8-Dec-2021 : LAB: 40 / CON: 34 / LDEM: 10 / GRN: 4

[oldnat]

tancred

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what the fate should be of other people. Fortunately, your opinion (or mine) on such matters matters not a jot.

An independent state does not meaningfully exist simply because the government or people of somewhere declare that to be the case - Transnistria is a useful example. It becomes an independent member of the international community when it is so recognised by other states.

Had you said that no state recognises an automatic right to declare UDI, other than in "unique circumstances" (and their own self-interest), but that in these exceptional circumstances they may choose to recognise a newly independent state, I would have agreed with you, for that is what has become the norm in international law.

The unique aspect of the UK Union is that it was formed by a Treaty between two independent states, and if that Treaty is declared void, via UN procedures, the 1707 UK Union of Scotland with England ceases to have effect.

While the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not cover treaties signed before its adoption, its principles have been used in international courts to consider unique cases, and were so cited by the UK in its Kosovo evidence. There is plenty in the Convention and other aspects of international law for both sides, in a case to determine the recognition of an independent Scotland, to cite.

Which they choose to argue would determine the outcome, and that choice would be a political one for each state. That the internal law of a state prevents implementation or breach of a treaty is specifically declared to have no relevance, and it is that which fundamentally destroys your argument.

Put crudely, the recognition of an independent Scotland against the wishes of the UK state depends on how many friends the UK has around the world, and particularly in Europe, as against how many see advantage to themselves in Scotland being independent.

[Deleted]

Blimey....that was scroll city.

[tancred]

Dec 31, 2021 1:18:02 GMT oldnat said:

tancred

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what the fate should be of other people. Fortunately, your opinion (or mine) on such matters matters not a jot.

An independent state does not meaningfully exist simply because the government or people of somewhere declare that to be the case - Transnistria is a useful example. It becomes an independent member of the international community when it is so recognised by other states.

Had you said that no state recognises an automatic right to declare UDI, other than in "unique circumstances" (and their own self-interest), but that in these exceptional circumstances they may choose to recognise a newly independent state, I would have agreed with you, for that is what has become the norm in international law.

The unique aspect of the UK Union is that it was formed by a Treaty between two independent states, and if that Treaty is declared void, via UN procedures, the 1707 UK Union of Scotland with England ceases to have effect.

While the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not cover treaties signed before its adoption, its principles have been used in international courts to consider unique cases, and were so cited by the UK in its Kosovo evidence. There is plenty in the Convention and other aspects of international law for both sides, in a case to determine the recognition of an independent Scotland, to cite.

Which they choose to argue would determine the outcome, and that choice would be a political one for each state. That the internal law of a state prevents implementation or breach of a treaty is specifically declared to have no relevance, and it is that which fundamentally destroys your argument.

Put crudely, the recognition of an independent Scotland against the wishes of the UK state depends on how many friends the UK has around the world, and particularly in Europe, as against how many see advantage to themselves in Scotland being independent.

"An independent state does not meaningfully exist simply because the government or people of somewhere declare that to be the case - Transnistria is a useful example. It becomes an independent member of the international community when it is so recognised by other states."

I completely agree. Otherwise this would lead to the creation of puppet states which are not genuinely sovereign.

"Had you said that no state recognises an automatic right to declare UDI, other than in "unique circumstances" (and their own self-interest), but that in these exceptional circumstances they may choose to recognise a newly independent state, I would have agreed with you, for that is what has become the norm in international law.
The unique aspect of the UK Union is that it was formed by a Treaty between two independent states, and if that Treaty is declared void, via UN procedures, the 1707 UK Union of Scotland with England ceases to have effect."

I don't understand how a treaty signed in 1707 between two states can be declared null and void without the agreement of both states. Not sure what you mean by 'UN procedures' - the UN does not have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries unless these countries commit acts which are manifestly against international law, e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing, military aggression etc and the UN security council agrees a course of action against such countries.

"While the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not cover treaties signed before its adoption, its principles have been used in international courts to consider unique cases, and were so cited by the UK in its Kosovo evidence. There is plenty in the Convention and other aspects of international law for both sides, in a case to determine the recognition of an independent Scotland, to cite."

Not sure what you mean by this. There is a huge difference between Kosovo and Scotland. 

"Which they choose to argue would determine the outcome, and that choice would be a political one for each state. That the internal law of a state prevents implementation or breach of a treaty is specifically declared to have no relevance, and it is that which fundamentally destroys your argument."

