SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is seeking another vote on Scottish independence, coming possibly as soon as late 2018:
In a bombshell announcement Monday, Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon told reporters in Edinburgh that she will seek the authority to hold a second independence referendum for Scotland. Citing a "brick wall of intransigence" from British Prime Minister Theresa May, Sturgeon asserted that the only way to preserve Scottish interests in the midst of the U.K. exit from the European Union is to put matters directly in the hands of Scottish voters.
"What Scotland deserves, in the light of the material change of circumstances brought about by the Brexit vote, is the chance to decide our future in a fair, free and democratic way — and at a time when we are equipped with the facts we need," the Scottish first minister and head of the Scottish National Party said in prepared remarks. "Whatever path we take, it should be one decided by us, not for us."
Next week, she will seek a section 30 order from the Scottish Parliament to begin the referendum process — which the U.K. Parliament in Westminster ultimately must approve. If all goes as planned, Sturgeon expects that a vote would be held in the fall of 2018 or spring of 2019, after terms of a Brexit deal worked out by the U.K. and the EU become clear.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday March 15 2017, @10:24AM
Getting back to the fishing stocks though, that's based on the assumption of a UK-EU deal. It does not consider the possibility of a three way (UK-Scotland)-EU-Scotland deal, or even a (UK-Scotland)-(EU+Scotland) deal. Drawing out the EEZs on the map for the various areas of interest and there are some really interesting issues for the UK if the EU decides not to do a deal - and they'd have the UK less Scotland over a major barrel on this. If we assume Scotland's EEZ would extend out from the border towards southern Norway, then you basically bisect the North Sea from the channel to that line. Between the EEZs of Scotland, Norway, Denmark's around the Faroes, and Iceland, were there no deals at all then any deepwater fishermen from the NE of England looking to trawl in the larger Atlantic would need to travel several hundred nautical miles before they could even drop their nets legally. There's no way the UK could allow that to be the case, and the other parties must know it, which gives them another ace in the hole should negotiations turn ugly - so more concessions from the UK elsewhere to get a favourable deal.
Hypothetically though, if it was a no deal BrExit and EEZs were to be enforced, how likely is it that the UK fishermen abide by such rules? Probably pretty slim - they certainly didn't in the Cod Wars - and there would be a much larger expanse of ocean to illegally fish in than there was around the Icelandic coast, but equally - despite the support of a much larger Royal Navy than there is now, they still lost to the Icelandic Coastguard's limited resources just by virtue of the tactic of putting nets beyond use. With a much weaker Royal Navy, combined with enforcement by more capable and numerous opposing navies (real ones this time), I have little doubt which side would come of worse if it ever did come to that. Interesting times...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!