Today’s time-saver
Posted on
August 27, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
There’s a lot of cobblers talked about independence, so with only a limited number of hours in the day it’s important to know when you can safely stop reading something, because the person being quoted is clearly a clueless buffoon who’s forgotten to take the little green pills again and can be ignored without fear of missing anything.
In the case of the Herald’s lead story today, it’s four paragraphs in:
Yeah, thanks, Sir John Elvidge. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.
His middle name isn’t Tavish is it? 😉
The Herald’s editorial does describe those comments as ‘unhelpful’, and that begs the question – why give front-page space to this guy’s blethers?
He could also also have warned that the debate about self-government could lead to Alistair Darling, Jim Murphy, Douglas Alexander, … etc who are agitating for existing powers, removing themselves and their wealth of knowledge from Scotland.
This can’t be the same John Elvidge who accused London of ‘growing ignorance and complacency’ about Scotland:
link to express.co.uk
but who now feels that Westminster is not ‘enormously exercised’ about extending devolution in the event of a No vote, can it? I wonder what happened to change your view, Sir John?
You think that’s bad? Have you seen the lead story in the Scottish Sun?
Well seeing it was a bank holiday / slow news day!!
This looks like a case of an otherwise sensible individual being taken in by the excessive media coverage afforded to fools the likes of Tavish Scott and their talk of partition.
Further evidence of Sir John Elvidge’s naivety can be found in the fact that he seems to genuinely believe that Westminster will deliver “more powers” in the event of a No vote.
I wonder if this guy would be interested in buying a big red bridge on the Forth…
Like you say Stuart “complete cobblers” although I could think of more colourful words to describe the quote,
And this from Sir John Elvidge (who?) a former Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government now retired! You would think that he would know better. Of course our MSM will print any old rubbish that goes against independence so no change there then.
This is unionist red herring, and I am surprised that someone like Sir John Elvidge would give it any credence. As far as I am aware, and I believe there have been polls, there is no appetite for Shetlanders or Orcadians to be self-governing.
Also there is no appetite by the Tories, Labour or the Lib Dems to concede more powers to the Scottish parliament. Sir John has got it badly wrong on Devo Max.
One thing I do agree with Sir John is that this referendum will undoubtedly leave a toxic legacy if there is a No victory. If after a No vote and when the Tories are re-elected there will be blood, snottirs and broken teeth everywhere. Those who voted No will be humiliated and lampooned mercilessly all the way to their graves and beyond.
They just won’t let that particular piece of nonsense go will they? Presumably they feel even the worst informed idiocy will be given credence if you repeat it often enough?
I notice that the Herald piece also contains a rather odd quote from Project Fear: “This issue has to be settled once and for all. The prospect of constant debate and votes on the constitution will fill people with horror” Eh? Which part of the definition of democracy don’t these people understand? Are they honestly trying to say that a No vote means the issue will be settled once and for all?!
I notice Sir John is pedalling the line that we should trust them if we vote No, because the unionists will respond to the demand for devo-whatever, but (as your recent poll, historical precedent and common sense all demonstrate) what happens when the unionist parties can’t agree a plan, still less force it through a sceptical westminster?
Yes, that’s right Project Fear, far from being settled once and for all, the failure to deliver on the jam tomorrow devo promises will simply result in either another referendum, or an upsurge in SNP support at Westminster; it’s how democracy works!
@Gillie If there is a ‘No’ vote and Scotland get’s what’s coming to her from Westminster, nobody will admit they voted ‘No’
I’d really love to know where all this ‘Orkney and Shetland want their independence’ stuff started. I’m half Orcadian and grew up there, and have never once heard anyone even mention it. They say the plural of anecdote is not data, but in a community of 20,000 or so, it pretty much is.
There was a scare piece in one of the tabloids some years ago that mentioned it as pure fiction, but I don’t know if that was where it originated.
Project Fear says: “This issue has to be settled once and for all. The prospect of constant debate and votes on the constitution will fill people with horror”
Project Fear means: “This issue has to be settled once and for all. The prospect of constant debate and votes on the constitution will fill Unionists with horror because we know that if people are allowed to make an informed choice then it’s goodbye to the Union and the Westminster gravy-train for us lot.”
The horror! The horror!
This guy is typical of unionists who are labouring to put every possible obstacle in the way of Scotland’s independence movement, a movement which has been advancing for over 80 years and which has attracted widespread electoral support, a movement which relates to an ancient and distinct nation of over 5 million people, with its own legal system, educational system and established church. We have to be vilified and mocked and belittled at every opportunity, and told we’re too wee and it’s all ridiculous.
Then when someone mentions Shetland and/or Orkney, suddenly it’s all wonderful and apparently one or both island groups should just announce UDI next week and everyone in the world will welcome them with open arms. No hard questions about how long an independent Shetland would have to queue to join the EU? Or if it would be excluded from the Commonwealth or NATO? No calculations about how the economy would work? No dire warnings about total reliance on one “volatile commodity” for such a tiny “nation”?
It’s as transparent as museum-grade glass.
His comments surfaced in a newly released recording of a recent talk to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Constitution at the House of Lords.
I expect we would need to hear the context in which these comments were made, this is no doubt a case of cherry picking by the Herald.
creag an tuirc says:
@Gillie If there is a ‘No’ vote and Scotland get’s what’s coming to her from Westminster, nobody will admit they voted ‘No’
Probably true, but those who voted Yes will certainly be shouting it from the rooftops, “Who are these fools who let the Tories rule Scotland again”.
The NOs silence, in reply, will ultimately be their undoing. “Westminster cat caught your tongue?”, we will ask of those who have remained silent but look forlorn.
“Sir John added: “My own view is that the risk of damage from repetition of these processes to the fabric of society, a society which wishes to remain fully inclusive, is considerable.”
Right. So you’re basically saying a No vote should be the end of the matter for all time.
Oh, and do let us know your definition of what constitutes a ‘fully inclusive’ society, Sir John. Does it include the bedroom tax?
…in so far as the independence debate is about identity, it is the intensity of people’s British identity that matters, not that of their Scottish identity. Scottish identity is a near ubiquitous attachment that unites rather than divides most people in Scotland. It is how British they feel that divides them, and is reflected in different attitudes in the independence debate.
Scottish = unifying
British = divisive
link to scotcen.org.uk
But then that’s how imperial rule works, by division.
@Paula Rose
Here’s the audio
link to consoc.org.uk
No mention of the division caused by the biased MSM.
When you consider that all we have had from the unionists and their buddies in the media are scares, smears and intimidation you realise that damage is already being done to Scottish society.
It will get worse as the referendum campaign continues. The mere thought that Scots might vote YES, because the NO vote is soft, will see unprecedented attempts by unionists to sow discord and to disrupt the whole process.
Who is to say that those troops marching thru Stirling next year will be leaving anytime soon before Thursday 18 September 2014. The British state is not to be defied.
@Major
The horror! The horror!
I just finished reading Heart of Darkness yesterday!
I don’t read the Herald.
I do, however, pick it up, but change my mind and return it to the newsstand.
Funny how it doesn’t look the same afterwards…………….
@muttley79
Good stuff. Conrad’s not the easiest read. I know of a Professor of English who confessed that he could never finish Lord Jim….
Interesting that he says ” the benign gaze ” of the international community will ensure an independent Scotland will not be short changed over debt share.
The inference being without it we’d be imperially shafted.
O/T Did anyone else feel an earthquake? 11.06 am?
Off topic, but I read today an article by Gerry Hassan, in Scottish Review, that the Herald did not know of the £100 paid by Yes Scotland to Dr Bulmer for the article they subsequently publised.
My understanding is that they DID know (but did not publish it).
Am I correct? I normally like Gerry’s musings, but think he got it this wrong this time.
@Major
I thought it was a really good story. Can’t say I understand everything in it….
“ianbrotherhood says:
The Herald’s editorial does describe those comments as ‘unhelpful’, and that begs the question – why give front-page space to this guy’s blethers?”
It’s called hedging your bets. I think the Herald realises that No isn’t the shoe-in that the MSM likes to portray it as and wants to appear evenhanded. I think it’s going to be a VERY close vote and they don’t want to antagonise (too much) future readers in either camp.
Obviously I love a 80% Yes but it isn’t going to happen (nor will it be 80% No).
David, I think the point being made is that the Herald knew Dr. Bulmer’s fee for the article was £100, but despite accepting the article for publication they declined to pay the man.
The corollary being, they also knew that the article was being offered by Yes Scotland, who were in the position of sponsors, as it were. They don’t seem to have asked or cared whether Yes Scotland might have made good the deficit by covering Dr. Bulmer’s fee when they refused to pay for the goods. A moment’s thought might have indicated the payment was at least likely.
