View previous topic | View next topic

Scotland

Page 7 of 11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Willie
888064.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:06 am Reply with quote

Zebra57 wrote:
Is Scotland's claim to Shetland waters more valid than Denmark's claim to Faroe waters? Do the people of Glasgow have more rights to benefit from these resources than citizens of Copenhagen?


What has that got to do with anything. The Rockall dispute has absolutely nothing to do with where waters off the Shetlands and the waters off the Faroe Islands meet. Oh and it wouldn't benefit the citizen's of Copenhagen anyway as Denmark is just representing the Faroe Islands, if the dispute was settled the way Denmark argue it the fishing and mineral rights would belong to the Faroes, not Denmark.

What is your obsession with a problem with the Shetlands that really doesn't exist?

 
T J Alex
888108.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:20 am Reply with quote

So Willie you didn't want to supply the link, nor discuss it further.
Unfortunately someone else has done it for you, better luck next time.

As to claiming T.W.s north of Edinburgh, the English/Scottish border does not run from W to E, but SW to NE, that is why there are parts of England north of parts of Scotland.

I believe that international conventions on T.W.s do tend to follow national boundaries, so it would seem that at least a part of the oilfields would be in English T.W.s.

And then again of course as another poster has mentioned the British finance used to explore and extract the fossils fuels from under the seabed, repayment of even a part of these would take a healthy chunk out of any monies the independant Scotland could expect at their most optimistic.

And as Britain defacto controls and runs the oilfields, non payment wouldn't be a realistic option.

 
Willie
888136.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:04 pm Reply with quote

The theoretical border that at present does travel SW to NE at present does include a part of the oil field, about 9% of it, and that is all England could claim after any Scottish independence.

UK government finance did not fund exploration and extraction. The UK government sold the rights to private businesses (or BP) ant they paid for the exploration and extraction. Scotland would not have to repay anything and the UK would not have to give Scotland the rights money and back taxes earned from oil extraction in Scottish waters.

Your arguments are getting more and more desperate. I think you would do better going back to your military arguments, at least they were amusing.

 
Willie
888137.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:08 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Willie wrote:
That link shows what the demarcation line is at present, and gives an argument that it could be shifted north to include one more oil field. Not exactly the most electrifying argument for those that say that England should get the lions share of the North Sea. The link also says that the change would make very little difference to oil revenues.


Yeah, it also goes on to mention the legal arguments that England could use for a "special circumstance" argument, that is much more important and that you seem to have chosen to completely ignore.


There are no 'special circumstances', England has been more than recompensed for any of the small outlay they put in the development of the oil fields. It was private companies that spent the vast amount of money to develop the fields, not the UK government. And to whom would they argue it with as the UN is not allowed to take sides and imposs a settlement.

 
T J Alex
888148.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:55 pm Reply with quote

Willie Cite please.

 
Willie
888149.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:57 pm Reply with quote

T J Alex wrote:
Willie Cite please.


When you post anything that is anything other than hyperbole and rumour.

 
T J Alex
888150.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:02 pm Reply with quote

You know when you can get round to it .

No pressure.


And the cites for your other claims...................


Maybe one day..........

Or are you once again so angered by my arguments that you refuse to post, to show how contemptuous you are of my points.

To the point of treating them with total disdain and not dignifying them with an argument?

Gosh what am I going to do now !

I feel so Unmanned !

Unmanned I tell you !

 
Willie
888153.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:09 pm Reply with quote

You don't have any arguments.

 
T J Alex
888154.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:13 pm Reply with quote

Willie not "When the tooth fairy returns to earth", not when you talk nicely to me, not when you win the lottery.

Just give all of us the cite.

But you can't can you ?

Because everything that you've posted has been from "Everyone knows", "It has been said", "Someone told me ", "I have this friend who knows the sister of ......the next door neighbour of ...., someone in the pub........

You have no cite, not this or anything else that you've posted.

You made it up.

If I'm wrong then post the cites.

No pretend indignation where you're so insulted that you can't bring yourself to tell us the cite.
Just do it for ogs sake.

 
Willie
888158.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:18 pm Reply with quote

Dear god you have got a massive case of the self important delusions haven't you.

I gave you the name of the yearly report, read it. I am not here to do your work for you.

 
Sadurian Mike
888167.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:58 pm Reply with quote

Willie wrote:
There are no 'special circumstances', England has been more than recompensed for any of the small outlay they put in the development of the oil fields. It was private companies that spent the vast amount of money to develop the fields, not the UK government. And to whom would they argue it with as the UN is not allowed to take sides and imposs a settlement.

You do realise, do you, that the UK granting Scotland independence would not automatically hand the areas over to Scotland? They do not need to and I doubt that they would. By granting independence, the UK would be giving Scotland to the Scottish government. No more than that. What constituted the part of 'Scotland' handed over would be up for negotiation, you can't just use any theoretical boundaries based on existing countries.

When maps are redrawn things like territorial water rights are settled. Not before.

The UK currently rents the oilfields to the private companies and sells the rights to exploit them. The oil companies pay taxes to the UK. It would not be hard for the UK government to retain the rights to those oilfields as a key condition for independence. Scotland would be in no position to argue unless it wanted to mounted a war of independence. It could not complain to the UN or NATO because it would not be a member until after independence. It could not fight militarily, and I very much doubt whether the small number of Scottish MPs in favour of independnce could kick up enough political stink to force HMG to sign away so much annual revenue.

If Scotland really wants independence then they can have it. If they want independence and lots of extra goodies then I can't see it happening. There is no automatic right to land or seabed territory. Most of the current divisions were made decades or even centuries ago, and usually as a result of warfare.

 
Sadurian Mike
888170.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:00 pm Reply with quote

Willie wrote:
I am not here to do your work for you.

If you can't be bothered to link to reports, don't expect anyone to bother to hunt them down. If they remain unread then your argument is weakened (assuming the reports would strengthen them).

You make the assertion, you are expected to back it up. You don't publish or post claims and then tell everyone to go look for the evidence on their own.

 
Willie
888176.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:05 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
If Scotland really wants independence then they can have it. If they want independence and lots of extra goodies then I can't see it happening. There is no automatic right to land or seabed territory. Most of the current divisions were made decades or even centuries ago, and usually as a result of warfare.


How is territorial rights to waters off it's coast an 'extra goody'?

 
Willie
888178.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:08 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
Willie wrote:
I am not here to do your work for you.

If you can't be bothered to link to reports, don't expect anyone to bother to hunt them down. If they remain unread then your argument is weakened (assuming the reports would strengthen them).

You make the assertion, you are expected to back it up. You don't publish or post claims and then tell everyone to go look for the evidence on their own.


As they guy has not made on single argument that has any validity, has not bothered to link to any reports himself and his entire argument stems from nothing more than jingoistic hyperbole I really don't see what business it is of yours how I answer his pathetic trolling.

 
Willie
888184.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:14 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
Scotland would be in no position to argue unless it wanted to mounted a war of independence.


Sometimes I really think that the entire population of England need to grow up. We are not in the 16th century any more, we don't need a fucking war to sort out any independence questions and the theory that might is right is better left to primary school playground bullies than negotiations of territory.

England has zero claim to the vast majority of the waters off of Scotland if Scotland becomes independent by any measure and that includes international treaties that the UK signed up to decades ago.

 

Page 7 of 11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group