Burma Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 It's worth noting that the Scottish Government, in 2011, formed a fund for the support of the wave-power industry, something which it sees as important for meeting carbon-reduction targets and as a possible source of exports. This isnt the discredited import-substitution or "picking winners" policy so derided in the past; its smart, targeted investment in sectors with obvious potential (Scotland is very windy and wavy and has lots of good scientists and engineers), in conjunction with the private sector. Of course there will be a few failures, but it also looks likely that the success stories will outweigh the balls-ups. Most governments and economists lack the imagination to go beyond the same old low-tax, hands-off, light-touch policy that has dogged economics for the past few decades. Alex Salmonds government should be congratulated on its courage and foresight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 OK I'll have to help then clearly as the nationalists have gone all shy. the figures for 2011/12 9.9% revenue = 56.9billion 9.3% of UK public spending = 64.5billion The next set of GERS figures will be considerably worse in terms of the spending gap because north sea oil revenues dropped by nearly six billion from a near record high in 2011/12 Complacency and financial illiteracy are all the NO campaign have, those figures would back your case up if the UK deficit was nearer £80billion rather than £120.9billion in 2011/12. Another £10.3billion borrowed on our behalf,gee thanks. No are really dependent on the unknowledgeable/numpties turning out to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 So you know for a fact that Scottish Maritime boundaries would be negotiated as a component of an overall negotiation?? Interesting that you should take such a stance when one of the worlds foremost authorities on Maritime Law states that Scotland need make no concessions whatsoever and that a deciding International Court would favour Scotland. Your unionist leanings are blinding you. 1) Yes - are you suggesting that all negotiations will take place consecutively? 2) He states his opinion - it is only that. He has no idea how the negotiations would proceed. They are way beyond his pay grade. Thanks for trying to get the thread back on topic Burma. Eh, you asked me specific questions about this. I'm sorry that the answers you got weren't what you were hoping for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 OK I'll have to help then clearly as the nationalists have gone all shy. the figures for 2011/12 9.9% revenue = 56.9billion 9.3% of UK public spending = 64.5billion The next set of GERS figures will be considerably worse in terms of the spending gap because north sea oil revenues dropped by nearly six billion from a near record high in 2011/12 Pretty misleading Reynard; Based on your numbers Scotland's Deficit 2011/12 = £7.6billion (£64.5 - £56.9billion) UK Deficit 2011/12 = £120.9billion Scotland's "Share" of Borrowing = £10.16billion (Based on 8.4% of UK population) Therefore Scotland disadvantaged by £2.56billion in 2011/12 Better Together right enough!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 This is a nonsensical statement as the whole point of the realistic timescale is to reach an agreement which James Crawford of unionist fandom agrees can be done with little difficulty. You seem to be confused between what matters he is an expert in and what matters he is not. He is a legal expert. His views on state succession are absolutely to be listened to. He isn't a politician. He has no idea how negotiations would go post secession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 You seem to be confused between what matters he is an expert in and what matters he is not. He is a legal expert. His views on state succession are absolutely to be listened to. He isn't a politician. He has no idea how negotiations would go post secession. The boundaries are already there and any wealth under the sea is ours. Anyone who thinks otherwise really aren't worth listening to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 1) Yes - are you suggesting that all negotiations will take place consecutively? 2) He states his opinion - it is only that. He has no idea how the negotiations would proceed. They are way beyond his pay grade. Eh, you asked me specific questions about this. I'm sorry that the answers you got weren't what you were hoping for. You are right H-B, I did ask the question but with a bit of a caveat - "I was hoping that my original question wouldnt get too far off topic but hey ho, can you answer me some questions please?" so sorry about that. I should have been able to guess the kind of answers that you would give but was hoping they might have come a wee bit more from your heart rather than your legal mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 The boundaries are already there No they aren't. So that's buckets of fail already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 You are right H-B, I did ask the question but with a bit of a caveat - "I was hoping that my original question wouldnt get too far off topic but hey ho, can you answer me some questions please?" so sorry about that. I should have been able to guess the kind of answers that you would give but was hoping they might have come a wee bit more from your heart rather than your legal mind. No - I think it's useful to have the actual legal position outlined. When we are tlaking law, I don't think you want anyone's heart to overrule their head and be wrong. That's what the likes of Burma have done - they are legally completely incorrect. I think it's