Edinburgh Agreement October 2012

With this attention to detail, the pervasive legal language, a series of clear commitments and the signature of government officials, this is not a legal document? This does not look like a simple “political pact”, and in fact, it is enough to compare it to the famous political pact – the coalition agreement – to see the differences. The coalition agreement existed between two political parties and not between government officials, and although it sets obligations on a policy that affects the Constitution, the very content of the agreement was not a constitutional issue. The nature of the commitments in broad areas of common policy meant that they were formulated coherently, but that they were not formulated in the precise legal obligations of the Edinburgh Agreement – that was not the nature of the matter. Maybe it was some kind of international agreement? Admittedly, the Vienna Convention provides for “international agreements between States and other subjects of international law”. However, the person who constitutes a “meeting of international law” is not defined and, again, both parties should intend their agreement to be binding under international law, and it seems clear that this is not the case. The Edinburgh Agreement (full title: agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Scottish Government on a referendum on Scottish independence) is the agreement between the Scottish Government and the Government of the United Kingdom, signed on 15 October 2012 at St Andrew`s House in Edinburgh, concerning the terms of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. [1] Similar questions of legal status were raised in the subsequent project of decolonization throughout the British Empire, during which the British government signed decolonization agreements with (then) sub-governments or groups of leaders who, at the time of signing, did not have the status of a new state and whose agreements therefore had an ambiguous legal status. The countries were on the road to independence, which led to arguments that the local signatories were not really sub-state entities without contractual capacity, but that they signed as a “pending state”, and the resulting documents had some form of international legal status. This argument does not apply to the Edinburgh Agreement, where there is no British acceptance of the intention to act at international level or that the relations that are conducted in the national domain are actually in transition to international relations. .

. .