Scottish Independence.

[Trigger_Andy]

Willie wants a bit more than a YES vote !!!
You'll love it Andy. Make sure you watch it when your back on land.

[Mossy68]

Off topic. But where abouts of shore are you ?

[Trigger_Andy]

61.29992 N / 2.36137 E

http://www.vesselfinder.com/?mmsi=565796000

Yo have to zoom out on the map. A good bit north of Shetland, bloody warm just now though. Tee-shirt weather.

On Over-Time sitting on my Hoop, and 4 weeks off from Monday. Life does not get much better than this.

Off topic. But where abouts of shore are you ?

[Mossy68]

61.29992 N / 2.36137 E

http://www.vesselfinder.com/?mmsi=565796000

Yo have to zoom out on the map. A good bit north of Shetland, bloody warm just now though. Tee-short weather.

On Over-Time hitting on my Hoop, and 4 weeks off from Monday. Life does not get much better than this.

Off topic. But where abouts of shore are you ?

Cheers. Just curious .

[Trigger_Andy]

[CLPete]

Hi Andy,

Quick question. I was chatting to a friend in the pub, and we were talking about the vote. He raised something I hadn't thought of - be interested to hear your thoughts / what the "yes" sites say.

We were talking about how, if there is a "yes" vote, the assets of the union should be split. Of course, how will be tricky, but I'm sure it will work out. If you just took it on population - then Scotland would get around 8% (ish) of the total, right? Some more of some things, less of others.

However, whenever you see anything about oil, it is always "Scottish Oil will support Scotland".

Question is, isn't the oil a "joint asset" of the union at the moment? Shoudn't it be split in the same way?

Obviously, I imgaine Scotland would like more than 8% of the oil, so if they aimed for the 90-odd% they say would fall in the boundary lines, wouldn't it be "fair" to get less of something else?

Just interested in your thoughts, not starting an argument.

[Trigger_Andy]

Hey Pete, I welcome the questions. Its just a bit of fun after all.

Have a look at this article, its should answer your first questions;

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/what ... ional-debt


Since 1945 thirty countries have become independent following a referendum, all the assets and liabilities where drawn up within 15 months.


The difference with the oil is where its located, 95% of the Oil Production is in what is Scottish Waters, this is not being disputed. In the pictures below you can see where Westminster moved the divide in 1999, presumably in a sea grab prior to a potential Yes Vote. England cannot lay claim to Water and whats under it around an independent Scotland in as much as Scotland cannot lay claim to the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. We would have our borders like any other country. Why do you think the Leaders are trying so desperately to keep Scotland in the Union? Because we're better together? After they continually tell us what a financial drain we are? Hardly.

Again, Oil makes up 15% of Scotland's GDP, we would still be a successful country without the Oil, just not so well off.

[Trigger_Andy]

For a bit of a laugh visit the official No Scotland website and 'vote' wish way you would vote if you where Scottish. Remember this is the No Campaign's site which you would presume has more Union supporters traffic.

http://noscotland.net/

[Trigger_Andy]

Good man!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/s ... 2014_03_01

[Jon Connolly]

Andy

To be fair and impartial there has been an utter load of bollacks and propaganda coming from both sides.


BUT

I`ve just been watching BBC breakfast news and someone ( I think it was Nicola Sturgeon ? ) claimed Scotland would be the 14th richest country per head of population in the world ahead of UK and France.

How on earth can anyone make such a claim prior to measuring and apportioning assets and liabilities. Subject to how these are divided it would greatly affect the outcome.... it could actually be anywhere from the 8th richest to 38th richest ????


Not trying to wind you up but how does Nicola Sturgeon substantiate this claim ???????

[CLPete]

Hey Pete, I welcome the questions. Its just a bit of fun after all.

Have a look at this article, its should answer your first questions;

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/what ... ional-debt


Since 1945 thirty countries have become independent following a referendum, all the assets and liabilities where drawn up within 15 months.


The difference with the oil is where its located, 95% of the Oil Production is in what is Scottish Waters, this is not being disputed. In the pictures below you can see where Westminster moved the divide in 1999, presumably in a sea grab prior to a potential Yes Vote. England cannot lay claim to Water and whats under it around an independent Scotland in as much as Scotland cannot lay claim to the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. We would have our borders like any other country. Why do you think the Leaders are trying so desperately to keep Scotland in the Union? Because we're better together? After they continually tell us what a financial drain we are? Hardly.

Again, Oil makes up 15% of Scotland's GDP, we would still be a successful country without the Oil, just not so well off.

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the response!

I think that this is quite an interesting argument.

Currently, Scotland & rUK make up one country (in the technically defined sense, rather than an emotional regional sense).

Wouldn't it follow that all the assets of the combined parts belong as a whole to the UK? Otherwise, this argument leaves it open to the "things belong to the country that holds them at the time of separation".

