Because it says AND in between. If the two parties cannot agree, it becomes a matter of International Law and goes to the Hague.
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.
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.
No it cannot- see the comments above. No one except you believes that.
And if unreasonable Scotland may go to the Hague before or after UDI.
Both sides will need to be reasonable.
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.
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.
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.
A UDI is so far out in terms of rationality that I have trouble taking you seriously.
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.”
"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’”
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.
Ah yes, Crimea, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus and Albania, those “successful” countries.
Good luck sticking to that point in negotiations, then.
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.
It is damaged, certainly.
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.
It certainly needs relationship counselling.
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, 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. See the ruling by the International Court which says that UDI is quite legal and does not require acceptance by the previous state.
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.
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.
At least they were successful with UDI.
USA, Ireland, Slovenia.
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.
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!