Jump to content

Brave heart salmond announces his vision for Scotland

Viking Warrior

By Viking Warrior,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
They're licensed to extract it. Not the same thing as ownership. I think you'll find that right now, the Crown owns it.

 

You have to pay somebody to extract it. These companies have built the infrastructure in exchange for a share of the oil produced. Not the same as ownership, I grant you, but effectively some of the oil has been 'sold' to these companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ken Tone

Ken Tone

Posted
Posted

There are some interesting figures here

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24866266

 

So much depends on the oil ...how much is left and what proportion would go to Scotland. With no oil revenue an independent Scotland would be ****ed financially. There seems to be at least 5 years worth of good income left ... Maybe a

lot more. if it is only 5 years, there will be some nasty changes to tax and public spending in year 6!

 

But even if there is enough for 10 years or even 50 years, independence is forever, not till the money runs out.

 

i see the scots are still living up to their image btw. They spend less that the rest of the UK on everything other than alcohol and tobacco .... and unsurprisingly, die younger!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
It's all rather murky. I do know that the Crown owns nearly every piece of land under your feet. If oil is discovered in the aintforever acres, it's the Crown's - not yours.

 

Legally, the Crown owns all of this country (apart from Cornwall) and many of the former colonies, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Scotland want to keep the Queen as head of state, yet presumably don't want the British Crown owning the land and sea. Otherwise their oil claim is a bit borked.

 

Technically 'The Crown' does not own the ground under your feet, the landowner owns the land down to the centre of the Earth and to the edge of the atmosphere. 'The Crown' has ownership of certain minerals within that ground, basically anything that's worth anything. 'The Crown' does not mean Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
There are some interesting figures here

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24866266

 

So much depends on the oil ...how much is left and what proportion would go to Scotland. With no oil revenue an independent Scotland would be ****ed financially. There seems to be at least 5 years worth of good income left ... Maybe a

lot more. if it is only 5 years, there will be some nasty changes to tax and public spending in year 6!

 

But even if there is enough for 10 years or even 50 years, independence is forever, not till the money runs out.

 

i see the scots are still living up to their image btw. They spend less that the rest of the UK on everything other than alcohol and tobacco .... and unsurprisingly, die younger!

 

Presumably these figure are for the Scots (and others) living in Scotland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Technically 'The Crown' does not own the ground under your feet, the landowner owns the land down to the centre of the Earth and to the edge of the atmosphere. 'The Crown' has ownership of certain minerals within that ground, basically anything that's worth anything. 'The Crown' does not mean Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

 

In his 2006 book, Who Owns the World: The Hidden Facts Behind Landownership, Kevin Cahill notes that Queen Elizabeth II is the legal owner of one sixth of the land on the Earth's surface, more than any other individual or nation. This amounts to a total of 6,600 million acres (2.7×1013 m2) in 32 countries. [1] For those unfamiliar with royalty, the Crown is never separate from the individual who holds it but is as one with them. Her Majesty the Queen is the Crown while she is Queen, and she loses neither her personality nor her individuality while she is monarch. In all territories owned by the Crown, including Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the governments of those countries do not own the land of the country, but may and frequently do administer it on behalf of its owner, HM Elizabeth II. More significantly all forms of land possession in those territories are based, formally and in law, on the Crown's superior ownership. This is why the Land Registry in places like the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia cannot register land ownership, only tenure. This is also why freehold and leasehold are defined in law as forms of tenure, not ownership.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Cahill_(author)#Who_Owns_the_World

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guided Missile

Guided Missile

Posted
Posted (edited)

A good summary:

 

The whingeing Scots have not got the nerve to go-it-alone. Perhaps, after a referendum on independence, the Scots will either get on with being part of the UK or stand up and be counted as independent and "Scottish". The Scots are finally going to have a referendum on full independence. There are numerous technical problems relating to Scots independence. The first problem is the border.

 

According to Article 15 of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Note 1 below) the maritime boundary between England and Scotland runs so that both countries' coastlines are equidistant from the boundary.

 

scotsmaritime.png

 

The true international border will be approximately similar to that shown above. Many Scots people are being told that the international border runs along administrative boundaries within the UK, for instance the boundary that specifies whether boats in a particular part of the North Sea are subject to control from UK authorities based in Aberdeen or UK authorities based in Berwick. The UK administrative boundary was aligned with a line of latitude for administrative convenience but the international boundary depends on UN Maritime Law. Fortunately it is only a few extremists who are insisting upon the wrong borders. The current Scottish Government seems to be using the recognised, UN, international boundaries in estimates such as geographical share of North Sea oil revenues (See Government expenditure and revenue 2009-2010: North Sea Oil Revenue).

