Self-sustaining Shetland

[BGDDisco]

Well said there whalsa.

[Capeesh]

There's one thing ALL the British Overseas Territories have in common and that is they are all under British sovereignty.

The claim we would control our EEZ as a British Overseas Territory is false.

The UK would control it.

It's hard to ignore or forget about stone cold facts.

Do we still want to be a BOT?

Edited February 15, 2016 by Capeesh

[Ghostrider]

^ Define "control". Bermudans and their government were apparently discussing the future of theirs 2-3 years go, without a care for what old Queen Bess and her government might think about anything. Likewise the Pitcairn folk seemed to be able to declare their's a "conservation" area with the same lack of reference to 'London'.

 

I'm not proclaiming to be any kind of expert, but it seems to me that like everything else in BOT's the divvie up of "control" from a EEZ that accompanies British Sovereignity is very negotiable.

 

Who is suggesting we become a BOT anyway? Being a BOT is what is attracting most discussion t the moment as it seems to appeal to the mjority who have expressed an opinion, as being the "best outcome" solution. Its no more on or off the table as a Crown dependency or full independence as far as I'm concerned - People can change their minds, and the percentage who choose to be the silent majority will fluctuate, and at the end of the day what we want will have to be decided by a democrtic referendum of all Shetland adults or it will have no legal standing.

 

The object of 'Wir Shetland', as far as I'm aware is to explore the potentially viable options which exist, and distribute that information as widely as possible so that folk can make as informed of  choice as possible, not to push any one option any more or less than any other.

[whalsa]

^^^ Well said again Ghostrider. It has seemed to me in this thread that Capeesh has sometimes been looking for problems which need not exist (or at least need not be insurmountable). 

I am leaning towards the BOT option simply because I see it as potentially being the best of both worlds - meaningful self governance whilst retaining British Citizenship and defence etc. 

Of course it could also be viewed as a "half wy hoose" for full independence, if after a period of time Shetlanders were not satisfied with the BOT status we could vote to go fully independent, the transition being much easier after having many of the systems of self governance already installed. 

[brian.smith]

Im not having a go Whalsa in fact my feelings are exactly the opposite I am very pro the self governance Idea but I just think everything begins with financial stability and that case must be made first. Whether Wir Shetland is a political party or not does not have any relevance it is whether the stated aims can be achieved financially. 

[BGDDisco]

Im not having a go Whalsa in fact my feelings are exactly the opposite I am very pro the self governance Idea but I just think everything begins with financial stability and that case must be made first. Whether Wir Shetland is a political party or not does not have any relevance it is whether the stated aims can be achieved financially. 

I thought that was what Wir Shetland was doing. 

WS still in it's infancy as a working group, but I signed up knowing it had to start somewhere. I also started this thread asking for discussion on the bigger issues, all of which break down into financial cases eventually.

Personally, I'd happily rather pay my taxes to Shetland, for Shetland, with Shetland controlling where they are spent. And the transparency that would have to go along with it (much like the SIC's 6 yearly report) would, I hope, be easier to understand than Westminster (or Holyrood) budget reports.

[BGDDisco]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf

 

^^^ Here is a breakdown of almost all of the taxes collected across the UK.

For estimation purposes I look at figures for Scotland (with a population of 5,300,000) and using a population in Shetland to be 23,000 this make 1 in every 230 Scots is a Shetland resident. So dividing any of the revenue figures for Scotland by 230 should give a reasonable estimate of the revenues possible through taxation in Shetland if we get our hands on it. Also assuming we keep the same percentages levied by UK government (hope not, but that's a completely different argument)

I will go away, find an abacus or similar and come back with a ball-park figure for potential revenues. Bear with me. 