What treaty are we talking about here?  The 1707 treaty?  Scotland, as an independent state, ceased to exist as a result of this treaty. Therefore in order for the treaty to be repealed it first requires a sovereign Scottish state to be re-established. I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I cannot comment on the precise details of what you are saying, but in practical terms even if 100 countries recognise an independent Scotland it has no value other than symbolic, because in order for a state to exercise its sovereignty it needs to have a working government which has effective control over the territories of said state. 

"Put crudely, the recognition of an independent Scotland against the wishes of the UK state depends on how many friends the UK has around the world, and particularly in Europe, as against how many see advantage to themselves in Scotland being independent."

True, but it also makes no sense to recognise a state that does not exist as a functioning political entity in any practical sense.  If we look at the case of Kosovo, this supposed 'state' is completely not viable without Serbian recognition, even if around 100 countries have recognised it.  A state, in order to be viable, needs to be recognised by the vast majority of UN member countries, and this is not the case with Kosovo as several large and important nations have not offered recognition. If and when Serbia recognises Kosovo then most of the other countries which currently don't recognise it will fall into line. 

[oldnat]

tancred

If you read a bit more, and opined less, you would be better equipped to debate issues.

[steve]

Crofty
And they complain about too much covid stuff!

Epic mansplaining diversion.

[neilj]

I was not surprised with the content of this report, but I was surprised to see it in the Express
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1534017/UK-trade-data-post-Brexit-GDP-EU-evg
'UK trade has shrunk since Brexit while EU thrives...
BREXIT was originally intended to create endless opportunities for the UK. But, so far, the country has failed to make the vote profitable, with the prospect of "global Britain" quickly fading according to recent data.'

[Danny]

Dec 31, 2021 0:23:32 GMT tancred said:

No, I do not favour returning to a ban on homosexuality because this was proven to be harmful and counterproductive.  However, I also don't approve of politically correct attempts by the media to make homosexuality seem normal or desirable human behaviour, because it is not. Homosexuality reflects the practice of a minority of the population and I respect the rights of gay people, but what I do not welcome is the promotion and publicisation of it.

Well theres a controversial one for us to bite on.

I take the same line on this as on immunity and reinfection by covid or other corona colds, or indeed on the example I learnt long ago of sickle cell blood disease.

Evolution creates organisms which work very well. The system has had billions of generations of random walk to come up with the optimum design and it is very very good. If there is any aspect of an organism which looks like an error, you need to look again and again and again to figure out why it is not in fact a mistake but an advantage.

So, sickle cell blood disease provides protection against malaria. Its not a perfect adaptation, but in places rife with malaria it allows humans to live and survive. Obviously, absent malaria it just leaves people with its side effects, but net it is a safeguard against catastrophic disease. I recall seeing a program arguing the fall of the roman empire was caused by malaria moving into europe because of climate change.

We get reinfected by certain viruses because its safer than not. This allows us to update our immunity against small changes instead of waiting for dangerously large changes to occur over time which we have to face all at once. See longer post below and news breaking form SA over omicron, but getting lots of colds is a survival mechanism which is necessary and works.

By this same token, if there is homosexuality amongst humans or any other animals, it means its a net benefit to the survival of the race. Otherwise it just wouldnt exist. The obvious example elsewhere would be colony creatures such as bees, which take this to an extreme and the production of offspring is done by just a few individuals and most simply act to support those. I seem to recall there was even some work that occurrence of homosexuality in a child is influenced by the mother's biochemistry, so there is even a mechanism to create some extra drones to help the family group if thats needed, rather than producing individuals minded to form their own reproduction group. Historically we are a herd animal which forms pair bonds between couples but also goes in for wider groups with multiple partners. In recent centuries this pattern has been altered by imposed ideas such as from various churches. Which on the whole look like clever ideas to 'divide and rule' by breaking up local support groups within society in favour of dependence upon some central authority.

So yes, its normal and desireable, or it simply wouldnt exist.

[Danny]

Dec 31, 2021 7:40:27 GMT neilj said:

I was not surprised with the content of this report, but I was surprised to see it in the Express
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1534017/UK-trade-data-post-Brexit-GDP-EU-evg
'UK trade has shrunk since Brexit while EU thrives...
BREXIT was originally intended to create endless opportunities for the UK. But, so far, the country has failed to make the vote profitable, with the prospect of "global Britain" quickly fading according to recent data.'

Brexit was all things to all men. Well, about 1/3 of the british population supported it, so in this context 'all' is something of an exaggeration.

However in particular, its likely some aided its course because they saw it as a means to destroy the UK. Failing that, at least to significantly harm it.

[Danny]

More good news from South Africa. John Campbell has reported on a paper just released by various SA universities on effectiveness of existing immunity from either J&J, pfizer or post infection immunity against omicron. In particular they report that while antibody response might not be very good, T cell response is much better preserved. In short...it still works, and thats why omicron has caused so little serious disease.

