BS: Scotland does not exist

Subject: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:37 AM

The UK government published a paper last week in their campaign against the YES vote in the referendum in 2014 for an independent Scotland which said in part:

State 'extinguished' by 1707 treaty
Tuesday 12 February 2013
SCOTLAND was "extinguished" as a state by the Treaty of Union in 1707, according to the academics who provided the UK Government's legal advice on the constitutional implications of independence.

Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle reject the notion that Scottish independence would undo the Treaty of Union, which created the UK, allowing Scotland and England to revert to their pre-1707 status.

They do not reach a view on whether 1707 marked the creation of a new state in international law or the expansion of England under a new name.

But they add: "It is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger into either an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state."

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:52 AM

I feel sorry for those who were around in1707 and we must ensure their concerns are addressed but for the other 100% of people affected the issues are whether it is in their 21st century interest or not.

If English people are affected then the European courts have already indicated a poll must include them or The EU is not able to recognise any changes from the outcome.

Me? I look forward to stopping funding a parasitic pretend government but feel sorry for the sheep being told to be excited by the appearance of the knackers yard lorry..

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: mayomick
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 07:27 AM

Musket .I think the point is that "whether it is in their 21st century interest or not" the question of Scottish independence from the British state cannot be decided by this poll if the advice of the constitutional experts consulted by the UK government is correct .

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 07:28 AM

Failing means yer playin!

Lang may yer lum reek!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 08:16 AM

My posting was to show that the Westminster government's "experts" suggest that while Scotland was ' extinguished' by the Union of 1707, England was not and the UK was just another name for an enlarged England.
Article 1 of the Union states ... " THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom, by the name od GREAT-BRITAIN.

The title United Kingdom is used later on in Article lll, so where do these legal experts get the notion they suggested?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:26 AM

Scotland does exist, I live there

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: goatfell
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:27 AM

Scotland does exist, I live there

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Newport Boy
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:34 AM

Agreed, Jim. Their argument fails on logical grounds - if Scotland was 'merged into an entirely new state' (Great Britain), then so was England. I can only assume they could find no logical reason for asserting that Scotland was merged into an enlarged and renamed England and decided to sneak out of the argument.

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:49 AM

"Agreed, Jim. Their argument fails on logical grounds" They are trying to play the card that suggests that GB was just a continuation of England hence Scotland dissolving the union would not be dissolving GB. Rather than there being two successor states to the UK they are saying that the rump UK (ie a greater England) is the successor state and that Scotland is a completely new thing. Hence the UK would still be a member of the EU whilst Scottish people would be stripped of their EU citizenship and would need to reapply. The Nats argue that there would be two successor states which would both already be members of the EU. Both sides roll out the experts to back up their points! The ludicrous thing is that many of the people who would prefer to pull the entire UK out of Europe are among the ones who suggest independence would be bad for Scotland because we wouldn't automatically be in the EU!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 09:53 AM

William Wallace, where are ye when we need ye, laddie?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 10:06 AM

Whatever might be the appropriate state for the remainder of what has been called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland if Scotland withdraws, there can be no question but that Great Britain would not be acceptable. Great Britain is an island,and Scotland is the northern half of it.

I suppose it would be possible to rebrand the successor state as the United Kingdom of Southern Britain and Northern Ireland. At least for the time being until the Welsh and Irish pull out.

Or maybe Little Britain?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 10:17 AM

Re-read my post and just want to add that when I say 'they are trying to play the card' I don't necesarily mean experts who have a view on the matter. I mean the unionist politicians who spin the said views!

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Musket
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 10:43 AM

Aye but views are spin in any context, as they reflect a subjective position.

My point above, flippant as it was, still stands. Great Britain does include Scotland, as it denotes the continuous mass, (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.)

But regardless of constitutional issues, lets not get too excited. A Parliament made the 1707 rules legal and a Parliament can make the next lot too.

SO, we are back to my point; Unless there are new pockets of money somewhere that nobody is taking into account, the only way Scotland can benefit from independence would be at the expense of the rest of The UK. Hence a referendum of those affected cannot be held unless those affected are part of the referendum, and European courts have hinted that already in rulings where Scottish and English law have clashed.

My concern overall is that Scotland is not viable on its own so although English tax payers may see a short term benefit, the long term would have people wondering who the hell Salmond was and why did so many get dewy eyed and listen to him?

Nationalism causes more problems than it solves. If nobody noticed, it doesn't matter what you think about your particular arbitrary boundary, you are affected by world economics and events regardless, so what precisely is the point?

Saying that decisions of the government of the day don't work out, such as disability assessments, tuition fees and more private contractors to The NHS aren't the preferred policies of Scotland sounds alright at first glance but I doubt they are the policies of the majority of people in the rest of The UK. If you think a tartan government with full budgetary responsibility will have the luxury of popular policies for all, then you should really look again.

