Question Time

[Antlion]

How many "self respecting countries" (which is what the two posters were arguing about vis-a-vis Scotland) are "territorial subdivisions"?

[Ad Lib]

How many "self respecting countries" (which is what the two posters were arguing about vis-a-vis Scotland) are "territorial subdivisions"?

 

Quite a few. I'd chip-in with Quebec, Wales, Northern Ireland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, the Basque Country, the Canary Islands, Andalusia, Wallonia, Flanders, Galicia, Hawaii, the Yukon, Hong Kong, Macau and Corsica just to get us started.

[strichener]

1. No I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out that a minority of votes for pro-secession parties does not constitute "Catalonia" seeking independence. It doesn't even amount to them "seeking" a referendum, because they didn't run on a platform to hold a referendum. They ran very specifically on a platform to try to get not just the majority of seats, but the majority of votes to gain a mandate to secede (not to hold a referendum) because the Spanish state has said it will not accede to any demand for a referendum. They fell short of that sought mandate. The reason they ran a unity ticket was to avoid vote splintering and they still fell short.

 

2. Notice you have asked whether "the SNP" had a mandate, not "Scotland". The answer is of course that yes, they had a political mandate, but they very clearly didn't have a legal one until the UK Government consented to a section 30 Order, which they were well within their rights to refuse. The same is true of Catalonia. The Catalonian separatists (notice, they are not "Catalonia") have and had as far back as 2013 a mandate to negotiate with the Spanish Government in Madrid to try to get the right to hold a lawful referendum, but they don't have a mandate for anything beyond that.

1. OK, I take your point on "Catalonia", the Catalans have spoken though and if anyone thought that in voting for the two seperatist paries was anything other than a vote for independence (either through a referendum or other procedure) then they must be mad.  The Declaració de Sobirania explicitly stated this.

 

2. You really need to learn that politics trumps legality - always.  If there is a political will, then it will happen regardless of the legal consequences.  As we have seen in various other threads, the politicians decide the legal process anyway.

[Ad Lib]

1. OK, I take your point on "Catalonia", the Catalans have spoken though and if anyone thought that in voting for the two seperatist paries was anything other than a vote for independence (either through a referendum or other procedure) then they must be mad.  The Declaració de Sobirania explicitly stated this.

 

2. You really need to learn that politics trumps legality - always.  If there is a political will, then it will happen regardless of the legal consequences.  As we have seen in various other threads, the politicians decide the legal process anyway.

 

1. A minority of voters voted for them. The majority of voters did not support this. The Declaration of Sovereignty said nothing of the sort. Quote me the sentence in which this is said in it. Go on. I dare you.

 

Besides which, the Declaration of Sovereignty was declared null and void on the question of sovereignty. It has no legal force. This is why their little consultation exercise was void and illegitimate.

 

2. Except in Spain it really isn't. They have tried and failed. Legality has trumped politics.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Ad Lib

[Antlion]

Quite a few. I'd chip-in with Quebec, Wales, Northern Ireland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, the Basque Country, the Canary Islands, Andalusia, Wallonia, Flanders, Galicia, Hawaii, the Yukon, Hong Kong, Macau and Corsica just to get us started.

I'd say Scotland has the potential to be a bit more successful than most of these "subdivisions" if had a bit more self respect as a nation. I'd also disagree that some of these are "countries" by most measures of the word.

Although I would dearly love it if you stand on a future "Better Together" platform preaching that "we can be like Wallonia! We can be like Puerto Rico!" "Come on, people - we're already like that great, self-respecting country Northern Ireland - why would you want to lose that?!"

Edited March 15, 2016 by Antlion

[invergowrie arab]

Legislation by the Cortes Generales to conform with the requirements of the Constitutional Court judgments of 2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015. We can throw-in the 2008 judgment in relation to the Basque Country that said the same thing too if you like.

In much the same way as for Scotland's referendum to be legal it had to be legislated for by the UK Parliament. In that instance of course, they choose to allow Scotland to hold a referendum pursuant to a political agreement reached between the governments, facilitated through a s30 Order ratified by both Parliaments.

If we apply wednesbury to Spain just for fun what would be the test for reasonableness for the Spanish constitutional court's decision to grant a referendum or not?

Do you agree that the refusal to grant one thus far is unreasonable, undemocratic and contrary to the principles of self determination?

[Ad Lib]

I'd say Scotland has the potential to be a bit more successful than most of these "subdivisions" if had a bit more self respect as a nation. I'd also disagree that some of these are "countries" by most measures of the word.

 

Let's use the definition that comes up when you Google "what is a country".

 

"A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory".

 

I'd say that applies to, pretty much, every single one of the examples I gave you. All of these examples have their own governments. They're just not sovereign states.

 

I think they all have plenty of self-respect. Why are you talking Macau down?

[invergowrie arab]

Let's use the definition that comes up when you Google "what is a country".

"A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory".

I'd say that applies to, pretty much, every single one of the examples I gave you. All of these examples have their own governments. They're just not sovereign states.

I think they all have plenty of self-respect. Why are you talking Macau down?

I prefer the Pointless definition.

[Antlion]

Let's use the definition that comes up when you Google "what is a country".

"A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory".

I'd say that applies to, pretty much, every single one of the examples I gave you. All of these examples have their own governments. They're just not sovereign states.

I think they all have plenty of self-respect. Why are you talking Macau down?

Macau is bloody awful. Nice enough people and food but some exceptionally crummy services and an intolerable wait for things to be shipped over to its single university.

It's interesting that you're suddenly using this definition of "a country". Previously you had argued that Scotland had never ceased to be a country throughout the lifetime of the union. Scotland did not "have its own government" between 1707 and 1999. It sent a minority of representatives to a government whose majority was made up of representatives from elsewhere, located in London. So you now appear to think that Scotland only became (or was re-established) as a country when its "own" government was reconvened?

[Ad Lib]

If we apply wednesbury to Spain just for fun what would be the test for reasonableness for the Spanish constitutional court's decision to grant a referendum or not?

 

1. Wednesbury is a principle of administrative and adjudicative action, not a standard against which a decision to legislate or not to legislate is able to be judged.

 

2. It is a common-law prinicple and Spain is a civil law state.

 

3. Constitutional provisions are not ordinarily (and from the top of my head, have never) been subjected to a test of reasonableness, Wednesbury or otherwise. The division of power under a constitutional order is deliberate.

 

4. Even if we did apply it, it would not be held to be Wednesbury unreasonable. The legal standard is something "so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority" or that it "might be described as being done in bad faith". It is perfectly within the bounds of reasonableness to conclude that the Spanish Cortes Generales and central government can choose to believe that its constitutional duty is to protect the territorial integrity of the Spanish state regardless of the wishes of an autonomous community to leave it, and that to allow such an AC to hold a legal referendum on secession would be contrary to that duty.

 

5. This is perfectly consistent with other common-law jurisdictions in which secession is not just not provided for but is explicitly prohibited. This is most notably the case in the judicial reasoning of the US Supreme Court, another common law jurisdiction that uses reasonableness as a legal standard, which said secession is flat out illegal without the consent of all the states in Texas v White.

 

Do you agree that the refusal to grant one thus far is unreasonable, undemocratic and contrary to the principles of self determination?

 

It depends on what sense you mean unreasonable. Against any legal standard, no clearly not. Against a political or democratic standard, I think there are reasonable arguments against allowing Catalonia holding a referendum and reasonable arguments for allowing it. I believe reasonable disagreement on this question is possible.

 

I don't think it's inherently undemocratic. The autonomous communities themselves derive their constitutional and democratic legitimacy from the Spanish Constitution. They are legal fictions created by Articles 143 and 151. By freely constituting themselves as a political entity under that Constitution they have consented to be governed by that Constitution. If they want to change that Constitution they have to secure the necessary support and pursue the proper channels to do so. The Supreme Court of Canada said as much of the Quebecois in 1998 and in my opinion they were right.

 

I don't believe that it is necessarily contrary to the principles of self-determination to deny a peoples the legal right to a referendum for which there is popular support. It may well be unwise or politically foolish not to grant a referendum in such circumstances, and it may be inconsistent with specific conceptions of self-determination that others may not share, but need not necessarily.

 

In the specific Catalan case I don't believe it is.

[Ad Lib]

Macau is bloody awful. Nice enough people and food but some exceptionally crummy services and an intolerable wait for things to be shipped over to its single university.

It's interesting that you're suddenly using this definition of "a country". Previously you had argued that Scotland had never ceased to be a country throughout the lifetime of the union. Scotland did not "have its own government" between 1707 and 1999. It sent a minority of representatives to a government whose majority was made up of representatives from elsewhere, located in London. So you now appear to think that Scotland only became (or was re-established) as a country when its "own" government was reconvened?

 

Scotland did have its own government between 1707 to 1999. The British one.

[Antlion]

Scotland did have its own government between 1707 to 1999. The British one.

