The Scottish Politics Thread

[Biffer]

A UK cabinet post is next level up from FM of Scotland?

I'd say so, without doubt.

Do you think that because of the budgets they are in charge of, number of employees, power they wield, the fact that the UK is bigger, so in effect a UK cabinet minister is a step up from, say, Taoiseach of Ireland?

Is Gavin Williamson a step up from anything?

[Tichtheid]

What strikes me is NS has stopped even bothering to try and make the case for how Independence would actually work - her interview this morning on R4 being a good example - she clearly has no interest and has not asked her advisors for decent answers on borders, currency and central banks. The SNP manifesto is chock full of middle class giveaways that only work if Scotland is a part of the UK obviously meant to be easy vote winners - hardly the programme of a leader limbering up to undertake the founding of a new state.

To be honest I understand the frustration with this - these are the arguments to be presented at the time of the referendum, we're not voting on whether or not to be independent now.

Channel 4 have pushed this agenda too, the election next week is about who is elected to serve the Scottish people at Holyrood, it's not an independence referendum.
The questions should be about polices on how they propose to manage the recovery, on health and education etc

[Tichtheid]

I'd say so, without doubt.

Do you think that because of the budgets they are in charge of, number of employees, power they wield, the fact that the UK is bigger, so in effect a UK cabinet minister is a step up from, say, Taoiseach of Ireland?

Is Gavin Williamson a step up from anything?

Priti Patel?
Matt Hancock?

Johnson, FFS!

[Slick]

A UK cabinet post is next level up from FM of Scotland?

I'd say so, without doubt.

Do you think that because of the budgets they are in charge of, number of employees, power they wield, the fact that the UK is bigger, so in effect a UK cabinet minister is a step up from, say, Taoiseach of Ireland?

The Ireland comparison is silly, but parts of the rest yes. Plus a lot of them are operating on the world stage as well

[Slick]

What strikes me is NS has stopped even bothering to try and make the case for how Independence would actually work - her interview this morning on R4 being a good example - she clearly has no interest and has not asked her advisors for decent answers on borders, currency and central banks. The SNP manifesto is chock full of middle class giveaways that only work if Scotland is a part of the UK obviously meant to be easy vote winners - hardly the programme of a leader limbering up to undertake the founding of a new state.

To be honest I understand the frustration with this - these are the arguments to be presented at the time of the referendum, we're not voting on whether or not to be independent now.

Channel 4 have pushed this agenda too, the election next week is about who is elected to serve the Scottish people at Holyrood, it's not an independence referendum.
The questions should be about polices on how they propose to manage the recovery, on health and education etc

Sorry, but both of you are just twisting again. As you well know she has said she wants a vote in the next 2 years. Given that they are going to be the largest party I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to ask the questions.

Re Channel 4, I didn’t see the debate but I heard Krishnan GM was fucking appalling

[Tichtheid]

To be honest I understand the frustration with this - these are the arguments to be presented at the time of the referendum, we're not voting on whether or not to be independent now.

Channel 4 have pushed this agenda too, the election next week is about who is elected to serve the Scottish people at Holyrood, it's not an independence referendum.
The questions should be about polices on how they propose to manage the recovery, on health and education etc

Sorry, but both of you are just twisting again. As you well know she has said she wants a vote in the next 2 years. Given that they are going to be the largest party I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to ask the questions.

Re Channel 4, I didn’t see the debate but I heard Krishnan GM was fucking appalling

I think there are many similarities between Ireland and Scotland, I don't think any comparison is silly, I did want to get to the heart of why someone would see Scotland as such a backwater.

On the above, no one is voting for or against independence next week

[tc27]

What strikes me is NS has stopped even bothering to try and make the case for how Independence would actually work - her interview this morning on R4 being a good example - she clearly has no interest and has not asked her advisors for decent answers on borders, currency and central banks. The SNP manifesto is chock full of middle class giveaways that only work if Scotland is a part of the UK obviously meant to be easy vote winners - hardly the programme of a leader limbering up to undertake the founding of a new state.

To be honest I understand the frustration with this - these are the arguments to be presented at the time of the referendum, we're not voting on whether or not to be independent now.

