I’m intrigued by For Argyll’s nugget of information that the BBC’s Andrew Neil has suggested the Treasury is considering devolving control of oil revenues to the Scottish government.
Neil interprets this as future oil revenues being ‘de minimis’ – of little consequence – to Westminster, potentially ending, as FA succinctly puts it, the ‘tedious dog whistle of “Scotland’s Oil”.’
But how can this be? Five minutes ago, Yes campaigners were trumpeting the alleged discovery of the ‘biggest oil field in the world’ off the West of Shetland?
Neil’s comment then, begs the questions: Will the oil revenues referred to include those in the Shetland region of the UK’s northern seas?
And, if not, ‘How could that be?
The Northern and Western Isles have been negotiating with the Scottish and UK governments for greater autonomy and the offers, hitherto, from both governments have been ‘derisory’, to the fury of local independence campaigners like Alistair Inkster, who raised a petition calling for Shetland Islands Council to resign en masse.
While there is no formal independence movement currently active in Shetland, it seems likely the Shetland Movement, which once had a majority of council seats, but which faded away during the ‘good times’, may be resuscitated to marshall independent campaigners in a focused body.
Several local campaigners argue persuasively for Shetland [and Orkney] to become, either, Crown Dependencies like the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands within the UK’ or to obtain Faroese-style autonomy, within an over-arching, independent Scottish context.
A fascinating debate over the future of the Shetland [and Scottish] fishing industries erupted in local media during the referendum campaign over, not only whether Shetland being part of an independent Scotland would lose access to the UK’s derogation on quotas from the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy [CFP]; but, also, whether Shetland would be better off outside the EU, altogether.
The EU being the EU, it was impossible to obtain a clear picture in the time available.
One correspondent, John Tulloch, posed this, more fundamental question, to nationalists and unionists, alike: ‘Why is it better for Shetland to be in the EU when Faroe, Iceland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and many other, similar, island groups have not joined?’
He went on to explain that, with autonomous status outside the EU, Shetlanders would sit down with the EU, Norway, Iceland and Faroe to negotiate fishing agreements, without being subject to the CFP, at all, suggesting Shetland would be better to follow the examples quoted by leaving the EU.
Given that the £300+ million pa fishing industry – of equal importance to the isles’ economy as is oil – has been with them for hundreds of years and will still be there when the oil has gone, Mr Tulloch’s point that ‘Shetlanders will never vote down the fishing’ seems an obvious truth.
It’s academic this time round. Scots voted No. But another referendum could be around the corner, in a couple of years’ time and it could prove crucial then.
For nationalists, he spells it out: ‘No fishing, no Shetland; no Shetland, no oil; no oil, no economic prosperity; no prosperity, no public support for independence.’
He says the Scottish government ‘blew their opportunity’ to secure Shetland via ‘Our Islands, Our Future’ and likens them, amusingly, to the monkey caught in the classical ‘Box Trap’; they wouldn’t let go the ‘orange’ inside the box and so were unable withdraw their hand through the hole, leading to capture.
Predictably, both Shetland and Orkney voted down Scottish independence by two to one.
Mr Tulloch has previously argued that the Northern – and indeed, the Western Isles, have something both governments, especially, the UK, want as much, if not more than, the fishing and other natural resources in the areas; command of those strategic seas which dominate great swathes of, not only the North Sea, but also, the North Atlantic and the airspace associated with that.
The argument runs along the lines that the UK could secure that strategic region for all time by creating Crown Dependencies in Orkney and Shetland – an offer they couldn’t refuse – giving local people control of their fishing and all onshore and offshore developments, in exchange for a negotiated settlement on defence, foreign policy, oil revenues, etc. The deal, he claims, would be approved by local referenda, confirming UK sovereignty by the ‘right to self-determination of peoples’, as described in the United Nations Charter, Chapter 1, Article 1.
So it is, indeed, intriguing to read of Andrew Neil ‘de minimising’ Scotland’s Oil’ and tempting, also, to speculate that ‘Shetland’s Oil’ may not be included in the Treasury’s oil revenue devolution plans.
That possibility raises further questions around whether Westminster is considering establishing Crown Dependencies in the Northern – and conceivably, the Western – Isles and if such ideas are credible, how could they be accommodated within a modernised, ‘fit for purpose’ UK constitution?
Note: The photograph above – of Shetland’s oil terminal – Sullom Voe at night, taken from Houb of Scatsa, is © Mike Pennington and is reproduced here under the Creative Commons licence.
