|
Today Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, sent a formal demand for a Judicial Tribunal to be set up to give a court ruling on the respective ownership between the English and Scottish Nations of North Sea oil. Dear Mr Cable Re: North Sea Oil Adjudication I write on behalf of the currently unrepresented English Nation and as Chairman of the English Democrats, the only Party campaigning for English interests to be properly looked after, to formally request that you set up a Judicial Enquiry to reach a binding arbitration on the allocation of the geological assets, in particular to oil and gas, beneath the seabed of the territorial waters in the North Sea as between England and Scotland. I further formally request that this arbitration be conducted according to the usual principles of International Law and the Conventions which apply to such allocations, on which basis we provisionally assert that half of the North Sea oil beds and gas are English. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and indicate the time period in which you propose to deal with this request. Please note that if your response is unsatisfactory we reserve the right to remove such arbitration from the jurisdiction of the British Government and place it with the United Nations or other competent international jurisdiction. Yours sincerely R C W Tilbrook The full article and statement from Robin can be read on his blog, by clicking here.
 Comments (7)Subscribe to this comment's feedShow/hide comments Fair is Fair
Let me say at the outset that I consider myself a Brit! I am also very proud of my Anglo Scottish heritage, I dare say 1,000's of Englishmen are. That said, nothing is more guarenteed to flick my switch than naked unfairness and injustice.
I too applaud the move by the English Democrats to raise the subject of North Sea Oil. I do not agree with the stated aim (though I do note it is provisional). Surely the same formula as that applied by many to the English financial support of Scotland in recent years, should be used here. Given that currently North Sea Oil is a British asset, given that Scotlands population is around 10% of that of England, given that recent figures have revealed that each person in Scotland receives x thousand of pounds more than their English neighbours of financial support, it is obvious that financial matters are being discussed in terms of 'per capita". We should do the same for North Sea Oil, to enable the English to reclaim the monies outlaid over the years to support Scotland. Do I mean that England should get 90% of the current (and future) North Sea Oil revenues. You bet I do.
,
January 11, 2012
Ms
No less than Three Acts of the Westminster Parliament, the most recent in 1998, identify EVERYTHING North of 55 degrees latitude as Scottish waters hence gentlemen, it' STILL Scotland's oil
,
January 13, 2012
...
While I wish you well in your campaign for Englisih independence you really do need to brush up on international law.
,
January 13, 2012
good point...
...and an independent Scotland can claim 10% of all income from English business that originated during the existence of the UK! What a bunch of *$#£s!
,
January 17, 2012
...
Oh, you poor, put upon English, why do you put up with it? It seems to me, though, that your quarel is with God who put the oil where it is. You've got about 40% of the gas, and 10% of the oil, so be grateful for that, why don't you?
Your other grievances should be directed at your own government (the UK government) who have not seen it fit to give you an assembly as they have Wales, the north of Ireland, or Scotland.
,
January 21, 2012
...
I was most shocked to discover that the sea off St Andrews and even as far up as Carnoustie was redefined as English by the last Labour govt. The sooner this is independently ruled on by international marine border experts the better - tho I think you'll find it will move south- not north
,
April 09, 2012
Write comment |
|
Demand for Recognition of England’s Oil
Written by Administrator
|
If Cable agrees, it will be a considerable achievement for the party. If he refuses, delays or fudges the question, his and his Goverment's hypocrisy and duplicity will be clearly exposed. The party can gain much from this initiative. It is a creditable and worthy objective which we can constantly refer to.
Mention has been made of the fact that there are very few institutions dedicated to England's interests, which I take to mean government bodies, but there are cultural institutions where change could be possible now. I have written about this elsewhere, but take the National Trust, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery for example. Which nation do they serve? Scotland has the 'National Trust for Scotland', and the 'Galleries of Scotland', and Wales has the 'Galleries of Wales'. They must be by definition therefore England's institutions. I don't know if parliamentary approval is required to change the National Trust to the National Trust for England, (and a seperate Trust for Wales as I believe 'National' in this case includes Wales), but whatever is required, I would suggest that the party could consider making formal demands for changes of name of all of these, and whatever change is required to their constitutions to recognise England's distinct identity and culture. As an extention of these let us pursue a bold policy of anglization in all spheres of interest.
The campaigns should be easily understood by the English people and any refusal to change by these establishments will again expose their hypocrisy and anti-English bias, and work to our advantage, We will be able to raise the issues again and again.