Channel 4 have pushed this agenda too, the election next week is about who is elected to serve the Scottish people at Holyrood, it's not an independence referendum.
The questions should be about polices on how they propose to manage the recovery, on health and education etc

Disagree - part of the SNP platform is that Independence is a vital part of the recovery and a referendum must be held as soon as its safe to do so. Independence would be the most profound change in circumstances for centuries with massive implications for all public services, legal status, pensions, savings, mortgages ETC ETC - Its quite right that they are at least expected some kind of answers as to why its necessary (certainly as a priority).

PS - IMO the first minister controls a devolved government far more powerful than any UKG ministerial position with the exception of the PM and Chancellor.

[Tichtheid]

btw,

undertake the founding of a new state.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.

[tc27]

btw,

undertake the founding of a new state.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.

Not really but be interested to see why you think this.

[Tichtheid]

btw,

undertake the founding of a new state.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.

Not really but be interested to see why you think this.

An independent Scotland would not be a new state.

[tc27]

btw,



This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.

Not really but be interested to see why you think this.

An independent Scotland would not be a new state.

[Tichtheid]

Deary me.

oh well.

[Biffer]

btw,



This is a complete misunderstanding of the situation.

Not really but be interested to see why you think this.

An independent Scotland would not be a new state.

That's a matter that's not clear yet IMO. So far as I understand it, when a country splits, you either have

A Newly Independent State and A Continuing State

or

Two Successor states

The newly independent state starts from scratch - the continuing state is still the same country in international regards and retains all memberships of treaties, all international obligations, all assets and all debts.
Two successor states have a negotiated share of the assets and debts and both have to negotiate their positions within international treaties.

Again so far as I understand it, there's no previous examples of mix and match from the two situations - I think everyone who has left the British Empire has been a newly independent state.

[Biffer]

Not really but be interested to see why you think this.

An independent Scotland would not be a new state.

You need to understand the implications of that. Scotland wouldn't take any of the UK national debt in that situation. If Scotland takes part of the national debt, then there's an equal expectation of certain national assets, and both Scotland and the RUK would have to renegotiate their position within international treaties and organisations - such as the UN, where there is no way they would keep the permanent security council seat if they did that.

[Tichtheid]

You've put it better than what I was about to post, Biffer, and a lot more succinct over two posts than I was with one.

I think there is a difference between ex-Empire countries and Scotland vis-a-vis the Acts of Union etc, though I don't really have the time or inclination to look it up right now.

[Biffer]

You've put it better than what I was about to post, Biffer, and a lot more succinct over two posts than I was with one.

I think there is a difference between ex-Empire countries and Scotland vis-a-vis the Acts of Union etc, though I don't really have the time or inclination to look it up right now.

There's likely to be, yes, and I think that's what most people expect. What they don't appreciate however is that if Scotland and the RUK are both viewed as successors, then every single international relationship held by the UK could be up for renegotiation. So the separation negotiations would be heavily influenced by outside forces, rather than just being bilateral. Quite how much though I don't know. The newly independent state is cleaner and easier, but again I don't think people understand the implications of that properly.

[tc27]

An independent Scotland would not be a new state.

You need to understand the implications of that. Scotland wouldn't take any of the UK national debt in that situation. If Scotland takes part of the national debt, then there's an equal expectation of certain national assets, and both Scotland and the RUK would have to renegotiate their position within international treaties and organisations - such as the UN, where there is no way they would keep the permanent security council seat if they did that.

The UK would be the continuing state - not least because the UK Parliament would be the vessel through which the new Scottish state would become a legal reality.

Very obviously Scotland would be a new state having to establish most of the national institutions and relationships from scratch. Any discussions over assets and debts would be part of what I would expect to be very long and acrimonious negations (simply because most of the leverage is on one side).

[tc27]

You've put it better than what I was about to post, Biffer, and a lot more succinct over two posts than I was with one.

I think there is a difference between ex-Empire countries and Scotland vis-a-vis the Acts of Union etc, though I don't really have the time or inclination to look it up right now.

There's likely to be, yes, and I think that's what most people expect. What they don't appreciate however is that if Scotland and the RUK are both viewed as successors, then every single international relationship held by the UK could be up for renegotiation. So the separation negotiations would be heavily influenced by outside forces, rather than just being bilateral. Quite how much though I don't know. The newly independent state is cleaner and easier, but again I don't think people understand the implications of that properly.

Can you substantiate this at all? Its an extraordinary claim and not one I think even the SNP made in 2014.

