oxna Posted July 16, 2017 Report Share Posted July 16, 2017 The most unbelievable bit to this story is that CC's intention was to make his "boat" seaworthy!? Another attention-seeking child-like stunt more like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamiltonian Posted July 16, 2017 Report Share Posted July 16, 2017 looking at the picture it looked unsafe. one strong storm and it would have been blown about. we know he is up to something.if he is desperate to go sailing he gets 4 ferry passes for free. It stood through the winter...with no cover! Do you seriously believe that it would last even a force 7 if it was sheeted? You'd have made a better attempt at defending your buddy if you'd simply stayed quite on this. Your involvement and reputation isn't going to gain him any sympathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Burra Shop Posted July 17, 2017 Report Share Posted July 17, 2017 looking at the picture it looked unsafe. one strong storm and it would have been blown about. we know he is up to something.if he is desperate to go sailing he gets 4 ferry passes for free.It stood through the winter...with no cover! Do you seriously believe that it would last even a force 7 if it was sheeted? You'd have made a better attempt at defending your buddy if you'd simply stayed quite on this. Your involvement and reputation isn't going to gain him any sympathy. get over yourself. i was not defending him nor is he my "buddy" i was just stating a fact. fact is it stood the winter better than th £4.5 million interpretive centre a few mile further sooth. George. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/07/19/hill-refuses-submit-return-election-expenses If Stuart Hill thinks that the (or any) election was illegal(?) then, why did he stand as a candidate? Tilting at windmills.. I've said on more than one occaison. Right idea, wrong man.... Da Burra Shop 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lerwick antiques Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 He stood for as a candidate as he felt that he could make Shetland and Orkney better if he won. Shame his boat shed was demolished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post whalsa Posted July 19, 2017 Popular Post Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 How was it as soon as I saw the heading "here we go again" I knew it would be about Stuart Hill before even being aware of the story? I agree with you Colin, right idea, wrong man. That being said I have a great deal of respect for Stuart for standing up for what he believes in, even if it is at odds with my own approach towards the same cause. I was particularly fed up when he voted against our case for autonomy at the Althing in April.. before deciding a few days later to stand on that very issue! Still a bit perplexed at that one. The issue may have faded from public discussion somewhat with all the recent elections (finally) being by with. It has not faded from my mind nor my intentions yet though. On the contrary, with developments such as Brexit, North Sea cod being declared sustainable and SVT potentially getting a new lease of life there remains plenty to be said for the cause. A few interesting (and little known) figures about Shetlands tax contributions;· Income tax (gross of tax credits): £60M (liabilities 2013/14 latest figures)· Capital Gains Tax: £1.3M (liabilities 2015/16 latest figures)· Corporation Tax: £18.73M (liabilities 2014/15 latest figures)· Council Tax: £8.55M (SIC 2016 figures)· Business Rates: £17.454M (SG 2016 figures) That is 5 of the 27 (!) taxes we currently pay to HMRC - adding up to £106M. Some big hitters such as VAT and fuel duty missing from that list, the total figure is potentially massive. Anyone who thinks we couldn't afford to go it alone is either naive to our actual and potential revenue streams or they simply don't want it to happen for their own reasons. MrBump, Da Burra Shop and Colin 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 What Calamity says he's fighting for and trying to achieve is very attractive and admirable. I just wish he'd let someone else in on his plan as how what he's doing, and has been doing for a very long time, is supposed to progress towards let alone achieve, in theory at least, his stated goals, and then explain it to the rest of us. As it all makes about as much sense to me as double dutch written in Chinese, but then again, I'm probably just a dumbass squelchy booble pop. If he won, he said he'd not take up his seat so as to demonstrate O&S's refusal to legitimatise the authority of a Parliament we don't recognise. FIne, it's worked must excellently for Sinn Fein over the last few decades, hasn't it.....not so much. I'm still waiting to hear him explain away how it would be productive for him when it's so unproductive for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 That is 5 of the 27 (!) taxes we currently pay to HMRC - adding up to £106M. Some big hitters such as VAT and fuel duty missing from that list, the total figure is potentially massive. Anyone who thinks we couldn't afford to go it alone is either naive to our actual and potential revenue streams or they simply don't want it to happen for their own reasons. Those 5 would (just about) pay the SIC's wage bill but, alcohol and tobacco taxes are not 'insignificant' either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engineer21 Posted July 21, 2017 Report Share Posted July 21, 2017 isnt that the issue, people see how much money could be coming in i.e 106m and think wow thats a lot of cash.....which it is compared to an average persons salery, but the outgoings from going it alone