North Sea Oil is Running Out?

Everyone that I know who works in the North Sea, and being from Aberdeen those are quite a few people indeed, tells me that North Sea oil is running dry. It's days are numbered. Why then do I read that a new oil refinery is planned for Teeside in the North East of England? Sonhoe, a London-based company that specialises in the development of hydro-carbon processing and infrastructure facilities, is planning to build a new £2 bn facility "designed to process 200,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil into high quality, low sulphur diesel, petrochemical feedstock naphtha and kerosene for use in the UK or for export."

I can't argue with the site of the facility, Teeside is an excellent location, not only for access to a deep water port, but also in terms of proximity to the oil fields which it would service. I would surmise that it is for the latter reason more than the former, that the project is even being considered at all.

I would contend that this is part of a larger Westminster strategy, to isolate the idea of Scottish independence, which is deepening in it's support and momentum, with the natural possession of Scotttish oil. By ensuring that Grangemouth is no longer the lynchpin between the North Sea oil fields and the United Kingdom supply chain, they can cut Scotland out entirely. Indeed as such, there are other commercial reasons to promote such a strategy. The Ineos strike at Grangemouth in 2007 provided a harsh lesson when it forced the vital BP oil pipeline to close, shutting down operation across almost the entire UK sector of the North Sea at an estimated cost to the industry of £50m per day.

Indeed this may be a theory, with little basis in fact, but it does ride roughshod over the notion that the oil is running out. North sea production may be in decline, but there is still more than enough to satisfy a return on investment of a £2bn on oil refinery. Sonhoe clearly think that the oil will keep pumping for the next few decades at least.

It is somewhat famous in Nationalist circles that the Westminster Government have consistently lied to the Scottish people about the scope of Scottish oil. As such it has either not been viable, or actually running out since the first barrel was extracted on November 3rd, 1975.

In re-call reading in 2005 an article published in the Independent entitled How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland. The article highlighted a report written by an economist, Gavin McCrone, and for the Cabinet Office in April 1975, but released in 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act.

"At the time of Professor McCrone's report to the cabinet office, the SNP claimed that North Sea Oil would yield £800 million a year for the government by 1980. Professor McCrone's main criticism of their analysis was that their forecasts were "far too low". He put the sum at about £3 billion."

Meanwhile Westminster has siphoned around £200bn of North Sea oil revenue since 1975, the majority of that since the oil price boom and subsequent windfall tax. The idea that the rest of the UK subsides Scotland is ridiculous to say the least. Without the taxation and licensing of Scotland's oil, Darling's budget would be shorter than the list for potential Labour donors.

The Independent article also went on to say that by "the mid 1970s, international convention had already agreed that the North Sea north of the 55th parallel was under Scottish jurisdiction. That meant around 90 per cent of the UK's oil and gas reserves fell within Scottish waters."

If the Scottish people voted "aye" in a referendum on Scottish Independence the United Kingdom government would therefore be duty bound under International law, to accept the free will and volition of the Scottish people to posit themselves on the international stage as a sovereign nation would they not? Indeed along with such a partition they would also have to follow this international convention that all waters North of the 55th parallel are Scottish waters, including the oil and gas which is reserved underneath them. But what if the Westminster government did not follow this convention and attempted to maintain their jursidiction over Scottish water, at the same time as offering independence? Giving with one hand, while taking away with the other.

The first task of a fledgling Scottish Government therefore, in such a situation, would be to appeal to the international community for support, particularly in Europe. After all, if Westminster would so readily ignore it's international obligations with regards to an independent Scotland, then why should it be expected to follow them with it's other neighbours? Appropriation without consent is tantamount to theft under Scots law, would we stand idly by?

The UK Supreme Court and the Act of Union

As the Law Lords leave the House of Lords and move into Middlesex Guildhall, the site of the new UK Supreme Court. We can look upon this as the first step on the long road of reform necessary to bring the House of Lords into the 21st Century. To do so however, would fail to take into account the inherent injustice within it's scope.

Whilst reform of the House of Lords is already something which I have spoken about, see here, the separation of powers and furtherance of democracy are not the only issues here. The sovereignty of Scots law is also at stake.

Only two out of the twelve judges appointed to the Supreme Court are Scottish lawyers, Baron Hope of Craighead and Baron Rodger of Earlsferry. Since Scottish cases require at least five judges to hear a case, the best that can be hoped for when the Supreme Court hears a Scottish appeal is for two out of the five judges to have been trained within the legal jurisdiction that they are expected to pronounce upon. Are the English trained Judges likely to adopt an Scots law perspective, which hearing cases? I think not, and indeed that is not entirely unreasonable given that the knowledge and experience which saw them appointed is based entirely upon another jurisdiction. It becomes clear therefore, that Scots law will not be upheld on appeal.

With it's own entirely separate legal sytem, Scotland should have it's own Supreme Court. Would one think it acceptable for the the United States Supreme Court to hear Canadian appeal cases? Clearly not, and indeed it is further apparent that the House of Lords should never have held any jurisdiction over Scotland in the first place. See the Act of Union 1707, Art 19 "[N]o Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-hall" Westminster-hall obviously being the key term.

The highest criminal court in Scotland is the High Court of Justiciary, and indeed the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction over Scottish criminal cases; likewise the Court of Session should be the highest civil court in Scotland. Anything else rules roughshod over the Treaty of Union and the maintainence of a seperate Scottish legal jurisdiction. Something most Scots feel very strongly about, and as any who have purchased property in England will testify to, see gazumping.

Perhaps it is ironic that, before Parliament trampled all over the Act of Union by establishing the House of Lords as the highest civil appeal court in Scots law, when the Court of Session as the highest Court of the land, its operation was entirely separate from Parliament. Scotland would in fact never have needed these democratic reforms if the Act of Union hadn't been gazumped in the first place.