Salmond claims ‘proof of oil cash deceit’
Alex Salmond yesterday claimed there is now "proof positive of Westminster deceit" over Scotland's oil wealth.
The First Minister was speaking after documents released under the 30-year rule showed the thinking behind the decision of Jim Callaghan's Labour Cabinet to create a specific region called the UK Continental Shelf so that oil revenues would not accrue to Scotland.
Trade Secretary Edmund Dell wrote a briefing for the Cabinet on March 30, 1977, stating: "There was no agreed way of allocating the North Sea area to the indigenous regions, and the attempt to do so would inevitably distort the regional accounts.
"The great majority of the profit would accrue to Scotland, and would represent almost a doubling of the Scottish GDP, which in 1974 had been about £6.5bn."
Speaking after documents were made available by the National Archives of Scotland, Mr Salmond said: "These papers are proof positive of the statistical manipulation perpetrated by successive UK governments - Labour and Tory - to hide the extent of Scotland's oil wealth from the Scottish people for nakedly political reasons.
"As recent official figures show, an independent Scotland would move up the EU league table from 10th to 3rd in wealth per head, with our North Sea oil and gas resources included in Scotland's accounts. This is the reality that the London-based parties have been desperate to suppress for decades, but the truth is now out."
The First Minister said that with oil prices at a record high, and huge reserves remaining, we must "make sure that Scottish control and opportunity replace the Westminster chicanery of yesteryear".
He pointed to Norway's Oil Fund established a decade ago and now worth £177bn, securing the benefits of their oil wealth "virtually for ever".
Mr Salmond added: "If we are to enjoy the same benefits from our oil as Norway, then we must make our own future as an independent nation, and learn the lessons of Westminster's deceit."
He pointed out that Energy Minister Malcolm Wickes had admitted in October that Norway had done a better job of husbanding its oil revenues than Britain. "If you could replay history, the idea as in Norway of building up a national fund is actually quite an attractive one," Mr Wickes had been quoted as saying.
A briefing paper by the Scottish Government's chief economic adviser shows that fuelled by oil revenues the UK lies seventh in a table of 27 European nations for Gross Domestic Product per capita. If Scotland was allocated a share of either 75% or 90% of oil and gas revenues it would lie third on that list, behind Luxembourg and Ireland.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 12:08am Wed 2 Jan 08
Is anyone surprised by this - apart from generations of scots who have believed the downplaying & scaremongering put about by successive UK Governments..... [bold]It really is time.[/bold]
Is anyone surprised by this - apart from generations of scots who have believed the downplaying & scaremongering put about by successive UK Governments.....
It really is time. Posted by: Iain on 12:14am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this - apart from generations of scots who have believed the downplaying & scaremongering put about by successive UK Governments..... [bold]It really is time.[/bold] [/quote] Its time to scrap Edinburgh's status symbol tram and force an election NOW!. Then we can also see what dire straits the Scottish labour party is in. Roll on the referendum and roll on independence.
Wardog wrote:
Is anyone surprised by this - apart from generations of scots who have believed the downplaying & scaremongering put about by successive UK Governments..... It really is time.
Its time to scrap Edinburgh's status symbol tram and force an election NOW!. Then we can also see what dire straits the Scottish labour party is in. Roll on the referendum and roll on independence.
Posted by: Stevie, Bo'ness on 12:17am Wed 2 Jan 08
There is no political ideology which justifies lying blatantly to the Scottish people. Unionists- have you no shame?
There is no political ideology which justifies lying blatantly to the Scottish people. Unionists- have you no shame?
Posted by: David Alexander on 12:18am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote]Energy Minister Malcolm Wickes had admitted in October that Norway had done a better job of husbanding its oil revenues than Britain. "If you could replay history, the idea as in Norway of building up a national fund is actually quite an attractive one,"[/quote]
The skulduggery carried out by Westminster is truly shocking.
I just hope that my children get a chance to live in an independent Scotland.
Energy Minister Malcolm Wickes had admitted in October that Norway had done a better job of husbanding its oil revenues than Britain. "If you could replay history, the idea as in Norway of building up a national fund is actually quite an attractive one,"
The skulduggery carried out by Westminster is truly shocking.
I just hope that my children get a chance to live in an independent Scotland.
Posted by: doonhamer on 12:35am Wed 2 Jan 08
The unionists often complain when nationalists call those Westminster "lying thieves and charlatans". Now that our charges have been exposed and proven, what will the unionists do next?
Where is the ever present AM2? he oftens claims to be the a Scottish patriot despite his love of the union. Will he condemn this manipulation and theft or will he seek to absolve the criminal activities of successive Westminster governments?
The unionists often complain when nationalists call those Westminster "lying thieves and charlatans". Now that our charges have been exposed and proven, what will the unionists do next?
Where is the ever present AM2? he oftens claims to be the a Scottish patriot despite his love of the union. Will he condemn this manipulation and theft or will he seek to absolve the criminal activities of successive Westminster governments?
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 1:04am Wed 2 Jan 08
Two articles today carrying allegations and criticisms made by the SNP. Both headlines make it clear that these are SNP claims.
This particular article actually cites the proof underpinning the claim, therefore the headline should have omitted the 'Salmond Claims' words and simply read:
[bold]Proof of oil cash deceit by Westminster[/bold]
Note that this headline policy disappears when accusations are being levelled at the SNP, the accusation itself forms the headline as though it had substance.
Two articles today carrying allegations and criticisms made by the SNP. Both headlines make it clear that these are SNP claims.
This particular article actually cites the proof underpinning the claim, therefore the headline should have omitted the 'Salmond Claims' words and simply read:
Proof of oil cash deceit by Westminster
Note that this headline policy disappears when accusations are being levelled at the SNP, the accusation itself forms the headline as though it had substance.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:10am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote]There was no agreed way of allocating the North Sea area to the indigenous regions...[/quote]
This isn't news. So it was reckoned separately. It still is. Where's the deceit?
There was no agreed way of allocating the North Sea area to the indigenous regions...
This isn't news. So it was reckoned separately. It still is. Where's the deceit?
Posted by: Iain Miller, Saltcoats on 1:15am Wed 2 Jan 08
How thoroughly unsurprising that our long felt suspicions have been borne out in the evidence! The time has truly come for this proud and capable nation to cast off the fiscal shackles of a tired and ropey union and stand on our own two feet. It is mind blowing what Scotland could have achieved if we had had control from the start, however the time for change has come. We have a government now which has pledged to operate in the [bold]scottish national interest[/bold] - a pledge never made before by [bold]any[/bold] of the unionist parties even after devolution.
Ironically we are reminded today of the telling silence which has affected the mouth of Wendy Alexander over recent weeks, well come on Wendy, lets hear your defence of the union after this one! The Scottish people deserve better than any of your unionist parcel o' rogues will ever offer!
Thank goodness for papers like the Herald who's stalwart journalism has cut through the obfuscation and blatant lies peddled particularly by the Labour party over recent years.
How thoroughly unsurprising that our long felt suspicions have been borne out in the evidence! The time has truly come for this proud and capable nation to cast off the fiscal shackles of a tired and ropey union and stand on our own two feet. It is mind blowing what Scotland could have achieved if we had had control from the start, however the time for change has come. We have a government now which has pledged to operate in the
scottish national interest - a pledge never made before by
any of the unionist parties even after devolution.
Ironically we are reminded today of the telling silence which has affected the mouth of Wendy Alexander over recent weeks, well come on Wendy, lets hear your defence of the union after this one! The Scottish people deserve better than any of your unionist parcel o' rogues will ever offer!
Thank goodness for papers like the Herald who's stalwart journalism has cut through the obfuscation and blatant lies peddled particularly by the Labour party over recent years.
Posted by: Diogenes of Sinope, John Smith House on 1:17am Wed 2 Jan 08
For those who missed it, this story was covered more fully in the article by Tom Gordon (p8), 30th Jan 'Scottish' edition of The Sunday Times - "Callaghan hid oil wealth from Scots". It explains deception devised by Westminster in support of the Union. As with the McCrone report, the article reports further archives released under the 30-year rule detailing deception by the 1970s UK government, in order to hide the true wealth from Scotland's oil. This went unreported by broadcasters in Scotland and by the indigenous press in Scotland.
Here are just a few quotes from the article:
“In essence, the proposal is that offshore profits should be allocated to a new region specially created for the purpose rather than being associated with the existing contiguous regions.”
"The government documents, released by the National Archives of Scotland, show that the economic region was created in 1977 to prevent Scotland’s gross domestic product (GDP) almost doubling overnight, fuelling support for independence.”
“The great majority of the profit would accrue to Scotland, and would represent almost a doubling of the Scottish GDP, which in 1974 had been about £6.5 billion.”
“Callaghan approved the proposal, but insisted it be announced in a low-key press release timed to minimise plans for a devolution referendum and the establishment of a Scottish assembly.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
Observations for those who may not know better already:
1) Do not hold your breath to hear condemnation of this deceit from supporters of the Union.
2) Do not think deception like this in support of the Union stopped 30 years ago, does not happen now, and archives in 30 years time will not reveal further deviation from facts and truth.
3) Do not think under-reporting of this deception, by broadcasters in Scotland and by the indigenous press in Scotland, is anything but a partisan disregard for democracy in Scotland and the interests of people in Scotland to be informed on the merits of Independence.
4) Do not think it possible to trust those taking positions in support of the Union, when evidence shows deliberate and intentional deviation from facts and truth such as this in order to sustain and promote the Union cause.
For those who missed it, this story was covered more fully in the article by Tom Gordon (p8), 30th Jan 'Scottish' edition of The Sunday Times - "Callaghan hid oil wealth from Scots". It explains deception devised by Westminster in support of the Union. As with the McCrone report, the article reports further archives released under the 30-year rule detailing deception by the 1970s UK government, in order to hide the true wealth from Scotland's oil. This went unreported by broadcasters in Scotland and by the indigenous press in Scotland.
Here are just a few quotes from the article:
“In essence, the proposal is that offshore profits should be allocated to a new region specially created for the purpose rather than being associated with the existing contiguous regions.”
"The government documents, released by the National Archives of Scotland, show that the economic region was created in 1977 to prevent Scotland’s gross domestic product (GDP) almost doubling overnight, fuelling support for independence.”
“The great majority of the profit would accrue to Scotland, and would represent almost a doubling of the Scottish GDP, which in 1974 had been about £6.5 billion.”
“Callaghan approved the proposal, but insisted it be announced in a low-key press release timed to minimise plans for a devolution referendum and the establishment of a Scottish assembly.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
Observations for those who may not know better already:
1) Do not hold your breath to hear condemnation of this deceit from supporters of the Union.
2) Do not think deception like this in support of the Union stopped 30 years ago, does not happen now, and archives in 30 years time will not reveal further deviation from facts and truth.
3) Do not think under-reporting of this deception, by broadcasters in Scotland and by the indigenous press in Scotland, is anything but a partisan disregard for democracy in Scotland and the interests of people in Scotland to be informed on the merits of Independence.
4) Do not think it possible to trust those taking positions in support of the Union, when evidence shows deliberate and intentional deviation from facts and truth such as this in order to sustain and promote the Union cause.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:21am Wed 2 Jan 08
Diogenes of Sinope @ 1:17pm
I see politicking, but no deceit. Where's the smoking gun?
Diogenes of Sinope @ 1:17pm
I see politicking, but no deceit. Where's the smoking gun?
Posted by: Wallace 703 on 1:23am Wed 2 Jan 08
a people decieved
fool me once shame on you
fool me twice shame on you
a people decieved
fool me once shame on you
fool me twice shame on you
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 1:23am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote]The great majority of the profit would accrue to Scotland, and would represent almost a doubling of the Scottish GDP. ....................
............... the thinking behind the decision of Jim Callaghan's Labour Cabinet to create a specific region called the UK Continental Shelf so that oil revenues would not accrue to Scotland. [/quote]
Just in case there are some unfortunate souls who are finding it difficult to work out the nature of the deceit.
The great majority of the profit would accrue to Scotland, and would represent almost a doubling of the Scottish GDP. ....................
............... the thinking behind the decision of Jim Callaghan's Labour Cabinet to create a specific region called the UK Continental Shelf so that oil revenues would not accrue to Scotland.
Just in case there are some unfortunate souls who are finding it difficult to work out the nature of the deceit.
Posted by: Malachi Malagrowther on 1:24am Wed 2 Jan 08
My God, AM2.
I'll say one thing for you - you've got a hide.
My God, AM2.
I'll say one thing for you - you've got a hide.
Posted by: wallace 703 on 1:24am Wed 2 Jan 08
shame on me that should be ;-)
shame on me that should be ;-)
Posted by: doonhamer on 1:26am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
[quote]There was no agreed way of allocating the North Sea area to the indigenous regions...[/quote] This isn't news. So it was reckoned separately. It still is. Where's the deceit?[/quote] So, Laddie, you have chosen to alibi the action rather than hold the past fovernments to account. As usual, you ommitted the entire quote as you picked out only those words that supported your position.
So let us look at the entire quotation.
[quote]Trade Secretary Edmund Dell wrote a briefing for the Cabinet on March 30, 1977, stating: "There was no agreed way of allocating the North Sea area to the indigenous regions, and the attempt to do so would inevitably distort the regional accounts.
"The great majority of the profit would accrue to Scotland, and would represent almost a doubling of the Scottish GDP, which in 1974 had been about £6.5bn.[/quote]
The part you intentionally left out was the confirmation that allocating the oil to Scotland ( the process used for all other resources and areas prior to this Labour decision) would raise Scottish GDP at the expense of the UK GDP.
The obvious result of this was that instead of allocating the Oil revenues to Scotland, it was allocated to the UK through a fabricated regulatory designation. Thus Scotland received less than 10% of the allocation she would have been entitled to if no actions were taken to change the designation.
Monies that could have used to build infrastructure, reinvest in new economic initiatives to replace the industries lost, provide better education, health, policing, environmental protection and provide funds for future growth and opportunities were instead spent on London's priorities including foreign wars.
If you steal from a bank, or from a neighbour it is called THEFT. When you steal from a country, it is called POLICY.
You asked , ;" where's the deceit?
The deceit is stealing the wealth of Scotland and then hiding the fact for 30 years. All the while telling Scotland lie after lie.
Let me ask you, AM2, where's your integrity?
AM2 wrote:
There was no agreed way of allocating the North Sea area to the indigenous regions...
This isn't news. So it was reckoned separately. It still is. Where's the deceit?
So, Laddie, you have chosen to alibi the action rather than hold the past fovernments to account. As usual, you ommitted the entire quote as you picked out only those words that supported your position.
So let us look at the entire quotation.
Trade Secretary Edmund Dell wrote a briefing for the Cabinet on March 30, 1977, stating: "There was no agreed way of allocating the North Sea area to the indigenous regions, and the attempt to do so would inevitably distort the regional accounts.
"The great majority of the profit would accrue to Scotland, and would represent almost a doubling of the Scottish GDP, which in 1974 had been about £6.5bn.
The part you intentionally left out was the confirmation that allocating the oil to Scotland ( the process used for all other resources and areas prior to this Labour decision) would raise Scottish GDP at the expense of the UK GDP.
The obvious result of this was that instead of allocating the Oil revenues to Scotland, it was allocated to the UK through a fabricated regulatory designation. Thus Scotland received less than 10% of the allocation she would have been entitled to if no actions were taken to change the designation.
Monies that could have used to build infrastructure, reinvest in new economic initiatives to replace the industries lost, provide better education, health, policing, environmental protection and provide funds for future growth and opportunities were instead spent on London's priorities including foreign wars.
If you steal from a bank, or from a neighbour it is called THEFT. When you steal from a country, it is called POLICY.
You asked , ;" where's the deceit?
The deceit is stealing the wealth of Scotland and then hiding the fact for 30 years. All the while telling Scotland lie after lie.
Let me ask you, AM2, where's your integrity?
Posted by: Tired of excuses, Galashiels on 1:28am Wed 2 Jan 08
So, a deliberate and calculated plan to stop Scotland from getting the money it should have accrued.
I remember when it happened, it was a disgrace back then and it is a disgrace today.
All this twaddle spouted by unionists about subsidising Scotland is shown for the pack of lies it always was.
So, a deliberate and calculated plan to stop Scotland from getting the money it should have accrued.
I remember when it happened, it was a disgrace back then and it is a disgrace today.
All this twaddle spouted by unionists about subsidising Scotland is shown for the pack of lies it always was.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:30am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer
Oil and gas revenues have always been accounted for within an extra-regio territory. The revenues derived are a matter of public record. The proximity of most of the oilfields to Scotland is well-known.
So I ask again: where is the deceit?
Doonhamer
Oil and gas revenues have always been accounted for within an extra-regio territory. The revenues derived are a matter of public record. The proximity of most of the oilfields to Scotland is well-known.
So I ask again: where is the deceit?
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 1:30am Wed 2 Jan 08
Well, two posts from the fanatic named AM2 again reinforce my opinions of him.
Despite the clear evidence he simply denies that the deceit occurred, therefore debate is impossible.
Good night all.
Well, two posts from the fanatic named AM2 again reinforce my opinions of him.
Despite the clear evidence he simply denies that the deceit occurred, therefore debate is impossible.
Good night all.
Posted by: Diogenes of Sinope, John Smith House on 1:32am Wed 2 Jan 08
AM2, Glasgow on 1:21am
[quote]
I see politicking, but no deceit. Where's the smoking gun?[/quote]
I think you just demonstrated my observation number (1), I'll leave others to judge whether you've made a clean sweep of (2), (3) and (4) - for what it's worth I think you're in with a good chance.
AM2, Glasgow on 1:21am
I see politicking, but no deceit. Where's the smoking gun?
I think you just demonstrated my observation number (1), I'll leave others to judge whether you've made a clean sweep of (2), (3) and (4) - for what it's worth I think you're in with a good chance.
Posted by: nouveauxscum on 1:32am Wed 2 Jan 08
Hiding the truth from the Scottish people for 30 years - that's deceit.
Hiding the truth from the Scottish people for 30 years - that's deceit.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:32am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer
Re your phrase "stealing the wealth of Scotland"
Stealing?! So do we steal the wealth generated in other parts of the UK?
Doonhamer
Re your phrase "stealing the wealth of Scotland"
Stealing?! So do we steal the wealth generated in other parts of the UK?
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:34am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote]Hiding the truth from the Scottish people for 30 years - that's deceit.[/quote]
You're claiming that something was hidden. What exactly was it?
Hiding the truth from the Scottish people for 30 years - that's deceit.
You're claiming that something was hidden. What exactly was it?
Posted by: doonhamer on 1:35am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Doonhamer Oil and gas revenues have always been accounted for within an extra-regio territory. The revenues derived are a matter of public record. The proximity of most of the oilfields to Scotland is well-known. So I ask again: where is the deceit?[/quote] There are none so blind as they wil not see.
