|
ViperPict
8,448 posts
106 months
|
GeraldSmith said: ViperPict said: Not I KNOW you've been on this thread long enough to recall this discussion before! It's been done!!! To my knowledge it's been asked but never answered so humour me, answer the question if you can. It has been answered. Not by me. Go look.
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,448 posts
106 months
|
thinfourth2 said: ViperPict said: You are turning out to be a real fool! Do you think that the SNP can exist as a party beyond the first Scottish General Election??!! You will still be able to vote for whatever bunch of tosspots you want to... Which is the problem they are all tosspots The referendum question is Would you like to be governed by a bunch of money grabbing toughing a  holes Yes or Yes And voting for a Westminster government is any different? At least you'd be voting for tosspots who had more of a vested interest in the economy of Scotland...
|
|
|
GeraldSmith
6,169 posts
86 months
|
ViperPict said: It has been answered. Not by me. Go look. Actually it wasn't answered, at least not correctly. The answer related to The Hague but, as I said, that is no answer because it only operates by consent. So I guess you are saying is that really your knowledge of international law is plumbing the same depths as your knowledge of economics.
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,448 posts
106 months
|
GeraldSmith said: ViperPict said: It has been answered. Not by me. Go look. Actually it wasn't answered, at least not correctly. The answer related to The Hague but, as I said, that is no answer because it only operates by consent. So I guess you are saying is that really your knowledge of international law is plumbing the same depths as your knowledge of economics. So are you proposing that, in the case of oil and gas, the lesser UK can take whatever they see fit and there are no grounds that the international community have at their disposal to dispute that?
|
|
|
thinfourth2
23,612 posts
73 months
|
ViperPict said: And voting for a Westminster government is any different? At least you'd be voting for tosspots who had more of a vested interest in the economy of Scotland... The transfer of power from westminister to holyrood will cost billions And i don't think it is good value for money to swap tossers for tossers Same s t, different bucket
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
emicen
5,693 posts
87 months
|
ViperPict said: GeraldSmith said: ViperPict said: It has been answered. Not by me. Go look. Actually it wasn't answered, at least not correctly. The answer related to The Hague but, as I said, that is no answer because it only operates by consent. So I guess you are saying is that really your knowledge of international law is plumbing the same depths as your knowledge of economics. So are you proposing that, in the case of oil and gas, the lesser UK can take whatever they see fit and there are no grounds that the international community have at their disposal to dispute that? Just who would it make sense to? Name a country which would gain anything at all from giving Scotland honors against the big bad English. Just one.
|
|
|
GeraldSmith
6,169 posts
86 months
|
ViperPict said: So are you proposing that, in the case of oil and gas, the lesser UK can take whatever they see fit and there are no grounds that the international community have at their disposal to dispute that? I am asking you, since you are so convinced that 'international law' will protect you, on what basis do you make that claim? And why should the 'international community' care? There is no authority above a sovereign state, there is no world ruler that tells countries what to do. International law only operates by consent and if the UK doesn't consent to the authority of another body what is anyone going to do about it?
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,448 posts
106 months
|
GeraldSmith said: ViperPict said: So are you proposing that, in the case of oil and gas, the lesser UK can take whatever they see fit and there are no grounds that the international community have at their disposal to dispute that? I am asking you, since you are so convinced that 'international law' will protect you, on what basis do you make that claim? And why should the 'international community' care? There is no authority above a sovereign state, there is no world ruler that tells countries what to do. International law only operates by consent and if the UK doesn't consent to the authority of another body what is anyone going to do about it? I make the claim on the basis that there is not the slightest hint in any serious media that the split won't be fair!
|
|
|
GeraldSmith
6,169 posts
86 months
|
ViperPict said: I make the claim on the basis that there is not the slightest hint in any serious media that the split won't be fair! So when you say ViperPict said: The UK will only be allowed to negotiate in a manner that is in line with international law on any issue that pertains to! Actually the statement above is made with no knowledge as to whether it is true or not, you are just assuming that there must be some international law because it hasn't been in the papers that there isn't. I should have guessed it would be something that weak....
|
|
|
A.J.M
3,307 posts
55 months
|
If Scotland splits, we would then need to make new gov departments. For everything that is currently done already. Like tax, pensions, benefits, fuel duty, vat, and all the other stuff that is in place. How much is that going to cost? Will tax have to go up to pay for that? Would fuel duty go up? Will the working age have to go up further to help pay for it all? What happens if we dont get cash from O&G? Benefits is a big one as there is huge amounts of people on it, 1/3rd of my year at high school are now single mums and most of them are on benefits, and most earn more than me, i work 2 jobs as well.  So how do we pick up the bill for all that? Also from personal experience of council staff, they are useless. It took 10 months, 5 personal visits, 3 phonecalls and 2 signed letters for a department of 3, yes 3, to understand and update the system that my granpa was dead and that a dead person cant pay council tax. I dont want that level of stupidity dealing with really important stuff. Has the SNP put a price on this power transfer? Or is that not important?
|
|
|
GeraldSmith
6,169 posts
86 months
|
A.J.M said: Has the SNP put a price on this power transfer? Or is that not important? Of course they haven't, that would mean entering the real world of fact and economic reality, their only chance is if they keep it focused on the auld enemy and emotion about kilts and sporrans.
