Scotland would get 18 fast jets plus 26 helos if it splits
They are not buying the sea from Scotland (currently UK). They simply bought over two companies that drill in the North Sea. Two Canadian companies I might add. So Scotland's (currently the UK's) sea's are still safely in our hands.
Edited to add - found the answer myself. Doh. Exclusive Economic Zone, based on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf blah blah blah.
Last edited by Wrathmonk; 24th Jul 2012 at 16:30.
Abraham Zapruder
This is Wee Eck's position - I will only believe when the President of the European Commission says this is the case - there has been a deafening silence from the EU on this point.
I would have thought that by leaving the UK Scotland would also leave all treaties signed by the UK. After all Scotland was leaving NATO even though there are treaty obligations signed by the UK - oops sorry Wee Eck news flash he saw opinion polls showing this wasn't a popular idea so now Scotland is staying in NATO.
Rubbish - I spent many an hour intercepting traffic along the border - I may be wrong but you may still have to tell Special Branch if you are flying GA from the UK to Eire.
HF
(Both Scotland and the UK of E, W & NI would be bound to all EU treaties entered into by the previous Govts. of the UK of GB & NI; including membership of the EU).
I would have thought that by leaving the UK Scotland would also leave all treaties signed by the UK. After all Scotland was leaving NATO even though there are treaty obligations signed by the UK - oops sorry Wee Eck news flash he saw opinion polls showing this wasn't a popular idea so now Scotland is staying in NATO.
(Even at the height of the troubles, people/goods/services still moved freely between Northern Ireland and that part of Ireland which, within living memory, was also once part of the UK)
HF
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Behind the picket fence
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubbish - I spent many an hour intercepting traffic along the border - I may be wrong but you may still have to tell Special Branch if you are flying GA from the UK to Eire.
Airlines must provide the US INS/Dept. of Homeland Security a damned sight more info than Special Branch require of me to hop from Liverpool to Aldergorve in a PA28. Unless you could argue that having to pick up the 'phone and take less than 5 minutes to provide aircraft registration/type, point of departure/ETD, details of persons on board, route and destination/ETA is in itself preventing "free movement".
As for the EU, (whose treaties differ markedly from those of NATO), deafening silences can be taken in two ways. When all is said and done, it simply comes down to which legal opinion carries the day.
PS Cold day in hell when politicians stop pandering to public opinion when it suits. Fuel duty increase anyone???
Last edited by Abraham Zapruder; 24th Jul 2012 at 17:35.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I think you'll find the relevant legislation is covered under the Common Travel Area, which doubtless would simply be reworded to include Scotland. With a common land border anything else would be ridiculous.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"by leaving the UK Scotland would also leave all treaties signed by the UK"
it's covered by the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties
If the SNP claim they are refugees from colonialism they are covered by Article 16 otherwise it's Article 34.
Article 16 states that newly independent states receive a "clean slate", whereas article 34(1) states that all other new states remain bound by the treaty obligations of the state from which they separated.
Article 17 states that newly independent states may join multilateral treaties to which their former colonisers were a party without the consent of the other parties in most circumstances, whereas article 9 states that all other new states may only join multilateral treaties to which their predecessor states were a part with the consent of the other parties.
it's covered by the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties
If the SNP claim they are refugees from colonialism they are covered by Article 16 otherwise it's Article 34.
Article 16 states that newly independent states receive a "clean slate", whereas article 34(1) states that all other new states remain bound by the treaty obligations of the state from which they separated.
Article 17 states that newly independent states may join multilateral treaties to which their former colonisers were a party without the consent of the other parties in most circumstances, whereas article 9 states that all other new states may only join multilateral treaties to which their predecessor states were a part with the consent of the other parties.
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 25th Jul 2012 at 10:14.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent! As James I of England was already James VI of Scotland at the time of his succession, can we claim that we were in fact colonised by the Jocks, claim we are the "refugees of colonialism", start with our clean slate and get rid of the bits of the EU Laws we don't like?
Simples.
Simples.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Behind the picket fence
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH
Not quite sure your paraphrasing of the wording of the articles is wholly accurate. But a link here for others to judge for themselves.
Always puzzled me that having jointly entered into a Union through twin Acts of Parliament, 1706, thereby creating a single entity in 1707, that should such legislation be repealed then you cease being a single entity and revert to two new entities.
