Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I also agree that it's good folk are talking about it. Sadly, talking about it on Shetlink is about as useful as not talking about it at all. Until the issue becomes the subject of proper public debate, using real names, it will go nowhere.

 

So, by extension of that theory then, you would agree that some of the editorials and "commentary" columns/articles which have graced the pages of local hard copy publications throughout their lives, were nothing but space fillers that may as well have had "waffle, waffle, waffle....ad infinitum" printed in them than words arranged in coherent text, yes??

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 431
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, by extension of that theory then, you would agree that some of the editorials and "commentary" columns/articles which have graced the pages of local hard copy publications throughout their lives, were nothing but space fillers that may as well have had "waffle, waffle, waffle....ad infinitum" printed in them than words arranged in coherent text, yes??

 

Well an editorial is, almost by definition, written by the editor. So even if the name is not directly on the column (such as in the 'Auld Rock' section in the ST), it would be hard to call it anonymous.

 

As for commentary columns, I think that, yes, unless there's a good reason for anonymity (and there are some good reasons), they should have a name on it. I suppose it would be possible to argue that articles published anonymously can serve to provoke a serious discussion, but I think that an anonymous debate, ultimately, is not a serious debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, either Shetland has the existing EEZ as part of Scotland, or it has enclave status with a 12 NM EEZ as a crown dependency of England (The UK being dissolved in the event of Scottish Independence).

 

 

 

Would an alternative be to become a Scottish Crown Dependency? Presumably there would then be no need to tackle the business of seabed ownership immediately and it could be settled by negotiation?

 

It seems odd that enclave status as shown on Mahdi Zahraa's map (Shetland as a remainder of UK Crown Dependancy)would mean a foreign country (Scotland) owning seabed over 100 miles north of Unst.

I note that Mahdi Zahraa is a constitutional lawyer based at Glasgow Caledonian University and I can't help a suspicion that academic opinion that comes out in support of a Scottish case for seabed ownership is as likely to be partisan as some of the opinion being brought out at the moment to support the various assertions of UK unionists.

 

It's worrying that the more this notion of remaining with with the remainder of the UK post independence gets bandied about in the sooth papers the more defensive pro-independence spokespeople become about the future status of Shetland. I see Rod Gibson's (SNP MP for Sutherland and Ross I think) response to the Duck of Caithness was to emphasise that Shetland is just as Scottish as Dingwall or Thurso, or words to that effect. Maybe constitutionally true, but not truth as we know it - if that makes sense.

 

The more the idea of staying with the rest of the UK is floated about by unionist spokespeople for their own ends - i.e. in order to undermine the SNP's economic case - the more resolved the Scottish government is likely to be in making sure Shetland never has more power of self-determination than any other local authority. The problem is as much in hanging on to powers that we now have as it is in gaining new ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"If Scotland became independant, what would Shetland do?"

Shouldn't this read:

"If Scotland became independant, what could Shetland do?

 

Umm.Errr. Carry on as a coonty o Scotland. as it is eenou, except hopfully fok will stop da cringing ta authority (Lerweeck - a faur awey plece of whit we keen little and care a VERY MUCH LESS), stop da craimin an actually exercise personal an community self-determination.

AND punch 'abuin it's weight' ida counsels o Scotland

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, either Shetland has the existing EEZ as part of Scotland, or it has enclave status with a 12 NM EEZ as a crown dependency of England (The UK being dissolved in the event of Scottish Independence).

 

 

 

Would an alternative be to become a Scottish Crown Dependency? Presumably there would then be no need to tackle the business of seabed ownership immediately and it could be settled by negotiation?

 

It seems odd that enclave status as shown on Mahdi Zahraa's map (Shetland as a remainder of UK Crown Dependancy)would mean a foreign country (Scotland) owning seabed over 100 miles north of Unst.

I note that Mahdi Zahraa is a constitutional lawyer based at Glasgow Caledonian University and I can't help a suspicion that academic opinion that comes out in support of a Scottish case for seabed ownership is as likely to be partisan as some of the opinion being brought out at the moment to support the various assertions of UK unionists.

 

It's worrying that the more this notion of remaining with with the remainder of the UK post independence gets bandied about in the sooth papers the more defensive pro-independence spokespeople become about the future status of Shetland. I see Rod Gibson's (SNP MP for Sutherland and Ross I think) response to the Duck of Caithness was to emphasise that Shetland is just as Scottish as Dingwall or Thurso, or words to that effect. Maybe constitutionally true, but not truth as we know it - if that makes sense.

 

The more the idea of staying with the rest of the UK is floated about by unionist spokespeople for their own ends - i.e. in order to undermine the SNP's economic case - the more resolved the Scottish government is likely to be in making sure Shetland never has more power of self-determination than any other local authority. The problem is as much in hanging on to powers that we now have as it is in gaining new ones.

 

Scottish Crown Dependency?

Maybe. Interesting idea and possible compromise that would give Shetland people max self-determination, but avoids Carsonite Partition, Scottish reaction(ferry to Newcastle; endless legal disputes re EEZ (and to be blunt: War).

 

I genuinely think Shetland is more attuned to mainland Scotland socially, than to southern England. and could be a bridge ta Scandinavia.

Fake Viking racists may disagree. F** em.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fake Viking racists may disagree. F** em.

 

That's a bit strong derick, whoever you're refering to.

 

We may all have our own different thoughts and opinions about what Shetland's identity and future is but the language you've used there is uncalled for.

 

Given the DNA that's in Shetland there's no such thing as a "fake viking".

 

Except for Up-Helly-Aa that is 8)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I've missed it but surely the only reason that England are talking about Shetland having Crown Dependency to them is because they want to steal our oil. They stole some of Scotlands in 1999 when Tony Blair stole some of Scotlands seabed and gave it to England.

 

Stay with Scotland until 2014 is dealt with and then look out for Shetlands best, whether to go it alone, go to Norway, whatever but at the moment no-one will hear us over Scotlands voice.

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...