The study didnt mention AZ vaccination as used in the UK, but there is no real reason to think it would not also be effective. The upshot is you would expect anyone who has had past experience with either infection or vaccination should be well protected against serious disease from omicron. Booster jabs are pointless.

None of these measures prevents reinfection but they do prevent serious disease, so any public health process aimed at preventing reinfection amongst the general poulation is completely doomed from the start and nothing but harmful. Its just amplifying the final harm.

Anyone interested might like to watch John Campbell's talk through of the paper at www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDBJBmlvXY or have a read themselves. www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.26.21268380v1

Obviously we didnt know in the past how well exposure or vaccines might work, but the mechanisms explained in the paper or by Campbell should be familiar to UKPR readers because I outlined them over the years covid has been going on. Several researchers demonstrated cross immunity to covid from other corona viruses before covid existed, and what we see now as covid itself changes is exactly the same thing. Humans use protection created against one version to protect us against others and claiming covid is a unique thing is a mistake. We see increasingly how it isnt, and comes in different flavours, but this is not in principle different to its slightly more distant corona virus cousins. Protedtion against one works against all, just maybe not so well. But in part we allow reinfection as a way to analyse new versions which come along and so create new defences against them before those changes can accumulate and become truly dangerous. We need to be regularly reinfected. Its how we stay safe.

Which makes you wonder how supposed professional medics could be so stupid as to recommend attempting to prevent spread of omicron. I wonder if they really think thats what should be done, or whether their real views have become lost in translation from SAGE to cabinet decision making. Where politicians having spun one false narrative about protecting people from covid are faced with a need to act contrary to that narrative. Hence we see the engineered revolt by conservative MPs against their own side. While they try to trap labour, SNP and the others into pushing for more restrictions when what we must do is the opposite and remove them.

[alec]

tancred - "What you are saying is utter nonsense. Rhodesia, not even part of the UK at the time, just a colony, declared UDI in 1966 illegally. The British government imposed sanctions and considered military force to overthrow the Smith government and restore legitimate government. It would have been fully entitled to do so. Similarly, if Scotland declared independence unilaterally the British government would be entitled to depose the Scottish government and restore direct rule from Westminster. Scotland is not legally a nation because a nation can only be defined as such if it is recognised in international law."

I disagree entirely.

Firstly, in international law, nations are typically defined by article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, which lays out that "the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
1. Permanent population
2. Defined territory
3. Government
4. Capacity to enter into relations with the other states." [See www.eduskunta.fi/EN/naineduskuntatoimii/kirjasto/aineistot/yhteiskunta/suomi-valtiona/Pages/Valtio-kasitteena.aspx]

This is not definitive, but we do have two certainties:

1) All nations have the right to self determination (UN Charter Art. 1)
2) Scotland is a nation (history, fact, and UK constituational settlement).

Beyond this, come the vagaries of international law and speculation. In essence, if a territory declares itself a nation, then the balance of nternational reaction ends up defining whether it is or isn't so, and a small country like England would not be able to control that process.

Consider this: Rhodesia opted for UDI under a system that dispossessed the indigenous and majority population from their political rights in order to grant total authority to minority white settlers with no democratic mandate. They were unable to demonstrate acceptance of their independence claim by the majority. It was not widely accepted by the international community.

If Scotland ever achieves independence, it will be via a process of democratic consent, which may occur with or without the blessing of Westminster. Should it be opposed by London, and rUK fails to recognise iScotland, then we have the classic Taiwan issue, but England in no China. What would the reactions be?

Under the UN Charter, Scotland would be within it's legal rights to declare independence; the EU would quite likely support and recognise them; the US would desperately want Scotland to remain in NATO, and if Scotland so chose, London would probably find itself largely isolated and under great pressure to accept the reality - if it's decision was based on democratic consent.

This won't happen though, because we won't have such a stupid government in Westminster, and they will understand that in democracies, the majority get their way.

[barbara]

Dec 30, 2021 23:51:38 GMT mercian said:

Dec 30, 2021 23:13:33 GMT domjg said:

I’d love someone who self declares as ‘socially conservative’ to spell out exactly what that’s supposed to mean in Britain in 2021. I honestly can’t think it could be anything other than a desire to impose your own outdated mores on others by discriminating against their sexual/reproductive or religious freedoms or simply because of their origins but pray do enlighten us.

What about cases where someone's religious beliefs discriminate against someone else's sexual freedom?  e.g. The Christian churches still frown on extra-marital affairs I believe, and some elements of Muslim communities go further, by having forced marriages etc.   