 

This means that the bulk of North Sea oil is in Scottish territorial waters:

 

gasoil.jpeg

 

And the bulk of North Sea gas production is in English waters.

 

The Economics of Independence

 

The Scots get more government spending per head but, with the rising price of oil, contribute considerable oil revenues (see BBC REPORT, Scotland: A Case of Give and Take.). Over the years the figures have gone from a subsidy of the Scots to, with rising oil prices and using the BBC approach, a slight subsidy by the Scots of the UK economy. This does not include the British subsidy to RBS and HBOS. If we check the BBC figures a slightly different picture appears. Government expenditure on the different countries in the UK is:

 

UK Government Expenditure by Country

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]Country[/TD]

[TD]Non[/TD]

[TD]ID[/TD]

[TD]Total Expenditure[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]England[/TD]

[TD=width: 30%]99282[/TD]

[TD=width: 20%]442007[/TD]

[TD=width: 20%]541289[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 30%]Scotland[/TD]

[TD=width: 30%]11597[/TD]

[TD=width: 20%]51629[/TD]

[TD=width: 20%]63226[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 30%]Wales[/TD]

[TD=width: 30%]6541[/TD]

[TD=width: 20%]29121[/TD]

[TD=width: 20%]35662[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=width: 30%]Northern Ireland[/TD]

[TD=width: 30%]4245[/TD]

[TD=width: 20%]18898[/TD]

[TD=width: 20%]23143[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

Source: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pespub_pesa11.htm (Chapter 9)

 

Where "ID" is identifiable expenditure that can easily be apportioned and "Non" is non-identifiable expenditure of £121,665m. Examples of non-identifiable expenditure include the majority of expenditure on defence, overseas representation, and tax collection, non identifiable expenditure has been apportioned pro rata to population in the table above.

 

Part Population (2010) Percentage (2010)

England 51,809,700 83.8

Scotland 5,222,100 8.4

Wales 3,006,400 4.8

Northern Ireland 1,789,000 3.0

 

United Kingdom 61,827,200 100

 

The total expenditure for Scotland was £63,226m.The Scots believe they are spending £52,770m (See Scottish Government:Current and capital budgets) but this is only the part of expenditure that their government actually "sees", it excludes all the non-identifiable expenditure.

 

The exclusion of much of the non-identifiable public spending from the Scottish government figures makes them appear £10,456m better off than they state. This deficit is made up from UK Government funds provided by the English. Even without this money the Scots budget is in deficit by about £9,000m - a similar level of deficit per head to the UK as a whole. Overall Scots independence is either beneficial to England or neutral. There is no evidence that it would have a negative effect.

 

Effect of Scottish independence on Westminster.

 

Scotland elects 59 MPs to the Westminster Parliament. The party allegiance of these MPs is given below:

 

[TABLE=class: wikitable]

[TR]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #DC241F][/TD]

[TD]Labour Party[/TD]

[TD=align: right]41[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #FAA20A][/TD]

[TD]Liberal Democrats[/TD]

[TD=align: right]11[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #FFFF00][/TD]

[TD]Scottish National Party[/TD]

[TD=align: right]6[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #0087DC][/TD]

[TD]Conservative Party[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

The Scots are socialists, they like their country to be run like a kid's school. If these MPs were removed from the Westminster Parliament the political parties would have the following representation:

 

[TABLE=class: wikitable]

[TR]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]Party[/TD]

[TD]Current seats[/TD]

[TD]After Independence[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #DC241F][/TD]

[TD]Labour Party[/TD]

[TD=align: right]254[/TD]

[TD=align: right]213[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #FAA20A][/TD]

[TD]Liberal Democrats[/TD]

[TD=align: right]57[/TD]

[TD=align: right]46[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #FFFF00][/TD]

[TD]Others[/TD]

[TD=align: right]30[/TD]

[TD=align: right]24[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: #0087DC][/TD]

[TD]Conservative Party[/TD]

[TD=align: right]305[/TD]

[TD=align: right]304[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

The Tories should be campaigning with the SNP for Scots Independence! Once the Scots have gone the English will scarcely ever have to suffer their country being run like a school and the Scots will never be governed by Tories. Certainly Scottish independence would resolve the West Lothian Question so all British people should support it. Without Scots independence this constitutional stain on British government will never be removed.

