On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

Shetland is part of Scotland.

Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the
inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland.

Last time anyone asked it was 8% who wished to remain in the fUK if
Scotland left.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:02:44 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Very little of it is within their12 mile limit which is all they would
be entitled to if, as you are suggesting, they became a foriegn
enclave in another countries waters.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:04:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 18:17, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:


Such as ...... ?

According to the No campaign :-
-Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching
Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders").

Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this?

Ruth Davidson :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650

She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get
the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts.

"However, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she believed
independence would lead to the loss of popular TV programmes or result
in households paying more for big sporting events and "our favourite
dramas".
Her tabloid allies might have changed that to more specific wording
but I don't think she was referring to The Sky at Night.

Or her opponents could have set up a straw man. Especially given it was
Hyslop who brought up the subject of Eastenders. And neither side
mentioned satellite.

It's a bit hard for it not to be implicit in current television
broadcasting arrangements.


I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is
Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see
any resemblance to reality.

Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is?


-It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British
NHS).

Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again.

The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems,
each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS"
(Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to
appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are
great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned
to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency
treatment has ceased.

-It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU
clampdown started).

You are conflating two separate issues.

Tell the "No" campaign.

Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making?


-The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether
Scotland stays in the UK or not)

But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims..

Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's
version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of
stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly
a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years
ago :-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Shetland is part of Scotland.

Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the
inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland.

Just like Yorkshire v. England then ?

Yorkshire thinks it is England, the rest is just incidental.

Has the Shetland Islands electorate (or even any of the Yorkshire
electorates) made a competent expression to support you ?


It became part of the UK as part of
Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the
1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ?

This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond.

He isn't trying to split up Scotland unlike anyone who tries to remove
any of the islands.


-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)
etc. etc.


It can't be chucked out because it is not in.

The people are already in as you will find with passports marked
"European Union" and which use our own language.

Who's language?

Nobody is language.

So the language of who exactly then?

Scotland. Other languages are also recognised in Scotland.


And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be
Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily
be EU.

You presume incorrectly.

That Salmond won't get his way? Glad to see you are coming round.

No. There have been no plans announced to remove the right to a ROTUK
passport from anyone in Scotland who qualifies for one under current
arrangements.




And that is not anything
to do with the No campaign but the considered opinion from the EU.

There has never been a competent and authoritative opinion.


Either way but Salmond claims there's no problem with absolutely zero
backing for his arguemnt.

All irrelevant really. Whichever way the vote goes the other side can
dispute the legality of the vote and they certainly will.

On what grounds ? Are you aware of a secret plot to swing the vote
using Darling's imaginary million extra Scots ?


No just a legal loophole neither side is admitting to.

A loophole which (if it actually existed) would possibly be
invalidated by not using it before the event. You're not allowed to
let things develop beyond the stage at which action could be taken and
then go to court about it later.

Presumably in the hope that the other lot haven't noticed.

You don't need secret plots when both sides are equally incompetent.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:04:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 18:17, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:53:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:


Such as ...... ?

According to the No campaign :-
-Voting Yes will prevent television satellite signals reaching
Scotland. ("You won't be able to watch Coronation Street/Eastenders").

Cite, apart from idiot tabloid journos who has claimed this?

Ruth Davidson :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-25021650

She didn't actually if you read the article and where does Ms Hyslop get
the idea that she can just make off with the BBC' assetts.

"However, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she believed
independence would lead to the loss of popular TV programmes or result
in households paying more for big sporting events and "our favourite
dramas".
Her tabloid allies might have changed that to more specific wording
but I don't think she was referring to The Sky at Night.

Or her opponents could have set up a straw man. Especially given it was
Hyslop who brought up the subject of Eastenders. And neither side
mentioned satellite.

It's a bit hard for it not to be implicit in current television
broadcasting arrangements.


I don't understand why anyone wants to watch the cack that is
Eastenders anyway. Even the East Enders I used to work with didn't see
any resemblance to reality.

Ditto for every soap opera on the box, your point is?


