Innocent merriment
Here's an amusing little conundrum. Who has just begun a review of devolved powers?
Answer: the commission chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman and set up by the three opposition parties at Holyrood.
Who has already looked with an expert eye and in detail at options for the possible devolution of further powers?
Answer: the civil servants in the Scottish Government who drew up the document, "choosing Scotland's future", which forms the basis of Alex Salmond's national conversation.
Is it possible the two could coincide? Not directly, no. The commission is served by a combination of UK Government officials and Holyrood Parliamentary clerking expertise.
Officials in the Scottish Government work to the first minister, who has declared his preference is plain: independence.
It is up to the other parties to examine options within devolution. It is not a task for his government.
Independence preference
However, there are, already extant, around a dozen possible candidates for further devolution of powers.
The Calman commission doesn't need to scratch around for these. They can read the text for themselves.
Remember the national conversation, quite deliberately, extends beyond the SNP preference of independence.
As one insider observed to me, the document isn't written in woad with a foreword by Mel Gibson.
Again deliberately, it canvasses specific options for extensions to devolution. Just cast an eye at chapter two of the document.
Options include further tax powers; financial regulation; action on the environment; firearms law; health and safety at work; some aspects of social security; enhanced relations with the EU; broadcasting; and governance of the civil service.
Another favourite I hear mentioned is a direct power for the Scottish Government to borrow for capital spending.
Wouldn't it be a source of innocent merriment if the list which eventually emerges from the Calman commission runs pretty close to the contents of that chapter in the SNP Government's paper?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~32~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Considering the SNP's blind devotion to independence, even in the face of public indifference and opposition, it is no wonder that the oppostion parties have felt the need to set up an alternative to the "national converstaion". The "national conversation" has had little input from the public, with the only "conversing about the nation" seemingly limited to offensive and inflammatory comments. Let's hope that the Calman Commission is less biased and provides more valuable feedback.
Complain about this comment
As much as they huff and puff the unionists cannot escape the fact that the salient features they accuse modern Scottish nationalism of, are in fact the defining qualities of their 'commission'. i.e. narrow, inward looking, small minded, cliquey, naval gazing, unrepresentative, selfish, out of touch, lack of engagement etc etc
One can engage with the National Conversation throwing as much muck as you want at the concept and of independence or further powers, but the core fact is you CAN engage with it and is open to every person inside and out of Scotland to air your constitutional preference.
The commission attempts to engage with nobody apart from 15 people from the List’s Who’s Who of Unionists. I’m surprised the Lords on the Commission can even remember what Scotland looks like apart from their shooting parties in the highlands- I mean the view from their Chelsea penthouses doesn’t afford that great a view of Caledonia.
Complain about this comment
Merriment indeed! Here's great new game for Brian's Bloggers: Spot the SNP phonies.
Hundreds of usernames on blogs, but how many authors? My guess - two or three maximum.
Take a look at the blog entitled "Fuelling talks" and note Blog 41, and several before it. It could not be clearer that at least three supposed bona fide contributors are one and the same person.
Now scroll through the other blogs. Look for the similarities of style, misspelling, use of certain words. All with different usernames attached. A cheap con trick.
A national conversation? With whom? Is there anyone "real" in the SNP with a view? Perhaps it's time to check names and addresses on their membership list?
Complain about this comment
I agree that some people are vehemently against independence (I myself wish it solely so that we could join the EU as a full member), but the thing I want more than anything is to be asked about it.
It is extremely annoying when you hear opposition MSP's saying that 'the people do not want independence' when they have not asked us through a referendum.
In any case I believe that any referendum would fail anyway, and the stalling of the opposition to ask the people what they think will only work in the favour of the SNP at the next elections.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, Yevets, if there is any "blind devotion" in any of this, it is the London Labour party's desire to ensure that Labour votes cast in Scotland in UK elections continue to be counted alongside the - more often non-Labour - votes cast in England in UK elections.
Like many in History, from James VI/I through Charles Edward Stuart and beyond, most "UK" rulers/politicians only seen Scotland as a stepping stone to the "real prize", control of the rest of this island.
Given the pragmatic and fairly effective fist the SNP have made of government in Scotland - to the surprise of many - they seem unlikely to be dislodged in the near future, especially in light of the quality of the opposition here.
