Licenses are not issued annually…

My mistake then, I wasn’t claiming to be an expert on the subject, just trying to recall a discussion I’d heard which goes some way to explain the notion that the rUK might have a claim to a larger proportion of the oil revenue than a simple ‘geographical share’ (for a period of time at least).

I could explain more, but blinkered views are much more fun to read…

Why not clarify the situation then?

I’ve seen a 90%/10% (in favour of the UK) discussion and as I recall it was mainly concerning the existing licenses. Up until a separation date presumably the licenses will be issued by the UK government, so post-independence the oil companies could be operating with UK licenses and the revenues split via a population share. Considering the licenses are issued annually this would seem to make sense. Once these licenses expire an iScotland will issue its own licences and keep all the money.

@ Northwind
And neither this VAT or the banking levy are included in the iScotland financial planning

Several weeks ago the SNP had to admit (due to a freedom of information request) that they hadn’t done any economic modelling following their ‘independence bonus’ claims and Swinney claimed that any analysis would be “meaningless” so do you have a link for that? I’d be interested to see the analysis.

I won a £1000 on a scratch card on my way to a stag night. In hindsight I maybe should have waited to cash it in, but it was a great night!

I went through a spell of winning loads of competitions on the radio which coincided with a friend being there on work experience.

Genuine Q what VAT exemptions?

AFAIK the UK is the only member state to have negotiated that it can zero rate food, childrens clothes, books.

Here

I dont think discussing this again will lead to us agreeing and as the EU wont say anything neither of us can prove it one way or the other.

The EU have said something in reply to the The Scottish Government’s proposals for an independent Scotland: membership of the European;

As far as EU citizenship is concerned, this is not an autonomous status but is dependent
on national citizenship. In accordance with Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (TFEU), only persons holding the nationality of a Member State are
EU citizens. EU citizenship is additional to and does not replace national citizenship.

When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.

Source

No it wasn’t Vos unfortunately, I think it would take very big bucks to get her to leave Rabobank.

They all had the really good tans that only pro cyclist seem to have and they looked tiny – which was what initially made me think they were not just dressed up in replica kit.

@loddrick, bearing in mind I’m old enough to be their dad, one of them in particular was very pretty.

this approach just gave all the nuke subs to scotland as they are in Scotland

No it didn’t the subs are movable assets of the UK, Scotland has zero claim to them.

You seem to think that only the things in scotland were bought by scotland. Why?

No I don’t. Things were ‘bought’ by UK tax payers, whether in the rUK or in Scotland. The UN law has clear criteria how these assets are divided and Scotland will get to keep the things that the UK bought that are located in Scotland – because of this, they are obliged to take a share of the debt, again this is stated in UN law.

I dont think he has ever said it except in a quid pro Quo debt for asset type negotiating position. I think everyone would agree that is imminently sensible negotiating position

That’s the very foundation of the lie though, that iScotland will be able to negotiate assets in exchange for accepting the debt. Scotland already has the assets; it has the schools, hospitals etc. that the debt has been used to pay for. That is what Scotland gets for accepting it’s proportion of the debt, the things that it has ‘bought’ with it

went up the banking on a couple of laps ?

I live in one of the flatter parts of the Netherlands, the only ‘hills’ are bridges over the highway.

12/23 and 42/52 for me. I just checked and my last road ride was 104km with 173m of climbing.

I suppose I could have posted it to someone in the UK to then send on for me…

That’s what we’ve done, last year for mine and last week for my wife it took less than a month for mine and that was including my mum faffing about getting it in the post!

I’ve had a Polar RC3 GPS for a while now and if I was buying again I’d get a Suunto. I initially bought it over a Garmin 610 because it fitted me better and I got a good deal.

The Polar is OK but little things like not being able to customize the screens and no straight forward Strava upload are annoying (although the Polar personal trainer website is OK for recording the data). The heart monitor strap is flakey and needs quite a bit of TLC to keep it working (the contacts corrode easily).

If BT published that lot, fiscal and political union then not only would be their position be crystal clear, Salmond would be forced to change his approach it it would be be very obvious that agreeing to a CU would require giving up an awful lot of the new found freedom

You mean like this;

Currency Union

He’s a Spaniard leading the Vuelta, the doctors in the doping tent are probably weeing in the pot for him

We had our dog from 8weeks and she was always going to come out on the bike with us so we kept that in mind during puppy training.

First we made sure that all of the normal commands were solid – heel, free, stay, sit.

When walking in the woods we introduced a few new commands – “side” and “follow”, side meant get off the track.

We would push the bike around the garden with the dog at heel, do a few sharp turns and the dog soon learns which bits ‘bite’.

Then we went to the park and rode along with the dog on a lead at heel in straight lines at first, then including turns. Then off the lead with some ‘free’ time followed by returning to heel.

Then short loops round the woods – plenty of rests, plenty of treats and most important with ours is lots of communication, she’ll lose concentration and go chasing after rabbits/squirrels/deer given a chance.

Given the choice she will lead, and knows most of the local routes by heart, some areas she is free to run ahead, others she has to heel or follow. She knows to speed up when she hears a clicky free-wheel, but we also introduce a command ‘hup’ to get her to speed up.

Thanks for the links – I had seen the ‘shop’ story before and knew that was a gross exaggeration so was a little skeptical about the others, but they do seem to have some foundation which is a disgrace.

Any links to those stories?

The situation in the break up of Czechoslovakia was different in that the neither the Czech Republic or Slovakia were a continuing state.

Can’t see the bit where it doesn’t either – because we’re talking about immovable state property that’s not in the territory of the predecessor state.

It would be quite a long document if it listed everything that won’t happen. Maybe you could point out the UN law that matches your position?