@David McAnn
Yes read that too. The Herald was offered a Bulmer piece by YES Scotland, Herald said they were interested, YES Scotland gave Bulmer the go ahead, Bulmer asked £100 for his time, YES Scotland told Herald, Herald said they wouldn’t be paying, YES Scotland paid Bulmer.
The Herald knew the article had been commissioned by YES Scotland but did not know directly that Bulmer had been paid. At the end of the day the Herald is at fault they should have said at the end of the article …..this was commissioned by YES Scotland.
The attitude being fostered is that the Shetlanders are happy little Brit picaninnies with no thought of “independence” in their heads, or joining Norway, or whatever. However they hate the idea of an independent Scotland so much that they’ll do anything to avoid being part of it, and to shaft it as much as they’re able.
The unionist response to that fairy-tale is to foment it like mad, and completely miss out on the dire warnings about being thrown out of the EU and NATO and the perils of being entirely reliant on a volatile commodity and so on. I sort of wonder what the reaction would be to a genuine movement within Shetland to take it out of the UK in the event of a No vote?
DON’T BLAME ME – I VOTED YES
We really don’t want to be wearing these badges in 2015, when Cameron is re-elected. Please everyone, keep talking to the undecided and the soft NO’s, whenever the opportunity arises. You will get some knock-backs and disappointments for sure, but other times you will be pleasantly surprised. Make it seem normal and logical to vote YES (as it is). Don’t be shy – just take a deep breath and think of Scotland!
@Morag
“The attitude being fostered is that the Shetlanders are happy little Brit picaninnies with no thought of “independence” in their heads, or joining Norway, or whatever.”
Aye, and the same applies to Orkney. Anyone else remember when GMS attempted to deceive its audience by hearing from ‘a teacher’ in Orkney who was asked his views on the Islands seceding from Scotland. ‘I don’t know about that’ said the ‘teacher’, ‘but Scottish independence is a bad idea’.
Turned out that the BBC’s randomly selected ‘teacher’ was Cameron Stout, late of Big Brother and now local Better Together leader in Orkney.
@Tim.
The scare-lie about the Orkney isles and Shetland isles maybe (?) wanting Independence, was started by Bernard Ingham, Thatcher’s press secretary. He gave the lie to Malcolm Rifkind who happily spread this scare-story around for him.
It also must be noted that this was the time Sullom Voe was being constructed/started up and a lot of the incomers were English people who happily obliged (maybe not all) to go along with this nonsense.
Just a thought Rev Stu, I know you must have a million things to get done, but if anything this site is going to get much bigger and as you say – the vast bulk of the readers of WOS do not comment (99%?), so is the site user-friendly enough, should there be a numbering system, should there be approval/dislike buttons, should there be a ‘reply’ function?
No need to answer, just stick it into the boiling pot.
“Just a thought Rev Stu, I know you must have a million things to get done, but if anything this site is going to get much bigger and as you say – the vast bulk of the readers of WOS do not comment (99%?), so is the site user-friendly enough, should there be a numbering system, should there be approval/dislike buttons, should there be a ‘reply’ function?”
The sort of people who care about that kind of thing are those who are already keenest on commenting. It’s perfectly normal the way it is – most folk who read newspapers don’t write letters to them, most folk who listen to radio shows don’t phone in. And our comment threads are already so big that significantly increasing their size would only put people off anyway.
Sir John Eh’l Cringe is correct according to the bookies latest odds….William Hill @ 1/12 No & 6/1 yes. No Campaign are certain winners if the bookies are correct. These odds seem bizarre to what the recent local pro-independence groundswell is the WOS survey recently exposed. Interesting times.
it is well established in the international laws on maritime boundaries that Orkney and Shetland, as small archipelagos on Scotland’s continental shelf would not inherit contintental shelf rights. Even if they were allowed to leave Scotland and become part ogf England they would be treated as foreign enclave and again have no continental shelf rights.
Tavish Scott has shifted his position to one of seeking a status like the Isle of Man. He seems blissfully unaware that the Isle of Man only ever had surface legal juristiction over its 12 mile limit and had to pay the UK government, quite recently, for mineral rights within its 12 mile limit.
All of these boundary related mythologies, the ‘stealing’ of 6000 square miles of the North Sea, the fictional ‘Crown Estates’ (despite recently trying to bolster that mythology by recategorising even more of the Queen’s ‘earnings’, Crown Estate) will not stand legal scrutiny by the UN/ICJ if Scotland becomes independent.
and just wait until Birmingham announce their intention to seek independence from England.
