cornubian
|
Scotlands Oil debated in KernowJust like to ask for some help and point out that a couple of Brit (Eng) Nats are claiming the following on a Cornish forum.
Trevopen writes:
| Quote: | For your information T2… it is NOT Scotland's oil, it is Britain's oil and if you want to be technically correct the majority of the oilfiels are in English territorial waters and landed in Scotland.
Bucca Boo is right, it's about time the SNP policies are exposed, England subsidises Scotland. So give the Scots independence, if that what they want (I doubt if the majority do). Then perhaps the money saved can be invested in our economy! |
Bucca boo writes:
| Quote: | | Hard as i try I'm not convinced by devolution{yet} . Looking at Scotland – they have given themselves free further education and perscriptions but they have'nt raised taxes themselves to pay for it, . We , the rest of UK are paying for SNP re-election jollies. That situation should never exsist in the first place and once the Jocks are made to pay i wonder how popular independence will seem. Yey already SNP are pushing for further devolvement. |
| Quote: | | if Scotland can afford these freebie schemes and we in the rest of UK cannot it suggests they are getting too much money. Whilst that in itself is not an argument against devolution the fact that Scotland has been given the power but not the responsibility is an argument to question devolution. I would like Scotland to totally devolve and stand on it's own two feet rather than having me prop up thier economy. |
You can find the thread here: http://www.cornwall24.co.uk/forum...board/come-the-revolution/page-6/
Please do feel free to set these people to rights.
|
Stevie
|
It depends on what loony system you use to decide English territorial waters.
It is of course absurd nonsense and nobody except those dressed up in beefeater / Morris dancing costumes and viewing the world through a medieval time capsule would credit them.
But I would be interested to hear the others on the board express views on this.
Anyway, stay on target cornubius.
|
Fidget
|
Don't they realise that all the oil wells to be found in the waters of the British Isles belong to Uganda?
|
Dave Coull
|
| Quote: | | the majority of the oilfiels are in English territorial waters | Complete and utter fantasy. Not on this planet........... | Quote: | | give the Scots independence, if that what they want (I doubt if the majority do) | There is only one way to settle whether the majority of Scots want independence or not, and that is to hold a referendum. The intention is to have one next year.
|
magister ludi
|
This business of oil and territorial waters intrigues me.
Lets put aside the Brittish Governenments rather cackhanded smokescreen of re-defining UK territorial waters in and around the coast of Britain;
Let's consider the Falkland Islands.
Does Britain have a claim on them (and their territorial waters, and OIL....I mean lets gets real......it's their marine oil we're talking about not the land mass, they've a sheep on their flag for gawd's sake)
Now everybody and their granny has at one time and another "claimed" the Falklands.....the dutch, the spanish, the portugese, the british, the agentinians........but see, the Scottish claim is pretty rubbish.....and so is the English claim.......although the British claim ( albeit by force majore) kinda holds water. What are the implications of the breakup of Great Britain for the "bennies" of the Falklands?
Let's assume a Scottish referendum and a yes vote for independence (bear with me here)........who gets the oil rich waters of the Falkland Islands? Scotland? England? the British rump? Do we divvy it it up on a land mass basis, a population/barnett formula basis......do we hand it over to to the Argentinians? ( lets assume the Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese "fold").
What are/would be Scotlands international rights and obligations be towards such overseas territories in the event of independance?
This from THE INDEPEDENT ( a month ago......investors/punters be warned!)
"Falkland Island Holdings
Our view: Buy
Share price: 310p (+50p)
Falkland Island Holdings, whose roots stretch back to the 1850s, could best be described as a diversified conglomerate of monopoly businesses. Its quirky collection of operations is not limited to the Falklands either. It fishes squid off the coast of its home island, as well as operating an insurance broker and retail and property businesses. London-based Momart ships works of art and it runs the Portsmouth Ferry Company.
So far so dependable for earnings. The interesting bit is its 15 per cent shareholding in Falklands Oil and Gas (FOGL). Investors may look at the conglomerate instead of a direct investment in FOGL because it has a diversified income stream, an 8p dividend and doesn't rely on a big find. If there is one, however, shares will soar.
The chairman, David Hudd, said yesterday that results in the Falklands were weak but were balanced by a stronger performance elsewhere. He added at the AGM that the group was expected to hit targets for the year. Property sales are expected to lift the fall in underlying pre-tax profits.
The company is trading on only 3.5 times its estimated enterprise value to Ebitda for 2010, which it is undemanding its given potential growth a solid dividend and opportunities. Although yesterday's gain might have taken out much of the near-term upside. its prospects look good, so buy."
While you're at it GOOGLE "rockhopper exploration" ......" Falkland Oil & Gas"......."Desire Petroloeum" ( word to the wise...don't google desire on its own.......& put "Desire Petroleum" in inverted commas).
Who owns LLyods Bank these days? Taxpayer? So tell me which uk bank ( that just took over a scottish bank) just bought a 5% share in a south atlantic/northern falkland basin oil company a couple of weeks ago? Credit crunch....my aunt fanny.
|
landg
|
it is britissh oil.
|
Dave Coull
|
| magister ludi wrote: | | Let's assume a Scottish referendum and a yes vote for independence (bear with me here)........who gets the oil rich waters of the Falkland Islands? | I think we can clearly state who does NOT get them. Scotland doesn't get them. Neither the SNP nor any other political organisation in favour of independence for Scotland makes any territorial claims outside of Scotland's current boundaries, certainly not any "colonial" claims, so it's a complete non-issue as far as Scotland is concerned. Let England and the Argentinians argue about it. Not our concern.
|
Holebender
|
If you want to debunk claims about there being any significant amount of oil under England's continental shelf, try looking up some of Professor Alex Kemp's views.
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | | If you want to debunk claims about there being any significant amount of oil under England's continental shelf, try looking up some of Professor Alex Kemp's views. |
it's britains continental shelf, not englands.
|
Holebender
|
Tell that to the poster quoted at the start of the thread, not us.
Why bother with the comma and full stop when you can't manage apostrophes or capital letters?
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | Tell that to the poster quoted at the start of the thread, not us.
Why bother with the comma and full stop when you can't manage apostrophes or capital letters? |
AM Telling yoU.not them.
|
Holebender
|
Then you are wasting your cyberbreath because I am fully aware of the legal status of the UKCS, and I also know where the boundaries are likely to be after independence. Wouldn't it make more sense to inform those who do not know?
|
|
|