# Whither Scotland? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 2, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261 "2014-09-02T16:28:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/381 "2014-09-07T17:02:02Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > (Bolding mine) > > Why do you keep ignoring this bit? Because it says AND in between. If the two parties cannot agree, it becomes a matter of International Law and goes to the Hague. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/382 "2014-09-07T17:03:42Z")
The Edinburgh Agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. If Scotland votes “yes”, the rUK is going to go hammer and tongs at Scotland in any negotiations, as it of course should do, “Edinburgh Agreement” notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/383 "2014-09-07T17:03:52Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > That’s not right, I’m afraid. The UK did invest a lot in the early 1970s, when there was a state-owned North Sea exploration and development corporation, but that was privatized (by guess who?). It’s been private companies spending the money since then. Norway went a different way with Statoil, because they are not daft. > > The post-indy sea boundaries are well established, btw. Thank you. Maybe Steophan will now understand and accept this. What is the property of each state is the oil and gas. And the fees and taxes paid by the companies. The companies own the rigs and can place them anywhere in the world that they wish. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/384 "2014-09-07T17:04:54Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Any money that has been invested by the government in the last 300 years has been invested by the UK. Yes, Scotland may have the right to all the oil. The UK has many rights, most of which you’ve been trying to downplay or deny in this thread, which could fuck Scotland over big time. Hopefully a negotiated settlement will lead to neither side having to assert its rights, because whilst doing so would harm the UK it would harm Scotland far more. > > No, the UK can’t claim any of that oil. But it can claim back 90% of the money spent by the UK government over the last 300 years that would allow you to exploit it. > > Or we could negotiate like adults, something you seem to not want to do. No it cannot- see the comments above. No one except you believes that. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/385 "2014-09-07T17:06:02Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > The Edinburgh Agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. If Scotland votes “yes”, the rUK is going to go hammer and tongs at Scotland in any negotiations, as it of course should do, “Edinburgh Agreement” notwithstanding. And if unreasonable Scotland may go to the Hague before or after UDI. Both sides will need to be reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/386 "2014-09-07T17:07:56Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Exactly. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all now have (to varying degrees) devolved powers, and I suspect the London Assembly will be beefed up at some point too. Even if the indyref is “No”, Westminster needs to change. Even if the referendum is a “no” the Union is essentially dead. The entire debate in Scotland, with arguments from both “Yes” and “No” along these lines, has been over economics, i.e. whether independence or maintaining the Union is beneficial for Scots. Any joint sense of “Britishness”, camaraderie, or national belonging has taken a back seat to arguments over whether Scots will be £100 better off “in” or “out”. This isn’t a country, it’s a marriage of convenience, more akin to a business relationship than a united people, and it is on borrowed time. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/387 "2014-09-07T17:08:52Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > You are seriously misinformed. > > The USA has a right to Guantanamo becasue it concluded a trety with the previous Cuban Government in the early part of the last century for a coaling station on an indefinite renewable lease on an international treaty basis. rUK will have no right to retain any part of an independent Scotland. There will be no independence that doesn’t allow the UK control of Faslane. We won’t negotiate it away, and major countries aren’t going to recognise a state that tries to take it. You have two choices - negotiate fair compensation for the use of Faslane, and a decades-long timetable for pulling out, or don’t, in which case we’ll keep it without compensation. > [@](#): > > The EEA is automatically open to any eligible European country, and Scotland will be eligible. There is no veto procedure, merely a procedure of box ticking. I have no idea where you get that idea from. The EEA was specifically created to be the EU and 3 other states, and Croatia is not yet a member as it needs to be ratified by all the other EEA countries. Why do you think Scotland will be treated better, and not have any country refusing to ratify its entry? Technically you’re right, there’s no veto procedure, as one isn’t necessary. Spain, should it choose (and it will) could simply ignore it, and you’d not be a member. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/388 "2014-09-07T17:09:33Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > And if unreasonable Scotland may go to the Hague before or after UDI. > > Both sides will need to be reasonable. A UDI is so far out in terms of rationality that I have trouble taking you seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/389 "2014-09-07T17:12:57Z")
