strichener Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 International Law was. Unlucky. And in this regard the International Law of State Succession is very clear. The UK's international law personality would be unaffected by a Scottish secession. Scotland would begin life as a new entity - rUK would continue with theUK's current legal personality. See for example South Sudan's secession from Sudan and the effects on membership of the UN. I find it rather surprising that the legal person of rUK and Scotland is such a foregone conclusion whereas the territorial waters is so complicated. I would have thought it would be the other way about but then this doesn't fit your position does it? As for the continual quoting of Crawford - Was his opinion on Quebec biased? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 So I'll lose my freedom of movement around the EU if Scotland doesn't get in the EU? Will my passport be amended accordingly? I've got no idea what will happen to you. Nor do I give a f**k. But there is no such thing as being a citizen of the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I'll repeat for thicky thicky shit shits like yourself. There is no such thing as a citizen of the EU. The EU appear to disagree with you. Link ETA: I believe that this, along with your miscomprehension of your own signature, makes you thicky thicky shit shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 It's basically the kind of uncertainty which abounds because we're debating a topic which would only be an issue if a yes vote was victorious. I'd be as wary of pro UK statistics produced in such a manner as the article produced Yes data. The government documents cited provide comparative statistics because it allows us to see both sides as no one can accurately predict the future. Sorry to keep referring to this point but I was replying to what I thought of the article posted online. The article, at first glance, allows readers to see one side of the economic modelling. Unless you have to time to read over the cited articles or care to examine them, the article panders to the it's brilliant in every way rhetoric. As I said originally, it's unsurprising both sides choose to pick data which suits their stance. I simply thought the original article is poorly written. Of course you are correct, nobody can predict the future with 100% accuracy so surely you have to weigh up the balance of probabilities in your own mind? Now you will have had a chance to read Burma's post on the subject, (which isn't quite the original topic), where do you think the balance of probabilities lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The EU appear to disagree with you. Link Read it again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Given you have de facto stated that you don't think geographic boundaries will substantially change (even H_B admitted this to the relief of everyone with the will to live), then the basis of an 'independence scenario two' is vanishingly small. Why ought any publication on either side of the debate - aimed at general consumption - clog it up with meaningless experiments as to what an independent Scotland would be like if it conquered the Isle of Man, or Edinburgh seceded, or any other equally unlikely and therefore not relevant starting point? We know what Scotland incorporates and what it doesn't. And thanks to GERS and other economic forecasts we also know the economic output of Scotland, and can clearly compare it to the rest of the UK. The figures stand for themselves based on what we know now: which as historical debates about state independence go is probably the most advanced and well-informed basis for discussion that has ever been compiled. I replied no because you only asked for yes or no. Perhaps I should expand on my no response. I don't think they will substantially change. Do I think Scotland will gain the full geographical share the article is based upon? Maybe it will be exactly like that, perhaps it might be better, perhaps it might be worse. But it's one vision - that might make for a good song? If everyone is so cast iron on the geographical share scenario taking place, why do official Scottish government publications bother to include other data sets? Perhaps it's for comparative analysis? I think it would be folly for us to think it could have all been like this...or it will all be like that. I've already said that both sides won't readily produce statistics which weaken their standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I'll repeat for thicky thicky shit shits like yourself. There is no such thing as a citizen of the EU. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/Oh dear. How embarrassing for you. Your credibility on most things is pretty much zero, zilch, nada. But according to the EU Commission you are not only wrong but you are indeed a "thicky thicky shit shit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Read it again Any person who holds the nationality of an EU country is automatically also an EU citizen. EU citizenship is additional to and does not replace national citizenship. It is for each EU country to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality of that country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Of course you are correct, nobody can predict the future with 100% accuracy so surely you have to weigh up the balance of probabilities in your own mind? Now you will have had a chance to read Burma's post on the subject, (which isn't quite the original topic), where do you think the balance of probabilities lie? I have weighed it up. Firstly, IMO I don't think yes will win. Secondly, if it does, the best case scenario taken from published documents won't/wouldn't be the figures we see. Different scenarios produce significantly different figures. I can't agree with either the full geographical scenario or per capita data. Legally, geographical seems to hold sway but Burma's noted report does refer to that exact boundary being open to dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinkinFighter Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I've got no idea what will happen to you. Nor do I give a f**k. But there is no such thing as being a citizen of the EU. You're not doing very well here. Will my EU citizenship be removed from me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I have weighed it up. Firstly, IMO I don't think yes will win. Secondly, if it does, the best case scenario taken from published documents won't/wouldn't be the figures we see. Different scenarios produce significantly different figures. I can't agree with either the full geographical scenario or per capita data. Legally, geographical seems to hold sway but Burma's noted report does refer to that exact boundary being open to dispute. The best case scenario is surely becoming the richest and fairest country that improves living standards for all whilst eradicating poverty. The figures don't take into account improvements that could be made, only presenting the numbers as they currently are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The figures don't take into account improvements that could be made, only presenting the numbers as they currently are. The numbers are presented from reports "designed to allow users to understand and analyse Scotland's fiscal position under different scenarios". The original article allows the user to understand Scotland's fiscal position under one scenario. On the flip side, the figures don't take into account external shocks, policy failures and/or unintended consequences, only presenting the numbers as they are estimated to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The numbers are presented from reports "designed to allow users to understand and analyse Scotland's fiscal position under different scenarios". The original article allows the user to understand Scotland's fiscal position under one scenario. On the flip side, the figures don't take into account external shocks, policy failures and/or unintended consequences, only presenting the numbers as they are estimated to be. No, as they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The numbers are presented from reports "designed to allow users to understand and analyse Scotland's fiscal position under different scenarios". The original article allows the user to understand Scotland's fiscal position under one scenario. On the flip side, the figures don't take into account external shocks, policy failures and/or unintended consequences, only presenting the numbers as they are estimated to be. I don't disagree with this however can you access the same figures for if we remain part of the union? In my mind the economic case isn't based on the current/projected/fantasy numbers but in having control of our own economy. This is fundemental to economic case for independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 So the figures quoted in the online article are the current (real) Scottish figures? We currently have that illustrative geographical share? What are we wanting to become independent for? We're rich as fcuk being in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 So the figures quoted in the online article are the current (real) Scottish figures? We currently have that illustrative geographical share? What are we wanting to become independent for? We're rich as fcuk being in the UK. The people agitating most for independence are generally drawn from the dreggy as f**k end of society so you can probably understand why they think everything is shit and falling to bits. Life is shit at the bottom of the pile and most nats tend to be semi literate halfwits as can be seen from much of the attempted debating in here from the clown collective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 So the figures quoted in the online article are the current (real) Scottish figures? We currently have that illustrative geographical share? What are we wanting to become independent for? We're rich as fcuk being in the UK. Because the UK keeps taking our riches, giving them to rich arseholes and building aircraft carriers with no planes, aircraft that never fly, high speed railways to Birmingham, London airports and software that never works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirez Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The people agitating most for independence are generally drawn from the dreggy as f**k end of society so you can probably understand why they think everything is shit and falling to bits. Life is shit at the bottom of the pile and most nats tend to be semi literate halfwits as can be seen from much of the attempted debating in here from the clown collective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 The people agitating most for independence are generally drawn from the dreggy as f**k end of society so you can probably understand why they think everything is shit and falling to bits. Life is shit at the bottom of the pile and most nats tend to be semi literate halfwits as can be seen from much of the attempted debating in here from the clown collective. You really are a clueless fuckwit, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 You really are a clueless fuckwit, aren't you? If you say so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.