H_B Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 What was clear was your utter lack of insight into Maritime Law. Why didn't "Scotland" challenge the despicable 1999 movement of the maritime border between Scotland and England? Why haven't the SNP challenged this since? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Do you have anything to add to the economic debate? 6th time of asking. I have no real interest in the economic debate. I am much more interested in completely and utterly dismantling you on legal matters. It's funner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Again, though I doubt many NCC members will read it, should you (for some strange reason) doubt what I am telling you, read this :- http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/12/1/505.pdf It discusses at length the international law implications of Scottish Independence on the hypothetical Scotland/rUK maritime border. It even has maps for those that like pictures! Isnt there already a law thread ? Or a "nobody gives a f**k " thread ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Why didn't "Scotland" challenge the despicable 1999 movement of the maritime border between Scotland and England? Why haven't the SNP challenged this since? Did agreement have to be reached with Dewar and co ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 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 . In the 2011/12 Scottish public accounts, 70% of Scotlands nominal operating deficit was due to £4.1 billion of interest payments on debt we didnt need. If Scotland had been independent over the last 32 years we would have a cash surplus of around £50 billion even if we assume we would still have had the same expenditure including payments for banking collapse and nuclear weapons etc. If we had invested some of that £50 billion in a sovereign oil fund we would probably now have a much larger fund than Norways and our economy could be 25% larger than it is today. The very fact that the No Campaign can point at Scotlands economy and even remotely suggest that an independent Scotland would not have a massive advantage is testament both to a massive misinformation campaign over decades and to generations of economic mismanagement of Scotlands resources by Westminster. Most culpable of all is Alistair Darling. Not only did Alistair Darling fail to reinvest Scotlands oil wealth but was also asleep at the wheel during the banking collapse and the various banking scandals under his watch. It is clear to all who investigate more deeply to establish the facts, that Scotland is paying £64.1 billion of interest on debts taken out by Westminster to pay for its own failures. We are not better together. A yes vote will release Scotlands potential and remove the Westminster shackles. If we vote yes then Scotlands economy will thrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Did agreement have to be reached with Dewar and co ? No. I'll ask again - why haven't the SNP, since they have come into power, challenged the 1999 Order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I have no real interest in the economic debate. I am much more interested in completely and utterly dismantling you on legal matters. It's funner. Wrong thread and failed spectacularly on the second point then.So just to clarify. Your voting no because? Indeed it would appear you have no interest in debate at all and offer little in way of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Isnt there already a law thread ? Or a "nobody gives a f**k " thread ?Its a Unionist tactic. Bog it all down in some obscure and ultimately irrelevant legal point. Remember when they tried to claim a referendum wouldnt be legally binding blah blah blah....To be honest he is a single issue poster and has very little to offer. It obviously makes him feel big and important. And he.obviously gets a reynardesque stiffy by namecalling anyone who dare question.his authority..I would just let him.stay and babble away to himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Its a Unionist tactic. Bog it all down in some obscure and ultimately irrelevant legal point. Remember when they tried to claim a referendum wouldnt be legally binding blah blah blah.... To be honest he is a single issue poster and has very little to offer. It obviously makes him feel big and important. And he.obviously gets a reynardesque stiffy by namecalling anyone who dare question.his authority..I would just let him.stay and babble away to himself. You're right. He has absolutely nothing positive to add to the independance forum. A joke poster. They can draw a line wherever they like, we will still get all our oil and really thats all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 I have no real interest in the economic debate. I am much more interested in completely and utterly dismantling you on legal matters. It's funner. Stop posting in it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I have no real interest in the economic debate. I am much more interested in completely and utterly dismantling you on legal matters. It's funner. And here we have admittance that you are nothing more than a daft spammer..... So sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Its a Unionist tactic. Bog it all down in some obscure and ultimately irrelevant legal point. Remember when they tried to claim a referendum wouldnt be legally binding blah blah blah.... To be honest he is a single issue poster and has very little to offer. It obviously makes him feel big and important. And he.obviously gets a reynardesque stiffy by namecalling anyone who dare question.his authority..I would just let him.stay and babble away to himself. Completely dstroying the nationalists arguments? It's a pretty legitimate tactic I'd say. Have you decided whether the figures I have given to you (all sourced) are right or wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Completely dstroying the nationalists arguments? It's a pretty legitimate tactic I'd say. Have you decided whether the figures I have given to you (all sourced) are right or wrong? Read his recent posts on the subject instead of trying to be a smartarse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 Completely dstroying the nationalists arguments? It's a pretty legitimate tactic I'd say. Have you decided whether the figures I have given to you (all sourced) are right or wrong? Can you point me to your figures please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Completely dstroying the nationalists arguments? It's a pretty legitimate tactic I'd say. Have you decided whether the figures I have given to you (all sourced) are right or wrong? So far the only thing he has destroyed so far is his own credibility. I believe i have dismantled your rather poor reading of GERS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulIsclosed Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Eh, statute of the UK Parliament. Which can be amended at Westminster's whim. No international law border exists between Scotland and England because neither exist in International LAw. Only the UK does, as a sovereign state. The UK's borders with its neighbours are matters for international law, as they concern the interaction of sovereign states. The UK's own internal decisions to subdivide its own waters for domestic purposes are a matter for Westminster and are completely within the competence of the UK to decide upon. Repeating the same flawed argument ad nauseam does not make it more cogent. You acknowledge that English law does indeed define the territories of the respecting Home Nations. Therefore may I conclude you are aware of the legal ramifications of the UK government attempting to argue that the territory of Scotland is not the same as that defined under it's statute books? Excellent. Now to the point on changing the law with regards to how the borders are currently defined in English law. Certainly it is possible for the government of the United Kingdom to introduce legislation to change this. However due to the time this would take, accounting for the filibustering of Scottish MPs, it would prove an impractical solution to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 So far the only thing he has destroyed so far is his own credibility. I believe i have dismantled your rather poor reading of GERS. In all honesty it would be better laying out all numbers to remove doubt for the unknowing, he'll just have to wait 'til I've got time through the week to have his arse shredded and handed back to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Now to the point on changing the law with regards to how the borders are currently defined in English law. Certainly it is possible for the government of the United Kingdom to introduce legislation to change this. . i love how you start your post talking about "flawed arguments" then two paragraphs later accept I'm right and you are wrong. How bizarre. Anything Westminster has done it can undo. It is sovereign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Wrong thread and failed spectacularly on the second point then. Oh, I understand completely why you wish to say "look, squirrel" as you have had your arse handed to you on a plate yet again. Please answer the question - why haven't the SNP, since they have come into power, challenged the 1999 Order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Please answer the question - why haven't the SNP, since they have come into power, challenged the 1999 Order?I fully understand why you wish to alter the terms of the debate and are now sputing about somethng totally unrelated to your recent embbarrassement.Having been thouroughly disposed of and exposed ae a cherrypicking misconstruer I know you just cant let that slide. Unfortunately you dont get to squirm out of things so easily. Now answer my question. Why are you voting no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.