BBC Blog Network

User Profile

NCA999

Listed below are comments made by NCA999 between Tuesday, 1st December 2009 (7 Hours Ago) and Tuesday, 1st December 2009 (5 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

Taking it to the max 02:38am on 01 Dec 2009 nate

Did you listen to anything about what I said?

It doesn't matter what a states name is. The UK can rename themselves cloud cuckoo land and they would still continue to be the same entity. More accurately they could rename themselves the United Kingdom of most of Great Britain and N.Ireland and they would still be exactly the same state entity. Amazingly they would have circumvented all of your really difficult to solve problems.

Go read a book then come back.
Taking it to the max 02:34am on 01 Dec 2009 JR

It's got nothing to do with whether or not we were "Joined as equals" or not.

States are legally defined international entities. The UK, which is one state (containing England, Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland amongst others). If Scotland wished to secceed from the union then we would need to form a new state. The fact that there is some history of us being a state a long time ago does not make us currently a state. When we joined the UK we forfeited statehood. We would need to create a new state in terms of international legal definitions in order to be independent (there would not be a problem with this).
The UK would not forfeit their statehood just because a constituent part has secceeded from it. It has nothing to do with how the state was formed. Every single example of newly created states since the founding of the UN marks these criteria.

The basic point is that by creating a new state we would not be bound by any treaties which the UK had signed, and so would have to sign them again. The EU is one, of many, examples of this.

Trust me, you really don't know what you're talking about here.

Are you seriously asserting that Scotland would retain their membership of the EU after we had become independent and created a new state? If you're not then you are agreeing with the point which I was making, that we would need to re-sign said treaty. I was also pointing out that we don't know how long this would take, it may take a week it may take a year. All I was asking for was serious and factually informed discussion.
Taking it to the max 02:21am on 01 Dec 2009 oldnat

"A briefing point from one of the unionist parties"

I am neither a member of a political party nor do I care what the situation would be regards the EU, I was just pointing out errors in statements and assertions made by others above.

As to whether or not my knowledge of the situation is "just discovered", no actually. One of the three degrees which I have covered the subject in a great amount of detail.

The situations under which a state were formed have somewhere in the region of NO BASIS in their present day status (and therefore their status post any change). Another example would be that of Kosovo. When Kosovo left Serbia, Serbia maintained their status as a state, Kosovo formed a new state.

Further your claim that "agreements between two parliaments" is a unique situation is a little incorrect. Most of the former colonial states were part of the UK (by agreement) and then chose to leave. Take for example Australia, Canada, New Zealand. When they left they formed a new state and the UK maintained it's state status.

A similar thought example would be that of Gibraltar. Legally (by treaty between parliaments) they are part of the UK - they vote in our elections. If they left the UK would not cease to exist, they would just create a new country.

Legal definitions of statehood are fairly uniform and quite clear in this instance.
Taking it to the max 02:04am on 01 Dec 2009 re #251

Is this a joke? That's less reasoned than an argument a five year old might come out with.

Geography has nothing to do with international legal recognition of states.

States aren't defined by their names, it's got nothing to do with that. Take for example the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, legally recognised by the UN as being a state yet it resides in Rome.

The Republic of Ireland still calls itself as such even though "Geography isn't on their side" in that they are not the government of all of Ireland.

Further, countries change their names all the time. There are hundreds of countries which changed their names, google it and you'll find some. They didn't cease to be a state and have to re-apply for statehood/all of their assets.

States are entities in International Law, in order to become an Independent country Scotland would have to legally secceed from the entity that is the United Kingdom. This would not change the fact that the UK is still the same state that it was before.

You obviously don't understand the subject, why do you keep insisting on making a fool out of yourself?
Taking it to the max 01:56am on 01 Dec 2009 #250

I'm laughing, then laughing again, then just so you understand how amused I was at your ignorance I'm laughing one final time.

As a clarification I never read wikipedia prior to that post.

To deal with your points one by one.

Firstly whether or not the countries which joined in 2004 were presviously part of another country is irrelevant. They were not members of the EU as part of their predecessor nation and so it has no comparable relevance, and so i don't know why you raised it. Read back what you said and ask yourself in what way any of those countries faced the same situation as Scotland.

Secondly, I never mentioned Spain although now you mention it they, along with the Belgians and several others would probably have issues with our membership which would make a "fast-tracked" membership application not a certainty. Again I note that this point on my part is conjecture, but it seems to be sensible discussion as a pose to the absolutes stated by yourself that we would automatically keep our membership.

Thirdly, despite raising numerous IRRELEVANT EXAMPLES, you completely failed to deal with the one relevant example which I did give you of French Algeria. Once again you highlight your inability to respond to intelligent arguments by doing anything other than trying to avoid the issue.

On the upside I'm glad that you now seem to accept that we would need to re-apply for membership, when earlier you were stating with absolute certainty that this would not be the case. I'm glad that I've managed to persuade you of at least something.
Taking it to the max 01:32am on 01 Dec 2009 oldnat,

You didn't read my point about precedent and international law above.

If the UK continued as a nation, and legally under international law it would continue to do so regardless of whether a constituent part left, then it would maintain all of the rights of said nation which would have to be actively removed.

As I pointed out, the comparable example is of French Algeria. None of the facts which I posted were either a) opinion or b) incorrect. If you understood the subject then you would realise this.
There was quite clear delineation in the post in question between what were the facts and what was conjecture on my part.
Taking it to the max 01:24am on 01 Dec 2009 #243 The fact that we wouldn't maintain a large army is EXACTLY my point!

Go back and like, read what I said. My point is that with the scaling back of armed forces numbers that would negatively affect Scotland. (again a debateable issue but it would be nice if we were debating the reality and not the misleading claims by Salmond that we would maintain all Scottish armed forces personell in a Scottish army).

#242 I actually pointed out why you were wrong. In response you, have no response. You talk about things being amusing. I point out that it's amusing that the moment certain people on here are exposed to facts and reasoned debate they withdraw from the discussion and resort instead to name-calling. If I'm wrong, tell me why. If as I suspect you don't really understand the subject then acknowledge it and back off. Meaningless attacks benefit nobody.
Taking it to the max 01:20am on 01 Dec 2009 #240 JR

I actually agree with you re: membership of the EU, in that a fast tracked application is a likely scenario. It's equally possible that we would have to follow the normal process. The reality, as I would hope you'd acknowledge, is that we don't actually know.

The one thing we do know (as I'm glad you can tell but unfortunately others on here don't seem capable of understanding) is that we would have to re-apply for membership.

If we're going to have a debate it's good to do so with the proper facts on the table in my view.
Taking it to the max 01:16am on 01 Dec 2009 #238

Thank you for verifying my point about the lack of actual intellectual credibility in the cases of most nat posters on this blog. Your inability to come up with a response (masked by your joking) is a pleasing acknowledgement that I'm right and you're wrong.

If you are going to keep posting comments about the EU though I would suggest that you read what I wrote as it actually, you know, explains the facts, rather than the hopes and pretences that are bandied around by Nationalists and Unionists alike on this blog.
Taking it to the max 01:10am on 01 Dec 2009 #233

JRMaclure

Have you actually read the post to which I was responding. Please go back and do so again and then take in this point. I pointed out some actual, you know, facts. This was in response to some inaccurate and misleading statements made by the gentleman in question.

Could you please explain in what way that is being given a good "going over"?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

NCA999