Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 8

[Sway]

NRS said:

s2art said:

motco said:

Is it an absolute gold-plated certainty that any, some, or all of the revenue from oil would be passed to a successfully independent Scotland? Or are they taking it for granted just because they say it is so, as usual?

Probably not. Precedent is that the known reserves are split proportionally. This is to discourage a region finding a gold mine or equivalent and immediately declaring independence to avoid national sharing.

It would be on the nautical boundary most likely. Which would mean a lot of it goes to Scotland (the southern north sea is more gas prone and generally more mature). However at the moment the oil industry is costing more than it makes. I think there will be another upturn at some point before the North Sea ends, but it's too late to "Do a Norway". (To be honest living in Norway but coming from Scotland there is no way the mindset of most British people/ Scots would "do a Norway" anyway. It'd just be spend it all at once). Also it will likely be a while before the upturn happens, as shale oil and gas and has has developed to the point it can keep improving as the costs are low enough to produce even now, and so continue to improve the technology with time. This stops the oil price bouncing very quickly again.

Nope. Nor the 'length of coastline' percentage as per Alex Salmond...

Well established by the UN - pretty much everything is on a per capita split, including future revenues of already discovered reserves.

Which is what made the claim that Cameron suppressed a find of a massive new field just prior to last ref so funny. If it was 'found' after independence Scotland would have been able to claim the lot. Funnily enough, that field still hasn't made itself known, yet none of those spouting such bks have admitted it, including some posters on this edition of the thread.

[motco]

Murph7355 said:

NRS said:

It would be on the nautical boundary most likely. Which would mean a lot of it goes to Scotland...

Can't see that washing with rUK for current reserves.

It's clearly how that boundary is continued eastwards from Berwick. Does it bend the extended land border and go due east and exclude the fields north of it from rUK, or does it (more fairly in my view) continue along the Carlisle/Berwick angle of the land boundary and include far more fields in the rUK sector? Much more blood letting yet to come either way: independent/not independent, and whose oil is it? Sturgeon's lips have scope go get yet thinner, and her voice much harsher yet.

[NRS]

Sway said:

Nope. Nor the 'length of coastline' percentage as per Alex Salmond...

Well established by the UN - pretty much everything is on a per capita split, including future revenues of already discovered reserves.

Which is what made the claim that Cameron suppressed a find of a massive new field just prior to last ref so funny. If it was 'found' after independence Scotland would have been able to claim the lot. Funnily enough, that field still hasn't made itself known, yet none of those spouting such bks have admitted it, including some posters on this edition of the thread.

Which countries has this been established in? I'd be interested to know more. If it's two separate countries it relates to the nautical zone, and then usually there is a disputed area which eventually gets sorted out in the end when one/both countries need the reserves enough.

[Neonblau]

NRS said:

Which countries has this been established in? I'd be interested to know more. If it's two separate countries it relates to the nautical zone, and then usually there is a disputed area which eventually gets sorted out in the end when one/both countries need the reserves enough.

I can't remember the specifics but I'm sure it was implemented by the UN after one of these African civil wars - it may have been Nigeria/Biafra in the 1970s and as stated above is the international convention.

[csd19]

motco said:

Murph7355 said:

NRS said:

It would be on the nautical boundary most likely. Which would mean a lot of it goes to Scotland...

Can't see that washing with rUK for current reserves.

It's clearly how that boundary is continued eastwards from Berwick. Does it bend the extended land border and go due east and exclude the fields north of it from rUK, or does it (more fairly in my view) continue along the Carlisle/Berwick angle of the land boundary and include far more fields in the rUK sector? Much more blood letting yet to come either way: independent/not independent, and whose oil is it? Sturgeon's lips have scope go get yet thinner, and her voice much harsher yet.

I remember this being discussed in my office during the first round of Neverendum, IIRC draw a line from the land border at Berwick across to near Stavanger and that would be the split. Now, don't ask me where that decision came from...

[StescoG66]

steviegunn said:

I am in a similar position, other than I did vote for Independence in 2014, partly to get out of the EU, partly to end the winging of the swathes of my fellow countryfolk who constantly blame all their ills on England but mostly because I believe smaller developed nations better serve their populations than larger ones (something for a different debate on happiness and well being indexes, etc).

I also voted Brexit for similar reasons, however I oppose another Independence referendum and would definately vote no to leave the UK, at least until we have left the EU and a reasonable period of time has passed for the place of the UK and it's constituent parts in the world has settled. For Scotland to exit the UK at the same time is just not on, I expect Brexit to be pretty messy, throwing a load more fuel on the fire is insanity.

Sturgeon and the SNP need to concentrate on governing Scotland properly, something they are becoming more and more useless at. They are in government by default, having been "competent" for the last couple of parliaments, Labour are a shambles, the Lib Dems are barely relevent, it's a shame the Conservatives are still so loathed by so many, particularly in the central belt, I think Scotland could do rather well with a Ruth Davidson lead Holyrood.

The SNP also need to reign in a number of their more vociferous gobstes (MPs and MSPs), who with their pointless diatribes, more and more, resemble the braindead, ill informed, vacious ranters I stumble upon on Youtube from time to time.

This x2

Surely a federal model going forward is the answer

[barryrs]

csd19 said:

motco said:

Murph7355 said:

NRS said:

It would be on the nautical boundary most likely. Which would mean a lot of it goes to Scotland...

Can't see that washing with rUK for current reserves.