Prior to the discovery of oil and gas there was no accounting at all. All other natural resources accrued to their nearest contiguous region. Once oil and gas was discovered and the potential windfall was imminent, Westminster formed the extra-regio territory policy to justify not accruing oil and gas revenues to Scotland. THIS IS NOW A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
Your pathetic attempt to distort the facts is as dishonourable as the actions of Westminster itself.
AM2 wrote:
Doonhamer Oil and gas revenues have always been accounted for within an extra-regio territory. The revenues derived are a matter of public record. The proximity of most of the oilfields to Scotland is well-known. So I ask again: where is the deceit?
There are none so blind as they wil not see.
Prior to the discovery of oil and gas there was no accounting at all. All other natural resources accrued to their nearest contiguous region. Once oil and gas was discovered and the potential windfall was imminent, Westminster formed the extra-regio territory policy to justify not accruing oil and gas revenues to Scotland. THIS IS NOW A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
Your pathetic attempt to distort the facts is as dishonourable as the actions of Westminster itself.
Posted by: Calllaghan, Whitehall on 1:35am Wed 2 Jan 08
The reasons stupid!
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:36am Wed 2 Jan 08
George Alexander
Neither this article nor the snippets of Sunday Times article prove any deceit.
I don't see any proof of Alex Salmond's claim. Can you provide it?
George Alexander
Neither this article nor the snippets of Sunday Times article prove any deceit.
I don't see any proof of Alex Salmond's claim. Can you provide it?
Posted by: nouveauxscum on 1:37am Wed 2 Jan 08
I know you are in a panic but surely you can still read. The truth of Scotland's wealth was hidden for 30 years. TRUTH - gettin' it yet?
I know you are in a panic but surely you can still read. The truth of Scotland's wealth was hidden for 30 years. TRUTH - gettin' it yet?
Posted by: Celtic Lion, Roar on 1:38am Wed 2 Jan 08
Oh come on AM2, you've gone from bad to terrible over the past few months and you're not doing yourself any favours. At least I used to respect you for being capable of putting forward a reasonable argument, usually without having to resort to your spreadsheets. I voted SNP but at least I have the balls to criticise them when I feel it's justified and in Scotland's interest. Your arguments here show a lack of integrity, stupidity, or both.
Oh come on AM2, you've gone from bad to terrible over the past few months and you're not doing yourself any favours. At least I used to respect you for being capable of putting forward a reasonable argument, usually without having to resort to your spreadsheets. I voted SNP but at least I have the balls to criticise them when I feel it's justified and in Scotland's interest. Your arguments here show a lack of integrity, stupidity, or both.
Posted by: doonhamer on 1:38am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Doonhamer Re your phrase "stealing the wealth of Scotland" Stealing?! So do we steal the wealth generated in other parts of the UK?[/quote] No, other natural resources and revenues are allocated to their appropriate regions. Only OIL AND GAS REVENUES are included in a fabricated extra-regio territory.
UNDERSTAND???
AM2 wrote:
Doonhamer Re your phrase "stealing the wealth of Scotland" Stealing?! So do we steal the wealth generated in other parts of the UK?
No, other natural resources and revenues are allocated to their appropriate regions. Only OIL AND GAS REVENUES are included in a fabricated extra-regio territory.
UNDERSTAND???
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:40am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer @ 1:35pm
Nearest contiguous region? Can you provide evidence of any direct analogy?
Doonhamer @ 1:35pm
Nearest contiguous region? Can you provide evidence of any direct analogy?
Posted by: doonhamer on 1:41am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Hiding the truth from the Scottish people for 30 years - that's deceit.[/quote] You're claiming that something was hidden. What exactly was it?[/quote] I know you are not stupid so you must obviously be acting thick to deflect the debate.
Not a chance on this one, Laddie.
AM2 wrote:
Hiding the truth from the Scottish people for 30 years - that's deceit.
You're claiming that something was hidden. What exactly was it?
I know you are not stupid so you must obviously be acting thick to deflect the debate.
Not a chance on this one, Laddie.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:41am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer @ 1:38pm
To what other natural resources are you referring? Fish?
Doonhamer @ 1:38pm
To what other natural resources are you referring? Fish?
Posted by: Diogenes of Sinope, John Smith House on 1:41am Wed 2 Jan 08
AM2, Glasgow on 1:30am
[quote]Oil and gas revenues have always been accounted for within an extra-regio territory.[/quote]
Surely, you meant to say:
[italic]Oil and gas revenues have always been accounted for within an [bold]expropriation territory[/bold] [/italic]
And was it not always thus with the Union? - this isn't news.
AM2, Glasgow on 1:30am
Oil and gas revenues have always been accounted for within an extra-regio territory.
Surely, you meant to say:
Oil and gas revenues have always been accounted for within an expropriation territory
And was it not always thus with the Union? - this isn't news.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:42am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer @ 1:41pm
Really? So why not just answer the question. What was hidden?
Doonhamer @ 1:41pm
Really? So why not just answer the question. What was hidden?
Posted by: Glaswegian, Glasgow on 1:42am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Diogenes of Sinope @ 1:17pm I see politicking, but no deceit. Where's the smoking gun?[/quote] AM2 makes a valid point. If a thief takes your wallet from under your nose, it's hardly deceitful. Crooked and dishonourable - obviously - but not deceitful. AM2 uses the word "politicking", but I'm sure he or she would agree it amounts to the same thing.
AM2 wrote:
Diogenes of Sinope @ 1:17pm I see politicking, but no deceit. Where's the smoking gun?
AM2 makes a valid point. If a thief takes your wallet from under your nose, it's hardly deceitful. Crooked and dishonourable - obviously - but not deceitful. AM2 uses the word "politicking", but I'm sure he or she would agree it amounts to the same thing.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:45am Wed 2 Jan 08
Why can't I get any answers?
1) If the UK "steals Scottish oil", do we steal wealth generated in other parts of the UK?
2) What exactly are you claiming has been "hidden for 30 years"?
3) Where was the deceit?
Why can't I get any answers?
1) If the UK "steals Scottish oil", do we steal wealth generated in other parts of the UK?
2) What exactly are you claiming has been "hidden for 30 years"?
3) Where was the deceit?
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:48am Wed 2 Jan 08
The use of extra-regio territory is a fairly standard practice.
Here's the EU's explanation of it: tinyurl.com/2nwpoj
[quote]The extra-regio territory is made up of parts of the national economic territory which cannot be attached directly to a single region that is part of the national geographic territory. It consists of:
a. the national air -space, territorial waters and the continental shelf lying in international waters over which the country enjoys exclusive rights (not relevant for the regional household accounts);
b. territorial enclaves (i.e., geographic territories situated in the rest of the world and used, under international treaties of agreements between States, by general government agencies of the country (embassy, consulates, military bases, scientific bases, etc.));
c. deposits of oil, natural gas, etc. in international waters outside the continental shelf of the country, worked by units resident in the territory (not relevant for the regional household accounts).[/quote]
The use of extra-regio territory is a fairly standard practice.
Here's the EU's explanation of it: tinyurl.com/2nwpoj
The extra-regio territory is made up of parts of the national economic territory which cannot be attached directly to a single region that is part of the national geographic territory. It consists of:
a. the national air -space, territorial waters and the continental shelf lying in international waters over which the country enjoys exclusive rights (not relevant for the regional household accounts);
b. territorial enclaves (i.e., geographic territories situated in the rest of the world and used, under international treaties of agreements between States, by general government agencies of the country (embassy, consulates, military bases, scientific bases, etc.));
c. deposits of oil, natural gas, etc. in international waters outside the continental shelf of the country, worked by units resident in the territory (not relevant for the regional household accounts).
Posted by: stonehaven on 1:51am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Celtic Lion[/bold] wrote:
Oh come on AM2, you've gone from bad to terrible over the past few months and you're not doing yourself any favours. At least I used to respect you for being capable of putting forward a reasonable argument, usually without having to resort to your spreadsheets. I voted SNP but at least I have the balls to criticise them when I feel it's justified and in Scotland's interest. Your arguments here show a lack of integrity, stupidity, or both.[/quote] I never respected his arguments. Cut and paste is easy. I hate the way AM2 goes quiet when he has lost an argument. I have witnessed that on many occasions.
Celtic Lion wrote:
Oh come on AM2, you've gone from bad to terrible over the past few months and you're not doing yourself any favours. At least I used to respect you for being capable of putting forward a reasonable argument, usually without having to resort to your spreadsheets. I voted SNP but at least I have the balls to criticise them when I feel it's justified and in Scotland's interest. Your arguments here show a lack of integrity, stupidity, or both.
I never respected his arguments. Cut and paste is easy. I hate the way AM2 goes quiet when he has lost an argument. I have witnessed that on many occasions.
Posted by: nouveaxscum on 1:51am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Why can't I get any answers? 1) If the UK "steals Scottish oil", do we steal wealth generated in other parts of the UK? 2) What exactly are you claiming has been "hidden for 30 years"? 3) Where was the deceit?[/quote] 1. Who are you quoting when you say "steals Scottish oil"?
2. I did answer - THE TRUTH about Scotland's wealth. McCrone report, it was hidden wasn't it?
3. See no. 2
AM2 wrote:
Why can't I get any answers? 1) If the UK "steals Scottish oil", do we steal wealth generated in other parts of the UK? 2) What exactly are you claiming has been "hidden for 30 years"? 3) Where was the deceit?
1. Who are you quoting when you say "steals Scottish oil"?
2. I did answer - THE TRUTH about Scotland's wealth. McCrone report, it was hidden wasn't it?
3. See no. 2
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:52am Wed 2 Jan 08
Celtic Lion @ 1:38am
No, my argument here reflects a concern for the truth.
I certainly see evidence of news management / spin / politicking / call it what you will in the 1977 papers, but I see no evidence of deceit.
All I'm asking for is a factual proof of the deceit Mr Salmond claims.
So far, nothing.
Celtic Lion @ 1:38am
No, my argument here reflects a concern for the truth.
I certainly see evidence of news management / spin / politicking / call it what you will in the 1977 papers, but I see no evidence of deceit.
All I'm asking for is a factual proof of the deceit Mr Salmond claims.
So far, nothing.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:55am Wed 2 Jan 08
nouveauxscum @ 1:51am
1) I'm not quoting anyone. It's in quote marks to show I don't accept the premise.
2) I'm not asking about McCrone. Salmond's claim was based on these newly released documents. All I see is a disconnect between what we've been told they say and what he claims they say.
3) See 2.
nouveauxscum @ 1:51am
1) I'm not quoting anyone. It's in quote marks to show I don't accept the premise.
2) I'm not asking about McCrone. Salmond's claim was based on these newly released documents. All I see is a disconnect between what we've been told they say and what he claims they say.
3) See 2.
Posted by: stonehaven on 1:56am Wed 2 Jan 08
AM2 The McCrone report was suppressed to hide the truth from the Scottish people. To me that amounts to lies and deceit. You really cannot sustain your argument with any credibility.
AM2 The McCrone report was suppressed to hide the truth from the Scottish people. To me that amounts to lies and deceit. You really cannot sustain your argument with any credibility.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 1:56am Wed 2 Jan 08
Stonehaven @ 1:51am
I'll be going quiet soon because it's late and I'm not getting any sensible answers.
Interpret that as me having "lost" if you wish. No skin off my nose!
Stonehaven @ 1:51am
I'll be going quiet soon because it's late and I'm not getting any sensible answers.
Interpret that as me having "lost" if you wish. No skin off my nose!
Posted by: Bruce, Glasgow on 1:57am Wed 2 Jan 08
AM2 1.48am
But surely by that definition you've proven deceit, the waters/ continetnal shelf off scotlands' coast [bold]CAN[/bold] be attached directly to single region, [bold]SCOTLAND[/bold]
So to create 'extra-regio territory' was anything but standard practice.
AM2 1.48am
But surely by that definition you've proven deceit, the waters/ continetnal shelf off scotlands' coast
CAN be attached directly to single region,
SCOTLAND
So to create 'extra-regio territory' was anything but standard practice.
Posted by: Diogenes of Sinope, John Smith House on 1:57am Wed 2 Jan 08
AM2, Glasgow on 1:36am
[quote]Neither this article nor the snippets of Sunday Times article prove any deceit.
I don't see any proof of Alex Salmond's claim. Can you provide it?[/quote]
OK – more quotes from Tom Gordon’s article in the ST:
One civil servant told colleagues, “As a layman, I find this concept rather odd, although its political advantages in the context of ‘Scottish Oil’ are rather obvious”.
Another described the new region as “a rather neat way out of a rather thorny problem”.
It seems the civil servants sptted something you claim not to see?
