tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post4448757979296189295..comments2024-03-28T16:57:50.266+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: Should Scotland seek self-governing Crown Dependency status, like the Isle of Man?James Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-83850913143860929002014-11-23T13:53:36.187+00:002014-11-23T13:53:36.187+00:00Don't get hung up on names - power is what'...Don't get hung up on names - power is what's important.James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-57020312341756086042014-11-23T13:44:03.037+00:002014-11-23T13:44:03.037+00:00No. We are a partner in this Union - supposedly. T...No. We are a partner in this Union - supposedly. To name ourselves dependency is unthinkable.Fordiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04306196668411087372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-17577930744104034142014-11-20T01:34:27.089+00:002014-11-20T01:34:27.089+00:00LOL. I just realised you're yanking my chain. ...LOL. I just realised you're yanking my chain. Nice one!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-6572183893290834882014-11-20T01:30:39.655+00:002014-11-20T01:30:39.655+00:00Actually, to be fair, there's the alternative ...Actually, to be fair, there's the alternative definition of enclave, which is a country entirely surrounded by another country (like the Vatican City). But that could never apply to Scotland either.James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-12940098554321304722014-11-20T01:10:59.831+00:002014-11-20T01:10:59.831+00:00EEZ stands for Exclusive Economic Zone. What excl...EEZ stands for Exclusive Economic Zone. What exclusive control do we have over the natural resources in "our" EEZ? It's a nonsense. <br /><br />As for your suggestion that we would be permanently surrendering our rights as a future independent nation, I'm extremely dubious about that. An "enclave" is part of another state - by definition an entire independent country cannot be an enclave, regardless of whether it is a former dependency.James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-79598678895165289602014-11-19T19:19:54.276+00:002014-11-19T19:19:54.276+00:00Currently as part of the UK we do indeed currently...Currently as part of the UK we do indeed currently have an EEZ, just as much as England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the other component parts of the UK, have. When we become Independent, we clearly take our share of the EEZ with us, under UNCLOS III.<br /><br />The Isle of Man does not have an EEZ, in fact there is talk of them trying to get one from the UK Gov - good luck with that. If the Isle of Man became Independent now, it would walk away with the clothes it stands up in, 12 NM Territorial Waters, and no EEZ at all. There is a similar but different to if Shetland and Orkney had gone Indy before Scotland - they would be seen as an enclave in UK / Scottish waters, as is the Isle of Man.<br /><br />Unless negotiations with the UK Government to become a Crown Dependency allowed Scotland to keep our rights to the current EEZ which is unlikely as it would cause ructions from the Isle of Man, it's very likely we'd get the same "deal" as the Isle of Man - i.e. a 12 nm TW, but no EEZ.<br /><br />If Scotland then later became Independent we'd walk away with a 12nm TW but no EEZ. Perhaps we could pursue getting an EEZ via UNCLOS III but at the very least it would be far more difficult because we would be seen to have voluntarily surrendered our rights to our currently existing share of the EEZ as part of the UK, and become an enclave as a Crown DependencyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-51772216530315665522014-11-19T18:01:04.278+00:002014-11-19T18:01:04.278+00:00I may be missing something here, but I'm strug...I may be missing something here, but I'm struggling to see how we can "give up" an EEZ we do not currently have.<br /><br />And why the word "permanently"?James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-20616862331072972732014-11-19T17:57:24.135+00:002014-11-19T17:57:24.135+00:00James - and giving up our EEZ, restricting ourselv...James - and giving up our EEZ, restricting ourselves permanently, for ever and ever and a day, to a 12 nautical mile territorial limit, unlike most of those of the 193 Independent countries who have a coastline.<br /><br />I'd actually call that a backward step! I'd be campaigning for a NO vote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-64779371145099778402014-11-19T17:33:35.001+00:002014-11-19T17:33:35.001+00:00I suggested dusting that idea down on a forum on t...I suggested dusting that idea down on a forum on this blog yesterday. There could be quite a bit of mileage in that in my opinion. The Crown Dependency model is too limiting but the Dominion is a different possibility altogether.Phil Lawrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12929452799095590860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-4407531944929512142014-11-19T17:30:22.675+00:002014-11-19T17:30:22.675+00:00You've clearly made your opinion on the issue ...You've clearly made your opinion on the issue but, as I said, it seems a reasonable step to at least air the possibilities.<br /><br />I personally do not favour a route down this path for similar reasons to those that you state but in a democracy we must consider all viable alternatives. I have heard a few rather clever individuals privately express the Crown Dependency option as a subject to examine.<br /><br />Let's not forget that there could be an altogether more radical solution achievable in the short- to medium-term that nobody has yet voiced or dreamed up so I'm not for closing doors until the options are all closely examined.<br /><br />One thing that might create value in going down the Crown Dependency route is that all the political stars in the Scottish firmament would have to aspire to sit in just the one house at last.Phil Lawrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12929452799095590860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-36941768660102233002014-11-19T16:48:39.977+00:002014-11-19T16:48:39.977+00:00Surely a resurrection of Dominion status is prefer...Surely a resurrection of Dominion status is preferable? The Dominions of the Empire were separate signatories to the Treaty of Versailles and had substantial control over foreign affairs. A Dominion of Scotland would not be independent, it would basically be a Crown Dependency like the Isle of Man except if the UK votes to go to war in Iraq then the Scottish government could opt out and not go to war. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-60339318228306305272014-11-19T16:14:01.796+00:002014-11-19T16:14:01.796+00:00It certainly wouldn't be a sideways step - it ...It certainly wouldn't be a sideways step - it would involve leaving the United Kingdom, gaining a measure of sovereignty (we have literally none at the moment) and taking on virtually all powers apart from foreign affairs and defence.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-91491719812698077362014-11-19T14:23:06.572+00:002014-11-19T14:23:06.572+00:00Indeed. Crown Dependency status is completely a si...Indeed. Crown Dependency status is completely a sideways step from Scotland's current path, and a dead-end one at that. As noted by other commenters, it's the sort of status that coould be suitable for small comunities like the Falklands (3,000), Jersey (100,000), Isle of Man (86,000), where the population is relatively low, and the burden of providing the whole trappings of a State would be proportionately high. Even Iceland has a population of 350,000 to be a State, and it has limited defence for instance.<br /><br />With a population of 5.31 million, Scotland taking that sideways step would be laughable, the equivalent of Denmark asking to be a Dependency of Germany!<br /><br />We have Devolution, even if Smith comes out with something watery we will have more Devolution. A strong body of pro-indy MPs will inevitably achieve more Devolution, and even in the least successful slowets case progress, Scotland will inevitably come to FFA, perhaps Federal status. But the chances are very strong we will be Independent in 20 years at the most, more like 10, and very possibly 5 or less. Why on earth would we want to voluntarily give that up, with the massive momentum we have right now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-8895042815194412702014-11-19T11:48:14.024+00:002014-11-19T11:48:14.024+00:00All of these models are essentially based on tiny ...All of these models are essentially based on tiny communities tying themselves to a larger state. You might see that as gaining autonomy, I see it as giving up any influence we have over UK politics while still being subject to UK political decisions.<br /><br />It's a very dangerous argument. I see it made quite a lot from well meaning people who support independence - the idea that because we only have a small number of MPs our representation in Westminster is completely worthless so there's little downside to giving it up. London only has 11% of MPs but I think we'd agree that the idea London doesn't have any influence is absurd.<br /><br />Scotland is a large economy with a sizeable population. If we are going to be stuck with the UK then we should absolutely be fighting our cause within the UK's institutions as forcefully as possible. We're in a situation right now where the SNP stands half a chance of even directly influencing government policy as part of a deal with Labour after 2015 - why on earth we'd consider just giving up and becoming some kind of glorified vassal state at this point is beyond me.Peacechalknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-45821679699234662082014-11-19T10:23:21.808+00:002014-11-19T10:23:21.808+00:00I have been considering the same model or similar ...I have been considering the same model or similar in the post-IndyRef period. There are certain advantages and, of course, certain disadvantages. However it seems a reasonable step to at least air the possibilities. In a Crown Dependency model fiscal freedom is always part of a trade-off for something else.<br /><br />There are other models that could be looked at. The Kingdom of the Netherlands recently had a constitutional revamp to bring itself up to date and is now principally made up of 4 "countries" – Aruba, Curaçao, the Netherlands and Sint Maarten – each as a constituent part of the overall larger whole. This sounds far too pragmatic for a Westminster parallel to be devised though!Phil Lawrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12929452799095590860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-40623892979793645822014-11-19T09:33:46.379+00:002014-11-19T09:33:46.379+00:00That might work for the isle of man, but I'd b...That might work for the isle of man, but I'd be wary of letting go of our (minor) representation on foreign affairs and defence while there is a substantial body of Scots in the armed forces (something the isle of man doesn't have) and therefore in the line of fire.rentaghostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-76022789259337412152014-11-19T09:10:54.637+00:002014-11-19T09:10:54.637+00:00UDI if devo max not delivered as per The Vow.UDI if devo max not delivered as per The Vow.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10418325652418041951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-26092309260745829952014-11-19T08:31:42.984+00:002014-11-19T08:31:42.984+00:00I think it more correctly should be called Indi-Li...I think it more correctly should be called Indi-Lite rather than DevoMax.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17720007370018155653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-6138918499975708182014-11-19T08:17:10.312+00:002014-11-19T08:17:10.312+00:00".its why it made tavish scotts threats about...<i>".its why it made tavish scotts threats about shetland to become one in the event of a yes all the funnier...."</i><br /><br />I take it Tavish backs Glasgow, Dundee and other areas that voted Yes going independent (maybe as an embryonic iScotland) on the back of September's vote? I mean what's good for Shetland...Scottish_Skiernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-86743849882230968402014-11-19T06:10:19.495+00:002014-11-19T06:10:19.495+00:00Correct indyref2.....its why it made tavish scotts...Correct indyref2.....its why it made tavish scotts threats about shetland to become one in the event of a yes all the funnier....<br /><br />Personally, think it might confuse peoplechalksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-55229313649718862132014-11-19T02:24:36.965+00:002014-11-19T02:24:36.965+00:00Off the top of my head, one problem is that Scotla...Off the top of my head, one problem is that Scotland gets territorial waters but not an EEZ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/346012/UK_Territorial_Sea_Limits.pdf<br /><br />The Isle of Man, previously restricted to 3 nm of territorial waters, exchanged that in 1991 for the 12 nm, but took from then no share of the UK revenue for oil and gas. For fairness sake, Scotland having the same status would have to do the same.<br /><br />So it would be goodbye to oil and revenue in our EEZ, undergound cities, seabed exploitation, geothermal energy, mineral recover, whatever, and probably for good even if we did then become Independent in 10 or 20 years, as we would have voluntarily given it away. That's unlike Devo-Max where as still being part of the UK, when we become Independent we get our full 200 nm EEZ (minus of course bordering countries). We would instead be an enclave in the rUK EEZ, at least as far as I can see.<br /><br />That's a price I'm not paying. I vote NO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-69844772325299489952014-11-19T01:35:08.245+00:002014-11-19T01:35:08.245+00:00"It's not being part of the UK, because t..."It's not being part of the UK, because the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are all outside the UK, and always have been."<br /><br />Obviously that's true formally, but the point I'm making is that they're part of the UK in all but name yet they don't have any representation. As in the boat analogy above, it's not much consolation to be "technically" in another boat if you're tied to somebody else's decisions and forced to go wherever they go.<br /><br />It's not just about foreign policy, the Isle of Man is also completely integrated into the UK's market and relies on the rest of the UK in countless other areas (e.g. all of the economic regulations not covered by the EU's single market). For Scotland that situation would be many times worse because of the relative size of the economy. If you ignored UK regulations while still being tied to their market you'd just be creating trade barriers so we'd therefore be obliged to implement whatever regulation they happened to decide in Westminster, without any input at all.<br /><br />Bringing up Iraq, as I alluded to above, is all well and good if the alternative (as with independence) is a situation where Scottish MPs could choose not to be involved. However in this scenario we'd actually have substantially less influence than we have now. We wouldn't even have a basis for influencing other MPs in that discussion, far less a vote on it ourselves. From a basic democratic perspective it would be absurd to voluntarily enter into a situation like that.<br /><br />The argument also makes the assumption that because it was true in Iraq it will therefore be true forever. Westminster representation isn't perfect, but it's not worthless either. There are plenty of decisions where Scottish votes do make a difference - and it's quite possible if the SNP get as many seats as the polls are predicting that we'll have even more influence than usual after 2015. I don't think it's a particularly radical notion to think that if there's a parliament entitled to send us to war it might be a good idea to have some direct representation in it.Peacechalknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-53567468133781117362014-11-18T23:31:20.623+00:002014-11-18T23:31:20.623+00:00"It's basically being part of the UK with...<i>"It's basically being part of the UK with more devolved powers but absolutely no representation in UK institutions."</i><br /><br />It's not being part of the UK, because the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are all outside the UK, and always have been. Neither is it really about devolving power, because all three territories are states as of right and enjoy a degree of sovereignty. It's easy to get hung up about the word "dependency", but part of the point of making this comparison is to draw attention to the ludicrousness of the fact that the Isle of Man's constitutional status is considerably more advanced than Scotland's.<br /><br />From a theoretical perspective I can appreciate the point you're making about Scotland not being able to vote on foreign affairs and defence, but in concrete terms I'm not sure what good it did us that Scottish MPs were able to vote on the Iraq War.James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-80766265561399604542014-11-18T22:25:38.259+00:002014-11-18T22:25:38.259+00:00The Isle of Man strikes me as a pretty appalling c...The Isle of Man strikes me as a pretty appalling compromise to be honest. It's basically being part of the UK with more devolved powers but absolutely no representation in UK institutions. A bit like making a proposal that the price to get devo max is to also give up all of our MPs in Westminster at the same time. Why would that be in our interest?<br /><br />I want a system that gives Scottish representatives a say over the key decisions that affect them. That's the basic minimum required from a democratic perspective. If there are key decisions being made in Westminster (foreign policy is a pretty important area, the regulation of our economic market likewise) then we should absolutely have representation in Westminster. Going to war while Scottish MPs vote against it is one thing; going to war based on the decision of a parliament in which we don't even have any Scottish MPs is quite another.<br /><br />Just letting the rest of the UK decide key issues for us while we tag along like a rowing boat tied to their cruise liner is really the exact opposite of what we should be calling for. I appreciate the argument, but there's no way we should be sacrificing our UK representation unless we're completely independent and have all the levers of power in our hands. That's basically the worst of all worlds.Peacechalknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-30465003349955880892014-11-18T22:22:10.059+00:002014-11-18T22:22:10.059+00:00I think these proposals for a new referendum are m...I think these proposals for a new referendum are much more promising than another independence vote. Additionally, there would be pretty much overwhelming support amongst most Scots for it.FitzyMannoreply@blogger.com