and help to keep the site free for all
An Independent Scotland?
- Thread starter fracster
- Start date
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm no expert either, but I thought they current belong to the UK. Thus it should be up for negotiation as to where the line might be drawn if Scotland is going to be allowed to go at it by themselves. A quick bit of research seems to suggest that the actual revenue and ownership on the accounts is allocated to the UK Continental Shelf and not Scotland itself as an economic region.
I'm genuinely wondering whether this is actually a done deal, or another assumption that is being negotiated at a later stage.
dinners
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I suspect the latter Jp
Either that or someting that has genuinely been assumed that they can claim "grandfather rights" on / over
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
PMSL, Thanks for clearing that up Phil
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,636
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They're in 'Scottish territorial waters and so would belong to Scotland, UK as a whole helped pay whatever costs there have been but UK as a whole has benefited from oil revenues as well so it kind of evens out cost wise.
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
OK Fair do's.
But I suspect that there is still a fair bit of revenue to be had yet,
do you think the rest of the UK would relinquish any further "rights" over them,
Should it happen to be a yes vote?
dinners
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Going by the Median Line - which was used to determine the boundary between Scotland and the rest of the UK for fisheries at 1999 devolution - Scottish Waters had about 90% of the oil and about 55% of the gas
Not sure about Shetland as they do not consider themselves Scottish
Not sure about Shetland as they do not consider themselves Scottish
- Messages
- 6,408
- Edit My Images
- No
Classic - that's your best post to date!
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,636
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't think rUK would go against international law and if Scotland becomes independent rUk wouldn't have any rights to give up. Thatchers government had a plan to redraw the line taking much of the oilfields into 'English' ownership but I think it was actually a Labour government that did it, it's possible they might try to get that ratified but it wasn't legal in the first place afaik. The new potential oil finds are I think partly in UK waters so could be a real benefit if they're recoverable.
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Understood
A quick Google tells me that there is still a guesstimated 1.5 trillion££ worth of revenue left in the oil fields.
I still can't see Westminster giving up on the without some sort of "legal" (Deliberately in quotes
) fight though?After all, you know the saying, what's yours is mine and what's mine's me own
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
However they aren't officially agreed as such aren't they? They are in a territory called the Continental Shelf aren't they? Or was that sorted as part of the Median for the fisheries?
Is there any certainty on this or an assumptions that any decisions will go that way? You don't think there will be a need for any negotiation on that in a separation?
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,572
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have had a word wth Dave. He said that the Westminster back up option (just dreamed up same as Alex did for his "way out" of not getting B of E monetary union) is that in the event of a yes vote Holyrood will just be told to foxtrot oscar and forget about independence 
dinners
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Meridian line (used for Marine disputes and for fisheries in the 1999 referendum) give Scotland 90% of Oil tax revenue and about 55% of Gas.
There's also the Population pro rata rule which totally flips the numbers with Scotland getting about 9%
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Hmm so a bit more research. The 1999 median line was only for fishery purposes. It has no other legal standing. The geographic area is UKCS not Scotland. And a split is not agreed at all.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/7
So unless I'm mistaken in my interpretation this is not agreed at all that the UK will let Scotland have all of the revenue when they want their independence.
For Jim's sake. Is there anything the Yes camp has got clarity on? Other than wanting to go it themselves but not having a scooby on how to do it?
I really hope I'm interpreting the official government papers wrong as that is a pretty fundamental lack of income stream isn't it? And I'd want a vote as well then.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/7
So unless I'm mistaken in my interpretation this is not agreed at all that the UK will let Scotland have all of the revenue when they want their independence.
For Jim's sake. Is there anything the Yes camp has got clarity on? Other than wanting to go it themselves but not having a scooby on how to do it?
I really hope I'm interpreting the official government papers wrong as that is a pretty fundamental lack of income stream isn't it? And I'd want a vote as well then.
- Messages
- 1,056
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's what international law on territorial waters and boundaries would define. But the concept of legality historically gets very hazy whenever oil is involved.
- Messages
- 1,056
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It was Bliar's government.
- Messages
- 1,056
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Even with the fiddled oil boundary Scotland is fiscally better off independent - once the oil boundary is placed according to international law, the situation improves even further. As has been stated over and over in this thread, everything you read prior to independence is propaganda - a No "leader" will take a positive fact on an independent Scotland, and MUST turn that into a negative (and same for the Yes camp). It's not about honesty or facts now, it's about winning, and how many voters you can herd into your flock.Hmm so a bit more research. The 1999 median line was only for fishery purposes. It has no other legal standing. The geographic area is UKCS not Scotland. And a split is not agreed at all.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/7
So unless I'm mistaken in my interpretation this is not agreed at all that the UK will let Scotland have all of the revenue when they want their independence.
For Jim's sake. Is there anything the Yes camp has got clarity on? Other than wanting to go it themselves but not having a scooby on how to do it?
I really hope I'm interpreting the official government papers wrong as that is a pretty fundamental lack of income stream isn't it? And I'd want a vote as well then.
The below describes the boundary status (from the guy involved in setting the UK's maritime boundaries, and who is well versed in maritime law - but it a Yes supporter, caveat lector)
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/03/propaganda-against-scotland/
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Would define, as in it hasn't been defined and agreed yet?
- Messages
- 1,056
- Edit My Images
- Yes
?