I offer some evidence for my PoV thats its bollocks:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... /18805.htm

13. The UK Government's position follows this legal opinion: that the rest of the UK would become the continuator state and that Scotland would become a new, successor state. The Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Wallace of Tankerness QC, set out four main reasons for this:[10]

First, the majority of international precedents—from Russia being the continuator state on the break-up of the Soviet Union to Sudan continuing after South Sudan became a new state—point to the rest of the UK being the continuator state. The most directly relevant precedent is that Great Britain and Northern Ireland continued as the UK after the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922.
Secondly, the rest of the UK would retain the greater share of the population (92%) and territory (68%) of the existing UK. These factors are given weight in public international law.
Thirdly, the likelihood is that the majority of other states would recognise the rest of the UK as the continuator state and recognise Scotland as a new state.
Fourthly, where the alternative of two new states being created has applied—for example, when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia—that has usually been by mutual agreement. The UK Government would not agree to the UK becoming a new state, so this alternative could not apply. It is relevant that the referendum is taking place only in Scotland: it is not a UK-wide referendum on whether the UK should split into two new states.

14. The majority of our witnesses agreed with this analysis.[11] Professor Alan Boyle said that it was the "only ... credible view".[12] Professor Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics at the University of Aberdeen, referred to the "broad acceptance that the UK would be the continuing state."[13] Professor Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory at the University of Edinburgh, agreed,[14] as did commentators David Torrance and Mandy Rhodes.[15] The commentator Alex Massie said that it appeared "to be the common-sense attitude. It will be the view that will be taken by the rest of the world. If you vote to leave a club, the club remains."[16]

16. The overwhelming view in the evidence we received was that after a "yes" vote the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the same state: it would be the continuator state. Scotland would become a new, successor state.

[Biffer]

You need to understand the implications of that. Scotland wouldn't take any of the UK national debt in that situation. If Scotland takes part of the national debt, then there's an equal expectation of certain national assets, and both Scotland and the RUK would have to renegotiate their position within international treaties and organisations - such as the UN, where there is no way they would keep the permanent security council seat if they did that.

The UK would be the continuing state - not least because the UK Parliament would be the vessel through which the new Scottish state would become a legal reality.

Very obviously Scotland would be a new state having to establish most of the national institutions and relationships from scratch. Any discussions over assets and debts would be part of what I would expect to be very long and acrimonious negations (simply because most of the leverage is on one side).

You see, you've mixed up the two situations, which is what everyone does. If Scotland is a newly independent state, it has no obligations to debts or rights to assets.

[tc27]

You need to understand the implications of that. Scotland wouldn't take any of the UK national debt in that situation. If Scotland takes part of the national debt, then there's an equal expectation of certain national assets, and both Scotland and the RUK would have to renegotiate their position within international treaties and organisations - such as the UN, where there is no way they would keep the permanent security council seat if they did that.

The UK would be the continuing state - not least because the UK Parliament would be the vessel through which the new Scottish state would become a legal reality.

Very obviously Scotland would be a new state having to establish most of the national institutions and relationships from scratch. Any discussions over assets and debts would be part of what I would expect to be very long and acrimonious negations (simply because most of the leverage is on one side).

You see, you've mixed up the two situations, which is what everyone does. If Scotland is a newly independent state, it has no obligations to debts or rights to assets.

Actually what you are describing is a 'No Deal Scexit' scenario where one assumes Scotland gets the physical assets within its borders and nothing else - I am not sure how likely this is as its unlikely Westminster would pass a bill like this (it would make relations utterly toxic).

Scotland would be a new state in even with a deal however.

[Biffer]

You've put it better than what I was about to post, Biffer, and a lot more succinct over two posts than I was with one.

I think there is a difference between ex-Empire countries and Scotland vis-a-vis the Acts of Union etc, though I don't really have the time or inclination to look it up right now.

There's likely to be, yes, and I think that's what most people expect. What they don't appreciate however is that if Scotland and the RUK are both viewed as successors, then every single international relationship held by the UK could be up for renegotiation. So the separation negotiations would be heavily influenced by outside forces, rather than just being bilateral. Quite how much though I don't know. The newly independent state is cleaner and easier, but again I don't think people understand the implications of that properly.

Can you substantiate this at all? Its an extraordinary claim and not one I think even the SNP made in 2014.

