Home > General, Politics > A nation again? We always were.

A nation again? We always were.

I read this morning that two ’eminent’ lawyers have given David  Cameron legal advice which suggests (I haven’t looked for  caveats yet, but there will be some, I’m sure) that an independent Scotland will be a ‘new state’ and will have to negotiate new international agreements, membership of national groupings etc, while for England/Wales/Northern Ireland it will be business as usual. Oh aye?

I have a few comments on that one, now that I’ve stopped laughing.

One, if that’s true, it’ll be a price worth paying.

Two, Scotland has been a nation for a thousand years, and since 1603 Scotland has been a distinct national entity within a United Kingdom. In 1707 a parcel of rogues allowed the Scottish Parliament to be subsumed by its opposite number in Westminster. We have been paying the price ever since, but we remain a nation with our own borders institutions and national characteristics. When we join the ranks of the United Nations, we will do so with a history that stretches back far further than the great majority of its members. Should we choose to join the European Union the story will be the same.

Three, the last time a Westminster Government published its legal advice it was in a vain attempt to justify its participation in the Iraq War. Please pass me a pinch of salt.

Four, we have an adversarial legal system; thus, by definition, lawyers are far from infallible.

Over the next eighteen months or so, there will be many more scare stories like this. I welcome them. The more you tell Scots that they can’t do something, the likelier we are to go out and prove you wrong. So, Dave, bring it on.

 

Categories: General, Politics
  1. Patricia (Pat) Wright
    February 11, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    Q, explain to me the “benefits” Scotland would enjoy under the UN or even, the European Union??? As you can tell, I’m pretty close to a bumper sticker that says “Get the UN out of the US or “Get the US out of the UN” Seems there has been more conflict internationally since its advent. Oh well, I AM a troglodyte.

  2. February 11, 2013 at 7:35 pm

    Frankly I believe these have yet to be defined . . . the EU at any rate. Without meaning to cause offence, it seems to me that the US has either used (Korea) or ignored the UN, (Iraq) whichever is more convenient to it at the time. My view on Scotland in the UN is the same as that of LBJ, when he made Hoover Director of the FBI for life. It involves urination and direction.

  3. Patricia (Pat) Wright
    February 11, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    All the more reason to get out! Our interests can’t depend on a collection of other countries who despise us(most) or fear us. By the way, I was also against the Iraq war but who listens///!
    ‘t

  4. February 12, 2013 at 11:39 am

    What would you gain by being outside the UN, Pat? What would your policy be re. North Korean nuclear ambitions? Unilateral sanctions against them ain’t going to work, because they don’t buy anything from you, so as a non-member of the UN you’d still be relying on it to act. Of course you could always launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike, but I don’t see President Obama, or in a few years President Rubio, doing that. Mind you, President Petraeus might (if he isn’t too busy with other affairs).

  5. Patricia (Pat) Wright
    February 12, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Isn’t it possible the UN would have an anti-nuclear policy against N. Korea or Iran without our prodding? Doubt we’d launch a military operation against them if we were all alone. In other words, doesn’t the rest of the world have any interest in the military ambitions of other nations. Wonder if the European Union would take action in our absence OR the UN. Have no idea what we would gain financial-wise by notbeing members but suppose it’s a substantial amount . Anyway, Q, this discussion is getting too close to argument and since we don’t “walk in each other’s shoes (a good old Indian saying) will surely end up an argument which I don’t want to have with one of my very favorite authors! Poor Petreaus-caught with his pants down! Rubio is ahead in my book

  6. February 12, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    Nowhere close to arguing, Pat.
    Rubio is ahead on the book of Mr Paddy Power also, ahead of Ryan Christie and Jeb Bush.
    http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=481890
    However when it comes to the election itself, they all trail behind Hillary in the betting.

  7. Patricia (Pat) Wright
    February 12, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    Just hope shechanges her hair-do_the Alice look doesn’t do much for her.

  8. February 12, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    She won’t run. She doesn’t look like a well woman, plus she will be 69 come the next election. I know nothing of your politics, but if I was having a bet, I might have a look at Andrew Cuomo, with his past Kennedy links. That said, if Rubio looks nailed on for the Republicans, I don’t see an Italian vs a Latino. In which case, it’ll be pick a solid geezer or take a chance. Alec Baldwin at 125/1? What’s he doing on the list? Eight years ago you’d have got those odds against Obama.

  9. Patricia (Pat) Wright
    February 12, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    How could you mis-read me so??!! No more Eastern liberals -we westerners are tiring of the growing nanny-state so Cuomo and Baldwin are not on my list,. My politics are in order of importance-conservative, libertarian (with just a few exceptions) and getting-out-of-Republican. The Party has disappointed me too much to be a loyalist but I maintain my registration to have more choices in the Primaries in our state. The Dems owe a lot to Hollywood (and pay gratuitously) but not to a Baldwin, I hope,. He IS cute, tho!

  10. February 12, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    No misread either, Pat. When I wrote ‘your politics’ I was referring to the nation. I reckon I know where you’re at by this time. I’ve been reading up on Baldwin; the Democrats will have to be hard up for a choice before they go there.

  11. Patricia (Pat) Wright
    February 12, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    As the saying goes, “you’re a gentleman a nd a scholar” and our discussions brighten my day.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: