Independence - how would you vote?

[Pink Freud]

Listening to Radio 4 this morning, it's clear that the Barnett review will be taking place sooner rather than later.

It's great that such certainty of funding can be given from within the Union. Ditto macro economics related to our continuing membership of the EU.

There is literally no reason now to vote No other than an emotional one. There is so little certainty coming from Westminster that the unknowns are pretty much equivalent on either side now. The one thing we CAN be certain of is that staying in the UK will result in lower central funding, and continued stifling of local politics.

[H_B]

Are you saying that quote is fabricated?

I am saying it isn't something a "senior UK minister" would go on record as saying. For obvious reasons. Something they might feed a journo to sow some seeds, perhaps.

There is a reaon why some newspaper quotes are not named. And why journos are happy to use the quotes anyway.

The UK government line, is that Scotland will have to apply for EU membership. After that, it's up to the existing EU members, including the UK, to vote as they see fit. I see no reason why Scotland's membership application, should Scotland agree to meet the EU's negotiated position on requirements, wouldn't be voted through with no problem.

[H_B]

Craig Murray has commented widely on our possible post Indy maritime borders massively increasing our oil reserves. And since he helped draw up these borders, I will presume he knows what he's talking about.

Why would you presume this? I have read what Craig Murray has said.

Which borders did he "help draw up"? Specifically?

His personal views on the border are completely irrelevant. It will be a negotiated settlement between rUK's negotiating team and NewScotland's negotiation team.

[xbl]

I am saying it isn't something a "senior UK minister" would go on record as saying. For obvious reasons. Something they might feed a journo to sow some seeds, perhaps.

So it isn't fabricated. So it is indeed something that they have suggested?

[H_B]

So it isn't fabricated. So it is indeed something that they have suggested?

It could be fabricated - who knows. It could be something mischievous someone wants to put out there but doesn't want attributed to them. It could be the journalist's mate - it could be someone not senior at all they are making sound more important.

You can't use "a friend of the star" as evidence.

[AberdeenBud]

Why would you presume this? I have read what Craig Murray has said.

Which borders did he "help draw up"? Specifically?

His personal views on the border are completely irrelevant. It will be a negotiated settlement between rUK's negotiating team and NewScotland's negotiation team.

Scotland/England Maritime Boundaries

by craig on January 11, 2012 9:17 am in Uncategorized

According to existing Westminster legislation, English waters stretch at their North Easterly point to 56 degrees 36 minutes north – that is over 100 miles North of the border at Berwick, and North of Dundee.

In 1999 Tony Blair, abetted by the Scottish traitor Donald Dewar, redrew the existing English/Scottish maritime boundary to annex 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters to England, including the Argyll field and six other major oilfields. The idea was specifically to disadvantage Scotland’s case for independence.

The pre-1999 border was already very favourable to England. In 1994, while I was Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I had already queried whether it was too favourable to England. I little anticipated that five years later Blair would push it seventy miles North!!

I should explain that I was the Alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and was number 2 on the UK team that negotiated the UK/Ireland, UK/Denmark (Shetland/Faeroes), UK/Belgium, and Channel Islands/France maritime boundaries, as well as a number of British Dependent Territories boundaries. There are very few people in the World – single figures – who have more experience of actual maritime boundary negotiation than me.

The UK’s other maritime boundaries are based on what is known formally in international law as the modified equidistance principle. The England/Scotland border was of course imposed, not negotiated. It is my cold, professional opinion that this border lies outside the range of feasible solutions that could be obtained by genuine negotiation, arbitration or judgement.

It ignores a number of acknowledged precepts in boundary resolutions, most important of which is how to deal with an inverted right angle coastline, as the Scottish coastline is from Elgin to Berwick, with the angle point around Edinburgh. It also fails adequately to close the Forth and Tay estuaries with baselines – by stark contrast to the massive baselines the UK used across the Thames and Stour.

It is essential that Scotland is not conned into accepting the existing England Scotland maritime boundary as a precondition of any independence referendum. This boundary must be subject to negotiation between equal nations post independence, and in my opinion is most likely to end with referral to the International Court of Justice. I have no doubt the outcome would be a very great deal better for Scotland than the Blair-Dewar line, which would cost Scotland billions.

[H_B]

This boundary must be subject to negotiation between equal nations post independence

That is correct. It must.

[AberdeenBud]

Still more than a little facetious to say that one of the world's foremost experts on this subject views are irrelevant.

[H_B]

Still more than a little facetious to say that one of the world's foremost experts this subject views are irrelevant.

No, they are completely irrelevant. Unless he is planning to sit on the tribunal he claims will end up deciding the matter.

The negotiations will be complex - and will be considered along with a number of other negotiations (concerning splits of assets and debts for example), so cannot be looked at in isolation.

In international law terms, no border exists between NewScot and rUK because NewScot doesn't exist. It will be a new border on independence, and what that border will look like will be negotiated.

It may end up exactly as it is internally under Westminster law, it may become more favourable than the existing domestic line is to Scotland or it may become less favourable than the existing domestic line is to Scotland.

[Colkitto]

Listening to Radio 4 this morning, it's clear that the Barnett review will be taking place sooner rather than later.