AM2, Glasgow on 1:36am
Neither this article nor the snippets of Sunday Times article prove any deceit.
I don't see any proof of Alex Salmond's claim. Can you provide it?
OK – more quotes from Tom Gordon’s article in the ST:
One civil servant told colleagues, “As a layman, I find this concept rather odd, although its political advantages in the context of ‘Scottish Oil’ are rather obvious”.
Another described the new region as “a rather neat way out of a rather thorny problem”.
It seems the civil servants sptted something you claim not to see?
Posted by: Bruce, Glasgow on 1:59am Wed 2 Jan 08
I'll freelt admit I don't have an answer for this, maybe someone out there does but do offshore windfarms come under an 'extra-regio territory' - if so Scotland better get ready for another 30 years of it....
I'll freelt admit I don't have an answer for this, maybe someone out there does but do offshore windfarms come under an 'extra-regio territory' - if so Scotland better get ready for another 30 years of it....
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:00am Wed 2 Jan 08
Stonehaven @ 1:56pm
Governments are under no obligation to publish internal research. Gavin McCrone's report was only internal research. Your claim that it was "suppressed" is just your claim.
But this isn't a thread about McCrone. I want firm proof that Salmond's claims aren't spurious.
Stonehaven @ 1:56pm
Governments are under no obligation to publish internal research. Gavin McCrone's report was only internal research. Your claim that it was "suppressed" is just your claim.
But this isn't a thread about McCrone. I want firm proof that Salmond's claims aren't spurious.
Posted by: nouveauscum on 2:02am Wed 2 Jan 08
AM2
1. Then just one either side of the statement is appropriate, otherwise you leave yourself open being made a fool of.
2. It's all based on the McCrone report though, new documents are simply addendums to the original deceit (hidden for 30 years to you).
3. Not asking about McCrone? My goodness, whyever not?
AM2
1. Then just one either side of the statement is appropriate, otherwise you leave yourself open being made a fool of.
2. It's all based on the McCrone report though, new documents are simply addendums to the original deceit (hidden for 30 years to you).
3. Not asking about McCrone? My goodness, whyever not?
Posted by: doonhamer on 2:03am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
The use of extra-regio territory is a fairly standard practice. Here's the EU's explanation of it: tinyurl.com/2nwpoj [quote]The extra-regio territory is made up of parts of the national economic territory which cannot be attached directly to a single region that is part of the national geographic territory. It consists of: a. the national air -space, territorial waters and the continental shelf lying in international waters over which the country enjoys exclusive rights (not relevant for the regional household accounts); b. territorial enclaves (i.e., geographic territories situated in the rest of the world and used, under international treaties of agreements between States, by general government agencies of the country (embassy, consulates, military bases, scientific bases, etc.)); c. deposits of oil, natural gas, etc. in international waters outside the continental shelf of the country, worked by units resident in the territory (not relevant for the regional household accounts).[/quote][/quote] Thank you for confirming the fabrication of Westminster on the creation of an extra-regio territory policy which not only reallocates oil and gas revenues due to Scotland to Westminster but does so in TOTAL CONTRADICTION to the description you provided from the EU.
part c of the EU directive states,
[quote]deposits of oil, natural gas, etc. in international waters outside the continental shelf of the country, worked by units resident in the territory (not relevant for the regional household accounts)[/quote]
[bold]The fabricated extra-region territory policy does NOT meet EU directives as the deposits of oil, natural gas,etc are NOT in international waters outside of the continental shelf of the country of Scotland, but they are worked by units resident in the Scottish regional territory and therefore should be entirely relevant for regional household accounts.[/bold]
Game, set and match.
AM2 wrote:
The use of extra-regio territory is a fairly standard practice. Here's the EU's explanation of it: tinyurl.com/2nwpoj The extra-regio territory is made up of parts of the national economic territory which cannot be attached directly to a single region that is part of the national geographic territory. It consists of: a. the national air -space, territorial waters and the continental shelf lying in international waters over which the country enjoys exclusive rights (not relevant for the regional household accounts); b. territorial enclaves (i.e., geographic territories situated in the rest of the world and used, under international treaties of agreements between States, by general government agencies of the country (embassy, consulates, military bases, scientific bases, etc.)); c. deposits of oil, natural gas, etc. in international waters outside the continental shelf of the country, worked by units resident in the territory (not relevant for the regional household accounts).
Thank you for confirming the fabrication of Westminster on the creation of an extra-regio territory policy which not only reallocates oil and gas revenues due to Scotland to Westminster but does so in TOTAL CONTRADICTION to the description you provided from the EU.
part c of the EU directive states,
deposits of oil, natural gas, etc. in international waters outside the continental shelf of the country, worked by units resident in the territory (not relevant for the regional household accounts)
The fabricated extra-region territory policy does NOT meet EU directives as the deposits of oil, natural gas,etc are NOT in international waters outside of the continental shelf of the country of Scotland, but they are worked by units resident in the Scottish regional territory and therefore should be entirely relevant for regional household accounts.
Game, set and match.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:05am Wed 2 Jan 08
Diogenes of Sinope @ 1:57pm
Oil revenues aren't hidden. Here's a PDF file going back to 1968-69:
tinyurl.com/26m2aj
Do I have to ask yet again? What do you think is being hidden?
Do you think your current account statements are ripping you off because they don't tell you your savings account balance? What's hard to understand about assets being reckoned separately? That's all the extra-regio territory is.
Diogenes of Sinope @ 1:57pm
Oil revenues aren't hidden. Here's a PDF file going back to 1968-69:
tinyurl.com/26m2aj
Do I have to ask yet again? What do you think is being hidden?
Do you think your current account statements are ripping you off because they don't tell you your savings account balance? What's hard to understand about assets being reckoned separately? That's all the extra-regio territory is.
Posted by: doonhamer on 2:05am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Glaswegian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote: Diogenes of Sinope @ 1:17pm I see politicking, but no deceit. Where's the smoking gun?[/quote] AM2 makes a valid point. If a thief takes your wallet from under your nose, it's hardly deceitful. Crooked and dishonourable - obviously - but not deceitful. AM2 uses the word "politicking", but I'm sure he or she would agree it amounts to the same thing.[/quote] They didn't steal our wallet under our noses, they stole and then claimed it wasn't our wallet in the first place. This is both theft and deceit. The only politicking here is being done by those trying to alibi the actions.
