Posted on 09/22/2007 9:57:39 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
The new British empire? UK plans to annex south Atlantic
Owen Bowcott Saturday September 22, 2007 The Guardian
Britain is preparing territorial claims on tens of thousands of square miles of the Atlantic Ocean floor around the Falklands, Ascension Island and Rockall in the hope of annexing potentially lucrative gas, mineral and oil fields, the Guardian has learned. The UK claims, to be lodged at the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, exploit a novel legal approach that is transforming the international politics of underwater prospecting.
Britain is accelerating its process of submitting applications to the UN - which is fraught with diplomatic sensitivities, not least with Argentina - before an international deadline for registering interests.
Relying on detailed geological and geophysical surveys by scientists and hydrographers, any state can delineate a new "continental shelf outer limit" that can extend up to 350 miles from its shoreline. Data has been collected for most of Britain's submissions and Chris Carleton, head of the law of the sea division at the UK Hydrographic Office and an international expert on the process, said preliminary talks on Rockall are being held in Reykjavik, Iceland, next week. Mr Carleton believes the Falklands claim has the most potential for acrimonious political fallout. Britain and Argentina fought over the islands 25 years ago, and the value of the oil under the sea in the region is understood to be immense: seismic tests suggest there could be up to 60m barrels under the ocean floor.
Britain has been granted licences for exploratory drilling around the islands within the normal 200-mile exploration limit and any new claim to UNCLCS would extend territorial rights further into the Atlantic.
"It would be beyond the 200-mile limit but less than 350 miles," said Mr Carleton,
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Mate, I have a BA in History from Glasgow University(specialisation of Ancient/Medieval Scots History) and have also lectured/written.
And I concur with the posters point.You of all people should know what Britain and ‘the British’ means.I am astonished that a historian of Britain would not know Britain/British does NOT mean ‘England’.
And you of all people should know that some of the darker moments in British/Scottish history post 1707,such as the Highland Clearances, were mainly or at the least equally the work of Scots landowners. To blame ‘the English’ for the Highland Clearances is the worst ‘bad history’.
Not to mention the now forgotten ‘Lowland Clearances’ which were very much the work of a Scottish govt and nobility.
Even as a Unionist,can we knock off the ‘Scots subsidy’ myth?.
Lets start discussing this issue from a sensible level, no matter what we decide to do...
‘There are also different views of that time period among historians, however, several things are commonly agreed to...the Scots historically had their own king and were conquered (repeatedly) by the English. Eventually the Scottish nobility were co-opted by the English and via that, became part of the United Kingdom, winning peace without major bloodshed..’
The important factor is though that any ‘conquest’/occupation was temporary,and Scotland was never permanently conquered by England, unlike the Welsh or Irish(the former technically isnt even a country!).
This gave us some political leverage in 1707(if not economic thanks to Darien)to negotiate our way into the Union rather than be pressganged as a conquered nation.
I lived there while earning an advanced degree, visit regularly and have extensive family there. So yes, you can say I have been there.
As I stated earlier, under the EU the concept of national sovereignty is being seriously eroded, and independence will matter little in practical terms. However, I would greatly doubt that the EU would recognize an independent Scotland since it would be seen as another UK vote on the council.
I will admit that my Zimbabwe analogy was hyperbole.
im not really saying that the scottish economy is bereft. And with friends in the UK and the EU an independent Scotland would do ok.
Personally, I want the Scots to stay in the Union. They bring something different and the UK would be a poorer place without them. And in the end, all 3 nations and 1 province have given up a portion of national identity to maintain a collective strength.
After getting out of uni with £20,000 of debt, I was just a little gutted to discover free education north of the border.
Well I am 1/4 irish, and think that the Battle of Culloden was not very nice!
Oh, there are a few exceptions, but thanks to Ted Kennedy and the RAT Pukes, they cannot emigrate to the USA. Only the ignorant debris (future RAT voters) from the 3rd world can get in. Few from Northern Europe.
Check your calendar. Its 2007, not 1297. The Scots, oil and all, are a drain on the Exchequer. The PM is a Scot, and Scottish MPs dictate local government policy for the English, while the English have no say in local affairs north of the border, as the Scottish Parliament manages those matters for Scotland. If the Scots want to "break with crown" the average Englishman will give them a hearty AMF.
Also don't forget that the English did the exact same thing to themselves, with the enclosure of common lands. The whole process of going from a peasant family or three scratching out an existence on every half arable patch of land, to large, modern, farms that produce food for the city, was a terrible experience for those who lived through it, but it produced the modern world. Subsistence agriculture, however romantic some people think it looks in hindsight, or when showbiz airheads visit a third world hell hole and marvel at how small a "carbon footprint" the locals have, is not a pleasant way to spend your life.
Cheers for reply.
I would disagree about being a drain, in the strict sense,remember the billions in oil and other revenues that Scotland contributes.We contribute over 11% of Britain’s National Revenue whilst being 9% of the population.
I agree 100% with the rest of your letter.Scotland NEEDS to ‘go conservative’ and free market and break from its uber-socialism before it ever goes independent.You are correct that the latter would simply eat up any post independence economic growth.
p.s curious and interested as to:
1—your thoughts and experiences about Scotland and the Scots(be honest I dont mind,just be fair)
2-Where you have been when here
3—Family roots/ties.
Cheers for reply.
Yes, I too wish there to be a Union and Scotland in it.
The sad thing is we Scots get the brunt of any criticism over ‘subsidies’, ‘unfairness towards England’ etc, when these are the workings of the politicians.
Why?
Because I'm an American and I said so, that's why.
I do believe that President Monroe had something to say about it too.
“1—The Scots ARE British!.England/the English does not mean Britain/the British.
The Scots,Welsh and Northern Irish are all British”
I understand that.
Brit/English, Yank/American ..... casual use by me, but you are right, not accurate on my part. Mea culpa.
My comments are colored by the lenses of one who sees the long term effect of freedom on a people who have to make it without relying on the state (although that is changing here slowly as well). The strongest nation in the world (no introduction needed) managed to reform even the Scots who made it here (no small task judging by the stories in my family and their past history!). That reform was achieved through generations of having to make it on one’s own hard work, and being able to advance based on ability and effort not connections/family (although that is sometimes the case).
I just hope to see the the Scots, and the Northern Irish experience the rude awaking that comes with having to make it without a nanny state. They will not be free until they have to make it on their own. The short term civilizing effects of throwing in with the ENGLISH (see I remembered) has stunted the longterm advancement of Scottish society. Having not had to deal with the modern world on their own they resort to the weak minded salve of socialism.
To the Englishmen who responded: Please don’t misunderstand any of this as anti-English, because I’m not. You were a worthy opponent, and have been a valued and loyal ally for too long to dream of insulting you. Your history is our (America’s, Scotland’s, Ireland’s) history, and ours is yours. We are family, but not the same as each other, kind of like siblings. You would be the bossy older sibling who is surprised when your younger sibs grow up and have a mind of their own ;), and we the impertinent younger sibling who thinks they know it all.
If you challenge this thesis based on our own Native Indian experiences then I’ll have to take my marbles and go home, because there is even less chance of making sense of that.
What happened after Culloden was worse.
True, it was essentially genocidal, probably the worst thing the English did in modern times, I think. I’m part Irish, and I think this is probably a little worse than what the English did in Ulster under Cromwell, much less anything since then. The Anglo-Saxons have been killing Celts since Hengist and Horsa!
From what I’ve read, the Scots have turned to liberalism in govt. If so, it’s a damn shame.
Jamais arriere
Thanks for posting. Thanks to all contibutors. (Read entire thread) Education BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.