|
|
|
emicen
5,693 posts
87 months
|
A.J.M said: If Scotland splits, we would then need to make new gov departments. For everything that is currently done already. Like tax, pensions, benefits, fuel duty, vat, and all the other stuff that is in place. How much is that going to cost? Will tax have to go up to pay for that? Would fuel duty go up? Will the working age have to go up further to help pay for it all? What happens if we dont get cash from O&G? Benefits is a big one as there is huge amounts of people on it, 1/3rd of my year at high school are now single mums and most of them are on benefits, and most earn more than me, i work 2 jobs as well. So how do we pick up the bill for all that? Also from personal experience of council staff, they are useless. It took 10 months, 5 personal visits, 3 phonecalls and 2 signed letters for a department of 3, yes 3, to understand and update the system that my granpa was dead and that a dead person cant pay council tax. I dont want that level of stupidity dealing with really important stuff. Has the SNP put a price on this power transfer? Or is that not important? There is already multiple tax and pensions offices in Scotland. Rather than employing people to do it, its more likely we'd have to sack some because there are proportionately far too many people in those functions.
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,448 posts
106 months
|
GeraldSmith said: ViperPict said: I make the claim on the basis that there is not the slightest hint in any serious media that the split won't be fair! So when you say ViperPict said: The UK will only be allowed to negotiate in a manner that is in line with international law on any issue that pertains to! Actually the statement above is made with no knowledge as to whether it is true or not, you are just assuming that there must be some international law because it hasn't been in the papers that there isn't. I should have guessed it would be something that weak.... So there is no actual international law that defines a country's boundaries? No generally agreed protocol that pertains to such things? The bottom line is, and we'll probably find this out, is that Westminster will have to play fair in the event of the break-up of the Union. What are you actually suggesting would happen?
|
|
|
Wombat3
5,192 posts
75 months
|
ViperPict said: So there is no actual international law that defines a country's boundaries? No generally agreed protocol that pertains to such things?
The bottom line is, and we'll probably find this out, is that Westminster will have to play fair in the event of the break-up of the Union. What are you actually suggesting would happen? Westminster will have to play fair? Brilliant arrogance again. In practise, there is no adjudicator and no template for this. It is highly unlikely that Westminster will do anything that could be construed as being illegal in any way - but there is always more than one way to "skin a cat".  Nobody else is going to interfere & if you come out of the process feeling hard done by, who's going to listen? WHo are you going to complain to? The French? Bloody nobody is who. Your folly/fantasy-land is going to be a very expensive exercise for the people of Scotland indeed. Fortunately for them, more than half of them know this and will act accordingly.
|
|
|
garos
509 posts
28 months
|
Wombat3 said: Westminster will have to play fair? Brilliant arrogance again. In practise, there is no adjudicator and no template for this. It is highly unlikely that Westminster will do anything that could be construed as being illegal in any way - but there is always more than one way to "skin a cat". Noboday else is going to interfere & if you come out of the process feeling hard done by, who's going to listen? WHo are you going to complain to? The French? Bloody nobody is who. Your folly/fantasy-land is going to be a very expensive exercise for the people of Scotland indeed. Fortunately for them, more than half of them know this and will act accordingly. You have a very strange way in making your point. Any dispute will be taken to the European Court, its what's done these days to prevent countries getting involved in messy wars, or heading in that direction, its called progress. If Scotland gets independance, then the Boy Davids standing will have been hit hard and you want to bet that the then French and German heads won't be clinking glasses.
|
|
|
Ayahuasca
16,065 posts
148 months
|
ViperPict said: So there is no actual international law that defines a country's boundaries? No generally agreed protocol that pertains to such things? No, it is generally agreed at gunpoint between the two countries. See Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine, Saarland, Ecuador-Peru Protocol of Rio de Janeiro, Belize-Guatemala and of course Argentina-Falkands (plus many others)
|
|
|
Wombat3
5,192 posts
75 months
|
garos said: You have a very strange way in making your point.
Any dispute will be taken to the European Court, its what's done these days to prevent countries getting involved in messy wars, or heading in that direction, its called progress. If Scotland gets independance, then the Boy Davids standing will have been hit hard and you want to bet that the then French and German heads won't be clinking glasses. What part of : "It is highly unlikely that Westminster will do anything that could be construed as being illegal in any way - but there is always more than one way to "skin a cat" " is in any way strange?
|
|
|
garos
509 posts
28 months
|
Wombat3 said: garos said: You have a very strange way in making your point.
Any dispute will be taken to the European Court, its what's done these days to prevent countries getting involved in messy wars, or heading in that direction, its called progress. If Scotland gets independance, then the Boy Davids standing will have been hit hard and you want to bet that the then French and German heads won't be clinking glasses. What part of : "It is highly unlikely that Westminster will do anything that could be construed as being illegal in any way - but there is always more than one way to "skin a cat" " is in any way strange? Nah, you scoff too much. 
|
|
|
Wombat3
5,192 posts
75 months
|
garos said: Nah, you scoff too much. Its all irrelevant anyway because it won't happen.
|
|
|
ViperPict
8,448 posts
106 months
|
Ayahuasca said: ViperPict said: So there is no actual international law that defines a country's boundaries? No generally agreed protocol that pertains to such things? No, it is generally agreed at gunpoint between the two countries. See Sudetenland, Alsace-Lorraine, Saarland, Ecuador-Peru Protocol of Rio de Janeiro, Belize-Guatemala and of course Argentina-Falkands (plus many others) And that will happen in the case of the UK breaking up?
|
|
