Could we, should we, let England have this new oil and gas field as a going-away present?

englandsgas newborder waters

The new Glenform oil and gas field is supposedly a biggie. It has £2bn worth of oil and enough gas for around 5% of the UK’s annual gas demand. I suppose 5% might help keep the Russian wolf at bay, slightly. The new field west of Shetland would do 100% of Scotland’s annual gas demand so maybe we should be generous and let England have Glenform? The border redrawing to grab some more of the North Sea for
England, under New Labour, doesn’t seem to have been bold enough to, capture the Glenform field.

We’d still have 90% of all the gas and oil along with most of the UK’s renewable sources, 255 of all of Europe’s wind energy  and as you can see above, far greater maritime territory.

It sounds great. Read this, in the Guardian today:

‘A Chinese-led consortium has discovered the UK’s [sic] biggest gas-field in more than a decade, leading experts to say there is life yet in the country’s offshore sector. Drilling found the equivalent of about 250m barrels of oil could be recovered from the Glengorm reservoir in the central North Sea, about 5% of the UK’s annual gas demand. The Chinese firm CNOOC owns 50% of the Glengorm project, with a subsidiary of the Italian company Edison holding another 25% and the French oil firm Total owning the other 25%. The size of the find is the biggest since the Culzean find in 2008, and 11th largest of any kind in the UK in the past 30 years.’

Come one, be generous, given them something.



23 thoughts on “Could we, should we, let England have this new oil and gas field as a going-away present?

  1. Bugger (the Panda) January 30, 2019 / 5:12 pm

    They can buy it from us cubic metre by cubic metre.

    And pay back all the stolen royalties and taxes.

    As 5hey have already accepted to pay the decomm costs.they can pay that too.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Alan Gordon January 30, 2019 / 6:04 pm

      Nothing is free or up for negotiation, untill we start negotiations.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. David Howdle January 30, 2019 / 5:42 pm

    Anything just so long as they promise to go away!


  3. Contrary January 30, 2019 / 8:08 pm

    Hmm. Just contemplating there. How will the avid BritNat supporters attitude change come independence,,, so the vote comes in, and it is possibly fairly divided, and we are thinking there will have to be some concessions (obviously NONE will be given as regards any Westminster control over anything), so what concessions can we give, perhaps a slice of oil field to their beloved ex-empire? Except, these britnats now live in an independent (to be, we are still negotiating) Scotland, and they would be giving away some of the potential wealth of their new country,,, what a dichotomy! I am not implying, of course, that all britnats are all greedy and would sell their granny for a new hat, but I have a feeling it will be the NO contingent that would object to any giving away of resources most strongly.

    I might have it wrong, it may be a pure constitutional belief in the union that drives them – ‘strong shoulders’ (clears throat and tries to look serious) and all that,,, except that implies they want to remain tied to those particular apron strings because of presumed wealth. The more I think about it, surely these people’s should be clamouring for independence (less people, bigger share). Maybe it’s the pomp and circumstance, and the perceived power that attracts them to the union. Hmm. Power. They would have to be very unaware to not notice just what an embarrassment the uk is (yes, we are still part of it, so we get to share in the shame). Nope, I just can’t figure out what drives anyone to consider colonial status is preferable to independence.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Contrary January 30, 2019 / 8:10 pm

    Has here not been any polls recently asking ‘how soon would you like an indyref’? There were a ton a couple of years back, shouldn’t they be polling this question now?

    Liked by 2 people

  5. William Henderson January 30, 2019 / 8:30 pm

    Should we donate our gas-field as a goodwill gesture? No! It would be construed as weakness.

    Their ‘good friends’ in the USA are just desperate to sell their fracked LPG (at a price) to anyone who will take it. So, if England needs natural gas that’s where they should look.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. A Scot January 30, 2019 / 9:01 pm

    ‘Should we be generous and let England have this new oil’, you ask, John.

    Straightforward question – deserves a straightforward answer. NO.

    On no account. We can sell it to them, for they will be energy-strapped when we are independent, but be generous to England? Really? Or were you just being mischievous? They can buy it, the same as anyone else. This ‘precious, precious union’ is a dictatorship. And you don’t give dictatorial, delusional regimes anything.


    • Kangaroo January 31, 2019 / 8:24 am

      The thought police won’t allow you to give away our wealth, particularly to that shower in Westminster.
      I guess you are thinking that it would be a price worth paying just for getting them out of our hair. I have some sympathy with that POV but we are dealing with Perfidious Albion here. The first chance they get they will tell us how they have been coerced into accepting a few beads when THEY are Entitled to much more because they are special, superior beings with particular and special needs. To borrow from Charles de Gaulle There is no alliance England will not ditch, no treaty they will not disrespect, no truth they will not disavow, no oath they will not disown.

      Why don’t you think how we can rebalance our trading relationship with England, eg, repricing our electricity exports etc.

      As far as the premise of your question is concerned. NO CHANCE. Simply because they have done us over for 300years and whilst I have some sympathy with the idea of forgiveness especially for the average person, not so for the establishment or their craven sycophants. So maybe we can send them food aid packages suitably stamped with a ScotAid logo.

      Liked by 1 person

      • annraynet January 31, 2019 / 4:38 pm

        Completely agree. The seabed north of the W-E line was stolen. Why should we give them more? What abouts fishing rights, not to mention the national security of an independent Scotland?
        Personally I would like Berwick back, but only if the citizens agreed.


  7. Margaret Barrie January 30, 2019 / 10:09 pm

    Not a pennysworth! And we’ll have our 6000 square miles of North Sea territorial waters back, thank you.


  8. Donald Urquhart January 30, 2019 / 10:37 pm

    I wouldn’t give them the pickings of my nose if they were starving


  9. Contrary January 31, 2019 / 7:43 am

    Very succinct Alasdair, I will take your answer and expand on it: No, don’t give an inch.

    Just listening to good ol BBC Scotland radio show, telling me what all the parties are saying about the Scottish budget:

    Scot Tories (did the really have Murdo on? He has the mental capacity of a snail, so I am reliably informed) says it’s the most terrible thing ever to tax ‘workers’ (he means higher earners. If the average wage in Scotland is 23k, then there are an awful lot of people earning – and if you are earning you ARE a worker – well below the higher tax threshold), and to have a difference in tax rates from the non-Scottish parts of the U.K. He didn’t say why that was terrible. Oh aye, something about needing more money for councils,,, dunno where they are getting the ‘more money’ though. The Scot Tories that believe that there is a ‘secret plot by the SNP to hold an independence referendum’. Secret. And whose leader gets messages from God on how well she’s doing. Tin-foil hatted maniacs.

    Scot Greens – they want more money to councils and a replacement to the council tax. So, the are holding the budget to ransom for things they should have started coming up with ideas and negotiating over the past few years. Ah, Andy Wightman is on, I quite like him – far better explanation of their desires, it’s more to do with changes in the way the councils are funded, and they are in talks.

    Scot LibDems, they say that ,,,, jeezo, can I even write this down when it even lacks the floppy logic (we are greedy!) of the Tories? They cannot vote for the budget (a spending plan for the year ahead) while independence is ‘still on the table’ (a constitutional issue, that will never be off the table). The best bit was ‘independence will make us poorer’ – aaaarrrrrggghhhhhhh, billions and billions of pounds in oil resources and we. would. be POORER.

    I’ve just read that the issue isn’t actually with passing the budget – apparently the tax variation needs to be passed by the third vote or,,, it gets difficult, it might go back to being reserved. But then, we are getting used to politicians voting for less power for themselves, so we shouldn’t be surprised if these do. With the lessening funds from the Barnett formula we need those extra tax funds – aaaahhhhhhh, I HATE being part of this union.

    Re: the report on premature babies contracting an infection (along with other ones), they don’t say what it is that has them worried, except that it was BACTERIA – they then link this to the pigeon poo scandal, which is a FUNGUS. Obviously that doesn’t take away from non-lethal infections of any kind getting into hospitals, which is not good, but I have still not heard any stats saying there is an increased risk, or why they are suddenly reporting on this.

    It is very sad when anyone dies, so the BBC using these tragedies to bring to us their sensationalising doom-mongering is disgusting. Aha, Staph. aureus – it lives on all of us, it’s part of your flora and fauna on your skin! It causes problems in weak and vulnerable, and should not be in the blood – hence the investigation. We need to ban people from hospitals, it’s the only way. An NHS spokeswoman came on the radio and thankfully made it clear that this is not related to pigeon poo. Let’s see if they change their headlines.


  10. Jon January 31, 2019 / 7:57 am

    I’d happily give them this field, maybe more. It would be worth it, to break free and rejoin the real world.


  11. Stuart Mcnicoll January 31, 2019 / 8:40 am

    Negotiations with England will be difficult, not just because we know from very recent experience just how they will behave. We wouldn’t for a start be able to negotiate trade deals, particularly if they become a pariah state due to there breach of the GFA. The 6000 square miles of the North Sea annexed by Westminster will be decided by the international courts. Negotiations will come down to state funded assets, that would exclude oil and gas, no funding was ever provide by government, and debt. Scotland’s share of due UK assets will out way any share of uk debt.


    • Stuart Mcnicoll January 31, 2019 / 1:06 pm

      Sorry kind of rushed that last comment, due to the dug wanting his breakfast.

      I’m not quite sure how we could give westminster an oil well or even an oil field. Westminster currently sells licences for exploration and extraction. Unless Scotland nationalised the industry we would be operating the industry exactly as Westminster does now. I can’t see how any corporation would be happy to hand it over to Westminster or how we could allow Westminster to extract tax revenue from our waters, they would have no legal jurisdiction. Unless of course we just handed over the revenue, don’t think so.


  12. gavin January 31, 2019 / 1:04 pm

    It would be good if some MP’s probed the UK government on what protocol they would follow on the break-up of the UK.

    The Vienna Convention on Succession of States? Few countries have ratified this, so that’s doubtful.
    The Velvet Divorce between the Czechs and Slovacs? That would see both countries as equals, so our big southron pal would NOT want that.
    England insists on being either the Successor State or the Continuing State. Scotland would have to find the best team of lawyers on international law possible to protect our interests, and count the spoons when our guests finally depart.
    We may, like Ukraine, find ourselves an inadvertent nuclear power( Faslane being a “fixed asset”)—a decent bargaining chip for more useful things.

    No doubt British nationalist politicians from Scotland would insist on being on the negotiating team, and, while it would be difficult to resist this, their role could not be decisive.


    • Stuart Mcnicoll January 31, 2019 / 1:11 pm

      Of course there is the question as to whether Westminster would be recognised as the legitimate authority by Scotland to negotiate on England’s behalf.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. twathater January 31, 2019 / 9:43 pm

    I agree with Kangaroo upthread send them some food parcels packed in oor baby boxes and see how rubbish they think they are then . One of the things I hold a grudge against the english for is their enthusiasm to continually elect conservative governments , they have no regard or concience for the mayhem and damage these self serving greed driven monsters inflict on ordinary people . Also the open and sometimes vehement denigration and demonisation of Scotland and Scots as nothing but subsidy junkies where they provide a GRANT out of the kindness of their hearts . Sorry but I would NEVER give them anything because they wouldn’t appreciate the gesture


  14. BRIAN MACFARLANE February 3, 2019 / 8:28 pm

    They can have our share of Trident. They’ve had more than enough of the oil already


    • johnrobertson834 February 4, 2019 / 9:39 am

      Good idea. Now what else can we return. Their political branch offices? David Mundell’s desk after an office romance ends in a go on it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s