Saturday, October 20, 2012
Lord Monckton Censored from The Air On Salmond's Orders
This is from Lord Monckton (page 12) in the latest UKIP newsletter.
------------------------------
EVERY SO OFTEN, A TV RESEARCHER telephones and asks whether I will go on the air to confront the First Minister of Scotland with arguments less limpwristed than those of Not The Conservative Party. I always agree. I always warn the programme-makers that as soon as Salmond hears I am to be his opponent he will threaten to pull out. When they tell him, he always threatens to do just that.
Then I am always disinvited.
When he and I last appeared face to face on the idiots’ lantern, I confronted him with two simple but remarkable questions about “independence” for Scotland that left him uncharacteristically, splutteringly speechless.
You can read the whole thing here.
The 2 questions are
1- Subsidies from England to Scotland amount to several thousand pounds a year for every household north of Carter Bar, so the first Great Question is this: If Scotland breaks with England, who will replace all those tens of billions? (The normal answer id the oil but Monckton explains that under international law it is at least likely that much of the oil is English & certain that most of the rest is Orkney & Shetland's- se map under).
2 - Given that Europe makes 83% of our laws and Westminster only 5% (the Numptorium in Edinburgh makes up the rest), in what sense does Salmond’s proposal to break with London and yet stay in the EU constitute independence? (I think this one is unarguable, in which case it is unarguable that Salmond, in tandem with Cameron, is absolutely opposed to us having a vote on independence)
The whole thing is worth reading but the reason I highlighted the first paragraph is that it shows what a corrupt farce British "news" broadcasting is. In a society in which broadcast political dissent is so circumscribed that Ministers get to say that they will only "debate" withn those who won't seriously disagree with them then, by definition there is no debate and dissidents are being censored.
Were the media not under totalitarian control the programme makers would have maintained the invitation and said on air that Salmond had refused to appear. If feeling gentle towards the SNP they would have asked a minor SNP minister to take his place.
Under no circumstances can a Minister decide who is to be censored from the air in a free country.
This fits exactly with the refusal of every single MSP, alleged to believe in catastrophic warming, to engage in the forthcoming open debate on the subject. The fact that not 1 of the 10s of thousands people paid by the state to "raise awareness" of the need for more totalitarianism to fight catastrophic warming feels able to discuss it in an open forum proves how far we are on the road to totalitarianism.
This shows the assumed boundary. The boundary in the North Sea depends on whether it is set by following the line straight out from the border or whether it should go to the nearest land mass at all times - the latter giving the bend in the boundary line. Both have precedents under international law. I do not think it would be practical for Alec to march on Berwick if a majority in Westminster voted for the interpretation that gave them more.
Any way you look at it Orkney & Shetland get the lion's share.
------------------------------
EVERY SO OFTEN, A TV RESEARCHER telephones and asks whether I will go on the air to confront the First Minister of Scotland with arguments less limpwristed than those of Not The Conservative Party. I always agree. I always warn the programme-makers that as soon as Salmond hears I am to be his opponent he will threaten to pull out. When they tell him, he always threatens to do just that.
Then I am always disinvited.
When he and I last appeared face to face on the idiots’ lantern, I confronted him with two simple but remarkable questions about “independence” for Scotland that left him uncharacteristically, splutteringly speechless.
You can read the whole thing here.
The 2 questions are
1- Subsidies from England to Scotland amount to several thousand pounds a year for every household north of Carter Bar, so the first Great Question is this: If Scotland breaks with England, who will replace all those tens of billions? (The normal answer id the oil but Monckton explains that under international law it is at least likely that much of the oil is English & certain that most of the rest is Orkney & Shetland's- se map under).
2 - Given that Europe makes 83% of our laws and Westminster only 5% (the Numptorium in Edinburgh makes up the rest), in what sense does Salmond’s proposal to break with London and yet stay in the EU constitute independence? (I think this one is unarguable, in which case it is unarguable that Salmond, in tandem with Cameron, is absolutely opposed to us having a vote on independence)
The whole thing is worth reading but the reason I highlighted the first paragraph is that it shows what a corrupt farce British "news" broadcasting is. In a society in which broadcast political dissent is so circumscribed that Ministers get to say that they will only "debate" withn those who won't seriously disagree with them then, by definition there is no debate and dissidents are being censored.
Were the media not under totalitarian control the programme makers would have maintained the invitation and said on air that Salmond had refused to appear. If feeling gentle towards the SNP they would have asked a minor SNP minister to take his place.
Under no circumstances can a Minister decide who is to be censored from the air in a free country.
This fits exactly with the refusal of every single MSP, alleged to believe in catastrophic warming, to engage in the forthcoming open debate on the subject. The fact that not 1 of the 10s of thousands people paid by the state to "raise awareness" of the need for more totalitarianism to fight catastrophic warming feels able to discuss it in an open forum proves how far we are on the road to totalitarianism.
This shows the assumed boundary. The boundary in the North Sea depends on whether it is set by following the line straight out from the border or whether it should go to the nearest land mass at all times - the latter giving the bend in the boundary line. Both have precedents under international law. I do not think it would be practical for Alec to march on Berwick if a majority in Westminster voted for the interpretation that gave them more.
Any way you look at it Orkney & Shetland get the lion's share.
Comments:
<< Home
If Scotland becomes independent Westminster won't be able to hang on to Shetland, Orkney, Rockall or any other part of Scotland (see: Shetland and Orkney).
However, even under the hypothetical circumstance that this occurred, Westminster wouldn't be able to retain control of the oil fields anyway, so ya boo sux. These matters are regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. When another state possesses an island within the continental shelf of this state, special rules apply.
The continental shelf off the Atlantic coast is Scotland's to exploit and develop, even if Westminster clung on to Rockall like a plook on the face of an adolescent sociopath. According to the Law of the Sea: "rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf." Westminster could pauchle its way to keeping Rockall, but as far as oil and fishing exploitation rights are concerned, they'd be entitled to rockall.
Neither would Westminster gain much by holding onto Shetland and Orkney. When an island belonging to one state sits on the continental shelf of another state, the islands are treated as enclaves. This matter was discussed in detail in a legal paper published by the European Journal of International Law: Prospective Anglo-Scottish Maritime Boundary Revisited:
http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/12/1/505.pdf
Most of the rights to the continental shelf would remain Scottish, Map 2 on page 29 of the legal paper shows the most likely sea boundaries. Westminster would be entitled only to a small zone around the islands, and the waters between Orkney and Shetland. This area contains no oil fields. If Shetland and Orkney were to remain under Westminster's control, Shetland would no longer have an oil fund. The map is reproduced here, so you can do a reverse Jeremy Paxman and sneer derisively at Westminster's pretensions.
http://tiny.cc/alphmw
Westminster's Shetland threat is a bluff. Westminster knows it's a bluff. They just don't want us to know too. As for Monckton he has the international credibility of Al Gore. He is dis invited because he is a nutter.
However, even under the hypothetical circumstance that this occurred, Westminster wouldn't be able to retain control of the oil fields anyway, so ya boo sux. These matters are regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. When another state possesses an island within the continental shelf of this state, special rules apply.
The continental shelf off the Atlantic coast is Scotland's to exploit and develop, even if Westminster clung on to Rockall like a plook on the face of an adolescent sociopath. According to the Law of the Sea: "rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf." Westminster could pauchle its way to keeping Rockall, but as far as oil and fishing exploitation rights are concerned, they'd be entitled to rockall.
Neither would Westminster gain much by holding onto Shetland and Orkney. When an island belonging to one state sits on the continental shelf of another state, the islands are treated as enclaves. This matter was discussed in detail in a legal paper published by the European Journal of International Law: Prospective Anglo-Scottish Maritime Boundary Revisited:
http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/12/1/505.pdf
Most of the rights to the continental shelf would remain Scottish, Map 2 on page 29 of the legal paper shows the most likely sea boundaries. Westminster would be entitled only to a small zone around the islands, and the waters between Orkney and Shetland. This area contains no oil fields. If Shetland and Orkney were to remain under Westminster's control, Shetland would no longer have an oil fund. The map is reproduced here, so you can do a reverse Jeremy Paxman and sneer derisively at Westminster's pretensions.
http://tiny.cc/alphmw
Westminster's Shetland threat is a bluff. Westminster knows it's a bluff. They just don't want us to know too. As for Monckton he has the international credibility of Al Gore. He is dis invited because he is a nutter.
http://tiny.cc/wdqhmw
Monckton. He is an Admiral of the Star Fleet Academy and his only claim to fame is as a body double for Marty Feldman:
The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house.