To put it in perspective, say that rUK holds more than 92% of the UK's art "wealth" (for the sake of argument). I assume that Scotland would like their "fair share" of that.

But, going on the "oil is inside Scotland boundaries" argument, if the bulk of the art was in rUK at the point of separation, it is the property of rUK.

Same argument applies for other assets.

By this token, Trident would become an asset of Scotland (it's in Scotland at the moment).

I wonder why oil is seen as an asset of Scotland, merely because it lies in the geographical boundary. I mean, it cannot be simply because Westminster has put it under Scotland, because at the end of the day, we are currently one country. It would be like saying that the assets of one council are theirs on break-up, and not the assets of that country.

Why couldn't the oil be a jointly owned asset, held in trust, for example?

Be interested in your thoughts - it's quite an interesting area really, logically speaking.

[Trigger_Andy]

I know you are not winding me up.

Well, take Norway for example, arguable the richest country in the World. They have less oil than us and they produce little else. The population rarely travels over sea's to work as they cost too much.We have not only the North Sea reserves but West of Shetland and also in the Clyde Firth. BP was given rights to produce there but Westminster shut it down in the 80's as they wanted Trident to have unrestricted access.

Scotland has produced more oil than Dubai yet we have nothing to show for it. Where Scotland to start an oil fund we could have an oil fund to rival Norways within 25 years. The Oil is not gonna run out, we have not tapped half the stuff yet. Thats a sheet load of petrodollars to go around 6 million people.


Thats before we even look at the other figures in the picture below. If it was not true why would Camoron be desperately pulling every trick in the book to keep us in the 'Union'?

Andy

To be fair and impartial there has been an utter load of bollacks and propaganda coming from both sides.


BUT

I`ve just been watching BBC breakfast news and someone ( I think it was Nicola Sturgeon ? ) claimed Scotland would be the 14th richest country per head of population in the world ahead of UK and France.

How on earth can anyone make such a claim prior to measuring and apportioning assets and liabilities. Subject to how these are divided it would greatly affect the outcome.... it could actually be anywhere from the 8th richest to 38th richest ????


Not trying to wind you up but how does Nicola Sturgeon substantiate this claim ???????

[Jon Connolly]

I know you are not winding me up.

Well, take Norway for example, arguable the richest country in the World. They have less oil than us and they produce little else. The population rarely travels over sea's to work as they cost too much.We have not only the North Sea reserves but West of Shetland and also in the Clyde Firth. BP was given rights to produce there but Westminster shut it down in the 80's as they wanted Trident to have unrestricted access.

Scotland has produced more oil than Dubai yet we have nothing to show for it. Where Scotland to start an oil fund we could have an oil fund to rival Norways within 25 years. The Oil is not gonna run out, we have not tapped half the stuff yet. Thats a sheet load of petrodollars to go around 6 million people.


Thats before we even look at the other figures in the picture below. If it was not true why would Camoron be desperately pulling every trick in the book to keep us in the 'Union'?

Andy

To be fair and impartial there has been an utter load of bollacks and propaganda coming from both sides.


BUT

I`ve just been watching BBC breakfast news and someone ( I think it was Nicola Sturgeon ? ) claimed Scotland would be the 14th richest country per head of population in the world ahead of UK and France.

How on earth can anyone make such a claim prior to measuring and apportioning assets and liabilities. Subject to how these are divided it would greatly affect the outcome.... it could actually be anywhere from the 8th richest to 38th richest ????


Not trying to wind you up but how does Nicola Sturgeon substantiate this claim ???????

Andy

That doesn`t substantiate the claim it is just a screenshot of someone else repeating it ... are there any figures and substance behind the claim ???

[Trigger_Andy]

I guess I can kind of see where you are coming from. But I dont think anyone agree's with it. We are not talking about movable assets like a Painting or Subs. Scotland wants nothing to do with Trident and taht will be one of the first things to go come a Yes vote. Trident, its Nukes and the Oil exploration would be the first things to go. rUK can keep its Nukes on its own land. Just now my family is within the Blast range should the Nukes Detonate. Not for me.

On the other hand do you think that if there wa no Oil in the North Sea Scotland could lay claim to a percentage of mineral rights after a split, for time indefinite? England cannot just own sections of Scottish waters. Would Scotland be entitled to a percentage of these minerals on par with the size of Scotland land mass, ie 33% of the UK's?

I dont even think that this is on the agenda if it was then Cameron and hos cronies would not be fighting tooth and nail for Scotland. If rUK could lay claim to patches of Scottish water they would be doing so now, as my previous picture showed they have already moved the 'border' to grab more oil. They would not need to do this if they could just say 'we want 90% of your oil.'

Hey Pete, I welcome the questions. Its just a bit of fun after all.

Have a look at this article, its should answer your first questions;

http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/what ... ional-debt


Since 1945 thirty countries have become independent following a referendum, all the assets and liabilities where drawn up within 15 months.


