Monday, February 11, 2013

Scottish independence, pre-eminent authority on international law tears apart SNP Govt position, Nicola Sturgeon shown to be ‘all spin and no substance’, angry wee Nat gets humiliated by legal Top Guns as indy falls apart

Dear All

There is going to be a lot of paper flying around the place concerning Scottish independence, people want facts because they want to know how any change affects them in the grand scheme of things.

Time for a quote by Alex Salmond:

“My problem is that I have too many talented people and not enough Cabinet positions.”

Apparently Salmond’s “talented” people are so talented that they couldn’t even be bothered to do the work which is needed to prepare Scotland for independence.

It is why people aren’t taking Salmond and Sturgeon’s attempt as a credible entity in its own right.

Is there an explanation why the work hasn’t been done?

I would say it is because Salmond is provincial minded, unable to grasp the enormous challenge, the work and let’s be clear there is thousands to be done, it has been shelved in favour of trying to 'spin' their way to independence.

But you can’t spin your way there or buy your way there, it has to be done right, openness and transparency and a viable plan is needed.

The Scottish National Party has none of this, the Yes Scotland campaign is loaded up by Salmond and Sturgeon’s clique put into key roles which as we see by the polls they are not suited too.

The ‘talent’ is just not there.

An independent Scotland would be faced with the task of negotiating thousands of new international agreements and applying for membership of numerous international organisations from scratch.

Britain holds all the contracts and treaties so, everything, every page has to be gone through and signed off on, even if a treaty is a load of out dated junk.

And with Alex Salmond operating as a one man band with his little ‘helpers’, this is a serious problem.

Today we see the Coalition Government in an unusual move publishing in full its legal advice on the constitutional consequences of Scottish independence from Professor James Crawford, of Cambridge University.

Crawford is according to Whitehall sources regarded, as the pre-eminent authority on international law.

Crawford along with another leading academic, Professor Alan Boyle, of Edinburgh University has rattled off a decent 100 pages.

At the same time in the paper chase, we also see Alex Salmond's most senior economic advisers publish their long-awaited economic framework for an independent Scotland.

Short version, they say that an independent Scotland needs to keep the pound; you could argue that the route which should have been adopted was for a Scottish pound, as being free and clear in apolitical sense.

But to get to what is termed the ‘interesting bits’, the UK Government's legal opinion contradicts the view highlighted by Salmond and Sturgeon, following independence, Scotland and the rest of the UK would equally become successor states.

Ms. Sturgeon holds a law degree and a diploma in legal practice which is why she must know that stance is vacuous beyond belief.

Simply put ask Ms. Sturgeon for a copy of Scotland’s EU contract with the Scottish Government.

It doesn’t exist, and on the EU generally, the SNP have been shown to be weak and totally out of their depth, assumptions were fostered upon the public as facts.

And that tactic flamed badly when Nicola Sturgeon was completely shredded on national television as being outed for never having even asked the question regarding EU membership.

Not as a government or even as an opposition.  

The UK would be the "continuing state" and would remain party to all its international agreements while Scotland would be the "new state".

New state means no membership held until agreed by EU members, all opt outs currently held by the UK wouldn’t apply to Scotland.

The paper by Crawford and Boyle echos comments by Tomkins of Glasgow University that the changeover timescale couldn’t be completed in 17 months in order to make a Scottish Parliament election day in 2016.

Professors Crawford and Boyle rightly have reject the notion independence would lead to the creation of two new states.

That opinion floated by the nationalist camp is pure fantasy and they also reject claims an independent Scotland would revert to its pre-1707 Act of Union status.

Time and treaties have changed that concept to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary said of the UK Government's paper, it would serve as a "reality check" for voters.

Just voters?

Surely, this is also a reality check for the independence camp, who placed their faith in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon and have been badly letdown by gross unprofessional incompetence and stupidity?

Time for a quote by Alex Salmond:

“My problem is that I have too many talented people and not enough Cabinet positions.”

Methinks not!

Moore added:

"It will reinforce our central message: Scotland gets a great deal by being part of the UK."

A Downing Street source added:

"It will say that the overwhelming weight of international precedent suggests that an independent Scotland would become a 'new state' and the remainder of the UK would be considered a 'continuing state'. This means that if Scotland became independent, only the remainder of the UK would automatically continue to exercise the same rights, obligations and powers under international law as the UK does. The UK is a party to several thousand international treaties – 14,000 treaties are listed on the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices's database."

Alistair Darling, head of the pro-UK Better Together campaign, said:

"This is a formidable legal opinion from two internationally respected lawyers. Their opinions have to be taken very seriously and they can't just be dismissed by the Nationalists."

The news of the paper has certainly rattled the nationalist camp and drew a furious response.

Scotland’s unpopular Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said:

"For the UK Government to argue that the UK will be a 'continuing state' and that an independent Scotland would have no rights betrays a near colonial attitude to Scotland's position as a nation and gives lie to any suggestion that they see Scotland as an equal partner in the UK."

Clearly Ms. Sturgeon is ranting here, as lawyer, she knows that treaties and bits and bobs are required to be signed by Westminster, not Holyrood on reserved issues, so her ‘equal’ partner mumblings are nothing more than her venting and acting like an ‘angry wee nat’ of old.

As the pressure ramps up on her failure to move independence support forward, we can expect more of such bizarre statements from her.

As a parting shot, she cited academics who believed Scotland and the UK would both be treated as "successor states".


Maybe Ms. Sturgeon should go back to university and do a refresher in contract law, and international law, and learn the lessons of history.

Proper preparation prevents piss poor performance.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University


Anonymous said...

So now the argument is whether Scotland would be a new state? I thought that was the idea, to make the new state of Nirvana. A place where the SNP only have to promise something and "hey presto" it's done! They should look out their well worn copy's of Braveheart and see that the hero didn't always get what he wished for
WE WANT FACTS FROM THIS BUNCH OF CON ARTISTS NOT FANTASY. As a party member I'm well embarrassed how niave they are.
Alex's Army? more like Ally's Tartan Army.

Anonymous said...

Nicola Sturgeon isn't winning indy George, she is killing it for the indy camp. UK Government's advice is spot on the money. Its all hollow, Salmond's leading SNP nowhere, now or in future. Keep up the blogging, ur blog is well read believe me.

G Laird said...

Dear Anon

I have a new nickname for Alex Salmond in the indy campaign.

'Chemical Ally', he is so toxic as the polls show!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University