Monckton. He is an Admiral of the Star Fleet Academy and his only claim to fame is as a body double for Marty Feldman:
The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house.
Far from being the impartial absolute statement of international law you claim tour link is simply to claims made by 1 person at caledonian university.
If true then there can be no current dispute that the oil reserves within Falkland island waters belong to Argentina; nor any claims based on the islands China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea & the Philipines are claiming; Nor to Greenland having territorial waters within 200 miles of Canada.
If you don't know of these instances perhaps you should look at the maps I have produced and tour champion has - both show a large indentation into what would be our territorial waters where the Faroe islands are. If he is willing to recognise the Faroes rights then he clearly does not believe his own claims that such islands have no rights.
Your remarks about Monckton are merely gratuitous rudeness. The only thing they will convince anybody of it that SNP supporters must rely on such taqctics since they do not have facts on their side.
If true then there can be no current dispute that the oil reserves within Falkland island waters belong to Argentina; nor any claims based on the islands China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea & the Philipines are claiming; Nor to Greenland having territorial waters within 200 miles of Canada.
If you don't know of these instances perhaps you should look at the maps I have produced and tour champion has - both show a large indentation into what would be our territorial waters where the Faroe islands are. If he is willing to recognise the Faroes rights then he clearly does not believe his own claims that such islands have no rights.
Your remarks about Monckton are merely gratuitous rudeness. The only thing they will convince anybody of it that SNP supporters must rely on such taqctics since they do not have facts on their side.
"Your remarks about Monckton are merely gratuitous rudeness. The only thing they will convince anybody of it that SNP supporters must rely on such taqctics since they do not have facts on their side."
I understood most of that but you have lost me in the last sentence of that hilarious statement, where you descended in to incoherence and the spelling standards of primary two. I say hilarious as it comes from the same keyboard that refers to the Scottish Government Parliament in Edinburgh as the "numptorium" a non word invented by silly wee boys to snigger over and feel very smug and happy. Since you refer to the Parliament as such it follows that your think the people who work therein are numpties which would suggest your regard a rather large percentage of Scotland's population as such having voted for the Parliament. Now what was that about "merely gratuitous rudeness." You see how this works. I stand by remarks on the Faux Lord. Anyone who falsely wears titles to which he is not entitled can only be regarded as a fraud, who uses false material to back his wild eyed babbling. As far as numpties go we can learn a lot from UKIP, who seem to be moving even to the right of Cameron. As to the scribbles you and "tour champion" have produced they have the credibility of alphabet spaghetti. Are you related to that English nutter on Shetland who tied to set up a republic? There is no movement what ever in either Orkney or Shetland to split from Scotland the only desire for it, is to be found in the bitter old fossils of the British Empire farting their way to oblivion in the House of Lords, who are regarded in the Islands with the utter contempt they have to richly earned.
I understood most of that but you have lost me in the last sentence of that hilarious statement, where you descended in to incoherence and the spelling standards of primary two. I say hilarious as it comes from the same keyboard that refers to the Scottish Government Parliament in Edinburgh as the "numptorium" a non word invented by silly wee boys to snigger over and feel very smug and happy. Since you refer to the Parliament as such it follows that your think the people who work therein are numpties which would suggest your regard a rather large percentage of Scotland's population as such having voted for the Parliament. Now what was that about "merely gratuitous rudeness." You see how this works. I stand by remarks on the Faux Lord. Anyone who falsely wears titles to which he is not entitled can only be regarded as a fraud, who uses false material to back his wild eyed babbling. As far as numpties go we can learn a lot from UKIP, who seem to be moving even to the right of Cameron. As to the scribbles you and "tour champion" have produced they have the credibility of alphabet spaghetti. Are you related to that English nutter on Shetland who tied to set up a republic? There is no movement what ever in either Orkney or Shetland to split from Scotland the only desire for it, is to be found in the bitter old fossils of the British Empire farting their way to oblivion in the House of Lords, who are regarded in the Islands with the utter contempt they have to richly earned.
I note you stand by your claim that Lord Monckton has been appointed Admiral of the (fictitious Star fleet Academy as representing the standard of accuracy to which you & presumably the SNP generally aspire.
So be it.
The term "numpty" is commo0nly understood Scots. Every one of the MSPs voted to destroy the Scottish economy & put the lights out because of a warming scare that every single one of them either knows is a lie or which every one of them is so ignarant about that they cannot defend it in open devate. Therefore either they are indeed numpties or they are wholly corrupt, or both. I suggest that in limiting myself to the former I was being overly polite. However if you insisit it was one of the other 2....
So be it.
The term "numpty" is commo0nly understood Scots. Every one of the MSPs voted to destroy the Scottish economy & put the lights out because of a warming scare that every single one of them either knows is a lie or which every one of them is so ignarant about that they cannot defend it in open devate. Therefore either they are indeed numpties or they are wholly corrupt, or both. I suggest that in limiting myself to the former I was being overly polite. However if you insisit it was one of the other 2....
As usual the warmist is good at abuse, not so good at arguing the case.
There is no doubt that Monckton's title is kosher: it's his entitlement to sit in the House of Lords which is doubtful. However, this has as little relevance to his views on warmism as Salmond's drinking habits have on his views on independence. Bleating about Monckton's eccentric claim to membership of the HoL are classic warmist tactics to avoid dealing (either in person or in writing) with Monckton's substantive case concerning the influence of man on the climate.
As to "Scotland's" oil, again it's not a conclusive argument to abuse the host of this blog or give a kicking to the shite in Westminster (whose excretory nature is mirrored only too well in Holyrood).
Without going into the legal arguments re borders, I notice that:
1. the distinguished academic works at a very undistinguished academic institution which has its origins (according to Wikipedia - I know, I know) in the Glasgow School of Cookery; and
2. the "principles" described appear, on the evidence adduced in the paper itself, to be flexible to say the least. As in most cases in international law where there's a dispute between sovereign nations, resolution boils down to a deal between the parties involved with an ex post facto fudge about "principles of international law" being observed.
If it is substantially a deal then, on the evidence of Whitehall's negotiating abilities, it wouldn't surprise me if Salmond got all he wants/claims and, moreover, walked away with the Rockall fields (if they actually belong to the UK).
On a personal note, I think it would be a pity if Scotland opted for independence but I reckon the balance of economic advantage (even if Scotland gets "its" oil) would stay with England as long as Scotland's benefiterati and public sector drones are paid for by someone else.
Post a Comment
There is no doubt that Monckton's title is kosher: it's his entitlement to sit in the House of Lords which is doubtful. However, this has as little relevance to his views on warmism as Salmond's drinking habits have on his views on independence. Bleating about Monckton's eccentric claim to membership of the HoL are classic warmist tactics to avoid dealing (either in person or in writing) with Monckton's substantive case concerning the influence of man on the climate.
As to "Scotland's" oil, again it's not a conclusive argument to abuse the host of this blog or give a kicking to the shite in Westminster (whose excretory nature is mirrored only too well in Holyrood).
Without going into the legal arguments re borders, I notice that:
1. the distinguished academic works at a very undistinguished academic institution which has its origins (according to Wikipedia - I know, I know) in the Glasgow School of Cookery; and
2. the "principles" described appear, on the evidence adduced in the paper itself, to be flexible to say the least. As in most cases in international law where there's a dispute between sovereign nations, resolution boils down to a deal between the parties involved with an ex post facto fudge about "principles of international law" being observed.
If it is substantially a deal then, on the evidence of Whitehall's negotiating abilities, it wouldn't surprise me if Salmond got all he wants/claims and, moreover, walked away with the Rockall fields (if they actually belong to the UK).
On a personal note, I think it would be a pity if Scotland opted for independence but I reckon the balance of economic advantage (even if Scotland gets "its" oil) would stay with England as long as Scotland's benefiterati and public sector drones are paid for by someone else.
# posted by 
: October 22, 2012
: October 22, 2012 << Home
