General Brexit discussion thread

[Thomas]

Still talking nonsense ---UK has the territorial waters 'ownership' - so you needn't treat the oil revenue as being down to Scottish prowess - you can claim those oil fields as Scottish, if/when you gain independence.....assuming there is some left then.

 :roll:

We know from official figures that an independent Scotland even WITHOUT oil would have a GVA of 99% of the UK average, and an independent Scotland wouldn't have to follow UK spending plans, like blowing public cash on a vastly inflated military. But that's not even the point.



Because calculating Scotland's wealth without oil makes no more sense than calculating Norway's public finances without oil, or Saudi Arabia's, or excluding the entire financial sector from the UK's balance sheet. It makes no more sense than producing a set of Scottish figures without whisky exports or tourism. And it makes no more sense than pondering what the economy of the UK would look like if the country was attacked by space monsters.



One of the most insidious traits of both the UK government and the media is to constantly refer to Scotland's economy without oil, as if there was some doubt as to who owns it. There isn't

[/b]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... of_the_Sea">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea



https://wingsoverscotland.com/return-of-the-space-monsters/#more-50814">https://wingsoverscotland.com/return-of ... more-50814">https://wingsoverscotland.com/return-of-the-space-monsters/#more-50814

you can claim those oil fields as Scottish, if/when you gain independence.....assuming there is some left then.

 ::  ::



lets see. The "oil will run out debate" for busy people stevlin...........

The oil will run out by 1994."

(Labour MP Tony Benn, May 1979)



"The oil will run out by 2000."

(Labour MP Ioan Evans, February 1980)



"Oil and gas will run out by the end of the 1980s."

(Tory MPs Timothy Eggart and Peter Rost, January 1982)



"Oil will be running out by 1989."

(Labour MP Jeff Rooker, April 1984)



"The UK Government has spent 30 years suppressing its own report telling the Scots how rich oil would make them with independence."

(The Independent, December 2005)



– "Norway's oil fund grew by 18% in 2012 to £450bn."

(BBC News, March 2013)



– "Poverty in Scotland at its worst in 30 years."

(The Herald, March 2013)



"Alistair Darling is pocketing an extra £13m A DAY thanks to soaring oil prices."

(The Sun, April 2008)



"North Sea oil could run out by 2018."

(The Guardian, May 2008)



"North Sea oil will last another 100 years."

(The Telegraph, June 2008)



"High oil and gas prices could lead to a Treasury tax windfall."

(Alistair Darling on BBC News, June 2008)



"Soaring oil prices could hold back the economic recovery."

(Alistair Darling in the Evening Standard, June 2009)



"Collapsing oil revenue will turn the whole UK into a banana republic!"

(The Telegraph, November 2009)



"Scotland faces bill of £30bn after North Sea oil runs out."

(The Scotsman, April 2012)



"North Sea oil will last for another 50 years."

(Daily Express, September 2012)



"Declining oil revenue will leave Scotland worse off than the UK."

(The Telegraph, November 2012)



"The trouble with oil is that it's a tremendously volatile diminishing asset."

(Alistair Darling in the Paisley Daily Express, December 2012)



"Oil and gas decline to halt as investment booms."

(Reuters, January 2013)



"North Sea oil to give George Osborne £25bn boost."

(The Telegraph, February 2013)



"It's not Scotland's oil, it's Shetland's."

(Tavish Scott in The Shetland Times, March 2013)



"It's definitely Scotland's oil."

(Vince Cable in The Telegraph, March 2013)



"Falling oil revenues will mean savage public spending cuts or tax rises."

(Vince Cable in the Scotsman, March 2013)



"Oil and gas will play a vital role in British energy needs for decades to come."

(Vince Cable in the Daily Record, March 2013)



"There are probably billions of barrels still to be found in Scottish waters, which is why we're investing billions of pounds in looking for it."

(New York Times, March 2013)



"Oil revenue is volatile, and declining, and cheap gas from fracking will probably make it completely worthless."

(The Scotsman, March 2013)



"North Sea oil and gas have a long and bright future."

(UK energy minister John Hayes, March 2013)



"There's no bright future for oil revenue."

(Dumfries And Galloway Standard, March 2013)



"Analysts believe that Clair, along with other developments [in Scottish waters to the west of Shetland], could lead to the Atlantic overtaking the North Sea as the UK's biggest oil-producing region within 20 years."

(BBC News, March 2013)



"Scotland will be so rich from oil you won't be able to handle it by yourselves!"