I offer some evidence for my PoV thats its bollocks:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... /18805.htm

13. The UK Government's position follows this legal opinion: that the rest of the UK would become the continuator state and that Scotland would become a new, successor state. The Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Wallace of Tankerness QC, set out four main reasons for this:[10]

First, the majority of international precedents—from Russia being the continuator state on the break-up of the Soviet Union to Sudan continuing after South Sudan became a new state—point to the rest of the UK being the continuator state. The most directly relevant precedent is that Great Britain and Northern Ireland continued as the UK after the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922.
Secondly, the rest of the UK would retain the greater share of the population (92%) and territory (68%) of the existing UK. These factors are given weight in public international law.
Thirdly, the likelihood is that the majority of other states would recognise the rest of the UK as the continuator state and recognise Scotland as a new state.
Fourthly, where the alternative of two new states being created has applied—for example, when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia—that has usually been by mutual agreement. The UK Government would not agree to the UK becoming a new state, so this alternative could not apply. It is relevant that the referendum is taking place only in Scotland: it is not a UK-wide referendum on whether the UK should split into two new states.

14. The majority of our witnesses agreed with this analysis.[11] Professor Alan Boyle said that it was the "only ... credible view".[12] Professor Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics at the University of Aberdeen, referred to the "broad acceptance that the UK would be the continuing state."[13] Professor Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory at the University of Edinburgh, agreed,[14] as did commentators David Torrance and Mandy Rhodes.[15] The commentator Alex Massie said that it appeared "to be the common-sense attitude. It will be the view that will be taken by the rest of the world. If you vote to leave a club, the club remains."[16]

16. The overwhelming view in the evidence we received was that after a "yes" vote the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the same state: it would be the continuator state. Scotland would become a new, successor state.

Right, so that doesn't really disagree with what I said, I've just posted the two routes in simplistic terms and they've gone in to substantially more detail (and to be fair I've kind of gone to the extreme for both). With respect to the bit you've bolded, there's clear precedent that for example in trade deals these would be subject to some change, as the EU had to do with some agreements (changes to quotas etc) after the UK left. Whilst most of them would remain broadly the same, they'd be open to challenge, and I think the permanent seat on the security council would be under pressure. Other treaties would also have to change - would the UK say it was making exactly the same commitment to NATO with it's GDP shrinking by 8%? Would all parties to treaties accept that the RUK should be treated exactly the same as the old UK in every case? I think it's fanciful to believe that's the case particularly as there may be old colonial nations and modern competitors all too willing to stick the knife in. I'm not saying that treaties would suddenly be invalid, I'm saying they could be challenged and altered. The more important bit is the assets and liabilities, where that link says that any apportionment is equitable - and they are careful to say that this applies to assets AND liabilities. So you can't just be landed with the liabilities without any assets, which is kind of the point - there seems to be this assumption that Scotland would get no assets but would get whatever percentage of the debt, and that page doesn't say that's the case. It is fundamentally a negotiated settlement, and there's no arbiter here - so if there's no agreement there's no agreement, whereas some people present it as being just the decision of the RUK as to what happens. There'd be consequences for both sides in that situation.

[Biffer]

One other thing in that link that is kind of danced around - It says

t is a legal principle that fixed or immovable assets (such as government or military buildings)[19] would automatically become assets of the state in which they are located.

That firmly says that Faslane and Coulport are Scottish. That's a massive negotiating point. The moveable assets within those locations (the subs, bombs and all the supporting equipment) would be part of the negotiations, although as it says, separating out the military would be a nightmare. One of the major RUK concerns will be not having a base for the nuclear deterrent.

[Tichtheid]

Professors Boyle and Keating are quoted elsewhere as saying that the status of both rUK and Scotland would be up for negotiation, and it's not necessarily taken for granted that one would be a new state and the other the continuing state.

Jim Wallace was a firm advocate (cough) of a No vote at the referendum in 2014

[Tichtheid]

One other thing in that link that is kind of danced around - It says

t is a legal principle that fixed or immovable assets (such as government or military buildings)[19] would automatically become assets of the state in which they are located.

That firmly says that Faslane and Coulport are Scottish. That's a massive negotiating point. The moveable assets within those locations (the subs, bombs and all the supporting equipment) would be part of the negotiations, although as it says, separating out the military would be a nightmare. One of the major RUK concerns will be not having a base for the nuclear deterrent.

There was an article on Trident in the Gruaniad the other day

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... dependence

[Biffer]

One other thing in that link that is kind of danced around - It says

t is a legal principle that fixed or immovable assets (such as government or military buildings)[19] would automatically become assets of the state in which they are located.

That firmly says that Faslane and Coulport are Scottish. That's a massive negotiating point. The moveable assets within those locations (the subs, bombs and all the supporting equipment) would be part of the negotiations, although as it says, separating out the military would be a nightmare. One of the major RUK concerns will be not having a base for the nuclear deterrent.

There was an article on Trident in the Gruaniad the other day

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... dependence

I think we'd agree to a fifteen or twenty year lease tbh. Whilst people want rid of them they recognise that it'd be irresponsible to just throw them out immediately with no location or plan in place for the storage, transportation and management of fissile weapons materials. We'd potentially be in breach of the NNPT. Not a good way to start as an independent country.

[tc27]

There's likely to be, yes, and I think that's what most people expect. What they don't appreciate however is that if Scotland and the RUK are both viewed as successors, then every single international relationship held by the UK could be up for renegotiation. So the separation negotiations would be heavily influenced by outside forces, rather than just being bilateral. Quite how much though I don't know. The newly independent state is cleaner and easier, but again I don't think people understand the implications of that properly.

Can you substantiate this at all? Its an extraordinary claim and not one I think even the SNP made in 2014.

I offer some evidence for my PoV thats its bollocks:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... /18805.htm

13. The UK Government's position follows this legal opinion: that the rest of the UK would become the continuator state and that Scotland would become a new, successor state. The Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Wallace of Tankerness QC, set out four main reasons for this:[10]

First, the majority of international precedents—from Russia being the continuator state on the break-up of the Soviet Union to Sudan continuing after South Sudan became a new state—point to the rest of the UK being the continuator state. The most directly relevant precedent is that Great Britain and Northern Ireland continued as the UK after the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922.
Secondly, the rest of the UK would retain the greater share of the population (92%) and territory (68%) of the existing UK. These factors are given weight in public international law.
Thirdly, the likelihood is that the majority of other states would recognise the rest of the UK as the continuator state and recognise Scotland as a new state.
Fourthly, where the alternative of two new states being created has applied—for example, when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia—that has usually been by mutual agreement. The UK Government would not agree to the UK becoming a new state, so this alternative could not apply. It is relevant that the referendum is taking place only in Scotland: it is not a UK-wide referendum on whether the UK should split into two new states.

14. The majority of our witnesses agreed with this analysis.[11] Professor Alan Boyle said that it was the "only ... credible view".[12] Professor Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics at the University of Aberdeen, referred to the "broad acceptance that the UK would be the continuing state."[13] Professor Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory at the University of Edinburgh, agreed,[14] as did commentators David Torrance and Mandy Rhodes.[15] The commentator Alex Massie said that it appeared "to be the common-sense attitude. It will be the view that will be taken by the rest of the world. If you vote to leave a club, the club remains."[16]

16. The overwhelming view in the evidence we received was that after a "yes" vote the rest of the United Kingdom would continue as the same state: it would be the continuator state. Scotland would become a new, successor state.

Right, so that doesn't really disagree with what I said, I've just posted the two routes in simplistic terms and they've gone in to substantially more detail (and to be fair I've kind of gone to the extreme for both). With respect to the bit you've bolded, there's clear precedent that for example in trade deals these would be subject to some change, as the EU had to do with some agreements (changes to quotas etc) after the UK left. Whilst most of them would remain broadly the same, they'd be open to challenge, and I think the permanent seat on the security council would be under pressure. Other treaties would also have to change - would the UK say it was making exactly the same commitment to NATO with it's GDP shrinking by 8%? Would all parties to treaties accept that the RUK should be treated exactly the same as the old UK in every case? I think it's fanciful to believe that's the case particularly as there may be old colonial nations and modern competitors all too willing to stick the knife in. I'm not saying that treaties would suddenly be invalid, I'm saying they could be challenged and altered. The more important bit is the assets and liabilities, where that link says that any apportionment is equitable - and they are careful to say that this applies to assets AND liabilities. So you can't just be landed with the liabilities without any assets, which is kind of the point - there seems to be this assumption that Scotland would get no assets but would get whatever percentage of the debt, and that page doesn't say that's the case. It is fundamentally a negotiated settlement, and there's no arbiter here - so if there's no agreement there's no agreement, whereas some people present it as being just the decision of the RUK as to what happens. There'd be consequences for both sides in that situation.