[BGDDisco]

Levy £m (Scotland) £m /230

Income Tax 11,972 52.05217

Capital Gains Tax 293 1.273913

National Insurance 9,045 39.32609

Value Added Tax 9,134 39.71304

Corporation Tax 2,988 12.9913

Corporation Tax (Offshore, 172 0.747826

Petroleum Revenue Tax 801 3.482609

Bank Levy 188 0.817391

Fuel Duties, 2,299 9.995652

Inheritance Tax 224 0.973913

Stamp Tax on Shares 153 0.665217

Stamp Duty Land Tax 478 2.078261

Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings 5 0.021739

Tobacco Duties 1,241 5.395652

Spirits Duty 406 1.765217

Beer Duty 240 1.043478

Wine Duties 335 1.456522

Cider Duties 25 0.108696

Betting and Gaming, 187 0.813043

Air Passenger Duty 305 1.326087

Insurance Premium Tax 195 0.847826

Landfill Tax 102 0.443478

Climate Change Levy 131 0.569565

Aggregates Levy 50 0.217391

Customs Duties, 235 1.021739

TOTALS 41,204 179.1478         EDIT: Sorry my spreadsheet table didn't come out so good..

 

Not sure how this compares with any other figures available, but my estimation is about £180,000,000 is paid to UK government per year by Shetland.

Somebody help me here, how much do we claw back to run the place?

Edited February 16, 2016 by BGDDisco

[whalsa]

^^^ I am trying to find the link for the 2010 report and will post it when I do. That report had a positive exchequer balance of £82Mpa. It also had a balance of trade of +£131Mpa (exports minus imports) and a GDP of £1.1billion. 

All of this does not include oil and gas revenues or the tax paid by offshore workers located in what would be Shetland's waters. 

 

Obviously 6 years out of date but very positive nonetheless. 

[whalsa]

Shetland Input/Output Study:

 

http://www.shetland.gov.uk/coins/submissiondocuments.asp?submissionid=14530

Edited February 16, 2016 by whalsa

[Seal]

For me, along with many others, it's the economics that matter most.It's all fine and well having an estimated exchequer balance of £82m, but it does seem to be missing quite a few large things.

 

Firstly, it appears to miss large expenditure items that are currently the responsibility of central government, with the two most significant off the top of my head being, the north boat, and crofters grants.

 

The grants for the north boats, is about £36m for the whole shooting match, so it'd be safe to assume circa £20m for only the Shetland connection. Similarly, crofters grants (if they ever get paid) are between £8m-£9m per annum. Straightaway that's almost £30m gone from the positive balance, and I'm fairly sure if you started looking at aspects such as the NHS (which has an annual budget of over £50m, offset against National Insurance contributions of around £40m) you'd soon start to run out of cash.

 

Similarly, state pensions are a pretty big cost, and I can't see folk being happy not getting their pension.

 

Lastly my most acute fear that I doubt can be assuaged is population. Currently, the Shetland population is growing, partly thanks to immigration from the rest of the UK and more exotic locales. If Shetland removed itself from the jurisdiction of the UK, it would certainly put people off from moving up here. A quick look at the census data indicates that 1308 people (people who weren't born in Scotland) moved to Shetland between 2001 and 2011, and the real number will be higher as there's no distinction between where people were born in Scotland.

 

Without this immigration, and assuming that emigration, such as youngsters going to uni and not returning, stayed roughly level, there would be a decline in the Shetland population. If this was to happen, then it would be very difficult to reverse, and I think would harm Shetland in every way for future generations.

[BGDDisco]

Reading the Appendix section of the report whalsa submitted I reckon I am not far off the money with £180m. 

 

Quote from p3. - "Finally, we estimate that Shetland businesses, organizations and households paid £139 million in direct and indirect taxes in 2010-11. This implies a 26% increase since 2003 and an annual growth rate of 3.4%."

Do the maths yourselves if you want, but £139m plus 5 or six years growth at 3.4% comes out at £170m.

 

My question is, again; could this level of taxation sustain our society? 

Not looking for the should argument - that's a different question

[BGDDisco]

Exactly the stuff I'm looking for - and I'm sure other readers of this thread are interested in too. Nice one Seal.

