British intergration I wouldn't be surprised if I was related to one of em. I believe it to be over 80% of Scots have English relatives. We are more or less completely intergrated. 300 years of Brits shagging Brits. Sexier Together and by some! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.