Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes yes

party leaders have made all sorts of promises for post-No Scotland, but there are Tory backbenchers saying "what's in it for us?"

Sorry to be repetitive but that's the key question in every single part of this, and when it comes to it, post-No at least 2 of 3 party leaders will say actually there's nothing in it for us to deliver those promises.
 
knowing nothing I've just glanced at White & Case. They don't have offices in every European capital. Or in Scotland. So even if they are better placed than a proper diplomatic service (doubtful, their people are presumably busy already) they can't hit the ground running either.

Also, you don't necessarily need an office in every country - law firms are actually fairly small businesses on the global stage - absolutely tiny compared to banks and consultancies in terms of numbers etc...

What you get from them is an expert who can then instruct a larger team of non-qualified negotiators, or just provide that team with a steer on key issues at key times.
 
They're good, very good indeed.

They have Ian Forrester QC as a partner. He is an exceptional lawyer. Also, interestingly, he is qualified in Scotland, England and Wales, Brussels, and New York.

They also have some other outstanding lawyers, including James Killick, who is a genuinely intimidating guy to deal with.
not being butchers I'll take your word for it, but I'll also guess that such superstars have pretty full diaries already and their existing clients might be a bit miffed if they wander off to Edinburgh.
 
not being butchers I'll take your word for it, but I'll also guess that such superstars have pretty full diaries already and their existing clients might be a bit miffed if they wander off to Edinburgh.

Given that they're both Scottish, I'm sure they'd jump at the chance!

However, to get the best of the best, I'd go for Cleary Gottlieb. Maurits Dolmans and Thomas Graf are head and shoulders above the rest (as well as being very, very odd men).
 
Yeah, fuck it.

I do a ridiculous job that requires me to work insane hours most of the time - it's nice to get an opportunity to talk about it a bit in a relevant situation...
but you aren't are you? You're just reeling off a list of names that mean nothing to anyone here, and adds nothing to the discussion, other than a display of your testicles (or googling prowess, I neither know nor care which)
 
but you aren't are you? You're just reeling off a list of names that mean nothing to anyone here, and adds nothing to the discussion, other than a display of your testicles (or googling prowess, I neither know nor care which)

Aren't doing what precisely?
 
note also that the legal argument drives the reality rather than reality being dressed by the legal post hoc (latin on the interwebs :cool:)
 
EU competition law is one of the, surprisingly few, areas of private practice that is highly developed in EU law (as against any other area, save pharmaceutical regulation perhaps...).

As a result, EU competition lawyers tend to be the first port of call in disputes, regardless of their specific expertise because they usually have a unique insight into the CJEU.

Or to put it another way, more or less the only unilaterally effective powers that the Comission enjoys derives from its competition law. That's why the majority of EU lawyers are overwhelmingly competition lawyers first and foremost.
 
What if the UK votes to leave the EU before Scottish independence is enacted? Could Scotland retain the UK's membership and see it as just the southern bit of the nation seceding from the EU? That'd be messy.
 
My answer to that question would be "No". The Union was formed for the purpose of establishing an empire and that empire is now nothing but a collection of bones. It's time to move on. I was watching Newsnight on Tuesday night and was horrified to hear Emily Maitlis ask the audience "What are the good things about the Empire" or words to that effect. The general tone coming from the audience was the Empire was a force for good. :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
I think you're being ridiculous. Constituencies are pretty much allocated by population. i'd love to see some form of regional attack on the centres of power - but a) this isn't it and b) you wishing something to happen doesn't mean it will happen. There is no support for this stuff right now - what there is is majority opposition to Scottish independence (not on an anti-scottish basis). Out of the bubble!

New Labour (and Prescott especially, as a possible "king in the North") pushed regionalism heavily, and met with either apathy or two fingers, except among the political classes.
 
So new Labour's attempts at regionalisation of powers post-Scottish devolution, and the civic apathy toward it, completely passed you by, then?
Do you not think that this referendum has significantly increased potential support for a 'federal Britain'?

However I think that a Yes vote would more likely be the end of that, rather than the catalyst. A No vote and Devo Max would lead to more of 'why can't we have that', but independence is enough of a disconnect to make people give up on the idea.
 
So the orkney islands might want independence from Scotland if it's a yes vote. LOL.

and why not? the orkneys have a good argument for independence, mostly they don't consider themselves scottish but orcadian. why shouldn't they?
 
So the orkney islands might want independence from Scotland if it's a yes vote. LOL.

How long before the green and blue halves of Glasgow want independence from each other?

I'm sure that one will be sorted out with a mimimum of fuss.
 
Do you not think that this referendum has significantly increased potential support for a 'federal Britain'?

However I think that a Yes vote would more likely be the end of that, rather than the catalyst. A No vote and Devo Max would lead to more of 'why can't we have that', but independence is enough of a disconnect to make people give up on the idea.
Yep, that's my guess, too. A narrow 'no' could be a good catalyst for change across the UK.
 
Can you tell me why no precedent def means no state could be allowed to stay in please? Why on earth would no precedent existing mean that none could be set? Each time you say there is no precedent you make the case that actually there are many potential outcomes here rather than your one - only one!!!! ONLY ONE!!!!!!

Look, everyone who's ever watched the film "Highlander" knows there can be only one.
 
Back
Top Bottom