Project fear continues (Stuart Hill)

The Scottish Parliament has released figures purporting to show that rural communities will suffer a 28 per cent shortfall in funding as a result of Brexit.

They omit to point out that the EU can only give out the money contributed by member states. It’s money out of our pockets that they distribute as grants and subsidies.

The surplus currently left in their coffers will, after Brexit, be available for UK and Scottish governments to provide even better support for rural communities, or whatever they choose to spend it on.

After Brexit the governments will have more money available – it’s up to us to hold them to account in ensuring that rural communities benefit and that it’s not frittered away on some pet project.

Meanwhile the stock market, widely predicted to crash by the remain camp, has, after an initial fall, rebounded to levels not seen for nearly a year.

Do those investors know something we don’t? After the initial fall was reported in the press as evidence of impending Armageddon, using the FTSE100 as a barometer seems to have lost favour with doom merchants as it rises obstinately to new highs.

The much-hyped fall in the market after Brexit was actually less than one 10 days previously that was apparently not seen to be significant and went totally unreported by the mainstream press.

The pound, meanwhile, has dropped and this has been seized upon to show how bad things apparently are. The opposite is the case.

A lower pound is good for UK exports – good for fishermen, much of whose fish is destined for markets outside the UK, good for tourism because it makes us a cheaper destination and makes going abroad more expensive.

It means more foreign visitors will come and more domestic holidaymakers will choose to take their holidays here.

Imports of cars and other goods from the EU are more expensive, making it more difficult for them to sell to us – was the pound being kept artificially high to encourage that trade in their favour and crash our industries?

I have a list of 25 major British companies that have relocated outside the UK with the help of EU grants. There has been a systematic and concerted dismantling of British industry orchestrated by the EU.

The fact that the EU Mafia has been unable to get its books audited for the past 20 years or so indicates the levels of endemic corruption.

The damage caused to our economy by EU membership will take time to repair and the UK is well out of that cesspit.

The UK has the upper hand in Brexit negotiations because the EU has more to lose. As the UK forges new trade deals with countries outside the EU, its hand becomes even stronger. EU Project Fear is finding it more and more difficult to appear credible as the benefits of Brexit become evident.

Of course, the way the UK has been treated by the EU is exactly replicated by the way the UK has treated Shetland, the first of the colonies. Our fishing industry was dismantled and our waters given away to promote UK ambitions.

Aside from the oil, Shetland subsidises the UK to the tune of £76 million per year – £7,600 per household. The oil taken from our waters contributes further billions to the UK treasury.

Brexit has important lessons for Shetland – just as the EU is worried about other members following the British example and EU countries like Spain are worried about their regions wanting autonomy, so are the UK and Scotland worried about Shetland.
Project Fear will be (and is being) used to keep Shetland in its place.

Stuart Hill


Add Your Comment
  • ian tinkler

    • July 11th, 2016 21:40

    “The Scottish Parliament has released figures purporting to show that rural communities will suffer a 28 per cent shortfall in funding as a result of Brexit.” This has nothing to do with Brexit. It has far more to do with the SG/SNP manipulation and centralisation of funds to send monies where the votes are.

  • Tom Patterson

    • August 22nd, 2016 21:35

    The country will have more money now we voted for Brexit?

    The “reason” for the eight years of austerity is the un-reduced 1.4 £trillion debt.

    Owed in dollars or euros this increased to £1.7trillion when the pound dropped;
    Our credit rating was downgraded, consequently our risk and thereby the interest on the £1.7 trillion increased approx 2% ( 30 billion on 1.5trillion)

    So 8%-ish growth is needed just to stay where we are now (in austerity).

    The £35 m a day saved by brexit won’t cover that (or go to NHS! [ha!])

    Most of our consumables are imported; the pound fall will soon will increase prices, fuelling price inflation while wages stagnate.
    This reduces our own spending; many small and medium sized businesses bust

    The lower pound won’t make our exports cheaper if we have to import raw materials to manufacture.

    If we are not part of the European financial passporting scheme, our biggest service trade (banking) is gone too.

    So, if only it were only “project fear” …I wish!
    How years before it is recognised as “project reality”?

    I’m certainly not looking forward to living every day like its Christmas at Billy Elliot’s house….”but that’s democracy fer ye!”

  • ian tinkler

    • August 23rd, 2016 10:27

    Interesting flight of fancy, Tom. Strange virtually no trained economist on Earth has attempted to match your extraordinary logic. It is a bit like your previous prophecy, {Tom Patterson; November 8th, 2012 Shetland Times. } “but I do know that if we vote “n”o in the referendum, Westminster will be able to do what Thatcher did to us with impunity because its only fear of the referendum that is holding them off at the moment.” Utter and complete anti-Westminster, Anglophobic, Nationalist twaddle.

    • Robin Stevenson

      • August 23rd, 2016 17:17

      Erm… What makes you imagine that Tom was wrong Ian? We DID vote ‘no’ and now we ‘are’ faced with Thatcher#2, and whatever she decides impose on Scotland.

      Scotland voted against the renewal of trident, [we got trident]
      Scotland voted to remain within the EU, [we’re being dragged out of the EU]
      Scotland voted against EVEL [we got EVEL]
      Scotland voted against bombing Syria [we’re bombing Syria]
      Scotland voted against austerity [we got austerity]

      Scotland voted to protect renewable energy and carbon capture programmes (nope!)
      Scotland voted to protect pensions (nope!)
      Scotland voted to give Scotland major new powers (nope!)
      Scotland voted to protect jobs in the civil service (nope!)
      Scotland voted to ensure Scottish shipyards got orders for 13 frigates, then 8 frigates, in fact ANY frigates at all? (nope!)