No Campaign are certain winners if the bookies are correct.
Bookies are neither pollsters nor fortune tellers. They don’t tell you how people will vote. They tell you how people have bet.
Balgayboy – William Hill is offering 9/2 Yes and 1/8 No. It was 6/1 Yes over two months ago – it’s coming down but still a very good bet. No was 1/12 at one time so some money is going on that – strangely!
In my view, “like” buttons are pernicious and degenerate almost immediately to a popularity contest.
If you can’t identify a post by the name of the poster and the time stamp on the post then you’re seriously not trying.
If by “reply” facility you mean that the reply would appear under the post being replied to, this is nothing but a royal pain in the neck. Anyone reading the thread in real time has to keep scrolling up to see what has appeared higher up, in response to posts they have already read. And it never stops. At least this way, we know that any new material comes at the bottom and we won’t miss it.
Barontorc says @ 11.56.
Yup, stand corrected and apologies for the error. Nonetheless as a betting man it’s still long odds for a YES vote win and I sincerely hope the issuing of the SG independence white paper in October will greatly even up these odds.
@frankieboy
“and just wait until Birmingham announce their intention to seek independence from England.”
Well exactly. Partition was not allowed for the Northern semi autonomous nations of native Americans in Quebec even though they were almost 100% in favour of remaining in Canada (BTW N.I. worked well didn’t it?). You simply cannot have two constitutional status changes going on at the same time. As it is we will be lucky if the one on the table is adequately debated and the electorate are adequately informed before the referendum.
However, if partition was ever given the nod (it won’t be) then by the same token, there would be nothing to stop Pictland seeking contemporaneous independence as well. And it would have the advantage of inheriting continental rights and has been an identifiable separate kingdom historically.
They couldn’t argue that Orkney and Shetland would be allowed to do so but not allow Pictland.
I am not, nor ever have been, an advocate of resurrecting Pictavia, however if it were on offer as against staying in the UK I might think seriously about it.
All for Orkney and Shetland self determination if thats what folks want, even happy to share the oil revenue from Scotland’s continental shelf with them.
“William Hill is offering 9/2 Yes and 1/8 No. It was 6/1 Yes over two months ago – it’s coming down but still a very good bet. No was 1/12 at one time so some money is going on that – strangely!”
The fact that the odds against YES are coming down from 6/1 to 9/2 (just over 4/1) shows that either the bookies are slightly losing faith in a NO vote, or people are only betting on a YES vote. The odds on a NO vote going from 1/12 to 1/8 (you had to post 12 to win 1, now you only have to post 8 to win 1) indicate the same thing.
I predict the odds will be evens this time next year.
Luigi said about the DON’T BLAME ME – I VOTED YES
How about we all start wearing these T shirts NOW, to maybe prompt the current No’s and Undecideds to think about what it might feel like the morning after, if it really IS a No vote.
I can hardly bear to think about the prospect of a NO result myself, but getting folk to think long and hard about that prospect might change a few minds (and hearts)…..
Just a thought.
The bookies change their odds to reflect bets, but also to encourage bets so that they can ‘balance their books’. It’s why you seldom ever see a poor book-maker! It’s an amusing aside, but bears no relevance whatsoever to how people may vote in a year’s time.
Stick with S_S’s analysis and we won’t be far off the mark. My ‘bookies bet’ is YES: 65.7% and NO: 32.8% the rest spoilt papers.
I like the T-shirt idea “Don’t Blame me – I Voted YES”
Tony Little says:@12.29
Sincerely hope u are correct and my wish as well. Have u tried getting odds from the bookies for such an result? Going on my betting experience sad as it is, they are rarely wrong. Maybe one year on they are proved wrong..I truly hope so.
@ Cruachan:
Luigi said about the DON’T BLAME ME – I VOTED YES.
Yes, I thought it was a great idea from Luigi (thanks, Luigi). Made me think of getting a ‘T’ shirt printed along the lines of: I’ll be voting YES – So if it goes tits up after the referendum you can’t point the finger at me.
Not perfect – but working on it.
Having now listened to the discussion from which the quotes in the Herald are taken I can confirm that they are out of context, misleading and do not represent what Elvidge was saying. If you have the time have a listen.
