28th September 2016
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

‘Dismayed’ Scott earns seat on Holyrood’s Brexit committee

Tavish Scott has been appointed to a Holyrood committee charged with scrutinising talks over a UK exit from the EU.

The Shetland MSP was given a seat on the parliament’s Europe committee, which has already taken evidence from EU secretary, Fiona Hyslop.

It comes after MSP’s backed a motion by Nicola Sturgeon aimed at protecting Scotland’s relationship with the EU.

Ninety-two MSPs supported the First Minister on Tuesday, and there were 31 abstentions.

By this morning, Ms Sturgeon was in Brussels ahead of a meeting with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker to discuss the Brexit vote.

Tavish Scott

Tavish Scott believes Scotland cannot turn its back on the EU.

Mr Scott said he looked forward to the challenge of standing on the committee.

He defended the EU model, insisting it was “in our interests” to work within and across Europe.

Mr Scott also welcomed a point made by Ms Sturgeon that her motion was not about Scottish independence.

“I have been given a seat on Parliament’s Europe Committee,” he said.

“This committee is charged with scrutiny of the Scottish government’s actions and I look forward to that challenge. I will write regular updates on the emerging picture.

“Both the agriculture and fisheries industries have already made strong statements about the importance of the Brexit negotiations to Scotland. These are both vital industries for Shetland and I plan to keep a close eye on all these matters.”

Mr Scott said he was “dismayed” by last week’s UK-wide vote to leave the EU, which saw all of Scotland’s local authority areas vote in favour of remain.

He also highlighted the “16 million” people who voted in favour of staying in the EU from across the UK.

“For all its faults, and there are many, working within and across Europe is in our interests. That is especially so given the latest terrorist atrocity in Turkey overnight.

 

Sixteen million people voted to remain within the EU from right across the UK. I do not think we should abandon people, especially the young, the length and breadth of the UK either. TAVISH SCOTT

“Our security, the economic future and how we welcome people from other parts of the world fleeing conflict, war and repression seem to me an important part of our contribution to the world we live in.

“To turn our back on that is not right. Shetland did not. Scotland did not. But nor did Northern Ireland, London and significant parts of England. Sixteen million people voted to remain within the EU from right across the UK. I do not think we should abandon people, especially the young, the length and breadth of the UK either.”

He added: “Nicola Sturgeon made clear that parliament’s motion is not about independence. That was welcome. I cannot see how rushing from one decision with enormous repercussions, to a second referendum on Scottish independence helps.

“We need a period of stability and calm to work out the best way forward. Scotland and the UK is certainly not helped by the shambles that is the Conservative and Labour parties at Westminster.”

• Ms Sturgeon’s motion stated: That the parliament welcomes the overwhelming vote of the people of Scotland to remain in the European Union; affirms to citizens of other EU countries living here that they remain welcome and that their contribution is valued; mandates the Scottish government to have discussions with the UK government, other devolved administrations, the EU institutions and member states to explore options for protecting Scotland’s relationship with the EU, Scotland’s place in the single market and the social, employment and economic benefits that come from that, and instructs the Scottish government to report back regularly to parliamentarians, to the European and External Relations Committee and the parliament on the progress of those discussions and to seek parliament’s approval of the outcome of that process.

AboutRyan Taylor

Ryan Taylor has worked as a reporter since 1995, and has been at The Shetland Times since 2007, covering a wide variety of news topics. Before then he reported for other newspapers in the Highlands, where he was raised, and in Fife, where he began his career with DC Thomson. He also has experience in broadcast journalism with Grampian Television. He has lived in Shetland since 2002, where he harbours an unhealthy interest in old cars and motorbikes.

View other stories by »

105 comments

  1. John Tulloch

    The FM’s motion seeks to “…explore options for protecting Scotland’s relationship with the EU, Scotland’s place in the single market and the social, employment and economic benefits that come from that….”

    How exactly will this be achieved, other than via the British exit negotiations?

    Reply
  2. Douglas Young

    Pleased that Shetland’s MSP is given a place on the scrutiny committee by Nicola of Nicola’s negotiations with the EU and nothing to do with independence

    There are many big names on the committee from all walks of life and it is encouraging to see the Liberal Democrats backing her stance in Holyrood, along with the Green Party and Labour

    Reply
  3. John Tulloch

    Well, well! The stock market closed higher today than at any time in the last two months! How could that possibly be? Send for Mr Chad:

    “Wot, no economic crisis?”
    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=Uk%3Aukx&insttype=&freq=1&show=

    Reply
    • Robin Stevenson

      Perhaps it had something to do with the £250 Billion that Mark Cairney used to steady the markets? Y’know, that money he somehow managed to pull out of a hat? …Ironically £250 Billion is roughly 20 years membership fee for the EU, and while Britain [or rather the poor] will now have to face an ever bigger ‘austerity programme’ the BoE conjure up the equivalent of 10 years worth of Scotland’s annual block grant,… As Tommy Cooper would say:…’Just like that’.

      Reply
      • ian_tinkler

        O Dear. The EU does not want Scotland. Without the UK funds it will have trouble bailing out Greece, let alone Scotland’s £10 billion shortfall.

      • Robert Sim

        What’s the UK’s “shortfall”, Ian? Bit more than £10 billion, as I recall.