My view of woke is being awake to the terrible injustices and double standards in the world. Count me in.

People are entitled to view other people's behaviour however they wish. What I don't get is why these people tend to want to frame laws to make everybody else to conform to their world view. (e.g anti abortion, pro death sentence, anti prison reform. And in the past votes for women, etc etc) Marriage is a social construct developed by a patriarchy to shape society for their own ends. Believe what you like but don't force everyone else to follow your outdated views. (I'm not saying anyone on this board is doing that but you only have to look at all the socially conservative pressure groups in the US to see that they want to shape the whole of society to make everyone else live by their rules.)

[steve]

Just thought I would beat Alec to a brief analysis of the delayed data following the Christmas break.
Firstly the UK isn't remotely unique in delays on reporting consequently there was an apparent massive increase in cases and a rather smaller increase in deaths reported internationally yesterday.
Overall this equates to a seven day increase in world cases of 56% but a12% fall in reported deaths.World wide.

In the UK the seven day increase was 45%, one of the lowest figures in Europe incidentally, with deaths from or with covid falling by 10%.
The UK has seen around a 3500 increase in those in hospital with covid over that time(22-29) not 1000 a day and the number on ventilators ie seriously ill has risen in total by just 22 this figure is actually 22 lower than two weeks ago.

Now over to Alec who will explain why I am wrong and we're all doomed.

[barbara]

Dec 31, 2021 0:03:00 GMT tancred said:

Dec 30, 2021 23:47:50 GMT domjg said:

Traditional values are simply those which have been considered normal for most of the 20th century, and ones based on Christian principles.  I accept that many out there are not believers, though I feel that these principles transcend religion and are condusive to social cohesion, even from a humanist perspective.  Not sure what you mean by 'discriminating against people based on who they are'.  Someone who commits adultery unrepentantly, such as Boris Johnson, is behaving wrongly out of choice, not because of 'who he is'.  Immoral behaviour is based on your actions, not who you are.  Your comment about stoning for adultery is stupid and ridiculous.

Considered normal by whom? Women, black people. colonised people. gay people? Or perhaps just white men.
Who wrote the bible? (see above for ditto)

[steve]

Barbara
I've been married to Faith for getting on for forty years we were engaged within three weeks of meeting , we didn't get married for any religious or societal concerns but basically because we fancied a nice day to remember, difficult at the time with a civil ceremony.It was a great day even the weather and a swan family floating into shoot for the final photos turned up as required.

My mother and her partner were together for nearly fifty years and never married.

One thing we did take seriously at the ceremony were our promises to each other and we've kept them all.

[barbara]

Dec 31, 2021 0:23:32 GMT tancred said:

Dec 31, 2021 0:14:43 GMT domjg said:

No, I do not favour returning to a ban on homosexuality because this was proven to be harmful and counterproductive.  However, I also don't approve of politically correct attempts by the media to make homosexuality seem normal or desirable human behaviour, because it is not. Homosexuality reflects the practice of a minority of the population and I respect the rights of gay people, but what I do not welcome is the promotion and publicisation of it.  Likewise for abortion I do not favour an outright ban because this leads to backstreet abortions and other unsavoury and criminal practices, however I also respect the life of the unborn child, so I would introduce legislation to limit abortion to the first 12-13 weeks of gestation except when the mother's life is in genuine danger due to the pregnancy. In this day and age there are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy through contraception, so abortion should rarely be even called for.

I think you just made my previous point for me. What business is it of yours to support legislation to regulate the personal lives of others based entirely on your own personal moral code. Particularly the lives of women.

[steve]

P.S.
Should add the met police rent allowance doubled if you were married so on a purely mercenary level it made sense as well.

[barbara]

Dec 31, 2021 0:43:28 GMT thexterminatingdalek said:

How about a separate non-polling-related thread for men to discuss what women should and shouldn't be allowed to do with their bodies?

Oh thank you!!!

[Danny]

Dec 30, 2021 22:43:43 GMT alec said:

One thing I haven't seen mention of in the mainstream press as yet is the really rather alarming increase in hospitalisations of children with covid.

But are they ill because of having covid? Its becoming almost a cliche now to claim people are admitted with covid and pretend that means they have been admitted because they are ill with covid.

I was just yesterday thinking about the recent high case levels reported amongst in particular young children and contrasting that with published work from early last year which argued young children lacked certain cell receptors so would be much harder to infect. its predictable that a virus would adapt if it could to get round such a problem as the adults become increasingly immune. So maybe we would expect a surge late in an epidemic in groups which succeeded early on in protecting themselves. We have certainly done our best to keep the epidemic going as long as possible and therefore maximise the viruses opportunity to mutate to any new group.

