Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^The common theme is they live in Scotland, they have the greatest stake in how the place is run, doesn't matter where they come from. The opponents of Scottish independence in your link don't want al

Bang on the money with this post, at last a bit of hard nosed realism.The EU has something the UK desperately wants, they can grant or deny unfettered access to EU markets, there's never one side in

It's hardly the "Press and Journals take" - it's just a statement from Douglas Ross which is riddled with misrepresentations.   Sometimes I wonder if you read the articles you post links to as your on

 

Before anyone says anything, I live in Shetland, not Scotland..

 

James III married Margaret of Denmark, Queen of Scotland, in about 1469. James III had Christian I of Norway's land on Shetland and Orkney pawned to him. Wonder why that happened.

 

Fair enough, but my understanding is that Christian I of Norway did not own all (or even that much) land on Shetland.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^As I understand it, Christian I owned his own personal land around Shetland, Orkney etc. When James III pawned it in 1469 it was only Christian I's land. In 1472 things changed a little and James III ensured that the Scottish parliament took over Shetland and Orkney, as a whole. Since then a lot of Nordic law's have remained in place with us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hello, As you do not live in Scotland are you still allowed to use the NHS for medical/dentistry care etc.

You do not have to live in Scotland to use NHS

 

 

If the Scottish NHS were to be fully separated from the British NHS it would serve British Citizens during the grace period because Scottish citizenship would not exist yet and wouldn't have been rolled out until the hypothetical independence scenario was complete when it would then serve the nationalities specified by the new Scottish government.

 

People would still have their British Citizenship and if Scotland became independent they would get Scottish citizenship after that thereby becoming dual citizens as everyone born in Scotland alive today was born on UK territory.

This would be an opportunity to refuse to distribute Scottish citizenship to some British citizens if desired.

(for example ISIS fighters returning to Scotland)  but one assumes blanket amnesty and open boarders because SNP

 

 

So for things like Pensions, Medical and some legal matters one would be for some intents and purposes a British Citizen but in other situations a Scottish Citizen as one assumes lots of things grandfathered in and only changing for people who haven't been here very long.

 

NHS and other services would either have to be funded exclusively by the Scottish government or have a bilateral agreement with the remainder of the UK NHS to maintain them as Is, Therefore i think in this scenario it would be appropriate to rename the Scottish NHS to more easily distinguish between S-NHS and UK-NHS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shetland is being poorly served by these distant, near dictatorial Governments. It is long overdue that we should have some form of autonomy, regardless of what happens with IndyRef2. 

We have a unique position and unique needs. A myriad of thriving island groups (e.g. Faroe, Isle of Man, Falkland Isls, Aland) all have one thing in common - meaningful self governance. 

Let the Scots and English bicker away for centuries as far as I am concerned, just get us out of it and let us focus on bettering things on our shores. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shetland is being poorly served by these distant, near dictatorial Governments. It is long overdue that we should have some form of autonomy, regardless of what happens with IndyRef2. 

 

Westminster comes to mind, and that in itself brings to mind the Conservative and Unionist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, the Labour Party and all the rest. Every one of them a foreigner.

 

OIMHO of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shetland is little different to anywhere else,some will be contented with there lot others will moan,moan and moan, nothing is ever right for some.

 

We will never all be equal in this world,consequentially those of us that do not agree with our elected leaders will always think we could do it better.

 

If Westminister had been located about York,more central in the UK and everything was controlled from there with less of those devolved parliaments that are just another unnecessary financial drain to us all.

 

We are critical of our elected councilors on many of the decisions that they undertake so I for one could never see an organization operating with more power from the Town Hall that would be any more acceptable to us all. 

 

As far as i am concerned we already have" to many cooks in the kitchen " 

 

We need good strong political leaders ,something that this country lacks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Westminister had been located about York,more central in the UK and everything was controlled from there with less of those devolved parliaments that are just another unnecessary financial drain to us all.

 

If we went Indy, could we really care less about the foreigners in Westminster?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I really though that independence would work then I would agree, but I DON'T.

 

I'm a true Shetlander all my Grand parents and parents born and breed in Shetland but I believe it is best to remain part of the bigger picture and stay and be a part of Great Britain the United Kingdom

 

I have worked in various parts of the world Scotland and England and got on with them all, so see no need for a change that might just bring in unnecessary complications political and otherwise.

 

All this talk is creating more and more divisions when we should be working closer together for the greater good of us all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Scotland wants to go it alone, let them, just don't let them drag us along with them for we'll always be the adopted kid at their table.

 

Being run by a bunch of twee commie central belters from their plastic parliament in Edinburgh is no better for us than Scotland being run by right wing English, which seems to be the main beef the Nats have about the UK, and the main (only?) driving force behind their indy dreams.

 

Westminster have maybe done very little to help us over time, but they're done as little to harm us either, the same cannot be said for the Scots. If you must deal with foreigners, better the devil you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shetland is being poorly served by these distant, near dictatorial Governments. It is long overdue that we should have some form of autonomy, regardless of what happens with IndyRef2.

 

We have a unique position and unique needs. A myriad of thriving island groups (e.g. Faroe, Isle of Man, Falkland Isls, Aland) all have one thing in common - meaningful self governance.

 

Let the Scots and English bicker away for centuries as far as I am concerned, just get us out of it and let us focus on bettering things on our shores.

 

Living under the whim of an appointed governor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who serve a parliament where we would have no elected representation like the other British colonies sounds more distant and dictatorial to me.

The eviction of the Chagos islanders by the UK government in 1971 and their failed 45 year long legal battle to return, (The high court judgement allowing them to return was overruled by the unelected House of Lords), tells me everything I need to know about being a British Overseas Territory.

More chance of achieving genuine Faroese type autonomy, (if that's what the majority of Shetlanders want), as part of an independent Scotland in my opinion.

Edited by Capeesh
Link to post
Share on other sites

More chance of achieving genuine Faroese type autonomy, (if that's what the majority of Shetlanders want), as part of an independent Scotland in my opinion.

A leftist (regardless of what party banner they stand under) Holyrood, for that's all that ever will be in Holyrood, giving us exclusive 200 mile/median to oil and fish is only every likely to happen long after hell freezes over. Reds are centralist control freaks by definition.

 

More likely Westminster would be amenable to giving us it in exchange for staying with them in the event of Scottish independence. They'd not want to lose our strategic military value - big difference between having a snoop station at Saxa, a moderately half decent airport here, and a decent anchorage in Scapa, to keep an eye on northern neighbours than trying to do it from around the Tyne or Mersey.

 

One thing the UK is good at is keeping hold of little rocks all around the world from which to spy on the comings and going of others or provide bolt holes in time of need, that applies as much to their own back yard as mid ocean. Pretty much all the little territories they have dotted around the globe would have been unloaded as expensive, un-necessary liabilities otherwise.

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...