Guess how far the Claire Field, the largest new discovery in the West of Shetland field is from Shetland, here's a clue, its over 12 miles.
There is some oil within the 12 mile radius but its insubstantial, and if they decide to go it alone then it might be enough to sustain them and I would wish them well. You do know there is no actual plans for this though don't you?
You've not really thought this through have you?
latil wrote:I know,over half of all known reserves in Scottish waters. So if the islands gained full and proper independence and controlled the oil in their waters,where would that leave mainland Scotland?
Attachments
BP-Partners-to-Develop-3rd-Phase-of-Giant-Clair-Field-UK.jpg (30.75 KiB) Viewed 818 times
Its a non-issue. Not even Darling is stupid enough to use this angle. Darlings is a broken record, all he's got is 'Whats your Plan B' to the use of the Pound. If that story was actually an issue then dont you think it would be one of his main attacking points?
Again, where Shetland to gain independence from Scotland and become an Enclave it would be entitled to 12 miles of Water around its shores. There is little oil there.
Ok, well we will see. But there is no plan for this and I doubt there ever will be. What entitlement to a percentage of Oil does Shetland lay claim to?
Anyway, even if they did get a percentage Scotland havin the Lions share is still much better off than the zero percent it gets now. Lets not forget the 4 Billion in Whiskey revenue we dont get now either. The reality is Shetland are not seeking Independence, these things take years, decades to put in place and there is no such project started.
It seems there is some stirring on the islands.
So I guess England will be £4 billion worse off duty/tax wise if Scotland raises it's own taxes on Whisky.
1965 Belvedere 2 426 Wedge.
Climate change,global warming,the biggest tax raising scam ever devised by man for mankind.
Shetland was once Norwegian anyway. If they want independence then I wish them well. There's nothing to do there so at least if they had independence and some oil dollars they could invest it in the place and maybe plant some tree's.
The big difference is when the oil does run out, say in 50-100 years the what do they plan to sustain themselves with? Oil would represent 90% of thier revenue. Scotland would still have 85% of theirs and an oil fund like Norway. England has blown the whole lot of ours so far.
Yes, 4 Billion a year from Whisky and the 16 from oil will go a long way in a country of 5 million people.
England would inherit the whole of the UK Debt without a currency union. Something they will not accept. Not to mention that the UK's Debt is propped up on 'Taratan Oil'
I've never understood this argument. It seems counter to the whole concept of a seperate political entity.
1968 VE Valiant VIP (on road)
1972 CH Chrysler by Chrysler ("project")
1969 VF Valiant VIP (best called "spares")
Andy, don't agree with your definition of Enclave, my understanding from definitions of Enclave, Political Borders and some UN conventions is that an enclave is surrounded by land with no access to open sea. However, if you are right and the wet bits count in defining an Enclave then;
We are all part of a country called UK of GB and NI
From the maps you have provided Scotland is wholly surrounded by the UK.
Therefore on independence Scotland becomes an Enclave of the UK and gets a 12 mile limit.
We both know that isn't right, territorial water would be redrawn if Orkney/Shetland became independent.
Q: “But what happens if Orkney and Shetland
decide to stay in the UK, or to become independent
themselves?”
A: Orkney and Shetland are legally part of Scotland, and
no more entitled to their own “local” referendum result
than Falkirk or Peterhead or Sauchiehall Street. They
could form an independence movement and campaign
for a referendum on either independence or rejoining
the UK, but no such movement currently exists.
But even if they did, international maritime law would
consider them to be what are known as “enclaves”,
as their territory would be entirely within that of
Scotland. [63] That would mean the islands were only
entitled to a 12-mile limit from their shores, and no
significant amount of oil is found within those areas.
Black Country Nailer wrote:Andy, don't agree with your definition of Enclave, my understanding from definitions of Enclave, Political Borders and some UN conventions is that an enclave is surrounded by land with no access to open sea. However, if you are right and the wet bits count in defining an Enclave then;
We are all part of a country called UK of GB and NI
From the maps you have provided Scotland is wholly surrounded by the UK.
Therefore on independence Scotland becomes an Enclave of the UK and gets a 12 mile limit.
We both know that isn't right, territorial water would be redrawn if Orkney/Shetland became independent.
In any event Scotland defaulting on their debt is not going to be an issue because England will, in their and Scotlands best interest to be in a monetary union.
You may call it not a complete separation but the UK is a part of the EU and basically gets told what to do anyway. There is no such thing as a complete separation these days.
“An independent Scotland would not need England’s
permission to continue using the pound sterling,
and in fact would be better off using the pound
without such permission.
An independent Scotland that used the pound as
its base currency without the English government’s
permission would probably have a more stable
financial system and economy than England
itself.”
Professor Lawrence White of the Institute of Economic
Affairs agreed, noting that while informal use would
leave Scotland without a national central bank, such an
arrangement can actually be a positive:
“The possibility of banking panic justifies having
a central bank only if it can be shown that panics
are more frequent and severe in countries without
central banking than in countries with central
banking.
The evidence actually points the other way.
An official lender of last resort can unintentionally
worsen the problem of banking panics if it makes
explicit or implicit bailout guarantees that
encourage banks to take undue risks”
“If the Scots vote for independence, of course a deal
will be done on the currency, because it’s not in
London’s interests to have a rancorous relationship
with Edinburgh.”
University of Glasgow’s professor of
economics Anton Muscatelli - a former consultant to the
World Bank and the European Commission, a current adviser
to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee
on monetary policy, and former chair of an independent
expert group for the Calman Commission on devolution -
also said the UK government was bluffing, in a piece for the
Financial Times explaining why refusing a currency union
would be a reckless and irresponsible move:
“A successful currency union would actually be in
the interest of both sides – and especially the rest
of the UK.
The most damaging prospect to the rest of the UK
from rejecting a sterling currency union is what
it will do to its own trade and business activity.
Whatever the political tactics involved, it would be
tantamount to economic vandalism.”
England would inherit the whole of the UK Debt without a currency union. Something they will not accept. Not to mention that the UK's Debt is propped up on 'Taratan Oil'
I've never understood this argument. It seems counter to the whole concept of a seperate political entity.
