View previous topic | View next topic

Scotland

Page 10 of 11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next

T J Alex
888661.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:15 pm Reply with quote

And your cite(s) are where ?


And shouting a lot doesn't actually distract us from the fact that you haven't actually made one cogent point .

We have actually read your posts, for what their worth, and everyone doesn't magically forget what you posted three posts ago.

So your bullshit and the bluster is wasted on us.

I genuinlly thought that you were still at school, though it seems that if I were to believe you (Which would take a lot of suspension of disbelief on my part, and for that matter a lot of peoples), but if you are actually an adult ......................


Sorry if you are, then you are very much a special person

Poor old Willie !

Very appropriate name if I may say so.

You most definitely are a Willie in my estimation, and I expect in the estimation of the people who have had the privelige of reading your very erudite posts.

What do you reckon for your next post ?

Bluster ?

Denial ?

Indignation ?

B/S ?

Can't wait, though I expect that we'll have to wait until you've done your homework, and mums gone to bed .

 
Willie
888663.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:22 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
You most definitely are a Willie in my estimation


Oh how delightfully quaint, I think you might be better employed going back to your dreaming about vampires being real than joining in conversations about things so far above your head.

 
dr.bob
888719.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:01 am Reply with quote

Willie wrote:
dr.bob, you might not have noticed but countries are not companies


Interesting point. So, do you have some relevant case law in mind which would prove your assertion that the English government would have no claim over North Sea Oil profits based on their initial investment? I'm sure, with your excellent legal training, you'll be able to produce some citations fairly easily.

Willie wrote:
the UK government did not make the major investments into North Sea development, private companies did that after paying the UK government for the right.


The UK government would've made some investment. If nothing else, they'd've paid for the lawyers who argued the fine detail of the division of the borders in the North Sea between the various countries that adjoin it, and lawyers don't come cheap.

Fair enough, that cost would be very small compared to the profits that have come out of the oil fields but, just 'cos you've got your initial investment back, doesn't mean you now have no claim to any future profits.

Perhaps the English could claim some other investment, such as tax breaks for companies while the oil fields were just getting started. Personally, I don't know, 'cos I'm not an expert in the history of North Sea Oil. I'm sure you can furnish us with all the relevant information, though.

Willie wrote:
As I said before, with your view that would mean that if Scotland left the UK it would be entitled to a percentage of all UK assets held in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland which is patently nonsense.


Sadly not, since those assets are defined by land borders. They are very easy to define and have a precedent in that the borders already exist. If the Scottish oil deposits were found on land, or even within waters less than 12 nautical miles off the coast (i.e. Territorial waters), then there would be little dispute. Sadly, deep sea marine borders are much more fluid (no pun intended) which is why there's such a wealth of international law and previous cases to define how marine borders should be divided up.

Willie wrote:
No that is not the relevant international law, it was superseded in 1994 by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.


That particular piece of law was passed during the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) which only managed to assert the substantial elements of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf (which I linked to earlier) and the "customary solution" stated by the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases in 1969. So my point stands.

Willie wrote:
That convention gives limits to any boundary that mean that the UK could not claim the vast majority of the North Sea Oil fields, no matter any magical 'special circumstances'.


Again, just stating something authoritatively doesn't make it true. Try reading the link I gave to the S. P. Jagota book. That covers UNCLOS III, and states quite clearly that the principle of equidistance holds no greater importance than the argument for special circumstances.

Unless you have some case law that says otherwise, in which case I look forward to you providing a citation.

Or you could just state your own prejudices as though they're fact in the manner of other tedious internet blowhards. It's entirely up to you.

 
Willie
888811.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:01 am Reply with quote

All wonderful, but irrelevant as there already are legal statutes and treaties that define the maritime border between Scotland and England going back hundreds of years. One of the most important of those 'special circumstance' you think that can magically extent England's EEZ beyond the 200 nautical miles that is the legal limit is historical agreements.

It would be quite a feat for the S.P.Jagota book to whicj you you link to cover the 1994 agreement as it was published in 1985.

Still with the lovely patronising attitude I see. Now if you could just point that attitude to the one person on here who as never actually attempted to provide a cite you might sound slightly less so.

 
Zebra57
888828.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:49 am Reply with quote

The last time that maritime boundaries were fixed between England and Scotland was 1999. This link explains the maritime conventions on borders.

http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/12/1/505.pdf

 
Willie
888829.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:00 am Reply with quote

Zebra57 wrote:
The last time that maritime boundaries were fixed between England and Scotland was 1999. This link explains the maritime conventions on borders.

http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/12/1/505.pdf


Yes and that is the border that will most probably remain after any independence. Though there might be small deviations depending minor matters. That border puts the vast majority of North Sea oil fields in Scottish waters, so I don't see where those that argue England would get the oil fields get their ideas from.

 
Zebra57
888832.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:09 am Reply with quote

I am not certain that Craig Murray would agree with that statement and he is writing from a Nationalist perspective and with considerable diplomatic experience.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/scotlandengland-maritime-boundaries/

 
dr.bob
888833.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:18 am Reply with quote

Willie wrote:
All wonderful, but irrelevant as there already are legal statutes and treaties that define the maritime border between Scotland and England going back hundreds of years.


All of which have little bearing on the finalising of borders in the event of independence. They would be defined by agreement between the two parties who would probably start from the basis of historical borders and then get down to the legal business.

I've no idea how those legal arguments would proceed, but you can guarantee that England will be trying every trick at their disposal to grab as much of the North Sea oil as they can.

Willie wrote:
One of the most important of those 'special circumstance' you think that can magically extent England's EEZ beyond the 200 nautical miles that is the legal limit is historical agreements.