would also be very high.....subsidised ferry + air fares which we have all become used too, good roads, ferrys, etc none of this comes cheap when just the council wage bill amounts to over 100m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooney1 Posted July 21, 2017 Report Share Posted July 21, 2017 ^ Not forgetting the inward investment that's been put into Shetland to make those contributions possible... We didn't get there ourselves and we can't take the money and run now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George. Posted July 21, 2017 Report Share Posted July 21, 2017 ^ Not forgetting the inward investment that's been put into Shetland to make those contributions possible... We didn't get there ourselves and we can't take the money and run now... Hmmm.... The inward investments that have been put in - before larger amounts are taken out again - and again - and again......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 21, 2017 Report Share Posted July 21, 2017 ^ Not forgetting the inward investment that's been put into Shetland to make those contributions possible... We didn't get there ourselves and we can't take the money and run now...Seems to me that everybody else has been taking OUR money and running.What about the vast amounts of "cash" that has been taken out of our waters via oil and fish? The "inward investment" you claim is tiny by comparison and makes a complete mockery of your statement. The "money go round" might appear to be complicated but, it's really quite simple to understand.The Government takes as much money as it can out of every business/person in the country and, at best, will only give a small portion of it back preferring to spend the bulk of it on a wide variety of different (and expensive) schemes.. There is no way that Shetland is a "Nett Benefactor" under the current scheme. whalsa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 21, 2017 Report Share Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) @ engineer21 & tooney1: Those are extremely short sighted and blinkered outlooks. It has next to beggar all to do with what we are, and what we can be playing by the rules of the present regime. It's about having to ability and opportunities to be whatever we want to be whenever we want to be it. The current system means we play by the rules set in remote clueless places like Edinburgh, London and Brussels, which seldom cut us any breaks. Forget them, get back to the basics of addressing what we are and where we are and being smart to utilise those to our best advantage.Its about making our assets as profitable for us as they can be through export of product, delivery of services, and welcoming inward investment. We sit at the crossroads of the Atlantic, North Sea and continental and Eastern Europe and in some of the richest fishing grounds there is, it's about utilising those things so that they best profit us. If folk have no more ambition and aspirations than just keep on trundling along as we are, then of course it makes no sense to change or constitutional status, but it's about taking control of ourselves and our situation and developing it so that its not only the additional costs of going alone are met, but we're all much better off as well. The only purpose of quoting current figures is to prove that even in our mediocre and heavily restricted state, we could survive regardless. The numbers that really matter are those that are achievable by developing our resources and opportunities to their max, and that is only restricted by the lack of committed thought and whatever the public deem are activities they will, or won't allow. Uinfettered by statutes set by remote legislature that best suits their ends, not ours, we can enact whatever statutes we see fit, tax what we see fit, at whatever rate we see fit, etc. Taxation is just a business like any other, and just like selling cornflakes, you either pile em high and sell em cheap, relying on sales volume make your packet, or you stock a few and sell them dear to a dedicated or captive market. I pref the former in both cornflakes and taxation - we tax something lower than our neighbours, then you facilitate it to be easy for them to do business here, and the ball is off and rolling. Edited July 21, 2017 by Ghostrider whalsa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post whalsa Posted July 21, 2017 Popular Post Report Share Posted July 21, 2017 The point I was making was obviously lost on engineer21 and tooney1 but I see from the responses it was not lost on you three others. Shetland is a net contributor under the current set up without even taking oil and gas revenues into account. Yes there would be additional costs and challenges associated with greater autonomy but those pale in insignificance in comparison to the opportunities we would have. As Ghostrider points out we are in an extremely strategic position as well as having a wealth of natural resources on our doorstep. The Falkland Islands have less than 3000 people, a GDP per capita of $77,692 (UKs is $39,899 for comparison), are far more remote than us and have no large scale oil and gas production. Why is it that so many island groups across the world, both nearby and distant, are independent or autonomous and manage to thrive yet so many here are quick to dismiss the idea of Shetland doing the same as unworkable? Property2017, Ghostrider and as 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skalavagr Posted July 22, 2017 Report Share Posted July 22, 2017 Don't forget that the defence costs for the Falklands amount to £65 million a year or thereabouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now