(The Telegraph, March 2013)

[/b]

[Thomas]

To further assist you to gain an understanding of the 'ownership' of territorial entitlement....



- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-20042070">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070

so what is it you are "trying" to teach me stevlin  , and where does your link contradict anything i have been saying to you?



Do you actually even read your own links before you post them?



so lets start.your link says..

Looking back over the past 40 years it is estimated the UK Treasury has benefited from Scottish offshore oil and gas production taxes to the tune of about £300bn (adjusted for inflation). Not all of that would have been from Scottish waters, but it is thought about 90% of it would.

[/b]



so far so good. The uk treasurey has benefited from scotlands oil over decades to the tune of £300 billion .Exactly as i have been saying .



next?

So is it Scotland's oil?



This is, of course, a key question in the debate and one which would have to be negotiated by governments as part of any agreement on independence.

Image caption The shaded blue area is the part of the UK continental shelf which the Scottish government believes it should control



Under the present arrangement the oil tax revenues are assigned to an economic region set up by the UK government, which is called the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS).



This means that oil resources are not officially assigned to Scotland but instead to a region distinct from the British mainland.

[/b]



aye , as it stands they are defined as "ex regio".Nothing revealing here . This has no bearing on an independent scotlands claim . next.?

But if Scotland were to become independent, and a sovereign state, it would expect the UKCS to be divided up on a "geographical" basis.

[/b]



yawn. Yep , nothing new here either so far. next?

He says if Scotland were to become independent the "median line" principle would be the "obvious one" to use.



This means drawing a dividing line on which all points are the same distance from the Scottish and rest of the UK (RUK) coastline.

[/b]



First slight bit of controversy , but again nothing new.



Tony blair and the new labour government did this in 1999 , where they secretly moved the scottish boundary you say doesnt exist from berwick to carnoustie. Now apart from the fact the unclos 2 treaty would deem this illegal , even if this was accepted , it would still mean the bulk share of oil and gas revenue would still be in scottish waters , roughly about 15% would have been annexed to your country. And?



your article goes on with a dissenting voice to your median line proposal....

But American international lawyer Professor David Scheffer says: "I don't think anyone should say that the law of the sea is static on this issue of where do you draw the line in the North Sea that would determine who has jurisdiction over which part of the reserves.



"There is a popular presumption that the median line should be drawn and that would be favourable to London. There is a popular notion in academic thinking that automatically it is the median line. However, international law has always invited negotiation on how to draw that line."



Prof Scheffer, who is Director of the Centre for International Human Rights at Northwest University in the US, says the boundary line could be a good bargaining tool for the Scottish government.



He says: "I don't think London should be under the assumption they automatically have the median line they should not even have to negotiate it. I think that would be a serious mistake because Scotland could ultimately bring this to the international court of justice and perhaps prevail there with a different line."

[/b]



and finally , the article agrees with what i have been telling you all along...

If Scotland were to get a "geographical share" based on the median line it would mean about 90% of the UK's oil resources would be under Scottish jurisdiction.



According to research by Prof Kemp, in 2010 the Scottish share of total oil production in the UKCS was more than 95% while for gas it was 58%. The Scottish share of total hydrocarbon production (including NGLs) was 80%. The Scottish tax share exceeded 90%. This reflects the much higher value of oil compared to gas.

[/b]



so tell me stevlin what exactly is it im supposed to have learned from your article.?



It is basically saying all the things i have said and known , but that you have been in denial about .In other words you stupid person , you have posted a link that contradicts your very own argument and agrees with me and what i have been telling you!!!  :roll:



Do try and read things before you post them in desperation my dear wirral warbler! ::

[Thomas]

Really? - and who stated that? Your very poor  lack of comprehension has clearly not improved at all. The name 'Britain', was derived from  transformation of the name Pritanī'  - but as I stated, the land mass now known as the British isles has clearly existed for quite a while .... but it wasn't known as Britain until after the Roman invasion. I trust you will understand such things more easily by the time you have left school.

 :roll:  ::



Thanks stevlin , i never knew that. ::



Was northern ireland part of it if you dont mind me asking , or merely an associate member?

[Thomas]

I leave the 'bollocks' statements to you - you are the complete master at it.

Common sense would dictate that ALL constituent countries of the UK , rightly have a 'share' of the   UK national debt...whether the amount is subject to negotiation or not.

your "lack of common sense" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.



We have one real example in the real world , not stevlins fantasy world , of a country leaving the uk and refusing to take any of your debt.