Balgayboy, so nearly every race is won by the favourite? What planet are you on?
“Don’t Blame me – I Voted YES”
Great for after the referendum if there is a NO vote, but not before surely?
I’ve suggested: ‘We don’t want to have to say “We told you so”‘.
@Paula
I listened as well, but not too closely as I was doing other things. But it seemed a fairly balanced Q&A session. It’s worth a listen and can be found on the APPG website here.
I read that in the Herald this morning and added this comment:
“I’ve become ‘warned’ out. If there are hard facts then the ‘warners’ should give them. Otherwise it is treating us as idiots, who can’t think for ourselves or who are incapable children who can’t resolve issues or plan a way forward.
The Greenland/Denmark analogy is preposterous. Greenland is 1800 miles from Denmark and has never been in recognised territorial waters of Denmark. Scandanavians arrived there in the 10th Century, and there had been Inuits there, off and on, for 2500years.
Orkney and Shetland have been settled by peoples from what is now Scotland for about 6000 years, all the archaeology remains show the development. They are within the recognised maritime boundaries of present day Scotland: recognised by international law, also geologically connected, the furthest point being 180miles away.. The Norwegian connection is smokescreen.
Sir John Elvidge doesn’t appear to know his history or about international law.
The biggest source of devision is the constant stream of unsubstantiated, ill-informed warnings.”
EDIT: didn’t add this in time.
The podcast is dated 18th June. So it seems that some “reporter” only just found out about it, or else it has been lying in wait to spread more doom and gloom at a future point when they don’t have anything to frighten us with.
@ Brian
Elvidge is not saying anything like you infer – the Herald is taking his words totally out of context.
Morag says:@ 12.45.
Hi Morag. Agree, not every race is won by the favourite but it is very rare at odds of 1/6 does that bet lose. In this case for our common cause I hope I am entirely wrong.
@balgayboy
Try to relax. The betting doesn’t mean anything. This is not a horserace. Treat it as an amusing side show. Maybe create an excel chart and plot the changes as we go through the rest of the campaign 😉
Scottish Skier,
in so far as the independence debate is about identity, it is the intensity of people’s British identity that matters, not that of their Scottish identity. Scottish identity is a near ubiquitous attachment that unites rather than divides most people in Scotland. It is how British they feel that divides them, and is reflected in different attitudes in the independence debate.
Scottish = unifying
British = divisive
That is such a good quote, thank you. It really focuses the mind on why ‘identity’ politics now has so little traction in Scotland. We all agree and share the same strong primary identity (Scottish), all be it with various other (British, European, West Coast, East Coast, Protestant, Catholic etc. etc) and possibly conflicting secondary identities.
Apart from the historic use and current attempts to play up these perceived conflicting secondary group identities by the Unionist political Establishment for their own interests, the very nature of the ‘nationalism’ that has evolved within Scotland (civic, open and inclusive of all cultures, races and religions) should be all the proof needed to confirm the primacy of our commonly shared identity, that of being Scottish.
In truth it is not a ‘Nationalist’ movement but more one of self determination.
It also helps easily explain the root cause of Northern Ireland’s Identity led politics, as well as why their concerns do not transfer easily onto, or have traction, in the debate of National self determination, which is coming to a head here in Scotland .
The population of Northern Ireland are split without a shared primary identity. The Nationalists self identify as Irish, the Unionists self identify as British. Neither side’s Northern Irish identity is strong enough to be seen by either as a significant, strongly unifying shared identity.
Scottish identity, in Scotland is. It’s that simple.
As you say, it’s the ‘Britishness’ Identity in Scotland that is now becoming divisive, as it demands overwhelming political power in Scotland for an ever shrinking and less significant but vocal minority, who’s primary identity it is.
Not a democratically sustainable situation. Hence the obvious deviations from supposedly democratic British norms we are witnessing (and the Rev is documenting) from the Unionist BetterNO Campaign, along with their MSM, Broadcasting and Establishment friends.
Democratic British norms that most folk in Scotland believe to be a birth right and taken as read no matter which particular identity (Scottish/British) an individual primarily self identifies with.
They will react very badly when they discover they are to be denied their birth right (unless they happen to choose Brittish as their primary identity of course) in the furtherance of a partisan constitutional argument. An argument that has always been advanced by that same Scottish establishment as a democratic choice which has always been the Scottish electorates to make.
A year to go and this is really getting interesting!
Rev – I think the ‘guns’ in this instance should be turned on the Herald not Sir John!
Balgayboy, it’s an unprecedented situation, not a horse race where you can look at the breeding and form of the horses and make a pretty educated guess. It’s also a two-horse race.
Tony’s right. They’re flying it by the seat of their pants, based on what sort of money is coming in for the two sides. That’s all.
“Balgayboy, it’s an unprecedented situation, not a horse race where you can look at the breeding and form of the horses and make a pretty educated guess.”
Also, bookies don’t tend to give odds on horse races that aren’t happening for over a year.
http://bit.ly/WePmVs
Partition: If some parts of Scotland vote no, but others yes, then we could find the country partitioned.
Everyone knows partition ends up in disaster, the famous examples being India, Cyprus and Ireland – all disasters Westminster had a direct hand in creating. But Scotland is not a possession of Westminster for it to dispose of as it sees fit. Westminster doesn’t get to call the shots in Scotland’s independence referendum. Scotland does.
The United Kingdom is not a normal unitary state, it’s a union, the clue is in the name. In this case the union refers to the pooling of sovereignty between Scotland and England (plus England’s associated bits – which would be Wales and Northern Ireland). The United Kingdom consists of two sovereign units. Scottish sovereignty rests with the people of Scotland, we just allow Westminster to exercise it on our behalf. When as a sovereign people we tell Westminster that we’re withdrawing permission, they don’t get to keep the bits of Scotland they’ve taken a fancy to. It would be a bit like cancelling a contract with a cowboy builder after the new roof fell in, only for him to tell us he’s going to keep working on the bedroom extension because he’d not screwed up there.
In 2009 when Montenegro held a referendum on independence from its union with Serbia, 55% voted in favour. In the north of the country there were many towns and districts where a majority of people voted against independence, yet they still became independent along with the rest of Montenegro where a majority voted in favour. The referendum result was accepted internationally. No one supported calls for partition.
In the exact same way that the majority party gets to be the government of the whole country, not just the bits that voted for it, the entire country becomes independent if a majority in the country as a whole vote for it. The unit of sovereignty is the nation. The nation is the whole of Scotland, not bits of it. We’re aw Jock Tamson’s bairns, including those of us who decide to vote no.
Shetland and Orkney: Shetland and Orkney aren’t really Scottish.
Westminster’s interest in self-determination for small islands is directly related to power and money. Westminster wasn’t terribly interested in the right to self determination of the people of the Chagos Islands. The Chagos islanders didn’t have anything Westminster wanted, except their land. The islanders were cleared out of their homes and dumped in slums in Mauritius because the UK decided to give the islands to the USA to use as a naval base.
However all of a sudden the national rights of Shetland and Orkney islanders are of immense concern to our Westminster masters, even though most Conservative MPs believe Up Helly Aa is a sexual practice which is still illegal in most US states. Cannae be anything to do with that oil eh?
Orkney and Shetland became a part of Scotland in 1486 when Christian I, King of Norway and Denmark, pledged them as security against the payment of the dowry of his daughter Margaret, who was betrothed to James III of Scotland. All this happened long before the Scottish Parliament entered its shotgun marriage with Westminster in 1707. If we want to pursue the marriage and divorce metaphor, Orkney and Shetland became Scottish from a previous relationship. When we divorce Westminster, it doesn’t get custody.
Fortunately for Scotland, and the Shetland and Orkney Islands, we are not a colony which Westminster can dispose of at will. Scotland is an equal partner in the Union of Parliaments, and if a majority of Scots decide that Union no longer serves our interests, all of Scotland becomes independent. Westminster doesn’t get to pick and choose the bits it would like to keep.
Continental shelf: If Westminster retains control of Shetland, Orkney and Rockall, Scotland will have no oil resources.
If Scotland becomes independent Westminster won’t be able to hang on to Shetland, Orkney, Rockall or any other part of Scotland (see: Shetland and Orkney).
However, even under the hypothetical circumstance that this occurred, Westminster wouldn’t be able to retain control of the oil fields anyway, so ya boo sux. These matters are regulated by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the UK is a signatory. International law specifies that a state controls the continental shelf and associated mineral and fishing rights up to 200 nautical miles (230 miles or 370 km) off its shores. When another state possesses an island within the continental shelf of this state, special rules apply.