disappointing that John Swinney, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have lied to Scots about this. They've been caught out lying, and have had to change their position. And it's all so unnecessary. Admitting the truth (that Scotland will be a new country, and rUK will inherit all the UK's treaty right and obligations) isn't by any means a disaster. The SNP have made it a problem for themselves by lying about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Pretty misleading Reynard; Based on your numbers Scotland's Deficit 2011/12 = £7.6billion (£64.5 - £56.9billion) UK Deficit 2011/12 = £120.9billion Scotland's "Share" of Borrowing = £10.16billion (Based on 8.4% of UK population) Therefore Scotland disadvantaged by £2.56billion in 2011/12 Better Together right enough!! I've already posted that weeks ago, Reynard thinks he can just ignore something for a period of time and then regurgitate the shite again, he's hardly added anything of his own to the debate despite the 1000's of posts on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 No they aren't. So that's buckets of fail already. So.the line that Tony Blair moved doesn't exist ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 So.the line that Tony Blair moved doesn't exist ? It exsits in domestic terms withint he UK's own waters. It has absolutely no releavnce in international law. Because Scotland has no relevance or Standing. Only the UK does. The UK Parliament could choose to draw a cock and balls as the dividing line internally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 No - I think it's useful to have the actual legal position outlined. When we are tlaking law, I don't think you want anyone's heart to overrule their head and be wrong. That's what the likes of Burma have done - they are legally completely incorrect. I think it's disappointing that John Swinney, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have lied to Scots about this. They've been caught out lying, and have had to change their position. And it's all so unnecessary. Admitting the truth (that Scotland will be a new country, and rUK will inherit all the UK's treaty right and obligations) isn't by any means a disaster. The SNP have made it a problem for themselves by lying about it. It it a guarantee that the UK will retain all there rights wirhin the EU as their population will have decreased and they wont have Scottish fishing to bargain with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 It exsits in domestic terms withint he UK's own waters. It has absolutely no releavnce in international law. Because Scotland has no relevance or Standing. Only the UK does. The UK Parliament could choose to draw a cock and balls as the dividing line internally. But it is there. The uk and the Scottish governments know exactly where it is. Seen as you are into law even you will agree that Scotland would retain its oil if taken to an international court? ETA the fact that you are saying there is no line gives us even more bargaining power because the bit they stole is rigjtfully ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 It it a guarantee that the UK will retain all there rights wirhin the EU as their population will have decreased and they wont have Scottish fishing to bargain with. As I pointed out elsewhere, the rUK will have to renegotiate their terms within the EU as their population, gdp, etc. will be smaller post Scottish Independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 As I pointed out elsewhere, the rUK will have to renegotiate their terms within the EU as their population, gdp, etc. will be smaller post Scottish Independence. They'll be weaker, they seem to assume we will be as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 But it is there. The uk and the Scottish governments know exactly where it is. Seen as you are into law even you will agree that Scotland would retain its oil if taken to an international court? ETA the fact that you are saying there is no line gives us even more bargaining power because the bit they stole is rigjtfully ours. Yes, they do know exactly where it is. But at least one side is likely to want it moved should it be a "real" line between internatioal law actors, rather than a domestic line for the UKs own subdivision purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 As I pointed out elsewhere, the rUK will have to renegotiate their terms within the EU as their population, gdp, etc. will be smaller post Scottish Independence. In the same way that Germany had to when it unified. Which had no impact on its status as a member. Scotland will of course have to apply as a new member and negotiate terms as the likes of Croatia et al did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Yes, they do know exactly where it is. But at least one side is likely to want it moved should it be a "real" line between internatioal law actors, rather than a domestic line for the UKs own subdivision purposes. Is there international laws regarding maritime lines and distance to another countries coast. In an international court where can the UK legally put this line ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Yes, they do know exactly where it is. But at least one side is likely to want it moved should it be a "real" line between internatioal law actors, rather than a domestic line for the UKs own subdivision purposes. It's like watching a Punch n Judy show on these threads, perhaps you and Reynard could up your game a bit instead of this continual need to be tedious drivel merchants, your parents should have given you more time in your developing years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.