-It will rip the British NHS apart. (There has never been a British
NHS).

Scottish pedantry overrides reality once again.

The reality is that 1940s legislation created three health systems,
each with different governance. One never used the description "NHS"
(Northern Ireland where the "national health" description seems to
appear only in founding legislation), the structural differences are
great and persons (like my late mother) will find themselves returned
to their resident area for follow-up treatment once emergency
treatment has ceased.

-It will put up the price of mobile 'phone calls (just after an EU
clampdown started).

You are conflating two separate issues.

Tell the "No" campaign.

Tell them what? That you don't understand the point they may be making?


-The oil will run out (it's going to do that eventually whether
Scotland stays in the UK or not)

But it shoots a b****y great hole in Salmond's finacial claims..

Does it ? Or does it shoot bloody great holes in Project Fear's
version of his claims, such as Alistair Darling's presentation of
stats which would have the oil running out in two years time or nearly
a million more people in Scotland than there were a couple of years
ago :-
http://www.heraldscotland.com/busine...paign.22611011

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Shetland is part of Scotland.

Is it? Has anyone asked them lately. Last time I was there the
inhabitants were certain they weren't part of Scotland.

Just like Yorkshire v. England then ?

Yorkshire thinks it is England, the rest is just incidental.

Has the Shetland Islands electorate (or even any of the Yorkshire
electorates) made a competent expression to support you ?


It became part of the UK as part of
Scotland. Are you suggesting Westminster would try a variation of the
1920s partition cockup performed in Ireland ?

This time I think we can safely leave the cock-ups to Mr Salmond.

He isn't trying to split up Scotland unlike anyone who tries to remove
any of the islands.


-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)
etc. etc.


It can't be chucked out because it is not in.

The people are already in as you will find with passports marked
"European Union" and which use our own language.

Who's language?

Nobody is language.

So the language of who exactly then?

Scotland. Other languages are also recognised in Scotland.


And, presuming Salmond gets his way and they opt to be
Scots not British, they will need new passports which won't necessarily
be EU.

You presume incorrectly.

That Salmond won't get his way? Glad to see you are coming round.

No. There have been no plans announced to remove the right to a ROTUK
passport from anyone in Scotland who qualifies for one under current
arrangements.

So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots
could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes,
vote, etc?

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:54:54 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots
could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes,
vote, etc?

Depends where they are "habitually resident" in the same way that
existing dual citizens do.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:12:45 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 18:49, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:14:27 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:

-Scotland would be chucked out of the EU (no competent ruling or
decision actually exists but e.g. Germany did not have to leave the EU
when re-forming as the EU just tailored appropriate arrangements)

Germany didn't re-form. The Laender in the Democratic Republic all
signed up for the Federal Republic's
not-quite-in-theory-but-in-practice-a-constitution, which had been
written with the specific aim of enabling this to happen at some point,
and thus the Laender became part of the Federal Republic. The current
Germany is actually "West Germany",

ITYM the German Federal Republic,

Which is what I wrote.

In case the names are confusing you, "West Germany" was an English
language colloquial term for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (or, in
English, Federal Republic of Germany) pre-October 1990. This is the
country which still exists.

No it isn't. One was the country formed in 1949 which used that name
and the other was the country formed in 1990 which incorporated the
former and took over the name; mere use of the same "label" does not
count. The 1949 state did not include Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria,
Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony,
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North-Rhine-Weststphalia,
Rhineland-Paltinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt,
Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia in Article 23 of the Basic Law of
the Federal Republic of Germany (1949); they joined later "in free
self-determination" consequent to the Unification Treaty (which
requires at least two parties) and a federal statute.

East Germany was a colloquial term for the Deutsche Demokratische
Republik (German Democratic Republic). This no longer exists, since its
constituent elements all joined the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (IIRC the
legal details for various parts of the urban area of Berlin were
technically slightly more complex, but that doesn't matter).

Presumably someone has thought about what to do if the governor of
Kaliningrad oblast were ever to come knocking on the Reichstag door
clutching a signed print-out of the basic law.

created in 1949 and to which the
Bundestag seems to refer in the present tense :-

Of course they refer to it in the present tense. Just as the Sejm refers
to the Rzeczpospolita Polska in the present tense.

but with more territory than it used to have.

Thus it physically reformed

No, it kept going on as before, but bigger. That is the point. I've
actually come across Germans who object to the English phrase "German
reunification", as from a German legal and constitutional perspective
that does not accurately reflect what happened.

along with all the EU-related consequences
of doing so. How many MEPs were there for GDR constituencies before
re-union ?

There never were any GDR(/DDR/East Germany/Soviet zone/whatever) MEPs.

Quite. The territory was not part of the EU until re-united with the
part of Germany which was part of the EU and was accepted into the EU
using ad hoc arrangements to replace the membership of Germany (1949)
with Germany (1990).

See above.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:50:09 +0100, "tim......"
wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 20:50:13 +0100, "tim......"
wrote:


"Aurora" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:20:13 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

"Aurora" wrote

However, the real issue here is that Westminster was thrust upon the
inhabitants of the neighboring boroughs. Had there been a ballot
option, offering the choice, there would be no problem here. The
residents would have decided to maintain their old local borough, or
join the nearby City. As it is we will never know.

You are one the finest usenet contributors. So, one heitates to
disagree!

The decision to reorganise London local government was taken at national
level, and it was true that there were no ballots as to which new London
Borough the old Metropolitan Boroughs would go into. Keeping the old
boroughs was not an option -

IMHO units of governement should be sized according to the electorate
contained therein. OTOH, folks should be prepared to pay for their
chosen parish, municipality, and county

But the electorate wont understand the financial consequences of their
"vote" and wont consider it when making their decisions

and the Politicians with the vested interest wont tell them, just look at
the lies being told in Scotland about how much better off financially they
are going to be if they vote yes!

What about the blatant lies and unsubstantiated claims by the "No"
campaign ?

I wouldn't know what the no campaign is saying

they are conspicuous by the absence down south

If you're really desperate :-
http://bettertogether.net/

but (like the Judean People's Front) they have splitters :-
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/cam...ed-with-labour

There are even supporters of Unionist parties who claim to be in
favour of independence although watch out for spoof sites such as :-
https://www.facebook.com/Conservatives4Independence
("WE'RE a bunch of well to do tories who believe that we can make alot
more dosh in a Free Scotland.")

whereas everything the Salmon says seems to get reported by the (English)
nationals

tim

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:44:45 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

No. There have been no plans announced to remove the right to a ROTUK
passport from anyone in Scotland who qualifies for one under current
arrangements.

What on earth is a "ROTUK" passport, who currently qualifies for them,
and by what logic would such qualification extend to an independent
Scotland?

--
Denis McMahon,

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:31:38 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

If you're really desperate :-
http://bettertogether.net/

but (like the Judean People's Front) they have splitters :-
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/cam...ed-with-labour

There are even supporters of Unionist parties who claim to be in
favour of independence although watch out for spoof sites such as :-
https://www.facebook.com/Conservatives4Independence
("WE'RE a bunch of well to do tories who believe that we can make alot
more dosh in a Free Scotland.")

https://twitter.com/orangemen4indy

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:02:26 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:54:54 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots
could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes,
vote, etc?

Depends where they are "habitually resident" in the same way that
existing dual citizens do.

Passports deal with nationality relative to other countries rather
than residence, current right of abode in the UK is only available to
"British citizens" as explained in Note 2 of a UK passport; you can
still be a British citizen despite not having lived in the UK and
holding another countries passport if you have suitable multiple
nationality rights (two parents of different nationalities having a
child born in a third country can complicate matters somewhat). Unless
the rules change then it would be much the same as applies to anyone
alive at the time that the relevant versions of Ireland left the
UK/Commonwealth; passports would be available from either or both
countries but, while in one of those countries, the other country
cannot usually be relied upon to give any support if/when the holder
gets into trouble or tries to get out of any obligations such as e.g.
national service.