HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 And who will determine what these will be? It sounds like you know the answer so maybe you can let me know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 And who will determine what these will be? Not who but what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Nothing like engaging with the debate eh? I am genuinely interested in an alternative point of view.... Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 It sounds like you know the answer so maybe you can let me know? I do know the answer. It would be determined through negotiation between New Scotland and rUK. No one knows at this point what a non-existent border will look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 I do know the answer. It would be determined through negotiation between New Scotland and rUK. No one knows at this point what a non-existent border will look like. So what do you think the Westminster Government would try to negotiate, something other than the median line? Who do you think would have the best cards to negotiate with in this situation? If agreement isn't reached amicably which court would have jurisdiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 So what do you think the Westminster Government would try to negotiate, something other than the median line? Who do you think would have the best cards to negotiate with in this situation? If agreement isn't reached amicably which court would have jurisdiction? It would depend a lot on other negotiations. for example, the negotiations about sea borders won't exist in a vacuum. There could be horse trading relating to the use of Sterling, nuclear weapons, and various other matters. There isn't any court to refer this to that could bind either party to any particular decision. Both parties could submit the matter to arbitration if agreement wasn't reached through negotiation. The median line isn't an absolute - there are varying reasons why it may be ignored when determining boundaries. It's a really complex subject, though quite an interesting one. Substantively though, I agree with the point that New Scotland would have access to the bulk of the North Sea revenues. It's just arguing around the edges as to what percentage that would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I do know the answer. It would be determined through negotiation between New Scotland and rUK. No one knows at this point what a non-existent border will look like. And what would happen if an agreement couldn't be reached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 It would depend a lot on other negotiations. for example, the negotiations about sea borders won't exist in a vacuum. There could be horse trading relating to the use of Sterling, nuclear weapons, and various other matters. Balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 It would depend a lot on other negotiations. for example, the negotiations about sea borders won't exist in a vacuum. There could be horse trading relating to the use of Sterling, nuclear weapons, and various other matters. There isn't any court to refer this to that could bind either party to any particular decision. Both parties could submit the matter to arbitration if agreement wasn't reached through negotiation. The median line isn't an absolute - there are varying reasons why it may be ignored when determining boundaries. It's a really complex subject, though quite an interesting one. Substantively though, I agree with the point that New Scotland would have access to the bulk of the North Sea revenues. It's just arguing around the edges as to what percentage that would be. Thanks H_B, I appreciate your response, I would be interested in your opinion of the question that you didnt answer though - "Who do you think would have the best cards to negotiate with in this situation?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 He certainly wouldn't. He has to appear even handed throughout all of this and cant get involved in the debate. And I simply cant be bothered. So just an illusion of even handedness then, your implication was, that because of his position, he should be a man that knows the answers on this subject? Can you not ask him to anonymously provide some links to the alternative figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I take it Scotland will get a per capita share of lake Windermere then. Windermere's not a lake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 So just an illusion of even handedness then, your implication was, that because of his position, he should be a man that knows the answers on this subject? Can you not ask him to anonymously provide some links to the alternative figures? Are you saying there are not other people in non political roles that have their own political views but keep them well out of their day job? Thats the professional way to act. If he was going to act anonymously then I doubt P&B will be the venue for it somehow. He does sometimes watch Linlithgow Rose but he's a Man City fan so he doesnt come here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Thanks H_B, I appreciate your response, I would be interested in your opinion of the question that you didnt answer though - "Who do you think would have the best cards to negotiate with in this situation?" rUK. Ultimately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 Are you saying there are not other people in non political roles that have their own political views but keep them well out of their day job? Thats the professional way to act. If he was going to act anonymously then I doubt P&B will be the venue for it somehow. He does sometimes watch Linlithgow Rose but he's a Man City fan so he doesnt come here Not at all, I think it is OK to for anyone to keep their political views to themselves if that is their preference. It was you that brought your mate in to the forum though & you provided credibility for your argument by using his impartial & lofty position at SCofC as support? Your comment was; "BFS is an absolute joke of a natblog. It almost outmongs WoS for blockheaded stupidity." "I spent a bit of time with my best mate over the Christmas period, he is head of policy at the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. He was fairly hilarious in his description of that blog and its output." I took that to mean this was his conclusion after some professional analysis? Can you not give me some links to the alternative view & numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 rUK. Ultimately. OK, what are their "Trump Cards" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Not at all, I think it is OK to for anyone to keep their political views to themselves if that is their preference. It was you that brought your mate in to the forum though & you provided credibility for your argument by using his impartial & lofty position at SCofC as support? Your comment was; "BFS is an absolute joke of a natblog. It almost outmongs WoS for blockheaded stupidity." "I spent a bit of time with my best mate over the Christmas period, he is head of policy at the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. He was fairly hilarious in his description of that blog and its output." I took that to mean this was his conclusion after some professional analysis? Can you not give me some links to the alternative view & numbers? I couldn't possibly say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 OK, what are their "Trump Cards" Well, one would be that New Scotland's application for EU membership has to be approved by all members, including rUK which will inherit the UK's current membership. Should they choose to they could veto New Scotland's application. Scotland could retaliate with other measures, perhaps relating to Faslane or refusal to take on debt considerations, though the latter would be very self-defeating. Not that it would come to this. A settlement would be negotiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Well, one would be that New Scotland's application for EU membership has to be approved by all members, including rUK which will inherit the UK's current membership. Should they choose to they could veto New Scotland's application. Scotland could retaliate with other measures, perhaps relating to Faslane or refusal to take on debt considerations, though the latter would be very self-defeating. Not that it would come to this. A settlement would be negotiated. Do you think it would be 'right' to have a geographical split of oil and gas? I think it would be fairly self-defeating for either side to make unreasonable and petulant claims or demands. Clearly all things are possible but not all options are equally likely. What claims do you expect rUK to make of North Sea Oil and gas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Well, one would be that New Scotland's application for EU membership has to be approved by all members, including rUK which will inherit the UK's current membership. Should they choose to they could veto New Scotland's application. And lose massively. Not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Do you think it would be 'right' to have a geographical split of oil and gas? Broadly speaking, yes. That's what would happen. As I said, we're just talking about what percentage New Scotland would get - it would still be the lion's share clearly - it's just how big the lion is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.