Glaswegian wrote:
AM2 wrote: Diogenes of Sinope @ 1:17pm I see politicking, but no deceit. Where's the smoking gun?
AM2 makes a valid point. If a thief takes your wallet from under your nose, it's hardly deceitful. Crooked and dishonourable - obviously - but not deceitful. AM2 uses the word "politicking", but I'm sure he or she would agree it amounts to the same thing.
They didn't steal our wallet under our noses, they stole and then claimed it wasn't our wallet in the first place. This is both theft and deceit. The only politicking here is being done by those trying to alibi the actions.
Posted by: Murphy's, Ireland on 2:06am Wed 2 Jan 08
Like the Murphy's, AM2 isn't bitter....... can anyone else hear that loud muttering....
Like the Murphy's, AM2 isn't bitter....... can anyone else hear that loud muttering....
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:08am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer @ 2:03am
Game, set and match? In your dreams!
What "Scottish regional territory"? There was no such territory until devolution. The Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 doesn't set any kind of legal boundary between Scotland and England. It delineated areas only for purposes of applying either English or Scots Law at sea.
Doonhamer @ 2:03am
Game, set and match? In your dreams!
What "Scottish regional territory"? There was no such territory until devolution. The Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 doesn't set any kind of legal boundary between Scotland and England. It delineated areas only for purposes of applying either English or Scots Law at sea.
Posted by: doonhamer on 2:09am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Stonehaven @ 1:51am I'll be going quiet soon because it's late and I'm not getting any sensible answers. Interpret that as me having "lost" if you wish. No skin off my nose![/quote] You are getting sensible answers but in your twisted world only those who are in agreement with you are deemed to be "sensible" enough.
You can claim your loss as our interpretation if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that your argument is both indefensible and lost.
AM2 wrote:
Stonehaven @ 1:51am I'll be going quiet soon because it's late and I'm not getting any sensible answers. Interpret that as me having "lost" if you wish. No skin off my nose!
You are getting sensible answers but in your twisted world only those who are in agreement with you are deemed to be "sensible" enough.
You can claim your loss as our interpretation if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that your argument is both indefensible and lost.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:09am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer @ 2:05am
If you take as axiomatic that the UK government "steals" oil then all your conclusions are to my mind suspect.
Doonhamer @ 2:05am
If you take as axiomatic that the UK government "steals" oil then all your conclusions are to my mind suspect.
Posted by: Bruce, Glasgow on 2:10am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote]The Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 doesn't set any kind of legal boundary between Scotland and England. It delineated areas only for purposes of applying either English or Scots Law at sea[/quote]
[bold]A non legal boundary for applying laws?[/bold]
[italic]Sounds like a territory to me[/italic]
The Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 doesn't set any kind of legal boundary between Scotland and England. It delineated areas only for purposes of applying either English or Scots Law at sea
A non legal boundary for applying laws?
Sounds like a territory to me Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:11am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer @ 2:09am
So, that's it, eh? You fail to provide any proof whatsoever that Salmond's claims hold water, but declare yourself the winner and my argument "both indefensible and lost".
You people really are quite incredibly fanatical.
Doonhamer @ 2:09am
So, that's it, eh? You fail to provide any proof whatsoever that Salmond's claims hold water, but declare yourself the winner and my argument "both indefensible and lost".
You people really are quite incredibly fanatical.
Posted by: richard, West Lothian on 2:12am Wed 2 Jan 08
AM2, Glasgow
Obfuscate all you want UNIONIST, Scotland will gain exclusive control and benefit of her natural resources soon enough.
AM2, Glasgow
Obfuscate all you want UNIONIST, Scotland will gain exclusive control and benefit of her natural resources soon enough.
Posted by: Bruce, Glasgow on 2:13am Wed 2 Jan 08
AM2 - You provided your own proof with your EU cut n paste
AM2 - You provided your own proof with your EU cut n paste
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:13am Wed 2 Jan 08
Bruce
Read it for yourself.
Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 (No. 892 - 7 June 1968)
tinyurl.com/6o9kf
Bruce
Read it for yourself.
Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 (No. 892 - 7 June 1968)
tinyurl.com/6o9kf
Posted by: nouveauscum on 2:14am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Doonhamer @ 2:05am If you take as axiomatic that the UK government "steals" oil then all your conclusions are to my mind suspect.[/quote] Oh for goodness sake, how many times? Just one either side 'please' if it's not a quote.
I love it when you post on here Dave, it's a sure sign that your sphincter is clapping out a thunderous beat.
Happy new year. lol
AM2 wrote:
Doonhamer @ 2:05am If you take as axiomatic that the UK government "steals" oil then all your conclusions are to my mind suspect.
Oh for goodness sake, how many times? Just one either side 'please' if it's not a quote.
I love it when you post on here Dave, it's a sure sign that your sphincter is clapping out a thunderous beat.
Happy new year. lol
Posted by: Diogenes of Sinope, John Smith House on 2:14am Wed 2 Jan 08
AM2, Glasgow on 2:05am
You are a card AM2 - if some of my income or assets were ascribed to an account that is not acknowledged as mine, such as my neighbour or some other legal entity, and I was then told that these were not mine - do you really and honestly think I have not been deceived? Cubs honour now?
AM2, Glasgow on 2:05am
You are a card AM2 - if some of my income or assets were ascribed to an account that is not acknowledged as mine, such as my neighbour or some other legal entity, and I was then told that these were not mine - do you really and honestly think I have not been deceived? Cubs honour now?
Posted by: doonhamer on 2:16am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Doonhamer @ 2:05am If you take as axiomatic that the UK government "steals" oil then all your conclusions are to my mind suspect.[/quote] Well, Laddie, I have known that for over a year. I am a NATIONALIST after all and therefore not only suspect but thick as brick as well.
BTW, thank you for confirming that you do not believe there is a boundary between Scotland and England. It confirms what many of us have claimed numerous times. Your allegiance to your fabricated union does not include an allegiance to a Scotland which in your mind ceased to exist in 1707.
AM2 wrote:
Doonhamer @ 2:05am If you take as axiomatic that the UK government "steals" oil then all your conclusions are to my mind suspect.
Well, Laddie, I have known that for over a year. I am a NATIONALIST after all and therefore not only suspect but thick as brick as well.
BTW, thank you for confirming that you do not believe there is a boundary between Scotland and England. It confirms what many of us have claimed numerous times. Your allegiance to your fabricated union does not include an allegiance to a Scotland which in your mind ceased to exist in 1707.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:19am Wed 2 Jan 08
Diogenes @ 2:14am
I linked above to oil revenues back to 1968. They're in the public domain.
The issue of how they could be allocated to Scotland or other countries of the UK wasn't settled then and isn't settled now.
What's your complaint?
Diogenes @ 2:14am
I linked above to oil revenues back to 1968. They're in the public domain.
The issue of how they could be allocated to Scotland or other countries of the UK wasn't settled then and isn't settled now.
What's your complaint?
Posted by: doonhamer on 2:21am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Diogenes @ 2:14am I linked above to oil revenues back to 1968. They're in the public domain. The issue of how they could be allocated to Scotland or other countries of the UK wasn't settled then and isn't settled now. What's your complaint? [/quote] So let us settle it then. Send us all the monies accrued to date and let us go on our way.
Settled.
AM2 wrote:
Diogenes @ 2:14am I linked above to oil revenues back to 1968. They're in the public domain. The issue of how they could be allocated to Scotland or other countries of the UK wasn't settled then and isn't settled now. What's your complaint?
So let us settle it then. Send us all the monies accrued to date and let us go on our way.
Settled.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:21am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer @ 2:16am
Complete rubbish. I don't believe anything of the sort.
Doonhamer @ 2:16am
Complete rubbish. I don't believe anything of the sort.
Posted by: Celtic Lion, Roar on 2:22am Wed 2 Jan 08
stonehaven @ 1:51am
Well to be honest I meant "respect" in the context of the online world --- which doesn't mean a great deal. There are many people who can't even cut and paste or string arguments together at all.
AM2 @ 1:52am
But AM2 you're so "loud" on the forums that your extreme biasm is remarkable. You'd say black was white if you thought it would save the union. You love the union so much you apparently don't care for the damage Labour have been doing (both here in Scotland and down in Englnd) or the actions of other parties presumably because to admit that would be to admit that they aren't so bleedin' wonderful and the SNP isn't so bad. Do you think Labour's stance on the referendum was deceitful or just politicking? Do you think Scottish Labour's hidden waiting lists were deceitful or just politicking? Do you think Labour's donor scandals are deceitful or politicking? Or even excusable? If you want your posts to have any credence then you need to grow some nuts and criticise where criticism is due.
stonehaven @ 1:51am
Well to be honest I meant "respect" in the context of the online world --- which doesn't mean a great deal. There are many people who can't even cut and paste or string arguments together at all.
AM2 @ 1:52am
But AM2 you're so "loud" on the forums that your extreme biasm is remarkable. You'd say black was white if you thought it would save the union. You love the union so much you apparently don't care for the damage Labour have been doing (both here in Scotland and down in Englnd) or the actions of other parties presumably because to admit that would be to admit that they aren't so bleedin' wonderful and the SNP isn't so bad. Do you think Labour's stance on the referendum was deceitful or just politicking? Do you think Scottish Labour's hidden waiting lists were deceitful or just politicking? Do you think Labour's donor scandals are deceitful or politicking? Or even excusable? If you want your posts to have any credence then you need to grow some nuts and criticise where criticism is due.
Posted by: doonhamer on 2:23am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Doonhamer @ 2:16am Complete rubbish. I don't believe anything of the sort.[/quote] I can't respond if you are not going to post sensible answers.
LOL
AM2 wrote:
Doonhamer @ 2:16am Complete rubbish. I don't believe anything of the sort.
I can't respond if you are not going to post sensible answers.
LOL
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:23am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer @ 2:21am
Scotland is a constituent nation of the United Kingdom. Revenues are collected and disbursed at a UK level. Your inability or unwillingness to accept that fact doesn't alter the reality.
Doonhamer @ 2:21am
Scotland is a constituent nation of the United Kingdom. Revenues are collected and disbursed at a UK level. Your inability or unwillingness to accept that fact doesn't alter the reality.
Posted by: Bruce, Glasgow on 2:24am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote] "the Scottish area" means the areas included in the sixth designated area, those parts of the first, second and fifth designated areas which lie north of the Scottish border and that part of the seventh designated area which lies north of the Scottish and east of the Northern Irish border[/quote] from Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 (No. 892 - 7 June 1968)
[italic]That seems to clearly confirm the existence of Scottish territory/area[/italic]
"the Scottish area" means the areas included in the sixth designated area, those parts of the first, second and fifth designated areas which lie north of the Scottish border and that part of the seventh designated area which lies north of the Scottish and east of the Northern Irish border
from Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 (No. 892 - 7 June 1968)
That seems to clearly confirm the existence of Scottish territory/area
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:25am Wed 2 Jan 08
Doonhamer @ 2:23am
Your 2:16am post attributed to me views that I do not hold. You concocted them. Plain enough now?
Doonhamer @ 2:23am
Your 2:16am post attributed to me views that I do not hold. You concocted them. Plain enough now?
Posted by: richard, West Lothian on 2:26am Wed 2 Jan 08
AM2, Glasgow
Your pdf file was published when?
2007!
You're a fraud!
AM2, Glasgow
Your pdf file was published when?
2007!
You're a fraud!
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 2:27am Wed 2 Jan 08
Bruce @ 2:24am
Yes, of course - but if you read it in full you will see that it's purpose was only to define areas in which to apply English, Scottish and Northern Irish law at sea. The 1968 order had nothing to do with oil and gas, fishing etc.
Bruce @ 2:24am
Yes, of course - but if you read it in full you will see that it's purpose was only to define areas in which to apply English, Scottish and Northern Irish law at sea. The 1968 order had nothing to do with oil and gas, fishing etc.
Posted by: doonhamer on 2:27am Wed 2 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Doonhamer @ 2:21am Scotland is a constituent nation of the United Kingdom. Revenues are collected and disbursed at a UK level. Your inability or unwillingness to accept that fact doesn't alter the reality.[/quote] Scotland is a sovereign country aligned to the United Kingdom by treaty. Revenues are collected and disbursed by a Parliament dominated by those outside Scotland and this is done in the best interests of the UK Parliament. Your inability, unwllingness, and sheer obstinace in not accepting that fact doesn't alter anything.
Once again you deny the existence of the sovereign country of Scotland.
AM2 wrote:
Doonhamer @ 2:21am Scotland is a constituent nation of the United Kingdom. Revenues are collected and disbursed at a UK level. Your inability or unwillingness to accept that fact doesn't alter the reality.
Scotland is
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (346)
