Where does the Scottish Everendum stand?

[Pjen]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

Pjen please explain how international law enters into any of this as Scotland is not yet a separate country under the particular scenario we are discussing. We’re talking about during separation negotiations between the rUK and Scotland, which if they conclude take precedence over any international law as has already been noted. Until Westminster passes an Act of Parliament Scotland is not an independent nation. There is no “international” as there is still only one country. We’re talking about an internal negotiation between a region and its still lawful and legally recognised government that, albeit it, has just voted to separate but may not, in the end, choose to carry through that separation depending on the terms it can negotiate with the aforementioned government. What we are discussing is a purely internal British matter.

Kosovo will give you an idea:

Copied and edited from Wikipedia:

Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo was a request for an advisory opinion referred to the International Court of Justice by the United Nations General Assembly regarding the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. The territory of Kosovo is the subject of a dispute between Serbia and the Republic of Kosovo established by the declaration. This was the first case regarding a unilateral declaration of independence to be brought before the court.

The court delivered its advisory opinion on 22 July 2010; by a vote of 10 to 4, it declared that “the adoption of the declaration of independence of the 17 February 2008 did not violate general international law because international law contains no ‘prohibition on declarations of independence’”

On 26 March 2008, the Government of Serbia announced its plan to call on the International Court of Justice to rule on the declaration of Kosovo’s secession. Serbia sought to have the court’s opinion on whether the declaration was in breach of international law. Also, an initiative seeking international support was undertaken at the United Nations General Assembly when it gathered again in New York in September 2008.[9]

On 15 August 2008, Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremić officially filed a request at the United Nations seeking opinion of the International Court of Justice.[10]

The resolution was worded as follows:

The General Assembly,

Mindful of the purposes and principles of the United Nations,

Bearing in mind its functions and powers under the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling that on 17 February 2008 the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo declared independence from Serbia,

Aware that this act has been received with varied reactions by the Members of the United Nations as to its compatibility with the existing international legal order,

Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court to render an advisory opinion on the following question:

“Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?”

On 21 April 2009, the ICJ announced that 35 member states of the United Nations had filed written statements within the time-limit fixed by the court (17 April 2009) on the question of the legality of Kosovo’s UDI.

On 22 July 2010, the court ruled that the declaration of independence was not in violation of international law.[119][120][121] The President of the ICJ Justice Hisashi Owada said that international law contains no “prohibition on declarations of independence.” The court also said while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one.

It is worth pointing out that Spain’s objection was rejected:

“The unilateral Kosovo independence declaration cannot be in accordance with international law because it violated the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia…”

and China’s:

“There is no doubt that after the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Kosovo was a part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that is, Serbia. Integral parts of sovereign states, under international law, do not have a right to unilateral secession … while the principle of protection of territorial integrity is a cornerstone of international legal order.”

And Cyprus:

“The principles of international law do not support the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. Neither the UN Security Council, nor anyone else has the right to amputate part of the territory of a sovereign state.”

and Russia:

“General international law prevents Kosovo from declaring independence, bearing in mind that the people of Kosovo do not enjoy a right to self-determination.
Russia rejects claims coming from those countries who support the unilateral declaration that international law “does not regulate independence declarations”, and reminds that the UN Security Council declared Northern Cyprus and Rhodesia’s independence to be illegal, since secession is forbidden outside the colonial context.”

Which kind of knocks your comments about self determination and UDI into a colonial cocked hat.

[Pjen]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

Who is claiming that, Pjen? The claim is that Scotland isn’t going to automatically walk into a currency union with the rUK, as you seem to think Scotland is entitled due to some “expectation” on the part of the Scottish electorate.

Incidentally, your post is a prime example of the kind of trivialisation of important economic matters that plagued the Yes campaign, and ultimately was one of the reasons they were trounced at the polls as virtually every demographic in Scotland rejected their ideas. The differences and effects on the Scottish economy of adopting Sterlingisation or trying to negotiate a currency union are gigantic, and can’t be simply brushed away with “but there’s options open to us!” every time somebody queries them.