Forgetting about the RoI/NI aspect for the moment as the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of treaties didn't exist in 1922, surely in the event of a 'Yes' vote, the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland will be replaced by the Kingdom of Scotland and the United Kingdom of England, Wales & Northern Ireland.
Therefore two new states will be formed from a single entity for which presumably the same rules in respect of Treaties entered into by the former Govt. of the UK of GB & NI will apply.
Put simply, if one must apply for UN/EU/NATO membership, so does the other.
Not quite sure your paraphrasing of the wording of the articles is wholly accurate. But a link here for others to judge for themselves.
Always puzzled me that having jointly entered into a Union through twin Acts of Parliament, 1706, thereby creating a single entity in 1707, that should such legislation be repealed then you cease being a single entity and revert to two new entities.
Forgetting about the RoI/NI aspect for the moment as the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of treaties didn't exist in 1922, surely in the event of a 'Yes' vote, the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland will be replaced by the Kingdom of Scotland and the United Kingdom of England, Wales & Northern Ireland.
Therefore two new states will be formed from a single entity for which presumably the same rules in respect of Treaties entered into by the former Govt. of the UK of GB & NI will apply.
Put simply, if one must apply for UN/EU/NATO membership, so does the other.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys we don't have to do anything - Art 35 states
Article 35
Position if a State continues after separation of part of its territory
When, after separation of any part of the territory of a State, the predecessor State continues to exist, any treaty which at the date of the succession of States was in force in respect of the predecessor State continues in force in respect of its remaining territory unless:
(a) the States concerned otherwise agree;
(b) it is established that the treaty related only to the territory which has separated from the predecessor State; or
(c) it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty in respect of the predecessor State would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or would radically change the conditions for its operation
Since the UK of England etc is a continuing state and the Jocks are leaving so this article applies
Article 35
Position if a State continues after separation of part of its territory
When, after separation of any part of the territory of a State, the predecessor State continues to exist, any treaty which at the date of the succession of States was in force in respect of the predecessor State continues in force in respect of its remaining territory unless:
(a) the States concerned otherwise agree;
(b) it is established that the treaty related only to the territory which has separated from the predecessor State; or
(c) it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty in respect of the predecessor State would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or would radically change the conditions for its operation
Since the UK of England etc is a continuing state and the Jocks are leaving so this article applies
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 26th Jul 2012 at 07:21.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Behind the picket fence
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that article applies to be honest.
Scotland was not absorbed into a Greater England in 1707, as Wales was absorbed into the Kingdom of England in 1535. If it had, then Article 35 would indeed apply in the event that Scotland sought to resume its former status as an independent sovereign state. (As it would in respect of Wales and England should Wales elect to become an independent sovereign state).
What in fact happened in 1707 was that two independent, sovereign states joined to create an entirely new independent sovereign state in the form of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Kingdom of Scotland did not therefore join the Kingdom of England, nor vice versa.
Having jointly created the Kingdom of Great Britain, should either party then elect to dissolve the union of 1707, then logic if not law would suggest that the Kingdom of Great Britain will then cease to exist and the two parties concerned shall revert to their former status; namely the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, (which since 1535 has included Wales).
The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Nothern Ireland would therefore be replaced by two successor states: The Kingdom of Scotland and whatever title the remainder wished to be styled; The Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland, The United Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland, The United Kingdom of England, Wales & Northern Ireland, etc.
Therefore Article 35 would apply in respect of Wales and England, but it would not apply in respect of Scotland and Great Britain; Scotland did not 'join' Great Britain - it established it, together with England.
Scotland was not absorbed into a Greater England in 1707, as Wales was absorbed into the Kingdom of England in 1535. If it had, then Article 35 would indeed apply in the event that Scotland sought to resume its former status as an independent sovereign state. (As it would in respect of Wales and England should Wales elect to become an independent sovereign state).
What in fact happened in 1707 was that two independent, sovereign states joined to create an entirely new independent sovereign state in the form of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Kingdom of Scotland did not therefore join the Kingdom of England, nor vice versa.
That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN. (Article 1)
The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Nothern Ireland would therefore be replaced by two successor states: The Kingdom of Scotland and whatever title the remainder wished to be styled; The Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland, The United Kingdom of England & Northern Ireland, The United Kingdom of England, Wales & Northern Ireland, etc.