The difference with the oil is where its located, 95% of the Oil Production is in what is Scottish Waters, this is not being disputed. In the pictures below you can see where Westminster moved the divide in 1999, presumably in a sea grab prior to a potential Yes Vote. England cannot lay claim to Water and whats under it around an independent Scotland in as much as Scotland cannot lay claim to the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. We would have our borders like any other country. Why do you think the Leaders are trying so desperately to keep Scotland in the Union? Because we're better together? After they continually tell us what a financial drain we are? Hardly.

Again, Oil makes up 15% of Scotland's GDP, we would still be a successful country without the Oil, just not so well off.

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the response!

I think that this is quite an interesting argument.

Currently, Scotland & rUK make up one country (in the technically defined sense, rather than an emotional regional sense).

Wouldn't it follow that all the assets of the combined parts belong as a whole to the UK? Otherwise, this argument leaves it open to the "things belong to the country that holds them at the time of separation".

To put it in perspective, say that rUK holds more than 92% of the UK's art "wealth" (for the sake of argument). I assume that Scotland would like their "fair share" of that.

But, going on the "oil is inside Scotland boundaries" argument, if the bulk of the art was in rUK at the point of separation, it is the property of rUK.

Same argument applies for other assets.

By this token, Trident would become an asset of Scotland (it's in Scotland at the moment).

I wonder why oil is seen as an asset of Scotland, merely because it lies in the geographical boundary. I mean, it cannot be simply because Westminster has put it under Scotland, because at the end of the day, we are currently one country. It would be like saying that the assets of one council are theirs on break-up, and not the assets of that country.

Why couldn't the oil be a jointly owned asset, held in trust, for example?

Be interested in your thoughts - it's quite an interesting area really, logically speaking.

[Trigger_Andy]

I just gave you information regarding the Oil in the North Sea and the yet untapped oil in the Clyde Firth. BP have just pumped 5 Billion GBP in the Claire Field that will produce 100,000 barres per day. There are more as yet untapped fields in the West of Shetland and the Moray Firth. Norway is the richest country in the world off of the back of there section of the North sea, we still have much more oil to produce than was ever pumped from the North Sea Thats all the figures I need to know. If you have anything to contradict this Im all ears.

Again, can you explain why rUK, ie Westminster is trying every trick in the book to convince Scotland to Stay? They continually threaten us with no return and all sorts of scaremongering summed up nicely here;

A FEW WEEKS ago the subject of Scotland came up at a meeting for Conservative strategists and special advisers at No 10. Although the Downing Street machine was at that point quite relaxed about the impending referendum on independence, some Tories outside the inner circle — particularly the women — were beginning to worry about the tone and direction of the No campaign. One of those present told her colleagues: “It sounds like a man whose wife is leaving him, but instead of trying to win her back by talking about all the wonderful things they have done together, and telling her how much he loves her, he is shouting about how she won’t get any money or see the children if they get divorced.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 7059962242#

Anyway, even if you dont believe Scotland would be the 14th richest country in the world, and I for one canny see why you would doubt it ( Sheet loads of oil x 6 million people = happy days) Id be delighted with a poor but happy nation. A nation that could build upon its many successes.


Do you know how many nations that have gained Independence from the UK that have asked to come back? Yip you guess it.

I guess in ten years time when all the dust has settled we will see what will really happen and there is no spin from either side to blur the lines.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... om-britain

http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.u ... ld-4193182

I know you are not winding me up.

Well, take Norway for example, arguable the richest country in the World. They have less oil than us and they produce little else. The population rarely travels over sea's to work as they cost too much.We have not only the North Sea reserves but West of Shetland and also in the Clyde Firth. BP was given rights to produce there but Westminster shut it down in the 80's as they wanted Trident to have unrestricted access.

Scotland has produced more oil than Dubai yet we have nothing to show for it. Where Scotland to start an oil fund we could have an oil fund to rival Norways within 25 years. The Oil is not gonna run out, we have not tapped half the stuff yet. Thats a sheet load of petrodollars to go around 6 million people.


Thats before we even look at the other figures in the picture below. If it was not true why would Camoron be desperately pulling every trick in the book to keep us in the 'Union'?

Andy

To be fair and impartial there has been an utter load of bollacks and propaganda coming from both sides.


BUT

I`ve just been watching BBC breakfast news and someone ( I think it was Nicola Sturgeon ? ) claimed Scotland would be the 14th richest country per head of population in the world ahead of UK and France.

How on earth can anyone make such a claim prior to measuring and apportioning assets and liabilities. Subject to how these are divided it would greatly affect the outcome.... it could actually be anywhere from the 8th richest to 38th richest ????


Not trying to wind you up but how does Nicola Sturgeon substantiate this claim ???????

Andy

That doesn`t substantiate the claim it is just a screenshot of someone else repeating it ... are there any figures and substance behind the claim ???