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.Interesting point though, I wonder who paid for the rig's pipe lines etc?
IF it was the UK as a whole,
then surely they belong to the UK as a whole,
not just one "region" ?
IF it was funded by the oil companies alone,
then would they be happy handing over control to a break away government?
(Genuine questions / comments as I have no idea how these things "work" )
I suspect the latter JpI'm genuinely wondering whether this is actually a done deal, or another assumption that is being negotiated at a later stage.
PMSL, Thanks for clearing that up Phil
Interesting point though, I wonder who paid for the rig's pipe lines etc?
IF it was the UK as a whole,
then surely they belong to the UK as a whole,
not just one "region" ?
IF it was funded by the oil companies alone,
then would they be happy handing over control to a break away government?
(Genuine questions / comments as I have no idea how these things "work" )
OK Fair do's.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.
The Sky News Megamix
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?
UnderstoodI 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.
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?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.
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?
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.Has it actually been agreed that in the case of this divorce Scotland will be allowed to take the oil fields? Is that legally really a given?
It was Bliar's government.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.
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.
Would define, as in it hasn't been defined and agreed yet?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.
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...?
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.
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...
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.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...
Glen Douglas would not be an issue, the MoD have a much bigger depot at Longtown over the border in England and another currently unused one near it at Eastriggs which also has more storage.
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.
In that case they better build up that army that isn't requiredBack 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.
Social media (the irony)Lies, misplaced truth, promises, scaremongering, extreme views - anything a WM political party would love to put out there but for obvious reasons can't - they plant the seed and let it spread.
The bbc can't do right. Many here find them too pro Scottish and Northern focussed. They just can't win and please everyone.
No need they have the BBC for that.
No need they have the BBC for that.
They ?
Added a little extra to your post/quoted.
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
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
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.
I remember this all being debated back in the mid 70'sNot 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.