 

The Need for Self Government

 

Many Scots whinge about being second class citizens who are not properly represented at Westminster. If you go to Scotland it is clear that it is very different from England. They "whinge" because the UK government is happy to let them decide to be independent but the Scots have not got the nerve to go-it-alone. Perhaps, after a referendum on independence, the Scots will either get on with being part of the UK or stand up and be counted as independent and "Scottish".

 

Note 1: Law of the Sea, Article 15 Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

 

"Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith."

Edited by Guided Missile
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Cahill did 13 years of research to arrive at that point of view.

 

It's a technical thing. If he took 13 years it can't be straightforward, can it? Even the Land Registry talks about 'ownership'. Don't believe everything that you read on Wikipedia. Try telling an Aussie that he doesn't own the land he bought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Scotland will be a banana republic without bananas.

 

Ok by me :)

 

Have any of the "let them go" / "krankies" crowd ever looked at a map of Great Britain?

 

Scotland is pretty big, y'know.

 

So is Greenland.

 

...and another thing. If we get rid of the Jocks can we move onto Central European Time please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
It's a technical thing. If he took 13 years it can't be straightforward, can it? Even the Land Registry talks about 'ownership'. Don't believe everything that you read on Wikipedia. Try telling an Aussie that he doesn't own the land he bought.

 

My point was that Cahill is saying the complete opposite to you, and has written three books that focus on land ownership.

 

How are you sourcing your assertion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
You really are a champion of the little guy and the oppressed. First the scousers then those conspiracy people against big bad government and now the sweaties. What a noble chap.

 

In this case, it's pure self-interest. Keeping Scotland in the Union is one of the few things David Cameron and I agree on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
What was with the "shared assets" comments AS was making in relation to the £? If they have a share in GBP - surely the rest of the UK has a share of the oil?

 

Indeed. I'm surprised the media haven't pulled him up on this contradiction yet.

 

As you say, he was banging on about Scotland owning a "9%" share of the Bank of England based on dividing up assets on a per capita basis. Yet, when it comes to the oil he wants to divide it up on a geographical basis. The last time I looked the Bank of England was 100% in England...

 

Cake and eat it Mr Salmond...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
My point was that Cahill is saying the complete opposite to you, and has written three books that focus on land ownership.

 

How are you sourcing your assertion?

 

My source is over 60 years of reading such things. You cannot take Cahill's version at face value because it has no practical legal significance.

 

Fee Simple:

 

The greatest possible estate in land, wherein the owner has the right to use it, exclusively possess it, commit waste upon it, dispose of it by deed or will, and take its fruits. A fee simple represents absolute ownership of land, and therefore the owner may do whatever he or she chooses with the land. If an owner of a fee simple dies intestate, the land will descend to the heirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Just quickly read the defence part of the white paper . He wants independence but makes a claim he will keep the names of the Scottish regiments . He will have 12 of the RAF typhoons plus Hercules aircraft plus various assets from the Royal Navy . Has he forgotten one key element in the debate. These assets belong to the British armed forces I.e the uk not Scotland . I trust he has git the money to purchase all this hardware . He us going to have a 2.5 bn defence budget .

 

Also the headline figure of 15 k defence force and 5 k reserves is only planned to happen after five years if he can afford the total numbers .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted
Just quickly read the defence part of the white paper . He wants independence but makes a claim he will keep the names of the Scottish regiments . He will have 12 of the RAF typhoons plus Hercules aircraft plus various assets from the Royal Navy . Has he forgotten one key element in the debate. These assets belong to the British armed forces I.e the uk not Scotland . I trust he has git the money to purchase all this hardware . He us going to have a 2.5 bn defence budget .

 

Also the headline figure of 15 k defence force and 5 k reserves is only planned to happen after five years if he can afford the total numbers .

 

No no no. Don't be silly. Salmond picks which bits are 'shared assets' (i.e. the bits he wants, they'll still be able to watch Strictly too don't ya know), but the bits that are 'Scottish' they keep - i.e. the oil.

 

It's laughable really. Would inspire absolutely no confidence in me that these people know what they are doing to set up an independent country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ken Tone

Ken Tone

Posted
Posted
There's an article in the FT today. I cant cut and paste it here but the title "Scotland’s Future: A Braveheart whose mum still does the laundry" tells you all you need to know.

