Last month I made a call for there to be a proper Judicial Arbitration of the ownership of North Sea oil and gas, as between the respective national boundaries between the English and Scottish Nations.
I called for this in this blog entry, click here >> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/2011/12/no-mr-salmond-some-of-its-england-s-oil.html.
I was pleased to see that one of the leading Scottish newspapers, The Courier, reported this call(read the article and the 'interesting' comments here >> http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Politics/article/19888/english-independence-campaigners-demand-fair-share-of-north-sea-oil.html.)
Then the ForArgyle News reported Mr John Sweeney’s,the Scottish Finance Minister, surprisingly wet response (Read the article here >> http://forargyll.com/2011/12/english-democrats-open-question-of-how-much-north-sea-oil-is-really-scotlands/
and on the Global Warming Policy Foundation site >> http://thegwpf.org/uk-news/4668-english-democrats-half-of-north-sea-oil-and-gas-belong-to-england.html).
I am today sending my formal request for an arbitration to Mr Vince Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and here is a copy of the text of the letter:-
Mr Vince Cable MP
Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Cable
Re: North Sea Oil Adjudication
I write on behalf of the currently unrepresented English Nation and as Chairman of the English Democrats, the only Party campaigning for English interests to be properly looked after, to formally request that you set up a Judicial Enquiry to reach a binding arbitration on the allocation of the geological assets, in particular to oil and gas, beneath the seabed of the territorial waters in the North Sea as between England and Scotland.
I further formally request that this arbitration be conducted according to the usual principles of International Law and the Conventions which apply to such allocations, on which basis we provisionally assert that half of the North Sea oil beds and gas are English.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and indicate the time period in which you propose to deal with this request. Please note that if your response is unsatisfactory we reserve the right to remove such arbitration from the jurisdiction of the British Government and place it with the United Nations or other competent international jurisdiction.
Yours sincerely
R C W Tilbrook
Re comments: very defensive. One commenter is correct about Salmond holding up the Irish 'Celtic tiger' economy as an example as to how a devolved scots one might,er succeed. Similarly I can personally recall Andrew Neil giving him a hard time over his allusion to Iceland as a good example of a small and succesful independent nation, er thriving.
ReplyDeleteMr Neil then pursued Alex about the unused powers to raise tax, or indeed allow a referendum on independence.
Good effort with the oil thing. As corporal Jones used to say:
'It's the cold steel, they don't like it up'em.'
I particularly enjoyed reading your closing paragraph!
ReplyDeleteAs only 170,000 taxpayers in Scotland work outside the public sector, it is mindboggling to think that they might consider it possible to survive without the avalanches of English or eu cash flooding in to support the lifestyle to which we and they have become accustomed.
ReplyDeleteAs Scotland's population is so small the effects of enforced multiculturalism will devastate the proud Scottish identity and culture, sadly, much more quickly and completely than it will here in England, and here it is happening fast.
It saddens me to hear the anti English bigotry from Scots and find it particularly distasteful when they support the Germans rather than us in footbal internationals - particularly when the Scots form and formed an integral part of the British army during the first and second world wars. Cheering those who have killed your own men standing shoulder to shoulder with their fellows of the British Isles is unconscionable.
I have no bigotry against the English and neither do a lot of Scots. Some of my Ancestors were English and a lot of my family are English today.
DeleteI admire your protectionism for something that in the large part has nothing to do with England. Nice try!
ReplyDeleteI do however, find the comments and utter rubbish of some of the people on your blog rather jingoistic and empiristic, which looks and reads as if The Raj were still in place in India. Curious that they wish to remain anonymous...???
I must address these points and put some perspective on this.
Firstly, due to the existence of two separate legal systems in Great Britain — that of Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales, constitutional law in the United Kingdom has provided for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components.
The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources are under Scottish jurisdiction.
Secondly, a Scottish share of North Sea oil is never formally alluded to as part of Scotland's net fiscal position and is treated by HM Treasury as extra-regio resources.
Prior to the 2007 Scottish Parliament election the "Barnett" formula already allows Scotland to sustain higher levels of per capita public spending relative to the rest of the UK, which is approximately equivalent to its disproportionately high annual contribution of tax revenues to the central UK Treasury from Oil production.
However, Scotland's per capita spending growth, relative to the rest of the UK, has in recent years, been reduced by the operation of the Barnett formula, in order to bring public spending levels into line with the UK average.
On the historical point made by the anonymous poster to your blog dated Jan 10th, 2012...regarding the Anti-English approach and the contribution of the Scots to the British Army. I am utterly disgusted at their lack of knowledge regarding this subject and it is a personal insult to my family, as many have served and suffered as a result!
The Scots have always served this country well and have always been fisrt to fight and last to stand. Whether it be at Sebastopole, as cannon fodder for Haig in the first world war or as the majority share of the BEF in the second world war then we have never backed down from a committment of engagement. This was proved many years before at Bannockburn, Stirling Bridge or in 1745.
