"PS as for no one wanting a Tory Government why were they the biggest single party ? another 13 years of a Labour Government and there wont be any English left if what was once called England and no UK----- good luck with voting for that."
Almost 11 million people voted for Conservatives. Almost 16 million voted for other Parties.
Independence for Scotland will happen one day.....let 'em have it if they want it
I spent 4 years living in Shetland and they are adamant that it's their oil and not Scotland's, and they do not support Scottish independence and would rather maintain direct links with Westminster.
Also, as a vote on independence for Scotland is really about the break up of the UK, shouldn't we all (England, Scotland, Wales & NI) get a vote?
So, just playing devils advocate SE9, in theory I could declare my house an independant state (after holding a referendum involving the wife, the guinea pig and the cat) and tell the bank to go whistle for the mortgage... :-)
I wonder how they would decide nationality, if it were true the revenues for oil would make them super rich as a country with a very small population, aren't we all entitled to citizenship as UK subjects?
There's a lot of sadly misinformed shit in this thread. All the nonsense about the oil not being drilled by Scottish companies is risible. Exxon and Shell aren't British (or indeed Arabian), but they'll happily go where the black gold is and pay for the privilege. Still it's a bad idea. The Scottish parliament has shown the country isn't in shape to govern itself.
Also, I should say, that we're better off as a United Kingdom. And most people know it. This was a protest vote against some years of poor government and cuts.
Interesting point raised above. If Scotland became independent, but Shetland remained part of the UK, then who's oil would it be?
Also, how much of the oil field is actually within territorial waters? The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines this as a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state.
You can see at this link that the North Sea is split between a number of countries, Britain and Norway by far controlling the most. If Scotland because independent I'm sure Westminster would be keen to retain everything marked as British that isn't within Scottish territorial waters (i.e. the vast majority of it) and would surely be legally within it's rights to do so, unless somehow Scotland becoming independent would allow it to take control of a vast area of water, outside of it's own territory, currently controlled by another country (in this case the UK, which Scotland would be leaving)
how could shetland remain part of UK, surely it would come under the original act of union of the two countries and therefore be part of Scotland?
Interesting point Randy Andy, but alot of extra-terratorial boundries were agreed in advance of the UNCLS. It would take a complaint from the UK (which would in itself would by no means restrict the Scots use of the waters - rather register Britains protest to them doing so) to even raise the issue, but as most of the major powers on earth have some sort of extra-terratorial claims to portions of the globe then I don't think there would be many backers. Furthermore as the UK's extra-terratorial claim is based on the coastline of Scotland then an independent Scotland would undoubtedly inherit all territory agreed based on it's boundries, including the North Sea portion, as the natural continuing legacy of Scotlands terratorial soveriegnty.
Algarve, I fully support the new nation of Algarve and hope to visit your fine land one day and celebrate your freedom !
Return of SE7 - I'm afraid I have to disagree with both your points. I really don't think the Shetlands would opt out of an independent Scotland. It would be a bit like Surrey opting out of England. It might sound good to say when you're frustrated but in reality would never happen. But it would pose a very interesting question re the oil. Secondly a vote on Scottish Independence wouldn't directly be a vote on the continuation of the UK, it would rather be a vote for Scottish people to decide if they want to remain part of the Union. For instance if the UK wanted to leave the EU do you think it would be fair that every other country in that Union got to vote on the matter as well ? What would likely be the natural outcome however is that the vote was "yes" to leaving the Union then Wales would have a similar vote (NI may be different for obvious reasons).
One thing I'm not quite clear on, the feeling seems to be that the oil should remain in British (English) hands because Britain paid for the exploration or piping. Are we talking about the British state having paid for this infrastructure ? If so,and correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from a couple of exploratory surveys in the early 1970's I would imagine the vast majority of expenditure on the infrastructure required would have been paid for by the companies involved in the drilling for oil ? If so they are private enterprises and I don't see how Scotlands status would affect them ?
Despite all the above just want to clarify that I agree with Mortermerician's comments that I don't want Scotland to become independent, if I get a vote I'd vote "no". Just wanted to balance up some of the arguments.
Saga, I believe they are still discovering more deposits so I don't think it's dried up yet - though clearly that day will come as it's not a sustainable source. My main concern is that the SNP seem to think that the oil will solve all the problems, but what happens when it does eventually run out (even if that's 200 years from now).
