The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Hunter_Jaeger

Shakethedisease wrote: »

French MP in the Scotsman today telling it like it is.

Makes a change from Valerie telling us!

zagubov

Arklight wrote: »

Nationalist Smeagols always get very excited about the oil wealth they believe will swell their giros, but they miss a vital point.

There will be no independence.

So it IS a protection racket , then? :beer:

Arklight

zagubov wrote: »

So it IS a protection racket , then? :beer:

Probably. Though as far as I can see, Scots already get a fair amount of Scottish oil revenue back through the extremely unequal allocation of government spending due to the Barnett Formula.

It seems many Nats think they are going to get all the Barnett windfall plus extra again in oil revenue, ignoring the fact Barnett already gives them a large chunk of the oil.

Arklight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Independence is more likely that at any point since 1707.

Oh Shakey, independence being more likely than at any other time when it hasn't been very likely isn't going to help much...

elantan

got my Tory leaflet through today ... Ruth seems a tad obsessed with Nicola and the SNP

Labour's look terrible with the picture of Jezza and not Richard ... seems it's a UK wide Labour leaflet, Just hearing also Scottish labour are really throwing hissy fits with each other ... Nigel Farages party ... well I'm sure you can guess how good that looks

SNP and green were ok, just ok

I've heard there have been new polls released will need to find out what they suggest

I probably wont find out the results till days later

westernpromise

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That the seas round about an independent Scotland wouldn't be English/Welsh/N Irish nor belong to the UK ? Simple enough.

The seas were divided up in the 1960s. The UK will still exist. The oil and gas will remain the UK's.

The revenues go to Holyrood. Norway has their neighbouring territorial waters and all the oil gas fields within it. Scotland will have the same maritime rules applied.

They aren't "maritime rules". The reserves are chiefly in international waters and ownership was established by treaty in the 1960s. As all the signatories remain in existence, so does title and property.

Is there any reason legally you see that they won't be ? You can't possibly think that Scotland will go independent, but that England/UK will still own the territory of the Scottish coast. All the oil/gas fields in little pockets dotted about ? It's ridiculous.

And you betray a total and complete absence of understanding of the North Sea and how it has been divided up. The oil and gas are largely in international waters. There are existing treaties governing who owns what. You would need the agreement of all signatories to those agreements to alter them. Why would that be forthcoming?

Anyway, you've spent the last 5 years telling Scots they aren't worth anything anyway. No need to argue about them.

Scotland is a net insolvent nation, and will be even worse off without the oil revenues that have been spuriously factored into the SNP's economic assumptions about iScotland's future finances.

It's Scotland's misfortune to be represented by dishonest shysters. Salmond, a former oil economist, knows perfectly well who the oil will continue to belong to. That he has always hidden this fact betrays that's he's simply a shouty racist. He cannot honestly believe any of his own economic prognostications and is therefore manifestly dishonest.

The fad for independence has coincided exactly with the rise of North Sea oil. When there's no more oil money to be had, the fad will fade as fast as it came.

It's all about not sharing.

In a way, poetic justice would be served best if iScotland found that what it does own - new finds in unexplored acreage, basically - was anyway worthless as we come off fossil fuels. At that point, Scotland will go literally bankrupt again, and it'll be 1707 all over again, except this time the answer will be 5od off,

westernpromise

mayonnaise wrote: »

Probably the same legal position that applies to the current divvying up of the North Sea, based on median lines?

Scotland is not a signatory to those agreements. The UK is the signatory. The UK will continue to exist as - just as we have established - the EU and its treaty obligations and rights will exist even without Britain.

Shakethedisease

westernpromise wrote: »

The seas were divided up in the 1960s. The UK will still exist. The oil and gas will remain the UK's.

They aren't "maritime rules". The reserves are chiefly in international waters and ownership was established by treaty in the 1960s. As all the signatories remain in existence, so does title and property.

And you betray a total and complete absence of understanding of the North Sea and how it has been divided up. The oil and gas are largely in international waters. There are existing treaties governing who owns what. You would need the agreement of all signatories to those agreements to alter them. Why would that be forthcoming?

Scotland is a net insolvent nation, and will be even worse off without the oil revenues that have been spuriously factored into the SNP's economic assumptions about iScotland's future finances.

It's Scotland's misfortune to be represented by dishonest shysters. Salmond, a former oil economist, knows perfectly well who the oil will continue to belong to. That he has always hidden this fact betrays that's he's simply a shouty racist. He cannot honestly believe any of his own economic prognostications and is therefore manifestly dishonest.

The fad for independence has coincided exactly with the rise of North Sea oil. When there's no more oil money to be had, the fad will fade as fast as it came.

It's all about not sharing.

In a way, poetic justice would be served best if iScotland found that what it does own - new finds in unexplored acreage, basically - was anyway worthless as we come off fossil fuels. At that point, Scotland will go literally bankrupt again, and it'll be 1707 all over again, except this time the answer will be 5od off,

Scotland gets the oil and gas fields in it's independent territorial waters. That's it. England will keep whatever is in theirs ditto Wales/NI. The UK which was brought into existence in 1707 via a Treaty Scotland and England signed.. will no longer exist. The clue is in the word 'United'. The United Kingdom as it stands currently, without Scotland, will no longer exist.

In order to keep hold of any oil and gas revenues in independent Scottish waters and territories as defined by standard geographical and maritime boundaries which apply almost everywhere else. Westminster will have to go to an international court and state their ( non existent/we're a bit skint ) case for keeping them. Or else send some tanks up to Holyrood I suppose.

Oil/Gas is worthless to the UK anyway. We certainly keep being told over and over it's worthless for Scotland. I don't see why you're fussing about it ? Something you want to share with the class ?

Arklight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland gets the oil and gas fields in it's independent territorial waters. That's it. England will keep whatever is in theirs ditto Wales/NI. The UK which was brought into existence in 1707 via a Treaty Scotland and England signed.. will no longer exist. The clue is in the word 'United'. The United Kingdom as it stands currently, without Scotland, will no longer exist.

In order to keep hold of any oil and gas revenues in independent Scottish waters and territories as defined by standard geographical and maritime boundaries which apply almost everywhere else. Westminster will have to go to an international court and state their ( non existent/we're a bit skint ) case for keeping them. Or else send some tanks up to Holyrood I suppose.

Oil/Gas is worthless to the UK anyway. We certainly keep being told over and over it's worthless for Scotland. I don't see why you're fussing about it ? Something you want to share with the class ?

Oh jeez. Again?

Scotland ceased to be a country after its absorption by England. Paradoxically, so did England. The new country that was created was called the United Kingdom.

It could also have been called Steve.

If, 300 years later, Scotland is declared as politically separate from Steve, Steve is still called Steve.

Try and understand (really do your best Shakey, you silly seditionist sausage) that the name of a country doesn't actually have to be a grammatically accurate representation of what it is.

You'll be surprised to find, for example, that Turkey isn't actually a bird, and New Zealand, is actually millions of years old. As old as this stupid discussion in other words.

You're right about the oil though. Steve has no chance of keeping that. :money:

westernpromise

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland gets the oil and gas fields in it's independent territorial waters. That's it. England will keep whatever is in theirs ditto Wales/NI. The UK which was brought into existence in 1707 via a Treaty Scotland and England signed.. will no longer exist. The clue is in the word 'United'. The United Kingdom as it stands currently, without Scotland, will no longer exist.

In order to keep hold of any oil and gas revenues in independent Scottish waters and territories as defined by standard geographical and maritime boundaries which apply almost everywhere else. Westminster will have to go to an international court and state their ( non existent/we're a bit skint ) case for keeping them. Or else send some tanks up to Holyrood I suppose.

Oil/Gas is worthless to the UK anyway. We certainly keep being told over and over it's worthless for Scotland. I don't see why you're fussing about it ? Something you want to share with the class ?

Your post is such total gibberish that it is not worth a response except to note the typically poor quality of thought that characterises the nationalist.