|
Post by Zany on Aug 18, 2024 7:47:58 GMT
Kent isn't a country The Isle of Man isn't a country I actually somehow missed the mention of Wales in your post, yes it's a country The Irish sea should be shared by Wales and its neighbours, it certainly doesn't belong to England as they thought for many centuries, I'll tell you that much without hesitation It's not a hard question to answer is it Should be shared with Wales , but is not shared with Wales Should and Is are very different things. You implied the North sea off of Scotland belonged to Scotland by right But no such right exists. All these things are based on history, not common sense. So, as I say. Whether Scotland gives more than it takes depends vey much on who you think owns the North Sea. At the moment its the United Kingdom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2024 8:12:17 GMT
Nope, never said the North Sea belonged excl to Scotland at any point, a false insinuation
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 18, 2024 8:24:54 GMT
Nope, never said the North Sea belonged excl to Scotland at any point, a false insinuation Apologies. So you don't think North Sea oil should be included is Scotland contribution to the exchequer. So what do you base your figures on?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2024 8:34:14 GMT
Sorry, but a fair division would mean Scotland gets most of the north sea gas and oil supplies of the "disunited fiefdom" as it stands, that's an indisputable fact whether you like it or not. I'm not going to go round in circles when you're obviously very wedded to Brit Nationalism and falsely paint them out as scroungers when they are anything but in the first place, such a false premise
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Aug 18, 2024 8:43:43 GMT
How on earth do you figure that. The line was drawn exactly as it should be based on territory extrapolation. The UK got the lions share of the recoverable oil From articles I've read, that's how I figure it. archive.ph/66WnvNot saying the negotiations should have been horribly unfair on Norway, that's wrong, but we could've done a LOT better. We handed them the two biggest finds in the North Sea. I've read about this for many years Also worth reading: archive.ph/TBW0bwww.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/north-sea-oil-money-uk-norwegians-fundThe English govt squandered the wealth, fact, Thatcher did As your own quote shows the approach was the only one compliant with international law. You appear to arguing that the UK government should have gone on an illegal pursuit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2024 8:49:56 GMT
No I'm arguing they should have negotiated.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Aug 18, 2024 8:51:36 GMT
On what basis? International law said use the median line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2024 9:05:39 GMT
As the article points out, they were amazed the govt conceded so easily, there was room to negotiate
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 18, 2024 9:13:51 GMT
Sorry, but a fair division would mean Scotland gets most of the north sea gas and oil supplies of the "disunited fiefdom" as it stands, that's an indisputable fact whether you like it or not. I'm not going to go round in circles when you're obviously very wedded to Brit Nationalism and falsely paint them out as scroungers when they are anything but in the first place, such a false premise Now your back to claiming North sea oil does count as Scottish income. Whether you think that's right and fair is academic when discussing the current situation. At the moment the gas and oil and the North sea its in belongs to the United Kingdom, not exclusively one country within the United Kingdom. Historically much of the UK's wealth came for coal found in England, Also Copper and Tin, but these assets sold were for the benefit of the UK including precious Scotland. Now much of the UK's income comes from London, but the tax revenue from that is not kept for Londoners its shared across the United Kingdom. If Scotland wishes to leave the United Kingdom I would wish it well, but I would not assume it can take North sea oil with it just because Scotland is geographically nearest to that oil.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 18, 2024 9:16:26 GMT
As the article points out, they were amazed the govt conceded so easily, there was room to negotiate Yeah, well we do have a reputation for being arseholes. I'm glad in this case we obeyed international law. The article saying what was done with the money from that oil in each country is much more damning in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2024 9:26:50 GMT
Sorry, but a fair division would mean Scotland gets most of the north sea gas and oil supplies of the "disunited fiefdom" as it stands, that's an indisputable fact whether you like it or not. I'm not going to go round in circles when you're obviously very wedded to Brit Nationalism and falsely paint them out as scroungers when they are anything but in the first place, such a false premise Now your back to claiming North sea oil does count as Scottish income. Whether you think that's right and fair is academic when discussing the current situation. At the moment the gas and oil and the North sea its in belongs to the United Kingdom, not exclusively one country within the United Kingdom. Historically much of the UK's wealth came for coal found in England, Also Copper and Tin, but these assets sold were for the benefit of the UK including precious Scotland. Now much of the UK's income comes from London, but the tax revenue from that is not kept for Londoners its shared across the United Kingdom. If Scotland wishes to leave the United Kingdom I would wish it well, but I would not assume it can take North sea oil with it just because Scotland is geographically nearest to that oil. Huh? Where in my post did I say North sea oil does NOT count as Scot income? I said some of it isn't in Scot waters, most of it is, can you not see the difference? The English didn't equally share profits it stole from mining in places like Cornwall (which it also invaded and ravaged) with the rest of its invaded neighbours, whether you like that or not. At least you admit Scotland is geographically nearest the oil - that's a start
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 18, 2024 9:43:27 GMT
Now your back to claiming North sea oil does count as Scottish income. Whether you think that's right and fair is academic when discussing the current situation. At the moment the gas and oil and the North sea its in belongs to the United Kingdom, not exclusively one country within the United Kingdom. Historically much of the UK's wealth came for coal found in England, Also Copper and Tin, but these assets sold were for the benefit of the UK including precious Scotland. Now much of the UK's income comes from London, but the tax revenue from that is not kept for Londoners its shared across the United Kingdom. If Scotland wishes to leave the United Kingdom I would wish it well, but I would not assume it can take North sea oil with it just because Scotland is geographically nearest to that oil. Huh? Where in my post did I say North sea oil does NOT count as Scot income? I said some of it isn't in Scot waters, most of it is, can you not see the difference? The English didn't equally share profits it stole from mining in places like Cornwall (which it also invaded and ravaged) with the rest of its invaded neighbours, whether you like that or not. At least you admit Scotland is geographically nearest the oil - that's a start Here. There is no other way of reading this. And now you are arguing that Cornwall is not part of England and was robbed by England. How small do we go. Were the cotton mills in Liverpool ravaged by England, is Liverpool not part of England for purposes of this argument. Might be easier if you tell me which part you consider "England" that ravaged all the other parts that weren't.
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Aug 18, 2024 10:35:18 GMT
My original source was Amadan. Other sources are available. There's some pretty good evidence that the stone that sat under the English throne is not the Stone of Destiny. It does, however, match the cesspit sandstone at Scone Abbey. Ah well that makes a lot of sense about the English monarchy And says a lot about the English ^ Yes, poor old Edward I was terribly treated by the wicked Scots who fraudulently misled him into believing that a cesspit lid was the ancient stone of destiny. I don't think we've ever received an apology from the Scots.
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Aug 18, 2024 10:43:23 GMT
I'd like to know how they got the thing over that distance. Orac's suggestion that it must have been by sea is interesting. I suppose so. The river Avon is at the end of the Avenue and only about 2 miles from Stonehenge. Sailing the stone to the Avon and then dragging it down the Avenue is the only logical answer.
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Aug 18, 2024 10:57:52 GMT
I'd like to know how they got the thing over that distance. Orac's suggestion that it must have been by sea is interesting. I suppose so. The river Avon is at the end of the Avenue and only about 2 miles from Stonehenge. Sailing the stone to the Avon and then dragging it down the Avenue is the only logical answer. Yeah, I suppose.
|
|