Wikipedia gives an interesting list of countries who have declared UDI 1776: United States 1912: Albania 1919: Ireland (disputed) 1965: Rhodesia (disputed) 1967: Biafra (disputed) 1970: Bangladesh 1983: Northern Cyprus (disputed) 1991: Croatia 1991: Slovenia 1992: Abkhazia (disputed) 2008: Kosovo (disputed) 2014: Crimea (disputed) Note that all were eventually successful. And the Hague has already ruled: “The International Court of Justice, in a 2010 advisory opinion, declared that unilateral declarations of independence were not illegal under international law.” > **[Unilateral declaration of independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_independence)** > > A unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) or “unilateral secession” is a formal process leading to the establishment of a new state by a subnational entity which declares itself independent and sovereign without a formal agreement with the state which it is seceding from. The term was first used when Rhodesia declared independence in 1965 from the United Kingdom (UK) without an agreement with the UK. > Prominent examples\[according to whom?\] of a unilateral declaration of independence other ... "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 UN 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’” > **[Advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo%27s_declaration_of_independence)** > > Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo was a request in 2008 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 brou... ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/390 "2014-09-07T17:15:12Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > There will be no independence that doesn’t allow the UK control of Faslane. We won’t negotiate it away, and major countries aren’t going to recognise a state that tries to take it. If Scotland is an independent state, They can require Faslane to go. Neither side has the whip hand except that Scotland could go for UDI as above. You have no way to know whether or not other states would have a problem with a UDI supported by the International Court. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/391 "2014-09-07T17:15:57Z")
Ah yes, Crimea, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus and Albania, those “successful” countries. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/392 "2014-09-07T17:19:29Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > No it cannot- see the comments above. No one except you believes that. Good luck sticking to that point in negotiations, then. > [@Pjen](#): > > And if unreasonable Scotland may go to the Hague before or after UDI. > > Both sides will need to be reasonable. I’ve been saying that all along. You’re the one who actively wants Scotland to take unreasonable positions, ones that will be untenable to the UK. How many unrecognised countries are doing well these days? Somaliland… well it’s slightly better that Somalia. Turkish Cyprus… has a nice sugar daddy. The EU won’t recognise a unilaterally independent Scotland, too many other countries with separatist movements. The US, I doubt it, not if the EU don’t. Russia, China, not a chance. Same with any other country that doesn’t want to support separatism. Which is all the ones that have power, really. Which isn’t to say that it couldn’t happen, ultimately the Hague would enforce binding arbitration on negotiations, if it came to that. Which doesn’t guarantee that you’d get what you want, and would do you far more damage in the period that it was ongoing than any negotiated settlement could. Scotland can become independent if it wants. But it can’t screw over the rest of the UK in doing so without consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/393 "2014-09-07T17:26:25Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Even if the referendum is a “no” the Union is essentially dead. It is damaged, certainly. > [@](#): > > The entire debate in Scotland, with arguments from both “Yes” and “No” along these lines, has been over economics, i.e. whether independence or maintaining the Union is beneficial for Scots. Any joint sense of “Britishness”, camaraderie, or national belonging has taken a back seat to arguments over whether Scots will be £100 better off “in” or “out”. That is part of it, but it isn’t the only thing. This is anecdotal obviously, but there’s plenty people I know who have become seriously politicized for the first time over this. There’s a real sense of taking charge, taking ownership, being responsible. This is a good thing, I think. It’s maybe re-awakened something that has been dormant. > [@](#): > > This isn’t a country, it’s a marriage of convenience, more akin to a business relationship than a united people, and it is on borrowed time. It certainly needs relationship counselling. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/394 "2014-09-07T17:26:31Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Wikipedia gives an interesting list of countries who have declared UDI > > 1776: United States > 1912: Albania > 1919: Ireland (disputed) > 1965: Rhodesia (disputed) > 1967: Biafra (disputed) > 1970: Bangladesh > 1983: Northern Cyprus (disputed) > 1991: Croatia > 1991: Slovenia > 1992: Abkhazia (disputed) > 2008: Kosovo (disputed) > 2014: Crimea (disputed) > > Note that all were eventually successful. > > And the Hague has already ruled: > > “The International Court of Justice, in a 2010 advisory opinion, declared that unilateral declarations of independence were not illegal under international law.” > > [Unilateral declaration of independence - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_declaration_of_independence) > > "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 UN 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’” > [Advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_Kosovo%27s_declaration_of_independence) Oh, I’ve no doubt you’d be successful eventually. But remember, declaring independence by itself doesn’t mean anything unless it is recognised, not least by the state you’re declaring independence from. What makes you think the UK, or anyone else, would do so? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/395 "2014-09-07T17:31:38Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I have no idea where you get that idea from. The EEA was specifically created to be the EU and 3 other states, and Croatia is not yet a member as it needs to be ratified by all the other EEA countries. Why do you think Scotland will be treated better, and not have any country refusing to ratify its entry? Technically you’re right, there’s no veto procedure, as one isn’t necessary. Spain, should it choose (and it will) could simply ignore it, and you’d not be a member. NO, you are wrong again. The EEA is organisationally completely separate from the EU, comprising as it does EFTA and the EU and Switzerland (sort of) in a trade and cooperation block. EFTA comprises Norway, Iceland, Liectenstein and Croatia (we moved from EFTA when we joined the EU in 1973 with Ireland and Denmark; and others followed later ) The EU has had strong trade and other links with EFTA now covered by the idea of the EEA. The EU does not have a veto over membership of EFTA and Scotland is able to join without problems. No member of the EU can refuse to trade on EU terms with members of the EEA. Once again you are wrong as Croatia is a full member of the EEA; do keep up. Croatia had problems reaching conformity to EEA laws. As Scotland will inherit all UK laws which are in compliance with EU laws, it will automatically comply and will be admitted immediately. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/396 "2014-09-07T17:32:38Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Oh, I’ve no doubt you’d be successful eventually. But remember, declaring independence by itself doesn’t mean anything unless it is recognised, not least by the state you’re declaring independence from. What makes you think the UK, or anyone else, would do so? No. See the ruling by the International Court which says that UDI is quite legal and does not require acceptance by the previous state. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/397 "2014-09-07T17:39:53Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > NO, you are wrong again. The EEA is organisationally completely separate from the EU, comprising as it does EFTA and the EU and Switzerland (sort of) in a trade and cooperation block. EFTA comprises Norway, Iceland, Liectenstein and Croatia (we moved from EFTA when we joined the EU in 1973 with Ireland and Denmark; and others followed later ) The EU has had strong trade and other links with EFTA now covered by the idea of the EEA. The EU does not have a veto over membership of EFTA and Scotland is able to join without problems. No member of the EU can refuse to trade on EU terms with members of the EEA. > > Once again you are wrong as Croatia is a full member of the EEA; do keep up. Croatia had problems reaching conformity to EEA laws. As Scotland will inherit all UK laws which are in compliance with EU laws, it will automatically comply and will be admitted immediately. No, you’re entirely wrong here. Switzerland isn’t at all a part of the EEA, and Croatia’s membership is pending, but they are being treated as and acting as a member. Try reading the Wiki page for a start. And not all EFTA members are members of the EEA. Scotland may qualify to join, but that doesn’t mean it will be allowed to. > [@Pjen](#): > > No. See the ruling by the International Court which says that UDI is quite legal and does not require acceptance by the previous state. Oh yeah, it’s legal for you to declare independence unilaterally. Doesn’t mean the UK or anyone else has to pay any attention to the declaration. It just means we can’t lock up those making the declaration for treason. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/398 "2014-09-07T17:40:20Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Ah yes, Crimea, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus and Albania, those “successful” countries. At least they were successful with UDI. USA, Ireland, Slovenia. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/399 "2014-09-07T17:57:01Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, you’re entirely wrong here. Switzerland isn’t at all a part of the EEA, and Croatia’s membership is pending, but they are being treated as and acting as a member. Try reading the Wiki page for a start. And not all EFTA members are members of the EEA. Scotland may qualify to join, but that doesn’t mean it will be allowed to. I did not say that Switzerland was a full member of the EEA which is why I said “sort of”. Croatia is a full member. You are making so many errors of fact that it is laughable. Wiki is not reliable- check! EFTA’s members are Norway, Iceland, Croatia, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The latter two are sort of associate members of of the EEA with broadly similar rights and responsibilities. The former three are full members of the EEA. Scotland does necessarily qualify to join and by the time negotiations have bogged down (if they do) all the ducks will be in a line. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261/400 "2014-09-07T17:58:03Z")
Half of them weren’t, though, by your own admission, hence the number of (disputed) notes in your list. Frankly, it’s a little bizarre to see “Yes” voters repeatedly run down Scotland in their bizarre comparisons whilst claiming that “No” is doing the same. We’re seeing it now, where apparently Kosovo is a model for Scotland to declare UDI, and we saw it with the currency, where Namibia was cited by all and sundry as a great example of a country using another country’s currency. Namibia and Kosovo — Scotland’s peers, apparently! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whither-scotland/697261.md?page=21)