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

paparossco

Oh yes tribalism is alive and well in the West of Scotland, but as I say Irish Nationalism is not on radar as part of the Indy debate.

Shakethedisease

Arklight wrote: »

I don't wish to sound rude, but what actually are your qualifications or experience regarding any of this conjecture?

Same as yours. But I listen to experts in their fields. Feel free to question this chaps qualifications. I think you'll find they're much, MUCH better than westernpromise's.

Prof Alex Kemp https://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/8812/ "Now internationally renowned as a leading petro-economist, Professor Kemp’s long career has seen him advise the Scottish and UK Governments, the World Bank, and the United Nations on energy economics.":-

Under the present arrangement the oil tax revenues are assigned to an economic region set up by the UK government, which is called the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS).This means that oil resources are not officially assigned to Scotland but instead to a region distinct from the British mainland.
But if Scotland were to become independent, and a sovereign state, it would expect the UKCS to be divided up on a "geographical" basis.
Prof Alex Kemp, from the University of Aberdeen, is the leading expert on Scotland's oil industry.

And his analysis

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.

Also the UN which uses

It is the same principle as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

There's no mention of westernpromises fantasy UK EEZ... still apparently based in the North Sea off Scotland's coast.. once Scotland goes independent. An indepdendent Scotland will no more be paying rUK for the use of it's own natural resources after independence than the Republic of Ireland did. He needs to suck it up, wake up and face the facts. rUK not 'consenting' is irrelevant to a future Scotland.

Tromking

paparossco wrote: »

Oh yes tribalism is alive and well in the West of Scotland, but as I say Irish Nationalism is not on radar as part of the Indy debate.

That's not my point.
Merely making the connection with people who traditionally view the British State negatively because of their Irish heritage and have now extended that in built antipathy to include Scotland's place in the Union.
Not exactly a brand of civic nationalism most people would recognise.

paparossco

So if you are from an Irish Catholic background you vote for independence? Broad brush and from personal experience I can assure you, wrong.

BTW I thought it was a point raised by Thrugelmir........

westernpromise

What Scotland "would expect", or what is "obvious" according to some know-nothing academic who's not even a lawyer is entirely beside the point.

What would apply is the actual legal agreement (otherwise what's to stop Scotland claiming Norway's or Denmark's oil?).

Sorry to keep bursting your little Nat fantasy with the facts, but there is simply no way the UK will abandon mineral rights apportioned by sovereign agreement in favour of a weaker, later claim. Nor is there any mechanism whereby the UK can be forced to so so. Look into how Argentina has been getting on with that vis a vis the Falklands, for example.

Tromking

paparossco wrote: »

So if you are from an Irish Catholic background you vote for independence? Broad brush and from personal experience I can assure you, wrong.

BTW I thought it was a point raised by Thrugelmir........

Your point to Thrugelmir and myself is that Irish nationalism is not part of the debate. My point and maybe’s Thrugelmir as well, is that that even without public displays of the Irish tricolour, a recent switch by the West of Scotland to the politics of independence is being roundly supported by those of an Irish Catholic heritage, ie.people with an inbuilt antipathy toward the British State.
From my personal albeit anecdotal experience, that development is causing some disquiet amongst other Scots.

paparossco

Of course if this is how you both perceive things then you are entitled to your opinion and I fully respect that. We can agree to differ. Sitting where I am I don’t see or hear the same undercurrent.

Shakethedisease

westernpromise wrote: »

What Scotland "would expect", or what is "obvious" according to some know-nothing academic who's not even a lawyer is entirely beside the point.

What would apply is the actual legal agreement (otherwise what's to stop Scotland claiming Norway's or Denmark's oil?).

Sorry to keep bursting your little Nat fantasy with the facts, but there is simply no way the UK will abandon mineral rights apportioned by sovereign agreement in favour of a weaker, later claim. Nor is there any mechanism whereby the UK can be forced to so so. Look into how Argentina has been getting on with that vis a vis the Falklands, for example.

There is actually a mechanism. Its called independence and an equal partner of what was the UK, will take her mineral rights with her 100% on independence day.

The rUK will have no more mineral rights in sovereign Scottish waters. Youll be waving ta ta to those and any other treaties the UK signed up to while Scotland was an equal partner in it. rUK will have to go to court if they would like a future share... but their claim will be much weaker than Scotland's. The Falkland islanders want to stay British, when or if they don't.. expect Argentina to swoop in quite quickly with claims. Claims rUK can do nothing about short of.. well.

I'm moving on now. I'm fed up with this particular rabbit hole. Come on Boris !

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 48% (+1)
No 52% (-1)

Q:What is it going to take to get Yes over 50% ?
A: Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

Shakethedisease

paparossco wrote: »

Of course if this is how you both perceive things then you are entitled to your opinion and I fully respect that. We can agree to differ. Sitting where I am I don’t see or hear the same undercurrent.

Im West of Scotland too. Nothing on my radar either. It's the Scottish Tories that have started emphasising the 'and UNIONIST' party in their recent campaigns. A blatant appeal to a certain religious or football related sector.

I don't see the reverse anywhere.

Tromking

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Im West of Scotland too. Nothing on my radar either. It's the Scottish Tories that have started emphasising the 'and UNIONIST' party in their recent campaigns. A blatant appeal to a certain religious or football related sector.

I don't see the reverse anywhere.

Wholly reasonable to emphasise the Union when its the Union at stake surely?
Not quite so reasonable to channel the sort of sentiments surrounding the Irish issue and use it in the Scottish independence debate IMO.
I've personally lost count of comments on twitter I've seen from those espousing Scottish independence and at the same time displaying pro-IRA and Irish Republican sympathies. Most of the protagonists seem to from the West of Scotland it has to be said.