It would therefore be no suprise at all to find what is effectively a UK Government commission comes up with a list of proposals very similar to those of the SNP Scottish Government. Having apparently given up all hope of retaking Holyrood, Labour at UK level seem content simply to keep focussed on what they consider to be the main prize: and keep Scottish voters voting Labour in UK elections whatever they do in Holyrood elections.
Complain about this comment
There is only one party that has the courage of its convictions in this debate.
There is one party that is willing to discuss all options, and that is the SNP. The other parties are running scared and it shows.
Most opinion polls show support for independence running at anywhere between 19% and 41% depending on the poll. If you take an average that is about a third of the population that the unionists are totally ignoring. Even on the lowest figure it is still a fifth that are being ignored.
Allied to that are the polls that show between 70% and 90% of the population want a referendum on independence, which again the unionists are ignoring.
Two questions, why are the unionists so scared to talk to all of the Scottish people? How do the unionists square the circle of totally ignoring the votes of the people of Scotland on a referendum, yet will come crawling for votes at the next Westminster and Holyrood elections?
No referendum, are they frightened they will win the vote?
Complain about this comment
Sir Ken said yesterday,
"I've been around long enough and produced enough public reports to know that they are not always welcomed with open arms by the government, or in this case governments."
Apart from Westminster, which other government is Sir Kenneth talking about?
Surely, he's not labouring under the misapprehension that the WENDY, Bella G and WurNicol are the Scottish Government?
Complain about this comment
not even someone of the stature of George Reid?!!! Sic a parcel of rogues.
Complain about this comment
Having read the list of those present in this review , I have to say that none of them fill me with confidence.
Surely it would be politic to invite the views of the public ?
Are they scared of the public view?
Are they ignoring us for a reason?
Maybe they would not like what is said, maybe they are scared of a simple referendum.
Maybe they should be!
Complain about this comment
"Here's great new game for Brian's Bloggers: Spot the SNP phonies."
Here's another game... spot the individuals with such little ambition for their country that they'd rather maintain an anachronistic union within a union. Don't miss out, this game has a limited shelf life and won't be around forever!
Complain about this comment
Considering the calibre of those involved in the commission it's doubtful if anything comes from it that would be of any real benefit to Scotland. Whatever comes out will have to have had the approval of the gentleman who is the driving force behind it; The very large Gordon Brown, who pursues only one agenda, keep Scotland part of the union so that he can maintain the presence of his nodding dogs in the Westminster government and thus Labour's majority in parliament.I think however this will be academic anyway, in that the Labour party are now unelectable and are liable to remain so for a considerable number of years to come after the total incompetence of the Brown administration.Maybe Jack McConnel can put in a word for him in Malawi if he ever decides to do Scotland a favour and go there instead of collecting his Holyrood salary for doing nothing.
Complain about this comment
It's dissappointing that the commission isn't considering independence as this surely falls within the remit of considering options for further powers.
Polls show that independence has the support of anywhere between 20% - 35% of those questioned. Obviously the results vary depending on the form of the questions and so forth.
However, whatever the figure, there are a significant number of people who are interested and/or in favour of the option and it should therefore be considered.
Complain about this comment
You have awoken the CyberNats!
Aaahhh...like the Kraken but nastier.
Complain about this comment
The great new game would be Grand Theft Auto IV. Designed in Edinburgh, it's already been hailed by critics as one of the best games of all time, and is sure to be a smash hit.
Why aren't you blogging about that, Brian? Why isn't it the leading item on the Scotland news page, instead of an alcohol abuse filler item?
Complain about this comment
What are the positive beneifts of the union to Scotland, England and Wales?
How many of these benefits can we preserve "when" Scotland becomes independent?
Complain about this comment
A source of innocent merriment? It would be hilarious.
OK, so we'll take the further tax powers, financial regulation, action on the environment, firearms law, health and safety at work, some aspects of social security, enhanced relations with the EU, broadcasting, governance of the civil service and a direct power for the Scottish Government to borrow for capital spending.
And then we'll be back for the rest later, because once the new powers have been bedded in the Scottish people will be just as dissatisfied as we are now, because, cautious though we are, and though we may not all actually admit it yet, we really really want self-government that is worth having and worth the money spent on it.
So we are bound to be back for more powers in due course. It would be naive to suppose that we would not. This is a never-ending story . . . until independence day.
Complain about this comment
Whether it be Independence or increased powers one thing is absolutely certain, Scotland will never be the same again.
