A particularly sickening trick from the BBC a few weeks back raised my blood pressure whilst in hospital and almost finished me off. A French Euro MP was asked for “the French view” on Scottish independence. She said that France would oppose it and the French government takes the view that an independent Scotland would be outside the European Union. I was absolutely astonished that the BBC had managed to find the only French person in the entire world who is against Scottish independence, and that she was telling an outright lie about the position of the French government.
Then I realised who she was – the former research assistant (and rather more) of New Labour minister and criminal invoice forger Denis Macshane. She worked for years in the UK parliament for New Labour, in a Monica Lewinsky kind of way. All of which the BBC hid, presenting her simply as a French Euro MP. There are seventy million French people. How remarkable that the one the BBC chose to give the French view of Scottish independence was a New Labour hack!
Today the news came out that Scotland contributes a net £3.6 billion a year to the UK government finances. Scotland’s fiscal deficit is an extremely respectable 2.6%, compared to 6% for the UK as a whole, or 6.3% for the rest of the UK excluding Scotland.
But even that is not the full story. These figures are based on a geographical allocation of oil revenue – but that geographical allocation is based on New Labour’s incredible gerrymandered 1999 England/Scotland maritime border which gives eight major Scottish oil fields to England, including two North of Dundee.
On a realistic maritime boundary, which an independent Scotland would undoubtedly win from the International Court of Justice, Scotland would actually have a budget surplus of £1.9 billion. Hurray, boys and girls, we are in the black! Remember I was Head of the FCO Maritime Section and I personally was involved in negotiating most of the UK’s maritime boundaries, including with Ireland, France, Denmark and Belgium.)
I know it is hard to believe, but that really is the England/Scotland maritime boundary which the revenue figures in the GERS report are based on. That is why England’s oil revenues are surprisingly high in the report – and Scotland’s surprising low.
But even on that boundary, the GERS report shows beyond any argument that Scotland’s public finances would be much better outside the Union.
Yet this morning the BBC choose to present the report as showing that because Scotland has a fiscal deficit, an independent Scotland would not be viable. Despite the fact that deficit percentage is less than half that of England. Despite the fact that every country in the Western world has a budget deficit.
The BBC have simply become addicted to the Big Lie when it comes to Scottish Independence. Talking of big lies – now they are even wheeling out Blair!
Fred – i’m genuinely interested to know: if you believe in the UK and the British state as your choice of identity/state/nation, aren’t you yourself also a nationalist,albeit a British nationalist?
“Fred – i’m genuinely interested to know: if you believe in the UK and the British state as your choice of identity/state/nation, aren’t you yourself also a nationalist,albeit a British nationalist?”
No, I’m opposed to the BNP.
Villager: quickly, as a) I have to go out and b) this thread is interesting (and continuing) the letter I read had a plea not to publish it at the top so it doesn’t look as if Farrell is asking for a rebuttal or reply – at least not in public, which is a mistake, I think.Otherwise, we are all responsible for our actions!
“The line does not allocate Sea to the nearest country, it does by a certain simple 1-dimension measurement of the 2 dimensional problem allocate Sea to the nearest coast. A fraction of all coast is relevant to the measure because of the receeding Firth above and receeding english coast below. This fraction which is all that guides your prefered measure just happens to be pointing about 45 degrees towards the north, which is where the country of Scotland is positioned in relation to England.”
Read it and weep.
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/map.png
“No, I’m opposed to the BNP”
..but you can be a British nationalist without supporting the BNP. British labour,British conservaties, the lib dems, and UKIP are all British nationalist parties. Anyone voting for these are also voting for British nationalist parties..
@ Chris Jones (19h53) :
If you want to discuss with Fred, stick to the main issue(s) and use fact and reasoned argument. Stop raising red herrings : they stink.
PS – are you by any chance applying for membership of the Egregiousness of Eminences?
********
La vita è bella, life is good! (stick to the point)
How is discussing nationality a red herring in a thread that is about Scotland and the make up of the present UK and British state Habbabuk? And where have i not used fact and reasoned argument in my question to Fred?
“..but you can be a British nationalist without supporting the BNP. British labour,British conservaties, the lib dems, and UKIP are all British nationalist parties. Anyone voting for these are also voting for British nationalist parties..”
I vote for the man not the party. I vote for the person I think will work hardest for the area I live in.
Oh look, His Pettiness the Pseudo-Ineffectual’s firepower is proving to be a damp squib. He’s now applying for the job as Fred’s gatekeeper!
Life is Good (even for red herrings).
Technicolour, I couldn’t spot that plea for it not to be published. Anyway, i agree that Farrell should seek a reply. Now that its in the open, she might feel compelled to? Let’s see.
And well done, joseph Farrell–keep up the good work!
That seems like a very reasonable answer to me Fred. My point is, technically and rightly or wrongly, Labour, the Lib dems and Tories are British nationalist parties and sell British nationalism – a highly dangerous form of nationalism which facilitates carrying out mass illegal wars and a morally bankrupt foreign policies. Yet these parties try to make out that any other claim of nationalism in Wales, Scotland or England is somehow bad but that British nationalism is somehow good. It’s double speak at its most stupifying
And what if the person who would work hardest for the area they live in finds that doing so within existing fossilized systems is impossible without new ideas and essential change. That great wrongs, corruption, criminal warmongering, waste, theft, hypocrisy and lies are part and parcel of the system your conformity insufferably forces to work inside ad for. What if the whole gig is fucked and there’s no point any more in keeping it from flying apart.
You’re just sore as an Englishman that the whole shebang that is the Westminster, Downing Street and The City are yours, either to fix (good luck with that!) or erase and start again.
Take heart, you’ll have a good example and full support from your good Scottish neebars when England looks for and finds its courage too. It’s a pity you can’t reciprocate the certain goodwill, or even wish well, as we bravely we lead the way.
“It’s double speak at its most stupifying”
Like claiming that Westminster stole a chunk of the North Sea off Scotland when it isn’t true while accusing the BBC of not telling the truth you mean?
“Read it and weep.
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/map.png ”
This drawing illustrates well what i described: The simple measurement is affected by only a fraction of the relevant coast,the firth of fourth is completely ignored and the early upward travel of the boundary is limited only by the the coastline of Aberdeenshire! In contrast, pointing out the absurdity of celebrating this measurement, the only bit of English coast which is involved at any range –even in the circles over 100 miles in diameter– is the 10 mile or so straightish section right next to the boarder.
If that 10 mile section where to change and everything else remain the same, the equidistant line would completely change. The technical reason for this is that the coastline is fractal-like in detail, the detail of the coast at discrete points give very little information about the overall shape. To be of any relation to the overall shape of the countries, we would need to do a “lowpass filter” on the detail of the coastline before calculating the boundary this way. Without random coastline detail first lowpassed, we see it wanders un-representatively, being affected mainly by the random/fractal small scale detail of the coastline.
Its extreme cherry picking basically, or coast picking.
Fred you have yet to provided anything to justify your claim that “relevant international conventions” could support it.
I think it’s safe to say that Westminster isn’t averse to stealing chunks of anything if it thinks it can get away with it but i’ll leave the Scottish/English North sea argument to the sea surveyors and map charterers. The farce and hypocrisy of the good nationalism/bad nationalsim paradigm sold by the Westminster government is something i belive is relevant to everyone in Britain though
Did you make that technical drawing Chris?
It does confirm the line and clarify its error.
When you are getting to grips with its error (of not being smoothed to a representative scale before applying) observe how the slightest change in the little section of involved English coast is able to throw the line into a radically different course. Think about what that means, not just how it sounds in a hasty argument.
Villager(Yokels of the World, Unite!) wrote at 21h02 :
“Life is Good (even for red herrings).”
To which I say : it certainly is on this blog!
With you one of the resident fishmongers.
Good night to you, Eminence!
************
La vita è bella, life is good! (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery))
“This drawing illustrates well what i described: The simple measurement is affected by only a fraction of the relevant coast,the firth of fourth is completely ignored and the early upward travel of the boundary is limited only by the the coastline of Aberdeenshire! In contrast, pointing out the absurdity of celebrating this measurement, the only bit of English coast which is involved at any range –even in the circles over 100 miles in diameter– is the 10 mile or so straightish section right next to the boarder.”
That is because the English coastline is straight while the Scottish coastline protrudes eastwards. They could ignore Aberdeenshire and measure from a straight line continuing the English coastline or even measure as far up the Firth of Fourth as you like if you think that would be fairer.
Chris Jones, at 20h42, asked me :
“How is discussing nationality a red herring in a thread….”
Answer : it isn’t, in the context of this thread. But unfortunately your last few posts talk about nationalism, not nationality. There’s your red herring.
Villager (Yokels of the World, Unite!) wrote at 21h02
“He’s now applying for the job as Fred’s gatekeeper!”
Now, hoeren Sie gut zu! Your Rektor is addressing you!
The use of the definite article (the job, here) implies – as the words suggest – something definite: the job exists (and is to be filled).
So you should have written “..applying for the job of Fred’s gatekeeper”.
If, on the other hand, you are merely teasing, or if you’re not sure whether there is such a job (why don’t you get in touch with Fred to ask?), then you should have written “applying for a job as Fred’s gatekeeper” (indefinite article)
Alles klar, mein Lieber?
BTW – are you a foreign Yokel?
**************
La vita è bella, life is good! (Habbabkuk gives free English lessons to the
undeserving)
But that is a very different solution Fred, just still relying on unreprestantively small sections of coast and small scale detail. While the area of the countries is ignored. It is technically flawed to do this and an expert judgement will easily be aware of that, though heated political debates will often not give dam.
Fred i’d settle for “your not wrong your just an asshole” cause i dont like repling so snooty, and i dont find you mostly unreasonable. But there is your flaw, if you want to know. Picking measures which are affected by small scale detail.
I feel the maritime border could if pressed go 10-15% North for Englands satisfaction, but there is no need for it to twist according to the perturbations of tiny stretches of coast, and no call for it to head 45% North the way they have tried.
If it was drawn perpendicular to most of the lower English coast it would travel at somewhere between 10 to 20 degrees North depending on scale choosen.
Craig seems to say following the line of latitude would stick, i dont know if that is a bargaining position or if it would stick convention-wise.
@Habbabuk – Nationality and nationalism are often synonymous but i would heartily agree that they don’t have to be necessarily. Nationality under the republican and/or constitutional model is a great case in point and personally i believe that patriotism is a far better all round definition for a citizen’s right to belong to whatever land or country he or she chooses. Unfortunately i think you’ll find that modern British nationalism under the leadership of British nationalist extremists like Tony Blair, David Cameron and the Millibland brothers is giving progressive and inclusive nationalism and patriotism a very bad name indeed in the world. Maybe thats exactly what their setting out to do in order to sell the magnificent benefits of globalism…
@ Chris Jones (00h34) :
Thank you for that! If I remember correctly, Orwell also makes the distinction between nationalism and patriotism in one of his essays (too lazy to look up which one, I’m afraid, but perhaps you know it).
I’ll have to reflect on what you say about Bliar and consorts before being convinced (btw I take it that “MillibLand” was deliberate? Nice one!)
“Fred i’d settle for “your not wrong your just an asshole” cause i dont like repling so snooty, and i dont find you mostly unreasonable. But there is your flaw, if you want to know. Picking measures which are affected by small scale detail.”
As you are obviously far too stupid to understand what must by now be obvious to everyone else let’s try something simpler.
The claim that the 1987 boundary was moved is a blatant lie because the boundary is still there, the 1987 act is still on the statute books and that is still the boundary for legal jurisdiction.
I already knew Salmond is a compulsive liar, it’s starting to look like it’s deliberate party policy.
I dont what “moved” precisely means in this context, renegotiated? published quitely?, signed off by a commitee? But practically it should not have been used for the GERS report, or anything requiring an agreeable division of territory.
“I dont what “moved” precisely means in this context, renegotiated? published quitely?, signed off by a commitee? But practically it should not have been used for the GERS report, or anything requiring an agreeable division of territory.”
Look it up in a dictionary. The 1987 border is still in exactly the same place as it was in 1987. Take a look at the statute still on the statute books. There have been no changes made to the 1987 border whatsoever.
The only thing the 1999 border could affect is fishermen and up to now it hasn’t affected them in the least. The area isn’t fished much and isn’t policed, nobody cares which side of the line Scottish fishing boats fish, the line was only needed for bureaucratic purposes.
So as I have said before, just another load of Nationalist lies and propaganda.
@Habbabkuk – i think Millibland just about beats Millipede by a whisker!?
“The only thing the 1999 border could affect is fishermen and up to now it hasn’t affected them in the least.”
Do you think it would not affect future oil revenues if it were applied, as in the GERS report? Is that what you are saying?
“Do you think it would not affect future oil revenues if it were applied, as in the GERS report? Is that what you are saying?”
No, it won’t make a blind bit of difference, all it affects is fish, nothing to do with oil.
The British Broadcasting Corporation. Branches in Tel Aviv and elsewhere…..
Compare and contrast.
Palestinians who cannot go to the sea.
‘I accompanied brave Israeli women in their weekly demonstrations against their government’s occupation in their Women in Black protest, whilst verbal abuse was hurled at them from passersby. Some of these women also organise trips to the seaside for Palestinian children because despite living, in some places just 20 miles from the Mediterranean, the separation barrier and the checkpoints they would have to go through, which Israel began erecting in 2002, and which the International Criminal Court advised was illegal some years later, means that children living in the Palestinian Territories, can see the sea, but have never been allowed to go to it.’
http://www.sfxhereford.org.uk/working-in-israel-palestine undated
and these dogs owned by Israelis having a nice time in the sea. The BBC’s Ms Yolande Knell and her cocker spaniel report on Dog TV.
Dog TV is launched in Israel for home alone pets
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21724814
PS This report on Dog TV makes those nice pet-owners of Tel-Aviv seem almost humani.