Jump to content

'Our' oil


i8hibsh

Recommended Posts

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/iain_macwhirter/2008/06/north_sea_spoils.html

 

It is almost impossible to have a conversation with a Nationalist without them mentioning the oil

 

Now I am sorry but here is where I stand

 

Yes it is indeed a valuable resource.

Yes Scotland should indeed benefit from it

 

Now that is where the agreement ends with the Nats

 

Here is the reality

 

1. It is not 'ours' - we do not own the North Sea

2.When voluntarily signing the treaty of the Union we agreed that all money earned in the Union should go into a pot and be shared - note this was ok back when weweer in dire straits and had nothing. Now we have something we want it all.

3.It is not an infinate reasource (although it is estimated still 50 billion barrells to drill for)

4.One day (in the very near future) oil will not be required as friendlier resources will be available - FACT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • i8hibsh

    53

  • Toggie88

    32

  • Therapist

    17

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

hughesie27

Is the money shared equally bewtween countries or a paercentage compared to population, land mass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/iain_macwhirter/2008/06/north_sea_spoils.html

 

It is almost impossible to have a conversation with a Nationalist without them mentioning the oil

 

Now I am sorry but here is where I stand

 

Yes it is indeed a valuable resource.

Yes Scotland should indeed benefit from it

 

Now that is where the agreement ends with the Nats

 

Here is the reality

 

1. It is not 'ours' - we do not own the North Sea

2.When voluntarily signing the treaty of the Union we agreed that all money earned in the Union should go into a pot and be shared - note this was ok back when weweer in dire straits and had nothing. Now we have something we want it all.

3.It is not an infinate reasource (although it is estimated still 50 billion barrells to drill for)

4.One day (in the very near future) oil will not be required as friendlier resources will be available - FACT

 

If it wasn't for the size of the Scottish coast line, then the union would not have as big a share of the sea in which it drills.

Oil is the main reason that people want to keep the union, Westminster will not give control of North Sea Oil to scotland if it ever gets Independance.

BTW who does own the North Sea?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The oil rightfully belongs to the Shetland Isles - which became a part of Scotland more recently than Scotland became a part of Britain, as security against a loan to Denmark which was never repaid. The links between the Shetland Isles and Scotland are far more tenuous than those between Scotland and Britain, the two are culturally very different.

 

Question for the Natis - do you think that the Shetland Isles should push for independence from Scottish rule? They don't want these nasty Edinburgh bureaucrats taking all their money, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Either please stop starting these threads or do your homework beforehand. All four of your points are easily refuted by verifiable facts. Go back and start again, sensibly this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it wasn't for the size of the Scottish coast line, then the union would not have as big a share of the sea in which it drills.

Oil is the main reason that people want to keep the union, Westminster will not give control of North Sea Oil to scotland if it ever gets Independance.

BTW who does own the North Sea?

 

Noone technically but it is EU jurisdiction

Link to post
Share on other sites
The oil rightfully belongs to the Shetland Isles - which became a part of Scotland more recently than Scotland became a part of Britain, as security against a loan to Denmark which was never repaid. The links between the Shetland Isles and Scotland are far more tenuous than those between Scotland and Britain, the two are culturally very different.

 

Question for the Natis - do you think that the Shetland Isles should push for independence from Scottish rule? They don't want these nasty Edinburgh bureaucrats taking all their money, after all.

 

See that bleedin Westminster with their Scottish PM and Scottish chancellor -they are raping the scots

 

It's just take take take - poor poor Scotland

Link to post
Share on other sites
Either please stop starting these threads or do your homework beforehand. All four of your points are easily refuted by verifiable facts. Go back and start again, sensibly this time.

 

that is a fantastic backup up to an argumnet

 

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Noone technically but it is EU jurisdiction

 

Rubbish, Norway and Denmark both have drilling rights in the North Sea and they are not in the EU.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rubbish, Norway and Denmark both have drilling rights in the North Sea and they are not in the EU.

 

Becasue that is not in EU jurisdiction

 

EU don't own all North sea just the parts that are in the EU

Link to post
Share on other sites
Either please stop starting these threads or do your homework beforehand. All four of your points are easily refuted by verifiable facts. Go back and start again, sensibly this time.

 

May I draw your attention to point 3?