This idea of Scotland not existing is interesting in the academic sense, but the view that all effected must be consulted is the story that should cause most concern...

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 11:23 AM

Actually it took two Parliaments to make the 1707 fit-up legal. Neither of them democratic bodies.

Regardless of whether Scotland opts to withdraw from the Union or not, it remains part of Great Britain, obviously, since that is the name of the island it shares with England and Wales.

But even today Great Britain is not the name of any country, even if the term is inaccurately used to suggest that it is. That practice at least will have to end, if Scotland chooses to leave.

The notion that constitutional changes in some parts of the Unted Kingdom ought to have to be ratified by referendums in other parts is interesting. If people in England had a chance to vote in respect of Northern Ireland I am pretty certain there would be a large majority for ending that union....

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 11:48 AM

Musket, Daid Cameron and Michael Moore have both said that Scotland could run itself economically so the argument now is political, hence my posting regarding incorrect information put forward by the Unionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: greg stephens
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 12:47 PM

I hope that Scotland, England, Wales and northern Ireland all decide to leave the UK, and that henceforth the UK will consist solely of Cornwall.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:02 PM

"Hence a referendum of those affected cannot be held unless those affected are part of the referendum,"

Only if you don't believe in the principle of self determination! The same argument you put could be put re the UK and the EU. The UK is a net contributor to the EU so any referendum on whether we should withdraw, or amend our membership criteria etc should include not just the people of the UK but the people of Germany and Poland etc too. The fact of the matter is though that despite what you say in the real world there is going to be a referendum in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:10 PM

"t remains part of Great Britain"

The SNP have said that themselves. The Scots would still be British in the geogrpahic and cultural sense though of course we wouldn't be part of GB in the political sense in that GB is a constituent part of the UKofGB&NI. The unionist politicians and commentators scoffed at the SNP suggestions that we would still be British though it is as you say obviously true. In fact one Nat politician has even claimed that independence would strengthen the sense of Britishness. For some people it may be so. Some who support independence will swear blind that they aren't British. Of course what they are saying is they don't want to be British politically. If that were out of the equation they may well concede they are British in the other senses. Most Scots have no trouble being Scottish and British and European.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:24 PM

No Brit treaty can abrogate the existence of a nation/culture that has existed prior to
that treaty's conception.

What you can say is what Ms. Jones at the College of Saint Ann's in Cape Breton told me.
"The Scots are the biggest mutts in the world."

This probably could be said for any nation/culture that claims to be autonomous.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:30 PM

That would be Doctor Jones.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:31 PM

The case of independence is not based on nationality as anyone living in Scotland, on the electoral role, can vote. It's simply a request for Scotland's purse strings and the way the money is spent to be controlled by the people who live there.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:43 PM

David Cameron says Scotland could run itself economically.

Not, if I may be so bold, the strongest rationale on which to base an opinion in a referendum. .

Yes Scotland will be the only ones in the referendum. Two points there. First, a majority of Scottish people would most likely have more sense. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas. Secondly Westminster will decide whether North Sea oil licences become the domain of Holyrood or not. The Treasury has made it clear that five year forecasts include revenue from the dwindling stock. Nobody has set any forecast on the basis of losing that revenue as either way, Westminster will spend it.

Can't see what all the fuss is about. Apart from selling tartan to gullible Americans the only jobs are public sector and that alone will encourage sensible voting.   I had lunch at Kitchins at Leith s few months ago. The place was stuffed with the only people who can afford £120 per head at lunch time in the week. Those from the white elephant across the way. Politicians and their goons. Oh and the quiet English couple in the corner. But tax payers don't pay for my gluttony. I do.

Decent food mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Pilgrim
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 01:55 PM

Just a thought; what would happen if england decided to leave the United Kingdom before Scotland did?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:06 PM

""Just a thought; what would happen if england decided to leave the United Kingdom before Scotland did?""

Scotland and Northern Ireland would have to fight for control and decide which Parliament rules.

Apropos of the OP, I would hate to be the UK politician tasked with breaking the news that Scotland doesn't exist at a Glasgow political meeting.

Above and beyond the call of either bravery or sanity!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: kendall
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:14 PM

I'm glad I got to travel all over it before it disappeared.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:43 PM

Scotland has consistently been told it was too poor to rule itself and that it was being subsidised by England. That myth has now been destroyed and the reverse is true so sound economics ia a strong base for discussion re the referendum. I don't understand your argument, Musket, about Westminster and revenue from North Sea oil. If Scotland becomes independent then the revenue from its waters belong to Scotland. Musket, you are employing the same scare and unfounded tactics highlighted by this thread. Who are the polititions and their goons who stuff their face on tax payers' money? Real arguments are valid not negative scare sories .... stay as we are, "we're better together" under a Tory led government chosen by the majority of English voters. The argument put forward by some Labour supporters is that after independence, England would have a permanent Tory majority. We are still in the Union but have a Tory led government with one Tory MP in Scotland so that argument holds no water.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:46 PM

