This is how we serve battered mars bars in my place.
And, I'm pretty sure referendums create jobs.
This is how we serve battered mars bars in my place.
And, I'm pretty sure referendums create jobs.
Absolute bollocks all the previous comments
Im waiting on dirk diggler and scottish gary s opinion as normal scottish gadgeys
If the referendum gets the go ahead, it creates two significant and expensive problems for both sides.
As it stands, Scotland wants rid of the British nuclear submarine base at Faslane. The UK needs to maintain national control over that deterrent.
Scotland cannot balance the books without financial support from Westminster. There are many financial and practical infrastructure problems associated with relocation of Trident.
Common sense diplomacy should dictate that the base at Faslane could remain, while compensating Scotland for agreeing.to it.
It could actually make sense for both sides.
Such diplomacy is unlikely however, given the Scots entrenched opposition to any Nuclear options on home soil, and the Westminster government possession and ultimate independent control over Trident.
Either way, it will end up expensive for both sides to maintain the status quo, or relocate British nuclear facilities.
The only upside for Westminster would seem to be spending on new infrastructure, post Covid and post Brexit.
Some suggested options do not bear consideration, like negotiating relocation with the French or the USA.
Brittania has always been well protected by it's fierce warriors, be they Gurkha or Scot.
Apart from the obvious reasons to want rid of a nuclear submarine base, Trident, we also want rid of it because it creates a large no-go zone radius around it and the waters. There is oil there, of course - Westminster knows this, and we want to get after it. Keep your paws off, England, you already roasted us over the Scotland/England North Sea border.
According to existing Westminster legislation, English waters stretch at their North Easterly point to 56 degrees 36 minutes north – that is over 100 miles North of the border at Berwick, and North of Dundee.
In 1999 Tony Blair, abetted by the Scottish traitor Donald Dewar, redrew the existing English/Scottish maritime boundary to annex 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters to England, including the Argyll field and six other major oilfields. The idea was specifically to disadvantage Scotland’s case for independence.
The pre-1999 border was already very favourable to England. In 1994, while I was Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I had already queried whether it was too favourable to England. I little anticipated that five years later Blair would push it seventy miles North!!
I should explain that I was the Alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and was number 2 on the UK team that negotiated the UK/Ireland, UK/Denmark (Shetland/Faeroes), UK/Belgium, and Channel Islands/France maritime boundaries, as well as a number of British Dependent Territories boundaries. There are very few people in the World – single figures – who have more experience of actual maritime boundary negotiation than me.
The UK’s other maritime boundaries are based on what is known formally in international law as the modified equidistance principle. The England/Scotland border was of course imposed, not negotiated. It is my cold, professional opinion that this border lies outside the range of feasible solutions that could be obtained by genuine negotiation, arbitration or judgement.
It ignores a number of acknowledged precepts in boundary resolutions, most important of which is how to deal with an inverted right angle coastline, as the Scottish coastline is from Elgin to Berwick, with the angle point around Edinburgh. It also fails adequately to close the Forth and Tay estuaries with baselines – by stark contrast to the massive baselines the UK used across the Thames and Stour.
It is essential that Scotland is not conned into accepting the existing England Scotland maritime boundary as a precondition of any independence referendum. This boundary must be subject to negotiation between equal nations post independence, and in my opinion is most likely to end with referral to the International Court of Justice. I have no doubt the outcome would be a very great deal better for Scotland than the Blair-Dewar line, which would cost Scotland billions.
Lang may yer lum reek...
Got any, y'know, awkward facts to back that up? Such as murder rates, etc? Didn't think so. I think you need to look rather closer to home for those type of stats.
Didn't think so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)