Comment posted English Democrats open question of how much North Sea oil is really Scotland’s by cweatherhill.
Come to that, how much of England is really England’s, seeing that they moved in uninvited as our second wave of illegal immigrants from the 5th century?
powered by SEO Super Comments
Another excellent and balanced piece.
Well done F.A. for raising this issue in such a mature manner.
I fear, however, tinhats may be needed before the night is out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There’s not really much of a case to answer. The English Democrats, should probably acquaint themselves with a map and the distribution of oil fields.
Interestingly, the referenced study used by Kemp and Stephen utilises the principal of equidistance and this is the formula used to delineate maritime areas when there are disputes surrounding assets.
Apart from some ownership rights at the margin it is, effectively, case closed. Geologically or, in terms of the national boundary, English rights over oil fields are there, but certainly less than 10% and most likely less than 5%. I think any dispute would be within those bounds. 25% or 50% is pure fantasy.
I do, however, understand how hugely important Scottish oil is to England and the massive dislocation and economic trauma its loss would cause.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just another Unionist attempt to spread fear, uncertainty, doubt and disinformation. As GW states, there is no substance to this piece of political mischief making.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@GW
Read the article more carefully, it says:
The English Democrats are calling for an ‘independent and impartial tribunal’ to come to ‘a binding determination’.
In the interests of blind justice, this would be the right address to this situation and, whatver its outcome, it would carry unquestionable legitimacy into the future.
You wouldn’t be bricking it over an independent assessment of who owns what would you?
Personally I would be very happy for English independence, in fact you can take the North of England too if you like. Every time Northerners impose a lefty government on us they bankrupt the country – and don’t even get me started on Scottish Chancellors! I wouldn’t trust one to oversee my used tissue collection never mind the sharks in the City.
When you leave you are planning to pick up the tab for the enormous sums of money spent bailing out your banks aren’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, we can pay that out of the balance of all the oil we’ve been subbing to you lot over the years
Oh wait, then YOU’D owe us money…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is to be hoped that Scotland will reimburse the rest of the UK for RBS .it would not be fair to leave the English tax payer with the banks debts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No problem with an independent tribunal JohnBull. I would even be happy with the ICJ in The Hague ruling on the matter if there was a dispute (which there will not be). An impartial tribunal, or an imposed solution ,will only reinforce what I’ve said above.
When it comes to United Kingdom government law, as well as international maritime law, all accepted precedents and principals have been used already in delineating that part of the Continental Shelf under the jurisdiction of Scottish law.
Or once again, the English Democrats should try looking at a map.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not sure why Scotland would have to ‘reimburse the rest of the UK’. RBS is headquartered in Scotland but is certainly not a predominantly Scottish Bank and hasn’t been for many years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was prompted to muse on this by a recent report of yet another analyst predicting doom for Scotland (this time that an independent Scotland would have a lower credit rating than the UK because it is small – ignoring that most of the countries that have AAA credit ratings are either of similar size to Scotland or even smaller).
One of his points was that Scotland may end up with a disproportionate share of the national debt that relates to the bank bailouts. I would have thought that the obvious division would just be along national population lines as this is how the bailouts show on the current UK balance sheet.
However, if there was an effort to “repatriate” deficit that was produced by the banks then this has some interesting consequences. First point is that if Scotland is to have all the debt relating to RBOS then everything relating to Lloyds TSB (which includes HBOS) would go to RUK (as Lloyds TSB is HQ’d in England). So it be about 50:50.
The bank bailout involved not just taking equity in affected banks but also making available a whole range of debt instruments to the banks. I cannot see how these could be divvied up on a national basis so I think the “only” money we are actually talking about is the £20bn that the UK government invested into RBoS equity.
Of course, equity isn’t a loan, it is a purchase of ownership (in this case 75% of RBoS). RBos is still worth a lot of money: its current market capitalisation is about £12 billion, so the public stake is worth about £9 billion.