 

"Oil is not an infinite resource"

 

How exactly can this be refuted by verifiable fact? If you can find a way to produce oil infinately you are going to be a very rich person. Fossil fuels are produced through geological processes over millions of years. Yes, I grant you that some oil/coal/gas is still being produced under the Earths surface just now but at nowhere near the rate at which it is being extracted. Go back and start again, sensibly this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Boaby Ewing
so bu 2048 we will be going cap in hand to our neighbours again

 

 

No. An independent Scotland is viable without oil (well as viable as the rest of the U.K. is, anyway).

 

But it'd be bloody stupid not to wonder what 40 billion barrels at over $100 a pop (approx 50 percent of profits going to whatever treasury) could do for a country, especially one with a small population.

 

Especially if it was used sensibly, as in Norway, rather than squandered as just another government income stream.

 

Anyway, whatever side of the independence divide you're on, as a Scot the amount of oil still there to be tapped has to be a good thing.

 

As for Shetland, I'd be in a pretty weak position to quibble if they did want to become independent and claim the oil. Can't see it happening though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Becasue that is not in EU jurisdiction

 

EU don't own all North sea just the parts that are in the EU

 

So by rights then all the revenue that the union take from the North Sea, should really go directly to Brussels as it is really belongs to the EU.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Shetland, I'd be in a pretty weak position to quibble if they did want to become independent and claim the oil. Can't see it happening though.

 

Is there not some guy trying to go to court about it at the moment? Not that I'm saying that I think he'll be successful, obviously he won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No. An independent Scotland is viable without oil (well as viable as the rest of the U.K. is, anyway).

 

But it'd be bloody stupid not to wonder what 40 billion barrels at over $100 a pop (approx 50 percent of profits going to whatever treasury) could do for a country, especially one with a small population.

 

Especially if it was used sensibly, as in Norway, rather than squandered as just another government income stream.

 

Anyway, whatever side of the independence divide you're on, as a Scot the amount of oil still there to be tapped has to be a good thing.

 

As for Shetland, I'd be in a pretty weak position to quibble if they did want to become independent and claim the oil. Can't see it happening though.

 

 

without doubt it is an obscene amount of money, but is a SPECULATIVE resource enough to break something secure?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So by rights then all the revenue that the union take from the North Sea, should really go directly to Brussels as it is really belongs to the EU.

 

That is not how that union works (unlike the British one)

 

We agreed 200 + years ago that Britain becomes pot. A central bank where we all receive from .

 

The EU just gets a percentage of Britains wealth

Link to post
Share on other sites
Becasue that is not in EU jurisdiction

 

EU don't own all North sea just the parts that are in the EU

 

So the EU owns the parts of the North Sea that are in the EU (:confused:).

 

Why then is the money earned from the oil being drilled of the coast of Scotland shared by the UK alone and not by all EU nations?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ze Oil iz hours!

[ATTACH]568[/ATTACH]

:)

 

You Vil Comply!;)

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH

Link to post
Share on other sites
So the EU owns the parts of the North Sea that are in the EU (:confused:).

 

Why then is the money earned from the oil being drilled of the coast of Scotland shared by the UK alone and not by all EU nations?

 

Not directly but it is part of the percentage payment of our Wealth that goes to the EU

Link to post
Share on other sites
Boaby Ewing
without doubt it is an obscene amount of money, but is a SPECULATIVE resource enough to break something secure?

 

I wouldn't base an independent Scotland purely on oil revenues, no. But I'd like an independent Scotland, oil or no oil.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a SPECULATIVE resource -- do you think it's not there?

 

Obviously total amounts are a guestimate, but if anything, when you combine the fact that the U.K. government has historically played down the size of the reserves, oil companies often play down the size of their reserves, and the fact that the higher price per barrel + improved technology brings previously unviable fields into play, not to mention better extraction rates... well you should just about get the picture. I hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest S.U.S.S.
I wouldn't base an independent Scotland purely on oil revenues, no. But I'd like an independent Scotland, oil or no oil.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a SPECULATIVE resource -- do you think it's not there?

 

Obviously total amounts are a guestimate, but if anything, when you combine the fact that the U.K. government has historically played down the size of the reserves, oil companies often play down the size of their reserves, and the fact that the higher price per barrel + improved technology brings previously unviable fields into play, not to mention better extraction rates... well you should just about get the picture. I hope.

