H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 What???! Bizarre. Why even mention this. The boundary has already been drawn. The only negotiation will be wether or not Scotland gets tje bit back that Tory Blair stole. Sigh. The UK can draw whatever internal boundaries it chooses. It could change the current line into a giant cock and balls should it choose to. that's a domestic decision for the UK to make. No boundary exists between Scotland and rUK in international law terms (inclusing UNCLOS because Scotland doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Never mind. The crux of it is oil and gas uk is a huge industry and will.be sorely missed by the uk. They will.miss us more than we will miss them. Debateable. You could say the same about the City of London financial industry. That is also a huge industry that Scotland won't be getting a share of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Now, back to the post Burma which you claimed was "factually and legally" wrong. I want to know, very specifically, exacltly what you are claiming is "wrong" with it, whether factually or legally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Sigh. The UK can draw whatever internal boundaries it chooses. It could change the current line into a giant cock and balls should it choose to. that's a domestic decision for the UK to make. No boundary exists between Scotland and rUK in international law terms (inclusing UNCLOS because Scotland doesn't exist. Unfortunately this is factually incorrect, although quite why you insist on it being a "giant cock and balls" as you have referred to on a number of occasions is not a part of your psyche I wish to engage in. This is law and would be taken into account in UNCLOS as well as historical division and equidistance. The current domestic and legally agreed divisions are very very very important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Now, back to the post Burma which you claimed was "factually and legally" wrong. I want to know, very specifically, exacltly what you are claiming is "wrong" with it, whether factually or legally? Again....I wasnt talking to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Debateable. You could say the same about the City of London financial industry. That is also a huge industry that Scotland won't be getting a share of. No you couldn't, London collects tax and the like from.the oil industry. Edinburgh collects f**k all from people getting taxed in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Unfortunately this is factually incorrect, although quite why you insist on it being a "giant cock and balls" as you have referred to on a number of occasions is not a part of your psyche I wish to engage in. This is law and would be taken into account in UNCLOS as well as historical division and equidistance. The current domestic and legally agreed divisions are very very very important. "The current domestic and legally agreed divisions are very very very important." Yeah, and who determines what those are? In what way were they "legally agreed"? What does UNCLOS have to do with UK domestic decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 No you couldn't, London collects tax and the like from.the oil industry. Edinburgh collects f**k all from people getting taxed in London. Well, that's just not true is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Again....I wasnt talking to you You said, quoting this post :- "We've covered this. Any new borders should be negotiated by the countries themselves in the first instance. Should such negotiations fail to reach a conclusion both are happy with, they can refer it to arbitration, either with ITLOS, or the ICJ or even a separate arbitration process if they prefer. The tribunal or court will determine where the line should be. The overriding principle is equity. The conclusion from the tribunal may be one neither party is happy with." that "Not according to the Worlds foremost authority on the subject. HB is factually and legally wrong." Now please outline, very very specifically, where I err either in fact or in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 "The current domestic and legally agreed divisions are very very very important." Yeah, and who determines what those are? Im sorry? Seeing as they all agree with each ither and are not in dispute or conflict then exactly what decision making process are you referring to. Some of the current laws exist in Scots Law and some in English Law as it pertains to England and Wales. All of these laws will remain in existence during negotiation and will form the basis of any negotiation. UNCLOS will weigh heavily on the minds of rUK negotiators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Well, that's just not true is it? Mostly true. You.just can't accept that the UK will be weaker after a yes vote. Loss of its biggest.industry sector for the treasury will most definately be a big blow. We will be a richer country than the UK by a considerable margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Im sorry? I'm not surprised. Answer the question (and my follow up questions on the edit) :- 1) Who determines how UK domestic waters are divided? 2) In what way were they "legally agreed"? 3) What does UNCLOS have to do with UK domestic decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 You said, quoting this post :- "We've covered this. Any new borders should be negotiated by the countries themselves in the first instance. Should such negotiations fail to reach a conclusion both are happy with, they can refer it to arbitration, either with ITLOS, or the ICJ or even a separate arbitration process if they prefer. The tribunal or court will determine where the line should be. The overriding principle is equity. The conclusion from the tribunal may be one neither party is happy with." that "Not according to the Worlds foremost authority on the subject. HB is factually and legally wrong." Now please outline, very very specifically, where I err either in fact or in law. By speaking about you in the third person I was talking ABOUT you. Not TO you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 By speaking about you in the third person I was talking ABOUT you. Not TO you. And the slithering retraction begins. I'll try again. You have stated that according to "the Worlds foremost authority" that I am "factually and legally wrong" please outline, very very specifically, where I err either in fact or in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Im sorry? Seeing as they all agree with each ither and are not in dispute or conflict then exactly what decision making process are you referring to. Some of the current laws exist in Scots Law and some in English Law as it pertains to England and Wales. All of these laws will remain in existence during negotiation and will form the basis of any negotiation. UNCLOS will weigh heavily on the minds of rUK negotiators. I know you have actually worked.on.these sort of negotiations before but.the.microsoft office extraordinaire HB knows better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I'm not surprised. Answer the question (and my follow up questions on the edit) :- 1) Who determines how UK domestic waters are divided? 2) In what way were they "legally agreed"? 3) What does UNCLOS have to do with UK domestic decisions? I have already. Your ignoring the answers. In this case deleting them.entirely from your quote. 1) Already decided by various agencies and defined in Scottish and English law. Therefore any change to this now requires changes in bith Scots Law (as devolved) and an act of the UK parliament. 2) They became Acts of Law. 3) I have never claimed this to.be the case. I have however provided expert testimony as to the most likely scenario in the event of dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 And the slithering retraction begins. I'll try again. You have stated that according to "the Worlds foremost authority" that I am "factually and legally wrong" please outline, very very specifically, where I err either in fact or in law. I retract nothing. I was discussing your erroneous posts..for evidence of your errors see all my previous and subsequent posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I know you have actually worked.on.these sort of negotiations before but.the.microsoft office extraordinaire HB knows better. Without going into specifics I have some experience in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Without going into specifics I have some experience in this area.My understanding is.that.the line is there and to change it would require some sort of agreement from the Scottish side as well as the UK. When Blair stole some waters didn't they have to sign some stuff ?HBs fault is that he.thinks Scotland is the same as Quebec and Catalonia but he's wrong. Those 2 have never had their own borders and what.not and have never been a separate nation. Our waters are there, no.one will beat us in court if it came to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I retract nothing. I was discussing your erroneous posts..for evidence of your errors see all my previous and subsequent posts. And I will try a fourth time. Please be very very specific about where I have erred either in fact or in law. Stop squirming and answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.