Independence - how would you vote?

[Baxter Parp]

Nae deeds. Nae sea. Nae luck.

Howcum we get to keep the land then?

[Ad Lib]

Howcum we get to keep the land then?

We don't. Until the two negotiating teams agree to and finalise it.

[Mr.Bojangles]

The wee out of touch Unionist guy can't help but throw in a scarestory at the end

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM4LpIAPamA

The bastion of the independence movement, The Scotsman, are hiding unionist artists from the public.

Seems believable.

[DeeGas]

I can't remember much about of HBs posts,but he's an arrogant c**t,like a few others on here.

[Baxter Parp]

1. I gave you a "for instance". I specifically said that our relative share of the national debt might be significantly reduced. I specifically said that the revenues of economic interests including energy and fishing rights in any contested area might be assigned or compensated for. I said that we might be given other assets of a fungible nature in above expected proportions, like transitional revenues from international bodies. Or the UK could keep it simple and pay us a significant retainer. Like they might do to retain a temporary sovereign interest in Faslane.

You haven't once provided a moral or inviolable justification for why it is in Scotland's interests and that Scotland can in all circumstances insist that the UK and the international community accept and recognise the pre-Blair border. Just "abuh abuh abuh erm it roughly correlates to abuh abuh abuh something that some of the states in some of the places used some of the time in some of the seas for some of the borders."

You're just determined to give away wee bits of our country, aren't you? You gave me a vague pile of pish that doesn't tell anyone anything about the nuts and bolts of what a feasible deal on what represents (I understand) to be something like 10% of the UK's oil reserves would actually consist of. Apparently we'll give 'em away for some fish and a bit of pocket money.

The precedents, the conventions, the norms, what ever phrase you prefer, of international law are very important, are they not? A case put to the World Court would not use the median (Blair's) line, but would use a precedent. In this case the precedent being that all the UK's other boundaries use the modified equidistance principle. If we don't negotiate our rights away, and I think that's barmy unlikely, and it goes to arbitration, then they would use the 1987 boundary. Since if they were given a blank map of the UK and continental Europe, that's the boundary the Court would come up with.

2. They have the principles of natural justice and a democratic mandate. That's enough to reach an equitable agreement. Stop being such a zero sum game person.

"Just trust the UK". Famous last words.

[Baxter Parp]

We don't. Until the two negotiating teams agree to and finalise it.

A push and a rush and Berwick's ours!

[Baxter Parp]

The bastion of the independence movement, The Scotsman, are hiding unionist artists from the public.

Seems believable.

Apparently if we split the working classes we'd all be at the mercy of fat cat capitalists. Unlike now.

[StewartyMac]

Tomorrow I intend to buy an apple. None of the apples are, yet, "mine". Because I haven't bought any. They still belong to the greengrocer. They are his apples. I can't yet tell you which of the apples will be mine. Because we haven't transacted yet. I have a rough idea which area of the pile I will select an apple from, but I cannot yet say for certain which apple the greengrocer and I will agree to contract to transfer ownership. But it's not my apple. Its his. An apple ought soon to be mine. But it's not happened yet.

Here's a better analogy.

Mr Smith and Mr Jones are both grocers. Years ago, they decided that instead of having two shops next door to each other, they'd smash down the middle wall, and have one big shop together, whilst still having their own stock and fittings, etc. They couldn't agree which of them they should name it after, so they called it Browns instead.

After many happy years of trading, Mr Smith decides his stock is actually better than Mr Jones, and feels he could easily go it alone again, despite Mr Jones having a far larger shop area. Technically all stock since the merger belong to the name 'Browns', but when Mr Smith rebuilds the wall, and breaks free from Mr Jones, the stock on his side of the wall becomes his once more. Just as Mr Jones's all becomes his.

And then, 'Browns' most loyal customer, un-named but whose initials are HB, goes home and hangs himself.

[Ad Lib]

You're just determined to give away wee bits of our country, aren't you? You gave me a vague pile of pish that doesn't tell anyone anything about the nuts and bolts of what a feasible deal on what represents (I understand) to be something like 10% of the UK's oil reserves would actually consist of. Apparently we'll give 'em away for some fish and a bit of pocket money.

Our country (by which you mean Scotland) doesn't have anything to give away. I can't give you the nuts and bolts because they haven't been negotiated yet. I'm giving you a rough idea of the kind of trade offs that could conceviably be involved. And among Yes voters I'm not alone in thinking that it is both legitimate and prudent to bundle the precise, morally arbitrary, boundaries at sea between the resultant sovereign states, into the general negotiation of a settlement, such that if it proves mutually beneficial, it can be drawn more flexibly than holding rigidly to any echo of a non-determinative, non-exclusive and non-monopolous principle from other international settlements of only historical interest and tangential persuasiveness in and of themselves and without the particular justifications given for those other states reaching those agreements.

The precedents, the conventions, the norms, what ever phrase you prefer, of international law are very important, are they not? A case put to the World Court would not use the median (Blair's) line, but would use a precedent. In this case the precedent being that all the UK's other boundaries use the modified equidistance principle. If we don't negotiate our rights away, and I think that's barmy unlikely, and it goes to arbitration, then they would use the 1987 boundary. Since if they were given a blank map of the UK and continental Europe, that's the boundary the Court would come up with.

1. The "precedents" for subdivision of sea on secession do not conform to any single narrative about division

2. There are a number of different approaches used to suit the particular circumstances they encapsulate, which are mutually contradictory and mitigate against any sort of norm, convention or rule whatsoever

3. There is no such thing as the "World Court" and no court of international character can bind any state on any question if any maritime boundary.

4. There is no precedent for splitting the UK's sea for the purposes of international law.

5. The modified equidistance principle isn't a precedent. It is a non-binding political principle underpinning previous agreements between the UK and other states and there is no obvious moral, ethical, practical or political reason why it need necessarily apply to a secession settlement in apportioning UK waters.

6. They're not our rights yet. We're negotiating what rights we get to have from day 0. Just now Scotland as an international actor has no rights.

7. See number 3 re arbitration and its total irrelevance.

"Just trust the UK". Famous last words.

Not remotely what I said. Harder fail for you than a Trident missile ripping through your small intestine via the rectum.

[xbl]

And then, 'Browns' most loyal customer, un-named but whose initials are HB, goes home and hangs himself.

:lol: :lol:

[Ad Lib]

Here's a better analogy.

Mr Smith and Mr Jones are both grocers. Years ago, they decided that instead of having two shops next door to each other, they'd smash down the middle wall, and have one big shop together, whilst still having their own stock and fittings, etc. They couldn't agree which of them they should name it after, so they called it Browns instead.

After many happy years of trading, Mr Smith decides his stock is actually better than Mr Jones, and feels he could easily go it alone again, despite Mr Jones having a far larger shop area. Technically all stock since the merger belong to the name 'Browns', but when Mr Smith rebuilds the wall, and breaks free from Mr Jones, the stock on his side of the wall becomes his once more. Just as Mr Jones's all becomes his.

And then, 'Browns' most loyal customer, un-named but whose initials are HB, goes home and hangs himself.

The problem being that your analogy is disanalogous. The reality is that Mr Smith and Mr Jones agreed to put all their stock and fittings into a Corporate envelope. It's Browns property now. All of it.

Mr Smith wants stock and fittings to make his own corporate envelope. But all he has is shares in Brown. He therefore has to negotiate with Mr Jones, who hasn't the cash simply to buy him out, what bits of the Brown property he is to get in exchange for giving all his shares in Brown to Mr Jones. Because Mr Jones has no reason to leave the Brown envelope (lol) just to put everything into a new one. Since the individual fittings and stock don't have obvious value or specification, Mr Smith has to think carefully what kind of stuff he NEEDS to be able to sell, and what stuff he wants to be able to sell, and then make representations as to what he thinks that is worth. Mr Jones, naturally, does the same.

Mr Smith was always better at selling apples, so Mr Jones is likely just to let him have them all (see Scottish land), save perhaps the special green apple (Faslane) which he needs for an essential photograph to pay off a green apple fetish drug dealer who has threatened to smash up his shop if he doesn't give him a photo. But both of them are quite good at selling aubergines, even though neither of them sold them when they first merged shops (see the absence of any international laws governing ownership of waters prior to the Union). They therefore have to consider what share of the aubergines they should each get. They also have to agree who will meet what liability with the suppliers, who gave them fruit on credit notes. So if one of them takes more of the aubergines, they might also take more of the debt.

Consider your attempt to metaphor out metaphored.

[xbl]

Consider your attempt to metaphor out metaphored.

TS:DR

[Ad Lib]

TS:DR

"S"?

[xbl]

"S"?

You get 3 guesses.

[Ad Lib]

You get 3 guesses.

Short

Spectacular

Scintillating

[xbl]

Short

Spectacular

Scintillating

My second is in short, but not in spectacular. My third is in scintillating, but not in short or spectacular. My fourth is in them all, and finally, my last is in none.

[Swampy]

are we being cheated out of something? well no, not really it is within our gift to manage it and control it as we see fit subject to becoming a sovereign nation.

For a self-styled progressive this is a jaw-droppingly 'bootstrap' view of what Scotland currently suffers under.

[Ad Lib]

My second is in short, but not in spectacular. My third is in scintillating, but not in short or spectacular. My fourth is in them all, and finally, my last is in none.

How could you know if you didn't read it?

[Saor Alba]

Here's a better analogy.

Mr Smith and Mr Jones are both grocers. Years ago, they decided that instead of having two shops next door to each other, they'd smash down the middle wall, and have one big shop together, whilst still having their own stock and fittings, etc. They couldn't agree which of them they should name it after, so they called it Browns instead.

After many happy years of trading, Mr Smith decides his stock is actually better than Mr Jones, and feels he could easily go it alone again, despite Mr Jones having a far larger shop area. Technically all stock since the merger belong to the name 'Browns', but when Mr Smith rebuilds the wall, and breaks free from Mr Jones, the stock on his side of the wall becomes his once more. Just as Mr Jones's all becomes his.

And then, 'Browns' most loyal customer, un-named but whose initials are HB, goes home and hangs himself.

Excellent!

[xbl]

How could you know if you didn't read it?

To be fair, I should have really said

TS:DRIAFTITSMSS