      This is ‘anti-establishment’ Ian, NOT you desperately trying to peddle the myth that it’s in some way ‘anti English’….If anyone is on a ‘flight of fancy’, it’s your denial of the facts.

      • ian_tinkler

        • August 25th, 2016 15:53

        Robin Stevenson, Scotland Voted “Yes” to be part of the UK. Sorry you are not OK with that, but that was and still is the democratic will of the Scottish people. Fortunate for Scotland in view of the dire state the SNP / SG has reduced Scotland to. £14 billion deficit, well played Nippy, the EU will not touch you with a barge pole with that balance of income to expenditure, truly sad. No doubt the Nats will try to blame Westminster for all the incompetence of nine years SNP mismanagement however that lie is a bit old hat now..

      • Robin Stevenson

        • August 26th, 2016 14:09

        The point you and others miss is the fact that a very large percentage voted to be part of a UK ‘within the EU’, they were sold a pup….. Do you remember the ‘No’ camp claiming ‘vote No to remain part of the EU?’… It is those people – among many more – that were hoodwinked into believing that a No vote guaranteed EU membership. This was only one of many lies deliberately told to ensure the status quo [see above post]

        IF Scotland has ANY deficit at all Ian, who’s fault would you imagine that is? Considering Scotland can’t – and never could – borrow money?… So after 309 years of UK management we STILL owe whatever figure they decide to dream up?.. I’ve asked numerous – so called – ‘economic experts’, [inc the Tories secret weapon pretendy economist Kevin Hague] ‘What happens to our 59% of Scotland’s revenue ‘retained’ in Westminster?’… I’ll leave the next line or two blank, because that sums up nicely the answer I generally get back: ——————————————————————————————-

      • Ali Inkster

        • August 27th, 2016 10:40

        Well I and many others voted to remain in the UK for the very reason that there was more chance getting out of the EU that way. Holyrood will never let go those particular apron strings. Like the petulant teenager wanting their own place but still wanting mum n dad to pay the bills.

      • Wayne Conroy

        • August 27th, 2016 10:52

        @Robin Stevenson – The point that you seem to be missing (or purposefully choosing to miss) is that nobody was “hoodwinked into believing that a No vote guaranteed EU membership”. Just like the No vote was decided by a democratic vote by the Scottish public (18 September 2014) leaving the EU was decided by a democratic vote by the British public (23rd June 2016) – The decision to even consider a referendum was made well after the referendum for independence. At the time of the Scottish referendum it was true that an independent Scotland may have had to reapply to stay within the EU whereas staying in the UK did indeed guarantee staying within the EU at the time.

        If you believe anyone here is trying to peddle myths, deny facts or tell lies maybe you should start by looking in a mirror!

      • ian tinkler

        • August 27th, 2016 11:07

        Robin Stevenson, Enjoy your Indyref2, I would do it quick if I were the SNP, before the rUK says “enough is enough” and boots Scotland out into an EU austerity future. Incidentally, I think Shetland would rather stay in the rUK. Have a nice day, glad to give advice…
        “Official data released on Wednesday shows the budget deficit stands at 9.5 per cent of GDP, more than double that of the whole of the UK and the highest in the EU, including crisis-hit Greece and Spain.”

  • John Tulloch

    • August 23rd, 2016 10:50

    Are you the same Tom Patterson who claims to have been posting as TIm Parkinson about the fishing?

  • David Spence

    • August 23rd, 2016 13:32

    I believe the Tories have done away with the Barnett Formula? If this is the case, what funds Scotland will receive in the future, if not already, will be vastly reduced, and will force the SNP to carry austerity cuts in all Local Authorities Area’s (killing 2 birds with 1 stone………discrediting the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon). This could also, potentially, bring forward a second referendum for Independence, and where all monies Scotland makes will go, hopefully, towards Scotland infrastructures rather than Westminster?

    Cutting what monies Scotland receives through Westminster, could also force the SNP to outsource Local Authority works to the private sector (although how this move would be cheaper is beyond me……..because it most definitely will not be cheaper (Serco, and the life lines services to the islands proving this))………………but one shall see.

  • John M Scott

    • August 25th, 2016 13:32

    Shetland subsidises the UK to the tune of £76 million per year!!!!!

    It was United Kingdom money, not Shetland or Scottish money that was used to make the massive investment in the first place. The taxes of 44 million people were needed to subsidise the North Sea project which is still benefiting the 5 million citizens living in the north of the kingdom.

    And if the SNP achieve their selfish aim of independence, then the 44 million British tax payers will want their money back.

    • John Tulloch

      • August 25th, 2016 17:04

      You may wish to revisit the arithmetic, however, with an autonomous Shetland, linked to the UK as e.g. the Isle of Man is, the question of refunding past tax deductions on capital investment – and oil revenues accrued btw – being returned to their respective “owners” (for want of a better word) would be unlikely to arise.

    • Ali Inkster

      • August 25th, 2016 22:00

      They have had any investment back many many times over. Funny that they managed to drill in Norway without the UK tax payer to fund them.

    • Ali Inkster

      • August 25th, 2016 22:05

      And the £76 million per annum subsidy we send sooth is without factoring in oil revenue and revenue lost to foreign fishing fleets


Add 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 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.

200 words left

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Get Latest News in Your Inbox

Join the The Shetland Times mailing list to get one daily email update at midday on what's happening in Shetland.