The election of the SNP last May, the fact that they are surprising everyone with their level of competency and that more has been spoken and written about Scottish Independence in the past 12 months than 300 years have led to a seismic and irreversible shift in Scottish life.
Attitudes built up over 300 years have been shattered. Fresh air is getting into minds which before seemed set in granite.
New attitudes allow for new thinking, the new thinking is being fueled by new information (about Independence).
Energy (for action) follows thought ergo the nation is more willing to discuss and consider new ideas than at anytime in the past.
In short, forget politics, psychology is now determining events in Scotland. The SNP is the vehicle, Independence is the destination.
The collective mind has essentially been made up, only it doesn't realise it yet.
Complain about this comment
Shonaig Macpherson is also chair of ITI Scotland an organisation which has summarily failed to achieve any of it's objectives and would appear to be being managed in such a way that it's benefit to to Scotland is minimised.
I used to think think this was just utter incompetence.
However, it now seems likely that as a unionist Macpherson has an interest in seeing it fail.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that one side is confident enough to have its view tested in a genuine marketplace of ideas and then put the options to the people. While the unionist side retreat in to their own walled garden in an attempt to protect their rather flimsy ideas and assertions from competition, and then will seek to deny any referendum is necessary.
The Unionist Commission is an absolute joke: 5 Peers, 2 Knights of the Realm and one former Big Brother contestant - and Labour and their allies really think these are the brightest and best on the constitutional future of the country?!
They will seek to impose whatever trickle of powers are approved on the Scots Parliament without any recourse to popular sovereignty.
The Scottish Claim of Right (1988):
"We gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge, the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."
Shame the supposed 2nd convention is going to utterly disrespect the above and seek to effectively impose a new settlement on Scots. If Labour, Liberal and Tory thought they could win any rational debate on independence and its alternatives then they would stop this undemocratic nonsense, engage in a real debate (including people with whom you disagree!) and back a multi-option referendum.
Complain about this comment
morning ,the little warning at the top of this peice says a lot. as far as i am aware there are no elections in scotland today (more's the pity) but once again the EBC are unable to differentiate between england and wales and that pesky wee bit of north u.k.
Complain about this comment
I suspect this "Commission" will be more radical in its findings than many of us expect, even although on paper they look a pretty uninspiring lot.
Brian you may well have it right, the Commission and the Conversation (in its documented form) could well come pretty close to each other. Now that is when the fun would start.
How would the unionist parties respond to a significant further shift of powers to Holyrood, and how would the SNP position itself if such a situation arose? Oh the fun we would have with that scenario.
Complain about this comment
re: "Rules During Polling Day
Please note that in line with the political parties and other UK broadcasters, the BBC will not be reporting the election campaigns in England and Wales, or offering discussion about them, while polls are open. As such, users are asked to refrain from discussing them here during the period that polls are open. Usual BBC House Rules will resume once the polls are closed after 10pm. For more information please see the elections guide."
This statement by the BBC clearly defines the London mind-set that defines UK politics as being England = Britain, English = British. The membership of the Calman Commission reflects this to. All hand-picked by the London establishment, these people are simply toadies of the English, sorry the British.
Complain about this comment
Agree with sidthesceptic(20)
My licence fee (which I have no say in AT ALL!! Either I watch tv and pay it, or stay disconnected to the world!) goes to pay for broadcasting in Scotland. If I hear about some election for a Lord Mayor/Chief Sheep-groper or whatever in London one more time...
Pattymkirkwood (19) has it right though on the important issue here.
"The sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine their own destiny."
Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories will not acknowledge that. Their "committee" will not look at all the options, and so by definition is limited to the vision of their masters, the Union parties, not the vision of their supposed ultimate masters, the People.
In effect, Labour, and to a degree for backing and supporting their measures, the Lib Dems and Tories, are Tyrants.
I do not use that pejorative without knowing it's meaning. Tyrants. From the latin "tyrannus", and ultimately the greek "tyrannos", meaning illegitimate ruler.
Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories are illegitimately trying to undermine the (sovereign) right of the People to determine the destiny of Scotland.
Not only are they refusing to allow their talk-show to look at a constitutional ideal that (if polls are to be believed) 44% of the people want, that the sitting Government of Scotland wants; no, that's not enough; they're now saying the People won't even be consulted!!!!
What The [Bad Word]?! Seriously, wtf!
Did someone move Scotland a few thousand miles east without me noticing. Is that what the banana-republicesque election guddle was all about?
Are we now an ex-Soviet state with it's ingrained Socialist party that, despite being removed from power and told to go back to the Dark ages, is still clinging on for dear life, arranging committees and making "suggestions".
If Labour, the Liberal "Democrats" or the Tories have ANY respect for either the People, Democracy or even their own charters, then they will cease this pathetic wrangling and obfuscation of the truth, admit that although they support independence, the People have a right to be asked if we're going to change the make-up of our State, and agree to the SNP's refferendum.
Not supporting Independence I fully understand. I have good friends that don't think Scotland would benefit from being away from the Union. I think they're wrong, but I respect them.
I do NOT respect anyone who claims to have the People's interests at heart but refuses any attempt to ask the people, refuses to vote for any bill that would ask the People for their answer, to decide, once and for all the destiny of Scotland.
If they cherish democracy, the pro-Union parties will agree to the refferendum. Otherwise, they are tyrants. Illegitimate rulers.
Tyrants rarely stay in power when there's a better choice around.
Quod erat demonstradum (3rd May 2007).
Complain about this comment
The problem with the SNP is that they appear to assume that they will receive the same block funding from either Westminster or the EU. But this is not guaranteed, and the recent oil dispute shows potential problems.
Added to the SNPs policies of zero prescription charges, free university funding, free healthcare, reductions in prisoners, one has to ask where the money is coming from. Oil will only last so long.
The SNP are playing the same political games as every other party does when in power: short term benefits but long term harm.
The SNP did not win power, Labour lost it. Alex Salmond planned this several years ago when he relinquished the leadership of the SNP. He knew that Labour would soon be in power, and the Tories/Lib Dems have no real influence in Scotland.
Nationalism is fine, but only if you have the economics to support it.
Complain about this comment
No blogs today from "Johnhancock" or "Richard Pritchard" or "John Henry." Or are there? Who are they going to be today, as Matthew Kelly might ask.
Is it Northy, or General Powers (in a bid to outrank me). There is a consistency of style there, and a nagging strain of incipient paranoia.
You Nats can invent all the names you like, to pretend that some pretty eccentric views are widely held. But you've been rumbled, big time.
Perhapd the Laird of Tartan Towers will stop smirking for a minute and realise these fruitcakes are damaging him.
Unless of course.....
Complain about this comment
Hey Northy, remind me, what's the last refuge of a scoundrel? Is is pat..., patrio... nationalism? It's BECAUSE I'm a patriot, with ambitions for my country, that I don't want it tainted by narrow little minds.
Complain about this comment
I'm getting a bit tired of the Cyber NAT-bots on this Blog.
They should realise that the SNP is a MINORITY goverment - more people voted for unionist parties. They talk about one third of people being ignored about independence while trying to shout down the two thirds that don't want it. My suspicion is that the 80% of the people who want a referendum mainly want it so that can shut the SNP up for a generation. I wish that Labour, et al would call it and call the NAT's bluff.
The commission has been set up to review the division of powers within devolution to see that whether changes can be made to the benefit of Scotland and to the UK. The second bit may mean that some powers are returned as that may be more efficient.
The SNP aren't interested in the second bit. They want Indepenence or More Power. They don't care if the extra power makes sense or benefits the UK as a whole they just want more of it. So from that point of view there is no need to invite them to be part of it as they will make no useful contribution but just grandstand.
Complain about this comment
Even the leader of the farcical unionist commission has said he doesn't want to return power to Westminster. So that cannot be blamed on the SNP.
The point about patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel is interesting. I assume this is being applied across the board to, say, Prime Minister's waxing lyrical about "Britishness" all the time and utilising extreme-right slogans, such as "British jobs for British workers"? Remind me is Gordon a socialist or a brit at this week?!
The only paranoia I see in these discussions is from the unionist/brit nat side. However, despite that I am glad to see so many unionists now support a referendum - even if their leaders don’t. The New Labour-Liberal-Tory Pact knows they could well lose a referendum, so they avoid it. The longer they do the worse the position will become for them. Time for unionism to engage properly in a real debate (with its opponents, not a quiet fireside chat with friends in the Lords) and back a multi-option referendum ... that way the opposing ideas can be tested and Scotland's long-standing tradition of popular sovereignty respected.
Complain about this comment
Tell me Brian, regarding the warning about talking of the elections today: was such a warning posted throughout the BBC website on polling day for the Scottish Parliament and local government elections? If not, why not?