That wasn't "its own government". It was the UK's own government. If you are seriously claiming that having one's "own" government is a prerequisite for being a country, and that Scotland had "its own government" (rather than sharing one) between 1707 and 1999 then:

A. You're an idiot.

B. You're a liar.

C. Perthshire is also (and has always been) a country, because it, too was governed by the British Parliament for centuries. Calabria is also a country, because it is governed by the Italian government. Cornwall is a country, because it's governed by the British government. The Loire is a country, because it is governed by the French government.

You've fucked up a bit on this one, Libby. 😂

Edited March 15, 2016 by Antlion

[strichener]

1. A minority of voters voted for them. The majority of voters did not support this. The Declaration of Sovereignty said nothing of the sort. Quote me the sentence in which this is said in it. Go on. I dare you.

 

Besides which, the Declaration of Sovereignty was declared null and void on the question of sovereignty. It has no legal force. This is why their little consultation exercise was void and illegitimate.

 

2. Except in Spain it really isn't. They have tried and failed. Legality has trumped politics.

1. Thanks for the dare: 

 

 

D'acord amb la voluntat majoritària expressada democràticament pel poble de Catalunya, el Parlament de Catalunya acorda iniciar el procés per a fer efectiu l'exercici del dret a decidir per tal que els ciutadans i les ciutadanes de Catalunya puguin decidir llur futur polític col·lectiu, d'acord amb els principis de sobirania, legitimitat democràtica, transparència, diàleg, cohesió social, europeisme, legalitat, paper principal del Parlament de Catalunya i participació

Google translate that you arsehole.

 

2. The political will of Spain is what is being exercised here.

 

 

Scotland did have its own government between 1707 to 1999. The British one.

surely stretching the definition of own here.  It was shared witht the rest of Britain, hence it was not "its own".

[Ad Lib]

That wasn't "its own government". It was the UK's own government. If you are seriously claiming that having one's "own" government is a prerequisite for being a country, and that Scotland had "its own government" (rather than sharing one) between 1707 and 1999 then:

A. You're an idiot.

B. You're a liar.

C. Perthshire is also (and has always been) a country, because it, too was governed by the British Parliament for centuries. Calabria is also a country, because it is governed by the Italian government. Cornwall is a country, because it's governed by the British government. The Loire is a country, because it is governed by the French government.

You've fucked up a bit on this one, Libby.

 

A government can be both Scotland's own and the UK's own at the same time.

 

There is a clear distinction between a territory which has political representation in a government and those that do not. The then colonies that now make up the USA or Canada, for example, were clearly not countries as they didn't have representation in the British Parliament that ruled them. That government wasn't "their own". Scotland has always had this. The UK government has always been ours.

 

Perthshire is not a nation. Read the definition again.

 

Cornwall is a country. Add it to the list.

[Antlion]

A government can be both Scotland's own and the UK's own at the same time.

There is a clear distinction between a territory which has political representation in a government and those that do not. The then colonies that now make up the USA or Canada, for example, were clearly not countries as they didn't have representation in the British Parliament that ruled them. That government wasn't "their own". Scotland has always had this. The UK government has always been ours.

But the colonies that make up the USA and Canada are all and now each distinct countries by your weak definition, because they are all represented in *a* parliament. You are now genuinely arguing that Texas is a country, because it has a government; Nova Scotia is a country, because it has representatives in a government; Brunswick is a country, because it has representatives in a government. Perhaps more worryingly your argument is also that the American confederacy is a country, with its government forced by war and constitution to be located in DC. There are certainly enough southerners who consider the confederacy a nation. Is that a side of the argument you really want to be on?

Perthshire is not a nation. Read the definition again.

Cornwall is a country. Add it to the list.

Your chosen definition is a nation with its own government occupying a particular territory. So Strathclyde, you believe, is a country, because it has a particular territory, claimed nation-status (which, for example, Northern Ireland has never had) and has its own governments in Edinburgh as well as London. Edited March 15, 2016 by Antlion

[Mortar Bored]

Oh my god! Libby, you are no doubt, a clever chap, but ffs, why the reams of legalise?

Not sure if you've noticed or not, a lot of politics and especially political movements are driven by the heart and not legality!

It was legal under the SA constitution to run an apartheid society- are you arguing that was a correct thing "cos it was legal"?

I suspect you will come back with the fact that the native population had no redress through the ballot box, and you may be somewhat correct on that, but you just don't "get" that sometimes politics and rights are more than constitutional rights/laws & facts.

Btw I apologise for calling you a VL a few weeks ago, I do believe you've had a ride, I've read your last 3 posts and already you've bored the pants off me.