It is the English who create this situation with this attitude of superiority and arrogance....the world does not belong to you anymore and niether does OUR oil!
It is this Scottish preoccupation for historical battles and oppression that frankly bores the English and everyone else to death. Look, we're really sorry that we beat you, we're sorry that you feel inferior and we're sorry that if it wasn't for our money you would be in a complete panshite.
DeleteHmm, I recognise most of your argument as being taken from Wikipedia - which you have carefully edited: particularly with regard to adding your own statement about where the oil fields fall. Here's the FULL and unedited paragraphs which in fact place more than half of the oil fields in Englands waters - also as Scotland is NOT a sovereign Nation, it doesn't actually have ANY claim to sovereignty over ANYTHING - arguably not even WITHIN your own borders. The actual untampered with piece you quoted from above: Given that Scotland is not a sovereign state, it has no effective maritime boundaries; and any claims Scotland may assert are subsumed as part of claims made by the United Kingdom. It could be argued that there is no definitive 'Scottish' sector of the North Sea in the same way there is a Norwegian sector or a Danish sector, or indeed a UK sector. However due to the existence of two separate legal systems in Great Britain — that of Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales, constitutional law in the United Kingdom has provided for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components.[5] The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction.[7][8] In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland.[9] This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits.[10][11]
DeleteRecent evidence by Kemp and Stephen (1999) has tried to estimate hypothetical Scottish shares of North Sea Oil revenue by dividing the UK sector of the North Sea into separate Scottish and UK sectors using the international principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - such a convention is used in defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and resolving international maritime disputes. The study by Kemp & Stephen showed that hypothesised Scottish shares of North Sea oil revenue over the period 1970 to 1999, varied to as high as 98%[12] dependent upon the price of oil and offset against taxable profits and the costs of exploration and development. However the application of the Convention (UNCLOS III) on baselines and the North Sea continental shelf case of 1969 is by no means cut and dried and by international convention maritime boundaries extend along the line of the land border. Looking at the Scottish English land border this heads north east from Berwick pointing towards Bergen in Norway rather than east towards Denmark as envisaged by many. A large proportion of the North Sea oil fields would under this scenario therefore belong to England not Scotland.
You seem to have copied a Wikipewdia entry to justify your argument - but you've edited it to suit yourself. Here for BALANCE is the actual article you have attempted to quote, but I have NOT tampered with it. It actually gives a quite different view to that which you post as to where the geographical line of ownership of those fields falls - neither Scotland NOR England owns much of a majority of them.....
DeleteThe Article: Given that Scotland is not a sovereign state, it has no effective maritime boundaries; and any claims Scotland may assert are subsumed as part of claims made by the United Kingdom. It could be argued that there is no definitive 'Scottish' sector of the North Sea in the same way there is a Norwegian sector or a Danish sector, or indeed a UK sector. However due to the existence of two separate legal systems in Great Britain — that of Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales, constitutional law in the United Kingdom has provided for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components.[5] The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction.[7][8] In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland.[9] This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits.[10][11]
Recent evidence by Kemp and Stephen (1999) has tried to estimate hypothetical Scottish shares of North Sea Oil revenue by dividing the UK sector of the North Sea into separate Scottish and UK sectors using the international principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - such a convention is used in defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and resolving international maritime disputes. The study by Kemp & Stephen showed that hypothesised Scottish shares of North Sea oil revenue over the period 1970 to 1999, varied to as high as 98%[12] dependent upon the price of oil and offset against taxable profits and the costs of exploration and development. However the application of the Convention (UNCLOS III) on baselines and the North Sea continental shelf case of 1969 is by no means cut and dried and by international convention maritime boundaries extend along the line of the land border. Looking at the Scottish English land border this heads north east from Berwick pointing towards Bergen in Norway rather than east towards Denmark as envisaged by many. A large proportion of the North Sea oil fields would under this scenario therefore belong to England not Scotland.
I looked up the Continental Shelf Act 1964 no where does it say Scottish waters. The problem with what the SNP want is it gives northern ireland no water. It litterally steals their waters. And how is UK meant to protect ireland?
Deletevisit us for oil related news and consultation
ReplyDeleteyou stole the oil, 200bn in 15 years give us the oil back and keep your taxes simples
ReplyDeleteThe Big question is are you looking for an answer based on the true maritime border or the fudged one from 1999? http://www.oilofscotland.org/Scotland_marine-border.jpg
ReplyDeleteThere will be no independence for Scotland (unfortunately), as it seems that too many Scots know where their bread is buttered.
ReplyDeleteIf the Scots really want independence they should be campaigning for the English to be included in the vote. They may then realise that most Englishmen would be glad to see the back of them.
And while you're at it don't forget that Norhtern Ireland is an historically Scottish problem you can take that with you too.