Ok so to be clear you have accepted that the rUk would be the continuing state and Scotland a new successor state?

I don't disagree with you that the rUK may be pressured to alter or renegotiate its treaties if Scottish succession happened - but the premise of that is that the UK would hold those treaties.

[tc27]

Professors Boyle and Keating are quoted elsewhere as saying that the status of both rUK and Scotland would be up for negotiation, and it's not necessarily taken for granted that one would be a new state and the other the continuing state.

Jim Wallace was a firm advocate (cough) of a No vote at the referendum in 2014

Got a link? - the UKGs position seems faintly bulletproof to me. Think the SG would have a hard time trying to convince other nations to treat the UK as another successor state (and I don't see what would be in it for them).

First, the majority of international precedents—from Russia being the continuator state on the break-up of the Soviet Union to Sudan continuing after South Sudan became a new state—point to the rest of the UK being the continuator state. The most directly relevant precedent is that Great Britain and Northern Ireland continued as the UK after the secession of the Irish Free State in 1922.

Secondly, the rest of the UK would retain the greater share of the population (92%) and territory (68%) of the existing UK. These factors are given weight in public international law.

Thirdly, the likelihood is that the majority of other states would recognise the rest of the UK as the continuator state and recognise Scotland as a new state.

Fourthly, where the alternative of two new states being created has applied—for example, when Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia—that has usually been by mutual agreement. The UK Government would not agree to the UK becoming a new state, so this alternative could not apply. It is relevant that the referendum is taking place only in Scotland: it is not a UK-wide referendum on whether the UK should split into two new states.

[tc27]

If nothing else when you start looking into the 'sausage making' of this you appreciate what an epic legal/constitutional/legal clusterfuck this would be if it came to pass - it makes Brexit look straightforward.

[Biffer]

If nothing else when you start looking into the 'sausage making' of this you appreciate what an epic legal/constitutional/legal clusterfuck this would be if it came to pass - it makes Brexit look straightforward.

Yeah, but speaking from the other side it also emphasises how much of a massive clusterfuck the existing situation is, and the main reason that the independence movement has thrived is the point blank refusal on the part of the main UK parties to engage in genuine constitutional and democratic reform of the whole UK state. The devolved assemblies and parliaments should have been just the start of gutting an out of date set up that often still acts as if it's running an empire in the 19th century.

[Tichtheid]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... nnex_A.pdf


. If Scotland were to become independent after the referendum planned for late 2014, it
would be with the UK’s agreement rather than by unilateral secession. In practice, its
status in international law and that of the remainder of the UK (rUK) would depend on
what arrangements the two governments made between themselves before and after
the referendum, and on whether other states accepted their positions on such matters as
continuity and succession. But there are a number of legal considerations.
2. First of all, the status of Scotland before the union of 1707 would be of little or no
relevance. In particular, the Treaty of Union, considered with or without the Acts of Union,
does not currently sound as a treaty in international law.
3. The three possible outcomes for the status of Scotland and the rUK in international law
following Scottish independence are as follows, from most to least probable.
3.1 Most likely, the rUK would be considered the continuator of the UK for all
international purposes and Scotland a new state. This has been the most common
outcome in the case of separation, as evidenced, for example, by the acceptance of
Russia as the continuator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) despite
its political collapse. The fact that the rUK would retain most of the UK’s territory and
population and that its governmental institutions would continue uninterrupted would
count in its favour. So, importantly, would the acquiescence of other states in any
claim of continuity. Since the rUK would be the same state as the UK, questions of
state succession would arise only for Scotland.
3.2 Some states have dissolved entirely into new states, leaving no continuator. But
the most recent instances of this are the result either of an agreement between the
states involved, one of which might otherwise have been considered the continuator
state (Czechoslovakia), or of prolonged resistance by other successor states and
third states to a claim of continuity in circumstances of ethnic conflict (the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). This outcome would be likely only if the UK were to
agree to it.
3.3 Reversion to a previous independent state such as the pre-1707 Scottish state
may not be excluded. But it normally depends on conditions that are absent here,
such as the unwilling subjugation of the former state. Some apparent exceptions
are illusory or are political assertions with no legal consequences. In any event, the
passage of such a long period of time would make it difficult for Scotland to assert
identity with the pre-1707 Scottish state for legal purposes, and even if it did so that
would not affect the status of the rUK as continuing the legal personality of the UK.