But the reality is that there will be continued pressure for Home Rule or Independence over the next few years and this will of necessity be dealt with politically.

Interesting times.

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Pjen

Which kind of knocks your comments about self determination and UDI into a colonial cocked hat.

Hardly, seeing as Kosovo is still not universally recognised as a sovereign state as of 2014, with 5 EU states alone not recognising Kosovo, and 44% of all states represented at the UN also not recognising Kosovo’s sovereignty, and two of the UNSC members refusing to recognise Kosovo as an independent state. From Wikipedia, your favourite source for cut-and-paste walls of text:

As of 13 August 2014, the Republic of Kosovo has received 110 diplomatic recognitions as an independent state. Notably, 108 out of 193 (56%) United Nations (UN) member states, 23 out of 28 (82%) European Union (EU) member states, 24 out of 28 (86%) NATO member states, and 34 out of 57 (60%) Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states have recognised Kosovo. The Government of Serbia does not recognise it as a sovereign state, but has begun to normalise relations with the Government of Kosovo in accordance with the Brussels Agreement.

[Ramira]

@Pjen

The definitive answer is that whether or not the UK decided to share the Pound Sterling, there are possible options open to Scotland. Supposing that it would be the only country in the world that could not organise access to a currency is just silly scaremongering.

I do not have an opinion about the independence but it is interesting to read this thread. It is not possible to avoid the conclusion you do not understand the legal and the economic issues which you are making strong statements about.

The issue of having currency union is much more serious than you understand and to use a currency without currency union is not something realistic for a developed economy. It is not scaremongering, they are making a point you do not understand.

@Pjen

Kosovo will give you an idea:

This does not make a realistic point, and it is the case that the Helsinki accords establish the primacy in assumption of the non-interference and the respect for the territorial integrity of the states and their sovereignty.

The very special cases of the balkans in which the Serb republics were committing war crimes against civilians established a different context.

It is either not an honest analysis or a very emotiional and romantic analysis that is not founded well in the actual precedences that would like to a conclusion that there would be intervention in this issue. It is impossible for me to believe there would be any enthusiasm in the european union or the developed countries for the pressures you are assuming, against a United Kingdom. Far too many other countries would see this as bad precedence with no argument like a Kosovo to make the great majority of the sovereigns change their opinions and go against the interests of London for no benefit and for establishing a bad precedent from the point of view of the sovereign state. To make these arguments as demarches to refute the others is to show very little or a very romanticised and very unrealistic understanding.

[amanset]

@Pjen

Which kind of knocks your comments about self determination and UDI into a colonial cocked hat.

Every time you go on about colonialism you come across as a little bit more stupid.

But there was that speech in Trainspotting! Calling something colonialism doesn’t automatically make it so, it just makes you look ill informed, intellectually lacking and intentionally offensive.

For the last time: Scotland is not, was not and has never been a colony of England. I am tired of your referring to it as so and the judgemental attitude that comes from you every time you refer to it as being so. I’ve had enough of being insulted and offended by you.

Just grow up or at least educate yourself about history.

Here’s a couple of things to get you started:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-essay-say-no-to-colony-myth-1-3500221#

Scotland was never a colony

Pay careful attention to this paragraph in the piece in The Scotsman. Have a real good think about it.

Scots, it is now too widely believed for comfort, are a colonised nation, ruled over by a dominant caste of English colonisers. Or “Westminster” in the language of Yes. This is not only largely nonsensical as history, but offensive and insulting to many non-white, non-European peoples who did, in fact, find themselves oppressed or even dispossessed by the “British” Empire.

[Malden_Capell]

It’s also highly selective as it seems to try to whitewash Scotland’s equal involvement in the colonial brutality of the British Empire.

[Pjen]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

Hardly, seeing as Kosovo is still not universally recognised as a sovereign state as of 2014, with 5 EU states alone not recognising Kosovo, and 44% of all states represented at the UN also not recognising Kosovo’s sovereignty, and two of the UNSC members refusing to recognise Kosovo as an independent state. From Wikipedia, your favourite source for cut-and-paste walls of text:

Straw man again. I never said that it would ensure recognition (although there are good reasons why Scotland would be recognised and Kosovo was not) but whether or not UDI was legal and recognised as legal by the relevant authorities.

