Scottish Nationalist

[medsec222]

Two Scottish Nationalist MPs evicted from the House of Commons today. Apparently they were unable to respect the rules of the House and they had to be ejected by the Speaker. I am getting fed up with these pipsqueaks constantly harping on about a referendum and how the Scots are so disadvantaged by being part of the UK. I am a Unionist but I am beginning to think that the Scots should be given another referendum and a chance to make their escape if that is what they want, provided they bear the cost themselves. The SNP are like the EU - they want people to keep on voting until the right result is produced.

[Kaz]

I think we’re all better off together, but then again I wonder how I might feel if I were Scottish

I do wonder how they would fund themselves, as they certainly seem to get a better deal with free prescriptions and Higher Education……

[cromwell]

I have thought for a long time that the SNP MPs at Westminster are deliberately being as obnoxious as possible in order to produce exactly that reaction, Meds.
Then they turn around and say to the Scottish people "This is what the English think about you! Independence is the only way forward!".

[Suff]

Kaz, Scots are just like everyone else. Some are happy as they are, some want different things and some just don't give a crap as long as things continue as they are.

That last group are the largest and SNP MP's in Westminster are playing to the second lot. Many things are about perspective and also about who gets to say what and make it stick. In this one I was surprised by my son last month when we discussed the SNP laser focus on Faslane. I mentioned that in the current world geopolitical environment that might not be the cleverest thing.

The response was surprising to me. "The approach to Faslane blocks development of one of the largest finds in oil in the entire Scottish oil industry". I checked. Looking at the very limited surveys they allowed, he's right.

So if you were sitting there with 85% of your oil revenues going to England and only getting 10% of them back and then knowing that a UK based defence decision was reducing these oil revenues, you might be a tad irritated.

That 85% is the outcome of the Barnet formula. Which distributes the Oil revenues based on the size of the regional population and economy, not on the ownership of the land on which the oil is extracted. Which is an open sore to the Scots. Called pampered whingers who don't contribute all that they get, whilst being asset stripped at the same time. Had Scotland had all the Scots oil revenues from their territorial reserves, they could have a sovereign wealth fund the size of Norway's.

So how would you feel as a Scot. Told that you don't contribute, called a whinging spendthrift and denied the revenue from your resources which are being stripped and "distributed". Even the recognition of the actual split of the revenues would go a long way towards heading this off. Because the Scots could take the high ground and say "but it is worth it". However having been done the way it has been done, it causes a LOT of bad feeling.

And bad behaviour. Of course there are asses everywhere and they should be made to behave. But when the ordinary person in the street thinks the Ass is justified, then it is an entirely different situation. I can't see Scotland going back to "normal" for Westminster MP's until something changes. Because SNP having the vast majority of the seats is NOT the Scotland I remember well.

[Kaz]

Well actually I was kicking around the idea that I might well want Independence, and have my own country back. I can see why many do.......

[Suff]

Kaz, most people tend to think that the cost of Scotland paying into the UK is worth the benefits of the UK. Just like a hell of a lot of people in the UK thought that our €13bn net contribution to the EU was worth it. There is a strong case for either on just monetary terms.

It's just the abuse they don't like.

[medsec222]

I don't see it like that at all Suff. The EU is an organisation you can choose to join and if you do there is a cost to join. Scotland is part and parcel of the UK, always has been, and hopefully always will be. We all put into the communal pot for the good of us all. I can only speak for myself but for me it isn't monetary. I understand though that others may feel differently and perhaps feel a sense of grievance.

[Workingman]

Two myths.

Scotland and England have not been joined forever - only since 1707. The Crowns and parliaments merged and England bailed Scotland out over Darien and the two countries unanimously agree to join.

Scotland's oil is also a myth. Not all oil or gas fields fall within Scotland's or England's territorial waters or continuous costal zones. The vast majority (98%) are in the Exclusive Enterprise Zone negotiated between the United Kingdom (Scotland included) and other North Sea states - Norway, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France and into the Celtic and Irish Seas - Ireland.

To the north the zone borders those of the Faeroes and Iceland and into the international waters (the continental shelf) of the North Atlantic. The are neither English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish, they are UK.

If Scotland does become independent those boundaries will have to be redrawn with international treaties. Scotland might win some, but it might also lose some.

The Barnett formula has sod all to do with oil. Myth three.

[Suff]

I was going to respond about the UK. But it is always worth looking at your passport to understand the UK, it is written right on the front.

If I were NI born I would not compete for Team GB.

WM, you know perfectly well that the vast majority of UK oilfields sit in Scottish territorial waters. If Scotland secede, then the UK has nothing to do with it. They become Scottish.

As for the Barnet formula, it locks out Scottish contributions to GDP and locks Scottish devolved funding to English funding. At the time that it was created, North Sea revenues were being used to prop up English public spending and then Scotland got a % by population, plus a little bit.

The Barnet formula has everything to do with Scots dissatisfaction with the way North Sea revenues are disbursed.

[Workingman]

I WM, you know perfectly well that the vast majority of UK oilfields sit in Scottish territorial waters.

No they do not.

Territorial waters stretch out 12nm from the baseline. There are few oil or gas fields within it. Go look at some maps.

The light blue areas are territorial waters. The larger boundary is the United Kingdom's EEZ.



The EEZ in more detail.



Oil and Gas fields... nowhere near territorial waters.

[/img]

This next map shows how EEZs between adjacent countries are established.



If Scotland gets independence then the median line between England and Scotland (Gretna to Berwick) would stretch into the North Sea and all the fields below Montrose, or thereabouts, become English.

Now go have a read about the Barnett formula.

The real world is very different from the spin.