It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Royal Bank Of Scotland To Relocate To London If A " Yes " Vote.

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
You point about the conventions I interesting as for things like Geneva convention you can adopt them unilaterally as they are an agreed standards not a treaty. Most treaties would require multi party agreements.




posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Most of that is pretty straightforward and will follow established legal principles. There will be a bit of negotiation but the division of fixed assets is the easy bit.
Balmoral is a private residence so not relavent.



No, I'm sorry, but there will not be a 'bit' of negotiation. There will be a metric buttload of negotiation. That's my point. It's not straightforwards, it's not easy. There are all kinds of constitutional implications and the division of fixed assets will NOT be the easy bit! The UK will want to lay claim to all kinds of things and withdraw said things if physically possible. The idea of a nice quick, clean divorce from the UK is a fanciful one. It's going to be a nightmare.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
It's going to be a nightmare.


BUT THAT'S NO REASON FOR IT TO NOT HAPPEN!!!



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: RonPalmer

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
It's going to be a nightmare.


BUT THAT'S NO REASON FOR IT TO NOT HAPPEN!!!


But it IS good reason to look at it all more closely and to vote with your head and not your heart! Salmond has been talking all the time about how it'll take a little work but that it'll all be ok. Horse manure. Of course he'll say that, the man's a politician who has been working towards this referendum all his life. Fair enough. But he also has a responsibility to Scotland to admit the problems, the pitfalls, the fact that the case against independence might have a few points to make. He is the First Minister of Scotland. He needs to be able to tell Scots the truth instead of barraging them with untruths. There is a real danger that Scotland WON'T be able to keep the pound. There is a real danger that Scotland WON'T be allowed back into the EU. There is the danger that Scotland would start off with alienated neighbours and with a debt that it can't pay off easily. And there is the very real danger that North Sea Oil isn't the great financial miracle that the SNP has been saying it is for years now. Peak oil production was passed 15 years ago and the new oil discoveries are in hard to reach areas. And finally there are the legal problems.
You want independence? Fine. Go ahead. Just don't complain if it turns out that the cost is far higher than Salmond dared to admit.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Of course i stole it from Freescotland, you dont think i write in my numbers in Roman numerals all the time if at all do you?

Did you read this part of the link i have provided.


Out of the original 25 Articles of the Treaty, 9 have been wholly repealed by Westminster, and 5 have been materially altered.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
I don't think you are clear on what a fixed asset is. Infrastructure and natural resources will go with nation they are in. That is the easy part. Other assets such as military and bank reserves are more complicated but still resolvable with reasonable negotiation. The complicated bit is working out a value for truly non tangible assets.
There will be a lot of complications but nothing to be afraid of.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
This was posted by Angelchemuel on another thread. i believe it also deserves it's place in this one as it's about the news from the RBS last night...
I think we will see a court case in the near future..at the very least the BBC and possibly the UK government has some serious questions to answer..So serious in fact, someone could go to jail.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
He needs to be able to tell Scots the truth instead of barraging them with untruths. There is a real danger that Scotland WON'T be able to keep the pound. There is a real danger that Scotland WON'T be allowed back into the EU. There is the danger that Scotland would start off with alienated neighbours and with a debt that it can't pay off easily.


The real danger is that Salmond will pull the wool over people's eyes and there will be a "yes" vote. All the assumptions and assurances made - and there have been many from lower energy prices, through to no economic impact and a beneficial currency union will be irrelevant, because the die will have been cast.

The big problem for Salmond is that the rUK will not be looking for a nice, sweet severance full of hugs and goodwill. Scotland will be an economic competitor and will suffer accordingly.

This whole process has been profoundly undemocratic, because the impact of Scottish independence will impact the rUK, but rUK has had no say. If the nationalists are foolish enough to think that rUK will work in their interests if they chose to leave, then that's their funeral.

Regards


edit on 11/9/2014 by paraphi because: cleared up a word



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Yes. Noting Westminster is the government of the UK and can change laws. Scottish ministers are in the UK government. Your point would be...

