And some more from Wikipedia, see in particular the paragraph "Reality of the Claim" about the legal jurisdictions in the North Sea.
It's Scotland's oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The argument over whether or not Scotland receives more than its fair share of UK money is a bit specious anyway - as part of the UK, Scotland is allocated money on the basis of decisions reached by the UK Parliament, and anyway since when did a nation state have to live within its means - the UK National Debt at the end of March 2007 was £574.4 billion, equivalent to 42.6 per cent of GDP (and this is probably understated by off-balance sheet deals such as PFI etc).
National Statistics Online
And it's probably worth pointing out that on average, public money spent per head in Scotland is lower than that spent in London (£9631 v £9748, according to research by The Herald - Scotland's Leading Quality Daily Newspaper)
Factor in whatever the division would be of oil revenues, the reduction in defence spending because Scotland would not want Trident etc, and the financial picture for an independent Scotland is a bit brighter. (And don't mention the London Olympics!!!!)
I am ambivalent about independence - the United Kingdom has served both parties reasonably well, and I have no desire to live in a Scotland that whinges about how its problems are all down to the nasty English - no more would I want to live in a country where the English are unwelcome. But I suspect that politicos (north and south) with their own agendas will at some point drive the 2 countries apart, and myths about the Scots being subsidy junkies just add to their strength - the English resent the idea that they are paying for us, and the Scots resent the slur.
This thread is all David James' fault. (That's my anti-English whinge!)
Last edited by John S; 14th-February-2008 at 07:17 PM. Reason: Added reference
Hi
i live in the borders(on the english side by ten miles) and feel i have to get my say in this debate. when i say i live in the borders i mean i have lived here all my life and i truely believe that the border divide should be about 30-40 miles further south than where it currently is.
My day to day life has always been lived in either scotland or england in fact i dont see a border! I see my area. I Believe living here we have as much in common with london as we do with Paris, or any other country capital, our taxes go to a place i have never been before or ever want to go.
I dont think its a case of "what can we get from being in scotland" at least not only, its also a case of what can we give in return! north northumberland is a great, and beautiful area with lots of history of similar types as across the border. The border Reivers, and in times of war between england and scotland the people from both sides of the border spent more time forming there own clans and stealing and killing from the southerners. there are so many ties that it just seems stupid to not atleast think about the proposal.
Lets put it like this........ if on the 6'0clock news i heard that england had raised an army to take scotland and they were on the way up the A1 then don my sword i would , and chase them back to their homes with a hot arse!
I still fail to see how moving the border a few miles will make that much difference to a potential split of oil revenue. Given the (I guess) proximity map that Caro posted a link to, the dividing line over the water will hardly move at all further from the coast where the oil actually is.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
That does make a big difference – because the median or proximity line is significantly different to the "angle of landfall" line. In neither case would making the actual position of the border different by a few miles change matters much.
Has the government really moved it?
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
From here (as supplied by John S upthread)
It's Scotland's oil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, yes, it looks like the "borders" have been "moved" - depending on your interpretation of "border" and "moved", of course.The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction[7][8]. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland[9]. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits[10][11].
However, this post:
Is still wrong - Berwick's oil rights would presumably be negligent either way.
OK, but the line as drawn is nothing line the line shown in FM's first link with a steep angle heading up to Norway. It's still interesting though from the illustration on page "98" of this document just how much sways in the balance of exactly how you draw that line. And it may just be possible that a move of the English/Scottish border at Berwick would have not insignificant effect. (Though compared to the the whole of the North Sea, not that great.)
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Most of the Gas reserves (what little is left) stay with the English side no matter which line is used.
But, as I said earlier, moving the line was a pre-emptive manoeuvre to try to keep a significant oil reserve in English waters. Had the line been done by convention the existing oil reserves in English waters would be very much lower. Moving the border down whether to the Tweed or to the Isle of Wight makes the lack of oil an even bigger problem.
Also, keep in mind that when this happened the Northern shelf had not been proved to be oil bearing.
If you go for the "extension of land borders" approach, then after giving away Berwick, the new England-Scotland border to the East of Berwick could be designed to run North-South
What do your friends, relatives and neighbours think?They would probably drop cluster bombs first, then come in to "mop up".
The border Reivers, and in times of war between england and scotland the people from both sides of the border spent more time forming there own clans and stealing and killing from the southerners. there are so many ties that it just seems stupid to not at least think about it
Lets put it like this........ if on the 6'0clock news i heard that england had raised an army to take scotland and they were on the way up the A1 then don my sword i would , and chase them back to their homes with a hot arse!
Actually, having given this a great deal of thought, I propose that the Scottish Government should offer the English a swap deal.
We'll take Berwick off their hands, them being such indecisive, awkward types after all, and give them North Berwick in exchange. We'll throw in the wee mountain and golf courses, and might even chuck in the Bass Rock as a sweetener. But you will have to take all the pensioners.
Yes, all of them.
Remembered a newspaper report that said rookie's training for armed combat abroad has been reduced from 3 months to around 6 weeks. (numbers may be wrong).
So the army are under a lot of strain.
Plus a UK soldier is just as likely to be maimed by the idiot Americans "allies" as by the ememy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks