H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 If there is a no.vote.it wont be because of Cameron. Where did I say it was because of Cameron? If it's No it will be because Scottish people don't want secession. But I ask again, if it's a No vote, hasn't Cameron got exactly what he wants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Where did I say it was because of Cameron? If it's No it will be because Scottish people don't want secession. But I ask again, if it's a No vote, hasn't Cameron got exactly what he wants? What's your.point ? Every.unionist will get what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Where did I say it was because of Cameron? If it's No it will be because Scottish people don't want secession. But I ask again, if it's a No vote, hasn't Cameron got exactly what he wants? Is that you distancing yourself again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Where did I say it was because of Cameron? If it's No it will be because Scottish people don't want secession. The People of Scotland are not being offered secession Secession occurs when persons in a country or state declare their independence from the ruling government. When a dissatisfied group secedes, it creates its own form of government in place of the former ruling government. Secessions are serious maneuvers that lead to, or arise from, military conflict. A secession can affect international relationships as well as the civil peace of the nation from which a group secedes. Most countries consider secession by a town, city, province, or other body to be a criminal offense that warrants retaliation using force. Because the primary mission of most governments is to maximize the comfort and wealth of its citizens, nations jealously guard the land and wealth that they have amassed. In rare cases a government may recognize the independence of a seceding state. This recognition may occur when other countries support the independence of the seceding state. However, for most countries, the involuntary loss of land and wealth is unthinkable. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=secession They ARE being offered Independence. A word with positive connotations. Unlike the words with negative connotations that the Unionists delight in such as secession, seperatism, etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Surely Reynard, Ad Lib or H_B between them can provide the people of P&B with 5 positive and truthful reasons why we should all vote NO next year. It's like they're all mysteriously busy at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Surely Reynard, Ad Lib or H_B between them can provide the people of P&B with 5 positive and truthful reasons why we should all vote NO next year. It's like they're all mysteriously busy at the same time. They don't have any reasons other than being big feartys. We may end up being held back because of a bunch of shitebags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 They don't have any reasons other than being big feartys. We may end up being held back because of a bunch of shitebags. You need a lot of shitebags to stop a snowball once it's built up momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 The People of Scotland are not being offered secession Secession occurs when persons in a country or state declare their independence from the ruling government. It's no surprise that you fail to understand secession. And haven't produced the whole quote. Secession is - "the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secession Indeed, in the link you provide, the heading is :- "Secession The act of withdrawing from membership in a group." Your link reads like something a 5 year old might write. A 5 year old American at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 For the avoidance of doubt, South Sudan seceded from Sudan. Singapore seceded from Malaysia. (Well actually it was expelled) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 It's no surprise that you fail to understand secession. And haven't produced the whole quote. Secession is - "the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secession Indeed, in the link you provide, the heading is :- "Secession The act of withdrawing from membership in a group." Your link reads like something a 5 year old might write. A 5 year old American at that. So on that basis surely it is the rUK that is seceding since it will be legislation that Westminster will need to pass? Or will they eject us? ETA: Given your self-proclaimed expertise in law, no opinion on the Lord Glennie case then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 It's no surprise that you fail to understand secession. And haven't produced the whole quote. Secession is - "the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secession Indeed, in the link you provide, the heading is :- "Secession The act of withdrawing from membership in a group." Your link reads like something a 5 year old might write. A 5 year old American at that. yep as expected. you know better. its no surprise that you have not reproduced the whole quote, which actually reinforces my link. Your link goes on to say: (the Secession) historical the withdrawal of eleven Southern states from the US Union in 1860, leading to the Civil War. Once again your legal expert analysis is found wanting and like your thread wrecking, hostage taking hero you have attempted (unsuccessfully once again) to twist and reinterpret thinfs to suit an agenda. What exactly is your problem with the word Independence. Scotland will be INDEPENDENT. As your hero AdLib is fond of saying "deal with it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I prefer self-determination. It won't be used by NO during this campaign as it has positive connotations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 So on that basis surely it is the rUK that is seceding since it will be legislation that Westminster will need to pass? Uh what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 What's HBs game here? Trolling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I prefer self-determination. It won't be used by NO during this campaign as it has positive connotations. Expect to hear words like "undermine" "shambles" "ripped apart" "catastrophe" and of course "deficit". they love all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Your link goes on to say: (the Secession) historical the withdrawal of eleven Southern states from the US Union in 1860, leading to the Civil War. Which supports your point in what way? Are you aware of the advisory opinion on Quebecois secession? AND IN THE MATTER OF a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning certain questions relating to the secession of Quebec from Canada, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 1996-1497, dated the 30th day of September, 1996 Do you take some pleasure in being embarrassed day after day on things you don't understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Uh what? Ah the finest legal minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I prefer self-determination. It won't be used by NO during this campaign as it has positive connotations. Scotland already self-determines. Self-determination is confusing, because some idiots associate that with Independence. Both a Yes and a No vote are consistent with self-determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Ah the finest legal minds. Certainly not a category of people you need to trouble yourself with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Certainly not a category of people you need to trouble yourself with! Perhaps I can help you :- "For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state " Quite. Only the reversionary theory of Scottish independence makes constitutional law remotely relevant to the international legal personality of Scotland. Unless Burma is suggesting that the old Kingdom of Scotland would be restored, his being incorrect about what, as a matter of domestic constitutional law, the Claim of Right Act 1689 says is ultimately wholly irrelevant to the question whether Scotland is sovereign as a matter of international law. Never mind of course that the consequences of claiming Scotland was internationally sovereign would see any and all Treaties entered into by the United Kingdom since 1707 wholly disapplied, thus being of no avail whatsoever to anyone trying to claim that EU membership would be automatic. So, it has been stated that Scotland was "extinguished" but yet we are in a position to "formally withdraw from a membership of a federation or body, especially a political state" Explain to me in international law how something that has been extinguished can even have membership let alone withdraw said membership". ETA: Lord Glennie ruling opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.