The republic of ireland left the uk a century ago , when you were still a world power more or less , and even at the height of your power , you still couldnt force them to accept a share of your debt.



So how do you propose to force us to take a share?



You can wail and gnash your rotten teeth all you like stevlin , but scotland wont be taking any debt share as salmond said back in 2014 unless there is a formal currency union which osbourne at the time ruled out.



You dont seem to be very good at this international negotiation malarkey are you? We see that with the eu and wee ireland today as well , where you demand you get your own way , and when everyone laughs and politely ignores you , you run off in a sulk threatening to top yersell.

[Thomas]

Still talking nonsense ---UK has the territorial waters 'ownership' - so you needn't treat the oil revenue as being down to Scottish prowess - you can claim those oil fields as Scottish, if/when you gain independence.....assuming there is some left then.

 ::



The tories even stood up in the house of commons and admitted in front of the whole of parliament that scotland provides a net subisdy to the rest of the uk.

Figures explode subsidy myth Scotland gave #27bn more than was received



 Exclusive CLINCHING evidence that there has been a huge net flow of funds from Scotland to the Treasury since 1979, came in an answer from the Government in the final hours of the old Parliament last Friday, the SNP will reveal today.



Not only do the latest figures destroy the last main argument against the suggestion that Scotland paid #27bn more than was received in public spending, they suggest that the actual figure was nearer to #31bn.



Mr William Waldegrave, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been forced to concede figures in Commons questioning in recent months, which show that if Scotland's share of North Sea revenues had been allocated since 1979, then the net flow in favour of the Treasury from north of the Border ran to #27bn - a figure which the SNP used to refute previous claims that Scotland was subsidised

[/b]

A jubilant Alex Salmond said last night: ''The Treasury answer - wrung out of it on the very last day of Parliament, and after a month's delay - has blown the last shreds of the Tory subsidy myth out of the water. ''For the second time, William Waldegrave has been caught out telling the truth

[/b]



http://archive.is/5Swry">http://archive.is/5Swry

[Stevlin]

To further assist you to gain an understanding of the 'ownership' of territorial entitlement....



- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-20042070">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042070

[Stevlin]

oh britain didnt exist at all did it? ::

 ::  :roll:

Really? - and who stated that? Your very poor  lack of comprehension has clearly not improved at all. The name 'Britain', was derived from  transformation of the name Pritanī'  - but as I stated, the land mass now known as the British isles has clearly existed for quite a while .... but it wasn't known as Britain until after the Roman invasion. I trust you will understand such things more easily by the time you have left school.

[Stevlin]

oh britain didnt exist at all did it? ::





So stop talking bollocks as ever stevlin.



Ireland agreed – by negotiation, not obligation – to assume some unspecified portion of the debt in principle, but never actually paid a penny, and just four years later the debt share was written off in its entirety.



Scotland will be the same. No currency union , no debt. Trade off required  , and we might think about it.



If not , we are under no legal obligation to take any of your debt whatsoever as the uk government and many others have alkready specified.



I guess the news still hasnt reached the wirral yet.

I leave the 'bollocks' statements to you - you are the complete master at it.

Common sense would dictate that ALL constituent countries of the UK , rightly have a 'share' of the   UK national debt...whether the amount is subject to negotiation or not.



A quote from the Guardian no less.... entitled "How much debt would an independent Scotland have?".Firstly, a caveat: every single aspect of Scotland's position post-referendum would be subject to doubtlessly intense political negotiations. As a result, any attempts to suggest figures beforehand are at best sensibly-derived estimates, and at worst, guesses.

That aside, a fairly simple way to look at how much debt an independent Scotland might have is to allocate Scottish people their "fair share" by capita of the UK's total debt pile.

The UK's national debt in January 2012 stood at £988.7bn – excluding bank bailouts, a topic to which we will return later.

Scotland's GDP per capita is only slightly below the UK's average (at 98.7% of the UK average), so it is a reasonable approximation to divide this debt evenly by population.

Scotland contains around 5.1 million of the UK's 62.2 million people, which would leave its share of the debt by this working at £81bn.

With UK debt projected to increase over the next five years to around 71% of GDP (it current stands at around 63%), this is very likely to rise.