I don't "think" that special circumstances can "magically" extent England's EEZ. I'm merely quoting the relevant maritime law.

Nice patronising attitude there, though. Glad to see you're fitting in at last.

Willie wrote:
It would be quite a feat for the S.P.Jagota book to whicj you you link to cover the 1994 agreement as it was published in 1985.


Wow, your ignorance knows no bounds, does it? I guess you managed to find a reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea without actually bothering to find out anything about it. Even if your only source was the wikipedia entry you'd've realised that, whilst the Convention became law in 1994, the Conference that drew it up ended in 1982. So it's really not a terribly impressive feat for a book to write about something that happened 3 years before it was published.

Willie wrote:
Still with the lovely patronising attitude I see.


It's hard not to be patronising with someone who has such a slender grasp of the facts.

We all realise that you have your own opinions on this matter, but it'd be preferable if you'd stop trying to pass them off as fact when there is plenty of material to show that you're talking nonsense.

 
Willie
888835.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:31 am Reply with quote

So legally binding and internationally recognised treaties and statutes would have no baring? Maybe we should renegotiate the land borders too, Newcastle might want to rejoin Scotland.

Oh wait I forgot, you are a legal expert and therefore your ideas are the only possible facts that could be taken into account.

What you are not? You are a random person on a glorified pub quiz web site. How is that possible?

 
Willie
888837.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:36 am Reply with quote

Zebra57 wrote:
I am not certain that Craig Murray would agree with that statement and he is writing from a Nationalist perspective and with considerable diplomatic experience.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/scotlandengland-maritime-boundaries/


Oh wait you mean there is someone with an actual expertise in this area who doesn't agree with the idea that England will get all the oil. Wait until dr bob hears about that, he will sort it out with his books written a decade before agreements were finalised.

 
dr.bob
888838.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:43 am Reply with quote

Willie wrote:
So legally binding and internationally recognised treaties and statutes would have no baring?


There currently exist precisely zero legally binding and internationally recognised treaties between England and an independent Scotland, simply because an independent Scotland doesn't currently exist. These things would need to be legally decided upon, drawn up, and signed by both parties.

Willie wrote:
Oh wait I forgot, you are a legal expert and therefore your ideas are the only possible facts that could be taken into account.


I have made it very clear throughout this discussion that I am not a legal expert and know very little about the whole process.

However, it has become evident that, despite my very limited knowledge of the subject, I still know infinitely more about it than you do. You don't even know which year the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea finished.

As for facts that can be taken into account I, at least, have provided some. You have provided nothing more than personal prejudice which you've tried to pass off as fact. If you want people to take you seriously, you should try to provide some case law to back up your arguments (as I have already done)

 
dr.bob
888839.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:45 am Reply with quote

Willie wrote:
Wait until dr bob hears about that, he will sort it out with his books written a decade before agreements were finalised.


Since you clearly can't tell the difference between "3 years after" and "a decade before" I'm not surprised you're struggling to cope with rather more weighty topics such as maritime law.

 
Willie
888844.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:55 am Reply with quote

Quote:
There currently exist precisely zero legally binding and internationally recognised treaties between England and an independent Scotland


No shit sherlock, maybe because is no independent Scotland

There are however, legally binding and internationally recognised statutes and treaties that delineate the areas of influence of the English legal system and the Scottish legal system and there are legally binding and internationally recognised treaties that delineate areas of commercial rights between England and Scotland. Both of which are historical 'special circumstances'.

As to UNCLOS III, the conference finished in 1982, but it finished without coming to any agreed convention. That did not occur until a decade later and after much more negotiation.

You have not provided facts, all you have linked to is opinions that happen to concur with yours.

You have not provided case law, you have provided opinion pieces.

 
Willie
888845.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:58 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Willie wrote:
Wait until dr bob hears about that, he will sort it out with his books written a decade before agreements were finalised.


Since you clearly can't tell the difference between "3 years after" and "a decade before" I'm not surprised you're struggling to cope with rather more weighty topics such as maritime law.


Mmm let me see, 1985 -1994. Are you sure you are not Dr Who rather than dr bob, as you seem to be able to travel backwards in time.

 
dr.bob
888853.  Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:12 pm Reply with quote

Willie wrote:
No shit sherlock, maybe because is no independent Scotland


If only I'd realised that.

Oh wait! I did!

Willie wrote:
Both of which are historical 'special circumstances'.


This'll be those 'special circumstances' you think I've dreamt up to magically change matters. Now you're relying on them? I'll agree that historical borders represent special circumstances, but they are some among many others that will be argued by the lawyers.

Willie wrote:
As to UNCLOS III, the conference finished in 1982, but it finished without coming to any agreed convention. That did not occur until a decade later and after much more negotiation.


As I understand it, the only things that were changed between the end of UNCLOS III in 1982 and the ratification into law in 1994 were the articles relating to the deep sea bed, outside of any single country's EEZ. I'm aware of no changes to the laws concerning the division of the continental shelf where land borders meet, in particular with reference to the importance of special circumstances compared with the equidistance principle. Although I admit this information comes from the wikipedia article so I don't know how accurate it is.

However, since you're such a legal expert, I'm sure you can provide me with some more details to back up the point you're making.

Willie wrote:
You have not provided facts, all you have linked to is opinions that happen to concur with yours.

You have not provided case law, you have provided opinion pieces.


So the 1958 "Convention on the Continental Shelf" is an opinion piece is it?

At least I've provided something, which is more than you have done so far. Still, it's much easier to make an argument when you're not weighed down by inconveniences such as facts, isn't it?

 

Page 10 of 11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group