Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 5
Discussion
Axionknight said:
Zod said:
I think the answer to Faslane should be the US telling Scotland, "If you wnat to join NATO, you must give the rUK a 999 year lease on Faslane".
Who cares about America, or their stance on the issues at hand, really?Oakey said:
What exactly would iScotland be bringing to the NATO table? Or are they going to keep the carriers they're building as well as turn their back on the debt?
Without allowing use of Faslane, about 500 deployable military personnel.Edited by Oakey on Wednesday 3rd September 15:57
Zod said:
Oh, I thought America had a role in NATO as somehting like by far the biggest military power. I must have been wrong.
Does that give them the ability to dictate the terms of a potential iScotland/rUK situation - however slim the chance of a yes vote?No I don't think it does.
Axionknight said:
Does that give them the ability to dictate the terms of a potential iScotland/rUK situation - however slim the chance of a yes vote?
No I don't think it does.
No - but it probably does give them a veto on entry into NATO (a veto that will only be lifted should certain conditions be met by iScotland).No I don't think it does.
From the Yes website:
"The current Scottish Government supports continued membership of NATO, subect [sic] to the caveat that membership should not require retention of nuclear weapons in Scotland."
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 3rd September 16:26
RandomTask said:
Wait, if you're in the rUK you'd want your nuclear weapons sitting in a foreign country?
Where they are stored is kinda irrelevant to a degree - the actual nuclear deterrent is contained within the missiles and warheads loaded onto the operational subs (I assume our Vanguard class subs carry an active compliment with them at all times)The UK doesn't (as far as I am aware) have the capability for ground launched nuclear weapons - so any stored at Falslane are unavailable for deployment anyway.
The UKs compliment of nukes can be fully deployed on all 4 subs. We have 58 missiles - but our subs can carry a combined payload of up to 64 missiles - so are any missiles actually stored at Faslane other than when a sub is in the dock. I would imagine our subs would carry a full compliment (or close to it) at all times.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 3rd September 16:41
Moonhawk said:
Axionknight said:
Does that give them the ability to dictate the terms of a potential iScotland/rUK situation - however slim the chance of a yes vote?
No I don't think it does.
No - but it probably does give them a veto on entry into NATO (a veto that will only be lifted should certain conditions be met by iScotland).No I don't think it does.
From the Yes website:
"The current Scottish Government supports continued membership of NATO, subect [sic] to the caveat that membership should not require retention of nuclear weapons in Scotland."
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 3rd September 16:26
McWigglebum4th said:
Moonhawk said:
Indeed - it was only a few weeks back that it was suggested that there was a Westminster conspiracy to keep data regarding vast new reserves in the Claire field a secret until after the referendum.
We have a stanch YES voter in the officeShe was posting on facebook about how it was a HUGE conspiracy by the tory scum to hide the BP clair discovery from us
She has been working on a valve project
I had a look at it today
Top of the data sheet
BP clair
With this in mind, the best approach for the Yes campaign would be for these 'new and vast reserves' to be as secret as possible so they could be officially 'discovered' after independence and therefore belong 100% to Scotland. The irony is that the nats are shouting very loudly about these fields and making sure everyone knows about them before independence. They therefore belong to the UK.
My conspiracy theory is therefore the opposite to what the nats think. Cameron deliberately held this top-secret meeting in a non-top-secret way so the Yes press make sure everyone knows about the reserves before independence
alock said:
The precedence in internal law is very well defined. Mineral rights of known reserves are split in relation to the population and not geographically.
What is the precedence for this, can you link to some examples?[on the train I overheard "Salmond's like a clown driving a bulldozer" which sums up many of my observations better than I ever could]
Twilkes said:
What is the precedence for this, can you link to some examples?
[on the train I overheard "Salmond's like a clown driving a bulldozer" which sums up many of my observations better than I ever could]
Bottom post on this thread contains two links (one of which is behind a paywall).[on the train I overheard "Salmond's like a clown driving a bulldozer" which sums up many of my observations better than I ever could]
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The first link is about South Sudan and how mineral rights were split upon it's independence. The other is a financial times article discussing this subject.
Somebody on another thread also mentioned Biafra.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 3rd September 18:31
Twilkes said:
What is the precedence for this, can you link to some examples?
[on the train I overheard "Salmond's like a clown driving a bulldozer" which sums up many of my observations better than I ever could]
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b609d594-97cc-11e3-ab60-00144feab7de.html#axzz3CH6l1k1c[on the train I overheard "Salmond's like a clown driving a bulldozer" which sums up many of my observations better than I ever could]
FT said:
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b609d594-97cc-11e3-ab60-...
And so to Scotland. Britain’s rules on ownership of natural resources were clear well before oil was discovered; the UK Continental Shelf Act was passed in 1964. Before the discovery of oil in 1969, the Scots opted heavily against independence: in the 1966 general election the Scottish National party failed to win a single seat. The subsequent rise of Scottish nationalism, supported by the slogan “It’s Scotland’s oil”, is evidently in part an attempt at a retrospective resource grab. The 8 per cent of Britons who live in Scotland are between them entitled to an 8 per cent share of the proceeds from the British oil that has already been discovered, some of it in Scotland – no more, no less. If, after independence, some priceless new resource were discovered in the Highlands, it would be exclusively Scottish. Conversely, if it were discovered in Surrey, the Scots would miss out.
And so to Scotland. Britain’s rules on ownership of natural resources were clear well before oil was discovered; the UK Continental Shelf Act was passed in 1964. Before the discovery of oil in 1969, the Scots opted heavily against independence: in the 1966 general election the Scottish National party failed to win a single seat. The subsequent rise of Scottish nationalism, supported by the slogan “It’s Scotland’s oil”, is evidently in part an attempt at a retrospective resource grab. The 8 per cent of Britons who live in Scotland are between them entitled to an 8 per cent share of the proceeds from the British oil that has already been discovered, some of it in Scotland – no more, no less. If, after independence, some priceless new resource were discovered in the Highlands, it would be exclusively Scottish. Conversely, if it were discovered in Surrey, the Scots would miss out.
Twilkes said:
alock said:
The precedence in internal law is very well defined. Mineral rights of known reserves are split in relation to the population and not geographically.
What is the precedence for this, can you link to some examples?[on the train I overheard "Salmond's like a clown driving a bulldozer" which sums up many of my observations better than I ever could]
http://unmis.unmissions.org/Portals/UNMIS/Document...
(Page 70 of the PDF, the whole thing makes interesting reading as this is the sort of thing iScotland and rUK would end up with.)
Interesting angle from The Guardian which makes good reading:
Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm. England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?
Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm. England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?
Edinburger said:
Interesting angle from The Guardian which makes good reading:
Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm. England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?
Scots voting no to independence would be an astonishing act of self-harm. England is dysfunctional, corrupt and vastly unequal. Who on earth would want to be tied to such a country?
Monbiot Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff