Capeesh

^^^ I'm confused, I thought the LibDems wanted us to remain in the EU and the UK, has Tavish left the party?

I realise there's not a magic money tree but would doing the main roads an hour earlier really cost that much more? There's also a cost (both human and monetary) from road traffic accidents caused by icy conditions. Would Sullom Voe Terminal and the Shetland Gas Plant be willing to help financially to look after the safety of their workers travelling to/from their sites? Would a change in starting/finishing times in the winter help? If it saved one life it would be worth it in my book but I understand the council has to make difficult decisions when allocating their budget.

It doesn't look like the EU member states give a toss if we stay or leave if David Cameron's "negotiations" are anything to go by. I wonder why that is?

Should we remain in the EU? Should we back David Cameron and vote YES?http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll39/Zeppelin36/image_zpsbjkx6e9u.jpeg Or should we back Nigel Farage and vote NO? http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll39/Zeppelin36/image_zpspqigscxs.jpeg

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?

^^^The UK controls the seabed around the Falkland islands according to the link HERE This quote from the link sums it up... The Foreign Office minister, Lord Malloch-Brown, said: "Successful completion of this process will confirm the boundaries of the UK's jurisdiction over its continental shelf, thus ensuring our sovereign rights to manage the shelf for future generations." The UK document deals concisely with the Argentinian counter-claim, stating: "The UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime area."

^^^I thought you wanted us to remain under British sovereignty as a British Overseas Territory. If the Tory government's willing to slash funding to councils they control in England and risk Scottish independence by slashing the Scottish budget, I can't see them giving up control of the revenues they collect from the waters surrounding Shetland. This is a serious question, put my mind at rest, if this isn't some kind of anti SNP thing as I suspect, how on earth are we going to gain control of our EEZ (as I've heard asserted) by having it under the sovereignty of the UK? My earlier post (#203) had various links to the facts about being a BOT, it seems to me that if we become one we would still suffer Tory austerity, only it would be worse because instead of having representation in Holyrood and Westminster we would have an appointed Lord Governor in charge, looking after UK interests.

I see political arguments are now OK as long as it's the Scottish government getting attacked.I find it very telling indeed. Reading some of the letters and comments in the Shetland Times and here, it seems that sticking the boot into the SNP whether it's justified or not is a much higher priority than any kind of autonomy for Shetland.

The policy is to make Gaelic available where there's demand for it, as Shetland has no history of Gaelic speaking then obviously there's no demand for it here, so no Gaelic......... There's the rub, Capeesh. I believe you are being a tad complacent here. How many folk expressing an interest in Gaelic education for their children would it take to tip the scales on this one? I'm sure there'll be a few interested out there....... Anyway, good luck to anyone learning Gaelic. it's a fine language. I just don't expect Shetland to stump up for it out of their already overstretched budget. I would describe it as being realistic rather than complacent.I can't see anywhere near the demand required to trigger Gaelic being taught in Shetland's schools. I don't like being duped and misled by Tavish and others, nobody's saying Gaelic will be forced where there's no demand. The policy is clear, the focus of Gaelic teaching is to... "...ensure that in Scotland’s most strongly Gaelic-speaking communities, Gaelic continues to be in use as a community language..." It also states they would only... "...introduce an entitlement to Gaelic medium education where reasonable demand exists..." As Shetland doesn't match either of the quoted criteria and bearing in mind the limited funds available, I think it's safe to say that the likelihood of Gaelic being taught in Shetland's schools is about the same as Swahili, Ancient Greek or Armenian. The funny thing is that ALL the mainstream parties in Scotland have almost exactly the same policy they're ALL committed to spending money on Gaelic.

Tavish has never said he is against the policy per se. The main issue is where is the money to come from? Foisting the teaching of a minority language onto a region that has no solid cultural links with that language and dictating that part of the existing education budget should be used to finance it (with no extra funds being allocated) is the real problem. The other issue is the creeping 'Gaelicisation' of Scotland and the Isles. It's already started elsewhere. Tavish was saying Shetland schools would be forced to teach Gaelic, this is not the case.The policy is to make Gaelic available where there's demand for it, as Shetland has no history of Gaelic speaking then obviously there's no demand for it here, so no Gaelic. I don't want my children to learn Gaelic but I can fully understand why people in Gaelic speaking areas would want their children to learn it, I'm sure the people who want to protect the Shetland dialect can empathise. What I can't understand is the fact that in the last Lib Dem manifesto that Tavish fought the last election on, there was a pledge to... "Support Gaelic medium teaching where there is demand and promote the language in cost effective ways." His fellow Lib Dems in Gaelic speaking areas are shouting from the rooftops about how they are going to make Gaelic available to any who want to learn. Where were they going to find the money? Has Lib Dem Policy changed? Has Tavish told his Lib Dem colleagues in Gaelic speaking areas that no money should be spent on Gaelic?

Having looked a bit more into this story it seems there's been a large slice of scaremongering going on. Gaelic will only be taught in Shetland schools if there's a demand by parents for it. I read Tavish Scott's attack in the Shetland Times, I voted for Tavish in 2011 and I find it sad that this is what the Lib Dems have been reduced to, it made me wonder what the Lib Dem policy on Gaelic teaching was. What I found made me laugh because of the extreme hypocrisy of it. In the Lib Dem manifesto for the Scottish elections in 2011 it states the Lib Dems will... "Support Gaelic medium education where there is demand and promote the language in cost effective ways." Tavish is attacking a policy which is EXACTLY the same as the policy he was arguing for in the last Scottish election.

Yes, they have the advantage of being able to make up their own rules/laws and, ultimately, do whatever is in their own best interests. They also control their own currency, borders, immigration policies and natural resources etc. It's called "sovereignty". The only EU "rules" that they have to follow are those that directly affect the goods and services in their trading relationships. I'm at a loss to try and figure out just what the real "advantages" are.. HERE is what former Norweigan foreign minister Espen Barth Eide has to say about Norways situation with the EU, this quote from his article caught my eye."As an EEA member, we do not participate in decision-making in Brussels, but we loyally abide by Brussels’ decisions. We have incorporated approximately three-quarters of all EU legislative acts into Norwegian legislation – and counting."

So obvious it's laughable, the signs are £21 a pop see link HERE, say six signs and a bit of labour, total cost under £500? Job done.

Sorry, Capeesh, I must have missed your post. At the moment, Scotland is not an independent nation. If Westminster want the UK to remain as a whole it makes sense to reduce any available revenue streams to a potentially independent Scotland. The less revenue the Indy movement can claim as Scotlands' own, the more financially weakened their position becomes and this would (IMO) affect their vote in any 2nd referendum. By 'cutting a deal' with Shetland, both Westminster and Shetland would benefit - to the detriment of an Indy Scotland. That's me theory, anyway. I'm guessing that what you mean by "cutting a deal" with the UK is by becoming a BOT and if that's the case that means the claim of us having control of our own EEZ is false.As a BOT the UK would have sovereignty over us, see link HERE, it would be the UK who would own the seabed rights around Shetland See link HERE. We would be puppets dancing to the tune of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we would have a Governor appointed by the Queen who could seize total control at any time, see links HERE and HERE.

There's a world of difference between being a sovereign nation and being a British colony/dependency/territory. I wonder why some people are keen to make out both are the same? Being under the sovereignty of the UK means just that, they call the shots, a bit like now, only we wouldn't have representation in Holyrood or Westminster, we'd be living at the whim of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. For an example of what the UK can get away with google the "Chagos Islanders", they were forcibly evicted by the British government and their land was given to the USA who subsequently built a military base there.

^^^Sovereign nation = independence None of the BOT's or Crown dependencies are sovereign nations, they are under the sovereignty of the UK. Completely different scenarios. If Shetland was seeking independence like Scotland was in the referendum there would be no difference whatsoever, we would probably have to go through all the hoops the Scottish government had to go through to get to the referendum stage with a similar agreement to the Edinburgh agreement between Holyrood and Westminster. This campaign as far as I'm aware is NOT seeking independence.

^^^Unlike the Scottish referendum this campaign isn't calling for independence though is it? If the question is... "do you want Shetland to be a British colony/dependency/territory" I would want a cast iron guarantee the UK would surrender all the revenues they collect now from the waters surrounding Shetland before they would get my vote. I think the chances of this happening are extremely slim.

^^^I cant imagine any circumstance where the UK would give up one single brass farthing of the tax money they collect from the waters around Shetland. Maybe once the oil has been sucked dry they'll throw us a bone but even then if there's money to be made they'll want a finger in the pie. The bargaining chip you suggest of UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) is an empty threat IMHO. Kosovo proves that a very significant number of countries around the world do not want chunks of their territory declaring independence, if they won't recognise Kosovo as an independent country I think it highly unlikely they would recognise Shetland as one. England has no track record of granting its offshore islands self determination that would be the United Kingdom which Scotland is part of.

I agree the status quo is unacceptable, Shetland does need more autonomy but I just can't see the UK government finding it beneficial to give up the tax revenue they currently collect from the waters around Shetland, in fact I think they would fight tooth and nail to keep it.None of the examples of BOT's match our circumstances. Unilateral declarations of independence also carry a risk (see Kosovo as an example, a large number of countries don't recognise them as an independent country.)

I think that you have missed the point..... If Shetland decides that it wants out then, ultimately, there is absolutely nothing that the UK could do about it.. Are we going to unilaterally declare independence if the UK doesn't feel like losing the revenues it currently collects?

^^^ Good luck with that, I very much doubt the UK will surrender one single penny of the revenues they enjoy from the waters surrounding Shetland, of course I may be wrong.

Not full control of our EEZ then, just whatever the UK is willing to give up (which I suspect will be a big fat 0) I was led to believe we would have 100% control of our EEZ, maybe I just got the wrong end of the stick. Best of luck with the campaign though and thanks for the reply.

^^^Let me see if I'm getting this then so I can understand, I certainly don't want to mislead or be misled. a)The UK treasury currently collects 100% of the tax revenues from the waters surrounding Shetland. b)We want to have our own EEZ so it follows that the UK will lose 100% of the revenues from the waters surrounding Shetland. c)We want to be a British colony and are willing to pay some kind of colony tax. d)If the UK doesn't agree Shetland will unilaterally declare independence. Is this right? yes or no

^^^Paying to be a colony isn't appealing to me at all. How much will they charge? Will they just keep taking what they take now? If so, whats the point? This is starting to sound like a worse deal than we have now. All the taxation but no representation. Is that not the main reason the British Empire collapsed? I'm sure I read something about a shipload of tea in Boston.

So when we're on our knees begging to be a British colony, who's going to tell them the massive tax reciepts they enjoy from the waters around Shetland has come to an end?