Complain about this comment
I know that SNP is a minority government, and I know that more Unionist MSP's were voted in than pro-independence ones, and I completely accept that the majority of Scotland probably does not want independence at this point in time.
What I object to is politicians claiming that Scotland does not want Independence without asking us in a referendum.
As I said before I think that the opposition parties holding off from a referendum will only help SNP in the next election, and I think that if they capitulated and allowed a referendum, presuming that the independence movement would fail, this would be a major blow to SNP in the future.
Complain about this comment
Surely the commision is set-up to answer two of Gordon Brown's problems.
1. - he needs planning control returned South of the Border so we can have new nuclear power stations.
2. - he needs the oil revenue to fund illegal wars and fund trident.
Ps for all those non believers who think independence is too late - no oil well has never run dry, just uneconomical!
How long till the $200 barrel?
Surely it's a crime to let Westminster squander Scotland's assets on 2. above.
Surely it's an even bigger crime to continue to let Westminster do it
Complain about this comment
Is the question of "Scottish" oil the biggest canard in the history of British politics? Those pushing for Scottish independence seem to keep repeating the mantra about "Scotland's oil" or "Scotland's resources" as if saying it enough will make it true.
Some of the oil is in, what would be under independence, Scottish waters, some of it would be in England's. Like it or not, the land border, extended out to sea puts rather a lot in English water because the border does not run due east/west. That is not my interpretation of the situation, it is international law. Draw a line on the map extending the land border out to sea and check for yourself. True, Scotland would have some of the oil, but rather less than the nationalists would have us believe.
The second problem with SNP economics is the small fact that the oilfields were not developed with just Scottish taxes. If those in Scottish waters were to be transferred to an independent Scotland, then the taxpayers of England and Wales (who because of sheer numbers contribute more personal tax to the UK exchequer than Scots and therefore invested heavily in the oilfields) would be rightly seeking some compensation.
Both these are inconvenient truths, and neither is insurmountable, but they do make independence less attractive economically if the oil is the bedrock of the argument. I suspect that most Scots, as opposed to those who inhabit political blogs, recognise this.
Complain about this comment
I can assure you that I only post as Northy on these boards.
"Hey Northy, remind me, what's the last refuge of a scoundrel? Is is pat..., patrio... nationalism? It's BECAUSE I'm a patriot, with ambitions for my country, that I don't want it tainted by narrow little minds."
So let's get this right, I'm being accused of being a scoundrel (presumably to the detriment of the people and nation of Scotland) by wanting Scotland to be independent? That's certainly an interesting argument to make considering the clear benefits we're already seeing from having a government which stands up for Scotland.
I'm quite probably as pro-EU as I am pro-independence. I want a world with a strong independent Scotland within a strong European Union (encompassing all of the geographical nations of Europe) making a positive contribution to world politics. If that makes me narrow minded (the small minded jibe is just your own insecurity) then fine, that's what I am.
But let's be honest, the unionists have already lost the argument and, although it's naturally going to take time for public opinion to transition to the idea of independence, it's coming. You know, I used to think that the SNP would become defunct in an independent Scotland, but it's becoming increasingly clear that independence isn't just an event, it's a process. No point in leaving you lot to squander the infinite opportunities of self determination.
Complain about this comment
afternoon all, NORTHY, i agree that the unionists are losing the argument but i would put it to you that we the great unwashed are actually miles ahead of our so called politicians .the sooner all sides get it thru there thick skulls that they can bawl ,shout ,posture and generally try to push us around the soverign right actually rests with the scottish people not our elcected representitives.some people in our countries parliment have got ideas way above there station.
i keep saying that there is a third way to move on but for some reason the lib dems have dissapeared so i am a lonley voice in the wilderness.
can't wait to see the powers paw brown wants to get his hands on by the way.as if we don't already know.
Complain about this comment
Assurance accepted, Northy. Also, I didn't mean you were personally a scoundrel. As you well know, it's a literary allusion not to be taken too seriously. I better explain as well that by narrow-minded I meant a bit single-track in your political thoughts. Surely you agree with me that some SNP supporter was trying to usurp the integrity of the blog by posturing as a series of different people. The evidence is pretty compelling, wherever you're standing.
I'm being portrayed here as some sort of Union Flag-waving fanatic. Actually, I'm a unionist, small "u," by default. I just don't agree that the SNP offers a better alternative. I don't rate their economics, and I think recent populist gestures will get us all into trouble, because nobody is going throw grants at us. But it's just an opinion. I don't want anyone to die.
For the record, I have never voted for a party in my life. I vote for the best candidate in my opinion, as a person to reasonably represent a majority of my views. Margaret Bain (as she then was) had my vote. I'm also a great admirer of Margo, who I met professionally at the famous Govan election, but I often disagree with her.
You may be right about the unionists losing the argument, at least publicly. Anyone who articulates a unionist argument is immediately bombarded by a blizzard of letters and blogs, not all of them kosher. Many therefore choose silence, but will give their answers at the polls.
Myself, I feel people have a duty to say what they think and feel on important issues. One true test of a free society is the ability of its citizens to hold unpopular opinions in safety. We have a bit to go.
Complain about this comment
I would put myself in the Unionist camp. But I am prepared to be convinced about Independence - I voted for Devolution and for tax raising powers so I'm not against decentralising power and decision making.
I also concede that Scotland has a RIGHT to be independant if the population so wills it. However if you argue that Scotland should be independent whatever, then there is no debate to be had. If that's what you want I won't convince you to stay in the Union whatever I say.
But for me that's not the point. For me, and I would guess most people, the question is what's the benefit of being independent.
Scottish Identity? Scotland has one of the strongest national identities in the world, independance won't change that.
Do things our way? Scotland already has it's own legal system, education system and it's own Parliament. We don't need independence to allow us to change those.
Self Respect? Looking around the world, Scotland and the Scottish people have a lot to be proud of. If that's not enough for self respect then the problem might be the narrow minded, chip-on-my-shoulder, whinging-ness that unfortunately seems to be part of the Scottish national psyche.
So, for me, it boils down to "Will I be better off under Independence". And that debate isn't being had.
So rather than the sterile Nat/Unionist mudslinging that seems to fill this blog, lets have some well thought out debate on the benefits.
And first of all lets get rid of this "Oil contributes so much, add to that the taxes we pay but we only get 30bn back" nonsense.
30bn is the money given to Scotland for DEVOLVED issues. There's a huge chunk of money spent in Scotland that comes out of the UK pot. I admit I don't know how much that is, but a lot of the Nat supporters seem to conveniently forget about it in order to make their point.
I'm also not trying to make the case that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK. However I do believe that being independent will raise the cost of doing things that we benefit from sharing. A couple of examples...
1) Foreign Embassies. An independant Scotland will probably want foreign embassies. At the moment the cost the buildings, etc. is shared with the rest of the UK. Scotland will have to foot the whole bill for this stuff.
2) Army. The SNP have vigorously defended the Scottish regiments when it has been suggested that they merge or be disbanded. So they must be prepared to keep them - and to fund them correctly - wouldn't do to send off underequiped Scottish soldiers to do peace keeping somewhere. The UK army has the benefit of scale from a logistics point of view. Scotland, again, would have to foot the bill for this alone.
3) Passports. All Scottish (and UK) people will require new passports. Who's going to pay for that and for all the staff to process them?
Lets have the debate at this sort of level (and I'd like to see the Politicians do it) with the effects of Independence properly costed.
Then we can all make up our minds if it's worth it or not.
Complain about this comment
re: MalcolmW2 # 32 - percentage of British oil in Scottish waters.
Malcolm, have you actually checked the figures under international law? Approx 10% of the water would fall under English jurisdiction (because under international law, you don't just extend a line to decide jurisdiction) and the fields in question are rather dilapitated and close to becoming uneconomical.
The other 90% would be in Scottish waters. This, of course, doesn't take into account the new fields opening that are being divided up between UK, Ireland, Netherlands, etc. These are entirely in Scottish waters.
It's maybe a well worn matra as you claim but that doesn't make it less meaningful. It IS Scotland's oil and Scotland would do rather nicely with it for at least the next 50 years.
Complain about this comment
In true Scottish style - inward looking, selfish and self-centred, the Scots choose to look at independance through their blinkered eyes. The question of the break up of the UK needs to be put to the whole of the UK and not to less than 10% of the population. The Scottish need to realise that constant bleating is alienating the majority - which is a good thing, if that is your aim. Scots have currently and have previously had a disproportionate effect on Westminster and to events in England. I welcome the opportunity to eliminate this problem. I am sick of hearing bleating Scots going on about being oppressed for three hundred years. I would love your oppression to end in 300 days (or less) so that your whinging noises can not be heard south of the border.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS