Jump to content

independence


greenman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guernsey: Financial sector, no industry apart from Tourism and propped by UK

Jersey: As above.

IoM: Tourism and propped by UK

I'm not sure how you imagine the three Crown Dependencies are "propped" by the UK. I'll agree that the Isle of Man was receiving considerable financial support from the UK until recently, via a VAT-pooling agreement that was weighted heavily in the island's favour, but this has now been renegotiated twice to remove any element of subsidy.

 

All three Crown Dependencies are self-supporting, with the only services provided by the UK being defence and international representation (paid for in cash by the Isle of Man, and via somewhat differing arrangement for Jersey and Guernsey).

 

Scotland, by contrast, is heavily supported by the English taxpayer, and if independent would need to slash its public services or increase taxation enormously. Were Scottish independence ever to happen, the best thing Shetland could do would be secede from Scotland.

 

I understand what you are saying, Manxman, and agree with you up to a point.

 

All the dependencies mentioned have no independent armed forces, all three work very closely with, and use the resources of, the UK when it comes to legal and social matters and all use the UK political system to lobby on their behalf, I believe.

 

But yes, if Scotland does gain independence, then Shetland should be given the green light to decide if it wants to remain as an administrated area of Scotland or take the Crown dependency/Independent route. I don't believe Shetlands' best interests would be served by remaining under Scots control if they become independent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Guernsey: Financial sector, no industry apart from Tourism and propped by UK

Jersey: As above.

IoM: Tourism and propped by UK

.

 

I don't quite follow you here. These islands have been quite successful due to their low taxes attracting businesses and individuals to locate there. I have just been having a look at their government budgets and they raise all revenue for local services themselves. No UK subsidies are received.

 

Are they independent nations, though?

 

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they independent nations, though?

 

No.

Indeed we are not, but we do have a clear exit strategy agreed with the UK: if we can gain a 55% "yes" vote in an independence referendum, we can sever all links with the United Kingdom.

 

The danger is that Shetland does not, to my knowledge, have a similar exit strategy agreed with the Scottish Government. Given that Shetland is the richest part of Scotland, I cannot see an Alex Salmond-led government letting you go without a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes we have nhs scotland, much of it funded by taxpayers in the rest of the U.K.

 

I'd like to see a source for this please, along with sources for all your other unbacked-up allegations.

 

Scotland, by contrast, is heavily supported by the English taxpayer, and if independent would need to slash its public services or increase taxation enormously. Were Scottish independence ever to happen, the best thing Shetland could do would be secede from Scotland.

 

And again, I'd like to see some sources to back-up this claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes we have nhs scotland, much of it funded by taxpayers in the rest of the U.K.

 

I'd like to see a source for this please, along with sources for all your other unbacked-up allegations.

 

Scotland, by contrast, is heavily supported by the English taxpayer, and if independent would need to slash its public services or increase taxation enormously. Were Scottish independence ever to happen, the best thing Shetland could do would be secede from Scotland.

 

And again, I'd like to see some sources to back-up this claim.

As ever it depends who you believe

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/1

 

In 2009-10, Scotland's estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £19.9 billion (17.8 per cent of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £19.3 billion (17.0 per cent of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £14.0 billion (10.6 per cent of GDP) when an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.

In 2009-10, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as 'net borrowing', was a deficit of £156.5 billion (or 11.1 per cent of GDP).

 

 

But this site puts a more positive spin on things

 

http://www.oilofscotland.org/

 

In 2008 London took £12.9 billion from Scotland in oil and gas revenues, this equates to every single Scot giving away £2300 a year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, MuckleJoannie.

 

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

I wouldn't trust any figures coming from Westminster's pro-unionist government, but, on the other hand, I'm a bit sceptical of the more overblown claims of the NATS. As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

Having said that, I still think an independent Scotland has a brighter future than staying with the UK. And there's not just the financial aspect to consider. Being independent would mean no longer getting dragged into London's illegal wars against our will, and being ruled by Tories when no-one North of the border voted for them.

 

Also, Scotland is one of the few countries in the world with environmental policies that actually go far enough to begin tackling the threat of climate change. The longer everyone else delays this, the more it's going to cost them. Being ahead of the curve here should have real, tangible advantages in the decades to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, MuckleJoannie.