"Turkeys don't vote for Xmas" Based on the usual nonsense that Scots are subsidy junkies. Scots are almost certainly heading towards voting NO but that doesn't mean that they all don't want the financial arrangements to change. Many polls showed that devo-max was the favoured option for Scots. That is moving towards money being raised and spent in Scotland. The Nats were happy to have that option on the ballot. The unionists in the form of the UK govt refused but they have promised that there version of what is to be offered as far as further devolution goes will be unveiled after the No vote in the referendum is secured. Even the Lib Dems who favour a federal UK were against having it on the ballot which I still can't get my head around.

Further devolution would of course involve the agreement of the rest of the UK. Probably in the form of

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:51 PM

a Westminster vote rather than a referendum. Either way a NO vote in the forthcoming referendum isn't an end to the Scotland debate and should the wishes of the Scottish people for further devolution be thwarted either by a UK Tory govt or in a UK wide referendum then it would only be succour to the Nats.

(sorry the last post got sent by mistake prior to being finished}

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:01 PM

"Scotland and Northern Ireland would have to fight for control" If the English decided to leave the union then it would end the unionist cause in Scotland at one fell swoop. I don't beleive there would be any kind of popular support for the country to remain in full union with Wales and Northern Ireland only. The more difficult question would be what would happen in Northern Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:03 PM

I come from the land where Danelaw was one of our early parliaments/treaties so I would like to vote to have that back or the Plantagenets now we have found Richard and his descendants. History has put us all where we are and it works tolerably well and all the positives for Scotland sound great. if there is a yes vote the unfortunate but is, what happens if it does not work for Scotland financially, do we, that they left, have to bail them out or will we have band aid style concerts to support them.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:13 PM

Keith, more negativity. "What happens if it doesn't work out for Scotland" ..
What happens if it does work out for Scotland? A nation of 5 million people with oil and gas reserves, wind power, whisky worth more than 4 billion GBP, fishing, beef production .. I could go on. Think positively, look at other countries, look at the Nordic council ... Scotland does exist in spite of the Westminster spin doctors ... smile, don't whinge.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:24 PM

It is a negative, I wish you well in your vote and you believe the numbers add up I am asking am I and my compatriots expected to pick up the bill for failure what is Scotlands plan if it does not work, nobody has yet mentioned that a good general also looks at a exit strategy
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:26 PM

Modern Scotland is inhabited by people (be they unionist or nationalist)who still regard themselves as a national people in the here and now. England itself is a comparison to this but a medieval region of England isn't. Scotland had its own various Dark Age kingdoms and different identites - but it is completely irrelevant to this debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:41 PM

Allan that is a fair point Yorkshire and other areas keeps there pride its own dialects and proud traditions. The point is we have all lived and worked together for 300 years some of it good and some of it bad and the positive is believed by some Scots. The negative I as a future tax payer without Scotland would like to know if it fails for the Scots do they expect me to pull them out of the mire
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 03:53 PM

Selby, why should you? Scotland will not be your problem but a helpful, friendly neighbour. Maybe Scotland will need to help you ... Cameron might take you out of the EU and then what?

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:06 PM

Scotland's finances are in the red but they are actually better, and have been for some time, than the UK as a whole. Thw whole premis that you shouldn't consider independence because should it all go wrong someone else may have to help leads nowhere. Should Scotland fail within the union then your taxes would automatically help. Failing countries aren't all small. Spain and Italy are two of Europe's major countries and both of them are in trouble. The UK itself not all that many decades ago was fiscally on the ropes. You are not immune. The argument is that should we have control of our own finances and resources then we'd be better able to steer the ship on a more prosperous course. Likewise the idea that if we were independent from Westminster then we would no longer be working and living together doesn't wash. Why would that stop? Salmond said some years ago "better to have a good neighbour than a sulky lodger"

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:09 PM

As long as Scotland is not my and my countrymen's problem thats great I hope you have a tremendous future. Cameron taking us out of the EU unfortunately is a pipe dream, as is all the bunkum that an independent Scotland will not be part of the EU. The Brussels grandees will do everything to keep their gravy train running
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:14 PM

All possibilities should be explored including negatives it is very easy to ride on a wave of nationalistic pride and passion.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:34 PM

Of course and all sides of the argument are explored in Scotland. Likewise the debates aren't based solely on nationalistic pride and passion. As far as nationalism goes that would work both ways anyway. Why would Scottish nationalism be based on base instincts etc and be negative but the British nationalism of the unionists be based on rational thought and be positive? Within Scotland we know that it is a civilised debate and it just wouldn't work to try and portray the Nats as jingoistic and inward looking. They aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: selby
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:44 PM

