Self-sustaining Shetland

[Scorrie]

There are a number of international treaties which enshrine the right to self determination of all peoples, including the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 

 

Westminster have the power to aid us in our goals and help us set up a mutually beneficial relationship going forward but they do NOT have the power to stop us deciding our own destiny. 

 

I think Westminster would be quite keen on Shetland having more fiscal control at least, for the simple reason that it would weaken the Indy movements available revenue streams (and therfore, it's popularity).

[whalsa]

But......

 

SIC (in the 2013/14 figures) alone had a financial defecit of £18.31m on provision of services alone, they had to draw down on £21m reserves to meet the costs:

 

"2. In 2012/13, as recorded in the comprehensive income and expenditure statement, the council spent £178.725 million on the provision of public services and had an overall deficit on provision of services of £18.531 million. After taking account of statutory adjustments, the overall draw on reserves was £21.407 million,....."  

http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/local/2013/fa_1213_shetland.pdf

 

That's a 20% of the extra £80m revenue generated in self-governing taxes smoked before we even start rebuilding Shetland.

 

 

I'm wary of any stats giving potential generated income, I'll lay money that the figures quoted will be at the top end of an pretty optimistic range.

I'm probably not alone in remembering the hype generated by the SNP drones in the runup to the Indy ref regarding how much extra oil money every Scotch person would receive in a 'brave new world'...... apparently we would all be eating with solid gold knives and forks and riding round on hover-llamas if we voted 'Yes', thanks to the extra oil revenue that would be arriving Tsunami-like upon the shores of Scotchland.

 

But now, with oil prices being where they are? To use a footie chant: " It's all gone quiet over there". 

 

However, Shetland on the same footing with the UK as Faroe is with Denmark? I'd go for that.

People were calling for figures and that was just one example. I agree with everything you are saying regarding the hype before the Scottish referendum. We will endeavour to refrain from such risky conjecture. The SIC has a financial deficit and has to dip in to reserves yes, but why (previous mismanagement aside)? If we are a net contributor to the UK economy then why do we have a deficit? I am no economist but that doesn't seem right to me. 

 

The current aim is for BOT status with the UK. This would provide us with a very similar set up to what Faroe enjoys with Denmark. 

[Capeesh]

However, Shetland on the same footing with the UK as Faroe is with Denmark? I'd go for that.

But Faroe isn't geographically near Denmark, In this scenario Shetland would be asking the UK to give up revenue from its own territory, we are right in the middle of the UK continental shelf, does anyone think the UK would let Shetland keep the oil revenues?

Whalsa said the line in the sand would be Shetland having its own EEZ, to get that Shetland would need independence.

To get independence and be recognised internationally you have to go through a series of hoops to achieve it, as can be seen in the example of Scotlands referendum.

[northerndiver]

The UK continental shelf only goes so far north because Shetland is here. In an world with an independant Shetland the UK continental shelf would stop half way between Shetland and Orkney making Fair Isle fairly important Of course if Orkney came with us the area would be larger. In a post devolution world Shetland will have control over the EEZ out to 200mi or the half way point to the next teritory, as described in the UN UNCLOS treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea.

 

The figures posted showing the (nearly) current net contribution to the UK economy is just showing the baseline of what is possible i.e. we can go independant and balance the books at the very least. Post independance there will be oil revenue at some level, Income tax on offshore workers in the Shetland EEZ, Increased income from benifits that would come to the Shetland FIshing industry with control of our own waters, and if we take the example of other similar island states, incentives for attracting additional business to the isles through lower corporation tax etc.

[whalsa]

Thank you northerndiver. This whole thing about the UK continental shelf is a red herring. I already cited the example of the Falkland Islands and Argentina. Just because the UK controls the area now does not mean it has any right to control the area if the people of Shetland decide otherwise. 

I have already covered these points Capeesh. If we attained BOT status from the UK we would negotiate a deal in which the UK would receive something from us in return for providing services (defence, foreign embassies etc). These negotiations would be on our terms. Whether the UK like it or not the oil is in our waters. If they want to retain influence in this strategic area and any revenue/security of supply of the oil and gas whatsoever then it would be in their interest to negotiate with us. 

They can either lose all the revenue to an independent Scotland or an independent Shetland or they can negotiate with us. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by whalsa

[Capeesh]

Yes agreed, the vital word here is independent, only an independent Shetland would have an EEZ out to 200 miles or halfway point to next territory as specified by UNCLOS.

We need clarity here, is this group going for independence with our own EEZ or some kind of autonomy with the UK still gathering the revenue from the UK continental shelf?

[whalsa]

Capeesh as already stated the primary aim is to achieve British Overseas Territory status from the UK with full EEZ control. If this cannot be achieved then the option of full independence remains.

 

There are other examples of autonomous areas which retain full EEZ control with links to their parent Kingdoms/nations. Falkland Islands and Faroe Islands being two examples which are both geographically and politically similar in many ways.

[Colin]

Exactly Colin,

Shetland-We'd like to hold a referendum on independence

Westminster- NO

What then?

Ah, but you are in danger of falling into the trap....

 

WE elect the government and, like it or not, (and although they do not seem to act that way) THEY, ultimately, have to answer to US..

 

1st off, they shouldn't be ASKED if we can have a referendum..  They should be TOLD (politely) that we are having one.

if they object then, so what?  There is little that they can do to prevent the voters of Shetland (or anywhere else for that matter) from declaring their views and, where is it "written" that only "the state" is allowed to organise elections? .  After all, isn't this supposed(?) to be a democracy.

[Colin]

I think Westminster would be quite keen on Shetland having more fiscal control at least, for the simple reason that it would weaken the Indy movements available revenue streams (and therfore, it's popularity).

 

 

Exactly, and with Sturgeon et al rumbling on about another referendum, the sooner something "positive" is done, the better the "result" is likely to be.

[Capeesh]

So Westminster would want Shetland to keep the oil revenues to prevent an independent Scotland getting the oil revenues, why would it matter to them they lose the revenues either way?

[brian.smith]

As far as I understand it no Tax would be paid by offshore workers in Shetland tax is paid in the domiciled country where the money is paid. I am sure this is European law not EEA law sure it is tested on amount of time spent in one block in the area and where permanent residence is also where the wages are paid

[brian.smith]

This is all very interesting and not being native the comments regarding who does and doesn't vote are annoying I would not rule people ineligible for this reason or for any reason actually I assume you don't want us all to be forcibly repatriated and I for one am all for autonomy as long as the fiscal case can me made

[whalsa]

This is all very interesting and not being native the comments regarding who does and doesn't vote are annoying I would not rule people ineligible for this reason or for any reason actually I assume you don't want us all to be forcibly repatriated and I for one am all for autonomy as long as the fiscal case can me made

As far as I am aware if you are in the Shetland electorate you would be eligible to vote. I am positive the fiscal case can, and will, be made. 

 

The issue of taxing offshore workers is complex and not clear cut. I believe Norway does it. The UK has more than 100 treaties negotiated individually between the UK and foreign governments to ensure that workers are not taxed in both jurisdictions. We would have to start by negotiating with UK and Norway. But besides if we have independence/autonomy and our own EEZ why on earth would we not be able to tax workers in our own territory? Working on platforms in Shetland waters could even be made quite attractive by offering advantageous income tax for those workers compared to current UK rates.

[Colin]

So Westminster would want Shetland to keep the oil revenues to prevent an independent Scotland getting the oil revenues, why would it matter to them they lose the revenues either way?

That wasn't what Scorrie said and, wasn't what I replied to..

 

Scorrie said "more fiscal control". (A point I happened to agree with.  )

 

Presumably (forgive me if I am wrong) he was referring to a situation whereby some form of "Crown Dependency" was in the offing. 

Such a scenario would (likely) leave Westminster with the larger portion of the oil/gas etc. revenues whilst we would also be "blessed" with the remainder.  Therefore excluding Scotland from a share should they (Scotland) opt for independence.

[Colin]

This is all very interesting and not being native the comments regarding who does and doesn't vote are annoying I would not rule people ineligible for this reason or for any reason actually I assume you don't want us all to be forcibly repatriated and I for one am all for autonomy as long as the fiscal case can me made

Must be "touchy sunday"

 

It was me who raised the issue of who should, or shouldn't be eligible to vote and, as I indicted, some thought would have to be given to the matter.

At no point did I even hint at forced repatriation so, where you got that from, I don't know.

 

Anyway, the suggestion was aimed at including anyone with a "permanent" address on Shetland who was also included on the Electoral Role.  That is, those who live and work here on a permanent basis or, those (like yourself(?)) who have retired(?) here.