Is the increase in child cases any greater than you would expect given a surge in mild cases so that anyone with a broken leg stands a good chance of just happening to have a covid cold too?

[hireton]

Dec 31, 2021 0:23:32 GMT tancred said:

Dec 31, 2021 0:14:43 GMT domjg said:

Ok let’s cut to the chase. Homosexuality was outlawed until the late sixties in a culture that led to the marginalisation and criminalisation (not to mention great unhappiness) of large numbers of innocent people. Is this a ‘norm’ of the 20th century you’d be happy to return to? Abortion ditto.

No, I do not favour returning to a ban on homosexuality because this was proven to be harmful and counterproductive.  However, I also don't approve of politically correct attempts by the media to make homosexuality seem normal or desirable human behaviour, because it is not. Homosexuality reflects the practice of a minority of the population and I respect the rights of gay people, but what I do not welcome is the promotion and publicisation of it.  Likewise for abortion I do not favour an outright ban because this leads to backstreet abortions and other unsavoury and criminal practices, however I also respect the life of the unborn child, so I would introduce legislation to limit abortion to the first 12-13 weeks of gestation except when the mother's life is in genuine danger due to the pregnancy. In this day and age there are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy through contraception, so abortion should rarely be even called for.

That's it. I will now block you.

[Danny]

Dec 31, 2021 8:34:13 GMT steve said:

P.S.
Should add the met police rent allowance doubled if you were married so on a purely mercenary level it made sense as well.

Inheritance tax breaks good for married couples, so an incentive to marry on your death bed. There was a R4 presenter who had cancer and he intermittently reported on its progress as unfortunately it worsened. He managed a marriage in his final weeks, in hospital I think?

I wonder how many were deprived of that over the last couple of years?

[alec]

@danny - "But are they ill because of having covid?"

Yes.

"Its becoming almost a cliche now to claim people are admitted with covid and pretend that means they have been admitted because they are ill with covid."

No it isn't.

Around 75% of those in hospital with covid are primarily because of covid -

Lots of wilfull misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the 'incidental covid' theme.

[steve]

Barbara
And weren't we cute all shiny and young.


Attachment Deleted

[crossbat11]

This is probably a howl into the wind, but the last few pages of this thread illustrate where blogs like this go wrong in my view. Splurges of multiple posts with posters who are fixated by the issue trying to win an argument rather than just posting an opinion. Some of the views expressed are interesting in their own ways, a
but the exchanges too often descend into rancorously expressed disagreement. They often become just conversations and arguments between two people. They can start interestingly and entertainingly but usually become tedious.

I've too had long arguments and disagreements with other people, on a range of subjects that include personal morality, but usually just the two of us with no one else forced to listen.

[barbara]

Dec 31, 2021 9:42:13 GMT steve said:

Barbara
And weren't we cute all shiny and young.


<button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button>

 Sweet. What year was that? I got married (first time) in 1978 but that looks a bit later.

[steve]

Crossbat

I try to keep rancour out of any difference in interpretation, but probably fail now and then.
Vigorously expressed argument isn't in itself detrimental to a discussion but it should be kept civil, I think ukpr and this its successor generally achieve this, which is a refreshing change from most similar blogs.

[steve]

Barbara

1989
We met in our late twenties having lived and worked in the same areas for the previous half a decade and having regularly gone to the same pubs and clubs on the same nights benefiting from the nurse and police officer discount but never met. If we had no doubt we would have been together for longer.

Even more of a coincidence Faith's sister in law from Scotland married to her older brother turned out to be my second cousin. Never met any of them before meeting Faith.

I really don't anticipate another go at marriage,this one's stuck.

Btw my father was married twice both his wives were named Barbara!

[barbara]

Dec 31, 2021 10:00:51 GMT steve said:

Crossbat

I try to keep rancour out of any difference in interpretation, but probably fail now and then.
Vigorously expressed argument isn't in itself detrimental to a discussion but it should be kept civil, I think ukpr and this its successor generally achieve this, which is a refreshing change from most similar blogs.

I agree. I've not seen anything in the exchanges this morning particularly around personal morality that isn't strongly expressed views. I've not seen any personal abuse at all.

[pete]

Wow!
It's not my site, but there is a other issues thread...needs to be used more, a lot more.

[jib]

Dec 31, 2021 8:08:08 GMT Danny said:

More good news from South Africa.

It's good that you're finally acknowledging the critical role of vaccination in all this. Progress through reading and education!

[steve]

Pete
Maybe but it would of course be the same people posting.
If there were thousands here rather than the around 100-150 would possibly be more of an issue.