Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

09-06-2019 2:41pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

We'd be demanding respect if it were our clump of rock, which it is not.

If we were that stupid (we're not claiming it, but not agreeing it's belonging to anybody - hence disputed). We'd be rightly disparaged. BTW, who apart from the UK is agreeing they've a right to 12 miles of ocean around it?

gctest50 · 09-06-2019 2:41pm

YFlyer wrote: »

Are fish population more concentrated in that area of the North Sea?

Seems to be a lot more south of the country.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-8.7/centery:47.2/zoom:7

09-06-2019 2:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If we were that stupid (we're not claiming it, but not agreeing it's belonging to anybody - hence disputed). We'd be rightly disparaged. BTW, who apart from the UK is agreeing they've a right to 12 miles of ocean around it?

I assume the radius of restriction is directly proportional to the size of the islet. Maybe someone else can confirm.

09-06-2019 2:45pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I assume the radius of restriction is directly proportional to the size of the islet. Maybe someone else can confirm.

territorial sea (extending 12 nautical miles from the baseline);
contiguous zone (extending 24 nautical miles from baseline); and
exclusive economic zone (extending 200 nautical miles from baseline, plus boundaries with adjacent countries).

09-06-2019 2:47pm

Deleted User wrote: »

territorial sea (extending 12 nautical miles from the baseline);

contiguous zone (extending 24 nautical miles from baseline); and

exclusive economic zone (extending 200 nautical miles from baseline, plus boundaries with adjacent countries).

Where did you get the claim that the UK has claimed 24 n miles as part of its contiguous zone?

09-06-2019 2:49pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Where did you get the claim that the UK has claimed 24 n miles as part of its contiguous zone?

That's the general maritime claim, not specific to any country.

09-06-2019 2:50pm

Deleted User wrote: »

That's the general maritime claim, not specific to any country.

Do you have an authoritative, clear legal source for that?

fly_agaric · 09-06-2019 2:51pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

In fairness, this isn't news in the UK.

True, but you must admit it is sort of funny isn't it(appropriate after hours material)...

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm as patriotic as the next man, but the Scots have a valid argument here. I'm not convinced that we do.

Not an expert on legalities, but trying to claim some sort of exclusive right to a small rock in the ocean sounds dodgy. I know it is closer to "them", but apart from that it seems like tactics China has used to try and exert their control over parts of the sea a long ways away from their coast. Maybe the Scots should hire some of their dredgers and build the rock up to be a proper island so they can "claim" it. If the Irish vessels there are breaching some EU fishing rules or over fishing or something that's fair enough. The UK hasn't left the EU just yet (they begged for an extension and put off their "Brexit Freedom Day" celebration). There will probably be much more to come on this once they do.

09-06-2019 2:54pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Do you have an authoritative, clear legal source for that?

Only if you consider the UN as such...

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

09-06-2019 2:54pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

Not an expert on legalities, but trying to claim some sort of exclusive right to a small rock in the ocean sounds dodgy. I know it is closer to "them", but [...]

But.. that sounds like common sense.

If we were in their position, we'd be imploring common sense to prevail. "It's closer to us than it is to you, therefore it's ours". I'm not saying that's correct, but it's exactly what our argument would be.

But we can't argue that, because it's closer to them.

09-06-2019 2:58pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But.. that sounds like common sense.

If we were in their position, we'd be imploring common sense to prevail. "It's closer to us than it is to you, therefore it's ours". I'm not saying that's correct, but it's exactly what our argument would be.

But we can't argue that, because it's closer to them.

Or here's a crazy thought, what about Ireland's claim that nobody owns it as common sense?

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-06-2019 3:02pm

One (C) Theory would be that Unionists in (soon to be Indie) Scotland, are seeking to create tension,
to prevent the future formation of the post-brexit 'Great New Celtic Union' (Ire+Ni+Scot+Rockall~Wales).

Next from Bretheran in the Highlands, it'll be:
- They copied our Whisky
- McGregor is really a Scot
- Celtic cheated a penalty, and
- The Danny Boy song really belongs to the Glens of Alba.
etc.

09-06-2019 3:04pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Or here's a crazy thought, what about Ireland's claim that nobody owns it as common sense?

But a good case is made for British ownership in IRELAND AND THE LAW OF THE SEA (Round Hall) by Symmons, p 126

Nixon Easy Griddle wrote: »

One (C) Theory would be that Unionists in (soon to be Indie) Scotland, are seeking to create tension,
to prevent the future formation of the post-brexit 'Great New Celtic Union' (Ire+Ni+Scot+Rockall~Wales).

Next from Bretheran in the Highlands, it'll be:
- They copied our Whisky
- McGregor is really a Scot
- Celtic cheated a penalty, and
- The Danny Boy song really belongs to the Glens of Alba.
etc.

Or, that we're exaggerating our claim on this islet, which is closer to Scotland, based on some non-factual, emotional or nationalistic basis.

fly_agaric · 09-06-2019 3:05pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But.. that sounds like common sense.

If we were in their position, we'd be imploring common sense to prevail. "It's closer to us than it is to you, therefore it's ours". I'm not saying that's correct, but it's exactly what our argument would be.

But we can't argue that, because it's closer to them.

(As per above posts citing UN law etc) the argument would be it is not territory that can be claimed and well beyond the coasts of the UK...that seems reasonable [trying to consider it from a non-patriotic angle - Ireland aren't trying to "claim" it AFAIK].

The only thing that can be located on it at the moment is probably a flag (maybe a Saltire instead of Union Jack?)...I suppose that is some of the reason why China has spent so much resources dredging and then building permanent military installations and stuff on the "islands" it is using the stake a claim to seas a long way from its coasts (closer to some other nations I think in their case though so its even more bogus).

Blueshoe · 09-06-2019 3:07pm

People talking about how Donegal catch source their cod from those waters.

In reality the majority of the fish come from fish farms in Peru. Donegal catch my arse

09-06-2019 3:08pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But a good case is made for British ownership in IRELAND AND THE LAW OF THE SEA (Round Hall) by Symmons, p 126

Hang on till I get into my car, drive into town, find out it's not available in Easons, drive home, order it online and pay €€€ to download, go to page 126 and read.

09-06-2019 3:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Hang on till I get into my car, drive into town, find out it's not available in Easons, drive home, order it online and pay €€€ to download, go to page 126 and read.

Yes, the democracy of the internet has a long yet way to travel, in fairness.

bear1 · 09-06-2019 4:18pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Back in February two Northern Ireland-registered vessels were detained by the Irish Naval Service in Dundalk bay and were impounded at nearby Clogherhead port. So one good turn deserves another.

Kinda different. In that they were fishing in internationally recognised Irish seas.

janfebmar · 09-06-2019 4:23pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

The only thing that can be located on it at the moment is probably a flag (maybe a Saltire instead of Union Jack?)....

Not true. A SAS man lived in a box on it for 6 weeks or 2 months as far as I remember, many many years ago. So a box - or dwelling for a month or 2 - can and was erected on it. I do not think anyone from Ireland ever lived on it? Or even stepped on it or climbed it, though I could be wrong there, am open to correction. Only 20 people are reputed ever to have been on Rockall. The first British royal navy expedition scrambled ashore in 1810. So we are only 209 years behind. Come on Leo, I dare ye to challenge our navy to see if they ever can find it, and then land on it. Give them a ring tomorrow after they come back from the weekend. Send our finest sub. lol Remember that skit on the Gerry Ryan show with our navy sub?

09-06-2019 4:46pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Give them a ring tomorrow after they come back from the weekend. Send our finest sub. lol Remember that skit on the Gerry Ryan show with our navy sub?

Why do I get the impression you'd like it if Ireland had jet fighters. :rolleyes:

fly_agaric · 09-06-2019 4:53pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Not true. A SAS man lived in a box on it for 6 weeks or 2 months as far as I remember, many many years ago. So a box - or dwelling for a month or 2 - can and was erected on it.

Fascinating stuff...maybe you could swim over and claim it for Blighty (or yourself ala "Sealand")?

Come on Leo

Poor ould Leo. Don't agree with his politics at all but it is very funny the way he really does seem to get up certain noses in a way that Enda Kenny did not at all.

janfebmar · 09-06-2019 5:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do I get the impression you'd like it if Ireland had jet fighters. :rolleyes:

Last time we had something with ejector seats it crashed in to an Air Lingus plane off Tuscar. So no thanks.

09-06-2019 5:03pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Last time we had something with ejector seats it crashed in to an Air Lingus plane off Tuscar. So no thanks.

You're willingness to believe denigrating narrative is telling.

janfebmar · 09-06-2019 5:03pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

Fascinating stuff...maybe you could swim over and claim it for Blighty (or yourself ala "Sealand")?

No, I'd swim and claim it for Ireland. Its a bit far though. If the Irish navy cannot find it and land someone on it, neither can I.

janfebmar · 09-06-2019 5:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You're willingness to believe denigrating narrative is telling.

Well, records show a Fouga Magister model equipped with ejection seats - the only such model - was being used to train pilots at Baldonnel at the time. Where did it disappear to? I believe the flying instructor who claimed that the 1968 Tuskar Rock Aer Lingus Viscount plane crash was caused by a collision with a French-built military aircraft which was training with the Air Corps.

09-06-2019 5:12pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Well, records show a Fouga Magister model equipped with ejection seats - the only such model - was being used to train pilots at Baldonnel at the time. Where did it disappear to?

You go from there to thinking it was the cause of the Tuskar air crash?

janfebmar wrote: »

I believe the flying instructor who claimed that the 1968 Tuskar Rock Aer Lingus Viscount plane crash was caused by a collision with a French-built military aircraft which was training with the Air Corps.

You'd do well over in the Conspiracy theory forum.

But, no it couldn't be the British given the other theories, that wouldn't feed into your uber pro British stance.

Well, at least all the unionists weren't driven out of Cork like we were told they were. Good to know.

janfebmar · 09-06-2019 5:12pm

Blueshoe wrote: »

People talking about how Donegal catch source their cod from those waters.

In reality the majority of the fish come from fish farms in Peru. Donegal catch my arse

Jayus, is nothing sacred these days. I want Irish fish for me dinner. And it seems its hard to get Irish spuds too; according to google, the first paragraph that comes up is : " According to official trade stats, we imported 72,000 tonnes of spuds last year. That equates to roughly 400 million individual tubers or 85 per person. Nearly two thirds (44,000) were imported from Britain, ironic given its role in the Great Famine, while a further 10 per cent come from Northern Ireland."

janfebmar · 09-06-2019 5:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

But, no it couldn't be the British given the other theories, that wouldn't feed into your uber pro British stance.

Reports show there were serious omissions in records of the airplanes maintenance history too, so who knows for certain.

09-06-2019 5:22pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Reports show there were serious omissions in records of the airplanes maintenance history too, so who knows for certain.

Apart from you, you stated as fact above.

_blaaz · 09-06-2019 5:23pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You go from there to thinking it was the cause of the Tuskar air crash?

You'd do well over in the Conspiracy theory forum.

But, no it couldn't be the British given the other theories, that wouldn't feed into your uber pro British stance.

Well, at least all the unionists weren't driven out of Cork like we were told they were. Good to know.

You could feed jan any rubbish and she will take it and run with it

Should seen her meltdown over mcclean singing a love poem

Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

Comments