The Economic Case for an Independent Scotland

[H_B]

You are correct that Scotland is not recognised as a sovereign state under international law, however you failed to account for the fact that domestic law already defines the boundaries of the Home Countries therefore arbitration at an international level is unnecessary unless those domestic laws that define the territory of each of the Home Countries is changed.

I think you are very confused here. I'm not sure where to start.

Arbitration at an international level is impossible at present - given there is no dispute concerning UK boundaries with any sovereign state. The UK's subdivision of its internal waters is entirely a matter for Westminster to determine via statute.

Should Scotland become Independent, and thereofre acquire international legal personality, it would also require to define borders with its neighbours. With the rUK this would involve negotiation in the first instance and if that failed to secure an agreement, arbitration would be the next logical step.

[Burma]

It would appear, most alarmingly, that you haven't actually read the expert you have breathlessly been cheerleading.

"It is essential that Scotland is not conned into accepting the existing England Scotland maritime boundary as a precondition of any independence referendum. This boundary must be subject to negotiation between equal nations post independence, and in my opinion is most likely to end with referral to the International Court of Justice."

It would appear that you most unsurprisingly have chosen to mirespresent this statement as though he is discussing ALL borders.

This is factually wrong and a deliberate deflection. Unfortunately it will fail. He was ONLY referring to the annexed 6000sqkm of water which were taken under English control in 1999. Nothing else. I wonder why you would pretend otherwise. I note you also left out his closing statement.

" I have no doubt the outcome would be a very great deal better for Scotland than the Blair-Dewar line, which would cost Scotland billions."

[H_B]

1. Incorrect. Scotland is already a country with legally defined and agreed borders. Your assertion that they dont currently exist in International law is neither here nor there and is pedantry of the most awkward kind. None of these borders are in dispute by anyone.

2. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources are under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits.

http://www.environment.scotland.gov.uk/our_environment/water/scotlands_seas.aspx

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/09/28115850/10

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/07/2403/5

3. There will be no dispute in the future. No evidence from any party to assume otherwise

4. Laughable. Scotland currently exists as a country within the UK and has legally defined borders. These agreed borders will remain in place post independence and will not form any part of negotiations other than the Scotland requesting 6000sqkm of waters which were removed from its jurisdiction in 1999. A move which if challenged would be successfully see this reinstated to Scotland

5. When commenting on the aforementioned 6000sqkm of Scottish waters being referred to ICoJ he specifically states:

"I have no doubt the outcome would be a very great deal better for Scotland than the Blair-Dewar line, which would cost Scotland billions."

Now it doesnt take a genius to work out that he is clearly of the opinion that it would not play out in a manner which dissatisfies both parties, indeed he specifically states it would come down in favour of Scotland.

Now I note you have failed yet again to offer anything towards the economic debate. Will you now do so?

1) Wrong. Only the UK exists as a sovereign state. Subdivisions of the UK have no relevance beyond domestic boundaries.

2) Domestic legislation . Has no relevance internationally. This is basic basic stuff. Westminster could change the internal boundary next year if it so chose to.

3) Your hero, Craig Murray, appears to disagree with you.

4) Comedy. See 1) above.

5) Yes, as I said, not that Craig Murray is the arbiter of all tribunal happiness, that in no way whatsoever contradicts what I said.

I didn't think this was possible, but I really think you might know less about this than you did about Constitutional Law.

[HardyBamboo]

It would appear that you most unsurprisingly have chosen to mirespresent this statement as though he is discussing ALL borders.

This is factually wrong and a deliberate deflection. Unfortunately it will fail. He was ONLY referring to the annexed 6000sqkm of water which were taken under English control in 1999. Nothing else. I wonder why you would pretend otherwise. I note you also left out his closing statement.

" I have no doubt the outcome would be a very great deal better for Scotland than the Blair-Dewar line, which would cost Scotland billions."

Yep, just about as out of context as it gets!