Regards



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Countries don't compete economically the way you are implying. International economics works by cooperation and mutual trust. No one benefits from a knife fight.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi
Sorry are you saying that westminister is going to retrospectively change laws to make actions of the government legal??"



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Yes. Noting Westminster is the government of the UK and can change laws. Scottish ministers are in the UK government. Your point would be...

Regards

You questioned the content of XVIII in the treaty of Union...I'm saying it has been changed since it was first written...the question is when and by what means. ?
I thought treaties had to be negotiated by both parties concerned without fear or favour....something that never happened in 1707...As i said, Illegal, from the day it was conceived....A Union my Arse.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

You completely fail to mention that the Union was brought about at the request of the Scots, not England.
The details of the Union were agreed and ratified by separate Acts of Union by both the English and Scottish parliaments of the day.

If the details / Articles subsequently changed then it would have been in accordance with UK Law and passed by Westminster - which obviously included Scottish MP's representing Scottish constituencies.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I guess that means in that case Scotland won't have to spend a few hundred billion pounds to bail these Bank of Scotland parasites out again in the not so distant future... What a tragedy!



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: sacgamer25
a reply to: MrSpad

They have oil, they will be good no matter what they do. They could create thier own currency, someone will trade with them. It's not complicated, why does everyone think that people can't survive apart from the world banking system?



The same reason people believe they can't survive with out Mommy and Daddy Government protecting them. Human beings are institutionalized into believing the only correct way of living is with the authoritative heavy hand of a malicious and heinous governments, whom the same people believe aren't malicious and heinous.

I hope Scotland finds independence if it's what the people really want. It's no different than Texas wanting to secede from the Union. The bigger fear is that this might spread to the USA if Scotland actually votes for independence.

America is already divided, may as well go ahead and make it geographically official.

edit on 11-9-2014 by WCmutant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: WCmutant

I think we can all agree one one thing...Change is needed in the World and if that Scares TPTB into changing for the better of everyone and not just a select few then Fantastic.
I say we Start that change now. Done With talking/dreaming about it.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
LOL...this is getting better. Westminster in full on panic mode now.




posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Soloprotocol

You completely fail to mention that the Union was brought about at the request of the Scots, not England.



Remind me when 99.9% of Scots had a vote on it....Sold out by a parcel of Rogues.

Nicked from Wiki..


In Scotland, the Duke of Queensberry was largely responsible for the successful passage of the Union act by the Scottish Parliament. In Scotland, he received much criticism from local residents, but in England he was cheered for his action. He had received around half of the funding awarded by the Westminster treasury for himself. In April 1707, he travelled to London to attend celebrations at the royal court, and was greeted by groups of noblemen and gentry lined along the road. From Barnet, the route was lined with crowds of cheering people, and once he reached London a huge crowd had formed. On 17 April, the Duke was gratefully received by the Queen at Kensington Palace


Nothing much has changed since then. they, the Elite are still in control. Wonder why some of us wish to change things.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I see the labour MP's are arriving from England to support the no campaign. Some say it is a panicked reaction to the recent poll that put the yes camp ahead but perhaps those in Westminster know what they are doing really. First we have the fear campaign, repeated non stop until it is embedded in the psyche. Now in the run in they present the love campaign, the personal touch. The SNP may have to up it's game.

I am rather apolitical in general and have never paid much attention to Holyrood. I watched a video on Youtube earlier showing an exchange between Alex Salmond and Johann Lamont...god help the Scottish Labour party. It was mentioned on the news that Gordon Brown is thinking about stepping up. You couldn't make it up.



posted on Sep, 11 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol



Remind me when 99.9% of Scots had a vote on it....Sold out by a parcel of Rogues.


Cuts both ways - when have the English had a vote on the Union?

It was the way of the world back then - not saying it was right.
When viewing historical events it pays to put them in context of the times those events occurred.

And what lay ahead for Scotland at the time if England hadn't agreed to the Union?
Desperate times.

So yes, you were sold out by 'a parcel of Rogues' - but they were Scottish rogues!

And therein lies a caution - history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.




top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join