The Economic Case for an Independent Scotland

[H_B]

1) So Scotland draws the line in accordance with the UNCLOS and then let the rUK dispute it. Sounds a lot simpler than re-negotiating all the treaties etc. that will be required with independence. (which was my original point)

2) I am sure it is not beyond your capabilities to find this and read it. I have already given you the title. I am specifically stating that James Crawford has a tendancy to selectively choose which evidence to present, whilst excluding evidence that does not support his position.

1) Eh, no. Why would Scotland draw the line? You really really understand nothing about this do you?

2) You have referenced it - I assume you have read it? What does it say? What is the link to it? What, very specifically, are your issues with Crawford's work in relation to the questions he was asked in relation to Quebec?

Let's be very honest here. You haven't read it have you? And we both know why.

[Baxter Parp]

1) Eh, no. Why would Scotland draw the line? You really really understand nothing about this do you?

Even if the ICJ drew the line, the principle is clear. In the first instance the median line would be drawn and any fiddly bits would be dealt with later.

[Burma]

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.

Do you still maintain there is no such thing as an EU citizen?

[strichener]

1) Eh, no. Why would Scotland draw the line? You really really understand nothing about this do you?

2) You have referenced it - I assume you have read it? What does it say? What is the link to it? What, very specifically, are your issues with Crawford's work in relation to the questions he was asked in relation to Quebec?

Let's be very honest here. You haven't read it have you? And we both know why.

So you assume that I have read it and then ask me if I haven't????????

1) Deflection. My point is that defining the territorial waters and CS for Scotland and rUK is a single issue. reviewing and amending (where necessary) all the treaties is going to be a much larger proposition.

2) I am sure that you are capable of performing the research and extracting the relevant information regarding "tall tales of Professor Crawford"

[Reynard]

Do you still maintain there is no such thing as an EU citizen?

Yep.

[Baxter Parp]

A century of lost wealth...

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/scotlands-century-of-lost-wealth/

[Burma]

Perhaps you can expand on this "principle of equidistance".

In maritime boundary

claims, the*equidistance principle* or *principle of equidistance* is a legal concept that a nation's maritime boundaries

should conform to a median line equidistant

from the shores of neighboring nation-states. This concept was developed in the process of settling disputes where the borders

of adjacent nations were located on a contiguous continental shelf.

An equidistance line is one for which every point on the line is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines being used. The equidistance principle is a methodology that has been endorsed by the UNCLOS treaty, but predates the treaty and has been used by the Supreme Court of the United States, states, and nations to equitably establish boundaries.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidistance_principle

[Burma]

Yep.

Oustanding.

And can you explain why?

[HardyBamboo]

1) That depends on your definition of country. I'll go for "Yes" to keep you happy. I prefer to call entities like Scotland nations rather than countries, but it is a personal choice. It is quite proper to call Scotland a country.

2) Depends what you mean by region. I see no material difference between Scotland and any other geographical subdivision of the UK, no.

3) Yes.

4) South Sudan and sudan were both part of Egypt, until Sudan became independent in 1956. South Sudan seceded from Sudan in 2011. Being a nation in a "political union" is completely irrelevant when considering Scottish secession. International Law doesn't give two fucks about how the UK came to be.

5) Yes. In International Law it is a clear precedent. There is no question at all that on Scottish secession the rUK will retain the UK's membership of all International Bodies, including the EU, the UN and the World Bank. Scotland, as a new country, will require to apply to all of these bodies, should it wish to.

Believing any different is the legal equivalent of being a Flat Earther or a 9/11 Truther.

Thanks for your response

1. I agree with you & maybe should have used the word nation myself. Good to see that you consider Scotland a nation.
2. Like say Yorkshire or Cornwall then?
3. Thanks
4. I dont know enough about International Law to answer that question but there is plenty of material to contradict your view.
5. As above.

[HardyBamboo]

Now you can answer some questions :-

1) Do you believe Scotland has International Legal personality presently?

2) If "No", then why not?

3) What exactly are you suggesting the result would be for both New Scotland and rUK on Scottish secession in terms of international law?

4) Specifically, what are you suggesting will happen with respect to :-

i) The UN (jncluding the Security Council)

ii) The World Bank

iii) the EU

It would be nice if you asked politely as I did of you - common courtesy in my opinion;

As in my previous response to you I don't know enough about International Law to answer your questions confidently but hopefully one of the other guys with more knowledge than I on this subject will. I really didn't want this topic to descend into the usual detailed legal stuff that you steer things to, I am much more interested in the Economics than the legalities - See the title of my original post!

Please dont come back to say that the legals & economics are inextricably linked - I already know that!

[Burma]

An interesting article from a man who actually knows.....probably doesnt understand it as well as HB though.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/scotlandengland-maritime-boundaries/

"According to existing Westminster legislation

, English waters stretch at their North Easterly point to 56 degrees 36 minutes north that is over 100 miles North of the border at Berwick, and North of Dundee.

In 1999 Tony Blair, abetted by the Scottish traitor Donald Dewar, redrew the existing English/Scottish maritime boundary to annex 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters to England, including the Argyll field and six other major oilfields. The idea was specifically to disadvantage Scotlands case for independence.

The pre-1999 border was already very favourable to England. In 1994, while I was Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I had already queried whether it was too favourable to England. I little anticipated that five years later Blair would push it seventy miles North!!

I should explain that I was the Alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and was number 2 on the UK team that negotiated the UK/Ireland, UK/Denmark (Shetland/Faeroes), UK/Belgium, and Channel Islands/France maritime boundaries, as well as a number of British Dependent Territories boundaries. There are very few people in the World single figures who have more experience of actual maritime boundary negotiation than me.

The UKs other maritime boundaries are based on what is known formally in international law as the modified equidistance principle. The England/Scotland border was of course imposed, not negotiated. It is my cold, professional opinion that this border lies outside the range of feasible solutions that could be obtained by genuine negotiation, arbitration or judgement.

It ignores a number of acknowledged precepts in boundary resolutions, most important of which is how to deal with an inverted right angle coastline, as the Scottish coastline is from Elgin to Berwick, with the angle point around Edinburgh. It also fails adequately to close the Forth and Tay estuaries with baselines by stark contrast to the massive baselines the UK used across the Thames and Stour.

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. 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]

So you assume that I have read it and then ask me if I haven't????????

1) Deflection. My point is that defining the territorial waters and CS for Scotland and rUK is a single issue. reviewing and amending (where necessary) all the treaties is going to be a much larger proposition.

2) I am sure that you are capable of performing the research and extracting the relevant information regarding "tall tales of Professor Crawford"

Oh I know you havent read it.

1) What do you mean "reviewing and amending all the treaties". Which treaties are you suggesting will require amendment following a Scottish secession ?

2) No - fraid you dont squirm out of it that easily. You brought this particular paper into the thread in an attempt to discredit the foremost world expert on state succession. Now, have you read it? Who is it by? and what in particular would you like to criticise James Crawford for that it contains?

[H_B]

Thanks for your response

1. but there is plenty of material to contradict your view.

Is there? Where is it then?

And it's not just my view. It's also the view of, amongst others, Professor James Crawford, Professor Alan Boyle and Professor Matthew Happold.

[H_B]

This boundary must be subject to negotiation between equal nations post independence,

Correct.

[Burma]

Correct.

And further to this that the negotiation would favour Scotland. Your cherrypicking one single sentence doesnt prove anything.

[H_B]

And further to this that the negotiation would favour Scotland. Your cherrypicking one single sentence doesnt prove anything.

That's his opinion. He has no idea how the negotiations would go, especially as they wouldn't take place in a vacuum.

[HardyBamboo]

Is there? Where is it then?

And it's not just my view. It's also the view of, amongst others, Professor James Crawford, Professor Alan Boyle and Professor Matthew Happold.

What is the title of the thread again?

[Burma]

That's his opinion. He has no idea how the negotiations would go, especially as they wouldn't take place in a vacuum.

I would suggeest that as he is one of the worlds foremost leading experts he has a pretty good idea on how negotiations would go. No idea what you mean by vacuum.

[Burma]

Is there? Where is it then?

And it's not just my view. It's also the view of, amongst others, Professor James Crawford, Professor Alan Boyle and Professor Matthew Happold.

Do you also agree with James Crawford when he stated that negotiations for Scotland to continue its EU membership would "not neccessarily be difficult"

Do you further agree with Mr Crawford when he states that Scotlands admittance to the UN would be "straightforward"

[H_B]

I would suggeest that as he is one of the worlds foremost leading experts he has a pretty good idea on how negotiations would go. No idea what you mean by vacuum.

The negotiations around the maritime boundary would be taking place with rUK along with discussions on assets, debt, nuclear weapons at Faslane etc etc.

There may be compromises and agreements that cross boundaries between each negotiation.