 

Give him a chance, google is not as fast as it used to be!;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
christhejambo

From my limited legal knowledge, does the right to exploit natural resources not come under the UN Convention on The Law of The Sea- which specified a nations soverign rights on the Continetal Shelf and the establishment of Exclusive Economic Zones. Surely this is the basis of who 'owns' the North Sea, as the marine nations in the region have deliniated boundaries due to overlapping EEZ's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Boaby Ewing
Give him a chance, google is not as fast as it used to be!;)

 

MAHA.

 

Is he always this angry? Get him laid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rubbish, Norway and Denmark both have drilling rights in the North Sea and they are not in the EU.

 

I'm just being pernickety but since when were Denmark not in the EU? They joined in 1973 at the same time as the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Boaby Ewing
Is there not some guy trying to go to court about it at the moment? Not that I'm saying that I think he'll be successful, obviously he won't.

 

Probably, those Shetlanders are a strange bunch :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just being pernickety but since when were Denmark not in the EU? They joined in 1973 at the same time as the UK.

 

I just realised after i posted too late now lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

That documentary tonight looks quite interesting.

 

"Truth, Lies, Oil & Scotland" BBC Scotland @ 2240

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/iain_macwhirter/2008/06/north_sea_spoils.html

 

It is almost impossible to have a conversation with a Nationalist without them mentioning the oil

 

Now I am sorry but here is where I stand

 

Yes it is indeed a valuable resource.

Yes Scotland should indeed benefit from it

 

Now that is where the agreement ends with the Nats

 

Here is the reality

 

1. It is not 'ours' - we do not own the North Sea

2.When voluntarily signing the treaty of the Union we agreed that all money earned in the Union should go into a pot and be shared - note this was ok back when weweer in dire straits and had nothing. Now we have something we want it all.

3.It is not an infinate reasource (although it is estimated still 50 billion barrells to drill for)

4.One day (in the very near future) oil will not be required as friendlier resources will be available - FACT

 

 

Leave the pan-Unionist propaganda to mod delete, at least his arguments are reasonably constructed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Boaby Ewing
Would you come home DDLN? Seems to me you would like independence from afar just like Sean Connery.

 

:)

 

I'll most likely be back living in Scotland at some point, independence or not.

 

And regardless of where I live, I'll always be Scottish.

 

I can give you my opinions on the upcoming U.S. election as well if you like. Not that I live there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and have you met him?

 

Miracles i can do, getting him laid is beyond even me!

 

Can you not get your other, property-loving mate to throw him one of his bones every now and again? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew Busby !

Two points.

 

1. The current situation:

"Oil would make independent Scotland rich"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3954031.ece

The people who arrived at this conclusion are not Scottish Nationalists.

 

2. The recent historical situation:

Would Scotland be a better, more prosperous country TODAY if it had started by receiving a significantly greater share/all of "our oil" 30 years ago ? It's kept the UK afloat over that period, how much more impact would it have carried if a signficant amount/all of these resources had been devoted to 5 million, rather that 60 million people ? It's a rhetorical question obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/iain_macwhirter/2008/06/north_sea_spoils.html

 

It is almost impossible to have a conversation with a Nationalist without them mentioning the oil

 

Now I am sorry but here is where I stand

 

Yes it is indeed a valuable resource.

Yes Scotland should indeed benefit from it

 

Now that is where the agreement ends with the Nats

 

Here is the reality

 

1. It is not 'ours' - we do not own the North Sea

2.When voluntarily signing the treaty of the Union we agreed that all money earned in the Union should go into a pot and be shared - note this was ok back when weweer in dire straits and had nothing. Now we have something we want it all.

3.It is not an infinate reasource (although it is estimated still 50 billion barrells to drill for)

4.One day (in the very near future) oil will not be required as friendlier resources will be available - FACT

 

I think the word voluntarily is being used very loosly in statement two without going into it check up on the act of union treaty and you will see it was anything but voluntarily signed " bought and sold" and all that

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest S.U.S.S.
Can you not get your other, property-loving mate to throw him one of his bones every now and again? ;)

 

Some things are even out of his control!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest S.U.S.S.
I think the word voluntarily is being used very loosly in statement two without going into it check up on the act of union treaty and you will see it was anything but voluntarily signed " bought and sold" and all that

 

True it was born through necessity, Scotlands necessity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
True it was born through necessity, Scotlands necessity.

 

And England, they proposed the treaty to prevent the Scots from sideing with the French thus the army then became united so to speak, also a few Scots MP'S actually wavered before signing, and it was also the lowest Scottish Parliament turnout

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest S.U.S.S.
And England, they proposed the treaty to prevent the Scots from sideing with the French thus the army then became united so to speak, also a few Scots MP'S actually wavered before signing, and it was also the lowest Scottish Parliament turnout

 

True to a point, iirc Scotland was skint, Englad had the trade routes sewn up and Scotland had tried and failed to establish trade with North America.

 

sorry if any of that is wrong, looooooooooong time since i sat in history!;)

 

And lets not forget personal greed, that played a huge part in things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
True to a point, iirc Scotland was skint, Englad had the trade routes sewn up and Scotland had tried and failed to establish trade with North America.

 

sorry if any of that is wrong, looooooooooong time since i sat in history!;)

 

And lets not forget personal greed, that played a huge part in things.

 

Yup this is correct but England at that time were terrified of fighting a war on two fronts and were deperate for the union, Scotland on the other hand were as you say "skint" but it still took bribary to get the teaty through Tipical Scots eh!;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
hmfc_steve

True oil wealth hidden to stop Independence

 

A secret Whitehall dossier 30 years ago warned of the powerful case for Independence with booming oil revenues, but the information was kept confidential to keep nationalism at bay.

The 1974 Scottish Office report written by Professor Gavin McCrone was classified as secret but was obtained by the SNP under Freedom of Information

 

It shows the British Government was aware of the huge wealth of North Sea Oil; of the political implications; and that Scottish independence was not only theoretically possible but economically desirable:

 

"Thus for the first time since the Act Of union was passed, it can now be credibly argued that Scotland's economic advantage lies in its repeal".......

 

http://www.snp-bannockburn.org/scotlands-oil.html

 

 

secret Whitehall dossier:-

http://www.snp-bannockburn.org/scotlands-oil.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew Busby !

What happened 300 years ago has become increasingly irrelevant to the current situation. Institutions, relationships ... don't stay together just because of "history" ... that would be entirely the wrong reason to continue any personal, social or governmental arrangement.

 

The point is, what is the contemporary purpose and benefit of the union ? In a global economy, with free trade and with open borders, many people find it to be an irrelevance. And if something is irrelevant then it has no purpose.

 

The union has to find a reason for its continued existence otherwise it will be just a historical footnote in the life of 2 nations. Oil or no oil.

Link to post
Share on other sites
without doubt it is an obscene amount of money, but is a SPECULATIVE resource enough to break something secure?

 

If you got six numbers on the lottery would you not want it as it is a speculative amount?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The oil rightfully belongs to the Shetland Isles - which became a part of Scotland more recently than Scotland became a part of Britain, as security against a loan to Denmark which was never repaid. The links between the Shetland Isles and Scotland are far more tenuous than those between Scotland and Britain, the two are culturally very different.

 

Question for the Natis - do you think that the Shetland Isles should push for independence from Scottish rule? They don't want these nasty Edinburgh bureaucrats taking all their money, after all.

 

Completely wrong.

 

The Sheltand Isles became part of Scotland over 200 years before the Union.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not how that union works (unlike the British one)

 

We agreed 200 + years ago that Britain becomes pot. A central bank where we all receive from .

 

The EU just gets a percentage of Britains wealth

 

Who agreed?

 

The people of Scotland didn't - Riots broke out all over the country.

 

It's true that Scotland was broke at the time. Nations are quite often broke. The UK is broke just now, ridiculously broke in fact. It doesn't mean that the people are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Comedian

Oil companies have already tapped into the easy to reach (depth wise) gas and oil fields. As technology improves from the early day's of the 70's they are reaching trapped gas/oil in very deep water now. The Foinhaven field is in over 400m of water compared to 140 of the famous brent oil rig. Need's must.

 

Some fields haven't really been developed yet like the Clare field off Shetland. There is plenty of oil and therefore gas out there. Our country if independent could be very well of indeed and maybe plan for a future without oil???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...