The continental shelf off the Atlantic coast is Scotland’s to exploit and develop, even if Westminster clung on to Rockall like a plook on the face of an adolescent sociopath. According to the Law of the Sea: “rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf.” Westminster could pauchle its way to keeping Rockall, but as far as oil and fishing exploitation rights are concerned, they’d be entitled to rockall.
Neither would Westminster gain much by holding onto Shetland and Orkney. When an island belonging to one state sits on the continental shelf of another state, the islands are treated as enclaves. This matter was discussed in detail in a legal paper published by the European Journal of International Law: Prospective Anglo-Scottish Maritime Boundary Revisited
Most of the rights to the continental shelf would remain Scottish, Map 2 on page 29 of the legal paper shows the most likely sea boundaries. Westminster would be entitled only to a small zone around the islands, and the waters between Orkney and Shetland. This area contains no oil fields. If Shetland and Orkney were to remain under Westminster’s control, Shetland would no longer have an oil fund. The map is reproduced here, so you can do a reverse Jeremy Paxman and sneer derisively at Westminster’s pretensions.
Westminster’s Shetland threat is a bluff. Westminster knows it’s a bluff. They just don’t want us to know too.
This sounds like a confused double story being amalgamated into a single story.
I think he is referring to the call for more autonomy for the three islands councils which is currently being asked for and details collected. Not necessarily a bad move but one which is to be conducted under the terms of Holyrood in discussion with the three island groups, and one that hopes to get a different funding/spending/sharing system for these areas which differ greatly from mainland authorities.
The old Joe Grimmond Shetland independence story has then been added in as he seems too lazy to read the autonomy detail and figure out these are two unrelated stories in terms of fact and time – current v late 1970’s (plus Tavish).
Very lazy.
“Once you’ve opened the principle of deconstructing the UK, it’s not obvious that you can stop that debate at a given point. So one to watch, I think one might say.”
That sentence is the most interesting in the whole article because it sums up the establishment view of the UK. In their view the UK is not a union state which formed from the two independent nations of Scotland and England (incorporating Wales) and then added Ireland before most of Ireland left with the province of Northern Ireland remaining but is a single nation and nationality based primarily on a historical English identity.
If Scotland has no national identity or internal coherence and is just a part of the UK which is leaving then it is logical to assume that ScotRegion could further sub-divide or that other regions of the UK could also decided to break away.
The core of that assumption is that Scotland is not a nation with its own identity but just a restive UK region. It might explain why the UK establishment has singularly failed to understand the driving force behind the SNP and the desire for Scottish independence.
Would also point out the remit of a bookie is to make money regardless of the outcome which has little to do with correctly predicting the winner.
It’s perfectly possible that a situation could develop where a bet they had given long odds on a year and more out could start to look like a racing certainty a month or so out. What their reaction to that would be I don’t know, but it will be interesting to find out.
Morag says:@1.05
I never mentioned any horse racing betting and unfortunately you Tony Little construed my original message incorrectly. I was just highlighting the current odds on the Yes and No betting as it presently stands. For the record I am completely relaxed about a YES vote and actively engaged in promoting it. BTW I am on planet Earth also called reality.
Don’t blame me – I’m voting YES
@Ananurhing
indeed there was an earthquake centred around Glen Lyon in Perthshire at 11:06 BST magnitude 2.7, see link to earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
27 August, 2013 at 1:20 pm
“Balgayboy, it’s an unprecedented situation, not a horse race where you can look at the breeding and form of the horses and make a pretty educated gu
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
27 August, 2013 at 1:20 pm
“Balgayboy, it’s an unprecedented situation, not a horse race where you can look at the breeding and form of the horses and make a pretty educated guess.” Sorry u misinterpreted my post, guess that you are overworked and understandably so. Still behind you all the way.
Paula Rose.
From the Herald, which I’m looking at: ‘Asked if Orkney and Shetland might secede from Scotland, Sir John said it was not fanciful given the nearby undeveloped oil and gas reserves. He said, ” If Greenland can separate from Denmark, there is no obvious reason to suppose that this is an absurd hypothesis.”
He also supported the idea that Westminster would not veto Devo-max. Everything else indicates any discussion on further devolution would involve the whole of the UK, not only Scotland. Westminster would not be handing any powers that would reduce its powerbase, what we do if they reneged? Ask for Independence, again? Never going to happen again.
@balgayboy
Apologies if I took your post incorrectly. However, it did give us the opportunity to put the “but the bookies are saying …” stories to bed, I hope. So even a misunderstanding can have a beneficial outcome.
Hail Alba
Brian Powell
Yes, from the Herald, but listening to the discussion, Elvidge is talking about the unforeseen consequences of subsidiarity, he is not suggesting that this is likely, in fact his denial of the hypothesis being absurd is so that he can consider the question as it was put to him. You need to hear it to get the full gist – it’s near the end of the recording.
What oil wealth? Thought Darling said there was only a couple of tea spoons left. The arguments are constantly contradictory and they don’t bat an eye lid to change their tack when it suits them.
Like Tim I grew up in Orkney and it rots my socks the way people who couldn’t put a name on a single island try and trot us out as their private army. They can beat it. The islands are not some homogeneous horned helmeted, bearded, bunch of compulsive Odin worshippers. Orkney, Shetland and the Western isles are like any other part of Scotland and have people who support various parties and hold various opinions. Yes there is a Viking heritage but you won’t hear Norwegian spoken and no one wants the islands to part of England/rUK if Scotland votes for independence either. The only people that have spoken to the islands about greater devolution to them are the SNP. For all his outrageous posturing Tavish would slam the door shut on that the second he thought a No vote was in the bag. In truth what the islands would like and what there is consensus for is devolution but from Edinburgh – not some colonial link to London.
Remember – he is not being interviewed by the Herald but being asked questions in a meeting about constitutional affairs, some of those present are not very clued up on Scotland.
Can anybody answer this?
What is a ‘Tavish Scott’ ?? (is it a rude word for a Scotch person of absolutely no moral fibre or worth ?)
“A Scotch person”? 😉
Is that someone who has imbibed a wee bit too much?
Verb: to Tavish – to speak uncontrolled garbage about things you do not understand to people who aren’t interested in your views; to engage in useless conversation
Noun: A Tavish – A piece of uninformed information; an exaggeration based on no evidence; a lie
A Tavish Scott – A person who displays no obvious value or worth in meaningful discussions about Scottish affairs
Westminster doesn’t need to veto Devo Max, they’ll just put it to the vote for the good people of the rUK to decide, knowing all too well that the majority of England (and the votes) will give Westminster the answer and mandate they seek. Scotland after a NO vote is quite frankly a sitting target waiting to be thumped out of existence.
The oil will soon run out & Scotland will be broke is an argument that mysteriously finds itself on the same shelf as Shetland will leave Scotland & take its wealth with it.
More, contradictory Unionist shite published by a shite newspaper, edited by people who don’t give a shite about publishing facts or the truth anymore.
Another Time Saver
The whole independence argument can be boiled down to a choice between two, one word metaphors: Altoids or Haemorrhoids.
Vote YES for Altoids; a fresh, pleasing, long lasting flavour you’ll want to share with everybody.
Vote NO for Haemorrhoids; a chronic pain in the arse.
Give the guy a break. He was last working for the First Minister so he probably believes all politicians are intelligent, hard working and have their constituents interests at heart and that all governments are trying for the best for their country. So of course we’ll get more devo. [rolls eyes]
Great stuff. BT must be phoning round calling in every favour available to them. Honours given – put your oar in, media promotion -put your tuppence worth in, lobbyists, SADS, interns through nepotism , card – carrying members, all hands to the oar. You owe us big time and if we lose this vote it will all be for nowt. But the numbers don’t/won’t stack up. They are running out of ammo and when the barely lucid, semi-conscious are roused to give their contribution, the results are as we see, lies, smears, possible illegality and fiasco’s like the private public private meeting.
Somebody really has to be appointed to check the safety valve on their pressure cooker, they could end up seriously injured or embarrassed or both.
It’s something that an undecided ( or a ‘no’ who won’t admit it) friend said to me recently, it’s supposedly ‘Shetland’s oil, they want to remain as part of the uk and so would not be part of an Independent Scotland and therefore no oil money for Scotland’. Looks like people do actually believe this sort of scare story, I wondered where this idea came from at the time…
Tony Little says:
27 August, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Verb: to Tavish – to speak uncontrolled garbage about things you do not understand to people who aren’t interested in your views; to engage in useless conversation
A Tavish Scott – A person who displays no obvious value or worth in meaningful discussions about Scottish affairs
I like this – sums a ‘Tavish Scott’ up pretty much.
Hetty
” I wondered where this idea came from at the time…”
It is an old idea in concept, at least from the 70s, a vestige of the British imperialist mindset. See: