Posted: Tue Sep 16, 14 9:02 am
It's an interesting argument, as I'm not sure as to how assets will be "valued".Trigger_Andy wrote:I guess I can kind of see where you are coming from. But I dont think anyone agree's with it.We are not talking about movable assets like a Painting or Subs. Scotland wants nothing to do with Trident and taht will be one of the first things to go come a Yes vote. Trident, its Nukes and the Oil exploration would be the first things to go. rUK can keep its Nukes on its own land. Just now my family is within the Blast range should the Nukes Detonate. Not for me.
On the other hand do you think that if there wa no Oil in the North Sea Scotland could lay claim to a percentage of mineral rights after a split, for time indefinite? England cannot just own sections of Scottish waters. Would Scotland be entitled to a percentage of these minerals on par with the size of Scotland land mass, ie 33% of the UK's?
I dont even think that this is on the agenda if it was then Cameron and hos cronies would not be fighting tooth and nail for Scotland. If rUK could lay claim to patches of Scottish water they would be doing so now, as my previous picture showed they have already moved the 'border' to grab more oil. They would not need to do this if they could just say 'we want 90% of your oil.'
I would assume that it would be on population, rather than land space - after all, it is the population that has created the "assets" (even the mineral / oil assets - as in, created a "value" in them).
I'm not saying that it is about laying claim to patches of Scottish Water, but rather to an asset.
I can see what you are saying as well though - the oil is an unrealised asset as such. Take power generation - I would assume that Scotland will want the value of the power stations in the UK added up, and a share of that assigned to their "pot" so to speak. But that is a list of physical "things" that people have built, rather than something in the ground.
I wonder if items that are natural, such as the crown assets (lands) will come into the toting up then?
It's interesting, as assets that belong to the state will be added up, I would have thought. And these assets will have a subjective value dependent upon various things, such as the value of the land due to the minerals in it / items on it. Fishery rights? Shooting rights? Licenses for activities (such as revenue from commercial rights sold, such as leisure activity on lands owned by the government, down to leasing rights for things like mobile phone spectrum etc?). There are alot of items that generate money that have a "worth" that are based on "ownership" of an area / item.
So, I would have thought for example, that if a government department owned a large chunk of land, that "value" would go in the pot. If it so happened that the land held a huge timber plantation, or a large economically valuable coal deposit, the value of the land would reflect that. Why would the sea be any different?
British Coal, a private supplier, is generating revenue in rUK mostly. But, mining an asset in rUK. Would this coal have a value, and would it go in the pot, or would it be the property of rUK?
What would change, if coal suddenly became more valuable?
It's an interesting argument - what is included in the "list" of combined assets, and what isn't.
I'm not saying this to argue, as if it is a "yes" vote, I'm sure things will work out one way or another, but it is technically quite interesting.
