Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

Here we go again


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1865 posts

Posted 19 July 2017 - 08:36 PM

http://www.shetlandt...ection-expenses

 

If Stuart Hill thinks that the (or any) election was illegal(?) then, why did he stand as a candidate?

 

Tilting at windmills..  I've said on more than one occaison.  Right idea, wrong man....

 


  • Da Burra Shop likes this

#2 Lerwick antiques

Lerwick antiques

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 19 July 2017 - 11:26 PM

He stood for as a candidate as he felt that he could make Shetland and Orkney better if he won.

 

Shame his boat shed was demolished.



#3 whalsa

whalsa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 19 July 2017 - 11:55 PM

How was it as soon as I saw the heading "here we go again" I knew it would be about Stuart Hill before even being aware of the story?  :rofl: 

I agree with you Colin, right idea, wrong man. That being said I have a great deal of respect for Stuart for standing up for what he believes in, even if it is at odds with my own approach towards the same cause. 

I was particularly fed up when he voted against our case for autonomy at the Althing in April.. before deciding a few days later to stand on that very issue! Still a bit perplexed at that one. 

The issue may have faded from public discussion somewhat with all the recent elections (finally) being by with. It has not faded from my mind nor my intentions yet though. On the contrary, with developments such as Brexit, North Sea cod being declared sustainable and SVT potentially getting a new lease of life there remains plenty to be said for the cause. 

A few interesting (and little known) figures about Shetlands tax contributions;

·         Income tax (gross of tax credits): £60M (liabilities 2013/14 latest figures)

·         Capital Gains Tax: £1.3M (liabilities 2015/16 latest figures)

·         Corporation Tax: £18.73M (liabilities 2014/15 latest figures)

·         Council Tax: £8.55M (SIC 2016 figures)

·         Business Rates: £17.454M (SG 2016 figures)

 

That is 5 of the 27 (!) taxes we currently pay to HMRC - adding up to £106M. Some big hitters such as VAT and fuel duty missing from that list, the total figure is potentially massive.  

 

Anyone who thinks we couldn't afford to go it alone is either naive to our actual and potential revenue streams or they simply don't want it to happen for their own reasons. 


  • Colin, MrBump and Da Burra Shop like this

#4 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8651 posts

Posted 20 July 2017 - 12:39 AM

What Calamity says he's fighting for and trying to achieve is very attractive and admirable.

I just wish he'd let someone else in on his plan as how what he's doing, and has been doing for a very long time, is supposed to progress towards let alone achieve, in theory at least, his stated goals, and then explain it to the rest of us.

As it all makes about as much sense to me as double dutch written in Chinese, but then again, I'm probably just a dumbass squelchy booble pop.

If he won, he said he'd not take up his seat so as to demonstrate O&S's refusal to legitimatise the authority of a Parliament we don't recognise. FIne, it's worked must excellently for Sinn Fein over the last few decades, hasn't it.....not so much.

I'm still waiting to hear him explain away how it would be productive for him when it's so unproductive for them.

#5 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1865 posts

Posted 20 July 2017 - 01:04 PM


That is 5 of the 27 (!) taxes we currently pay to HMRC - adding up to £106M. Some big hitters such as VAT and fuel duty missing from that list, the total figure is potentially massive.  

 

Anyone who thinks we couldn't afford to go it alone is either naive to our actual and potential revenue streams or they simply don't want it to happen for their own reasons. 

Those 5 would (just about) pay the SIC's wage bill but, alcohol and tobacco taxes are not 'insignificant' either.



#6 engineer21

engineer21

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 11:18 AM

isnt that the issue, people see how much money could be coming in i.e 106m and think wow thats a lot of cash.....which it is compared to an average persons salery, but the outgoings from going it alone would also be very high.....subsidised ferry + air fares which we have all become used too, good roads, ferrys, etc none of this comes cheap when just the council wage bill amounts to over 100m



#7 tooney1

tooney1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 181 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 12:19 PM

^ Not forgetting the inward investment that's been put into Shetland to make those contributions possible... We didn't get there ourselves and we can't take the money and run now...



#8 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 706 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 01:58 PM

^ Not forgetting the inward investment that's been put into Shetland to make those contributions possible... We didn't get there ourselves and we can't take the money and run now...

 

Hmmm....

 

The inward investments that have been put in - before larger amounts are taken out again - and again - and again.........



#9 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1865 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 02:29 PM

^ Not forgetting the inward investment that's been put into Shetland to make those contributions possible... We didn't get there ourselves and we can't take the money and run now...

Seems to me that everybody else has been taking OUR money and running.

What about the vast amounts of "cash" that has been taken out of our waters via oil and fish?   The "inward investment" you claim is tiny by comparison and makes a complete mockery of your statement.

 

The "money go round" might appear to be complicated but, it's really quite simple to understand.

The Government takes as much money as it can out of every business/person in the country and, at best, will only give a small portion of it back preferring to spend the bulk of it on a wide variety of different (and expensive) schemes..  There is no way that Shetland is a "Nett Benefactor" under the current scheme.


  • whalsa likes this

#10 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8651 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 05:22 PM

@ engineer21 & tooney1: Those are extremely short sighted and blinkered outlooks. It has next to beggar all to do with what we are, and what we can be playing by the rules of the present regime. It's about having to ability and opportunities to be whatever we want to be whenever we want to be it.

The current system means we play by the rules set in remote clueless places like Edinburgh, London and Brussels, which seldom cut us any breaks. Forget them, get back to the basics of addressing what we are and where we are and being smart to utilise those to our best advantage.Its about making our assets as profitable for us as they can be through export of product, delivery of services, and welcoming inward investment.

We sit at the crossroads of the Atlantic, North Sea and continental and Eastern Europe and in some of the richest fishing grounds there is, it's about utilising those things so that they best profit us. If folk have no more ambition and aspirations than just keep on trundling along as we are, then of course it makes no sense to change or constitutional status, but it's about taking control of ourselves and our situation and developing it so that its not only the additional costs of going alone are met, but we're all much better off as well.

The only purpose of quoting current figures is to prove that even in our mediocre and heavily restricted state, we could survive regardless. The numbers that really matter are those that are achievable by developing our resources and opportunities to their max, and that is only restricted by the lack of committed thought and whatever the public deem are activities they will, or won't allow.

Uinfettered by statutes set by remote legislature that best suits their ends, not ours, we can enact whatever statutes we see fit, tax what we see fit, at whatever rate we see fit, etc. Taxation is just a business like any other, and just like selling cornflakes, you either pile em high and sell em cheap, relying on sales volume make your packet, or you stock a few and sell them dear to a dedicated or captive market. I pref the former in both cornflakes and taxation - we tax something lower than our neighbours, then you facilitate it to be easy for them to do business here, and the ball is off and rolling.

Edited by Ghostrider, 21 July 2017 - 05:23 PM.

  • whalsa likes this

#11 whalsa

whalsa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 21 July 2017 - 06:17 PM

The point I was making was obviously lost on engineer21 and tooney1 but I see from the responses it was not lost on you three others. 

 

Shetland is a net contributor under the current set up without even taking oil and gas revenues into account. Yes there would be additional costs and challenges associated with greater autonomy but those pale in insignificance in comparison to the opportunities we would have. 

As Ghostrider points out we are in an extremely strategic position as well as having a wealth of natural resources on our doorstep. 

 

The Falkland Islands have less than 3000 people, a GDP per capita of $77,692 (UKs is $39,899 for comparison), are far more remote than us and have no large scale oil and gas production. Why is it that so many island groups across the world, both nearby and distant, are independent or autonomous and manage to thrive yet so many here are quick to dismiss the idea of Shetland doing the same as unworkable? 


  • Ghostrider, as and Property2017 like this

#12 Skalavagr

Skalavagr

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:28 PM

Don't forget that the defence costs for the Falklands amount to £65 million a year or thereabouts.



#13 whalsa

whalsa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 22 July 2017 - 05:37 PM

Don't forget that the defence costs for the Falklands amount to £65 million a year or thereabouts.

Paid for by the UK not by them. Plus this is due to the fact that they have a belligerent neighbour who invaded them a few decades ago, not to mention being at the opposite end of the planet. Hardly the same situation here. 



#14 tooney1

tooney1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 181 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 10:14 AM

The point I was making was obviously lost on engineer21 and tooney1 but I see from the responses it was not lost on you three others. 

 

 

I'm not against self interest but I like facts. Why don't you publish what comes into Shetland for a more balanced discussion and demonstrate there would be no deficit?

 

"Turnover is Vanity – Profit is Sanity"



#15 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 541 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 11:02 AM

 

Don't forget that the defence costs for the Falklands amount to £65 million a year or thereabouts.