Or is this another one of those cases where for some reason we don’t get a share of assets we’ve helped pay for?

You have a choice to keep all of the UKs assets, the Yes campaign had the choice to inform the Scottish people what the most likely situation was if they chose otherwise.

You will see in the quote above that Scotland gets to keep lots of assets based in Scotland where the majority is paid for by people outside Scotland – swings and roundabouts.

Can’t see the bit that states Scotland will get to keep things overseas;

1.When part or parts of the territory of a State separate from that State and form a successor State, and unless the predecessor State and the successor State otherwise agree:
(a) immovable State property of the predecessor State situated in the territory to which the succession of States relates shall pass to the successor State;
(b) movable State property of the predecessor State connected with the activity of the predecessor State in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates shall pass to the successor State;
(c) movable State property of the predecessor State, other than that mentioned in subparagraph (b), shall pass to the successor State in an equitable proportion.

In Scandinavia, fishing, hunting and sailing are things that most people do, here they’re things really only for the wealthiest

No they’re not; I do all of those things either free or for a very small cost when I visit Scotland. Free fishing in particular is easy to find.

It’s my experience (from family and friends) that people in Scotland (and the rest of the UK) don’t fish and hunt because they don’t want to. The North Uist angling club is £80 a year not really into the realm of the “wealthiest”

When I was racing back in the 90’s the fields at XC races were massive, you could easily get 300+ people on the start line of a NEMBA sports race and quite a few of those had ridden the downhill and sometimes the hill-climb the previous day on their rigid bike with 1.5” spesh hardpacks. At that time that was mountain biking.

Foot and mouth had a massive impact, XC racing was put on hold and most people turned to road racing and realized that it was better regulated, better organized and cheaper so when XC came back it was more difficult to attract competitors back.

but you would probably struggle to avoid civilisation for about 10 minutes

You’ve obviously never been to Watford on a Saturday night!

Technically you aren’t supposed to use a baited line for crayfish and you need an EA authorization to trap them.

Snaring rabbits isn’t that difficult, but if it’s your only source of food then it’s a massive risk.

As an anecdote, when I was in my late teens I went on a week-long survival camp in the lakes, we had a few days been taught trapping/shelter building etc. Then we were bundled in the back of a landrover and chucked out in the wilderness approximately 3days walk from our final destination. All I managed to catch was 2 eels one night, a couple of lads resorted to scavenging carrion/roadkill; everyone broke into their emergency rations before 24hrs was up!

so perhaps you can tell us how Luxembourg’s race to the bottom has been to the detriment of its average working person?

The average worker in Luxembourg has a greater risk of being ‘in poverty’ than one from the UK and more than double that of their neighbours from the other Benelux countries(LU 9%, UK 8%, BE&NL 4%). A single parent in Luxembourg is one of the most likely people in Europe to be in poverty!

Source

Agreed, and the injuries clearly aren’t helping either; it was the same last year if I remember correctly, loads of injuries just after pre-season.

Letting Vidic and Rio and Evra leave at the same time was always going to be a big upset. I know they didn’t play much together last season but having that much experience on the training pitch must have helped the younger players (although Evans and Smalling aren’t exactly youngsters any more).

United have bought 3 defenders as well, it’s not all out attack!

I think they are missing Carrick at the moment, IMHO he’s been Uniteds best player for the last 2-3 seasons. He just sits in front of the back line does the simple things and makes them tick. It was the same last season when he was out United leaked goals and lacked any fluidity going forward.

but when there have been disputes it’s been the equidistance principle that’s been used to settle the dispute.

Always? Maybe someone should tell the Dutch, the Germans have taken some of their territory.

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.

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?

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.”

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.

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.

I will admit that I don’t know anyone who lives in NI and works in Ireland so will bow to Ben’s clearly greater experience of it not being a problem in any way.

I live a few miles from the Dutch Belgian border and work with lots of Belgians – for them it’s a bit of a hastle. From simple things like mobile phone roaming to more important things like healthcare and variations in tax structure. Different taxation can mean that grocery shopping is cheaper in Holland (still a minimum of 6% on all foods), but petrol’s cheaper in Belgium. So as the Scottish and UK administrations move apart there will be winners and losers both sides of the border.

Both charge 21% on childrens clothes though so not such a bright future for childrens clothes shops in Gretna.

It’s not just isolated to the UK, in fact it’s worse in some other European countries. A Dutch colleague found it cheaper to get the ferry over to the UK to buy a Bronson recently than buy it locally; the same bike from a Dutch shop was €600ish more expensive.

Not true. Scotland is the second-richest area of the UK after London – we’ll have more to spend than we do at the moment. And that’s before you add in the savings from not renewing Trident etc.

Whether Scotland is better or worse than London is neither here nor there – London is not aiming to become independent. What really matters is whether Scotland can meet its current spending commitments, or will an iScotland have to introduce its own austerity measures.

Do you have any figures to back up the claim that an independent Scotland would have more money to spend? – all of the analysis that I have seen has been to the contrary e.g.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314359/Scotland_analysis__Fiscal_policy_and_sustainability.pdf

Obviously Salmond had his ‘independence bonus’ but the SNP have had to admit they had no analysis to support their claim.

Those Trident savings are going to be spread very thin when you consider the plans for iScotland to delay PIP, meet the renewables obligations, set up revenue and other government depts. etc. And that’s before you consider the reduction in revenue from the finance sector and the loss of revenues from ‘foreign’ owned companies which are currently allocated to Scotland.

But the result is Scotland will have less to spend than it currently has (or it has to increase borrowing).

The whole point of the block grant is that it costs more to provide services and other things in some areas, and some areas are in greater need. It is a nonsense to try to equalise that.

There’s only one vote which keeps the block grant.