[tc27]

If nothing else when you start looking into the 'sausage making' of this you appreciate what an epic legal/constitutional/legal clusterfuck this would be if it came to pass - it makes Brexit look straightforward.

Yeah, but speaking from the other side it also emphasises how much of a massive clusterfuck the existing situation is, and the main reason that the independence movement has thrived is the point blank refusal on the part of the main UK parties to engage in genuine constitutional and democratic reform of the whole UK state. The devolved assemblies and parliaments should have been just the start of gutting an out of date set up that often still acts as if it's running an empire in the 19th century.

Find this an odd sentiment - its not really an indictment of a nation state that its not easy and straightforward to split of a portion of it

[Biffer]

Can you substantiate this at all? Its an extraordinary claim and not one I think even the SNP made in 2014.

I offer some evidence for my PoV thats its bollocks:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... /18805.htm

Right, so that doesn't really disagree with what I said, I've just posted the two routes in simplistic terms and they've gone in to substantially more detail (and to be fair I've kind of gone to the extreme for both). With respect to the bit you've bolded, there's clear precedent that for example in trade deals these would be subject to some change, as the EU had to do with some agreements (changes to quotas etc) after the UK left. Whilst most of them would remain broadly the same, they'd be open to challenge, and I think the permanent seat on the security council would be under pressure. Other treaties would also have to change - would the UK say it was making exactly the same commitment to NATO with it's GDP shrinking by 8%? Would all parties to treaties accept that the RUK should be treated exactly the same as the old UK in every case? I think it's fanciful to believe that's the case particularly as there may be old colonial nations and modern competitors all too willing to stick the knife in. I'm not saying that treaties would suddenly be invalid, I'm saying they could be challenged and altered. The more important bit is the assets and liabilities, where that link says that any apportionment is equitable - and they are careful to say that this applies to assets AND liabilities. So you can't just be landed with the liabilities without any assets, which is kind of the point - there seems to be this assumption that Scotland would get no assets but would get whatever percentage of the debt, and that page doesn't say that's the case. It is fundamentally a negotiated settlement, and there's no arbiter here - so if there's no agreement there's no agreement, whereas some people present it as being just the decision of the RUK as to what happens. There'd be consequences for both sides in that situation.

Ok so to be clear you have accepted that the rUk would be the continuing state and Scotland a new successor state?

I don't disagree with you that the rUK may be pressured to alter or renegotiate its treaties if Scottish succession happened - but the premise of that is that the UK would hold those treaties.

I think the terminology here is very confused - The terminology I've previously seen says it's either one continuing and one new, or two successors which have similar status to each other going forward but that status is different from a 'new' state. I think either is possible, but the RUK being the continuing state is far more likely, unless something falls out of it which is massively disadvantageous to RUK. Either will involve massive negotiations, but they have different starting points which have positives and negatives for both sides.

[tc27]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... nnex_A.pdf


. If Scotland were to become independent after the referendum planned for late 2014, it
would be with the UK’s agreement rather than by unilateral secession. In practice, its
status in international law and that of the remainder of the UK (rUK) would depend on
what arrangements the two governments made between themselves before and after
the referendum, and on whether other states accepted their positions on such matters as
continuity and succession. But there are a number of legal considerations.
2. First of all, the status of Scotland before the union of 1707 would be of little or no
relevance. In particular, the Treaty of Union, considered with or without the Acts of Union,
does not currently sound as a treaty in international law.
3. The three possible outcomes for the status of Scotland and the rUK in international law
following Scottish independence are as follows, from most to least probable.
3.1 Most likely, the rUK would be considered the continuator of the UK for all
international purposes and Scotland a new state. This has been the most common
outcome in the case of separation, as evidenced, for example, by the acceptance of
Russia as the continuator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) despite
its political collapse. The fact that the rUK would retain most of the UK’s territory and
population and that its governmental institutions would continue uninterrupted would
count in its favour. So, importantly, would the acquiescence of other states in any
claim of continuity. Since the rUK would be the same state as the UK, questions of
state succession would arise only for Scotland.
3.2 Some states have dissolved entirely into new states, leaving no continuator. But
the most recent instances of this are the result either of an agreement between the
states involved, one of which might otherwise have been considered the continuator
state (Czechoslovakia), or of prolonged resistance by other successor states and
third states to a claim of continuity in circumstances of ethnic conflict (the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). This outcome would be likely only if the UK were to
agree to it.
3.3 Reversion to a previous independent state such as the pre-1707 Scottish state
may not be excluded. But it normally depends on conditions that are absent here,
such as the unwilling subjugation of the former state. Some apparent exceptions
are illusory or are political assertions with no legal consequences. In any event, the
passage of such a long period of time would make it difficult for Scotland to assert
identity with the pre-1707 Scottish state for legal purposes, and even if it did so that
would not affect the status of the rUK as continuing the legal personality of the UK.

