ibelieve!!! Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 With the Labour government changing the line of Scottish/English waters a few years ago (in favour of England obviously) thought the passage below may be of some interest to see how it pans out. "Somalia has taken its maritime border dispute with Kenya to the United Nations top court which could settle a dispute and pave the way for oil and gas exploration. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a statement said Somalia has told the court that both countries disagree about the location of the maritime boundary and that diplomatic negotiations have failed to resolve the dispute. Somalia requests the Court to determine, on the basis of international law, the complete course of the single maritime boundary dividing all the maritime areas appertaining to Somalia and to Kenya in the Indian Ocean, the ICJ said. Somalia has challenged Kenyas attempts to award offshore exploration blocks to Total and Eni in an area where it says the boundary had not been demarcated. At the heart of the dispute is how the boundary between the two countries should be demarcated. Kenya would like the boundary to run horizontally east from the point at which the two nations touch on land. Somalia, which lies to the north of Kenya, would like the onshore border to continue into the ocean diagonally southeast. Source: Platts" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfieMoon Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) How common/uncommon is it for a maritime boundary to run horizontally from the point that 2 nations meet on land? There was a pretty detailed rebuttal against Craig Murray's blog on the subject if I remember correctly when I've been googling about this in the past. Edited September 2, 2014 by AlfieMoon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Given the fact there's not a lot of landmarks at sea I would've thought it makes sense for thoughts any such borders to follow the line of latitude?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzoal Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I have seen international opinion that we should get back the areas that Dewar let Blair steal from us. Can't remember who, though, it was a while ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 At the risk of being controversial (and without actually studying it's affect on countries around world), it makes more sense to me that the border extends in a straight line at the angle it meets the coast. What works in one situation, would probably be unfair in others so I don't think there can be a hard and fast rule. That said, I see no reason why Scotland's maritime border should have been subject to an internal rejigging so regardless of the rules, the f*ckers can move it back quick smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Do we need a few frigates and destroyers to protect our waters ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Another question. Where would Scots stand if they still wanted to serve in the British forces? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Another question. Where would Scots stand if they still wanted to serve in the British forces? They'll still be allowed to serve in the British forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dipped flake Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 They'll still be allowed to serve in the British forces. Why would they not be? There are thousands of non-uk armed forces personnel in the 'british' army Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolhibby Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 They'll still be allowed to serve in the British forces. This. Speak to the many Fijians, Tongans, Irish, Canadians, South Africans, etc who currently serve in the UK military. Not to forget the Nepalese Gurkahs. IIRC any Commonwealth citizen can serve in the British Military. Look at Johnson Beharry (won a Victoria Cross in Iraq), born and raised in Grenada. Anyway Scots can serve in the Scottish Defence Force in one of our proud ancient regiments or our brand spanking new Clyde built Type 26 Frigates. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld_Reekie Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Why would they not be? There are thousands of non-uk armed forces personnel in the 'british' army That's why I said they would be still be allowed to serve in the British army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dipped flake Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 That's why I said they would be still be allowed to serve in the British army. Aye sorry, it was a rhetorical question really, more aimed at Eddard's daft question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Why would they not be? There are thousands of non-uk armed forces personnel in the 'british' army Why would they not be? There are thousands of non-uk armed forces personnel in the 'british' armythought you where ignoring me dippy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde1998 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 How common/uncommon is it for a maritime boundary to run horizontally from the point that 2 nations meet on land? There was a pretty detailed rebuttal against Craig Murray's blog on the subject if I remember correctly when I've been googling about this in the past. The maritime border should run at an equal distance between the countries. A straight line is common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddardStark Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Aye sorry, it was a rhetorical question really, more aimed at Eddard's daft questionsorry .it was a proxy question put forward by a yes voter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hessen Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 With the Labour government changing the line of Scottish/English waters a few years ago (in favour of England obviously) thought the passage below may be of some interest to see how it pans out. I thought this was a bit of a red herring. I thought the most normal internationally agreed way was via the median line. I think this gives the pattern of the coloured map, for the other countries. It would give rise to a line that swings a bit north of the border at Berwick but then settles down to more like west-east. I believe this is the line settled on by Blair and Dewar. Although it may be spun as 'landgrab' (seagrab?) it could be considered more like making the border more like how an international border would be drawn. The test of whether it's a red herring would be to find the Scottish Govt position on it. They may well be comfortable with it, as being more defensible - hold what you have - than opening up this question to more scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.