[Ad Lib]

1. Thanks for the dare: 

 

Google translate that you arsehole.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of what the first paragraph of the main body of the Declaration says. I'm in the middle of a thesis chapter about it. That paragraph does not say that "in voting for the two seperatist paries [it wasn't or couldn't be voting for] anything other than a vote for independence (either through a referendum or other procedure)".

The paragraph provides that the majority of Catalans, in voting for parties which supported the right to decide, had authorised the Parliament of Catalonia to begin to take steps to facilitate the right to make that choice. Notice that without the support of the Catalan Greens, who were pro-referendum but not pro-sovereignty, this resolution would not have passed. The sovereigntists were in the minority in the Parliament even if you include the radical leftist sovereigntists, two of the three of whom abstained for the Declaration not being radical enough.

 

Notice, however, that the majority of Catalans did not vote for secession parties. So even if you were right and that was what it said, it still wouldn't justify either a referendum or secession, against your own metric.

 

Notice further that authorising the Parliament of Catalonia to begin the process does not authorise it to act unconstitutionally, or to deliver on the process. It authorises them to go and have a chat with Madrid. Nothing more, nothing less. This is clear when, in the Declaration, there is contained the principle of "legality". For the sake of completeness, we should also remember that the 2014 Constitutional Court judgment was very very clear: the sovereignty section of the Declaration is of no legal effect. It is void. It is null. It is a fiction.

 

2. The political will of Spain is what is being exercised here.

Pursuant to the Spanish Constitution. The political will of the Spanish people only exists by virtue of the Spanish Constitution. The 2014 Constitutional Court judgment is crystal clear on this.

 

surely stretching the definition of own here.  It was shared witht the rest of Britain, hence it was not "its own".

No, the distinction is whether someone else is governing you or whether you are part of the governing.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Ad Lib

[Ad Lib]

But the colonies that make up the USA and Canada are all and now each distinct countries by your weak definition, because they are all represented in *a* parliament. You are now genuinely arguing that Texas is a country, because it has a government; Nova Scotia is a country, because it has representatives in a government; Brunswick is a country, because it has representatives in a government. Perhaps more worryingly your argument is also that the American confederacy is a country, with its government forced war and constitution to be located in DC. Is that a side of the argument you really want to be on?

Your chosen definition is a nation with its own government occupying a particular territory. So Strathclyde, you believe, is a country, because it has a particular territory, claimed nation-status (which, for example, Northern Ireland has never had) and has its own governments in Edinburgh as well as London.

 

Yes, they are countries in their own right if they are also discrete nations. That's why I included the Yukon and Hawaii.

 

If you'd done any of your homework on this, you'd know that the Confederacy was not a country, because it was unlawful for Texas and the other states to secede from the Union in the first place. See Texas v White.

 

If the people of Strathclyde maintain that they are a nation, then yes, Strathclyde is a country.

[Ad Lib]

Oh my god! Libby, you are no doubt, a clever chap, but ffs, why the reams of legalise?

Not sure if you've noticed or not, a lot of politics and especially political movements are driven by the heart and not legality!

It was legal under the SA constitution to run an apartheid society- are you arguing that was a correct thing "cos it was legal"?

I suspect you will come back with the fact that the native population had no redress through the ballot box, and you may be somewhat correct on that, but you just don't "get" that sometimes politics and rights are more than constitutional rights/laws & facts.

Btw I apologise for calling you a VL a few weeks ago, I do believe you've had a ride, I've read your last 3 posts and already you've bored the pants off me.

 

"You may be somewhat correct on that."

 

No, just completely correct.

 

Constitutions define the conditions in which democracy can meaningfully be said to exist. They are the basis of legitimate government.

[Antlion]

Yes, they are countries in their own right if they are also discrete nations. That's why I included the Yukon and Hawaii.

If you'd done any of your homework on this, you'd know that the Confederacy was not a country, because it was unlawful for Texas and the other states to secede from the Union in the first place. See Texas v White.

If the people of Strathclyde maintain that they are a nation, then yes, Strathclyde is a country.

Previously you have argued that the concept of nationhood is based on a community of individuals recognising their territory as such. The law does not enter into it (only into statehood and nation-state status). Therefore, by your definition, the confederacy is a country, because:

1. There are individuals within who consider it a nation enforced into a union by war and the constitutional laws of the north (you can actually still study "the war of Northern aggression" as a course in several southern universities).

2. It has what you define as "its own" government.

It does not, of course, have statehood or sovereign status, nor does it have any kind of "confederate government" - but that's irrelevant to your given definitions of what constitutes a country. Ad Lib the homespun Rebel Johnny; who knew?

Edited March 15, 2016 by Antlion