Blown out of the water

Wouldn’t you think that “Yes Shetland” would have researched their argument (Call for clarity, SN 20 March 13) about “Exclusive Economic Zones” (EEZs) properly before going to press with it?

And wouldn’t you think their guide and mentor Jean Urquhart would have done likewise before she went to press (Can he be serious? 19 March 13)?

And isn’t it a shame when we read such confident statements from established campaign groups and parliamentary representatives that we cannot assume them to be true?

Alas, the tried and tested tactic of “get it into print often enough and it’ll become a fact” appears to be in fashion, the mantra “Shetland will be stuck with an EEZ of 12 miles” being repeated, “24/7”, by SNP supporters.

We are indebted then to Christopher Ritch (Jean – please explain, SN 20 March 13) for reporting that an article in the European Journal of International Law actually says a great deal about the law that the SNP omit to mention – even to non-legal minds it’s pretty obvious that in the event of such constitutional change the door is wide open for negotiation with concepts such as “special circumstances” and “equitable principles” to be considered.

As Christopher suggests, Shetland could well have grounds for laying claim to a substantial area of maritime territory encompassing, at least, the northern group of oil fields and probably many of those to the west as well.

So, our knowledge of the legalities and consequences of home rule has advanced a fraction and before you could say “Bannockburn Referendum,” the SNP’s great EEZ red herring has been “blown out of the water.”

How many other myths are waiting to be exploded?

John Tulloch
Lyndon
Arrochar