Osbourne says no to currency union.

Well I’m not an expert on early 20th century accounting practices, but from what I can see. Scotland contributed 11% of revenue and spent 11% locally and contributed 11% to Imperial funds. England contributed 84% spent 77% locally and contributed 86% Imperially. What is this trying to show?

What is this trying to show?

They don’t like paying for debt?

@scotroutes
You have obviously been keeping score 😀

That the majority of money generated in Scotland is spent in Scotland and that Scots are owed maybe 1% of UK assets.

You are spot on whimbrel.

Its the best opportunity we have for genuine change in a generation.
And we need a change.

something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done.

Didn’t realise Scotroutes was THAT old…….

International law and convention would seem to say that it is 90% Scotland’s oil Molgrips

I’ve seen this quoted several times already on this thread and elsewhere but never seen it substantiated and I can’t find anything which would indicate that it’s set in stone. Do you have a link to the actual law?

For example the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” says;

“In cases where this Convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal State or to other States within the exclusive economic zone, and a conflict arises between the interests of the coastal State and any other State or States, the conflict should be resolved on the basis of equity and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, taking into account the respective importance of the interests involved to the parties as well as to the international community as a whole.”

Which seems to indicate that it would be up for negotiation.

There aren’t half a bunch of nasty trolls on this thread. Here is my response to the trolls – oh look you don’t have a vote – suck it up sweet cheeks.

“In cases where this Convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal State or to other States within the exclusive economic zone…

So why do you think the Convention would not attribute the oil to the state within the EEZ – i.e. Scotland? Is there any other situation in the world where oil resources in one country’s EEZ are attributed or shared with another country?

Postal vote away.

18 days, 22hrs to go.

An honest question – why did you get a postal vote? There’s a very large number of postal votes issued for the referendum, and I’m wondering why that is.

I’m away to Sheffield for a wedding.

I’m taking my Passport just in case. 😀

Edit, wedding actually on the Sunday. But I’ve friends down there so it’s good to spend some time rather than an overnighter.

😀

There can’t be 600,000 people all going to weddings, though…

Girlfriend is postal voting too, but she’s away to Rome for work.

She’s postal voted for the last couple of years, as the job involves a LOT of international travel.

There can’t be 600,000 people all going to weddings, though…

No, it is interesting though. I’d have probably postal voted regardless. And I’m far more likely to vote in future elections with a postal vote as it’s far more convenient. There’s a post box in the work place car park. Couldn’t be simpler without voting online.

Besides, Thursdays nights. Are hill running nights with the local running club.

I chose to postal vote because I am working away from home. Perhaps many chose it to avoid the burly kilted heavies outside polling stations, and the friendly glare to remind you where your cross should go.

athgray – Member
…Perhaps many chose it to avoid the burly kilted heavies outside polling stations…

Don’t worry, they are as rare a commodity as grass-roots No supporters.

wanmankylung – Member
There aren’t half a bunch of nasty trolls on this thread. Here is my response to the trolls – oh look you don’t have a vote – suck it up sweet cheeks.

I watched the independence process in one of the UKs old colonies. There was a sense of outrage and disbelief from the colonial upper crust that those unprintable natives could run their own country, accompanied by supercilious and contemptuous commentary. It’s deja vu.

18 days to the party.

There is no place for violence , intimidation or prejudice from either side in this referendum. What happened to Jim Murphy was cowardly and unacceptable . However to suggest that morons and thugs are only found on one side is pathetic.

I applied for a postal vote a few years ago for an election I knew I would be out of the country for, it might have been the 2010 general election. I have received postal ballots ever since.

The high number of postal votes for the referendum is a good thing. It means voter turnout will be very high

Perhaps many chose it to avoid the burly kilted heavies outside polling stations, and the friendly glare to remind you where your cross should go.

I assume you’re joking.

The Jim Murphy thing is amazing. Sure, throwing an egg at someone is rude and shouldn’t be condoned – but should it really attract more comment from the Prime Minister than, say, the shelling of civilians in Gaza? Should it really get more media coverage than actual death threats to Alex Salmond and Jim Sillars?

If I was really, really paranoid I’d be wondering about it, wondering why there happened to be several cameras there on that day (not usual for Murphy’s speeches), wondering why the egg thrower just walked away instead of legging it, wondering if in fact it was a stunt to get media coverage for someone who hadn’t been getting much, and wondering if it was an attempt to move the message back to “nasty nats” after a terrible week for Better Together.

And you can criticise John Prescott for lots of things, but he didn’t go crying to the police and cancel a speaking tour because of an egg.

So why do you think the Convention would not attribute the oil to the state within the EEZ – i.e. Scotland?

I’m not saying it won’t – but the convention does not define the “jurisdiction” and the equidistance principle has not always been considered appropriate, so at the moment the 90% claim is just a negotiating position, it’s not a given.

Is there any other situation in the world where oil resources in one country’s EEZ are attributed or shared with another country?

See above – I’m not arguing that the UK would have any rights to Scotlands EEZ, just that Scotlands EEZ has not yet been negotiated.

Scotland’s EEZ would be the UK’s EEZ, with a border between Scotland and England (or NI) as defined by international law – which is perpendicular to the coastline I believe. Handy, as that’s how the sectors are defined at the moment.

