Does anyone here believe we can't use the pound?

[Confidemus]

3). Like most in the No campaign, you only use situations when they suit your argument. There is no doubt regarding Scotland's land borders. The international law you cite defines that countries are entitled to the economic benefit of maritime areas up to 200 miles offshore. As far as I am aware, it is conceded by Westminster that the bulk of the Oil bearing UK continental shelf will belong to Scotland.

Believe it or not, he claims to be a Yes voter.

[H_B]

It "fails" to match the warped views of Britnat Nawbags.

Eh, and it fails to match the views of the SNP

[H_B]

I found contradictory (quelle surpris) maps/evidence when I googled "scotland's maritime borders".

Scotland has no maritime border, for the purposes of international law. Only the UK does, as obviously only the UK has international legal personality.

The UK can define its own internal borders as it chooses. It is in the gift of Westminster.

The UK can choose to draw a giant cock and balls within its own internal waters as a series of dividing lines, should it choose to.

[strichener]

Scotland has no maritime border, for the purposes of international law. Only the UK does, as obviously only the UK has international legal personality.

The UK can define its own internal borders as it chooses. It is in the gift of Westminster.

The UK can choose to draw a giant cock and balls within its own internal waters as a series of dividing lines, should it choose to.

Well I am surprised that with all the International Law that currently exists that it isn't possible to determine what these boundaries would be. Surely International Law is robust and defined enough to determine such basic concepts?

[H_B]

Surely International Law is robust and defined enough to determine such basic concepts?

Eh, no. Maritime boundaries are, by their very nature, open to considerable dispute.

This is true of land borders too, of course. Indeed even at a personal level, many adjoining properties have disputes as to who owns which bit of land.

There are of course guiding legal principles which can be used to establish a boundary through tribunal, should the competing parties fail to reach agreement themselves. This is of course up to the competing parties to subject themselves to tribunal, should they wish to.

[strichener]

Eh, no. Maritime boundaries are, by their very nature, open to considerable dispute.

This is true of land borders too, of course. Indeed even at a personal level, many adjoining properties have disputes as to who owns which bit of land.

There are of course guiding legal principles which can be used to establish a boundary through tribunal, should the competing parties fail to reach agreement themselves. This is of course up to the competing parties to subject themselves to tribunal, should they wish to.

So International Law that can force us to take on debts from a continuing state cannot actually define what that state is. It would appear to back up my previous assertion that International Law is the legal professions alias for make it up as we go along.

[H_B]

So International Law that can force us to take on debts from a continuing state cannot actually define what that state is.

I am not sure where to start with this fail.

[strichener]

I am not sure where to start with this fail.

Probably your previous post would be a good place to start.

[H_B]

Probably your previous post would be a good place to start.

I could repeat that, yes, but if you didn't understand it the first time, I'm not optimistic you'll do any better a second time round.

[strichener]

I could repeat that, yes, but if you didn't understand it the first time, I'm not optimistic you'll do any better a second time round.

Comprehension isn't the issue. Implication is.

[H_B]

Comprehension isn't the issue. Implication is.

You don't understand International Law.

We get that.

[Confidemus]

So according to the great law minds of P&B, INTERNATIONAL LAW (in caps for emphasis) can force Scotland to be financially bullied by Westminster and can allow Westminster to change maritime borders as it sees fit?

Perhaps, H_B, you'll do what Ad Lib couldn't and provide proof of this INTERNATIONAL LAW?

I suspect you won't and you'll attempt to waffle your way through it. The fact is there ARE clear, defined maritime boundaries.

[H_B]

So according to the great law minds of P&B, INTERNATIONAL LAW (in caps for emphasis) can force Scotland to be financially bullied by Westminster and can allow Westminster to change maritime borders as it sees fit?

International Law doesn't cover the UKs internal subdivision of waters.

Here to help.

That will be £50 for the lesson please.

[Confidemus]

International Law doesn't cover the UKs internal subdivision of waters.

Here to help.

That will be £50 for the lesson please.

If I give you £75 could you explain in layman's terms (cos I'm a bit thick) how Westminster can in any way alter clearly defined maritime borders?

ETA: The share of Scotlands waters is really quite straightforward. A median line is drawn through the country at the border. Anything north of that line on the UK Continental Shelf is Scotland's. Anything south is England's. Over 95% of the oil is in Scotland's waters.

To suggest rUK would have any claim to this would, I imagine, fall foul of the INTERNATIONAL LAW which H_B and Libbers so dearly love.

[Baxter Parp]

You don't understand International Law.

We get that.

As if you have the first clue. Sweet.

[Baxter Parp]

So according to the great law minds of P&B, INTERNATIONAL LAW (in caps for emphasis) can force Scotland to be financially bullied by Westminster and can allow Westminster to change maritime borders as it sees fit?

Perhaps, H_B, you'll do what Ad Lib couldn't and provide proof of this INTERNATIONAL LAW?

I suspect you won't and you'll attempt to waffle your way through it. The fact is there ARE clear, defined maritime boundaries.

Nah, it's bollocks, there's nothing in international law regarding division of assets, it's all in the Vienna Convention which the UK hasn't signed. Our current maritime borders follow international convention barring Blair's landgrab (look it up) and would generally be similar in the event of independence.

[H_B]

If I give you £75 could you explain in layman's terms (cos I'm a bit thick) how Westminster can in any way alter clearly defined maritime borders?

Certainly.

Only the UK exists in international law terms. The UK's maritime borders with other sovereign states are a matter for international law.

Within the UK, Westminster determines what internal boundaries within the nations which form the UK look like. It's entirely within Westminster's gift to determine what any border between the region of Scotland and region of England look like. It doesn't touch on International Law, because only one sovereign nation is concerned. The UK.

Should Scotland secede, Scotland would then also become an international legal person, and would require to negotiate a border with its new neighbour. rUK.

[Confidemus]

Certainly.

Only the UK exists in international law terms. The UK's maritime borders with other sovereign states are a matter for international law.

Within the UK, Westminster determines what internal boundaries within the nations which form the UK look like. It's entirely within Westminster's gift to determine what any border between the region of Scotland and region of England look like. It doesn't touch on International Law, because only one sovereign nation is concerned. The UK.

Should Scotland secede, Scotland would then also become an international legal person, and would require to negotiate a border with its new neighbour. rUK.

Thanks for the lesson, I appreciate it. So I can educate myself further, can you either point me to the piece of INTERNATIONAL LAW which states that the legal entity that is the UK is able to shift the maritime borders of the UK continental shelf or provide me with some sort of legal precedent?

Thanks.

[chomp my root]

Thanks for the lesson, I appreciate it. So I can educate myself further, can you either point me to the piece of INTERNATIONAL LAW which states that the legal entity that is the UK is able to shift the maritime borders of the UK continental shelf or provide me with some sort of legal precedent?

Thanks.

Just pay up the 75 quid and stop trying to wriggle out of it

[Confidemus]

Just pay up the 75 quid and stop trying to wriggle out of it

I'm wriggling out of nothing. Everything from The Continental Shelf Act 1964, the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, the Scotland Act 1998 to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) confirms that Scottish waters are defined and cannot be modified or changed by Westminster. Arguing about it is a moot point.