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

zagubov

Nasqueron wrote: »

So when Shetland declares independence of the independent Scotland to stay in the UK will you a) accept it and b) give up the revenue back to the UK

How are you going to deal with lost revenues as oil stays low or the party moves to greener times and stops producing?

Remind me how the oil from Shetland will be passed to the UK without passing through Scottish waters?

Unless they tried to pass it for processing in Norway. In which case they'd participate in the sovereign oil fund in Norway rather than paying tax in the rUK.

Although they could also participate in whatever sovereign oil fund Scotland might initiate, without changing their legal system, learning Bokmal and Riksmal, driving on the right and restoring national service and paying £8 for a lager? :think:

Is that a tempting prospect?

Isn't Lerwick much much nearer to Aberdeen's big English-speaking hospitals than to Bergen or Newcastle?
Remember how the four-times bigger Isle of Man has to fly its difficult cases to Liverpool.

God knows how the three-times bigger Channel Islands deal with their harder medical challenges, and unlike the Isle of Man they don't have an NHS.

I'd ramble on more, but I've been taking the Shetland argument's pulse for many a long year, and I'm sorry to say, it's still at best working its way up to a zero.:(

westernpromise

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes. Existing fields won't be in UK waters anymore. How could they be ? They'll be Scottish waters from independence day. Licences and revenues will go to the Scottish treasury.

Uk waters = Uk treasury.
Scottish waters = Scottish treasury
Norwegian waters = Norwegian treasury.

Theres no Scottish waters = Uk treasury.

The legal position is very clear. Existing fields belong to the UK by international treaty. What you think are "Scottish waters" have no basis in international law. The oil and gas are in international waters, and ownership was determined in 1965.

You may wish otherwise, but too bad.

Now, what sum is Scotland prepared to offer the UK, in return for the UK's oil and gas fields?

westernpromise

zagubov wrote: »

Remind me how the oil from Shetland will be passed to the UK without passing through Scottish waters?

You don't know a lot about the oil industry, and it shows.

Russian oil is supplied, among other means, via pipeline to refineries in central Europe. The pipeline to eastern Germany passes through Poland. I imagine that you imagine that this makes the oil Polish?

Likewise, Doba Blend crude oil originates in Chad but is loaded at terminals in Cameroon. You presumably imagine this makes Chad's oil the property of Cameroon?

A large amount of the crude oil refined in Rotterdam and Antwerp finds it s way via barge through Germany to Switzerland. The oil belongs to Germany presumably?

elantan

SpiderLegs wrote: »

Unionists don’t need to go on marches as they already have what they want.

A lot of them tend to have what they call a marching season ... marching all the time during the summer ... so clearly they do ... incidentally I recognise that not all unionists March... just like not all indy supporters March.... but the number difference is huge

Tromking

The spread of the independence cause to the central belt was alaways going to give vent to Scotland’s sectarian issues. I said as much to Shakey a couple of years ago, as usual she pooh poohed it.
You don’t get Scottish independence if it’s the cause celebre of Irish nationalists based in Scotland.

paparossco

Tromking wrote: »

You don’t get Scottish independence if it’s the cause celebre of Irish nationalists based in Scotland.

It is not even on the radar. From what I saw not a single Tricolour at the last AUOB March.

Shakethedisease

westernpromise wrote: »

The legal position is very clear. Existing fields belong to the UK by international treaty. What you think are "Scottish waters" have no basis in international law. The oil and gas are in international waters, and ownership was determined in 1965.

You may wish otherwise, but too bad.

Now, what sum is Scotland prepared to offer the UK, in return for the UK's oil and gas fields?

You can have Trident back. The rest of your post is patent wishful thinking. Scotland being the first coastal country in the world to go independent... yet will have no EEZ allocated using standard geographical and international laws.

Oil is neither here nor there to me. It's volatile, and something that seems to be running out/worthless or booming depending on how well the SNP are doing or not. But an independent Scotland is entitled to it's own EEZ as well as any other independent nation. That it happens to include 90% of UK oil fields is just bad luck for rUK, but doesn't change anything at all. You'll just have to deal with losing them and the massive problems it creates for rUK when the time comes.

Thrugelmir

paparossco wrote: »

It is not even on the radar. From what I saw not a single Tricolour at the last AUOB March.

The connection still exists.

westernpromise

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You can have Trident back. The rest of your post is patent wishful thinking. Scotland being the first coastal country in the world to go independent... yet will have no EEZ allocated using standard geographical and international laws.

Oil is neither here nor there to me. It's volatile, and something that seems to be running out/worthless or booming depending on how well the SNP are doing or not. But an independent Scotland is entitled to it's own EEZ as well as any other independent nation. That it happens to include 90% of UK oil fields is just bad luck for rUK, but doesn't change anything at all. You'll just have to deal with losing them and the massive problems it creates for rUK when the time comes.

On the contrary, my post is based on the actual legal facts. Like all nationalist, racist guff, it's your thinking that's utopian and wishful. Your "argument" consists of assertions of what's "obvious". What's obvious is that Scotland has no claim on the UK's oil. To obtain a share of the UK's existing fields would entail a renegotiation, agreed by all, the original signatories, of the agreements whereby international waters were partitioned back in the 1960s.

One party to those agreements was the Kingdom of the Netherlands which, like the UK, consists of four countries under a common monarchy. Among these four countries - the Netherlands, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, and Aruba - the latter produces a bit of condensate. Given this, do you imagine, seriously, that the Netherlands would sign up to any precedent whereby a piece of a country can leave and take that parent country's mineral wealth with it? So you've got the UK and the Netherlands that won't renegotiate.

Scotland will get a share of new fields, but remind me again who's developing new fields in the UK sector? Er, nobody, that's who.

You need to do a little bit of growing up and recognise that the world is not as you think it is, nor is Scotland quite the globally significant power you imagine. The UK will not come to an end with the departure of a poverty-stricken and backward region that absorbs 9.3% of its spending population but pays only 7.8% of the tax on the most generous reading while bellyaching with its hand held out to England for more. I very much hope that Scotland will one day learn to stand on its own two feet, and a good start would be to understand how the North Sea actually works. I don't know what Salmond is doing with his time on remand, but he could do worse than use it to understand his own supposed area of expertise.

paparossco

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The connection still exists.

You must have a deeper insight than me. I only live in the West of Scotland and repeat that as far as I see or hear the issue of Irish Nationalism is not even a subtext in the Scottish independence argument. What we do have is the Scottish Branches of the Loyal Orange Order trying to drum up (pardon the pun) support for the Unionist cause which is fine as long as they don’t try to disguise it.