Scots Independence Referendum

[Colkitto]

Why would the Oil belong to Scotland? Aren't the rest of the UK every bit as entitled to it?

The Nats need to explain why whe should be Independent, not just explain away reasons why we can't or shouldn't.

The oil fields lie in Scottish waters. Under International Law they would belong to Scotland only.

On oil revenues alone Scotland would become a more wealthier nation. If it didn't Scotland would become the only country in the world to have oil wealth and become poorer.

Don't believe everything you read in the papers

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGfKggjTxE

[centralparker]

Norway is a country of around 5 million people who enjoy a high standard living sustained by oil, fishing and tourism.

An independent Scotland would be a country of around 5 million people who could enjoy a high standard of living sustained by......

anyone spot the pattern here?

[Michael W]

The oil fields lie in Scottish waters. Under International Law they would belong to Scotland only

Not all of it is. You do realise international law is largely ignored anyway?

On oil revenues alone Scotland would become a more wealthier nation. If it didn't Scotland would become the only country in the world to have oil wealth and become poorer.

Don't believe everything you read in the papers

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGfKggjTxE

Prove it.

[Gordon EF]

Why would the Oil belong to Scotland? Aren't the rest of the UK every bit as entitled to it?

Why would they be? Do Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus etc get an equal cut in Russia'a oil and gas? Whilst there would obviously be some kind of dividing of assets, I can't see why the natural resources of each country would fall under that.

Unless we are part of a reasonably large force, we will have token influence in these areas.

So what? Why would it matter how much influence Scottish people have on these issues? Surely the whole point of NATO etc is a collective responsibility?

How does Iceland being geographically further from Europe excuse or explain the fact that their economy was vulnerable to a credit crisis such as the present one? It's an irrelevent point.

It doesn't, that was the point. I didn't write the original piece. The writer was responding to hypothetical questions, one of which was that Scotland is too far away from the centre of Europe. Not a unionist argument I can say I've ever heard. The point was that that hasn't affected Iceland. I agree, it's failry irrelevant as I don't think anybody has ever used that as an arguement against independance.

[Michael W]

Norway is a country of around 5 million people who enjoy a high standard living sustained by oil, fishing and tourism.

An independent Scotland would be a country of around 5 million people who could enjoy a high standard of living sustained by......

anyone spot the pattern here?

I concede defeat.

Give me independence, 40% tax and £5 a pint.

[Colkitto]

Preserve the Union - a guide for unionists

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zO5leiwEiTM&...feature=related

[centralparker]

The writer was responding to hypothetical questions, one of which was that Scotland is too far away from the centre of Europe. Not a unionist argument I can say I've ever heard. The point was that that hasn't affected Iceland. I agree, it's failry irrelevant as I don't think anybody has ever used that as an arguement against independance.

What is the centre of Europe anyway? Hungary? Aye, they're really rolling in it.

[Ad Lib]

A significant part of Scotland's oil is refined in England. If I recall correctly, some of it is pumped there.

It's not as clear cut as "Scotland's oil"

[xbl]

Honest question. Do you think that Scotland as a country would have been more or less affected by the recession than if she were part of the UK?

If you think less, please explain.

Its all a hypothetical question, but if Scotland had been independent well before the recession bit, things may have been better, things may have been worse. I don't have a crystal ball. Hypothetically though, we could have been ruled by a right leaning party (say, one led by Alex Salmond), which bears out unionist claims of the SNP being tartan tories.

This could have meant we ran a tight economy based on balanced budgets, low spending, with decades of oil money invested safely in a futures fund, meaning that we could have ridden it out without too much damage (similar to, ooh, Norway for example).

This is all just hypothetical, and an independent Scotland could easily have hypothetically been completely different. I don't possess a "What if.." machine, but neither do you, and neither does anyone else. So many variables would be different in an independent Scotland that it would be meaningless to use that argument...as demonstrated by the Unionists using that argument!

Re the oil - I'm pretty sure that the map means we wouldn't get all of it anyway. Anyone confirm that?