      • ian tinkler

        In order to join the EU you’ve got to have a budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less, the Scottish alone budget deficit at 8 to 10% of GDP. The EU won’t let Scotland in unless they do some fiscal contraction amounting to 5% of GDP. That would be infinitely worse austerity measures for Scotland than anything remotely envisaged by the Tories, or for that matter what is happening in Greece. I do not think keeping the pound would be a clever option, poor Nippy Sweetie, we also have “The French president and Spanish prime minister have both said they are opposed to the EU negotiating potential membership for Scotland”. Scotland would really be up Sh@t; Creek without a paddle.

    • Johan Adamson

      I thought the money was to steady the pound. Not sure how he could have put it on the stock market

      Reply
    • Brian Smith

      ‘Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.’

      Reply
      • ian tinkler

        ‘Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.’ So very true, Brian Smith, UNISON backs the nowhere man, Corbyn, who did more to help the Brexiteers than Farage ever managed. Well done Jeremy C, what a man!!! It was the Labour vote that stuffed the EU, loll. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,” Well at least that author is British!!

  4. John Tulloch

    Douglas, here’s the answer to my above question that SNP/Remain folk felt unable to provide:

    Question: “The FM’s motion seeks to “…explore options for protecting Scotland’s relationship with the EU…. (and the)….benefits that come from that”

    How exactly will this be achieved, other than via the British exit negotiations? ”

    Answer: Clause 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon refers to “Member States” and Scotland is not one, necessitating some sort of “special deal”. However Ms Sturgeon is having difficulty arranging meetings with any serious EU leaders. They seem to think meeting her would be “inappropriate.” The Telegraph reports:

    “But the refusal by Mr Tusk (European Council President) and member states, especially Germany, to stage bilateral talks is significant as all member states would have to unanimously agree to any special deal for Scotland…”.

    “…Mr Tusk declined…(saying)… a meeting would be “not appropriate” given the “situation in the UK.”

    “Several central and eastern European states are reported to be concerned that meeting Ms Sturgeon would encourage other separatist movements. They were…. furious with Mr Shulz and his ally Mr Juncker for wooing the SNP to put pressure on David Cameron over a Brexit deal.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/nicola-sturgeon-heading-to-brussels-for-talks-with-european-parl/

    Reply
  5. Robert Sim

    Good preparation for the discussions with the EU post the next Scottish independence referendum.

    Reply
  6. John Tulloch

    Where are all the “experts” who were forecasting economic meltdown if Britain left the EU? We need them to explain something:

    The stock market, the barometer of future economic fortune, closed today at its highest level for more than ten months!

    http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/advchart/frames/frames.asp?symb=Uk%3Aukx&insttype&time=8&freq=1

    Reply
    • Robert Sim

      Simple, John. It’s because the Brexit side haven’t a clue how to proceed and have made it clear that Article 50 won’t be invoked in a hurry. What you are seeing is short-term relief at that fact.

      Reply
      • Ali Inkster

        So what you’re saying is that the money men are desperate to flee the UK outside the EU but not just yet as article 50 hasn’t been triggered??????
        Last weeks wild swings were due to traders and everyone else with a desire to gamble playing CFDs this is a way to buy a lot more shares than you have the cash for up front, and you are only liable for the difference in what you bought at and what you sell it at, and at 1:30am Friday the trading floors were open the margins were set high and millions of folks all around the world had made bets that the UK would stay in the UK and what they expected to happen when this was known. And after a night of drinking and watching the news they expected the pound to fall on brexit so as soon as it looked like that was the case millions of tipsy traders suddenly thought they were going to lose the house. and those that panicked and sold probably did. 🙂 But the sager minds held fast and even bought the chits of the panic stricken and are now reaping the rewards.

      • Robert Sim

        No, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the markets hate uncertainty. That is what the Brexit vote caused. The minutae of how traders work is interesting but they didn’t create the circumstances.

    • Bill Adams

      The pound has slumped in value against the supposedly weak Euro
      and more worryingly even more so against the Dollar.
      Perhaps you should be studying the currency market as well as the stock market.

      Reply
      • ian_tinkler

        Perhaps, Bill Adams, you should look beyond Nicolas Grandstanding and mock outrage. The EU has rejected her overtures flat. However we now have a world market to look at, that mat be why the markets are buoyant. We have to date, 11 Countries Gearing Up to Strike Trade Deals With Britain. All new deals being massively enabled without the EU shackles on the UK. Clear of the straight jacket of bureaucratic nonsense, the future is already looking bright. Scotland, well perhaps Nicola wants nothing but her independence, she must know she has not a prayer of entering the EU.
        https://heatst.com/uk/11-countries-gearing-up-to-strike-trade-deals-with-britain/

    • Brian Smith

      Mr Tulloch has swallowed whole the UKIP anti-expert narrative. But I’m wondering what he will do if he gets appendicitis.

      Reply
      • John Tulloch

        Not at all, Brian, unlike you, I don’t “swallow” anyone’s narrative without first looking at it critically.

        David Cameron introduced the “experts” – he must have used the word a hundred times on his tv audience Q&A – saying that “all the experts” were adamant that Brexit would be extremely damaging.

        It remains to be seen whether the “experts were right however, as in the case of the EU finance ministers who did worse at economic forecasting than a troupe of chimpanzees, the evidence for the “experts” claims is not encouraging.

        I am simply asking questions on the basis of observed evidence, “where is the promised crisis?”

      • Robert Sim

        I have just (2nd July) heard Anastasia Nesvetailova of Labour’s Economic Advisory Committee and Sir John Gieve, former deputy governor for financial stability at the Bank of England, agree on Radio 4’s ‘Today” programme that there will be no hard financial figures which can tell us about the initial impact of the referendum vote until the autumn. They sound like “experts” to me.

      • John Tulloch

        Indeed, Robert. We can add the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has said there is no need for an emergency budget and the governor of the Bank of England who sees no urgency in his talk of “monetary easing over the summer.

        So those people who announced economic disaster last Friday and Monday, citing falls in sterling and the stock market, were talking through a hole in their hat – there is no economic crisis.

        It’s over a week since Cameron announced ‘Clause 50’ would be activated by his successor as PM. Yet the stock market was up again yesterday and it’s up 20 percent since February when Remain were leading in the polls.

        Hardly a harbinger of economic meltdown, is it?

      • Robert Sim

        Did you read my post of June 30th, John? The reason the markets bounced back is because the Brexit side haven’t a clue how to proceed and have made it clear that Article 50 won’t be invoked in a hurry. What you are seeing is simply short-term relief at that fact. And when you agree with me just now you are agreeing with the idea that it won’t be possible to say what the real initial effect of the vote has been till the autumn. So I am afraid one week’s stock-market figures is just too flimsy an evidence base on which to base your or anyone else’s assertions.

      • John Tulloch

        Robert, yes, I did read your post of June 30. You did not read mine or you would know that I did not make any “assertions” of future prosperity. I simply questioned the validity of the doom narrative.

        Your Clause 50 point is flawed. Cameron announced the delay in triggering it in his resignation speech. The stock market first fell heavily for two days and then rose steeply for four days. Today, it is still higher than is was before Brexit and 20 percent higher than it was in February when Remain were ahead in the polls.

        “Hardly a harbinger of economic doom, is it?” (That’s a question BTW, not an “assertion”!).

      • Robert Sim

        Far too early to say what is happening economically, John. The hard data will only be available in the autumn. That is a repetition of my assertion.

      • John Tulloch

        Robert,

        Then I assume you won’t be tolerating any undue doom and gloom from ‘Remainers’ until the figures you are waiting on are published?

        You didn’t challenge my point about Clause 50 so I assume you accept it?

        After all, delaying the start of the Brexit process has actually introduced the very uncertainty that you rightly noted is so disliked by stock market investors. Thus we might reasonably have expected a fall in prices, not the substantial rise that we have seen. Is that not so?

      • Robert Sim

        John, to answer your questions in turn:
        1. I agree that neither side can say for certain what the referendum result has done to the UK economy until the Autumn figures. I take it you won’t be posting on this topic until then? I couldn’t tolerate that 😉
        2. I don’t agree about your Article 50 point – I was just trying to be concise and silence doesn’t give consent. While Cameron did mention it in his speech, that was the point of maximum uncertainty all round; and it took a few days for it to sink in that in fact there would be no triggering of the process. So I disagree with you that not triggering the process has introduced uncertainty, as that would be a totally illogical thing to say. There is no immediate change ergo no uncertainty and so the markets are delighted.

      • John Tulloch

        Robert,

        1. Not at all, I shall be listening to the “experts”, notably, the Bank of England and watching what they do.
        2. The EU’s top people disagree with you about ‘uncertainty’:
        “The presidents of the European council, commission and parliament – Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker and Martin Schulz respectively – and Mark Rutte, the prime minister of the Netherlands which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, said any delay to Britain’s exit would “unnecessarily prolong uncertainty”.”

        “….any delay to Britain’s exit would “unnecessarily prolong uncertainty.”

        http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/europe-plunged-crisis-britain-votes-leave-eu-european-union

      • Robert Sim

        Looks like me and the leaders of the EU will just have to disagree with each other, then.

      • John Tulloch

        OK, Robert, that’s fine. Checking my understanding of your position:

        1. The Brexit vote introduced uncertainty and despite what you insist was the stabilising influence of the decision not to trigger Clause 50, the stock market fell heavily for two days – OK.

        2. Once the stabilising influence of the non-triggering of Clause 50 dawned on investors they piled back in, buying so heavily that the market rose above the pre-Brexit level, where it remains, today (20 percent above its level in February with Remain leading in the polls!). Hmm!

        We must conclude, must we not, that the positive impact you claim for delaying the start of the leaving process was greater than the negative impact of the British people’s decision to leave the EU?

        I’m not at all sure that stacks up, are you?

      • Robert Sim

        John, you say that: “Your proposal that delaying the start of Brexit reduced uncertainty and outweighs the impact of the Leave vote is nonsense…”. What we have is simply a difference of interpretation. I could equally say that your point – that the markets are delighted about Brexit – is nonsense. Neither of us can objectively prove conclusively that we are right. So I would throttle back on the hyperbole and fishing metaphors. 😀

    • Robert Sim

      As far as the stock markets are concerned, what’s wrong with what you have outlined, John? They are happy we are not exiting quickly.

      Reply
      • John Tulloch

        Robert,

        I’m pleased the markets are happy that we are not leaving the EU immediately.

        And I’m even more pleased they aren’t particularly upset by the decision to leave because that is an encouraging sign that the doom and gloom was well overdone by Remain in the run up to the referendum.

      • ian tinkler

        But now, no Tory leader contest. Exit will be much, much sooner, the decision to trigger Clause 50 “May” be very soon, and the Stock Market is flying. (Up 50 pts since new PM sorted). Wrong again Robert, what a surprise.

      • Robert Sim

        John, can you see that your two paragraphs utterly contradict one another? The markets can’t at one and the same time be happy that we are not leaving and happy that we are.

        I am getting fed up going over the same point and I am sure others are who choose to read this. It’s quite simple: the markets took an upturn when it sank in that the Tories were running scared of actually initiating Brexit. In addition, we won’t know what the decision to leave has done to the economy till the autumn. The rest is silence.

      • John Tulloch

        Robert, You’re making a fool of yourself now. You know I wrote that to illustrate the folly of your own proposal and now you confirm it. You say:

        “The markets can’t at one and the same time be happy that we are not leaving and happy that we are.” I agree.

        Your proposal that delaying the start of Brexit reduced uncertainty and outweighs the impact of the Leave vote is nonsense and now you confirm it.

        Your argument is beached and you are simply “sprikklin apo da ebb stanes”.

        Thank you for the debate, I’ve enjoyed every minute.

      • ian tinkler

        From Robert Sim, ” It’s quite simple: the markets took an upturn when it sank in that the Tories were running scared of actually initiating Brexit.” What utter drivel. Brexit is Brexit to quote May. The pound continues to rise against the dollar and stock markets open up following the news that Theresa May will become PM on Wednesday. Robert Sim, time for your silence, your credibility is shattered.

  7. ian tinkler

    “The Brexit side haven’t a clue how to proceed”. That is very astute of you Robert Sim. An actual fact or are you making things up again. I would hate to think you are inventing Porkies in the best Nationalist tradition. Could you please give us your information sources and please do not say Robin Stevenson . For your information “the Brexit side”, without a clue, actually won. More than Salmond did, and Nicola has just been put down by the EU. Interesting who may or may not have a clue here, think about it.

    Reply
    • Robert Sim

      “The Brexit side, without a clue, actually won.” I am glad to see you agree with me, Ian, about them not having a clue.

      Reply
      • ian tinkler

        “The Brexit side, without a clue, actually won.” Wow, Robert Sim, whatever happened to your omniscient pals of the SNP?. Just stuffed, yet again!!! Glad you see it my way.

  8. ian_tinkler

    ” I would hate to think you are inventing Porkies in the best Nationalist tradition. Could you please give us your information sources” We are waiting Robert Sim, cat got your tongue? Now, we have to date, 11 Countries Gearing Up to Strike Trade Deals With Britain and The French president and Spanish prime minister have both said they are opposed to the EU negotiating potential membership for Scotland!! O dear dear, Scotland indie will leave us paupers, isolated and broke..

    Reply
    • James Watt

      Does this qualify as evidence Ian, includes a video clip of Sky News reporter Faisal Islam speaking about an interview he did with a Tory MP who was a leave campaigner.

      Faisal Islam asked the MP: ‘So where’s the plan, can we see the Brexit plan now?’
      Islam quoted the MP as saying: ‘There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan’.
      Islam went on: ‘And he was pointing to over there where the Vote Leave HQ was, and then he pointed over there [towards Number 10 Downing St] and he said “Number 10 should have had a plan”.

      http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/revealed-vote-leaves-exit-plan-after-eu-referendum-5968106/

      Reply
    • Robert Sim

      “Information sources”? You mean the newspapers you are reading? All right, I will take your request at face value, Ian. How about as an “information source” one of the Professors of Law at the University of Oxford? Have a read of the following blog: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2016/06/brexit-negotiation-games.

      In that, Professor Eidenmuller comments that: “I think it is fair to say that the Brexit vote is seen by a majority of non-British citizens as being bad for Europe, but bad for the UK in particular. Right now, it appears that the negotiation table is not laid out such that the dire consequences of the vote could be much improved for the UK. Simply put, the rules of the ‘exit game’ put the UK in a very weak bargaining position: if a ‘withdrawal agreement’ is not backed by a broad majority of the remaining Member States, the UK faces Brexit ‘pure and simple’.”

      I am afraid your optimistic newspaper story about countries lining up to make deals with the UK is a long, long way off, if ever. Brexit will take many years to negotiate; and any trade deals will be the same.

      Reply
      • Ali Inkster

        Dear god, put a professors name to what is no more than random folks opinions and you think you have it in the bag. Quite simply the situation is this, the EU needs the UK more than we need it. Loss of exports to the UK will send the euro zone plummeting of the fiscal cliff, while we in the UK are free to trade with whomsoever we want. So forget all the scaremongering still going on from the remainiacs they lost the vote, and that my friends is democracy. Take a good look at it folks because if Sturgeon et al get there way it will be a long time before you see it again

    • John Tulloch

      I hope the initiator of the referendum, PM David Cameron, while expecting Remain to win, has taken the precaution of arranging for a “plan of action” in the event of a Leave victory?

      Why on earth would the Leave campaign have a “plan”, they are not the government. And unless a Leave campaigner becomes Tory leader, they will not BE the government.

      Given that it’s all down to negotiation, the only “plans” possible are to:

      1. Maintain economic stability, which the BOE/HM Treasury have done,
      2. Negotiate our exit from the EU and
      2. Negotiate trade deals with other countries.

      In such circumstances, releasing details of “plans” will simply provide information to our negotiating opponents that we don’t necessarily want them to know.

      Reply
      • Brian Smith

        ‘Why on earth would the Leave campaign have a “plan”’? I have seen many insane remarks by Mr Tulloch over the years, but this Saturday he has excelled himself.

      • Laurence Paton

        There is rarely any rational counter point from the aloof king of the sneering one liner.

        The learned gentlemen may as well get to the point and call all who contribute from an alternative view from his own as intellectually challenged bafoons.

