Capeesh

After attempting to break the law twice by trying to bypass parliament and being forced to halt the attempts by the highest court in the land, Boris and his untrustworthy government of conmen and criminals are trying to break international law and renege on an international treaty they themselves negotiated. Consequences if they do...UK being seen internationally as a rogue state. The speaker of the US House of Representatives released a statement saying if they continued to follow this path there would be no chance of any US/UK trade deal passing the congress. They helped broker the Good Friday Agreement and take a very keen interest in any violation. The EU on behalf of the member States have given the UK a month to back peddle. Anybody who thinks, as I did, that Boris and his cabal were just bumbling idiots seem to be mistaken, I humbly admit my error, I was wrong... They're very dangerous, bumbling idiots.

Aaah now I understand, thanks for the clarification.

I'm confused, why are the Daily Mail and Daily Express reporting this with such glee?

^^We already trade with the "big bad non EU world market" as part of the EU.

Bang on the money with this post, at last a bit of hard nosed realism.The EU has something the UK desperately wants, they can grant or deny unfettered access to EU markets, there's never one side in a negotiation and it doesn't take a genius to see how it's all going to pan out, either the UK caves or they take a huge financial hit. No amount of spitfire fly by's, union jacks or royal babies can hide this reality.

^^ Or, the more likely outcome... UK keep ALL revenues and do whatever they choose to do with their own EEZ (like they do now), give a couple of peerages to the "loyal" Shetland leaders, and wampum for the natives, we've come full circle, it's been a hoot but not for me, sorry.

So no 200 mile economic exclusive zone for Shetland as a British Overseas Territory or Crown dependency then, the UK would never allow it, I'm very glad to get to the bottom of that very misleading "wir" Shetland claim. What? The BOTs control their full EEZs. For example, the Falkland Islands (with less than 3000 citizens) controls an EEZ of 212,693 square miles. A huge % of their GDP comes from selling fishing rights in this zone. This is based on UNCLOS, Shetland would be no different. I expect an autonomous Shetland would negotiate fisheries access and mineral revenues with the parent country. Nope, the UK controls them, EEZ's are for sovereign states, good luck trying to get anything out of them.

So no 200 mile economic exclusive zone for Shetland as a British Overseas Territory or Crown dependency then, the UK would never allow it, I'm very glad to get to the bottom of that very misleading "wir" Shetland claim.

Whalsa -..."Your "common knowledge" is in fact, incorrect. Once upon a time, the Isle of Man was run in this manner"... Me- Funnily enough I did a 30 second check on The Isle of Man before I posted the above, I was only 90% sure about Crown dependencies, this quote's from the Isle of Man's own "government" website, it's where I got "paramount power" from... (I highilght "government" because they're only allowed to "govern" what the UK permits them to). "...The UK Parliament has paramount power to legislate for the Isle of Man on all matters..." Another check revealed this quote from the House of commons library regarding the ability of the Crown dependencies to do anything the UK government disagrees with... "The Royal Commission on the Constitution concluded that: “in the eyes of the courts (the UK) Parliament has a paramount power to legislate for the Islands in any circumstances.” Whalsa -..."If you are going to criticise the concept, I think you should do some research into the difference between British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, as well as the varying constitutions and levels of self governance held by each"... Me- This quote's from the same source regarding the contrasting positions of British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies, the one thing they all have in common is they're all answerable to the UK government. "In contrast with the British Overseas Territories, on which the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate, UK primary legislation does not ordinarily apply to the Crown Dependencies. It can, however, be extended to them if UK Government departments consider it necessary"... Whalsa- ..."The only factual thing you have said is we are not Danish"... Me- No apologies necessary.

I don't need to be an expert to know all British Colonies have an appointed Governor who, at the behest of their Government bosses in London, hold paramount power over them in all matters, this includes the Isle of Man. It's not an uncovered secret, it's common knowledge.

Every British Overseas Territory is run like this Claadehol, it's a simple fact. We're not Danish.

Some form of autonomy for Shetland is a great goal, I'm all for it. Becoming a British Overseas Territory, (or colony as they used to be called), run by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with a colonial Governor apointed by a government we can't vote for or get rid off, who sit in a parliament where we would have 0 elected representatives sounds a bit imperial overlord to me. When it's suggested our imperial masters might grant us gifts it reminds me of the native Americans getting ripped off with cheap, mass produced, imitation wampum. Doesn't sound like anything I would want for Shetland.

Remind me who traded away our fishing rights last time, the same Tory government look likely to do it again for a trade deal that's worse than the one we had as EU members.Remind me again who frittered away the oil revenues? Thatchers dreams came true when that cash cow came, sensible small independent countries like Norway set up oil funds, the UK govt blew the lot.

And you think whats left of the UK would? You could be right here, they will be looking for a new place to park their leaky nuclear subs after an independent Scotland demands removal, if we don't want them either our newly appointed military governor could try buying us natives off with wampum.

