Medziotojas Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/8246/postcard2.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Bingo. Nice job Medzi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 But just because your all bad spellers does not mean im wrong This is presumably a joke, but I don't get it. Could you please explain what is meant to be funny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 £40 million is a fair pile of money however would we want the Spanish fishing in our waters.I wonder what they pay to have a washing machine delivered. whats the cost of a litre of petrol. have a read of this i could just see this happening up here. thou i don't think there is a risk to the penguins if it did. http://www.falklands.net/FalklandsCorruption.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 But just because your all bad spellers does not mean im wrong This is presumably a joke, but I don't get it. Could you please explain what is meant to be funny?Don't worry i accidently put an s on Shetland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 £40 million is a fair pile of money however would we want the Spanish fishing in our waters. Ummm....how would we notice the difference between then and now?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I thought they could not fish in the north sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 The North Sea is only half of Shetland's waters, there's plenty of Spaniards and other nationalities scooping up fish in the other half. Independence without exclusive 200 mile/median rights in all directions is of little worth and not really true independence at all. With 200 mile/median rights Shetland would not have to tolerate any boats of any nation be they Spanish, Danish, French, Portuguese, Scots, English or whatever, scooping up anything within that zone, unless we chose to, and charged them for the privilege. We would have full and exclusive power to dicate who did or didn't profit from the fish in our waters, and earn from each and every one caught. Not be dictated to by Edinburgh/London/Brussels and only earn a negible amount, if any from those caught by other than local boats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 How could we claim a two hundred mile limit. draw that around the coast of Scotland, Norway, Faeroe etc and we would be lucky to have a 10 mile limit. look at Iceland when they did that are we going to buy some gun boats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepshagger Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 200 mile/median rights this means your border is 200 miles from the shore or half way to the adjacant land. this is the same maritime border that every other country in the world enjoys, so why would we not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 @ paulb Eh? I wouldn't claim to be a world class geographer, but it comes a big shock to me to find out that Norway, Faroe and Scotland are all only 20 miles away, presuming you are placing a median line between these surprisingly close neighbours we seem to have acquired. Gun boats? Stick an exocet missile and a GPMG on the old Pilot Us and I don't think we'll have any problems. Edit - And regarding the Spanish, they do fish here already. The only way to stop them quota hopping and using nationally based offices is if we were autonomous. Otherwise they carry on, for instance, storing hundreds of miles of gill nets on UK sea beds, a practice know as ghost fishing that wipes out thousands of tons of fish, sea mammals and shellfish every year in UK waters and is permissable by their presence here through the EU. Don't start me....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 ^^ Without exclusivity of territorial waters you do not have full independence. The only place we'd be down to to little more than 10 miles is between Fair Isle and Orkney, and maybe between Sandness/Forvik and Papa Stour/Forvik. We're talking nearer 100 miles towards Norway and similar to Faroe, to the west and north we'd get the full 200, its a lot of water, and contains many rich, or at least formerly rich fishing grounds. The only reason the Icelanders had to resort to gunboats enforce their 200 limit was that trawlers, notably the English deep sea fleet from the NE coast refused to recognise the declaration. A properly negotiated and agreed Declaration of Independence should prevent such unwelcome actions, but you're right, we'd still need to have some sort of "Police" to ensure the rules were respected and enforced if needs be. Just saying it and expecting everyone to play along is naive, as the Forvik model shows. Obtaining and operating patrol vessels of our own is a possibility to address the issue, but there are other options. Debating and deciding how such a thing should be done can only be realistically done once the requirements of it are known, and what we could afford. Personally, if it went there, I'd see more sense, initially at least in hiring in that kind of service. We'd potentially have Scotland/U.K, Denmark and Norway to choose from as potential service providers, all three would abut the area in question, and could easily provide the kind of cover needed. Conflict of interests would be a concern going that way though, so for that reason perhaps contracting such services out to an independent nation elsewhere who had the personnel and equipment might be the safer way to go. The Icelanders aren't all that far away, and, as you say, they have experience of the work, they might, especially in the current economic climate in Iceland welcome the possibility of some additional income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepshagger Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 The cost of a small navy to police the fishing in our waters would easily be paid for by selling licences to local and foriegn boats. With local control we could impliment far more effective methods of conservation than is currently imposed on us by EU/UK. Remember 98%+/- of the fishing effort around here is by foriegn boats, yet at least 20% of inspections by the fisheries cruiser in Shetland waters was on Shetland boats.Why the hell are we being policed more heavily than foriegners in our own waters?Security of the oil fields would remain as they are because it is in no ones interest for there to be any interuption in supply, the only differance being is we would recieve the revenue not London. Because we have the oil we would have no problem negotiating trading deals with the rest of the world. With indipendence a lot of expats would return bringing their families with them, heck with indipendence Incomers would be welcome because at least we would have control over who gets in and who gets to stay. I can't understand how anyone could think staying as we are is for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 OK the fishing can get sorted. Realistically do you see either the UK government or and Independent Scotland giving up the oil/gas rights. Sorry i just cant see it. Are we to be in or out of Europe. If out would this not destroy our Farming sector. Yes i know they have with all there daft schemes and rules. But if we were then to try to export to Scotland/UK we would not be trading as a member state. I think this subject really is needing a new thread Mr hill as nowt to do with this. What legal system would we follow we cant use the old laws were missing most of them after the Scots lost the law books. Should we opt for Scottish/English or some euro version. would we be a republic or a dependency and of were. The norwegian royals seem nice and friendly. What about residency right who becomes a citizen and who becomes a non citizen. There are tons/tonnes (depending if we keep the metric system) more questions. What about Christmas are we going to revert to the old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepshagger Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 OK pb I'll refer to your points one at a time. It is not up to Scotland or England if they give up our oil international law says they have to, were they to flex military muscle plenty would come to our aid precisely because of that oil. most definately out of Europe, like I said before trading agreements would be easily reached Do you want to buy our oil? yes. then just sign here saying we have favoured trading status with Europe or we will sell all the oil to the Yanks.Do you want to eat fish? yes. then just sign here or you won't be eating our fish, we will just fish the waters ourselves and sell to Russia, Japan, Africa you name it hungy folk all over the planet willing to pay for top quality fish. Udal law was and is a perfectly functioning legal system. Citizenship would have to be earned, and residancy would be on merit. no reason not to keep the metric system though I do prefer lb and oz, feet and inches to the metric equivilant. All these tonnes of things are problems to be dealt with not reasons not to go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now