Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 6th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Holyrood joins 12th round of Rockall fight



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

SCOTTISH Government officials will take part in talks to resolve the sovereignty of Rockall – a disputed lump of granite that sticks out of the Atlantic 200 miles west of St Kilda.
Several countries believe they have a legitimate claim to the rock, which would give the owners the mineral rights to the surrounding seabed.

British, Irish, Danish and Icelandic officials have met 11 times since 2002 to discuss the future of Rockall and more talks are due to take place next month.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "These negotiations could impact on the 200 nautical-mile boundary of the Scottish fishing zone.

"We, therefore, have a real interest in these negotiations. Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Scottish Government are working together and it has been agreed that Scottish Government officials will be represented on the UK negotiating team."

The final boundary will be determined by the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Parties have until May 2009 to submit reports to the commission.




The full article contains 178 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 January 2008 11:59 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Senga Jean,

Scotland 14/01/2008 00:56:39
Scotland must have Independence to avoid being ripped off. My Icelandic friends know they have no real claim but they are quite happy to fill the vacuum of Scotland's impotence.
2

Petro,

14/01/2008 01:00:27
Oh grow up.
3

FrancesP,

14/01/2008 01:35:32
#2. If that was directed at #1, I'm fairly confident that Senga Jean was joking. I'm equally confident that AM2 will join you in failing to spot that, and is even as we speak adding it to his doomsday database of "SNP cyber-fanaticism"!
4

frank mcbride,

lusitania 14/01/2008 02:14:44
After the relative success in the last fisheries round, Westminster has realised that Scots input to International negotiations is impressive.

Westminster thinks Scotland will still be part of the UK by the time that the situation is resolved.
5

Royster,

14/01/2008 06:12:16
Wasn't it Robin Cook that gave up most of the UK's claim to Rockall as part of Labours half-witted ethical foreign policy?
6

Nikostratos,

14/01/2008 11:26:08
frank Mcbride still dreaming his Iberian fanatasy's . marxist relic.....role on the rise of the 'proletariat' Frank Mcbride
7

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 11:51:55
It's a "disputed lump of granite that sticks out of the Atlantic", why does somewhere have to own it!!!

What is important is that the Scottish fishermen don't lose another area which they could fish in because of this fight. There already heavily hit in their industry by how many days they can have at sea and which docs in their own country they can uses.


#6 Nikostratos: Whats that got to do with the Rockall!!!
8

Royster,

14/01/2008 13:54:42
#7. Because you can claim 200 miles of fishing rights around it that's why - especially if you have a strong navy to back up your claim (cf Russia and North Pole). Who gives a sh#te about the UN Charter of the Sea anyway?
9

Guga II,

Rockall 14/01/2008 15:33:39
It's mine.
10

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 19:55:49
#8 Royster: You've only read the first 2 lines of my comment. I also mention about the fishing. Though for my understanding of the article Scotland already has fishing rights of 200miles in that area and it's under jepordy if someone over than Scotland owns the pile of granite.

I just don't understand why every piece of land should be owed by someone!!!! Can we no have areas which are left belonging to no one!!!!
11

An Beal Bacht,

John Smith House 14/01/2008 20:23:40
The UK relinquished fishing rights beyond Rockall in 1997. The present discussion are related to the continental shelf and the rights to exploit resources on or under the ocean floor. Posters here should be reassured that your government will negotiate to ensure the UK doesn't lose these potentially lucrative rights of exploitation.
12

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 20:48:21
#11 An Beal Bacht: Aye the Scottish Government will make sure that Scotland is no riped off anymore!!!

Yer readings a wee bit warped in this article though cause it say the 200miters of water is a Scottish Fishing zone NOT a UK one!!!
13

An English Voice,

14/01/2008 21:35:30
Just been doing a little reading on the Scottish fishing industry.

Apparently the dominant Herring sector (almost 50% of the total industry) nearly died out twice. First in the 70s due to unregulated over-fishing, and then again, in recent years, when the SFPA discovered fishing companies were involved in large-scale misreporting of catch yields, requiring punitive quotas to allow stocks to recover.

Was this the fault of Westminster? It's just that the nats all seem to blame them for destroying the fishing industry when it looks more like self-inflicted damage by the fishermen themselves....
14

FrancesP,

14/01/2008 21:47:01
Did this in-depth research of yours include the revelation that the UK government had made a conscious decision to "sacrifice" the Scottish fishing industry by soft-peddling on the issue during the Common Market entry negotiations in the early 1970s? Does Westminster ever take any responsibility for the effect of its actions on Scotland, or will it be the fault of the fish next?
15

An English Voice,

14/01/2008 21:57:41
14. Have you got a source for that? My understanding is the agreeing to the CFP (along with all the other agreements) was a prerequisite to joining the EEC.

However, don't forget the support that nasty old union gave to Scotland's fishermen as they tried to fish off Iceland in the 70s.

In the meantime, this graph of fishing yields of the primary stocks over the past decades does seem to suggest another reason why the fishing industry has suffered (ie overfishing):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/North_Sea_Gadoid_Landings.png
16

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 22:06:17
#14 FrancesP: Tell me what happen the 1970's in the common market the only 2 thing I've heard about the 1970's if the botched up referendum and the joining of the EU about x amount of years to late!!!!

Your second question, I can answer (well, only from the mid-1980's on wards, honestly) Never and Never!!!

They didnae even apologies for the poll tax until sometime last year, and even then it was just a populist stunt to try and bring the Tory party back from the dead in Scotland!!! (NOT sure if it worked)
17

Eve,

Scotland 14/01/2008 22:10:27
#15 An English Voice,: Oh wiki, the website that has a disclaimer that the information on it might be wrong. And the website that often suffers from vandalism. It's NOT a valid sore of research because of the things mentioned above. The Daily Record has a better chance of writing a story that I believe over the information published on wiki.
18

Royster,

15/01/2008 00:03:14
#10. If the area belongs to no-one then there is always a chance someone will come in and say it belongs to them. Human nature I'm afraid.
19

FrancesP,

15/01/2008 00:37:06
#15. "Have you got a source for that? My understanding is the agreeing to the CFP (along with all the other agreements) was a prerequisite to joining the EEC."

That might be true for new applicants now, but at that time it was still very much a matter for negotiation. This all emerged six years ago in papers released under the thirty-year rule - the most detailed write-up I could find on the internet comes from Christopher Booker.

"...this strange story began in June 1970, when Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway were about to apply for membership of the Common Market. Realising these four countries would control fishing waters containing more than 90 per cent of Europe's fish, the six original members and the European Commission laid an ambush by agreeing in principle, just hours before the applications arrived, that all fish in western European waters should be regarded as 'a common European resource'. The 1970 documents also revealed that the Heath government decided not to challenge the new 'Common Fisheries Policy' for fear of prejudicing the negotiations. By the end of 1970, as fishermen and MPs began to question what was going on, the Government's official line was to give public reassurance that Britain had 'reserved its position' on the CFP and would 'take proper account of the interests' of the fishermen, while privately conceding, as one official put it, that 'in the wider UK context, they must be regarded as expendable'."

Hope that well and truly answers your question. By the way, I can't believe you brought up the Cod Wars - I don't know how to break this to you but the UK government caved in! (After pressure from the Americans, of course, some things never change).
20

donald,

glasgow 15/01/2008 08:19:36
Should 'English Voice' be gratified that the Unionist Alliance leaders are in London today, looking for more ways to retard Scotland in their own image.
21

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 15/01/2008 08:42:29
English voice, I assume you are referring to the time when Iceland kicked the royal Navies Erky.

The filled up their folksil's with concrete and scrap steel and proceeded to ram the British Ships to pieces. Great television, and I remember cheering everytime the Icelanders forced the Navy to run for it. rule brittania my erky.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.