Unless I am missing something that comes to the same conclusion as the select committee report I linked.

[Biffer]

If nothing else when you start looking into the 'sausage making' of this you appreciate what an epic legal/constitutional/legal clusterfuck this would be if it came to pass - it makes Brexit look straightforward.

Yeah, but speaking from the other side it also emphasises how much of a massive clusterfuck the existing situation is, and the main reason that the independence movement has thrived is the point blank refusal on the part of the main UK parties to engage in genuine constitutional and democratic reform of the whole UK state. The devolved assemblies and parliaments should have been just the start of gutting an out of date set up that often still acts as if it's running an empire in the 19th century.

Find this an odd sentiment - its not really an indictment of a nation state that its not easy and straightforward to split of a portion of it

I can understand how someone might think that, but I'm probably equally confused by how people can't recognise that the existing set up in the UK is an absolute dogs breakfast of on the hoof arrangements that have just been habit so long they present a facade of reliability.

Also it wouldn't really be an indictment of a nation state that a unitary part of it could, through democratic and legal means, decide it wanted to go its own way.

[Tichtheid]

Unless I am missing something that comes to the same conclusion as the select committee report I linked.

It reads to me that there is more wiggle room than in the first document.

[Biffer]

Unless I am missing something that comes to the same conclusion as the select committee report I linked.

It reads to me that there is more wiggle room than in the first document.

Yeah, I would say the first document says it's pretty much definitely going to be one way, whereas that one says it's probably going to be that way. Degrees of certainty.

[Biffer]

On the bright side at least we've managed to be civil about it for the last page or so.

[Biffer]

and the second tweet describes what I believe

[tc27]

Yeah, but speaking from the other side it also emphasises how much of a massive clusterfuck the existing situation is, and the main reason that the independence movement has thrived is the point blank refusal on the part of the main UK parties to engage in genuine constitutional and democratic reform of the whole UK state. The devolved assemblies and parliaments should have been just the start of gutting an out of date set up that often still acts as if it's running an empire in the 19th century.

Find this an odd sentiment - its not really an indictment of a nation state that its not easy and straightforward to split of a portion of it

I can understand how someone might think that, but I'm probably equally confused by how people can't recognise that the existing set up in the UK is an absolute dogs breakfast of on the hoof arrangements that have just been habit so long they present a facade of reliability.

Also it wouldn't really be an indictment of a nation state that a unitary part of it could, through democratic and legal means, decide it wanted to go its own way.

I am not defending the entirety of the UK constitution nor am against reform as such but it is but arguably just by existing and providing a relative haven of stability and common law for centuries when numerous other systems of government have risen and fallen is an indication that there is at least some virtue to it.

Not sure why Scottish nationalists have to constantly assert everything British is awful - I mean its existence as a state is much something they can take credit (and blame for) as anyone else from this Island.

[tc27]

Yeah, but speaking from the other side it also emphasises how much of a massive clusterfuck the existing situation is, and the main reason that the independence movement has thrived is the point blank refusal on the part of the main UK parties to engage in genuine constitutional and democratic reform of the whole UK state. The devolved assemblies and parliaments should have been just the start of gutting an out of date set up that often still acts as if it's running an empire in the 19th century.

Find this an odd sentiment - its not really an indictment of a nation state that its not easy and straightforward to split of a portion of it

I can understand how someone might think that, but I'm probably equally confused by how people can't recognise that the existing set up in the UK is an absolute dogs breakfast of on the hoof arrangements that have just been habit so long they present a facade of reliability.

Also it wouldn't really be an indictment of a nation state that a unitary part of it could, through democratic and legal means, decide it wanted to go its own way.

As an aside as far as I know no Western democratic state provides for this in their constitutions,. In fact I recall the German constitution explicitly prohibits this. The USA went to war over this principle and the Unionists won.