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

Shakethedisease

westernpromise wrote: »

Nope. The North Sea is divided up by treaty because your imagined 200 mile zones overlap. The agreements were necessary to establish who owns what, where that occurs.

This one ?

Prof Alex Kemp, from the University of Aberdeen, is the leading expert on Scotland's oil industry.He says if Scotland were to become independent the "median line" principle would be the "obvious one" to use.

This means drawing a dividing line on which all points are the same distance from the Scottish and rest of the UK (RUK) coastline.
Prof Kemp says this is the method which was used when the North Sea was originally divided up between the UK and other countries in the 1960s.


The most important treaty was signed between the UK and Norway in 1965 using the median line, although later, when the oil began to flow in the Norwegian sector, there were many who said the UK had been far too lenient.

So ? After independence the boundaries will be Scottish not rUK's. Using the same methods as in the 60's. It's as simple as that really.

Shakethedisease

Arklight wrote: »

There's also the small problem that last time they were getting all excited about independence the Shetland Islands declared that they would immediately declare themselves independent of Scotland and return to the UK. Leaving the Scots with a lot of free tuition and prescription fees to pay for, and no obvious way to pay for it!

That actually would be priceless. We lose the burden of Shakey but still get the Sheikhs!

:rotfl:

Shetland Klaxon !!!!!! I cannot tell you how many times desperado's losing the argument on these Scottish threads try to bring this nonsense up as fact. Do yourself, and all of us who have to read this fantasy land politics of 'instant Shetland independence' for the 1000th time a favour : and don't bother.

Shakethedisease

Hunter_Jaeger wrote: »

If your common weal chums have their way there will be no oil and gas revenues.

Who cares. I was debating ownership after independence with another poster. Not the in's and outs of climate change or what the oil is worth. Common Weal a bit far to the left for me.

Thrugelmir

elantan wrote: »

was hearing today Johnson is making a bid for PM




AWESOME

Quelle surprise.

Unlikely to be an electorate choice.

westernpromise

Shakethedisease wrote: »

This one ? So ? After independence the boundaries will be Scottish not rUK's. Using the same methods as in the 60's. It's as simple as that really.

For future developments/discoveries, yes. No dispute there. But with respect to the existing fields, they belong to the UK, and have done for 50 years. Why would Scotland just be given any of the UK's fields any more than Norway's or Denmark's?

Arklight

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Shetland Klaxon !!!!!! I cannot tell you how many times desperado's losing the argument on these Scottish threads try to bring this nonsense up as fact. Do yourself, and all of us who have to read this fantasy land politics of 'instant Shetland independence' for the 1000th time a favour : and don't bother.

I thought you liked people declaring their independence of distant capitals of which they feel little affinity?

Surely you're not, saying what's good for the nationalist goose is bad for the unionist gander?

I foresee another Falkland Islands. At least the P and O ferries won't have so far to go this time!

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're mixing up the 12 mile zone and the EEZ ( Exclusive Economic Zone ). Which will be Scotlands as well after independence. Sorry. I think we've been at cross purposes, but Scotland get those 200 nautical miles too.

...

As we have seen from the Brexit negotiations, what you want ain't necessarily what you get.

zagubov

westernpromise wrote: »

For future developments/discoveries, yes. No dispute there. But with respect to the existing fields, they belong to the UK, and have done for 50 years. Why would Scotland just be given any of the UK's fields any more than Norway's or Denmark's?

I can see another misconception looming that the fields were developed using UK taxpayers money.

Nope, it was private companies who pay for the privilege.

Of course, if the Westminster Government had had the sense to own an oil company which could finance a sovereign wealth fund like Norway did.....?

Arklight

zagubov wrote: »

I can see another misconception looming that the fields were developed using UK taxpayers money.

Nope, it was private companies who pay for the privilege.

Of course, if the Westminster Government had had the sense to own an oil company which could finance a sovereign wealth fund like Norway did.....?

Communism! The state can't own things because that would be Communism, and Communism is... it's.... Communism!!

Thrugelmir

loadsacash wrote: »

Why all of the talk about oil?

The world is facing a climate emergency!

Going Greener by the day.........