None of us can know. My own feeling is that (1) an agreement can only be done between two nation states, and therefore would be after the vote. (2) There's a decent chance Scotland will need to go to International Court of Justice to get the Bliar/McLeish boundaries put back as required in international law. That can only happen when/if Scotland is independent.
None of us can know. My own feeling is that (1) an agreement can only be done between two nation states, and therefore would be after the vote. (2) There's a decent chance Scotland will need to go to International Court of Justice to get the Bliar/McLeish boundaries put back as required in international law. That can only happen when/if Scotland is independent.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
Agreed and that is a rather important point...There are so many if/buts around this which the Yes camp comes across as that those kind of things are a given....No they are not, they need to be negotiated, they need to be agreed....When using words like negotiated and agreed that means that all parties involved need to be happy with it, not just Scotland....And that is where the rUK population comes in, and where I think the divisive bordering on hatred run campaign is just not going to pay off....Possibly for the initial vote to get the mandate to engage on those negotiations....but it will get stuck at the negotiations and will become rather nasty unfortunately...
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,572
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Correct - independence will either not happen because of a No vote or because of the "negotiations". There is too much at stake to permit the UK to be broken up, not the least of which is Trident, and the nearby MoD (NATO) weapons storage depot at Glen Douglas which is the largest in Europe. There is no way that will be based in a foreign country.
- Messages
- 1,056
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Back to my earlier point, it is absolutely natural/inevitable that the yes camp will spin those as positively as they can, just as the no camp will use them to create fear as much as possible - this is not yet about facts. It will be, after the referendum when actual negotiations (or court cases, as need be) can take place, but for now it's about enticing / scaring as many voters as possible.
FWIW I think on this one the yes camp are rather less out on a limb than the no camp, as they have the weight of international territorial / maritime law on their side, albeit yet to be actually judged. But for sure I agree with you that needs to be actually defined, but it need not be defined according that all parties are happy - it may be (should be, likely to be) defined in accordance with statute, with one side correspondingly unhappy.
arclight
Oooh that burglar's a cutie
- Messages
- 11,572
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Part of longtown is up for commercial development. Over and above that you must have noticed the difference between Glen Douglas and the other storage facilities. Longtown is secure sheds. Glen Doulas is tunnelled deep into the hillside (there has to be a good reason for that) with numerous entrances and has a direct private road link to the deep water jetty in Loch Long where munitions get loaded directly onto ships. It is a depot for prepositioning NATO arms albeit only used by the MOD at present.
dinners
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We've long since passed the point where people should believe what they read.
A lot of people are biased and would argue why we should vote Yes/No regardless of common sense.
We're now into the 'undecided' and as you say - it's all about enticing voters.
Wading through lies, political bull and having to put up with who can shout the loudest is nothing new but sadly there are children voting in this one.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
dinners
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Social media (the irony) is also key.
There was a TV program on a couple of weeks ago all about how political parties deliberately use social media.
Lies, misplaced truth, promises, scaremongering, extreme views - anything a political party would love to put out there but for obvious reasons can't - they plant the seed and let it spread.
There was a TV program on a couple of weeks ago all about how political parties deliberately use social media.
Lies, misplaced truth, promises, scaremongering, extreme views - anything a political party would love to put out there but for obvious reasons can't - they plant the seed and let it spread.
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,636
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No need they have the BBC for that.
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
The bbc can't do right. Many here find them too pro Scottish and Northern focussed. They just can't win and please everyone.
dinners
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They ?
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,636
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Added a little extra to your post/quoted.
dinners
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Very ironic then.
- Messages
- 12,730
- Edit My Images
- No
I'll be glad when it's over, but I suppose it won't be "over" until Scotland become independent, now or eventually ……… they need to get it out of their system
The SNP will not accept a no vote ….. and if that happens they will be moaning on forever
so everybody may as well vote yes
The SNP will not accept a no vote ….. and if that happens they will be moaning on forever
so everybody may as well vote yes
Last edited:
dinners
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 15,745
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll be glad when it's all over too.
I'd like to see things improved but sadly the referendum has already caused a lot of ill feeling which will require a lot of fixing regardless of the result.
It's a backward step but sadly it's too late now.
Last edited:
Steep
Nutcrack Rapids
- Messages
- 16,636
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not the SNP, over 1.3 million have signed the Yes Scotland survey and if the latest poll is accurate over 1.5 million people living in Scotland think independence is right for Scotland. Something in the union must be badly broken for that many people to want to quit so you're right a close no won't end it but it's not the SNP you need to watch out for it's the newly awakened population.
- Messages
- 12,730
- Edit My Images
- No
but if it's a "no" the SNP will still be a powerful force in Scottish politics, "yes"? ……………..
you could say that they are in a "win win" situation
but lets get it over with and if it's a yes we can all start "paddling in treacle"
I am happy either way
Last edited:
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
I remember this all being debated back in the mid 70's
(I assume that it goes back further than that too?)
I'm glad that the Scots finally have the chance to lay this to rest.
I just hope that the vote which ever way its goes, does end it.
I just hope that the people vote with the best interests for Scotland,
and not just which ever sides have the best spin doctors.
However if you are correct Hugh,
it looks like a no vote will start it all off again,
and it (the debate) will continue for many years to come.
Which is rather a shame, if it really is "tearing Scotland apart"
(If some sources are to be believed
)