Therefore Article 35 would apply in respect of Wales and England, but it would not apply in respect of Scotland and Great Britain; Scotland did not 'join' Great Britain - it established it, together with England.
Last edited by Abraham Zapruder; 26th Jul 2012 at 10:55.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therefore Article 35 would apply in respect of Wales and England, but it would not apply in respect of Scotland and Great Britain; Scotland did not 'join' Great Britain - it established it, together with England.
I don't think we have to worry about legalities of separation after the SNP decided to push through gay marriage legislation despite over 80,000 people taking part in the consultation process, of which the majority were against. (what is the point of consultation if you ignore the results!!
)
It seems political suicide to go against the beliefs of so many people of different faiths. A previous poster commented on Weee Eck's political savvy in reversing his opposition to NATO having seen opinion polls showing a majority in favour of NATO membership.
It seems strange that he would risk his dream on this policy. He may well be punished by the electors over this.
HF
)It seems political suicide to go against the beliefs of so many people of different faiths. A previous poster commented on Weee Eck's political savvy in reversing his opposition to NATO having seen opinion polls showing a majority in favour of NATO membership.
It seems strange that he would risk his dream on this policy. He may well be punished by the electors over this.
HF
Alsolutely right. I can see the billboards now;
A VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCE IS A VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGES
There was not a lot of support for the SNP in the north and west of Scotland but Nicolas Sturgeon has really blown what support there was. 67% of the comments were against gay marriages and she is adamant that the elected Scottish Parliament decides what is right for Scotland.
A VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCE IS A VOTE FOR GAY MARRIAGES
There was not a lot of support for the SNP in the north and west of Scotland but Nicolas Sturgeon has really blown what support there was. 67% of the comments were against gay marriages and she is adamant that the elected Scottish Parliament decides what is right for Scotland.
If you're "absolutely right" comment was directed at me FarEastDriver, I would say that, judging from your follow-on remarks, you have completely misjudged the sentiment of my post.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Behind the picket fence
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the subject...
I'm no lawyer, but there is a precedent:
Czechoslovakia emerged in 1918 as a result of the union between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia. (The Czech Republic having emerged as a result of the union between Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia). After WWII Carpathian Ruthenia ceded from Czechoslovakia and by the 1970s the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic comprised the Czech Socialist Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland emerged in 1801 as a result of the union between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. (The Kingdom of Great Britain having emerged as a result of the union between the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland). After WWI the Irish Free State ceded from the United Kingdom and by the 1930s the United Kingdom comprised Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In 1993 the then Czech and Slovak Federative Republic split into its founding states: The Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. Neither of these successor states were regarded as being a "predecessor State (which) continues to exist" as per Article 35.
Placing to one side Northern Ireland (it not having formed part of the Kingdom of Great Britain but part of the Kingdom of Ireland) and Wales (it having formed part of the Kingdom of England), Great Britain would, if split, revert to its founding states: The Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England. Neither of these successor states would be regarded as being a "predecessor State (which) continues to exist" as per Article 35.
I'm no lawyer, but there is a precedent:
Czechoslovakia emerged in 1918 as a result of the union between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia. (The Czech Republic having emerged as a result of the union between Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia). After WWII Carpathian Ruthenia ceded from Czechoslovakia and by the 1970s the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic comprised the Czech Socialist Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland emerged in 1801 as a result of the union between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. (The Kingdom of Great Britain having emerged as a result of the union between the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland). After WWI the Irish Free State ceded from the United Kingdom and by the 1930s the United Kingdom comprised Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In 1993 the then Czech and Slovak Federative Republic split into its founding states: The Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. Neither of these successor states were regarded as being a "predecessor State (which) continues to exist" as per Article 35.
Placing to one side Northern Ireland (it not having formed part of the Kingdom of Great Britain but part of the Kingdom of Ireland) and Wales (it having formed part of the Kingdom of England), Great Britain would, if split, revert to its founding states: The Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England. Neither of these successor states would be regarded as being a "predecessor State (which) continues to exist" as per Article 35.
Last edited by Abraham Zapruder; 27th Jul 2012 at 00:25. Reason: words twice - doh!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was not a lot of support for the SNP in the north and west of Scotland but Nicolas Sturgeon has really blown what support there was. 67% of the comments were against gay marriages and she is adamant that the elected Scottish Parliament decides what is right for Scotland.
In that case Nicola will not object to the gender reassignment you have allocated her.
