Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Trouble is what he's saying is worth considering but HE might not be the best person to represent the argument...

 

I think its fair to say the above sums pretty near perfectly, the main part of the reason why things have gone nowhere.

 

The man describes and sums up the "problem" pretty well, but while offering certain "solutions", he's not exactly been forthcoming with details of how and why they are likely to achieve favourable results, or how they are supposed to do so.

 

Also, from a personal POV I find the fact that there are countless other possible "solutions" (and arguably far more practical, feasible and likely to be productive), that he appears to be ignoring without offering any explanation as to why he believes they are "unsuitable", to be concerning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ I asked him someplace on here about why he wasn't setting the baseline of his case at some date pre-1469 instead of post-1469, on the basis that there was little value in debating or asserting the "wrongs" of what had occured post-1469 without first establishing the exact nature and extent of that which the Danish Monarchy legally possessed pre-1469. If the Scots took something the Danish Monarchy did not in the first place have to give to them, it puts a whole other complexion on the situation than the Scots simply refusing to honour an agreement to return what they had legally received.

 

His reply was to the effect that what was pre-1469 was "of no relevance", end of discussion.

 

Likewise, he has at no time (that I have been aware of) suggested that should his crusade end up the subject of legal argument, that the court hearing it will be any other than a U.K. one. Maybe its just the cynic in me, but does he really expect a fair and unbiased hearing on the subject in any UK court. I certainly don't believe it could be possible, and I think he's being highly naive to try (as he tells us he's trying to do with his ongoing actions) and put it there. To my mind that's asking the lunatics who are running the asylum to sit in judgement on themselves.

 

Also, he's never addressed (as far as I'm aware) why he's not aiming to take the argument to court himself, or why he's not planning a referendum of Shetland residents to gauge public feeling, or why he hasn't stood as a MP or MSP to pursue this from the "inside", to name just a few.

 

Its a very complex issue which deserves debate, and which could be come at from almost countless angles, either individually or collectively. His presented conclusions are at best cherry picked, and ignore numerous relevant factors just because he chooses to do so. He also chooses to pursue it through minor disobedience in the hope of the Crown taking him to court, and a few low key media stunts, which the media are now all but ignoring. From a casual onlookers persepctive his actions pose more questions than answers, and his actions to date, have been wholly ineffectual in achieving anything of worth. Yet he maintains its the only way to go and we should join him and support him. Why? He's giving no-one any reason to so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet he maintains its the only way to go and we should join him and support him. Why? He's giving no-one any reason to so far.

 

You just need to look at the current system to find your reason. Do you enjoy feeding your hard earned into a system of waste and corruption?

 

A chance to start a fresh system!

 

Worth a shot. If we fail, so be it. If we succeed, we get cheap fuel, to police our own land with sensible laws, no stupid taxes which aren't even spent on what there intended for...it goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Oh I agree the present system is more than enough to give reason for making a change. What I was trying to get at is that on present form I see no reason to believe that what Calamity is preaching will go anywhere towards changing anything, at least not in his hands and according to his plan (if he actually has one).

 

Cheap fuel was within our grasp when Sullom was being built IMHO, yet we, in the shape of Clark senior and the elders of the tribe of the day let it go and took 1p/tonne for crude throughput instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Oh I agree the present system is more than enough to give reason for making a change. What I was trying to get at is that on present form I see no reason to believe that what Calamity is preaching will go anywhere towards changing anything, at least not in his hands and according to his plan (if he actually has one).

Cheap fuel was within our grasp when Sullom was being built IMHO, yet we, in the shape of Clark senior and the elders of the tribe of the day let it go and took 1p/tonne for crude throughput instead.

 

Why call Mr Hill, 'Calamity'? Its a serious thing he and we are trying to do. All you achieve by calling him that, is cause question as to whether you are one of the brainwashed masses(i know that is not the case as i have read many of your posts which have been intellectually based).but...

 

Cheap fuel is well within our grasps still. Sovereignty will remove the excise duty on fuel, allow us to import fuel to our own petrol station (if we so wished) at a fee incredibly less than what it is now.

 

Mr Hill isn't in charge, we all are.

 

If you haven't, have a look at what Sovereignty is and means. or meet up to talk properly about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ I called him Calamity as when you mention "Stuart Hill" its obvious from a lot of folk's faces that it takes a minute for the penny to drop who you're referring to, mention "Calamity" and comprehension is usually far more instant. Its not like his nautical exploits in arriving here can't justify him such a nickname.

 

I read the blurb he put on his website about Sovereignty back when he made his yet one more mid-summer declaration, on the subject, and while the benefits of having it, as told by him were fair enough, I failed to see what he was proposing, and enacting, was likely to bring any of them closer to actuality.

 

I would disagree about Hill being in charge. Yes, we all are in charge, but he has stepped up to the plate and self-appointed himself as someone attempting to "lead the way", for want of a better term. Fine, as an individual he's entitled to his opinion, and to freely express it, which he has done. Good on him, and respect to him, for standing up and being counted for what he believes in, but he's not content in that, he's trying to "convert" followers to come along with him. Nothing wrong in that per se, some no doubt will be convinced and follow him, but its just my personal opinion of what he's put forth so far that it can't and won't go anyplace.

 

Its at PR Hill is failing miserably IHMO. Cheaper living costs and lower taxation appeals to everyone, he doesn't need to sell those to his audience. What he does need to sell though is a convincing story of how they can be achieved without any negativities. His speil invariably extends no further than "We are at X, if we do Y we are at Z, which is a much better place". Few if any would disagree about his assertions about X and Z, the problem is with Y, life is not so simple as he makes out Y to be as far as I'm concerned, and apparently its an opinion held by quite a few others given the lack of obvious support he has.

 

Take for example his Crown Dependency tutorial a la Forvik. "Just don't pay your taxes covered a significant chunk of that. For him that may well have been a viable proposition, but for many the potential consequences of such a move was too risky. Shetland is so deeply integrated in to so many Scottish and national systems that even a relatively small act of retaliation on the individuals concerned could have made the act null and void, or if made collectively on Shetland as a whole, bring the place to its knees. It is the lack of any rhetoric from Hill on how prevent or at least perform damage limitation on any such potential negativities which could ensue as a result of following his advice, that makes me very leery of joining him. His plans come over as over-simplistic ignoring most of the practicalities of actually getting from X to Z. Its not the being unhappy at X or the being much happier at Z that he needs to convince folk of, its how to perform Y safely and convince folk Y will work that he needs to work at before he gets anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, you couldn't make this up.

 

Its not what you'd call a convincing case. The rhetoric on the website tends to be high on hyperbole, short on detail. Ghost is correct, cheaper costs, etc, are appealing although the lack of details is a worry (or would be a worry if this was in any danger of actually happening)

 

The economic arguments are hilariously simplistic - how much, for example of the $200K taxation outflow is dependant on Crown/Civil service jobs - or Scottish Government's SIC settlement? What guarantee is there that taxation will be maintained at this level? Sheep subsidies? Objective one funding? etc, etc, etc.

 

There may still be a net loss (and core-periphery theories would suggest that this is generally the case) , but the funding map is infinitely more complex than SS.com seems to suggest. You'd really want to see an economic case that is a little bit more developed than this back-of-a-fagpacket nonsense.

 

There is also the small matter of being part of a relatively large and well armed nation who might take a dim view of a bunch of misty eyed seccessionists with proprietorial ambitions towards the mineral reserves to which said large and well armed nation has formed an attachement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

this large well armed nation that you refer to has backed seccessionists all over the world, the free will of the people and all that so i think we can discount any armed response from them.

And if there was a armed response from them I'm pretty handy with a rifle and popping a few polititions would make me happier than a pig in turd so let them bring it on :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Magnie said "There is also the small matter of being part of a relatively large and well armed nation who might take a dim view of a bunch of misty eyed seccessionists with proprietorial ambitions towards the mineral reserves to which said large and well armed nation has formed an attachement." They get it....

 

They get the point but you dont Bobdahog, you said "this large well armed nation that you refer to has backed seccessionists all over the world, the free will of the people and all that so i think we can discount any armed response from them.

And if there was a armed response from them I'm pretty handy with a rifle and popping a few polititions would make me happier than a pig in so let them bring it on

 

Shetland or the Shetlands to wind some people up is only 150 miles or so away but the Falklands are many thousands of miles away. The whole premise of Shetland becoming independent is that it would be able to control the oil reserves around its seabeds. Britain didn't take it when a foreign power tried to take an island which might have oil reserves round it they certainly won't take it from an island who want to be a foreign power so near their shore with no military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there is much need for discussion on this subject and maybe it's something that should be arranged but not headed by Mr.Hill.

 

Anyone else up for it??

 

I will always be looking at our future from a Peak Oil angle... self sufficiency for Shetland is a must so that the transition between an Oil Age and Post Oil age is not so rocky... but that would mean a paradigm shift in thinking!

 

My hubby was looking at gold based currencies when we lived down South and we worked with a local council who agreed it was a good idea...so I would agree with Mr.Hill on that account - but we are firmly on the path of no return in the Peak Oil era, something has to be done to secure the future of Shetland without relying on monetary subsidies/grants -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

In many folks minds our heritage and alliance is with the Nordic countries, they are no threat to either UK or EU,they have oil reserves managed in a far superior way, better standard of life , simpler and better legal and admin, more just laws and little or no "bully boy" tactics on thier own people,and no war mongering military and no agressive govt , how i wish i had beggered off to Norway 25 years ago when i thought about it first !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The huge oil and gas reserves surrounding Shetland mean that a a practically bankrupt UK will not give up huge areas of profitable territory under any circumstances.

 

Even if there was a referendum tomorrow, with 100% turnout and 100% agreement for independance, the UK would simply ignore it.

 

(However, when the boot is on the other foot, such as Gibraltar, they will be perfectly willing to go with the results of a referendum as it suits their strategic needs).

 

Money comes before the people, and always will.

 

In 50 years time when the gas reserves off the West coast are running out, you may find that the UK would be more receptive to offloading a group of islands in the North that it has bled dry.

 

Until then, forget it. They can fight dirtier than you can, and have bigger guns. Even if Scotland gets full independance from the rest of the UK, the situation won't change.

 

EDIT: For Independant Shetland, you can also read Devolved Shetland, Sovereign Shetland, Crown Dependency Shetland, Autonomous Country within the United Kingdom (like Greenland) or an Autonomous Province (like The Faroe Islands). The UK won't countenance any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own view is that Crown Dependency status (or outright independence) would suit Shetland very well: it has certainly done so for my home nation the Isle of Man, and has to be far preferable to being governed remotely from London and Edinburgh.

 

However, this is essentially a legal issue: it would need to be proved, as Stuart Hill is attempting to do, that Shetland does not legally belong to the United Kingdom in the first place. Simply holding a referendum on secession and then unilaterally applying the decision would have no constitutional basis and would be a straightforward illegal act.

 

Of course, practically speaking, the UK Government could not arrest the entire population of Shetland if you withheld your taxes. But it could certainly apply sanctions to counter any attempt at UDI, and in the absence of a convincing constitutional case from the new Shetland Government, it would have the backing of the international community in doing so. Further, the new nation of Shetland would go unrecognised by the EU and other global bodies.

 

The Isle of Wight Council went down a similar route in the mid-nineties, making preliminary enquiries to see whether the island did in fact belong the UK, or whether it could declare itself a Crown Dependency. Research suggested that it was indeed an integral part of the UK, and nothing more was heard about the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this large well armed nation that you refer to has backed seccessionists all over the world, the free will of the people and all that so i think we can discount any armed response from them.

And if there was a armed response from them I'm pretty handy with a rifle and popping a few polititions would make me happier than a pig in monkey so let them bring it on :lol:

 

Your pluck is admirable, young bob, and if politicians were being sent to the front lines, I'd be inclined to dust off the old 12 bore meself.

 

Unfortunately the UK has many professionals who are generally employed for this sort of work who could, doubtless, cheerfully tear the lot of us up for wheechter-paper before lunch without breaking into a sweat.

 

The seccesionists that he Maj's government has previously lent military aid to have generally been sympathetic to her cause - or at least hostile to somebody else's. 'My enemy's enemy is my friend', sort of thing. Not sure we'd fall into that ballpark.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...