[Burma]

I wonder if HB has anything to add to the economic debate?

[PaulIsclosed]

I think you are very confused here. I'm not sure where to start.

Arbitration at an international level is impossible at present - given there is no dispute concerning UK boundaries with any sovereign state. The UK's subdivision of its internal waters is entirely a matter for Westminster to determine via statute.

Should Scotland become Independent, and thereofre acquire international legal personality, it would also require to define borders with its neighbours. With the rUK this would involve negotiation in the first instance and if that failed to secure an agreement, arbitration would be the next logical step.

What you fail to understand is that when Scotland cedes it's territory is already recognised under English law, which defines the boundaries of the Home Countries. Therefore it would be impossible for the United Kingdom to dispute Scottish territory whilst these laws are still on the statute.

[Burma]

The Scottish Govt. rightly points out the need for economic policy to move away from the kind of one-size-fits all measures that characterise current British economic policymaking and move toward a decentred, context-sensitive approach. Its probable that only further ceding of powers to various parts of the UK can achieve this.

[HardyBamboo]

I wonder if HB has anything to add to the economic debate?

Doesn't sound like it but I wish he would, he's no daft & I think he would have plenty to add if he put his mind to it.

[Burma]

1) Wrong. Only the UK exists as a sovereign state. Subdivisions of the UK have no relevance beyond domestic boundaries.

2) Domestic legislation . Has no relevance internationally. This is basic basic stuff. Westminster could change the internal boundary next year if it so chose to.

3) Your hero, Craig Murray, appears to disagree with you.

4) Comedy. See 1) above.

5) Yes, as I said, not that Craig Murray is the arbiter of all tribunal happiness, that in no way whatsoever contradicts what I said.

I didn't think this was possible, but I really think you might know less about this than you did about Constitutional Law.

Merely repeating yourself and misrepresenting the opinions of others does not make you correct.

I am unsurprised to discover that you know as little about Maritime law and convention as you do about everything else.

[Burma]

Id have liked to see measures aimed at reining in finance. Londons boom emanates from the City. Any new Scottish government should enact measures to restrain the financial sector and stop Scotland itself becoming Edinburgh-centric. The Scottish Govt.are bit vague here, talking of a thriving financial service sector and making the right services available to all of Scotlands people." This vagueness is politically understandable given that Salmond probably doesnt want to scare off the financiers (and that he used to work for the Royal Bank of Scotland), but Scotland should avoid reliance on the bankers who caused the crash, building sustainable and responsible industries which have positive social spin-offs.

[PaulIsclosed]

Id have liked to see measures aimed at reining in finance. Londons boom emanates from the City. Any new Scottish government should enact measures to restrain the financial sector and stop Scotland itself becoming Edinburgh-centric. The Scottish Govt.are bit vague here, talking of a thriving financial service sector and making the right services available to all of Scotlands people." This vagueness is politically understandable given that Salmond probably doesnt want to scare off the financiers (and that he used to work for the Royal Bank of Scotland), but Scotland should avoid reliance on the bankers who caused the crash, building sustainable and responsible industries which have positive social spin-offs.

Scottish finance is one of Scotland's oldest and most highly recognised industry worldwide. Indeed there is a reason why there has been more Scottish chairmen of the Federal Reserve than any other ethnic group, including ethnoreligious groups such as Jews. Reining in finance would be equivalent to capping oil production, both would be economically insane.

[Burma]

Scottish finance is one of Scotland's oldest and most highly recognised industry worldwide. Indeed there is a reason why there has been more Scottish chairmen of the Federal Reserve than any other ethnic group, including ethnoreligious groups such as Jews. Reining in finance would be equivalent to capping oil production, both would be economically insane.

Its a good argument to a point. However, the UK economy engaged in a massive boom in credit and debt expansion. Lots of other small countries overspent and deregulated finance too much, like Iceland. It's true that Scots save slightly more than the English, but its now increasingly understood that debt can be created irrespective of the stock of savings. This recognition should place even more emphasis on regulation of the finance industry in order to stop it creating too many loans and dodgy financial instruments.

Salmond has in the past talked of a new approach which places emphasis on happiness and wellbeing rather than competition and money-grabbing. Stiglitz himself has written extensively about new measures of economic development which move away from the old GDP model toward life satisfaction and fulfilment. An independent Scotland would have the chance to pioneer these approaches as national policy.

[PaulIsclosed]

Its a good argument to a point. However, the UK economy engaged in a massive boom in credit and debt expansion. Lots of other small countries overspent and deregulated finance too much, like Iceland. It's true that Scots save slightly more than the English, but its now increasingly understood that debt can be created irrespective of the stock of savings. This recognition should place even more emphasis on regulation of the finance industry in order to stop it creating too many loans and dodgy financial instruments.

Salmond has in the past talked of a new approach which places emphasis on happiness and wellbeing rather than competition and money-grabbing. Stiglitz himself has written extensively about new measures of economic development which move away from the old GDP model toward life satisfaction and fulfilment. An independent Scotland would have the chance to pioneer these approaches as national policy.

Except under the deregulation Scottish banks done extremely well. Their fall came at the hands of other banks they had merged with (Halifax) or bought (ANB AMRO).

How about no, to the happiness and well-being hippy claptrap. Scotland should reline itself with the principals it embodied during it's period of enlightenment, namely virtues such as empiricism and pragmatism.

[Burma]

Except under the deregulation Scottish banks done extremely well. Their fall came at the hands of other banks they had merged with (Halifax) or bought (ANB AMRO).

How about no, to the happiness and well-being hippy claptrap. Scotland should reline itself with the principals it embodied during it's period of enlightenment, namely virtues such as empiricism and pragmatism.

The period you talk about was the height of mercantilism and eschewed notions of the individual. People were imprisoned for being poor and the elite got richer off the back of slavery abroad and a ghettoised slum underclass at home who were so desperate that they would literally work themselves to death for a few pennies.

[PaulIsclosed]

It was a period defined by the pursuit of knowledge and personal improvement. During this period Scotland had more Universities than England and also a University populous that was broadly representative of Scottish society. Scotland is a shadow of what it was during the enlightenment.

[HardyBamboo]

It was a period defined by the pursuit of knowledge and personal improvement. During this period Scotland had more Universities than England and also a University populous that was broadly representative of Scottish society. Scotland is a shadow of what it was during the enlightenment.

FFS - How far off topic could we possibly get?

[Burma]

It was a period defined by the pursuit of knowledge and personal improvement. During this period Scotland had more Universities than England and also a University populous that was broadly representative of Scottish society. Scotland is a shadow of what it was during the enlightenment.

But this wasnt the result of a now rejected economic system. Indeed the enlightenment brought forth Adam.Smith who was fundamental in moving Scotland away from the feudality that was still its backbone when the enlightenment began.

I would disagree strongly with your last sentence.

[stm]

Please don't take this as being rude Burma but may I ask what you personally think in terms of some economic case areas? Clearly you agree with a lot of information from a particular website as you have significantly used such text in your posts/responses.

[MassiveFanDan]

I still think the UK Government civil service have put forward the strongest economic case for independence:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/6240671/North-Sea-oil-gave-Scotland-massive-budget-surplus-say-Government-records.html

And more recently HMRC joined in:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/disagg-info.pdf

.

[Reynard]

I still think the UK Government civil service have put forward the strongest economic case for independence:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/6240671/North-Sea-oil-gave-Scotland-massive-budget-surplus-say-Government-records.html

And more recently HMRC joined in:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/disagg-info.pdf

.

I broke it all down into percentages so that economic illiterates that support independence could see for themselves.

I also used two different sources. The awful GERS figures as well as HMRC.

Scotland is subsidised by the UK most of the time even if you give Scotland the entire oil and gas revenues.