There are many countries in the European Union who have no desire to be part of the UK - Scotlands reasons are probably pretty much the same as each of those nations.
When I was at school, SE9, I was told the Scottish oil would run out in the 1990s, so I assumed it must be drying up by now - I would be interested to know what the latest estimates are. Nevertheless, I can't see it lasting another 200 years. When it runs out what has Scotland got? Problem is that politicians are only concerned with the short-term.
I live in an oil rich province, we drag vast quantities of it out of the tar sands in Northern Alberta, yet this month the province is slashing hundreds of teaching jobs, the infrastructure (roads/rail etc) is mid 20th Century level & privatisation of health care is firmly on our right-wing govt's agenda.,
As far as I can see, the revenue generated by oil goes largely to the producers directly or indirectly in the form of incentives, lower taxes & minimal royalties.
Comments
"PS as for no one wanting a Tory Government why were they the biggest single party ? another 13 years of a Labour Government and there wont be any English left if what was once called England and no UK----- good luck with voting for that."
Almost 11 million people voted for Conservatives. Almost 16 million voted for other Parties.
Independence for Scotland will happen one day.....let 'em have it if they want it
Also, as a vote on independence for Scotland is really about the break up of the UK, shouldn't we all (England, Scotland, Wales & NI) get a vote?
I wonder how they would decide nationality, if it were true the revenues for oil would make them super rich as a country with a very small population, aren't we all entitled to citizenship as UK subjects?
Also, how much of the oil field is actually within territorial waters? The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines this as a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state.
You can see at this link that the North Sea is split between a number of countries, Britain and Norway by far controlling the most. If Scotland because independent I'm sure Westminster would be keen to retain everything marked as British that isn't within Scottish territorial waters (i.e. the vast majority of it) and would surely be legally within it's rights to do so, unless somehow Scotland becoming independent would allow it to take control of a vast area of water, outside of it's own territory, currently controlled by another country (in this case the UK, which Scotland would be leaving)
Interesting point Randy Andy, but alot of extra-terratorial boundries were agreed in advance of the UNCLS. It would take a complaint from the UK (which would in itself would by no means restrict the Scots use of the waters - rather register Britains protest to them doing so) to even raise the issue, but as most of the major powers on earth have some sort of extra-terratorial claims to portions of the globe then I don't think there would be many backers. Furthermore as the UK's extra-terratorial claim is based on the coastline of Scotland then an independent Scotland would undoubtedly inherit all territory agreed based on it's boundries, including the North Sea portion, as the natural continuing legacy of Scotlands terratorial soveriegnty.
Algarve, I fully support the new nation of Algarve and hope to visit your fine land one day and celebrate your freedom !
Return of SE7 - I'm afraid I have to disagree with both your points. I really don't think the Shetlands would opt out of an independent Scotland. It would be a bit like Surrey opting out of England. It might sound good to say when you're frustrated but in reality would never happen. But it would pose a very interesting question re the oil. Secondly a vote on Scottish Independence wouldn't directly be a vote on the continuation of the UK, it would rather be a vote for Scottish people to decide if they want to remain part of the Union. For instance if the UK wanted to leave the EU do you think it would be fair that every other country in that Union got to vote on the matter as well ? What would likely be the natural outcome however is that the vote was "yes" to leaving the Union then Wales would have a similar vote (NI may be different for obvious reasons).
One thing I'm not quite clear on, the feeling seems to be that the oil should remain in British (English) hands because Britain paid for the exploration or piping. Are we talking about the British state having paid for this infrastructure ? If so,and correct me if I'm wrong, but aside from a couple of exploratory surveys in the early 1970's I would imagine the vast majority of expenditure on the infrastructure required would have been paid for by the companies involved in the drilling for oil ? If so they are private enterprises and I don't see how Scotlands status would affect them ?
Despite all the above just want to clarify that I agree with Mortermerician's comments that I don't want Scotland to become independent, if I get a vote I'd vote "no". Just wanted to balance up some of the arguments.
Saga, I believe they are still discovering more deposits so I don't think it's dried up yet - though clearly that day will come as it's not a sustainable source. My main concern is that the SNP seem to think that the oil will solve all the problems, but what happens when it does eventually run out (even if that's 200 years from now).
There are many countries in the European Union who have no desire to be part of the UK - Scotlands reasons are probably pretty much the same as each of those nations.
tsk, better emigrate then