Yes, we wouldn't get it all, but anything in Scottish water should count as ours. Unless the Unionists would care to explain differently?

[Paco]

Preserve the Union - a guide for unionists

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zO5leiwEiTM&...feature=related

Here, watch this for a while and give us all peace.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo

[centralparker]

A significant part of Scotland's oil is refined in England. If I recall correctly, some of it is pumped there.

It's not as clear cut as "Scotland's oil"

But if the crude oil is extracted from Scottish territorial waters then it would belong to an independent Scotland. It's no different from tin mined in Cornwall being sent to Scotland for smelting - we wouldn't have any claim on that resource if we broke away from England.

[xbl]

40% tax and £5 a pint.

Sounds like Gordon Browns Britain!

A significant part of Scotland's oil is refined in England. If I recall correctly, some of it is pumped there.

It's not as clear cut as "Scotland's oil"

Pish. Ownership of oilfields is not decided by where it is refined.

[Ad Lib]

Sounds like Gordon Browns Britain!

Pish. Ownership of oilfields is not decided by where it is refined.

But if it's being pumped directly into England, and refined in England, then they are entitled to a cut of the revenue surely?

Should Aberdeen break away from the Union and form its own state and claim that it's "Aberdeen's Oil" because it's just off the Aberdeen coast?

[Michael W]

Sounds like Gordon Browns Britain!

I fear the reality of that is only a few years off

Brown will be out in 2010 anyway.

[Colkitto]

But if it's being pumped directly into England, and refined in England, then they are entitled to a cut of the revenue surely?

Should Aberdeen break away from the Union and form its own state and claim that it's "Aberdeen's Oil" because it's just off the Aberdeen coast?

Well there is between 25 and 30 billion barrels that could still be recovered over the next 40 years.

We could just build our own refinery, problem solved

[centralparker]

But if it's being pumped directly into England, and refined in England, then they are entitled to a cut of the revenue surely?

Nonsense - if Scotland became independent the oilfields in our waters would belong exclusively to us. Of course, the English refineries could always buy crude from us at market prices.

Should Aberdeen break away from the Union and form its own state and claim that it's "Aberdeen's Oil" because it's just off the Aberdeen coast?

They would be perfectly entitled to do that, if they could secure victory through the ballot box.

[Colkitto]

Here, watch this for a while and give us all peace.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo

That was actually quite good !

[Gordon EF]

A significant part of Scotland's oil is refined in England. If I recall correctly, some of it is pumped there.

It's not as clear cut as "Scotland's oil"

This is getting ridiculous.

So in an indpendant Scotland, we would do what? Keep pumping the oil down to England and have it refined down there and give them a cut? How much? 50/50, 10/90?

[xbl]

But if it's being pumped directly into England, and refined in England, then they are entitled to a cut of the revenue surely?

Should Aberdeen break away from the Union and form its own state and claim that it's "Aberdeen's Oil" because it's just off the Aberdeen coast?

No. The company that refines the oil is entitled to charge a fee for refinement, again, like every other country in the world! The English government would then take a share of that fee in the form of taxes. But again, ownership of oilfields is decided geographically, not by where it is refined!

Should Aberdeen break away from the Union and form its own state and claim that it's "Aberdeen's Oil" because it's just off the Aberdeen coast?

Had this argument already. If the majority of people in Aberdeen wanted to break off and form a City State, and they elected independent minded representitives, then they would be entitled to have a referendum. If the referendum results were in favour of independence, then democracy says that they are entitled to independence. Upon independence, they then get ownership of all oilfields in their territorial waters. As a Unionist, if Aberdeen tried to break off from the Union, what would you do? Send in the troops?

[Ad Lib]

This is getting ridiculous.

So in an indpendant Scotland, we would do what? Keep pumping the oil down to England and have it refined down there and give them a cut? How much? 50/50, 10/90?

3 pence in the gallon for Scotland. Rest to the rest of the UK.