View previous topic | View next topic

Scotland

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

Willie
888246.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:41 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
Willie wrote:
You are seriously suggesting that areas of Scotland might decide to split off and become completely separate states?

What I am suggesting is that post-independence Scotland may not have the same borders as Scotland currently has. Which is the same thing as I have been suggesting for quite some time.


What you are suggesting is bollocks and nobody serious outside of you has ever even pretended that the actual border between Scotland and England might change in anything other than incredibly minor amounts.

Oh and just to join in your club, please provide citations for any of your assertions that the actual Border might change. You don't need to provide a link as I seem to be one of the few that can cut and paste and use search engines.

 
CB27
888349.  Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:51 pm Reply with quote

Can we leave personal.

A discussion on Scotland should not end up in an online version of a Glasgow kiss,

 
Sadurian Mike
888393.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:39 am Reply with quote

Willie wrote:
nobody serious outside of you has ever even pretended that the actual border between Scotland and England might change in anything other than incredibly minor amounts.

Are you sure about that?

David Sinclair of the Constitution Unit wrote:
A lesser factor affecting revenue yields from the North Sea would be the location of the boundary between Scotland and England in the North Although it is not of great economic significance it is likely to be one of the more contentious issues that would need to be settled between an independent Scotland and rUK. The governing principle of international law that settles such matters is fairly clear - all points on a boundary should be equidistant from the nearest point of the coastline of the two countries - but there are a myriad of reasons that either party could cite as grounds for deviating from the equidistant line. This is an issue that may well have to be settled by the International Court of Justice, a process that can take years.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/51.pdf

Scottish Democratic Alliance wrote:
The government of the United Kingdom has attempted to make unwarranted and illegal changes to both the terrestrial and the North Sea borders between Scotland and England. All these changes have been unfavourable to Scotland.

SDA 'National Borders of Scotland' .pdf
Bella Caledonia wrote:
One Treasury official even proposed that a local campaign for independence in Orkney and Shetland should be encouraged so that Scotland would be denied access to more than half the North Sea oil.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2009/02/25/diomhair/


http://borderwork.wordpress.com/case-study-berwick-upon-tweed/http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.org/fish.htm (this is a very partisan pro-Scottish site).

There are also plenty of blogs and forums out there mentioning redrawing the borders, but I'll not cite them as they are hardly respected references. However, it does all show that I am certainly not the only one to be suggesting that the current border may be subject to change.

 
Sadurian Mike
888394.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:40 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
Can we leave personal.

Thank you CB27, I was going to mention something similar.

 
dr.bob
888423.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:48 am 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.


Imagine you and I went into business and each invested 50,000 of our own money to set up a company. Over the years, the company does very well, expands, and becomes a large concern with annual profits running into the millions.

According to your world view, I would be perfectly within my rights to one day steal the entire company and all it's profits and leave you out in the cold. If you try to sue me for loss of profits, I can merely argue to the judge that you've been more than recompensed for the initial 50,000 outlay that you invested, so you have no rights to any future profits.

You might find that in the real world, where the rest of us live, life doesn't really work like that.

Willie wrote:
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.

Willie wrote:
They are only part of the UK due to their proximity to Scotland (this is an internationally recognised method of working out fishing and mineral rights and the UK has signed up to the method), not England, once Scotland was independent the UK would have no claim to the waters.

Willie wrote:
The only negotiation would be over areas where there is a territorial proximity dispute, a very small amount of the actual area that involves exactly one oil field.


You keep asserting that England has no legal claim to the waters off Scotland. Unfortunately, something doesn't eventually become true just because you say it often enough. Once again, you're displaying to all and sundry your total lack of understanding of international law. I really suggest you go and read up on it before you embarrass yourself any further.

Here's a start. Check out this pdf file (wow, look! A citation. See, it's not so hard, is it?) which spells out the details of the International Court of Justice "Convention on the Continental Shelf" which is the relevant international law used to determine marine boundary disputes. It mentions (Article 6, para 1) the three principles involved in drawing up a marine boundary:

1) a boundary line shall be determined by agreement between both parties
2) a boundary line justified by special circumstance
3) a boundary line drawn in accordance with the equidistance principle

Given that all of your arguments seem to hinge on point 3, you might be a little disappointed to read that, after many international cases, the International Court of Justice ruled that the equidistance principle was not "either a mandatory legal principle, or a method having some privileged status in relation to other methods." (source: Maritime boundary By S. P. Jagota page 209. Wow! Another citation. What a concept!!)

 
Zebra57
888450.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 7:04 am Reply with quote

The idea of Shetland devolution max/independence is not in my imagination it is a real issue being discussed. The arguments for going it alone are mirrored by SNP arguments for Scotland as a whole. I enclose four citations of many as evidence.


http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/malachy-tallack/2007/04/shetland-scotland-independence

http://www.scottishunionist.com/2008/09/independence-for-shetland.html

http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5121-shetland-chief-calls-for-independence

http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=193734

It is only comparatively recently that the Anglo-Scottish border has been stable. The border of Anglian Northumbria (province of Bernicia) once reached the Firth of Forth in the North and the boundary of Scotland once reached Westmorland to the South-West.)

 
Willie
888482.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:07 am Reply with quote

Sudarian, I said serious not fringe groups, think tanks and nutters trying to incite trouble where none exists. Oh if you don't want personal at you don't get personal with other people and don't jump in on a discussion demanding one side does something that you are not demanding the other side does, nor are doing yourself at the time..

dr.bob, you might not have noticed but countries are not companies and 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. 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.

And if you want to be pedantic, no they are not citations, they are url links. Is being patronising a requirement to join the board clique love in? Just to reiterate, I did give a citation, I just didn't give a url link.

Zebra, the idea of Shetland independence is very much in your imagination, that of jingoistic little Englanders trying to stir up trouble and in that of an incredibly small bunch of nutters who have about as much political clout as the Monster Raving Looney Party. You also might find that when the border of Northumbria reached the Firth of Forth the capital was just outside of Edinburgh for much of it's existence, so if you want to carry on in fairy tale land and argue the point Northumbria would become part of Scotland, making the border even further south and making England's claim on the North Sea oil fields even more precarious. But then Kingdoms that ceased to exist over a thousand years ago and land that was ceded nearly a thousand years ago really do come under the heading of cloud cuckoo land in any discussion about the Scottish/English border

 
Willie
888496.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:32 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Here's a start. Check out this pdf file (wow, look! A citation. See, it's not so hard, is it?) which spells out the details of the International Court of Justice "Convention on the Continental Shelf" which is the relevant international law used to determine marine boundary disputes. It mentions (Article 6, para 1) the three principles involved in drawing up a marine boundary:

1) a boundary line shall be determined by agreement between both parties
2) a boundary line justified by special circumstance
3) a boundary line drawn in accordance with the equidistance principle


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 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'.

 
Oceans Edge
888516.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:36 am Reply with quote

You Nazis!*

*(figured I'd just skip to the end)

(Series G - Episode 8)

 
Sadurian Mike
888525.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:08 am Reply with quote

Right. We seem to be at the point where everyone talking against Willie's argument is a troublemaking nutter or similar. Anyone suggesting that the path to an independent and rich Scotland will be something other than the rosy future forseen by Mr Salmond and Willie cannot understand the 'true facts'.

I think that Oceans Edge has the right idea.

Time to move away from the argument. Nothing to see here.

 
Willie
888539.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:26 am Reply with quote

When it comes to Sheltand wanting independence or changing borders because of kingdoms that ceased to exist over a thousand years ago, then they are trouble making nutters.

As to the rest, if you want to berate one person for not giving citations, actually read the conversation and see who is the one who named a source, and who is the one that didn't before you wade in.

 
Zebra57
888544.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:47 am Reply with quote

To return to the discussion it is incorrect to assume that anyone who disagrees with an SNP bias is a "little englander" and find the word unnecessarily insulting. As it happens I have a proud Scottish heritage but like many others disagree with the extreme political gymnastics of Alex and his cronies. The arguments for Scottish independence need to be based upon solid social, economic and political foundations. Shetland is an issue if a "Who benefits from resources" argument is followed.

My description of the border was merely an historic illustration.

 
Willie
888548.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:07 am Reply with quote

Yeah the first party to win an election outright in a system that Labour designed to be hard for one party to win are the 'extremist' ones. It isn't the Daily Wail readers who accuse all Scots of being scroungers and subsidy junkies, when reality shows that most of England receive more subsidies than Scotland does and Scotland actually pays more in tax than it receives back.

Not everyone who disagrees with SNP 'bias' (oh who is being biased I wonder) is a little englander, most are quite sensible and able to have constructive discussions. It just so happens that I am extremly proud of my English ancestry and am disgusted by the mindless jingoistic Daily Wail and BBC message board little englanders. In fact most sensible people can have different ideas without bringing in fantasy land border changes and non-existent ideas of Shetlanders wanting a separate independence. Shetland is not an issue because the only realistic Shetland-centric political party came to an agreement years ago with the SNP and the issue is now dealt with.

Your description of the border was irrelevant.

 
T J Alex
888646.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:59 pm Reply with quote

While we are always glad to have young people participating in debates Willie, its with the proviso that they keep the debate at an adult level.

You have so far used insults against those who disagree with you.

Have made silly statements with no cites to back them up.

When called on to make links to (your non existant ) cites, have pretended to be so indignant that you can not bring yourself to post them.

Have changed your position to the opposite of your original stance.
(It would appear that now you probably won't vote for independance)

And then changed back again.

Perhaps you have been a little bit too ambitious taking part in a discussion between adults as you appear to be more then a little, out of your depth when it comes to sensible argument.

It is to your credit that you have actually made the attempt to participate, but I think that its more then likely that your parents would prefer you to concentrate on your schoolwork for the time being, and maybe enter the forum of ideas in a few years time .

All young people nowadays are encouraged to feel confident in their abilities, but while this is good for their self esteem, in many cases, (Such as yours for example), it simply doesn't come up to the mark, abilitywise.

Don't lose hope, I fully expect you to be a fully lucid, persuasive and knowledable debater at some time in the future .

But that time is not now.

Perhaps you might ask for some pointers from your teachers at school, or even older school friends who are interested in debate.

Wishing you all the best in your future endeavours Willie !

People of your agegroup are our future !

Good luck !

 
Willie
888654.  Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:32 pm Reply with quote

T J Alex wrote:
no cites to back them up.


Aye right, you can't see them amongst all the citations from you, oh wait you have never made one unlike myself.

I have never changed my position, I have said I would most probably vote no and I still stick with that.

I will treat the rest of your juvenile rant with the contempt it deserves.

 

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