Transferring net Government debt from the UK to Scotland would give a net liability of around £11 billion. However, the balance of the UK national debt is around £940 billion and Scotland’s notional share is 8.5% or £80 billion (which is what an independent Scotland would be saddled with).
However, if we are treating the nationalised bank equity separately then we have to take £40 billion off the total and thus reduce overall debt transferred to Scotland from £100 billion (£80 plus £20 billion to Scotland) to about £96 billion.
Plus ca change? Well, the partitioning of debt is part of the partitioning of assets. If we assume for simplicity that all of the national assets have in fact no value except for the bank shares then the net transfer of assets to Scotland will be £87 billion rather than £80 billion if the banks are treated as a separate case. The upside is that Scotland would have a large and effectively state owned bank. If that bank can be put to work then it will becomes a major asset to an independent Scotland.
So, Scotland being “lumbered” with the cost of the bank bailout may not be devastating. Not pleasant in the short term but not devastating
However, I suspect that the governments negotiating the split of national assets will simply take the UK total for debt, divide it by 100 and multiply by 8.5% to produce Scotland’s share. Divvying up the assets may be more interesting.
This is just a bit of musing rather than pontification so feel free for those of you with a better understanding of economics to demonstrate why this line of thought is erroneous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Doc.
With your superior understanding you should be working in The City.
The M & G analysis that Scotland will not be AAA is what I conjectured on here a month ago.
Do you recall? I was told off for being a Unionist and told current negative news reports are all a Unionist/Westminster/Tory/White Settler/Duke of Cumberland (insert whatever prejudice rocks your boat) Conspiracy.
Hey Doc….that’s what M & G/ Citibank etc research departments are paid to do….look at geopolitical scenarios and issue their guidance. They do it all the time, for every country and region.
We may not like their conclusions but are we equipped with better financial knowledge, skills, experience and research to justifiably deride the results and put it down to an anti-Independence plot?
Of course not.
Unless you know better, eh ?
The SNP’s petulant response to the M & G was to say that they had not factored in our £1trillion future oil asset.
M & G’s response to the SNP was that they had ! In fact they factored it in !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Who on earth are the English Democrats? I have never heard of them before now (and I will avoid cheap jokes involving oxymorons).
I would say that the 95% figure sounds about correct. International convention draws maritime borders along lines of latitude. The actual line of latitude will be determined on whether Berwick decides to be in Scotland or in England (current designation has Berwick in England but this has no basis in law as the Act of Union placed Berwick as neutral territory (as belonging to Scotland but occupied by England). The 50% figure appears a fantasy.
However, as Newsroom says, this is an issue best determined sooner rather than later: will the UK Parliament ask the UN to rule on this? (Aye right!).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I never knew that about Berwick Doc. Very interesting.
I wonder, if the leaving the UK vote is positive, if Berwick will then be given their own separate vote as to whether to stay with UK or join with Scotland? Makes sense that they should have this right given the history.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with most of what you say, but It is the principal of equidistance which determines marine boundaries where countries share a coterminous Continental Shelf, not latitude or longitude.
The UK Government has already effectively ruled on the matter as they’ve written into law the boundaries which mark Scottish and English waters. And they’ve done so by utilising the normal principals. The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 does this by updating the Continental Shelf Jurisdiction Order 1968 which crystallises the issue under the terms of the Continental Shelf Act 1964.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I forgot to say that the constitutional position of Berwick has a negligable effect on the issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And what if the people of the Orkneys and Shetland not only vote against Scottish independence, but even if it should pass, refuse to be part of it (there is little SNP hold on those Islands with their Nordic inheritance) and opt instead for a Channel Islands-like relationship with England? Suddenly it’s not Scottish oil at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…and that is another very interesting point.
Just googled and it appears that both Orkney and Shetland were ANNEXED (!) by Scotland from Norway in 1472. Shetland is nearer to Norway than it is to Edinburgh !
Given the SNP’s anti-imperialist and self determination golden principles Orkney and Shetland should be given the right to determine their futures too as they may well not want to be part of an independent Scotland.
