git-intae-thum Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Still waiting on HB. He is obviously googling furiously at the moment trying to find a link he can cherry pick to come up with some nonsensical pish. Unfortunately for him he has been found out again.???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. The UK isn't shifting the maritime borders of the UK continental shelf, with relation to any other state actor. Internal subdivision of the UK's own internal waters falls within domestic legislation. This really isn't difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 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. Wrong. What's particularly amusing is that you are missing a "we are soooo oppressed" rant because of your wrongness, given Tony Blair's Westminster government did exactly this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Your bill now stands at £100 incidentally. Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 1126. The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Just to continue the groundhog day element of this particular point of issue (because idiot Nats have attempted this drivel before), your next move is to do the following :- 1) Cut and paste Craig Murray's tear-stained blog on the theft 2) Inform us that Scotland should take this to the United Nations 3) Be told it can do no such thing as to the UN Scotland doesn't exist 4) Disappear in a huff, having humiliated yourself on a topic you are utterly out of your depth (har har) on. 5) Rinse and repeat with a new username Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Your bill now stands at £100 incidentally. Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 1126. The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 Do you take postal orders? Thanks for supplying a perfect example of an underhanded Westminster trying to sneakily amend Scottish waters, under some shitty guise about fisheries. However, an iScotland, as it's own sovereign state, would no longer be answerable to UK constitutional law and would be in full control of all the waters under recognised maritime boundaries. I.E. over 90% of where the oil is. Thanks for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 1) The Bank of England is an institution not an asset! Call it what you want but that institution amongst other things: Is owned by the treasury solicitor Holds Britain's Foreign Currency and Gold reserves. In 2012, even after Gordon Brown's sale, the gold reserves amounted to £150-160 billion Owns all manner of assets purchased from banks to help their liquidity Acts as the banker to banks and holds huge deposits from them Holds deposits from Scottish and Irish banks that issue their own notes broadly equivalent to £1 for every Scottish/Northern Irish back note I. Circulation. it may be an institution by your definition but it is stuffed with national assets and is, incidentally a limited company complete with shares. I am not sure there are any corporate structures with the monarchy which is a genuine institution. Amateur hour. Just because an institution owns assets doesn't mean it is itself an asset. The Bank of England is not an ordinary corporation. It is a central bank whose remit is stipulated and defined and regulated by a UK statute. In any case, international law does not insist that corporate vehicles be divided by share capital in the event of secession. Just like the debt, all that has to happen is that the value of the pecuniary interest is satisfied. This is why, for example, you don't have to literally subdivide gold bars and drive them up the M1 and can instead simply provide a pecuniary obligation in I lieu of it. 2). Re your international law, where is the court or independent arbiter who will settle disputes between Scotland and RUK about assets and liabilities? We, I.e. Both parties will require to settle matters between us. Nobody else is going to intervene. That's not to say there will be no consequences and the settlement, on both sides will require to be seen to be fair internationally. You don't need an independent court to arbitrate for there to be law. It simply complicates the interpretation and enforcement of it. As I explained in considerable detail earlier, political sanction resulting from systematised rules is law. 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. I'm not in the No campaign. I'm voting Yes. Scotland doesn't exist in international law. It has no land borders. We can predict with reasonable certainty that the present domestic subdivisions of UK territory would be the starting point, but it is not impossible for that to change on the independence settlement itself. The political reality is that it will use existing boundaries because those formed the basis for the secession vote. International law does not define the entitlement to maritime benefit in a specific way. Look at the maritime borders of North Korea to see that there are a whole host of possible ways maritime borders could be drawn on a secession event. The UK has also changed the internal subdivisions of maritime boundaries for the purposes of domestic law and is perfectly at liberty to refuse to draw the borders in accordance with any given set of principles emerging in customary international law, some of which are in any case mutually exclusive with each other and which, by your own standards of what is law, lack a compulsory and competent international court capable of enforcing any given rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 I'm not in the No campaign. I'm voting Yes. Scotland doesn't exist in international law. It has no land borders. We can predict with reasonable certainty that the present domestic subdivisions of UK territory would be the starting point, but it is not impossible for that to change on the independence settlement itself. The political reality is that it will use existing boundaries because those formed the basis for the secession vote. International law does not define the entitlement to maritime benefit in a specific way. Look at the maritime borders of North Korea to see that there are a whole host of possible ways maritime borders could be drawn on a secession event. The UK has also changed the internal subdivisions of maritime boundaries for the purposes of domestic law and is perfectly at liberty to refuse to draw the borders in accordance with any given set of principles emerging in customary international law, some of which are in any case mutually exclusive with each other and which, by your own standards of what is law, lack a compulsory and competent international court capable of enforcing any given rule. Man you need to stop clutching at straws. Because Scots Law and English Law differs, the maritime borders have already been drawn up and exist. A median line cuts roughly through the border. Anything north of that line on the UK Continental Shelf is Scottish. South is English. Over 95% of oil is in Scottish waters. Unlucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonsilitis Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Amateur hour? The Bank of England is a limited company whose shares are held by a treasury official. Whether you want to call it an institution or not, it holds very substantial UK assets to which Scotland is entitled to a share. It also of, course is the custodian of UK liabilities which we are also entitled to a share of, I am not denying that. By virtue of our union, it is a United Kingdom asset which requires to be dealt with on a break up. Political sanctions are a possibility but they are a two way street . I reaffirm though is what is required is a settlement which is seen as equitable to the international community and both sides will want to achieve that. That will include maritime borders in line with our recognised land border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Bank of England governor: We've planned ahead for Scotland becoming independent http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/bank-england-governor-weve-planned-4044613#.U-tq24KWAxs.twitter Fancy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Bank of England governor: We've planned ahead for Scotland becoming independent http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/bank-england-governor-weve-planned-4044613#.U-tq24KWAxs.twitter Fancy that. Would be pretty stupid if they hadn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Bank of England governor: We've planned ahead for Scotland becoming independent http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/bank-england-governor-weve-planned-4044613#.U-tq24KWAxs.twitter Fancy that. What's that link at the bottom of the page? Pathetic. Official sponsorship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Amateur hour? The Bank of England is a limited company whose shares are held by a treasury official. Whether you want to call it an institution or not, it holds very substantial UK assets to which Scotland is entitled to a share. You're now just deliberately not reading what I've said. Whether or not it holds assets is irrelevant to the question of a currency union or whether it is itself an asset rather than an institution. All that justifies is the evacuation of an equitable proportion of the assets from the Bank of England to an independent Scotland. Not a sharing of the bank to any extent whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonsilitis Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 You're now just deliberately not reading what I've said. Whether or not it holds assets is irrelevant to the question of a currency union or whether it is itself an asset rather than an institution. All that justifies is the evacuation of an equitable proportion of the assets from the Bank of England to an independent Scotland. Not a sharing of the bank to any extent whatsoever. My responses have been in relation to you describing the Bank of England as being and institution and not an asset of the UK. I begged to differ. Its role relative to a currency union is another matter where it would be responsible for making it work. Whether there is a currency union or not, however, will be driven by economic and political factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 My responses have been in relation to you describing the Bank of England as being and institution and not an asset of the UK. I begged to differ. Its role relative to a currency union is another matter where it would be responsible for making it work. Whether there is a currency union or not, however, will be driven by economic and political factors. He was proven wrong on maritime borders, so it's no surprise to see he's wrong on the BoE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Do you take postal orders? Thanks for supplying a perfect example of an underhanded Westminster trying to sneakily amend Scottish waters, under some shitty guise about fisheries. However, an iScotland, as it's own sovereign state, would no longer be answerable to UK constitutional law and would be in full control of all the waters under recognised maritime boundaries. I.E. over 90% of where the oil is. Thanks for playing. Thanks for playing indeed. After being comprehensively owned on a subject you are utterly clueless on I expected a more heartfelt apology for your wrongness. You need to work on that. Still, at least we've got past your horrible misunderstanding of Westminster's competence in relation to the UK's own internal waters. An object lesson really in not making completely false assertions on a subject you are clueless on. I hoped you've learned from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Thanks for playing indeed. After being comprehensively owned on a subject you are utterly clueless on I expected a more heartfelt apology for your wrongness. You need to work on that. Still, at least we've got past your horrible misunderstanding of Westminster's competence in relation to the UK's own internal waters. An object lesson really in not making completely false assertions on a subject you are clueless on. I hoped you've learned from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28777246 More bad news for NO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecto Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28777246 More bad news for NO? no not really, only shows Mark Carney has a "plan B", unlike you know who Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.