As at the present a UK tax payer I am genuinely interested in what happens if it does not work I accept Jim;s point it could work the other way so twisting the question slightly.
Who is going to pay if it turns bad are you happy to bail us out.
Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 04:54 PM

The various European economies are pretty interlinked so the bailing out tends not to be that altruistic. For instance Ireland is one of the UK's major trading partners. They buy far more from us than China does! The UK helped Ireland financially because it was in the UK's interest to do so. The alternatives were worse. I think the main point about the financial crisis is that it has happened and hopefully lessons will be learned and no-one in the future wil be bailing out anyone else. Speaking hypothetically Scotland of course wouldn't have the clout to bail out a much larger neighbour though I don't see why it wouldn't be willing to help in conjunction with other European countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:47 PM

How many small villages in, let's say, England have a positive balance of trade so wouldbe better off without union? Lots actually. Yet it wouldn't be a good idea to claim UDI.

I read above the old idea that England would have a tory majority without Scotland. Err.. no. Never has been the case.   4% swings cause government changes and Scotland isn't relevant enough to affect that. Instead of decrying my observations have a look at two figures-the percentage of households dependent on public sector income and the percentage of households dependent on benefits. On the other side of the coin look at the income from trade to fund the above.

You can, as LSE have, compare the figure to England which has a similar issue only not in the same league. Not by a ruddy mile. They went further and took the cost of Scotland from England's figures.   In some ways it is a pity it won't happen.

Oh and no, I'm not being provocative. North Sea contracts are signed by Westminster and Westminster recognises UK coastal waters. This was clarified when BP asked the question as they consider whether to remain based in Aberdeen or move operations further south.

Might be a worth a punt buying property on the Northumbrian coast?

.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,marks(on the road)
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 06:57 PM

Better if Scotland would petition Canada to join as a new Provence.

Then the rest of us in North America could get better deals on single malt in addition to great lager beer.

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 08:12 PM

I doubt very much if a Little Britain government would have the nerve or even the ability to try to annexe Scottish oil fields, in the event of the winding-up of the existing UK plc.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 02:46 AM

The idea that the UK isn't going to recognise Scottish territory is fairytale stuff. There would of course be negotiating over issues and some trading off as both parties looked to their interest but that is to be expected. As to comparing Scotland to small English villages well again it doesn't work. Scotland is a constituent nation of the UKofGB&NI and not a wee village in one of those constituent parts. You are right about the majority in Westminster thing though. Some Laboour supporting unionists claim that Scottish independence would be a bad thing for England because they would be left with a permanent Tory majority. The facts don't back that up though. Certainly as far as seats go all the Labour govts during the Blair/Brown era had sizeable majorities in England. Any election has to be damn close in the first place for Scottish seats to make the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 03:54 AM

Here's a thought.

Round about 1700 Scotland was pretty much bankrupt, as a result of several years of bad harvests and the failure of the Darien Scheme for colonising part of South America (in which a large part of Scotands nobility had invested). At the same time England wanted to avoid problems that could come from the demise of the Stuart line and Scotland deciding to elect a new, and possibly anti English, monarchy. Hence the act of Union. Scotland gets bailed out and Britain gets a more stable political foundation. Large sums of money moved north.

So if Scotland becomes independent do we in England get our money back? With interest of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: Jim McLean
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 04:04 AM

The money was sent as bribes to achieve the Union but not to the people of Scotland. I'm sure a deal could be struck if Westminster agreed to return years of oli and gas revenue taken from Scottish waters. And by the way, the enterprise taken in Darien was sabotaged by the English government ensuring the failure of Scotland's scheme.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:09 AM

In the surreal world of the EU, it's England that doesn't exist. Scotland is deemed to be a region of the UK but there's no England - just a number of romantically named regions such as 'South East' and 'South West' etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:14 AM

The bribe paid to those with the power to ensure a vote for the union was termed "the equivelent" and meant that Scotland took on part of the national debt of England, Scotland having no national debt at the time.
If Scotland chose to declare UDI we would start with a clean sheet with no national debt which at present for the UK totals some £1.5 trillion pounds, however the present regime in Scotland have agreed to take the proportional share of this debt being £126 billion pounds which would mean an annual payment of £4 billion pounds in interest.
This of course would be managable due to the fact that the full cost, £27 billion pounds, of the nuclear weapons of mass destruction based on the Clyde is at present fully set off as a charge against Scotland, this being removed would leave a surplus of £23 billion which could be used for the good of the country and its people.

Subject: RE: BS: Scotland does not exist
From: GUEST,gutcher
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:26 AM

As to Mr Camerons "better together"
It is like Orwells creed "some are more equal than others".
To alleviate the cost of care in old age in England he proposes to raise an inheritance tax to be levied in England, Wales, NI and Scotland. Tell me where is the equity in this proposal.?