It’s not negotiation unless you think the oil fields can be moved, any more than Cumbria being in England is up for negotiation.

Though I’d be happy to swap the oil for Cumbria 😉

Scotland’s EEZ would be the UK’s EEZ, with a border between Scotland and England (or NI) as defined by international law – which is perpendicular to the coastline I believe. Handy, as that’s how the sectors are defined at the moment.

Which goes back to my original question, “Do you have a link to the actual law?”

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea says (my bold);
“The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.”

Article 38 says;

“1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes
as are submitted to it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states ;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations ;
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination
of rules of law.
2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bond, if the parties agree thereto.”

Good – we already have a demarcation line agreed, it’s used in the GERS reports, for fishery demarcation, and things like that. It’s defined in the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order. It has the same legal status as the land boundary between Scotland and England.

It’s defined in the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order

Doesn’t that define the territorial waters not the EEZ?

Regardless, it is a UK document – the UK ‘rules’ won’t apply to an iScotland will they?

I watched the independence process in one of the UKs old colonies.

Which one?

Girlfriend is postal voting too, but she’s away to Rome for work.
She’s postal voted for the last couple of years, as the job involves a LOT of international travel.

Ach, well, she’ll be home a lot more if Scotland goes independent and that whole Euro adoption/EU entry thing gets a lot more important than some posters here think… 😆

Regardless, it is a UK document – the UK ‘rules’ won’t apply to an iScotland will they?

Do you think the land border is up for negotiation too? That’s defined in a UK document.

It does sound a bit strange that its people living in Scotland who get to vote rather than people who are Scottish.

Yes you may have lived there for ages and feel Scottish, but what happens to passports/nationality if things separate?

Scotland get independence but not EU membership.

Person A: Born in Scotland, lives there and participated in the vote
Person B: Born in rUK, lives in Scotland and voted
Person C: Born in Scotland, but now lives rUK

People A&C may not be able to work in the EU if Scotland wasnt accepted?
One had a say in it, the other didnt.

Do you think the land border is up for negotiation too? That’s defined in a UK document.

Are you sure about that?

I was under the fairly strong understanding it was defined in a series of treaties between the English and Scottish Crowns, that predated the existence of the United Kingdom by a couple of hundred years…

Those treaties became part of the laws of the UK, and define the limits of Scots law vs English law, just as the SAWBO does for the marine boundary.

It does sound a bit strange that its people living in Scotland who get to vote rather than people who are Scottish.

Define “Scottish”. I was born here, but my parents were not. My partner wasn’t born here, but has lived here most of her life. What about people with two Scottish parents, who were born outside Scotland?

It’s impossible to come up with a sensible definition. And, more than that, it’s unfair. The referendum is about what happens to Scotland, so it should be up to the people who live in Scotland.

Oh, and in your scenarios, all those people would retain British citizenship so would be able to work wherever they liked.

Define “Scottish”

I was just interested in the scenario really.

So everyone born before independence would be British, those post would be split into rUK & Scottish nationals?

Or would that come at passport renewal time. When your passport comes up for renewal would you have to apply to the new Scottish passport agency, or could you renew via the rUK passport agency?

The former if you’re a citizen of iScotland and the latter if you’re a citizen of rUK . It seems like the most prosaic of all questions posed on this thread so far.

It seems fair that only people who live in Scotland should have a vote. I buggered off ages ago, why should I stick my oar in about what healthcare, education and tax look like when it’s not really going to affect me?

Though I’d be happy to swap the oil for Cumbria

Oi, hands off – you already get most of the interesting bits.

Actually how about we let you have the currency union Sir BS is so keen on in return for an equitable share of the interesting bits? You can have 10% of the mountains, we get to keep the rest.

British citizens resident in Scotland would become Scottish citizens, as would Scottish-born people living abroad. Others would also be able to apply, showing citizenship by descent or other reasons.

The UK government has said it’s likely people would be able to retain both British and Scottish citizenship, becoming dual-nationals like lots of people already are (me, for example).

Scottish citizens could apply for Scottish passports. If they retained British citizenship presumably they could also apply for British passports or renew them. I have British and American passports, no problem renewing either.

It’s possible the rUK government might want to strip Scots of their British citizenship – they’ve given no indication of wanting to do that, but it’s theoretically possible, though it might be contrary to EU law.

You can have 10% of the mountains, we get to keep the rest.

Deal. Most Scottish mountains are 90% squelchy bog, you can have those bits 😉

Ben, technically I think you’ll find that according to the Maastricht treaty, any national of a Member State is a citizen of the Union. (article 8 ) and that nationality is to be defined purely by reference to the law of the member state.

at the moment, anyone with British Citizenship is automatically a British National for EU citizenship purposes – but it doesn’t follow that that would automatically be the case after independence or into the future!

Yup, I don’t think it’s been tested in international law yet – and it also depends on whether Scotland and/or the rUK leaves the EU.

Do you think the land border is up for negotiation too?

I’ve never implied that at all.

I’m assuming that your attempts to straw man your way around the whole subject means that the answer to the question;
“Do you have a link to the actual law?” which states that “International law and convention would seem to say that it is 90% Scotland’s oil”, is No.