It's great that such certainty of funding can be given from within the Union. Ditto macro economics related to our continuing membership of the EU.

There is literally no reason now to vote No other than an emotional one. There is so little certainty coming from Westminster that the unknowns are pretty much equivalent on either side now. The one thing we CAN be certain of is that staying in the UK will result in lower central funding, and continued stifling of local politics.

Watch out I said this many many weeks ago and was accused of scaremongering. When central funding is lowered then we would have to raise Taxes, making Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK.

[xbl]

Can you provide some evidence please of "Unionists" who want you to believe Scotland's application for membership wouldn't be welcomed by the EU?

Here is your original quote. You've now had evidence. Coincidentally, the same evidence that you received the last time you demanded evidence on this and subsequently hid. So now, do you acknowledge that this is indeed a Unionist strategy?

[H_B]

Here is your original quote. You've now had evidence. Coincidentally, the same evidence that you received the last time you demanded evidence on this and subsequently hid. So now, do you acknowledge that this is indeed a Unionist strategy?

I didn't discuss this before - it may have been Ad Lib.

I don't use "friends of the star" or "Talk Sport sources" as evidence. I only ever quote actual people. If you want to quote someone like Michael Forsythe (who is the Nat's poster boy for scaring people) then go for it.

Note, if I wish to say Nicola Sturgeon has lied to people I use actual quotes from Nicola Sturgoen, lying to people. That's evidence.

[AberdeenBud]

No, they are completely irrelevant. Unless he is planning to sit on the tribunal he claims will end up deciding the matter.

The negotiations will be complex - and will be considered along with a number of other negotiations (concerning splits of assets and debts for example), so cannot be looked at in isolation.

In international law terms, no border exists between NewScot and rUK because NewScot doesn't exist. It will be a new border on independence, and what that border will look like will be negotiated.

It may end up exactly as it is internally under Westminster law, it may become more favourable than the existing domestic line is to Scotland or it may become less favourable than the existing domestic line is to Scotland.

So knowledge, experience and precedent are all completely ​irrelevant when discussing our post Indy Maritime borders?

Very few people in the world are blessed with Mr Murrays knowledge of Maritime Border Negotiation, so if you excuse me I will give his views on the matter just a little more relevance than yours.

[invergowrie arab]

So knowledge, experience and precedent are all completely ​irrelevant when discussing our post Indy Maritime borders?

Very few people in the world are blessed with Mr Murrays knowledge of Maritime Border Negotiation, so if you excuse me I will give his views on the matter just a little more relevance than yours.

aye but his views are completely irrelevant. they might ask the 2007/08 Stranraer squad to negotiat the post indepenence maritime boundaries or the cast of neighbours. Until we know who is doing the negotiating then experts on the subject carry no weight.

[xbl]

I didn't discuss this before - it may have been Ad Lib.

I don't use "friends of the star" or "Talk Sport sources" as evidence. I only ever quote actual people. If you want to quote someone like Michael Forsythe (who is the Nat's poster boy for scaring people) then go for it.

Note, if I wish to say Nicola Sturgeon has lied to people I use actual quotes from Nicola Sturgoen, lying to people. That's evidence.

1. Of course you didn't. Amazing how that memory works.

2. None of this is answering the question though, is it? It is all deflection.

[H_B]

So knowledge, experience and precedent are all completely ​irrelevant when discussing our post Indy Maritime borders?

Very few people in the world are blessed with Mr Murrays knowledge of Maritime Border Negotiation, so if you excuse me I will give his views on the matter just a little more relevance than yours.

I haven't offered any opinions on the matter, other than to agree with Murray's only factual statement - that the border will be negotiated post Independence, between the new entity (Scotland) and the existing entity.

If I was to stick a tenner on it (assuming the fantasy land of a won referendum) I'd go for the line remaining as it is now domestically. It would be interesting to find out - I like maritime border disputes.

Beware the "this man knows the score" fallacy. David Scheffer is, the Nats told us with great glee, an "eminent" international law expert. How did that go for Nicola again, after he was bitchslapped by the actual experts a fortnight later?

[H_B]

1. Of course you didn't. Amazing how that memory works.

If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I will happily read it.

Let me guess - "A senior source close to HB said he did"?

[Mr Rational]

It's going to boil down to horse trading in the end. We will get some things we want (I reckon the maritime boundary will be redrawn in our favour), some things we don't (trident remaining for 10 years).

I'm warning to a second referendum just to see what would be offered.

[H_B]

It's going to boil down to horse trading in the end. We will get some things we want (I reckon the maritime boundary will be redrawn in our favour), some things we don't (trident remaining for 10 years).

I'm warning to a second referendum just to see what would be offered.

1) Correct.

2) A second referendum being on what basis?

[xbl]

If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I will happily read it.

Let me guess - "A senior source close to HB said he did"?

I think your evidence demanding days are well and truly over now. In the last couple of weeks you've demanded evidence that the Unionist parties claimed that the SNP couldn't have a referendum without permission and now about Europe, and both times, you've simply ignored the evidence when it has been presented. So I think its probably about time you started to "engage with the substance" before you demand any more "evidence". You're just another Tryfield and DeeGas now.