 

Nice line. I'd been seeing it more like a bloke saying he wants a divorce but wants to keep on living in the family home, seeing the kids, getting his cooking and washing done for him, maybe even still having sex occasionally with his ex-wife and knowing he can rely on the shared bank account if he loses badly on his betting .... But he'd have his independence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted
Nice line. I'd been seeing it more like a bloke saying he wants a divorce but wants to keep on living in the family home, seeing the kids, getting his cooking and washing done for him, maybe even still having sex occasionally with his ex-wife and knowing he can rely on the shared bank account if he loses badly on his betting .... But he'd have his independence!

 

:lol:

 

Class!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have now had a further glance of this massive waste of paper document

 

A number of key points I notice . is that the reason it is 670 pages log is he keeps repeating himself

 

there are two hundred pages plus of questions peopke have allegedly asked.

 

All he has done is add questions to the various policy points he has already stated in the earlier segments

 

Talk of duplication. This document is so full of flaws and dupilcaition

 

Also he rasies the point of reducing the legal alcohol amount you can have before you get done for drink driving.

 

He mentions this three times and I have not bothered to scan the questions section.

But one area this issue of the legal amout of alcolhol you can have in the blood, is midway through a section of imigration,

 

Is he suggesting that people coming to thiscountry are more likely to drink and drive or is it someone elses fault for not carrying out a proof reading correctly

 

and finally . I will oficially become a scottish citzen when the krankies get their way. Personnaly im opting for dual citzenship

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Oh and the krankies think they will get a top table seat on the NATO board . Also their comments we are in the top three countries of having nuke weapons . We may have lots but if only the krankies will admit that the reason we have not been invaded is because we do have nuclear weapons . Only two and a bit years and I will be a Scottish citizen by right

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted

It strikes me that what the krankies are proposing is more along the lines of a federal UK, rather than a clean break and "pure" independence. Obviously they are more comfortable being in a federal Europe than a federal UK, but problems with the euro zone have put pay to that dream.

 

I actually believe in a federal UK, with more powers being devolved locally and regions being given tax raising powers , so good luck to them in that respect. What I object to is the attitude most jocks have that somehow there's a democratic deficit because there maybe a party in power that didn't "win" the election in Scotland. That somehow a great injustice is done to the sweatys because they only elected one Tory ,but are governed by Tories. Well there's vast areas of the country that would never elect a labour member, but we had to put up with 13 years of Blair and brown ( 2 jocks , by the way).

 

The jocks want their cake and eat it, and thanks to spineless generations of politicians from all 3 establishment parties, they're going to be able to. Devo max for the jocks and taffs, and **** all for us English is what will end up happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Positive Pete the three isles are looking to do their own thing already . The initiative is called our isles our future . The three council convenors have gas a number of meetings to date and a conference . Salmond does not give a toss about Orkney as tidal energy has yet to take off . He is worried about Shetland and us giving massive subsidies to the wester isles

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
It strikes me that what the krankies are proposing is more along the lines of a federal UK, rather than a clean break and "pure" independence. Obviously they are more comfortable being in a federal Europe than a federal UK, but problems with the euro zone have put pay to that dream.

 

I actually believe in a federal UK, with more powers being devolved locally and regions being given tax raising powers , so good luck to them in that respect. What I object to is the attitude most jocks have that somehow there's a democratic deficit because there maybe a party in power that didn't "win" the election in Scotland. That somehow a great injustice is done to the sweatys because they only elected one Tory ,but are governed by Tories. Well there's vast areas of the country that would never elect a labour member, but we had to put up with 13 years of Blair and brown ( 2 jocks , by the way).

 

The jocks want their cake and eat it, and thanks to spineless generations of politicians from all 3 establishment parties, they're going to be able to. Devo max for the jocks and taffs, and **** all for us English is what will end up happening.

 

Whilst I agree with the gist of this, for balance I would add that there are also areas of England that would never elect a Tory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
Whilst I agree with the gist of this, for balance I would add that there are also areas of England that would never elect a Tory.

 

I know, but by and large these areas accept that sometimes they get the government they didn't vote for. The whinging jocks turn the same senerio into some sort of proof that our elections work against them and their "governed from Westminster". Aren't we all?

 

Can you imagine the outcry if English mps could vote on Scottish matters that didn't apply to the English, there would be uproar, yet we have to put up with Scottish mps voting on our health service and our education despite it being devolved and therefore not affecting their constituants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
Amazing nonsense being spouted on question time at the moment .... And why on earth do the BBC think a random mediocre singer is a sensible panelist?

 

The BBC have ruined a good programme, robin day will be turning in his grave. No mark guests, political plants in the audiance and dimble is out of his depth. Needs a complete and utter overhaul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...