Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2024 22:08:09 GMT
Firstly Mr Benn. take as much time out as you need whenever you need it, I will always respect that and behave accordingly. On the rest, where we disagree is that if Scotland left the UK that North sea oil would become there's, when at the moment it belongs to all the countries in the United Kingdom. The only argument in favour of that is proximity, which I don't hold as a justification alone. If the only justification for owning something was who's closest then Spain would own Gibraltar. Do I think the UK should give the oil fields to Scotland if they leave? That for me depends on who found and developed them The entire North Sea is parcelled up according to the coastline of the country it is adjacent to. It therefore follows that in the name of consistency we would need to allot that part of the North Sea adjacent to Scotland to the jurisdiction of the Scots were they also an independent country. As to who developed the area, that tended to be private oil companies, who pay their taxes to the nation whose jurisdiction they operate in. You say that proximity is not a deciding factor though it is in most cases and notably has always been for the North Sea. As for Gibraltar, like your foray to the Falklands it is an utterly fake comparison. Gibraltar is an area of land with inhabitants on it who live there, not an artificial construction which exists only for people to work on. So please quit with these diversionary fake comparisons. And stick to the real point. Which is why do you think waters off an independent Scotland should be treated differently to those off every other North Sea country? And why should whichever private entity developed it make the slightest bit of difference? You have boldly stated that you do not think an independent Scotland should have the same rights in the North Sea as every other North Sea country without any valid justification as to why so far. Citing inhabited territories like Gibraltar is at one and the same time a desperate ploy, a fake comparison, and a complete irrelevance to the issue. So the Scots have precedent and current North Sea practice for making the claim that most of our wells would be in their jurisdiction were they independent, and that therefore the rest of us benefitting from them is a net gain for us resulting from them remaining in the UK. Which should be weighed up in any balance sheet. For one thing virtually all the oil is pumped ashore in Scotland to be processed by Scottish refineries actually on Scottish soil. Your attempt to deny their rights is thus rather feebly based but apparently all you have in your desire to insist that Scotland takes more than it gives. Why do you feel such a need to believe that? Have you so invested in that notion intellectually and emotionally that you feel compelled to distort reality and current practice and invoke fake comparisons in order to justify it?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 19, 2024 22:22:50 GMT
I think we've both completed the conversation Mr Benn, I certainly have no desire to have you insult me again while being so careful not to retaliate.
Lets leave it there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2024 22:55:51 GMT
I think we've both completed the conversation Mr Benn, I certainly have no desire to have you insult me again while being so careful not to retaliate. Lets leave it there. I meant no insult but was just wondering where you were coming from on this and why you think any independent Scotland should be treated differently to every other North Sea country, in the apparent best interests of a union they would no longer be part of. If speculating on your motives were taken as an insult I apologise. Nevertheless I am happy enough to leave it there. If you are unwilling to adequately explain why Scotland should be treated differently or feel that it might provoke aggro if you attempted to do so, if you accept that you are never going to convince me without a much better argument and that I am unlikely to convince you, further debate on this issue between us serves no useful purpose unless someone else were to step in with a different perspective. So lets just agree to differ for now.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 20, 2024 6:48:18 GMT
I think we've both completed the conversation Mr Benn, I certainly have no desire to have you insult me again while being so careful not to retaliate. Lets leave it there. I meant no insult but was just wondering where you were coming from on this and why you think any independent Scotland should be treated differently to every other North Sea country, in the apparent best interests of a union they would no longer be part of. If speculating on your motives were taken as an insult I apologise. Nevertheless I am happy enough to leave it there. If you are unwilling to adequately explain why Scotland should be treated differently or feel that it might provoke aggro if you attempted to do so, if you accept that you are never going to convince me without a much better argument and that I am unlikely to convince you, further debate on this issue between us serves no useful purpose unless someone else were to step in with a different perspective. So lets just agree to differ for now. You can't use a phrase like "Diversionary and fake tactics" without it being insulting. Under normal circumstances I would just retaliate in kind, but I can't so lets leave it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2024 7:45:30 GMT
I meant no insult but was just wondering where you were coming from on this and why you think any independent Scotland should be treated differently to every other North Sea country, in the apparent best interests of a union they would no longer be part of. If speculating on your motives were taken as an insult I apologise. Nevertheless I am happy enough to leave it there. If you are unwilling to adequately explain why Scotland should be treated differently or feel that it might provoke aggro if you attempted to do so, if you accept that you are never going to convince me without a much better argument and that I am unlikely to convince you, further debate on this issue between us serves no useful purpose unless someone else were to step in with a different perspective. So lets just agree to differ for now. You can't use a phrase like "Diversionary and fake tactics" without it being insulting. Under normal circumstances I would just retaliate in kind, but I can't so lets leave it. This is an unfair situation for you. I will try and avoid being unnecessarily pejorative from now on but I do tend to call a spade a spade as I see it even if wrong. But feel free to respond in kind as you say and if I get riled to the point where I feel a need to walk away from the debate for a day or two thats my problem. I have no time for further debate today anyway due to work
