Scottish Independence

Users who are viewing this thread

Kobrag said:
Unpredictability also scare investors to the point of wearing gas-masks, digging bunkers or committing suicide.

Foreign inward investment in Scotland is at a 16-year high right now.  Small business start-ups are at their highest level since records began.  Just sayin'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-27747527

Kobrag said:
The Shetlands want to be independent of scotlandin if there is a yes vote...a large portion of 'scottish' oil is inside the seabed that international law would recognize as The Shetlands x3
This is beautiful, if there is a yes vote I can't wait until Salmond turns into an obvious hypocrite.

The only poll ever conducted on this issue showed that 82% of Shetlanders want to remain as part of Scotland, whether we become independent or not.  It was in the Press and Journal about a year and a half ago.

The islanders probably know that if they remained with the UK, or became Crown protectorates, they would become "enclaves" in Scottish waters under international maritime law, and the bulk of the oil fields would lie outside the 12-mile limit of their new territorial waters.

Taiwanese news is the best news there is.  :lol:
 
Leifr Eiríksson said:
I realised tonight that it may have been one of the last times Scottish cities and towns appear on the weather map on BBC News. They'll be going the way of Ireland, tarah!

_71977818_71977817.jpg

Th...they don't have a femare reporter? Who is even watching the weather forecast in Britain? :razz:
 
Flanged said:
The islanders probably know that if they remained with the UK, or became Crown protectorates, they would become "enclaves" in Scottish waters under international maritime law, and the bulk of the oil fields would lie outside the 12-mile limit of their new territorial waters.

Not really, if they were part of the UK (unlike Crown dependencies) they would likely inherit all of the Northern-Eastern part of Scottish waters.

6937858-1.jpg


Its also practically guaranteed that if Scotland does go independent that the current water boundaries would be changed, considering legally "Scottish waters" do not exist and as you can see in the picture above the water boundaries are pretty beneficial for Scotland, encroaching on waters that are logically English.

This is how the water boundaries should look.
6937858_1.png
 
Lord Brutus said:
ancalimon said:
I see no difference between the Scottish and the English. I don't think their independence would serve any meaningful purpose.
My post was in response to this one.
Ah well, that changes things then. Yes, we are all Turks. We should all be one nation.
Except the Chinese, they are ****ing alien.
 
Daniel. said:
Its also practically guaranteed that if Scotland does go independent that the current water boundaries would be changed

They already have been, a bit controversially, by Westminster, in order to benefit England.  Look up the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 to see what I mean. 

Daniel. said:
considering legally "Scottish waters" do not exist

It's probably a bit late to be having this discussion, but the Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order, and the various UK Continental Shelf Acts, define Scottish waters pretty clearly.  They are the waters that fall under the jurisdiction of Scots Law.  The rest of the UK's waters fall under either English or Northern Irish law. 

With the UK having always had a couple of different legal systems operating within it (Scots law, English common law, etc.), the legal territories - including marine territories - are already defined by the extent of their jurisdiction.

The UK Government's own business secretary admitted long ago that there is such a thing as "Scottish waters."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9959715/North-Sea-oil-is-in-Scottish-waters-admits-Vince-Cable.html 

The final boundary will likely be decided under international law, though, under UNCLOS III.

Daniel. said:
This is how the water boundaries should look.
6937858_1.png

I'd be okay with that boundary. 

Sorry if I'm coming across as a bit of a **** here btw Daniel (and anybody else I might've pissed off over the years on this thread).  I don't usually argue like this, but it's an important issue.

 
Flanged said:
They already have been, a bit controversially, by Westminster, in order to benefit England.  Look up the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 to see what I mean.
Well looking at that those they are hugely biased towards England, but the counter arguments to them are equally biased, effectively creating the border in-order to move all oil reserves within the Scottish side, regardless of how much its clearly not in Scottish waters. As I posted I think the most logical choice would be to just define the boundary by the angle of the land border at the coast, like I did in the picture.

Flanged said:
The final boundary will likely be decided under international law, though, under UNCLOS III.
Well yeah, that was the point I was getting at, right now it all seems to be defined arbitrarily, which is kind of to be expected, considering they are imaginary lines to define subdivisions with one state.

Flanged said:
I'd be okay with that boundary.

Sorry if I'm coming across as a bit of a **** here btw Daniel (and anybody else I might've pissed off over the years on this thread).  I don't usually argue like this, but it's an important issue.
Well yeah its seems the most logical way to do it and I am hoping they do make it like that, but both sides of the argument are rather greedy so you know, they will be trying to snatch the best deal possible.

Honestly speaking, I found most of your posts to be dickish, maybe it was just the way I read the posts or i misunderstood your attitude, who knows. That being said, you saying what you just said changes my opinion of you somewhat.
 
Daniel. said:
Not really, if they were part of the UK (unlike Crown dependencies) they would likely inherit all of the Northern-Eastern part of Scottish waters.

6937858-1.jpg


Its also practically guaranteed that if Scotland does go independent that the current water boundaries would be changed, considering legally "Scottish waters" do not exist and as you can see in the picture above the water boundaries are pretty beneficial for Scotland, encroaching on waters that are logically English.

This is how the water boundaries should look.
6937858_1.png
Isn't that kind of hard to tell what is 'logical looking' on a topographic map?
 
Dodes said:
Daniel. said:
Not really, if they were part of the UK (unlike Crown dependencies) they would likely inherit all of the Northern-Eastern part of Scottish waters.

6937858-1.jpg


Its also practically guaranteed that if Scotland does go independent that the current water boundaries would be changed, considering legally "Scottish waters" do not exist and as you can see in the picture above the water boundaries are pretty beneficial for Scotland, encroaching on waters that are logically English.

This is how the water boundaries should look.
6937858_1.png
Isn't that kind of hard to tell what is 'logical looking' on a topographic map?
It's complete and arbitrary bull**** of course, he drew that line as he saw fit to support his part.
As usual from DDM.
 
Lord Brutus said:
If the Scottish vote for independence, do they forfeit their right to be Turks?  Or are they still Turks automatically?

Everyone defaults to Turkish during any kind of transition. You can take the bipedal human out of Turkey but you can't take the Turkey away...or...er, something like that.
 
Back
Top Bottom