You really must give up these silly straw man forays that are so easily overturned.

And using Wikipedia to reference complicated material such as treaties is quite acceptable. this is a chat board, not academia!

[Pjen]

@Ramira

I do not have an opinion about the independence but it is interesting to read this thread. It is not possible to avoid the conclusion you do not understand the legal and the economic issues which you are making strong statements about.

The issue of having currency union is much more serious than you understand and to use a currency without currency union is not something realistic for a developed economy. It is not scaremongering, they are making a point you do not understand.

This does not make a realistic point, and it is the case that the Helsinki accords establish the primacy in assumption of the non-interference and the respect for the territorial integrity of the states and their sovereignty.

The very special cases of the balkans in which the Serb republics were committing war crimes against civilians established a different context.

It is either not an honest analysis or a very emotiional and romantic analysis that is not founded well in the actual precedences that would like to a conclusion that there would be intervention in this issue. It is impossible for me to believe there would be any enthusiasm in the european union or the developed countries for the pressures you are assuming, against a United Kingdom. Far too many other countries would see this as bad precedence with no argument like a Kosovo to make the great majority of the sovereigns change their opinions and go against the interests of London for no benefit and for establishing a bad precedent from the point of view of the sovereign state. To make these arguments as demarches to refute the others is to show very little or a very romanticised and very unrealistic understanding.

I seem to remember that Ireland made quite good headway in the international arena after an uprising that led to Home Rule, and eventually to independence.

The power of the crown to restrain both sides (not to mention the Commonwealth) should not be understated.

[Pjen]

@amanset

Every time you go on about colonialism you come across as a little bit more stupid.

But there was that speech in Trainspotting! Calling something colonialism doesn’t automatically make it so, it just makes you look ill informed, intellectually lacking and intentionally offensive.

For the last time: Scotland is not, was not and has never been a colony of England. I am tired of your referring to it as so and the judgemental attitude that comes from you every time you refer to it as being so. I’ve had enough of being insulted and offended by you.

Just grow up or at least educate yourself about history.

Here’s a couple of things to get you started:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-essay-say-no-to-colony-myth-1-3500221#
Scotland was never a colony

Pay careful attention to this paragraph in the piece in The Scotsman. Have a real good think about it.

I have good reason to know the history of Empire extremely well. Scots were certainly mainstays in the colonies and in slavery.

I never refer to Scotland as a colony or the English (I am English) as colonists, but I do refer to colonial or neo-colonial attitudes of people who wish to treat Scotland as a mere part of Britain without remembering the whole history of the Union.

[Pjen]

Maybe this should be retitled the Scottish Straw Man Argument thread. There seem to be a lot of them being erected!

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

I suggest: “debating with a brick wall” as a better alternative thread title.

[Ramira]

@Pjen

Maybe this should be retitled the Scottish Straw Man Argument thread. There seem to be a lot of them being erected!

No, this does not seem to be the case to the neutral observer. there seems to be a person who has a point of view and not very much understanding of the limitations of the knowledge, and a great emotional attachment to certain conclusions.

[Ramira]

@Pjen

I seem to remember that Ireland made quite good headway in the international arena after an uprising that led to Home Rule, and eventually to independence.

The power of the crown to restrain both sides (not to mention the Commonwealth) should not be understated.

This is a response that does not follow from what has been written. it seems to me there is not a rational argument but there is a great emotional reaction and the random association of feelings.

[Stanislaus]

“International Law” is just another term for “What States agree to”. Insofar as it exists at all, it is only a series of treaties. States are under no obligation to either abide by it or enforce it, except as best suits their interest. It’s completely misleading to suggest that there’s some sort of controlling authority which could unilaterally declare a Scottish UDI legitimate or illegitimate, or that such a declaration would have any force.

