Crosswords2 mins ago
Scotland
This poll is closed.
- No - 182 votes
- 65%
- Yes - 100 votes
- 35%
Stats until: 11:51 Fri 20th Dec 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What the Independent Scotland advocates are overlooking, are the loss of the billions of pounds of subsidies that they currently receive from London. They are also ignoring the fact that because of the tilt of UK and that the border travels in a NE direction, and the border extension followsthis line when it leaves land it still extends this route when it goes under the sea, the bulk of the oil and gas fields will still be in the English sector of the North sea.
@dancingbeard....the following will be of interest to you. :-
http://
Al.
http://
Al.
Dancingbeard, this link shows Scots water limits. http://
No, i wouldn't like to see an independent scotland, i think it is mutually beneficial for the uk to stay united. we should look to the future and not stay tethered to the past, as do so many scots and irish people. i love scotland and ireland and my genetic mix. is spread equally in all parts of the uk, how can anyone claim otherwise ?, 'The world will be as one'
Just wish they would get on with it. The vote should be brought forward by about a year. The Royal Navy needs to order the Type 25 frigate and they should be built in Scotland, they have the capacity and expertise as witnessed by the completion of the Daring class destroyers. (It's one thing that they are very good at!) But they can't be built in an independent Scotland as it then be a foreign country. So lots of unemployed ship builders?
Dancingbeard, In 1968, an imaginary line was drawn straight eastwards across the North Sea from the Scotland/England border near Berwick. This marked the areas allocated to each of the countries as regards law/crime. For example, if a crewman murdered the skipper of a trawler north of the line, he would be charged and tried under Scots law, whereas - had he committed the crime south of the line - he would be charged and tried under English law.
In 1999, another such line was drawn, which marked the areas allocated to each of the countries as regards fisheries specifically. This time, instead of heading directly due east, the line went off in a north-easterly direction, as you say. However, it finished up level with Dundee at the median north/south line. Have you heard of any recent discoveries south of Dundee?
If Scotland votes for independence, either one of these existing ‘legal’ lines or another line altogether will have to be agreed on as the border between which part of the North Sea is under Scottish jurisdiction and which part is under English jurisdiction as far as OIL is concerned. In other areas of the world, the median line is the one generally employed, as has happened with the European countries which have exclusive areas in the eastern part of the North Sea.
If you imagine the second line I mentioned - the same line you yourself mention - puts most of the oil in England’s sector if Scotland becomes independent, either (a) your geography is rather faulty or (b) you’ve failed to notice that the southern North Sea is where supplies are beginning to fade.
As a matter of interest, it is generally accepted that over 90% of the oil revenue which has accrued to the UK Treasury during the last 40 years or so came from what would have been “Scotland’s area”, whichever of the existing lines was chosen. In other words, if independence happened, virtually all of that money would find its way into the Treasury in Edinburgh and practically none of it would go to Westminster! Remember, too, that - as I've already pointed out - England would have no access to the productive areas of the North Atlantic, which is where the oil future lies.
(As a further matter of interest, the same would be true of all the revenue generated by Scotland’s whisky distilleries!)
In 1999, another such line was drawn, which marked the areas allocated to each of the countries as regards fisheries specifically. This time, instead of heading directly due east, the line went off in a north-easterly direction, as you say. However, it finished up level with Dundee at the median north/south line. Have you heard of any recent discoveries south of Dundee?
If Scotland votes for independence, either one of these existing ‘legal’ lines or another line altogether will have to be agreed on as the border between which part of the North Sea is under Scottish jurisdiction and which part is under English jurisdiction as far as OIL is concerned. In other areas of the world, the median line is the one generally employed, as has happened with the European countries which have exclusive areas in the eastern part of the North Sea.
If you imagine the second line I mentioned - the same line you yourself mention - puts most of the oil in England’s sector if Scotland becomes independent, either (a) your geography is rather faulty or (b) you’ve failed to notice that the southern North Sea is where supplies are beginning to fade.
As a matter of interest, it is generally accepted that over 90% of the oil revenue which has accrued to the UK Treasury during the last 40 years or so came from what would have been “Scotland’s area”, whichever of the existing lines was chosen. In other words, if independence happened, virtually all of that money would find its way into the Treasury in Edinburgh and practically none of it would go to Westminster! Remember, too, that - as I've already pointed out - England would have no access to the productive areas of the North Atlantic, which is where the oil future lies.
(As a further matter of interest, the same would be true of all the revenue generated by Scotland’s whisky distilleries!)