The principle is straight forward, even though you personally have trouble understanding plain English....still, it isn't your natural language is it?1

[Stevlin]

Well i know you dont want to hear it , but i will post this article yet again from the FT which states although uk government spending is higher per person in scotland than the uk average , scotland pays for every penny of it and more besides.











http://archive.ph/vcQ78">http://archive.ph/vcQ78

Still talking nonsense ---UK has the territorial waters 'ownership' - so you needn't treat the oil revenue as being down to Scottish prowess - you can claim those oil fields as Scottish, if/when you gain independence.....assuming there is some left then.

[Thomas]

Of course it didn't , and neither did Scotland  or Britain exist as such. ...but the land mass was still there. .

oh britain didnt exist at all did it? ::

 The Romans called Britain 'the 'Albion' if I remember correctly from my history - and Scotland was Caledonia - but I cannot recall if Wales had a specific area name....but that is no excuse for you to be such a self-righteous prig....still, I guess you just can't help it.

::  :roll:





Anyway stevlin  , lets move off of history. Just like geography , you arent very good at it.



Remember you were wffling on about the uk debt and how scotland will have to take a share of it when we leave.?



Heres an old article from 2014 where the uk government gave a cast iron guarentee to the markets that if scotland had left , the ruk , and the ruk alone , would be responsible for all the uk debt.



https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ftcom-460x294.jpg">

An independent Scotland would have no legal obligation whatsoever to accept any of the UK's debt, a position the UK government unequivocally acknowledged in 2014:

[/b]



https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/treasurydebt.jpg">



Salmond told you in 2014 the price for taking on a share of your debt was a currency union.No currency union , no debt for scotland.



https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/mirrleesdebt-1.jpg">

https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/weeksdebt.jpg">





So scotland would start independence with our finances being £4 billion per annum better off if we didnt have to take a share of any of your debt. Im more than happy with that.



The only example we have of a country leaving the uk so far is the irish republic. They didnt take a share of englands debt when they left.



https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/eiredebt1-1.jpg">

https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/eiredebt2.jpg">



https://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/irelanddebt.jpg">



So stop talking bollocks as ever stevlin.



Ireland agreed – by negotiation, not obligation – to assume some unspecified portion of the debt in principle, but never actually paid a penny, and just four years later the debt share was written off in its entirety.



Scotland will be the same. No currency union , no debt. Trade off required  , and we might think about it.



If not , we are under no legal obligation to take any of your debt whatsoever as the uk government and many others have alkready specified.



I guess the news still hasnt reached the wirral yet.

[Thomas]

Whether you personally are against it or not is totally irrelevant. The reference that I posted indicated that Scotland do indeed benefit by getting an unfair share of the public purse, which contradicts your view.

Well i know you dont want to hear it , but i will post this article yet again from the FT which states although uk government spending is higher per person in scotland than the uk average , scotland pays for every penny of it and more besides.

"Although Scotland enjoys public spending well above the UK average – a source of resentment among some in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the cost to the Treasury is more than outweighed by oil and gas revenues from Scottish waters."

[/b]

On average, UK spending is around £1,200 higher per person in Scotland than in the UK as a whole. But on average Scotland sends £1,700 more per person to the UK in taxes. We only get back around 70% of the extra money we send to London. The other 30% is kept by Westminster and spent in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[/b]



http://archive.ph/vcQ78">http://archive.ph/vcQ78

[Stevlin]

Have you been reading significant nicks history books or something? England didnt exist during the time of roman empire so what are you talking about?



Your ancestors were still lving in caves on the far side of the harrtz mountains only just  having discovered fire when britain was

Of course it didn't , and neither did Scotland  or Britain exist as such. ...but the land mass was still there. The Romans called Britain 'the 'Albion' if I remember correctly  from my history - and Scotland was Caledonia - but I cannot recall if Wales had a specific area name....but that is no excuse for you to be such a self-righteous prig....still, I guess you just can't help it.

[Stevlin]

What is?



I have said many a time on the old forum i am against the barnett formula. The snp are against it. The uk government past and present are against it.

Whether you personally are against it or not is totally irrelevant. The reference that I posted indicated that Scotland do indeed benefit by getting an unfair share of the public purse, which contradicts your view.

[Thomas]

And Austria has turned to water!



In otther news, the handling of Brexit seems to have an uptick



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQ1A7ZLXsAE2HF4?format=jpg&name=medium">

lets be honest barry. The uk governments handling of brexit under theresa may couldnt have got any worse could it?



I would imagine johnson wouldnt have to do very much to get an uptick from the brexiting public do you?

[Barry]

And Austria has turned to water!



In otther news, the handling of Brexit seems to have an uptick



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQ1A7ZLXsAE2HF4?format=jpg&name=medium">