Paid for by the UK not by them. Plus this is due to the fact that they have a belligerent neighbour who invaded them a few decades ago, not to mention being at the opposite end of the planet. Hardly the same situation here. 

 

Replace decades with centuries? ;-)



#16 whalsa

whalsa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 06:39 PM

 

The point I was making was obviously lost on engineer21 and tooney1 but I see from the responses it was not lost on you three others. 

 

 

I'm not against self interest but I like facts. Why don't you publish what comes into Shetland for a more balanced discussion and demonstrate there would be no deficit?

 

"Turnover is Vanity – Profit is Sanity"

 

I have given you facts - facts obtained by myself and a colleague via Freedom of Information requests. 

In terms of what comes in, in 2010-11 there was an "Input/Output Study" commissioned by the Council. Unfortunately this is the most recent in-depth analysis of the Shetland economy as a whole but even then Shetland provided an "Exchequer Balance" of +£82million - the Exchequer Balance is the difference between total government revenue raised in Shetland against total government expenditure.

We also had a positive trade balance of £131million. 

Source:

http://www.shetland....

 

Also of interest is the SSQC report from 2015 on Shetland's booming Seafood sector which concluded the sector is worth a staggering £584 million to the Shetland economy. 

These are all indicators of the vast potential we are sitting on. I would like to see a new Input/Output study carried out, followed by a feasibility study analysing the various options for autonomy and self determination. 

 


  • George. likes this

#17 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1865 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 09:43 PM

Bottom line to this argument is that, despite "cherry picking" by "outsiders",  Shetland makes a healthy profit(?) for the UK. 

 

With control of our own resources, we could make sure that the bulk of the profit(?) stays here.


  • as, whalsa and George. like this

#18 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8651 posts

Posted 23 July 2017 - 10:07 PM

In 1900 the population of Vegas was 25, in a handful of huts beside a rail line and a relatively small kinda swampy bit in the middle of the Mojave Desert, that only esisted on account of being the lowest point of that desert plain so it was where the run off from mountains that totally surrounded it finally settled.

 

If you've been paying attention, you know the rest.

 

"Turnover is Vanity – Profit is Sanity" is a good argument, but neither is going to exist without vision and ambition.

 

Before anyone starts, I'm not advocating we build a replica of Caesar's Palace next to the clay pigeon range in the Black Gaet, and open a line of strip joints and knocking shops down the Kames, the above is intended as an illustrative example only. Its the principle of creating a highly profitable earner, whatever that may be, from virtually nothing that is paramount.

 

Our existing industries can only thrive and be more profitable to us when released from external control and their leeching off of the cream, that's a no brainer.

 

At the turn of the 20th C. the Yanks were ripe for a gambling town, and Vegas stepped up to the plate. We just need to identify what service western europe isn't providing adequately to satisfy the population's demand, that we can, and we're printing money. Obviously, nothing is ever an overnight sensation, but everything has to start somewhere, and what that thing is is only restricted by how flexible folk are willing to be in their moral, ethical and faith boundaries. Everybody has a price, gambling wasn't paticularly palatable until the State of Nevada began to count the $$$'s, then it took on a whole new sunnier complection, that same rule applies to everything and everybody.


  • George. likes this

#19 CrashBox

CrashBox

    Member

  • Social Media Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 24 July 2017 - 05:06 PM

I've mentioned on another thread that Orkney produces its entire energy needs through renewables, and actually over-produces by around 20%, which it exports to mainland UK via the National Grid. There's talk of connecting Shetland to the NG so the rest of the UK benefits from the wind turbines we'll be having installed in a few years time. If Shetland had control of its own finances, which also includes revenue from the wind farms, I can't see the islands being poor at all. We could also all benefit from cheap electricity if it was done in the right way. On those rare Shetland days where the wind doesn't blow, we can also install batteries which can be charged during low consumption periods of days with wind, to provide power 24/7. 


  • George. likes this

#20 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1865 posts

Posted 24 July 2017 - 08:12 PM

Er..  Shetland has never had "control" of it's own finances..  Throwing money around like water is more like it..

 

As for connecting to the NG..  That's part of what VE was set up to do..  Unfortunately, spending that kind of our own money so a bunch of "carpetbaggers" could exploit it is a little "against the grain" to me.

 

As for cheap(?) lecky..  Dream on..

 

We will always be "poor" and will remain so until we can get control,


  • whalsa and George. like this