Rock on, Rockall! (it's back)

DEFTLEFTHAND

Do Ireland actually have any territorial claim over it?

This vid makes out that the dispute is between GB, Iceland and Denmark/Faroe Islands.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

There's ultimately a political stunt/strategy at the core of this. Because by the letter of the law it is not an inhabited island.

Yes, but by the letter of the law, it doesn't matter that it's uninhabited.

In any case, I apologise in advance for such wet-blacket commentary; the prospect of bombing Rockall into the middle of next week is Very Exciting.

blinding

Lets bomb it to show them we mean business .

Candamir

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Do Ireland actually have any territorial claim over it?

This vid makes out that the dispute is between GB, Iceland and Denmark/Faroe Islands.

Ireland have never made a territorial claim over Rockall. The Irish governments stance is that uninhabitable rocks and stacks should not be subject to territorial claim. Makes a lot of sense IMO.

RobMc59

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yes, but by the letter of the law, it doesn't matter that it's uninhabited.

In any case, I apologise in advance for such wet-blacket commentary; the prospect of bombing Rockall into the middle of next week is Very Exciting.

Ireland's imperial aspirations are unacceptable in this day and age.

recedite

Candamir wrote: »

The Irish governments stance is that uninhabitable rocks and stacks should not be subject to territorial claim. Makes a lot of sense IMO.

How about the Skelligs?

_blaaz

recedite wrote: »

How about the Skelligs?

They are inhabitable?

RobMc59

RobMc59 wrote: »

Ireland's imperial aspirations are unacceptable in this day and age.

Nothing imperialistic about this, my man; we need to use quite a lot of howitzers before they reach their Best-Before dates

ohnonotgmail

_blaaz wrote: »

They are inhabitable?

apparently some old bloke with a scarred face lives there.

lawred2

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Do Ireland actually have any territorial claim over it?

This vid makes out that the dispute is between GB, Iceland and Denmark/Faroe Islands.

Ireland has not ever claimed to have any claim to it.

They however contest the UKs claim to a rock in the sea and the zone around it. They view it as international waters.

FrancieBrady

Matt Carthy was very good on the complexities of the issue on Drivetime there.

recedite

_blaaz wrote: »

They are inhabitable?

Skelligs had monks for a while. Rockall had SAS for a shorter while.
Both inhabitants equally tough and mad.
But if not Skelligs, there must be dozens of uninhabited offshore rocks and islands that we claim.

lawred2

recedite wrote: »

How about the Skelligs?

They are within Ireland's eez. Not remotely comparable to a remote uninhabited rock sitting in the middle of nowhere

lawred2

recedite wrote: »

Skelligs had monks for a while. Rockall had SAS for a shorter while.
Both inhabitants equally tough and mad.
But if not Skelligs, there must be dozens of uninhabited offshore rocks and islands that we claim.

EEZ

Best to google it

recedite

lawred2 wrote: »

They are within Ireland's eez. Not remotely comparable..

Exactly. And Rockall is within the UK's EEZ.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Exactly. And Rockall is within the UK's EEZ.

And if any fish beech themselves flop onto Rockall the UK can claim them exclusively. Otherwise they can stick the caber up where the sun don't shine.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Some daft bastard attempted to live on Rockall for 2 months back in 2013.

Had to abort halfway through when a massive storm washed away all his supplies.

lawred2

recedite wrote: »

Exactly. And Rockall is within the UK's EEZ.

Based on some wee Scotland islet. Maybe that's all it takes but the UN doesn't necessarily agree with the relatively recent annexing of it.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

And if any fish beech themselves flop onto Rockall the UK can claim them exclusively. Otherwise they can stick the caber up where the sun don't shine.

Nope. Here's how it works; Rockall is within the UK's EEZ so they land on it and plant a flag. That allows them to claim a 12 mile territorial limit around it (exclusive fishing rights, even while they are in the EU).
The EEZ is projected from the nearest permanently inhabited part of Scotland (St Kilda) not from the rock. But the rock projects its own 12 mile limit.
Its all laid down in the international law of the sea.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

recedite wrote: »

How about the Skelligs?

Someone already posted up what the laws are. And Skellig is very different to Rockall.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Nope. Here's how it works; Rockall is within the UK's EEZ so they land on it and plant a flag. That allows them to claim a 12 mile territorial limit around it (exclusive fishing rights, even while they are in the EU).
The EEZ is projected from the nearest permanently inhabited part of Scotland (St Kilda) not from the rock. But the rock projects its own 12 mile limit.
Its all laid down in the international law of the sea.

But a rock isn't considered an island and doesn't have the 12 mile limit. What law are you referring to?

FrancieBrady

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Some daft bastard attempted to live on Rockall for 2 months back in 2013.

Had to abort halfway through when a massive storm washed away all his supplies.

Yeh. Some SAS dimwit clung on a for a while alright with a rescue boat nearby to catch him when he fell off.
Doesn't really qualify it as 'inhabitable'.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh. Some SAS dimwit clung on a for a while alright with a rescue boat nearby to catch him when he fell off.
Doesn't really qualify it as 'inhabitable'.

This article will come as a blow to you francie as it suggests the wicked English have urged the Scottish to calm down over this but they're having none of it now their dander is up!
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/scotland-risks-antagonising-brussels-with-rockall-row-1.3920016

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

But a rock isn't considered an island and doesn't have the 12 mile limit. What law are you referring to?

You linked to it yourself, a while back. It can be measured off a reef or a rock.

Deleted User wrote: »

Only if you consider the UN as such...
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

In the case of islands situated on atolls or of islands having fringing reefs, the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the seaward low-water line of the reef, as shown by the appropriate symbol on charts officially recognized by the coastal State

When is a rock an island, or vice versa? Skellig comes to mind again.


IMO a small island can look more like a large rock, but as long as it remains above water at high tide it can be considered to be part of the national territory.

If I read that correctly the IT are claiming the Scots are the school yard bullies.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

This article will come as a blow to you francie as it suggests the wicked English have urged the Scottish to calm down over this but they're having none of it now their dander is up!
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/scotland-risks-antagonising-brussels-with-rockall-row-1.3920016

The English are a beaten docket regarding us I think Rob. They know what the Scots don't yet.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

IMO a small island can look more like a large rock, but as long as it remains above water at high tide it can be considered to be part of the national territory.

With due respect that's meaningless. Have you seen Rockall (clue is in the name). If the Icelandic, Faroe and Irish put some fertiliser together this would go away overnight.



I've not read the whole thread, what has skellig got to do with it. While it did sustain a population at a point in time it'd be hard to take seriously as an island even if it's hundreds of times the size of Rockhall.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

If I read that correctly the IT are claiming the Scots are the school yard bullies.

A newspaper never refused ink
There is more confusion elsewhere in the article too...

Firstly, unless and until Scotland becomes an independent country, an objective for which personally I have some sympathy, any sovereignty claims are necessarily British rather than Scottish.

This is nothing to do with Scottish sovereignty. Its a UK sovereign claim, but Rockall falls within the Scottish regional authority.
UK fishing rights off Rockall are administered by Scotland. They have 3 fisheries protection vessels. But in case of trouble, they can call for backup from the Royal Navy, which has a lot more military assets than that. Fishing is devolved, but defence is not. Has the RN ever been beaten?

RobMc59

recedite wrote: »

A newspaper never refused ink
There is more confusion elsewhere in the article too...


This is nothing to do with Scottish sovereignty. Its a UK sovereign claim, but Rockall falls within the Scottish regional authority.
UK fishing rights off Rockall are administered by Scotland. They have 3 fisheries protection vessels. But in case of trouble, they can call for backup from the Royal Navy, which has a lot more military assets than that. Fishing is devolved, but defence is not. Has the RN ever been beaten?

Iceland gave them a bloody nose In the cod wars.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Has the RN ever been beaten?

Open to interpretation...



"During WWI the Royal Navy suffered two painful defeats: Coronel 1 Nov,1914 and Jutland, 31 May- 1 June, 1916, both against the Imperial German Navy. During WWII, the British suffered one major defeat in an outright fleet battle, that of the Battle of Java Sea, 27 February, 1942, but also in numerous smaller actions, such as Hood vs Bismarck, in May, 1941. It should be pointed out that in the former engagement, not only the British suffered against the wrath of the Imperial Japanese Navy's crack 'A'-class cruisers, Ashigara, Haguro and Myoko, but also the U.S., the Dutch and the Australians did so as well."