 

On the Northboat issue - fuel (and the hefty tax chunk it accrues) could potentially be bought in Shetland, with the taxes on it going back into Shetland. OK we have no refinery here, but when we have a choice of where to buy fuel from, why would we choose the country with the highest tax levy? The choice would be ours. So would the fuel taxes.

 

NHS is a bigger problem, I still shudder at the thought of SICHS. But with the correct management I'm sure it could be overcome. Good side topic for deeper discussion.

 

Farmers and growers. Sorry, but I don't know enough about the grants / welfare situation to comment here. All I do know is; a business, no matter how small, must turn a profit to continue to exist. Sustainability. So assistance where needed, but with a keen eye on the business case. Crofters, to me, were the most diversified, multi-skilled folk ever. Decades ahead of the world when it came to recycling/upcycling, and efficiency of time/motion/work etc. 

[Colin]

"Similarly, state pensions are a pretty big cost, and I can't see folk being happy not getting their pension."

 

A good point but, possibly, a bit of a "red herring".

 

If you have paid your pension contributions (to the UK government), then you are entitled to the pension wherever you might live..

 

Arrangements for any pension scheme, independent of the UK, would have to be fully investigated

[whalsa]

For me, along with many others, it's the economics that matter most.It's all fine and well having an estimated exchequer balance of £82m, but it does seem to be missing quite a few large things.

 

Firstly, it appears to miss large expenditure items that are currently the responsibility of central government, with the two most significant off the top of my head being, the north boat, and crofters grants.

 

The grants for the north boats, is about £36m for the whole shooting match, so it'd be safe to assume circa £20m for only the Shetland connection. Similarly, crofters grants (if they ever get paid) are between £8m-£9m per annum. Straightaway that's almost £30m gone from the positive balance, and I'm fairly sure if you started looking at aspects such as the NHS (which has an annual budget of over £50m, offset against National Insurance contributions of around £40m) you'd soon start to run out of cash.

 

Similarly, state pensions are a pretty big cost, and I can't see folk being happy not getting their pension.

 

Lastly my most acute fear that I doubt can be assuaged is population. Currently, the Shetland population is growing, partly thanks to immigration from the rest of the UK and more exotic locales. If Shetland removed itself from the jurisdiction of the UK, it would certainly put people off from moving up here. A quick look at the census data indicates that 1308 people (people who weren't born in Scotland) moved to Shetland between 2001 and 2011, and the real number will be higher as there's no distinction between where people were born in Scotland.

 

Without this immigration, and assuming that emigration, such as youngsters going to uni and not returning, stayed roughly level, there would be a decline in the Shetland population. If this was to happen, then it would be very difficult to reverse, and I think would harm Shetland in every way for future generations.

This out of date report is of course not what the whole financial case would be based on. There are vast potential revenue streams which are not covered in this report. 

 

That being said some of your points are valid. The south boat would have to be subsidised as would the crofters. Hopefully with local control and a government committed to helping develop the agricultural sector the profitability of Shetland crofts could increase which could result in lower subsidies. The NHS would be an important issue and how it is funded and operated would be a key policy of any new Shetland Government. We could pay the UK to remain part of their service or it could be included in some part of revenue negotiations. Not sure if this is a good idea or not but I believe another option could be for a Shetland Government to take out private healthcare for all of Shetlands residents, as some sort of package deal. Again all options to be discussed. 

 

I agree with Colin re pensions, anything you've already paid in you would still be entitled to. How to look after pensioners in an autonomous Shetland would be an issue which would also need to be sorted out. 

 

Regarding the population issue I don't think that would be a problem if we got the set up right. If Shetland was a prosperous, dynamic autonomous region I think the problem would be the reverse of what you envisage in that you would probably have to limit citizenship as many other island nations do. Have you ever questioned why those youngsters don't return from Uni? For most the reason is lack of suitable jobs. An empowered Shetland Government would be in a better position to encourage suitable growth of industry than the SIC is.