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Aug 20, 2024 14:29:35 GMT
You could both just stick to the topic and avoid having this tedious disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 20, 2024 20:36:36 GMT
You could both just stick to the topic and avoid having this tedious disagreement. Or just leave it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2024 21:15:45 GMT
You could both just stick to the topic and avoid having this tedious disagreement. I did try to post on topic, but it got entirely ignored. I tend to respond to those who engage with me in debate. If no one responds to something I have posted there is nothing to engage with.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 25, 2024 9:19:52 GMT
This is so strange a fact that we have to consider the other possibility . . . . . . . that Scotland was created out of spoil dug out from Wiltshire when Stonehenge was created (I'll get me coat) The famous ogham alphabet scholar , Rab Mac Alistair , translated one of the ogham inscribed standing stones in north east scotland , which was a record of ancient neolithic times. In the neolithic language , the word for what was to become England , translates into modern English as " the land where stolen goods disappear" . So even in the neolithic period ,it appears thievery of Scotlands resources was the norm . here's your coat.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 25, 2024 9:26:25 GMT
Interesting link thanks That the SNP have carefully not reissued those figures since 2013 strongly suggests they know it's no longer true as North Sea oil production has steadily declined this century . And that was always the Shetland Islands subsidising the rest of Scotland.One big way Scotland has supported the rest of the UK over the years is the brain drain of talent moving South for better paid jobs. the Shetland Islands ? is this an echo of the old Liberal Democrat nonsense that Scotlands oil and gas really belong to orkney and shetland? really? International maritime law (specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, which is signed and ratified by the UK) is extremely clear on what the situation would be with regard to Shetland and Orkney’s ownership of North Sea Oil in the context of an independent Scotland – it wouldn’t have any.
Under UNCLOS III, the islands would be regarded as an “enclave” residing wholly within Scotland’s “Exclusive Economic Zone” (see the paragraph “Continental shelf”), and as such would only have the right to resources within a 12-mile radius of their coastline – of which, in terms of oil, there are basically none.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 25, 2024 9:28:31 GMT
They must have moved it by water The problem is the expense in such an undertaking An inter generational effort to move a stone? No matter how they did it, it suggests a very high level of social co-ordination In the Ice age. Stonehenge was built thousands of years after the last ice age zany. ?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 25, 2024 9:30:41 GMT
1) I'm not Scottish. I'm English - an English nationalist with some Scot blood who wants England to be independent, just like Scotland, so calling it "my" lavvy lid means nothing 2) Your Brit Nat spite in linking a Herald Scotland (right wing rag) silly opinion piece from 1996 as some kind of proof for your conjecture is hal-arious! 3) Even Monty Python couldn't write a better script than the Brit Nat spite coming out about lavvy lids today Hey Amadan , this guy is doubting the lavvy lid story. He's also calling me a Brit Nat! Fucking cheek of the newbs these days. I think ive told Borg the lavvie lid story as well monte. It's a cracker though isnt it? imagine sitting on a cesspit lid for centuries ?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 25, 2024 9:31:05 GMT
This is so strange a fact that we have to consider the other possibility . . . . . . . that Scotland was created out of spoil dug out from Wiltshire when Stonehenge was created (I'll get me coat) The famous ogham alphabet scholar , Rab Mac Alistair , translated one of the ogham inscribed standing stones in north east scotland , which was a record of ancient neolithic times. In the neolithic language , the word for what was to become England , translates into modern English as " the land where stolen goods disappear" . So even in the neolithic period ,it appears thievery of Scotlands resources was the norm . here's your coat. More like Scotland was full of dids, nicking stuff and selling it over the border.
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Aug 25, 2024 9:34:29 GMT
Hey Amadan , this guy is doubting the lavvy lid story. He's also calling me a Brit Nat! Fucking cheek of the newbs these days. I think ive told Borg the lavvie lid story as well monte. It's a cracker though isnt it? imagine sitting on a cesspit lid for centuries ? It's a great story. I'm completely convinced. Funniest thing is the Scots spending 700 years trying to get it back.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 25, 2024 9:39:17 GMT
There was a plan that involved moving a stone from the north of Scotland, all the way down to Salisbury. This is 6000 years ago Britain at the time was supposedly 'barely inhabited' (or am i wrong?) - my modelling of the situation would be that the people living in this area England wouldn't have known about the north of Scotland. never mind be drawing maps and plans to move rocks from there. Wales was a bit of stretch.. im no sure I agree here orac. The neolithic people who inhabited these islands at the time originated in what is now modern turkey , so if they could travel that distance , and have large trading links with Europe , why wouldn't they know the northern parts of these islands?
|
|