        He also failed to answer a key question on why Shetland / Scotland should not follow the self managing regimes of Norway , Faroe , Iceland or Greenland on fisheries management.

        I will at least concede that pointed me in the direction of some waffle from the famous fisherman Jonathon Wills , which proves he didn’t have a clue and off course neither does Wills.
        No offence Brian , but if you can never string more than one sarcastic sentence together you might as well just stick to leafing through your dusty ledgers in the archive.

      • Brian Smith

        Where does this idea come from that sneering 55-liners are better than one-liners!

      • Robert Sim

        One-liners are indeed better, Brian, especially since I imagine that’s as far as most folk read.

      • laurence paton

        Fair enough Brian , why change after all these years . Your comments get little recognition in any case and you surely only post them to satisfy your own sense of humor or to annoy others? Or you simply have nothing valid or constructive to offer? It was actually about 9 lines I posted and somewhere over 100 words so your ability to count is also failing .
        None the less I would like to read something inspiring because at this time I am seriously considering joining the Labour party in the hope to save Corbyn from all those devious red tories he is surrounded by. Perhaps you may have become rather cynical in your old age but would be good to see some valid counter points from you on these pages. But don’t worry I am going to give up reading your acerbic one liners if that is all that you have to offer . Good Luck!

    • John Tulloch

      Sanity is in the eye of the beholder, Brian. You don’t think it’s time, perhaps, for a constructive comment from you?

      The Leave campaign no longer exists, why would they “have a plan”? The electorate instructed the government who should already “have a plan” in case their referendum gamble didn’t pay off.

      Three prominent Leave campaigners are running to become prime minister. Each has a view on how the country should proceed. Those views are not identical and a Remain candidate may yet win.

      The government is in possession of the necessary information on likely economic effects of leaving the EU, they need to “plan” to counter that. Osborne has relaxed his public spending targets. The BOE chairman has announced “monetary easing over the summer”.

      Preparations for negotiating trade agreements the process of leaving the EU are needed. Negotiators objectives will be set by the new PM. Negotiating progress will dictate how we proceed e.g. whether we have free trade with the EU or tariffs.

      Tell us more about this “plan” you are so desperate for?

      Reply
      • ian tinkler

        “Brian. You don’t think it’s time, perhaps, for a constructive comment from you?” Please do not hold your breath here. As I understand Brian thinks Corbyn is doing a good job!! Well Corbin did his bit for the “Leave” campaign, and now UNISON still back him! No wonder Labour is lost.

      • Brian Smith

        ‘Sanity is in the eye of the beholder.’

        It’s a little more specific than that.

  9. ian tinkler

    Sure, Robert Sim, ” Professors of Law at the University of Oxford” academics!!. There is a phrase that comes to mind, “Those that can do, those that can not teach”. Our learned professors are, especially, the absolute prime examples of that, with precious few exemptions. The facts our simple, the EU takes far more from the UK than it gives back. The UE stands to lose far more from the UK than the UK will gain from World wide trade. If it has to, the UK can stand alone, history demonstrates that well. History also well demonstrates the failings, still ongoing, of the EU. The Euro, refugee crisis, the persecution of Greece, the inability to form a united opinion on hardly anything, (ask Nippi Sweety about that!). You claim ” “The Brexit side haven’t a clue how to proceed”. that is a simple lie, the clue is in the word “Brexit”. The UK will exit, end of story, the EU, will as always, dither, pontificate and I seriously doubt ever make a unified opinion about anything, just business as usual, all states pulling in opposite directions That is unless the EU does not implode first! (Just look at the turmoil about Scotland position, already vetoed by Spain and France, so very typical).

    Reply
    • Robert Sim

      Who are the “precious few exemptions” to your general rule that academics know nothing , Ian? Which professors do you consider worthy of your approbation? What, in fact, are your “information sources” on that one? I think we would all love to know. Or maybe we wouldn’t.

      Reply
      • ian tinkler

        The ““precious few exemptions”, Robert Sim, Usually are in the Sciences and actually practising “hands on working”, for example surgeons, chemists, physicists et al. Now look at our learned academics in the fields of the “arts and law,” They seldom do anything, create anything of useful value , but mostly just teach others and write books on their own narrow fields. Sadly I have never heard of a professor of law doing any court work or actually practising law of any type. Learned academia has its place, in the Universities, but not as state appointed advisors, pontificating political dogma to those who actually appointed them. They are usually only appointed because they have well publicised views mirroring those who appoint them. Hardly unbiased and impartial advice. Just look at the Green Lunacy and Energy policy of the SNP, and those who advise the SNP. Ask yourself, just where will Scotland’s power come from if independent of the UK, on a still, frosty, winter day? Any bright ideas anyone? Just ask a “Working academic” One of the most respected scientific figures in Scotland, Hugh Pennington, emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen, He more or less called “Nippy Sweetie” and the SG/SNP utterly scientifically incompetent.

      • ian tinkler

        Further to my above, Academic Professors whom actually create and do useful work. I define “useful work” as saving lives, creating new sources of energy, enabling self-sustaining food supplies, developing new vaccines and medicines, designing and building homes and vital infrastructure. Now show me a single mouth fed, life saved or helpful service to mankind or nature ever remotely improved or conserved by a Professor in “the Creative Arts” or “Academic in the field of law.” Sure, the creative arts “entertain us” those of us affluent enough to sit back and be entertained, as for “the law,” certainly academics, very necessary like “economists”, hardly if ever save lives and improves the human condition.
        Just a few useful profs: picked a few at random, Robert Sim, I do not need to reference these men, their work is known world wide. The lives they have saved and enriched, countless.
        Professor Robert Winston,
        Professor Rowan Parks
        Professor Robert J C Steele
        Professor Hugh Pennington,

      • Robert Sim

        “Sadly I have never heard of a professor of law doing any court work or actually practising law of any type.” In terms of Scots Law, look up Professor Eric Clive, Ian. For starters. I can’t believe you actually post this stuff. I can’t believe I am actually responding to it.

      • ian tinkler

        Honorary Professor
        Professor Eric Clive
        He was the main editor of Part 3 of the Principles of European Contract Law (Land Commission) and a member of the Study Group on a European Civil Code. He is one of the main editors of Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Wow, Wow, Robert Sim, has that not just said it al. So very useful for the good of all humanity. You make my case for me, in a starving, overpopulated world, we have “the main editor of Part 3 of the Principles of European Contract Law”. I can hardly catch my breath.!!

      • Robert Sim

        Have you ever used a solicitor, Ian? Or has anyone you know needed to use one? Do you see what I am getting at here? Can you reply in a sentence?

      • Ali Inkster

        Laws written by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers, is no way to run a legal system far less a country.

      • Brian Smith

        Ali, why does dee an Mr Tinkler no devise a new lawbook for a free an independent Shetland? Maybe you’re done it already?

      • ian_tinkler

        I have not written one myself (a new law-book), Brian Smith, but I know of several people that could and some that have. As a historian I am sure you have the facts about many whom already have written a new law-book. Is it below your dignity to admit that, and give us a critique of the same? Just for once you would be writing something constructive and perhaps doing something potentially useful.

      • Robert Sim

        “I have not written one myself (a new law-book), Brian Smith, but I know of several people that could and some that have. ” That’s interesting, Ian. Presumably when you said to me that “…I have never heard of a professor of law doing any court work or actually practising law of any type”, you were excluding the academics you know that could and indeed have written books of law? I am impressed.

      • ian tinkler

        Certainly would never use an Academic in Law here, Robert Sim. Prefer someone with hands on practical experience and base “the Charter” from existing successful independant Isles. Plenty around to choose from.

      • Robert Sim

        So Wir Shetland would start with a ‘Charter’, Ian, and devise a whole new legal system from scratch for an independent Shetland? Based on eg Falklands law? That’s quite an undertaking! What would existing Shetland solicitors, trained in Scots law, do?

  10. Shuard Manson

    Pfffft. Experts! Wha needs dem? We have a real brains trust here!

    Reply
    • Shuard Manson

      Really dinna exercise me mind too muckle aboot Nicola, da SNP etc it’s all just noise.Never voted for them. So if anybody is needing cheap dental treatment don’t consult an expert. I hae a Cold Chisel, Claw Hammer, Self Grips, Silicone and an internet connection.

      Reply
  11. David Spence

    It is interesting, but worrying times ahead for the UK, as it stands in limbo on what to do next. People, quite rightly, whether they voted to leave or remain, are very unsure what picture is going to be painted for the future of the UK.

    Whether this is ‘ the beginning of the end of the UK ‘ or ‘ political turmoil and instability causing greater harm than good, despite what the ‘ Brexit Propaganda ‘ has told the masses.

    Is the UK, better off out of the EU or has this opened a can of worms for worse or greater things to come? The perceived impression is ‘ it has been a wrong move ‘ and, I think, it will either be the demise of the UK or the fragmentation of the EU itself………….which I think will unlikely.

    It will be interesting to see how the UK, is going to handle the Irish crisis, and the follow up of this in terms of security or the situation going back to the days of conflict???

    Reply
  12. ian_tinkler

    Robert, I do not write for Wir Shetland. so inquiring of myself is pointless. Perhaps you should ask an existing Shetland solicitor, I am sure they could advise you where to go from their. Manx, Alderney, Falklands, London, Edinburgh, there is a fair choice of legal firms to help.

    Reply
  13. David Spence

    It is an interesting form of democracy when 1 country (England) decides the fate of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as they are denied the choice on whether or not to remain or exit the EU?

    Surely this should have been an option for each part of the UK to decide? Yes, England has approx. 80% of the population of the UK, and it demonstrates quite clearly democracy is not taking place, since the decision making is based on the votes of 1 country, despite what other parts of the UK (said loosely) voted.

    It would have been fair and democratic for each member of the UK to have the option of voting separately from England, rather than one country, as mentioned, deciding due too it having the largest population.

    Since there was no plan B, for the Brexit Lot (since they were anticipating losing), interesting but worrying times ahead………and based on Theresa May’s political ideals, welcome in with open arms TTIP where the future of the UK, will be based on the profit margins of the US companies taking over everything.

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      David, top EU people have confirmed to Ms Sturgeon that it’s only possible for the EU to deal with “member states”, not with “parts of a member state”.

      BTW, Wales also voted Leave, so it isn’t only the good people of England who wanted out.

      Wales and northern England, too. Not exactly ‘hotbeds of Toryism’, are they?

      The ballot focused on whether Britain should stay in the EU. You may find a very different outcome if and when an independent Scotland runs its EU referendum because the Norwegian arrangement (via EFTA), for example, is more beneficial than full membership.

