On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:32:25 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:02:44 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Very little of it is within their12 mile limit which is all they would
be entitled to if, as you are suggesting, they became a foriegn
enclave in another countries waters.

That stopped in the 1980s IIRC. The Exclusive Economic Zone of a state
extends to 200NM from land (the position of inland boundaries is
ignored) unless that clashes/overlaps with another country when the
default decider becomes whichever country is closest to the location
in question. Variations can be made by mutual arrangement of the
countries concerned (as might be done if e.g. a channel is impeded by
submerged natural obstructions on one side) but in the event of
dispute International Law (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea etc.)
imposes the default.
Shetland's "very little" would actually be quite a good size when
compared with England's in e.g. :-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ottish_eez.PNG
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../341/34109.gif

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:15:28 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:32:25 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:02:44 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Very little of it is within their12 mile limit which is all they would
be entitled to if, as you are suggesting, they became a foriegn
enclave in another countries waters.

That stopped in the 1980s IIRC. The Exclusive Economic Zone of a state
extends to 200NM from land (the position of inland boundaries is
ignored) unless that clashes/overlaps with another country when the
default decider becomes whichever country is closest to the location
in question. Variations can be made by mutual arrangement of the
countries concerned (as might be done if e.g. a channel is impeded by
submerged natural obstructions on one side) but in the event of
dispute International Law (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea etc.)
imposes the default.
Shetland's "very little" would actually be quite a good size when
compared with England's in e.g. :-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ottish_eez.PNG
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../341/34109.gif

That only applies if Shetland is fully independant, if fUK hang on to
Shetland then the special rules on foreign enclaves applies. See the
map near the end of http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/12/1/505.pdf

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:54:08 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:02:26 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:54:54 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots
could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes,
vote, etc?

Depends where they are "habitually resident" in the same way that
existing dual citizens do.

Passports deal with nationality relative to other countries rather
than residence, current right of abode in the UK is only available to
"British citizens" as explained in Note 2 of a UK passport; you can
still be a British citizen despite not having lived in the UK and
holding another countries passport if you have suitable multiple
nationality rights (two parents of different nationalities having a
child born in a third country can complicate matters somewhat). Unless
the rules change then it would be much the same as applies to anyone
alive at the time that the relevant versions of Ireland left the
UK/Commonwealth; passports would be available from either or both
countries but, while in one of those countries, the other country
cannot usually be relied upon to give any support if/when the holder
gets into trouble or tries to get out of any obligations such as e.g.
national service.

Err.. yes. I should have specified I was talking about the tax
question.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:39:41 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:44:45 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

No. There have been no plans announced to remove the right to a ROTUK
passport from anyone in Scotland who qualifies for one under current
arrangements.

What on earth is a "ROTUK"

Rest Of The UK

passport, who currently qualifies for them,

nobody yet

and by what logic would such qualification extend to an independent
Scotland?

It wouldn't, it would extend post-independence to people with
appropriate nationality rights such as (applying current comparable
rules WRT Ireland) anyone born before independence day anywhere in the
UK or who had other appropriate nationality rights whether or not they
also had a Scottish passport. Current eligibility (subject I suspect
to dispute over some details) is described in :-
https://www.gov.uk/british-passport-eligibility

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:44:58 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:31:38 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

If you're really desperate :-
http://bettertogether.net/

but (like the Judean People's Front) they have splitters :-
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/cam...ed-with-labour

There are even supporters of Unionist parties who claim to be in
favour of independence although watch out for spoof sites such as :-
https://www.facebook.com/Conservatives4Independence
("WE'RE a bunch of well to do tories who believe that we can make alot
more dosh in a Free Scotland.")

https://twitter.com/orangemen4indy

Possibly not as potentially confusing as the annual Orange Order bash
(never any casualties AFAIAA) in the Republic :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1430423.stm
which seems to have become just an excuse for everybody and anyone to
enjoy themselves.

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:45:01 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:54:08 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 02:02:26 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:54:54 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

So does that mean that, in the unlikely event of a Yes vote, all Scots
could opt to retain UK passports? Where would they then pay their taxes,
vote, etc?

Depends where they are "habitually resident" in the same way that
existing dual citizens do.

Passports deal with nationality relative to other countries rather
than residence, current right of abode in the UK is only available to
"British citizens" as explained in Note 2 of a UK passport; you can
still be a British citizen despite not having lived in the UK and
holding another countries passport if you have suitable multiple
nationality rights (two parents of different nationalities having a
child born in a third country can complicate matters somewhat). Unless
the rules change then it would be much the same as applies to anyone
alive at the time that the relevant versions of Ireland left the
UK/Commonwealth; passports would be available from either or both
countries but, while in one of those countries, the other country
cannot usually be relied upon to give any support if/when the holder
gets into trouble or tries to get out of any obligations such as e.g.
national service.

Err.. yes. I should have specified I was talking about the tax
question.

