i8hibsh Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Is the money shared equally bewtween countries or a paercentage compared to population, land mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Hardcastle Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 about 40 years left http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7435016.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belly Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makween Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big D Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 about 40 years left http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7435016.stm so bu 2048 we will be going cap in hand to our neighbours again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belly Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 BTW who does own the North Sea? If nobody's claiming it, I'll have it. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belly Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makween Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Ze Oil iz hours! You Vil Comply! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 (). 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 Ze Oil iz hours![ATTACH]568[/ATTACH] You Vil Comply! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 So the EU owns the parts of the North Sea that are in the EU (). 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH You vil not waf at Herr Salmond! Youw vil be shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christhejambo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lyonjambo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belly Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 MAHA. Is he always this angry? Get him laid. Yes, and have you met him? Miracles i can do, getting him laid is beyond even me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 That documentary tonight looks quite interesting. "Truth, Lies, Oil & Scotland" BBC Scotland @ 2240 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Kidd Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Would you come home DDLN? Seems to me you would like independence from afar just like Sean Connery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Busby ! Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micole Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micole Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micole Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfc_steve Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Busby ! Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.