 

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

I wouldn't trust any figures coming from Westminster's pro-unionist government, but, on the other hand, I'm a bit sceptical of the more overblown claims of the NATS. As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

Having said that, I still think an independent Scotland has a brighter future than staying with the UK. And there's not just the financial aspect to consider. Being independent would mean no longer getting dragged into London's illegal wars against our will, and being ruled by Tories when no-one North of the border voted for them.

 

Also, Scotland is one of the few countries in the world with environmental policies that actually go far enough to begin tackling the threat of climate change. The longer everyone else delays this, the more it's going to cost them. Being ahead of the curve here should have real, tangible advantages in the decades to come.

 

A 'bit' sceptical? :shock:

 

Most of the pro independent financial figures are based on a pie in the sky notion that Scotchland will keep all of (or nearly all of) the oil revenue. A nice simple line to patronise the nice simple people who fall for that sort of guff.

 

The SNP are definitely the best party to run Scotland - that's why I voted for them. But I have yet to see a clear outline of how full Independence will be paid for before I vote 'yes' to a full split.

 

Let me put it this way, if I wandered in to see my bank manager with a business plan as full of holes and grey areas as the pro-Indy movements' plan, he'd politely pat me on the head and then boot me up the muckle sphincter through the door for wasting his time....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SNP are definitely the best party to run Scotland

 

The SNP wouldn't run Scotland if it was independant though. Their job would be done and you would then get to vote for the usual parties to form a government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'bit' sceptical? :shock:

 

Most of the pro independent financial figures are based on a pie in the sky notion that Scotchland will keep all of (or nearly all of) the oil revenue. A nice simple line to patronise the nice simple people who fall for that sort of guff.

 

According to the Government link MuckleJoannie posted above, if the oil is divided up along geographical lines, Scotland gets around 90%. I don't see any other way it can be divided up so "nearly all of the oil revenue" sounds about right.

 

It is, after all, in Scottish waters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'bit' sceptical? :shock:

 

Most of the pro independent financial figures are based on a pie in the sky notion that Scotchland will keep all of (or nearly all of) the oil revenue. A nice simple line to patronise the nice simple people who fall for that sort of guff.

 

According to the Government link MuckleJoannie posted above, if the oil is divided up along geographical lines, Scotland gets around 90%. I don't see any other way it can be divided up so "nearly all of the oil revenue" sounds about right.

 

It is, after all, in Scottish waters.

 

But the counter argument will be that 'Scottish' oil was brought about by non-Scots business and 'British' government investment, not some purely 'Scottish' investment. So therefore Britain gets a bigger cut than a geographical one.

And, like it or not, the oil is currently in 'British' geographical waters. So any oil revenue going to Scotland will be have to be decided by hard bargaining with the 'British' government in London first.

 

The rest of the UK isn't going to let Scotland scarper with 90% so easily.

 

Then this leads us to the lovely little conundrum of 'Shetlands' oil. If Scotland gets independence and the magical 90%, what's to stop Shetland pulling the same stunt?

 

ie: Right to self-determination and a big honk of oil revenue cleaved off Scotland?

 

We live in interesting times.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest posiedon
Scorrie

And, like it or not, the oil is currently in 'British' geographical waters.

From wiki.

 

The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the counter argument will be that 'Scottish' oil was brought about by non-Scots business and 'British' government investment, not some purely 'Scottish' investment. So therefore Britain gets a bigger cut than a geographical one.

And, like it or not, the oil is currently in 'British' geographical waters. So any oil revenue going to Scotland will be have to be decided by hard bargaining with the 'British' government in London first.

 

And the counter to that is that any investment made has been amply paid back by now many times over, so that argument is irrelevant.

 

More importantly, I think it's the principle that is at stake as regards future investment. If Westminster manages to wangle a per capita share of oil revenue, then they could potentially demand a share of revenue from future developments, even of offshore renewables,... and that's just not on. If the waters are Scottish, then whatever is extracted from them is Scottish, be it oil, gas, fish or renewable power.

 

We live in interesting times.......

 

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...