Ooops, missed that ! Bearing in mind the bother with (alleged)
non-doms, the rules could have changed by then anyway but even now
there must be quite a few people who quite innocently have doubtful
"habitual residence" if they move around Europe with their work
although ISTR home ownership and having less-mobile wife and kids can
sometimes decide the question. "Habitual residence" and similar seems
to have no rigid definition for most general purposes (divorce being
at least one exception but even that seems to have "get-out" or "not
us, mate" clauses) although these seem to feature WRT the EU/Council
of Europe :-

"the place where the person had established, on a fixed basis, his
permanent or habitual centre of interests, with all the relevant facts
being taken into account for the purpose of determining such
residence" [English Law conclusion]
"the place where the party involved has fixed, with the wish to vest
it with a stable character, the permanent or habitual centre of his or
her interests." [EU reference used]
[http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1176]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:43:10 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:15:28 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:32:25 +0000, mcp wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 08:02:44 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 13/01/2014 03:11, Charles Ellson wrote:

-All the oil tax revenues will be lost (over 90% of the oil is in
Scottish waters by international law and RotUK could not change that
without Scotland's agreement).

Have you checked with the Shetland's yet? Most of the oil is in their
waters.

Very little of it is within their12 mile limit which is all they would
be entitled to if, as you are suggesting, they became a foriegn
enclave in another countries waters.

That stopped in the 1980s IIRC. The Exclusive Economic Zone of a state
extends to 200NM from land (the position of inland boundaries is
ignored) unless that clashes/overlaps with another country when the
default decider becomes whichever country is closest to the location
in question. Variations can be made by mutual arrangement of the
countries concerned (as might be done if e.g. a channel is impeded by
submerged natural obstructions on one side) but in the event of
dispute International Law (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea etc.)
imposes the default.
Shetland's "very little" would actually be quite a good size when
compared with England's in e.g. :-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ottish_eez.PNG
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../341/34109.gif

That only applies if Shetland is fully independant, if fUK hang on to
Shetland then the special rules on foreign enclaves applies. See the
map near the end of http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/12/1/505.pdf

Interesting, although it does seem to be a bit arbitrary in places
maybe because there's a limit on what can practically be explained in
the various references. It possibly explains why things have gone a
bit quiet on Unionist hints of Shetland being potentially a newer
version of Northern Ireland (as in "**** off, we're keeping that
bit").

On 14/01/2014 02:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:12:45 +0000, Arthur Figgis

In case the names are confusing you, "West Germany" was an English
language colloquial term for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (or, in
English, Federal Republic of Germany) pre-October 1990. This is the
country which still exists.

No it isn't. One was the country formed in 1949 which used that name
and the other was the country formed in 1990 which incorporated the
former and took over the name; mere use of the same "label" does not
count.

It does when you have full continuity including the same constitution,
the same treaties etc. Buy-in from four major military powers probably
doesn't do any harm, either.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:07:25 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 14/01/2014 02:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:12:45 +0000, Arthur Figgis

In case the names are confusing you, "West Germany" was an English
language colloquial term for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (or, in
English, Federal Republic of Germany) pre-October 1990. This is the
country which still exists.

No it isn't. One was the country formed in 1949 which used that name
and the other was the country formed in 1990 which incorporated the
former and took over the name; mere use of the same "label" does not
count.

It does when you have full continuity including the same constitution,
the same treaties etc. Buy-in from four major military powers probably
doesn't do any harm, either.

It doesn't, you still have to have your relations with the EU
re-arranged to take account of the different population, land mass and
other consequent matters.

The constitution isn't the same; it was also adjusted to cope with
unification. It might be comonly labelled "1949" but that is not the
date that the current applicable document was formed as indicated by
"as last amended by the Act of 21 July 2010" in this official
translation :-
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/en..._gg.html#p0012

Charles Ellson wrote on 15 January 2014 00:12:27 ...
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:07:25 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 14/01/2014 02:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:12:45 +0000, Arthur Figgis

In case the names are confusing you, "West Germany" was an English
language colloquial term for the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (or, in
English, Federal Republic of Germany) pre-October 1990. This is the
country which still exists.

No it isn't. One was the country formed in 1949 which used that name
and the other was the country formed in 1990 which incorporated the
former and took over the name; mere use of the same "label" does not
count.

It does when you have full continuity including the same constitution,
the same treaties etc. Buy-in from four major military powers probably
doesn't do any harm, either.

It doesn't, you still have to have your relations with the EU
re-arranged to take account of the different population, land mass and
other consequent matters.

The constitution isn't the same; it was also adjusted to cope with
unification. It might be comonly labelled "1949" but that is not the
date that the current applicable document was formed as indicated by
"as last amended by the Act of 21 July 2010" in this official
translation :-
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/en..._gg.html#p0012

Please find a more appropriate forum to have this discussion which is
now about three stages removed from the original thread "Which UK
railway station names do you feel are anomalous?" I didn't come to
uk.transport.london to discuss German reunification. I understand
thread drift but this is ridiculous.

I suppose you'll want to extend the discussion to the reasons why
Germany was divided, involving the Nazis and Hitler.

Ooops. Oh dear, you'll now have to invoke Godwin's Law and close the
thread.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)