It's clearly how that boundary is continued eastwards from Berwick. Does it bend the extended land border and go due east and exclude the fields north of it from rUK, or does it (more fairly in my view) continue along the Carlisle/Berwick angle of the land boundary and include far more fields in the rUK sector? Much more blood letting yet to come either way: independent/not independent, and whose oil is it? Sturgeon's lips have scope go get yet thinner, and her voice much harsher yet.

I remember this being discussed in my office during the first round of Neverendum, IIRC draw a line from the land border at Berwick across to near Stavanger and that would be the split. Now, don't ask me where that decision came from...

Was discussed at length in an earlier volume with details here IIRC http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/...

The conclusion being that it's not Scotland's oil but the UK's and independence would net Scotland a share, just as they would get a share of any shale oil and gas in the rUK.

[simoid]

barryrs said:

Was discussed at length in an earlier volume with details here IIRC http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/...

The conclusion being that it's not Scotland's oil but the UK's and independence would net Scotland a share, just as they would get a share of any shale oil and gas in the rUK.

...so mineral rich areas don't think they can vote for independence and ps off with all the money.

[barryrs]

simoid said:

barryrs said:

Was discussed at length in an earlier volume with details here IIRC http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/...

The conclusion being that it's not Scotland's oil but the UK's and independence would net Scotland a share, just as they would get a share of any shale oil and gas in the rUK.

...so mineral rich areas don't think they can vote for independence and ps off with all the money.

I know, what a ridiculous suggestion

[Sway]

Let's not forget their bluff was called regarding federalism, with them trying to amend the Bill to award Full Fiscal Autonomy only when they decided they wanted it, and to retain Barnett for as long as they wanted.

As the good Reverend in Bath put it "we were promised the best of all world's".

The last things the SNP actually want are FFA or independence. The first because it would prove prior to legal separation how ste the latter would be.

[ianrb]

csd19 said:

motco said:

Murph7355 said:

NRS said:

It would be on the nautical boundary most likely. Which would mean a lot of it goes to Scotland...

Can't see that washing with rUK for current reserves.

It's clearly how that boundary is continued eastwards from Berwick. Does it bend the extended land border and go due east and exclude the fields north of it from rUK, or does it (more fairly in my view) continue along the Carlisle/Berwick angle of the land boundary and include far more fields in the rUK sector? Much more blood letting yet to come either way: independent/not independent, and whose oil is it? Sturgeon's lips have scope go get yet thinner, and her voice much harsher yet.

I remember this being discussed in my office during the first round of Neverendum, IIRC draw a line from the land border at Berwick across to near Stavanger and that would be the split. Now, don't ask me where that decision came from...

It's based on what's called a "trend line", i.e. what the trend of the shape of the coastline is, so not just the exact point where the land boarder meets the sea. From what I've read it can become very complex & political, so not something which PH is going to sort out.

[simoid]

Does a federal UK actually change anything for Scotland now? Other than full fiscal responsibility. But with London subsidising everywhere else..:

[Sway]

simoid said:

Does a federal UK actually change anything for Scotland now? Other than full fiscal responsibility. But with London subsidising everywhere else..:

Nope, just the ability to try and get into a tax war as the only means to prevent SNP-sterity and a slashing of public services.

[Edinburger]

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

In your view simoid, what's more likely: 1) an independent Scotland, or 2) a fully federal UK constitution?

Don't know, hadn't considered lieklihood until now. One has been rejected by a very clear majority for a generation, and the other doesn't appear to have much traction so they're both highly unlikely.

What's your view?

I think a fully federal UK constitution is more likely to happen than Scottish independence.

So the UK parliament covers defence, international relations, issues of UK-wide importance, etc., and the fully devolved parliaments of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with virtually everything related to those countries including taxation and spend.

Best outcome.

[s2art]

Edinburger said:

I think a fully federal UK constitution is more likely to happen than Scottish independence.

So the UK parliament covers defence, international relations, issues of UK-wide importance, etc., and the fully devolved parliaments of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with virtually everything related to those countries including taxation and spend.

Best outcome.

But Scotland is just about there, it wouldnt make much difference to Holyrood. And at worst it would kill the Barnett scheme.

[simoid]

Edinburger said:

I think a fully federal UK constitution is more likely to happen than Scottish independence.

So the UK parliament covers defence, international relations, issues of UK-wide importance, etc., and the fully devolved parliaments of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with virtually everything related to those countries including taxation and spend.

Best outcome.

That does seem reasonable in many ways on the face of it.

Do you see that as advantageous for Scotland - over the present situation?

[davepoth]

simoid said:

That does seem reasonable in many ways on the face of it.

Do you see that as advantageous for Scotland - over the present situation?

IMO England will need regional assemblies to stop it being overbearing. The old regional setup split it into 9, which would make each one more or less as populous as Scotland.

[s2art]

davepoth said:

simoid said:

That does seem reasonable in many ways on the face of it.

Do you see that as advantageous for Scotland - over the present situation?

IMO England will need regional assemblies to stop it being overbearing. The old regional setup split it into 9, which would make each one more or less as populous as Scotland.

But that idea has been rejected. There is no appetite in England for it to be fragmented. The current government is increasing devolution in different ways. Anyway if the answer was even more politicians with loads of regional assemblies you have to ask what the hell was the question, and what was wrong with the current local government set up?

[Murph7355]

Edinburger said:

I think a fully federal UK constitution is more likely to happen than Scottish independence.

So the UK parliament covers defence, international relations, issues of UK-wide importance, etc., and the fully devolved parliaments of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with virtually everything related to those countries including taxation and spend.

Best outcome.

I don't see it happening.

What happens when one then needs bailing out?

[nightcruiser]

http://www.largsandmillportnews.com/news/15161796....