Living under the whim of an appointed governor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who serve a parliament where we would have no elected representation like the other British colonies sounds more distant and dictatorial to me.The eviction of the Chagos islanders by the UK government in 1971 and their failed 45 year long legal battle to return, (The high court judgement allowing them to return was overruled by the unelected House of Lords), tells me everything I need to know about being a British Overseas Territory. More chance of achieving genuine Faroese type autonomy, (if that's what the majority of Shetlanders want), as part of an independent Scotland in my opinion.

^The common theme is they live in Scotland, they have the greatest stake in how the place is run, doesn't matter where they come from. The opponents of Scottish independence in your link don't want all Scottish expats to get a vote, they only want the ones who live elsewhere in the UK to get one, have you asked yourself why?

^^I meant to say the last Scottish independence referendum, (not to be confused with the Brexit one). The voting franchise was agreed in the Edinburgh agreement between the Scottish and UK governments, think it was a year before the referendum itself

The last referendum the franchise was agreed, those resident in Scotland, regardless of ethnicity, the very people who chose to live, work and raise their children here had a vote, seemed entirely fair and democratic to me at the time. Ironic that the people who want to move the goalposts and change it to a vote based on Scottish ethnicity are British nationalists. Funny also that they only want to include people born in Scotland and living in other parts of the UK, what about those living elsewhere in the world? I don't think you need to be a genius to nail the reason...They've seen the recent polling on Scottish independence and are desperate to rig any future vote in their favour.

^Unfortunately we as individuals don't have the means to investigate dodgy government dealings, we have to rely on good investigative journalism and organisations like The Good Law Project to chase them through the courts. Here's a link to a twitter thread from one of the directors/lawyers in The Good Law Project concerning dodgy procurement where the government have bypassed normal procurement procedures put in place to guard against waste and cronyism.

It's not incompetence it's pure and simple corruption, instead of going through the proper NHS procurement channels the Tories went to their friends and donors in the city with a wad of taxpayers money and asked them to source some PPE with predictable results, these shell companies have no experience, no staff, no capital or assets all they've got is very lucrative connections with those who are holding the purse strings.The same happened with the Brexit ferry contract and Seaborne freight you should google it, with Brexit and Covid these people are making an absolute fortune at our expense. I find it incredible how anyone votes for these crooks.

^It's the dependency ratio that's the problem, we need enough working age tax payers to pay for those who aren't.

Looks like we'll need mass immigration to compensate for our ageing population. The Ukippers won't be happy.

Just had a nap, have I woken up in 1950?

There may be a commercial use for Scatsta, (I certainly hope so), but with the oil industry choosing to fly from Sumburgh and Aberdeen I can't for the life of me see any demand for extra passenger flights, if there was they would've put more flights on from Sumburgh.

Wonder if the Suffragettes felt the same or those who marched for gay civil rights, now I'm thinking about it, has any major political reform been achieved without some form of protest to spur it on? Protest is all fine and well, and often necessary. The point is, is protest behind the banner of a clenched fist and public disorder extending to rioting and the wanton destruction of random property a legitimate, and indeed acceptable, form of 'protest' for civilisation and society to be condoning now a full two decades in to the 21st Century. In the UK Suffragettes were over a century ago, gay rights were largely granted 20 - 40+ years ago. Aren't civilisations and societies supposed to continually evolve in to ever better versions of utopia, what makes behaviour which constituted legitimate and acceptable means of 'protest' 50 - 100+ years ago any more a means of legitimate and acceptable means of 'protest' today than the behaviours that were being protested 50 - 100+ years ago would be deemed acceptable behaviours today. The world has moved on from 50-100 years ago and a whole slew of new greviances have emerged, some real, some perceived. Surely as a people we're long past due to move on from such base forms of 'protest' as symbols intended to scare/intimidate and defacing and breaking random stuff, which has been homo sapiens 'go to' in such situations since it figured out it could walk as well on two limbs as four. Mass protests throughout history usually come about when all other avenues have been tried and failed, polite pleas, petitions, letters to political representatives, going through the courts etc haven't cut it. Nothing's changed here in 100+ years. If one of the last resorts happen and 1 million people take to the streets (a number of them angry and frustrated) and 100 of them decide to take down a statue and throw it in the river do the hacks focus on the 999,900 people who marched peacefully?...Nope they focus on the controversy, nothing new here either. Do the people who don't want change take the actions of the 100 people who threw the statue in the river and tar the 999,900 with the same brush in an attempt to paint them all as extremists and anarchsts?...Yep, been done without fail with every single mass protest in history, not a single thing has changed. Also, there's nothing new about politicians and governments using the opportunity to further their ends. When Trump saw an opportunity to play to his core support by taking a hard line he sent the troops in, thus inflaming the situation. When Boris saw the grafitti and the imperialist statue thrown in the river he also saw an opportunity to cynically stoke some good old British nationalism and play to his Brexit supporting core voters as the "defender" of Great British tradition.