View previous topic | View next topic

Scotland

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

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?

 
Sadurian Mike
889035.  Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:59 am Reply with quote

http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=23976&start=0

Doncaster is actually Scottish, it turns out. I always had my suspicions that they were a bit different.

At least Doncaster Rovers should do well in the SPL.

 
T J Alex
889070.  Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:17 pm Reply with quote

Poor old Willie, not so much out of his depth but drowning !

As has been noted before Willie, shouting and insults don't work with grown ups.

Try debating like an adult, or stick to your schoolfriends for debate.

If it had been anyone else except you, I'd have been quite flattered by their going out of their way to read my posts on entirely unrelated topics, but unfortunately it was you Willie ,so no ego boost for me I'm afraid .

 
Zebra57
980869.  Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:29 pm Reply with quote

The Daily Telegraph has printed some QI facts about Scotland today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/9007300/Scottish-referendum-50-fascinating-facts-you-should-know-about-Scotland.html

 
suze
980895.  Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:59 pm Reply with quote

A few points for the first person who can show any of those facts to be wrong.

Arguing that Alexander Graham Bell was at least as Canadian as he was Scottish, or that Byron was but tenuously Scottish and in reality more English, are cheap and will not score the points. (Much as both are entirely valid.)

There are a couple that I have my eye on, but I'm sure others can get there before I do.

 
Zebra57
980902.  Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:41 pm Reply with quote

You are correct Suze. I posted the link to provoke discussion.

For example the first European banknotes were issued by Stockholms Banco, a forerunner of the Bank of Sweden (1661) before the Bank of Scotland existed (It was founded in 1695).

 

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