Join with Scotland?
Join with Norway?
Remain in the UK?
Independent of all?
All that aside we can be sure that the UK will not give up the oil without a tremendous fight.
My view is that whilst Scotland is in the United Kingdom the oil is an asset which should be used for the benefit of the UK as a whole (in much the same way as revenue from The City benefits the whole of the UK, not just London).
However, should we pull out of the United Kingdom then that same oil becomes Scottish. The extent of our ownership should be definitively determined by an independent commission, binding, to avoid future squabbles with Salmond’s “best pals”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
More theorising with no regard to basic realities. Shetland is a local authority within Scotland. Part of Scotland that has ethnic ties to Norway, just as the Western Isles have ethnic links to Ireland. Has no political significance whatsoever. There is no move to pursue Shetland autonomy. Total invention. The Shetland Council recently wrote to the London government supporting the demand that administration of offshore maritime matters of all kinds be handed to the Scottish Government.
Deal with reality instead of this moonshine about Shetland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And what if Unst were to declare that it wished to remain part of Scotland and not Shetland? Would Shetland have no oil then (only about one third of Scotland’s North Sea resources are around Shetland)?
Surely if Scotland is divisible then Shetland is divisible too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nonsense. A stupid point with no substance. I know a lot of people from Orkney and Shetland who, although proud of their Nordic connections, are nationalists in favour of an Independant Scotland. There is plenty SNP support in the Northern Isles and the vast majority consider themself Scottish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Orkney and Shetland have enormous significance as political constituencies in Scottish elections, but a referendum is of course one man one vote, so the numbers involved are relatively insignificant.
I can see the Northern Isles becoming a major target for Unionist pot-stirrers, but I cannot imagine the islands declaring UDI in the immediate aftermath of a Yes vote in a referendum. Later possibly, but in the immediate future I can’t see any constitutional way that Orkney and Shetland could block a referendum or greatly influence the outcome, simply due to a lack of voter numbers.
We may also see an attempt by the SNP to buy more Yes votes by promising the Isles some sort of special status after the referendum. This would seem a pragmatic and sensible thing to do if the issue becomes troublesome in the run-up to the referendum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It raises the wider the wider question of whether you can change someone’s nationality without their consent. If you argue 51% gives you right to do anything you are dangerously close to the Ulster Unionist definition of democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And what happens when the oil runs out?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Renewable energy production. Already well under way. Refer to The Scotsman and search Energy Companies plans for massive renewable energy investment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ref. The Orkney and Shetland problem.
Constitutionally (and of course morally) what may well happen if Salmond gets his Yes vote is that Orkney and Shetland then undertake their own referendum on their own future ie whether to be part of Scotland or another position….most likely remain part of UK with similar status to Isle of Man or Channel Islands would be their preference.
The SNP could hardly refuse them their right to a referendum on self-determination as, after all, peoples’ right to self-determination is the solid bedrock of everything the SNP stand for.
Very interesting times ahead !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What ‘may’ happen and will, is that Orkney and Shetland islands will continue to be local government areas of Scotland as they have been for most of their recordable history.
Time wasting rubbish. There are better issues that need real debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“What ‘may’ happen and will, is that Orkney and Shetland islands will continue…..
Time wasting rubbish. There are better issues that need real debate.”
Fair enough. Don’t waste any more of your time. Bye.
“What ‘may’ happen and will, …..”
Westminster will use every trick in the book to hang on to as much of, what is currently, UK oil as possible. Don’t be under any illusion that they won’t.
A very likely scenario:
SNP achieve a Yes vote.
The Orkney and Shetland vote within that, however, is overwhelmingly No.
Westminster immediately (as it can) devolves extensive powers to O & S and promises them their own referendum. The spin is strong enough to gain world opinion approval.
O & S then vote for Channel Isles type status with the UK.
Absolutely nothing Salmond can do about it except whinge.
The precedent is set in global law (Quebec).
We lose about half the oil we were expecting.
We also lose nearly all the wind and tidal energy we were expecting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your position is illogical.
Firstly, I wouldn’t be so sure that Orkney and Shetland would vote no.
But secondly, what if any of the other 32 Scottish local authorities voted no as well, say East Renfrewshire for example? How would Her Majesty’s Government square that circle? Would they offer East Renfrewshire, Orkney and Shetland territory status within the UK, or just one of those council areas, or perhaps just two of them. And how would they choose which areas to offer such status.
You might suggest they use the wooly historical precedents of how Orkney and Shetland became part of Scotland in the 1400s. But you must bear in mind that Her Majesty’s Government have been assiduous in upholding the territorial integrity of Scotland for the last 304 years of their jurisdiction over the boundaries and infrastructure of Scotland. In other words, O&S were part of Scotland for at least 300 years before they entered the United Kingdom – as part of Scotland. In other words, the precedents are not all that good.
Sure, around 30% of Scotland’s oil resources are close to Shetland.
And as referenced before, if Scotland is divisible, then Orkney and Shetland are equally divisible too. Because, whether one likes it or not, Orkney and Shetland entered the UK as part of Scotland as Argyll did, as Edinburgh did and as Fife did.
Of course the Northern Isles could negotiate some kind of status within Scotland, but the negotiations would be with Scotland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You assume a benign Westminster.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ah, but you have to look at the debt side.
Scotland with get a Barnett formula share of the 1,050 bn borrowing, plus full liabilities for its pension liabilities. Given that so much of the economy north of the border is the public sector, it will be unable to pay it.
However, that’s the Scots choice.
They won’t be told of the liability side. Governments don’t tell the population about the off the book debts they have.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And what about the assets side?
Assets and liabilities are inextricably linked. Any attempt to offload a disproportionate share of liabilities onto Scotland would have to be done with a concomitant share of the assets.
“Given that so much of the economy north of the border is the public sector, it will be unable to pay it.”
The share of government in the economy in Scotland is roughly equivalent to the share of the government in the economy of the UK as a whole. It is less than the Scandinavian countries and the likes of Italy or France. Approximately 22% of the Scottish workforce are engaged in employment in the public sector. 78% of the workforce are engaged in employment in the private sector. Again, these figures are equivalent to the UK average and are by no means an outlier.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Orkney and Shetland:
The right of self-determination applies to the citizens of Nations, not individuals. No-one save Anarchists has ever suggested that Newton Mearns, or Jaffa, has the right to declare UDI. If the citizens of Orkney and Shetland could convince anyone (themselves?) that the Islands were really part of Norway then we might have a reasonable debate on the question, but no-one has ever argued that case.
Part of the FUD case ( Fear Uncertainty and Doubt )which interestingly enough was the basis of IBM marketing in the 60s and 70s when they were Snow-white and the rest of the world was trying to be bigger Dwarves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There already exist 3 that id THREE acts of the Westminster Parliament stating that evertything north of latitude 55 degrees, on land or the seabed, belongs to Scotland.Even allowing for the sneaky theft of a huge area of the North Sea, by the then Labour govt., immediately prior to the re-institution of the Scottish Parliament, the fact is, IT’S SCOTLANDS OIL.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Come to that, how much of England is really England’s, seeing that they moved in uninvited as our second wave of illegal immigrants from the 5th century?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For cweatheril: If puns are forgivable on New Year’s Eve – would you say that this is your ‘angle’ on the matter?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alex Salmond’s government must be doing something right as since they came to power, no fewer than 820,000 people from the rest of the UK have decided to make Scotland their home.
Perhaps they smell the independence coffee!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Alex Salmond’s government must be doing something right as since they came to power, no fewer than 820,000 people from the rest of the UK have decided to make Scotland their home.”
I’m astounded by that figure !! what’s your source ?
You’re talking about near 20% of our population !
Seeing as our population has not increased by anywhere near that figure are you saying that hundreds of thousands of Scots have left in that time?
Last I looked there were 400,000ish English living in Scotland and 800,000ish Scots living in England.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Read it here.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/3984-scotland-becoming-the-place-to-live-as-uk-migration-increases.
And while Im at it. Here is another fact worth passing around. While some on here and other anti independence forums like to cite Ireland and Iceland as failed states, here is a link to the 2011 Legatum Prosperity Index which gives the league table of prosperity for most countries in the world.
Of the top ranked twelve countries seven have a population not dissimilar to Scotland’s, the exceptions being Australia, Canada The Netherlands and Sweden. Away in the lead and never likely to be caught is Norway and sitting comfortably ahead of the UK in thirteenth position are the two countries that were ridiculed by Mr Murphy, Mr Foulkes and umpteen other unionists after the financial crash – Iceland and Ireland. Click on the drop down menu for each country to get much detailed information.
Well worth a look http://www.prosperity.com/default.aspx
And BTW this site is known throughout the world, as completely independent of politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David – actual figures are:
From June 2007 to March 2011
Inward migration from other parts of the UK – 727,041
Outward migration to other parts of UK – 665,053
Scotland’s net gain from other parts of UK – 61,988
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/migration/ruk-mig-flows-scotland-1991-to-mar11.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow !
So nearly 15% of Scots have left Scotland since SNP took over.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is, of course, less than the numbers of Scots who left the country prior to 2007 and why Scotland’s population was, to that point, in inexorable decline. The graphics on that are very scary indeed.
Perhaps that is another one of these perverse Union dividends we keep hearing about?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL – but how many of the in comers are Scots? And how many of those leaving were English?
Not sure there is much mileage in this. There has always been people moving around the UK who would either count as moving out or in (I have been both!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The squabbles about ‘who’s oil is it’ amuse me as the argument neatly misses the core issues causing the groundswell of opinion toward our country regaining control of its own destiny.
Rather a few years ago, I bought a scroll at auction simply because it looked unusual (and was cheap). As I unrolled the 12 foot long document, the title meant nothing to me.
“The Act of Separation and Deed of Demission”
On researching the document, I actually grew angry this document had been airbrushed out of my education. Events which caused its production, along with the 474 signatures from ministers around Scotland, documented a stunning part of our nations history in 1843.
This group of ministers, comprising 1/3 of the Church of Scotland resigned their positions giving up their homes, their incomes, their pulpits.
Why did they do this?
“’Though we quit the Establishment, we go out on the Establishment principle; we quit a vitiated Establishment but would rejoice in returning to a pure one.” Said Thomas Chalmers, the first moderator of the newly established Free Church (not to be confused with the current Free Church of Scotland.)
These ministers broke free of a situation where the State effectively wished to control who was emplaced on a parish, often against the will of the parishoners.
It is important to remember the incident was relatively recent and typified the Scottish psyche.
Twice in my life, I’ve walked away from business situations to start again. On both occasions, all common sense suggested biting my tongue and staying put but from a personal standpoint, was not willing to compromise myself for financial gain. For me personally, it was sufficient to suffer the pain of separation as I could do better alone. And hold my head up.
Scotland is now in this situation, I feel. As a nation, we’ve been given a taste of ‘lite’ self governance and now face the opportunity of standing alone. Equally, we face the hysterical and growing ‘fear campaigns’ from a Union which has not served us well and reverts to traditional behaviour in scaring the populace. The current tone of this debate about the oil is just another facet of the nonsense.
Personally, I don’t care. As a country, we’ve produced some pretty impressive people, along with the odd good idea. Retaining our nationhood is not going to smother that innovative streak. Perhaps, quite the converse. Even Gordon Brown (honestly, I’m not a big fan) produced the decisiveness required to prevent a complete melt down world-wide in 2008. While I disagree with his choice, he did the one thing other world ‘leaders’ failed to do. He made a decision. And the rest of the world fell into line.
Should the nation vote YES, we’re going to face a generation of tough years with or without the benefit of OIL. But as a nation, I’m confident we will emerge stronger, wealthier and able to finally be proud of our country rather than as it was.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cornwall overlooked again, thanks Scots!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A quick word on the Orkney and Shetland diversion. The principle of the right to self determination only applies to nations, that is: political or ethnic groupings that are clearly distinct from and have a separate history from other groupings.
Orkney and Shetland were originally settled soon after the ice age by the same people that settled Scotland and the islands eventually became under the control of the Picts (as witnessed by the dramatic brochs that litter the islands). The islands were invaded by the Norse in the 9th century (along with Caithness, much of the West Coast, Dublin and the Isle of Man). Although the Norse were expelled from mainland Scotland they held on in the Northern Isles until Christian the First gave the islands to the Scottish Crown in 1468 in lieu of a dowry – so they were sold to Scotland at that point. Norway has never made any claim over the islands subsequently as the transaction was entirely legal with no military compunction. The islands have thus never had a period where they were independent of either Norway or Scotland so cannot claim any more right to self determination than, say, Caithness.
What about ethnicity? Could the islanders claim that they have a separate ethnicity from the Scots and thus a right to self-determination? Ethnicity as grounds for self determination is pretty ropey in any case but are the Northern islanders enthically different from the Scots? Certainly, many of them believe they are of Norse descent and are proud of those links. There have been a number of genetic studies looking into this and the results showed that there were strong Norse genetic influences but also strong Celtic influences. In other words the modern islanders are a mix of ancestral Celtic and Norse types – they are neither pure Celt nor pure Norse and in this they show similarities to mainland groups and the Western isles (and even Icelanders). Norse influence is strongest in the Northern isles but is not particularly distinct from modern Scots populations in the north and west.
So – sorry, fun though speculation is over a breakaway Shetland and Orkney and the ramifications of that, it is just not possible. The Northern Isles, legally and historically formed part of Scotland prior to the Union and they would remain with it if the Union is dissolved.
Have a good time tonight one and all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1. O & S were annexed by Act of Scottish Parliament.
2. This was because the debt hadn’t been paid; they were not given in lieu.
3. The Quebec referendum is precedent.
Good Evening, Doc, and Happy New Year
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Barking up the wrong longboat here WS – at the very least O&S became Scottish (again) by right of abandonment: Scotland claimed the right and Norway (under Danish rule) did not oppose the claim. More than sufficient time has elapsed for the islands to be securely Scottish. But history in any case shows that Christian I gave the islands to Scotland since they were pledged as security for the dowry. Dowries seem strange these days but they were well understood in the 15th century and taken very seriously. Pledge your house against a bank debt these days and see how seriously they take that if you don’t pay up when they demand it.
Norse “ownership” of O&S was pretty tenuous anyway as it was based on conquest. Scotland was established as a kingdom prior to the Norse invasions and I am unaware of any recognition by Scotland of Norse right to occupy O&S. The position of O&S between the 9th and 15th centuries was pretty fluid (the earldom was often held by Scottish earls during that period).
On the very unlikely event of a challenge to Scotland’s legitimate claim to O&S, I cannot see any international court over ruling Scotland’s right to the islands.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Neither I nor anyone else has raised any question of Norway claiming O & S. Your raising this appears to be a deflection tactic.
Regarding rights due to conquest we must not forget that applies to us as well. The west of Scotland was conquered by the invading Gaels from Ireland who ethnically cleansed the Picts. The south and east was taken by the Normans through marriage, stealth and violence….trace the roots of the major old scottish families today and you’ll find they are French. Robert de Bruce was of Norman descent.
But…back to reality;
Westminster will not be benign if there is a Yes vote. Their priority then will be to secure as much of the oil as possible and their duty will be towards the citizens of the UK. There is nothing in British law to stop Westminster devolving powers to O & S whilst it is still part of UK. Nor is there anything to stop them giving O & S a referendum with an option of Channel Isles type status with the UK. If the islanders vote Yes Salmond can do nothing.
International precedent (not that one would be needed)…Quebec.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A Happy New Year to you WS.
You have a strange interest in fantasy history and politics. History first:
1: The Scots from Dalradia did not ethnically cleanse the Picts. The Pictish Kingdom became part of the new kingdom of Alba and pictish culture and language became subsumed into what we now view as Scots.
2: I’m not sure what your point about Norman influence in Scotland is. David the 1st invited a number of Norman families into Scotland, where, as you say, they inter-married into Celtic noble families. The Scots are an amalgam of various types of Celts, Angles, Norse, Saxons,Flemish, Normans, French, and more latterly Jews, Poles, Italians, Indians, Pakistanis, various African nations, many minority nationalities and not forgetting many modern English. So what?
My point about Norway not making any claim on the Northern Isles for more than 500 years was simply to show that the islands are Scottish. Folk who live in the Sheltands and Orkneys cannot make any special claim to self determination through claiming that they are in fact Norwegian. Nor can the UK government make any claim for them to be given rights of self determination as the islanders are Scots.
Turning to the politics. I don’t share your mistrust of Westminster. I have no doubt that many unionists will strive hard to ensure that the Scots vote against independence. However, I do not see them doing anything other than abiding by the decision and applying international law to deal with the dissolution of the UK.
To take your fantasy of Westminster giving the Northern islanders some sort of referendum (which would be when? – before or after the Scottish referendum?), technically I don’t suppose there is anything to stop Westminster doing that. However, under the rules governing devolution any legislation affecting Scotland that is going through Westminster has to also have the approval of the Scottish Parliament (witness the current Scotland Bill). I would suggest that no Scottish Parliament is going to approve of any legislation that would lead to a partial break up of the territorial integrity of Scotland. Any attempt by Westminster to push through such legislation without the permission of the Scots parliament would thus be illegal under UK law and almost certainly a breach of the Act of Union which would allow the SG to declare UDI. I cannot see any international court siding with the RUK as it would be a naked attempt at land theft as the Northern Isles are legally and historically part of Scotland.
I’m not sure what point you are making about Quebec but a precedent for what you are suggesting would be the partitioning of Ireland into Northern Ireland and what is now the Republic of Ireland. However, even here there are significant differences (and there was the little matter that the Ulster Protestant majority would have risen in revolt if partition had not occurred and there was every indication that the British Army would have been unwilling to stop them if they did). These conditions don’t apply in modern Scotland (thankfully).
Fun though these fantasies are, can we not get back to discussing the rather more realistic problems and opportunities that a successful yes vote in the referendum will create?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Surely simply saying “O&S are an integral part of Scotland” won’t do. In reality it all comes down to the politics. If O&S substantially reject Scottish independence, and decide they don’t want to be part of a Scottish state and proclaim their autonomy and continuing relationship with England/Wales (not that I’m saying this is necessarily likely, but who knows?), are you really going to send the new Scottish army to coerce them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So if the islanders on Barra vote 60/40 against independence they can declare for self determination? Or what about Newton Mearns? Or Galloway? I’m pretty sure one of mu neighbours will vote against. Do we grant him rights of self determination? We live in a democracy where the individual has the right of self expression through the ballot box but is bound by the collective will of the electorate. Anything else is anarchy.
Think about it and you will see how daft this proposition is. Orkney and Shetland are part of Scotland legally and historically. Shetlanders and Orcadians are Scots.
There is no issue here… move on!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Reply for Moggy:-
I agree, having spent some time in contact with Shetlanders I gained the impression they were a uniquely minded island people and mistrusted most mainland Scottish politicians.
It’s Shetlands oil they would say. All very divisive and one reason why we should be happy to live together in one country the UK and take the good with the bad.
The persecution complex and grab for the oil money makes me ashamed to be Scottish.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“bound by the collective will of the electorate. Anything else is anarchy”
An Irish Nationalist living in what he won’t call Londonderry may explain that there is a limit to what the 51% can reasonably do with their “democratic majority” and what the 49% reasonably have to put up with. Changing such an inherently core value as someone’s nationality, without their consent, is perhaps one of those things.
I notice the last time a King of Scotland tried to coerce the Islands, in 1530, he was given a bloody nose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Dr Douglas Mackenzie and the debate on Orkney and Shetland:
Anyone who missed a BBC programme tonight – 21.00 – 22.00, ‘Ancient Britain Special: Priests of Orkney – should find it worth oicking up on iPlayer.
Won’t spoil it, but it focuses on a massive complex on the Ness of Brodgar, currentl6y being worked on by archaeologists and thought now to be a major centre of ritual that in some way played a part i the perceived relationship between the living and the dead.
The interesting thing in relationship to this debate is that the evidence suggests that Orkney was nor peripheral to the UK at the time this place was at the height of its power, over 5,000 years ago – but was the engine; the contemporary source of energy and development.
Proof of this appears to be a pottery link with Stonehenge, as one of others in the UK, with the earliest form of this pottery being from Orkney.
Absolutely fascinating stuff.
During the programme someone says that this discovery turns the map through 180 degrees – that knowledge was not then spreading from the south here but from the remote north to the south. What they meant, of course, was not that this new understanding turns the map through 180 degrees but that it turns attitudes and assumptions through 180 degrees.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A guid new year when it comes and here’s to healthy debate about the future of Scotland.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Celt “Keltio’” a Greek word for people from “No-where
No one knows where you came from, well via Ireland ……and before that uurrrmm well spain…..and before that …..erm… Baltics?
I rest my case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Somewhat overwed by the very erudite contributors to this debate, I wonder if counting the trees has allowed us to ignore the wood.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Overwed. Another wonderful contribution to the “For Argyll” dictionary of contributor’s typos.Suggestions for the definition?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clearly a new synonym for bigamy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t know about oil but the UKs biggest gas field is here.
http://www.acorn-ps.com/web/page/oilgas/nsfields/snsmap.htm
It’s likely that the southern north sea also has the UKs biggest shale gas fields.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am neither a member nor a supporter of the SNP. But I have to say that this article contains a lot of nonsense.
It has always been recognised that some oil is in English waters. Just not very much. There is nothing new about that. But now a ridiculous claim is being made to try to hugely extend that “not very much”.
So what if the group now trying to stake a claim to oil reserves in Scottish waters calls itself “the English Democrats”? Both Adolf and Uncle Joe were members of political parties with “Democratic” in their titles. The “English Democrats” claim has no validity in international law; and, in treating this nonsensical claim seriously, the article is playing a dangerous game by muddying perfectly clear waters.
Adolf also called for an ‘independent and impartial tribunal’ to come to ‘a binding determination’ of his claims to, for instance, the Sudetenland. And when he didn’t get a tribunal which met HIS definition of “independent and impartial”, he just grabbed what he wanted.
Scotland was indeed robbed (by Maggie Thatcher’s government) of substantial resources in Scottish waters. Suggesting that to allow a more limited form of that robbery to continue now would be “only fair” shows a very strange idea of fairness.
And no, we don’t need to wait for “a final determination on this matter”. The legal position is already quite clear.
There should be a referendum on the question of independence, yes or no. AFTER that referendum delivers a decisive “yes” (as I’m sure it will), then there will be negotiations with the British government, conducted by delegates appointed by the Scottish Parliament. There will be many things to negotiate about. But what counts as “Scottish waters” won’t be one of them. That is already crystal clear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Due to recent research and dna takings from archaeology via professeors Stephren Oppenhiemer (origins of the British) and Bryan Sykes “The British Isles
We the “English” Old English were here before you.We are the original settlers of these islands celts means Keltio’the Greek word for “people from no-where” except where are the Picts ?
Sorry ……Its our English Oil ! we finance it anyway thru the Barnett formula
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lee: best laugh I have had this year so far. Please keep contributing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Stop whining about Thatcher please…
The English had to put up with Blair, Brown and now this guy with the Scottish father so I thing youse get the better dear, eh jimmy..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: The Partition Of Scotland? « An Sionnach Fionn