If Scotland goes for UDI, the question of whether that meets International Law will be entirely subservient to the questions of a) how many states recognise iScot and b) how powerful they are. If they’re numerous and powerful enough, “International Law” will say that the UDI was kosher; if they’re not, it won’t. That is as far as International Law goes.

Should it come to it, States will have to ask themselves whose back they want to scratch: the small, powerless country whose continued existence can’t be guaranteed, or the large, economically and politically powerful nation who will definitely still be here next year. Who can offer them the best quid pro quo? Who can be a bigger pain in the arse if they’re pissed off? I submit that in most cases, the answer to neither of those questions will be Scotland.

[amanset]

@Pjen

I have good reason to know the history of Empire extremely well. Scots were certainly mainstays in the colonies and in slavery.

I never refer to Scotland as a colony or the English (I am English) as colonists, but I do refer to colonial or neo-colonial attitudes of people who wish to treat Scotland as a mere part of Britain without remembering the whole history of the Union.

A minor semantic difference with the same offensive attitude and connotations as the end result. You’ve thrown the words around the various threads with gay abandon towards anyone that doesn’t agree with you. I can only come to the conclusion that you are far too dense to understand how offensive you are.

[Malden_Capell]

I am pretty sure it wouldn’t just be foreign powers who would be appalled at a Scottish UDI. Unless the British Parliament was actively frustrating legitimate calls for independence, I think most Scots, bar the more mouth-frothy Nats, would be equally appalled.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Pjen

There is no way that international law would recognise a land grab for Coulport and Faslane.

What land grab? They’re already part of the UK. Oh, you must mean a land grab by Scotland. Right, they would probably not succeed with that.

@Pjen

It is you that has the problem.

I’m not the one who’s refusing to explore and understand *why *his side lost the debate and the election, am I now? :dubious:

**Ramira **is right - yahooism is an ugly thing wherever it appears.

[Ramira]

@Stanislaus

“International Law” is just another term for “What States agree to”. Insofar as it exists at all, it is only a series of treaties. States are under no obligation to either abide by it or enforce it, except as best suits their interest. …
Should it come to it, States will have to ask themselves whose back they want to scratch: the small, powerless country whose continued existence can’t be guaranteed, or the large, economically and politically powerful nation who will definitely still be here next year. Who can offer them the best quid pro quo? Who can be a bigger pain in the arse if they’re pissed off? I submit that in most cases, the answer to neither of those questions will be Scotland.

I agree with this, and it highlights that the argument made by pjen has no proper sense to it and must come only from romantic argument. In addition we must say that beyond the question of the self interests in most of the powerful states in being more favorable to London, there is the self interest of the sovereign state in making the secession movements and the secessions as difficult and as unpleasant as possible, for almost any state can face this. They will not want to make a precedent for interference or against the territorial integrity principal that is the paramount interest.

There is then great self-interest of all important countries to not interfere or intervene in any scenario that is reasonable to foresee in this case - only if one can imagine UK troops massacring scottish do you have a case of intervention.

The idea that there is an international law intervention is an idea that has no good basis and is romantic and naive at the very most considerate evaluation.

[Pjen]

We shall see.

The Independence movement in Scotland is stronger now than it has ever been and I believe that there will be a ratchet like movement slowly towards home rule of sorts over the next few years; another referendum is scertain if the current mood continues. We need to see what sort of Parliament is returned in 2016 and what the opinion polls say.

A lot will depend on the swing away from Labour hegemony in the central belt and the consequent fading of unionism.

And a hung parliament in six months in Westminster will be amusing if the SNP has a bloc of thirty seats.

[Pjen]

@Malden_Capell

I am pretty sure it wouldn’t just be foreign powers who would be appalled at a Scottish UDI. Unless the British Parliament was actively frustrating legitimate calls for independence, I think most Scots, bar the more mouth-frothy Nats, would be equally appalled.

An election of a Holyrood Parliament on a manifesto claiming the right to independence and persistent polls in favour of a further referendum- would ignoring that be the Westminster Parliament ‘frustrating legitimate calls for independence’?