      Reply
  14. ian tinkler

    The united peoples of all four countries voted David Spence. England alone decided nothing. The whole UK decided and voted for Brexit. Scotland also previously and recently voted and decided to be part of that UK. It is called democracy. Sad for the narrow and bigoted of the EU lobby, but now the UK can embrace the entire world free of the centralist bureaucracy of Brussels. No more restrictive and prejudiced immigration policies that so victimised our Commonwealth friends. Even as I write we have 11 arrested illegals on Shetland. That OK with you David Spence? Those illegal’s countrymen fought for European freedom not so very long ago. (Chinese nationals, Bangladeshi. Nepalese nationals and Pakistani all from countries who were WW2 allies, that helped free Europe and Asia from tyranny. Now all to be deported under EU law).

    Reply
    • Brian Smith

      I am pleased that Mr Tinkler abominates Mrs May’s disgusting immigration policies. But what does Wir UKIP think?

      Reply
      • Robert Sim

        Have they disappeared altogether?

    • Ray Purchase

      Immigration of non-EU persons into the UK is controlled by UK law not EU law – stop making things up.

      Reply
      • ian tinkler

        Immigration into the UK is absolutely controlled by EU law. One law for EU citizens another for non-EU citizens. Ray Purchase is that not discriminatory, just because Sturgeon and Salmond are happy with it does not stop it from being centralised EU racial discrimination, however, the EU commissioners try and shift responsibility. What would you call it Ray Purchase, that is treating different groups of people in profoundly different ways due to their place of birth. The word that comes to my mind is racism. http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=470

      • Robin Stevenson

        Ian

        Your link annihilates your own case…. ‘Immigration into the UK is absolutely controlled by EU law’,…. says you.

        However the link you kindly provided clearly states:

        “Countries with no agreement:

        For nationals of other countries – that have no agreement with the EU – the right to work in an EU country mainly depends on the laws of that country, unless they are members of an EU national’s family”…. Did you not even bother to read it first before you [once again] put your foot in it?

      • Ray Purchase

        Ian Tinkler you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and have mangled your misunderstanding of the issue into an attempt to score a political point.

        Also, you may have missed it but there was a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union a couple of weeks ago and the vote was made to leave, therefore your continuing argument to leave is a complete waste of time and energy. You could be spending your time on something more constructive like tilting at windmills.

      • James Watt

        Ian, how is it you say “immigration into the UK is absolutely controlled by EU law.”

        but the link you shared says
        “For nationals of other countries – that have no agreement with the EU – the right to work in an EU country mainly depends on the laws of that country, unless they are members of an EU national’s family.”

      • ian tinkler

        Ray Purchase a freedom of Information request to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) found more than 2,341 qualified nurses were refused entry to the UK last year. These nurses applied for UK entry to work within the staff starved NHS. As non-EU citizens, they were turned down flat. Is it not highly discriminatory and utter idiocy that EU citizens irrespective of skills and work ethic have right of entry whilst qualified nurses from the Commonwealth are refused work permits and entry? EU law is discriminatory and the UK is well clear of such stupidity.

      • ian_tinkler

        James Watt, You must be able to see, that very statement “For nationals of other countries – that have no agreement with the EU – the right to work in an EU country mainly depends on the laws of that country, unless they are members of an EU national’s family.” is divisive and discriminatory.” It must be clear to all, that statement in itself is discriminatory. “EU citizens have Carte blanche entry to UK all others tough”

      • Robin Stevenson

        You’ve just changed your argument there Ian. At least have the courage and conviction to admit you’re wrong?

        You’re the one that said that it is the EU that controls immigration into the UK and NOT the UK itself for those people ‘outwith’ the EU. This has been proved [by your own link] to be balderdash.

        What exactly is ‘divisive and discriminatory’ about the EU that has NO say about UK immigration policy ‘outwith the EU????

      • ian_tinkler

        Robin, I was pointing out the obvious. The EU has protocols for immigration are discriminatory and racist, no more no less. No arguments involved, just very simple facts.

      • Ray Purchase

        No you didn’t Ian. You said that ‘immigration into the UK is absolutely controlled by EU law’ and that’s not true.

      • Robin Stevenson

        Sorry Ian, but I’m afraid that your stance is no clearer? Rules and regulations – with regard to immigration – are given by the EU, there are also rules and regulations in place enforced by the UK. However, you’re saying that the EU rules are -somehow – ‘discriminatory and racist’, but the UK rules aren’t?… Could we just take a look at the number of migrants that EU states have taken in against the number the UK have accepted and then remind ourselves of who exactly is the biggest culprit for discrimination and racism?…

      • James Watt

        “For nationals of other countries – that have no agreement with the EU – the right to work in an EU country mainly depends on the laws of that country, unless they are members of an EU national’s family.”

        Ian, acording to that quote from your link, who is responsible for the Imigration status of those arrested the other day here in Shetland?

      • ian tinkler

        It is very clear, the EU has a policy, free movement of all EU citizens, around all EU countries. An absolute right for all EU citizens, to move and settle from one EU member country to another, that is enshrined in EU law. That right only exists for EU citizens, every other citizen of the entire World is discriminated against. End of story, racism, discrimination, call it what you want. Just note, it appears here only SNP camp followers, and those opposed to Brexit appear to have a problem accepting that fact. I am not forwarding any argument here, just stating a matter of fact.

      • Ray Purchase

        Ian Tinkler, it does not matter how much you bluster and try to manipulate things it does not change the fact that your original statement that UK immigration laws are controlled by the EU is completely untrue.

      • ian tinkler

        Sorry Ray Purchase, Just which law controls the entry of EU citizens into the UK? Just which Law gives absolute right on entry into the UK of all EU citizens? Now, an answer, please if you have the brains to know!! A few hints for you.
        Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); Titles IV and V TFEU.
        Directive 2004/38/EC
        The implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC
        [1]Treaty on European Union, which entered into force on 1 November 1993.
        [2]See Part Two of the TFEU entitled ‘Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union’.
        [3]Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), which is a codification of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 as amended.
        [4]This includes same-sex registered partnerships or marriage if the legislation of the host Member State treats same-sex registered partnerships or marriage as equivalent to marriage.
        [5] COM(2008) 0840.
        [6] COM(2009) 0313.

      • Ray Purchase

        Apologies Ian – I meant to say EU law does not control immigration of non-EU citizens into the UK as I, and many others, have pointed out to you several times already. See how easy it is to admit to a mistake though? You really should try it – much better than your approach.

      • ian_tinkler

        Ray Purchase, in this situation UK law overruled by EU law absolutely. As I stated, Immigration into the UK is absolutely controlled by EU law. Sovereignty is lost to the EU and it is absolutely discriminatory to segregate EU and Non-EU citizens thus. Nit pick all you wish, but the bottom line remains a divisive and racist EU law controls UK immigration into the UK. Fortunately that will soon be an injustice of the past.

  15. ian tinkler

    Not only May’s policy, Brian Smith. That comes from with the full blessing of EU law. Thought you understood that, after all , your UNISON backs the EU alongside Corbyn! O Dear me, does that not say it all about credibility. Incidentally, Wir UKIP is just a figment of a very prejudiced mind, yours perhaps? http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=470

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      Interesting, Mr Corbyn’s detractors seem unable to understand their own rules:

      “Labour-commissioned legal analysis states Mr Corbyn needs the nominations – just like any challenger – but unions say, as existing leader, he does not.

      “The BBC has seen legal advice sent to Unite by solicitors that states: “The rules by which the Labour Party is governed are unambiguous: the leader does not require any signatures to be nominated in a leadership election where there is a potential challenger to the leadership.”

      “The solicitors make clear that legal action will be launched unless Mr Corbyn is automatically on the leadership ballot…..).

      “What the Labour rule book says:

      “ii: Where there is NO VACANCY, nominations may be sought by POTENTIAL CHALLENGERS each year prior to the annual session of Party conference. IN THIS CASE any nomination must be supported by 20% of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.” (JT’s emphasis)

      I can’t believe Labour’s NEC will permit this stitch-up by anti-Corbynists.

      The rule is crystal clear: Mr Corbyn does not need nomination.

      Who would vote for such people as these?

      Reply
    • Brian Smith

      As a reviewer in the Shetland Times of 1933 said, ‘The depths of ignorance are surely plumbed here.’

      Reply
      • Ali Inkster

        You seem incapable of expressing an original thought Brian. Please try, you could give us all a good laugh.

      • ian tinkler

        Ali, I do not think he has one!! Try watching “Citizen Smith on U tube”. Wolfie Smith, may remind you of someone!! Makes about as much sense and is about as comic!!!

  16. John Tulloch

    President of the European Council Donald Tusk said today:

    “Britain will remain our closest partner”.

    Well, well! That doesn’t sound like trade tariffs will be on the menu?

    Reply
  17. John Tulloch

    Now that the President of the European Council has said, “Britain will remain our closest partner”, it’s quite clear that Britain will continue to access the single market which means Scotland will not suffer in any way but will benefit from the return of Scottish fishing grounds.

    So Scotland is more likely to benefit from Brexit than lose by it, rendering all the faux outrage and its claimed excuse for Indy2 redundant.

    Reply
    • Bill Adams

      Scotland currently benefits from EU structural and social policy funding which would cease to be the case
      when Brexit takes effect. Any Norwegian style deal continuing access to the single market would not
      maintain that funding stream. There is more to this than just fishing matters.

      Reply
      • Robert Sim

        Brexit will collapse in any case, Bill, when the Leave voters in England realise that free movement really is the price that has to be paid for access to the single market; and once Boris has offended every foreign government in and out of the EU!

      • John Tulloch

        Thanks, Bill, that point is worth highlighting.

        EU grant money is paid for several times over by UK taxpayers – from memory, about £12 billion per annum is paid (accounting for the rebate). Of which we (UK) currently receive about £3-4 billion a year back in grants (net payment of £8.5-£10 billion pa)

        The British government will no longer have to pay the EU, giving it more to spend at home and Scotland will get its share via the Barnett Formula. If not, then is the time for Nicola to play the referendum card.

        She would be in a strong position, unlike her posturing about wanting to stay in the EU, even though that will be a poorer option for Scotland.

        Ultimately, the Scottish government will distribute the cash so let’s hope they make a better job of it than they did with this year’s EU CAP money!

      • Ali Inkster

        Is this the same funding that Shetland does not qualify for?

      • john ridland

        Yes your right Bill, There is the £350 mill a WEEK that goes the other way,,

      • ian tinkler

        Sadly, Bill, the UK contributes far more to EU funds than the UK receives in return. The Net loss to the UK being about £4.5billion pa. After Brexit, the UK will be able to increase Scotland’s funding over and above the present levels by as much as theoretically that sum!! or an equitable portion of it. Only, however, if Scotland remains part of the UK. If however, Scotland goes indie, no Barnett funds, nothing from the UK and precious little if anything from the EU. Without UK funding the EU would be flat broke and Scotland would be Greece without the sun!!

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.