Thats true enough I wasnt disputing that! Im just saying that as a whole the UK government will have to give Scotland its fair share which means sharing the reserves of gas and oil and that will be done along the border line between English and Scottish waters!
no.. again there is "sharing" involved here.
it's not for a UK government to give scotland a fair share.
scotland would automatically have ownership of any oilfield within it's own territorial waters.
no.. again there is "sharing" involved here.
it's not for a UK government to give scotland a fair share.
scotland would automatically have ownership of any oilfield within it's own territorial waters.
Indeed, any 'fixed or immovable assets' would remain assets of the state they are situated in, this applies to both the UK and Scotland.
"Assets, institutions and liabilities
19. There are clear legal principles governing the position of institutions, and the division of assets and liabilities between an independent Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Where legal principles do not apply, matters are subject to political negotiations. These principles, which we set out in general terms, would have to be applied to specific instances—such as North Sea oil and the Faslane naval base.
20. It is a legal principle that, as the United Kingdom would be the continuator state, institutions of the UK would remain with that state.[18] For example, Parliament, the UK Supreme Court, the Bank of England and the BBC would—as UK institutions—remain institutions of the rest of the UK. If an independent Scotland wished to continue membership of, or form a partnership in, any UK institution, that would be for the rest of the UK to consider as part of negotiations. There is no legal right for a successor state to share the institutions of the state from which it secedes.
21. The key principle governing the apportionment of assets and liabilities would be that they would be shared equitably between the continuator and the successor states. It is a legal principle that fixed or immovable assets (such as government or military buildings)[19] would automatically become assets of the state in which they are located. Other, moveable assets (such as military equipment)[20] would be subject to apportionment through negotiations—with the only applicable legal principle being that the apportionment should be equitable. Liabilities would be similarly subject to apportionment through negotiations.
22. The Scottish Government told us that fixed assets in Scotland would become Scottish on independence, whereas all assets in the rest of the UK would be subject to negotiations.[21] This was not borne out by other evidence we heard. We were told that fixed assets would not be negotiated, but non-fixed assets would, wherever they are situated.[22] Similarly, the Scottish Government's claim to continued use (or the apportionment) of overseas property was questioned.[23] We were told that the overseas property of the United Kingdom would remain the property of the rest of the UK.[24] This is also the clear view of the UK Government.[25]" http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldconst/188/18805.htm
The bit in bold is why the pro union got the big majority that is slowly changing but in these financial mess of times nothing will change now and N.ireland is to small to go alone
No, it's why they got the small majority. After the election it was expected by many that the Boundary Commission would redraw the border closer to the 4 very pro-union counties. Tnat would have created a province that was ~90% pro-union, but was considered too small to survive. Instead the border was left roughly where it was, around the 6 counties. The aim was to create a province that was as big as possible, so it had the best chance of surviving as a semi-independent entity, while still having a roughly 60% pro-union majority. Politically that turned out to be a very unwise decision, since the majority, feeling small and insecure, abused their majority status to restrict the civil rights of the minority. I can't see either group in NI wanting to go it alone, there would be no gain to either side. The status quo is probably the least-worst option for both at present.
No, it's why they got the small majority. After the election it was expected by many that the Boundary Commission would redraw the border closer to the 4 very pro-union counties. Tnat would have created a province that was ~90% pro-union, but was considered too small to survive. Instead the border was left roughly where it was, around the 6 counties. The aim was to create a province that was as big as possible, so it had the best chance of surviving as a semi-independent entity, while still having a roughly 60% pro-union majority. Politically that turned out to be a very unwise decision, since the majority, feeling small and insecure, abused their majority status to restrict the civil rights of the minority. I can't see either group in NI wanting to go it alone, there would be no gain to either side. The status quo is probably the least-worst option for both at present.
Why not let the counties that aren't pro-union join RIO and then Northern Ireland would be more stable and want to stay joined to England even if Scotland and Wales go it alone?
It would stay as the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland then, with a smaller Northern Ireland! That's if Wales and Scotland left!
Why not let the counties that aren't pro-union join RIO and then Northern Ireland would be more stable and want to stay joined to England even if Scotland and Wales go it alone?
It would stay as the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland then, with a smaller Northern Ireland! That's if Wales and Scotland left!
Sorry no they arent I was talking hypothetically if that ended up being the case!
They may yet if Scotland leave though so its not totally unrealistic an idea!
I just think that if Northern Ireland was brought down to just mainly unionists then it would help sort things out and the people left would ether be happy in the union or up sticks and move to the ROI!
Ether way because of the dominance of the unionists in Northern Ireland they are the only one of the 3 (out of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) that are not likely to leave, but as some would then let the few leave and join Ireland whist letting the majority stay.
Sorry no they arent I was talking hypothetically if that ended up being the case!
They may yet if Scotland leave though so its not totally unrealistic an idea!
I just think that if Northern Ireland was brought down to just mainly unionists then it would help sort things out and the people left would ether be happy in the union or up sticks and move to the ROI!
Ether way because of the dominance of the unionists in Northern Ireland they are the only one of the 3 (out of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) that are not likely to leave, but as some would then let the few leave and join Ireland whist letting the majority stay.
you really need to stop posting about things you know absolutely nothing about.
On this occasion i have to side with Chenks, you are beginning to look like some sort of olde worlde court jester even though what i suspect you think you're doing is being a devil's advocate.
Either way, it really isn't helping and your starting to look foolish.
There has been discussion elsewhere about what Great Britain would be called if Scotland voted for independence, some suggest 'Lesser Britain', others 'Little Britain', whilst i find the whole discussion ridiculous as imo GB should be GB with or without Scotland, it has made me chuckle!
PS, Northern Ireland is not a province of England, it's a province of Ireland that is part of Great Britain... don't ever tell anyone from Ireland that NI is part of England or you'll regret it! LOL
Northern Ireland is no more a part of Britain as it is a part of England!!!
Northen Ireland forms part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland (and is subject to British rule).
Britain consists solely of England, Scotland and Wales.
Northern Ireland is part of Ireland (separated by a political border).
As an aside the Gaelic name for Wales translates as Little Britain.
lol opps NI is a Provence of Ireland! its odd one that they choose to align with England rather than the Republic of Ireland, but I guess thats their history coming out!
There's nothing odd about it at all.
As part of the agreement leading to Irish independence the British government wanted the six most prosperous counties to remain under their rule. The only odd thing is that the newly formed Irish leadership agreed to it.
Historically there had also been a huge Scottish settlement in the Ulster province (arguments continue whether this was an attempt at safeguarding British rule in Ireland in the event of a democratic process seeking independence).
Why not let the counties that aren't pro-union join RIO and then Northern Ireland would be more stable and want to stay joined to England!
Same problem as last time, the population isn't neatly divided along geographical lines, it would be impossible to redraw the border in a place that would please everyone (or anyone, probably!)
Same problem as last time, the population isn't neatly divided along geographical lines, it would be impossible to redraw the border in a place that would please everyone (or anyone, probably!)
Oh Britain just had to interfere all those years ago! Oh well its done now and everyone is stuck with it!
Northern Ireland is no more a part of Britain as it is a part of England!!!
This was pointed out earlier and you are of course both correct. In my defence, i knew that but got confused and typed Great Britain when i meant to type United Kingdom
I didn't know that the Gaelic for Wales translated to Little Britain, thanks
Comments
no.. again there is "sharing" involved here.
it's not for a UK government to give scotland a fair share.
scotland would automatically have ownership of any oilfield within it's own territorial waters.
"Assets, institutions and liabilities
19. There are clear legal principles governing the position of institutions, and the division of assets and liabilities between an independent Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Where legal principles do not apply, matters are subject to political negotiations. These principles, which we set out in general terms, would have to be applied to specific instances—such as North Sea oil and the Faslane naval base.
20. It is a legal principle that, as the United Kingdom would be the continuator state, institutions of the UK would remain with that state.[18] For example, Parliament, the UK Supreme Court, the Bank of England and the BBC would—as UK institutions—remain institutions of the rest of the UK. If an independent Scotland wished to continue membership of, or form a partnership in, any UK institution, that would be for the rest of the UK to consider as part of negotiations. There is no legal right for a successor state to share the institutions of the state from which it secedes.
21. The key principle governing the apportionment of assets and liabilities would be that they would be shared equitably between the continuator and the successor states. It is a legal principle that fixed or immovable assets (such as government or military buildings)[19] would automatically become assets of the state in which they are located. Other, moveable assets (such as military equipment)[20] would be subject to apportionment through negotiations—with the only applicable legal principle being that the apportionment should be equitable. Liabilities would be similarly subject to apportionment through negotiations.
22. The Scottish Government told us that fixed assets in Scotland would become Scottish on independence, whereas all assets in the rest of the UK would be subject to negotiations.[21] This was not borne out by other evidence we heard. We were told that fixed assets would not be negotiated, but non-fixed assets would, wherever they are situated.[22] Similarly, the Scottish Government's claim to continued use (or the apportionment) of overseas property was questioned.[23] We were told that the overseas property of the United Kingdom would remain the property of the rest of the UK.[24] This is also the clear view of the UK Government.[25]"
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldconst/188/18805.htm
Why not let the counties that aren't pro-union join RIO and then Northern Ireland would be more stable and want to stay joined to England even if Scotland and Wales go it alone?
It would stay as the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland then, with a smaller Northern Ireland! That's if Wales and Scotland left!
Sorry but when was Wales leaving?
Sorry no they arent I was talking hypothetically if that ended up being the case!
They may yet if Scotland leave though so its not totally unrealistic an idea!
I just think that if Northern Ireland was brought down to just mainly unionists then it would help sort things out and the people left would ether be happy in the union or up sticks and move to the ROI!
Ether way because of the dominance of the unionists in Northern Ireland they are the only one of the 3 (out of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) that are not likely to leave, but as some would then let the few leave and join Ireland whist letting the majority stay.
you really need to stop posting about things you know absolutely nothing about.
Oh dear!
On this occasion i have to side with Chenks, you are beginning to look like some sort of olde worlde court jester even though what i suspect you think you're doing is being a devil's advocate.
Either way, it really isn't helping and your starting to look foolish.
Regards.
Northern Ireland is no more a part of Britain as it is a part of England!!!
Northen Ireland forms part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland (and is subject to British rule).
Britain consists solely of England, Scotland and Wales.
Northern Ireland is part of Ireland (separated by a political border).
As an aside the Gaelic name for Wales translates as Little Britain.
There's nothing odd about it at all.
As part of the agreement leading to Irish independence the British government wanted the six most prosperous counties to remain under their rule. The only odd thing is that the newly formed Irish leadership agreed to it.
Historically there had also been a huge Scottish settlement in the Ulster province (arguments continue whether this was an attempt at safeguarding British rule in Ireland in the event of a democratic process seeking independence).
Same problem as last time, the population isn't neatly divided along geographical lines, it would be impossible to redraw the border in a place that would please everyone (or anyone, probably!)
Oh Britain just had to interfere all those years ago! Oh well its done now and everyone is stuck with it!
I didn't know that the Gaelic for Wales translated to Little Britain, thanks