Jersey Could Go It Alone

[Albert Tatlock]

My concern is also that independence would stretch public service competencies beyond breaking point (judging by Forum comments some members feel that point has already been reached). This would particularly be the case if the IOM Government had to take on EU level activities.

An interesting comment came up on Talking Heads, that many MHKs seem to be too involved with local politics (i.e. local issues the domain of town councillors), rather than acting as the 'national' politicians they are supposed to be. Upskilling probably needs to start from the top i.e. independence would require far greater calibre 'national' politicians than we have now. That to me suggests party politics, with a party serious about independence working to build a party with many more members of that calibre.

[triskelion]

International Relations may not be the most problematic issue - though Public Servants and Ministers would like this one the most because of 'perks' of overseas postings and overseas trips. Realistically what would the IOM want to do spending lot's of money having someone in New York to join the UN talkfest? Maybe the occasional visit? Brussels definitely the priority (when they are not all galivanting off adding to CO2 emissions nd global warming by moving the EU Parliament and Public Service to Strasbourg and back each month). Is London as important - or would it just be another European capital?

 

Would we stay in the British Commonwealth? I vote 'no' to save money...and what happens to the poor old Lieutenant Governor (bye bye I suppose)?

Surely one of the main benefits of full independence would be the ability to participate fully in these international organisations?

 

A Manx Mission in New York would not have to be there purely to sit around at the UN, but could work as the Island's representative to the US as well. Given that the US has an uneasy stance as regards 'Independent Financial Centres,' having someone permanently based there to fight our corner would be extremely beneficial.

 

Presumably the Island would not be a full EU member, so would not need to partake in the unbelievable monthly move to Strasbourg and back.

 

As for London, Manx affairs are ultimately going to be moulded to a substantial degree by the UK, so it would be useful to have a representative there. Furthermore, London is also the centre for the Commonwealth.

 

Just a note about politicians and civil servants liking this idea because they would get to travel (the much-maligned 'jollies'), why is this a bad thing? Their allowances on such trips are not all that generous, yet some people seem to think that CPA meetings should not be attended so long as there is a waiting list for hip operations. We need to engage with the outside world as much as possible. Recently Brown and Bell went to Washington and the reaction was 'oh its alright for some.' I can't recall ever hearing Washington talked about as a nice place to visit. The only reason anyone goes there is because that's where the Government is.

[triskelion]

My concern is also that independence would stretch public service competencies beyond breaking point (judging by Forum comments some members feel that point has already been reached). This would particularly be the case if the IOM Government had to take on EU level activities.

An interesting comment came up on Talking Heads, that many MHKs seem to be too involved with local politics (i.e. local issues the domain of town councillors), rather than acting as the 'national' politicians they are supposed to be. Upskilling probably needs to start from the top i.e. independence would require far greater calibre 'national' politicians than we have now. That to me suggests party politics, with a party serious about independence working to build a party with many more members of that calibre.

How have you possibly reached that conclusion?

 

To me it much more strongly suggests the need for a clear division of powers and responsibilities between Local and Central Government.

[John Wright]

triskellion I agre.

 

i think we do need a party system so we have a real choice of policy and I think that we desperatrely need a move away from national Politicians actings as untrained social workers for their constituents.

 

Tha must mean a strong devolved local government with responsibility for planning, within a national and regional plans, housing, roads except TT course and the following three national trunk roiutes Douglas to castletown or at least airport, St Jphns to Peel and Douglas tp ramsey, coast road. all litter collection and processing including animal byproducts and recycling cemeteries libraries, swimmig pools, sports facilities etc. 4 regional authorities for day to day struff and a joint authority for the big stuff with local councillors with real responisbility

[manshimajin]

International Relations may not be the most problematic issue - though Public Servants and Ministers would like this one the most because of 'perks' of overseas postings and overseas trips. Realistically what would the IOM want to do spending lot's of money having someone in New York to join the UN talkfest? Maybe the occasional visit? Brussels definitely the priority (when they are not all galivanting off adding to CO2 emissions nd global warming by moving the EU Parliament and Public Service to Strasbourg and back each month). Is London as important - or would it just be another European capital?

 

Would we stay in the British Commonwealth? I vote 'no' to save money...and what happens to the poor old Lieutenant Governor (bye bye I suppose)?

Surely one of the main benefits of full independence would be the ability to participate fully in these international organisations?

 

Just a note about politicians and civil servants liking this idea because they would get to travel (the much-maligned 'jollies'), why is this a bad thing? Their allowances on such trips are not all that generous, yet some people seem to think that CPA meetings should not be attended so long as there is a waiting list for hip operations. We need to engage with the outside world as much as possible. Recently Brown and Bell went to Washington and the reaction was 'oh its alright for some.' I can't recall ever hearing Washington talked about as a nice place to visit. The only reason anyone goes there is because that's where the Government is.

 

Whether the main benefit of independence is the ability to participte fully in international organisations or to improve the living standards of the local population is something that would need to be worked out in the rationale for independence. What do you see as the practical added value benefits to Manx citizens from full participation in these organisations?

 

That is why I suspect that Trade & Commerce, Agriculture & Fisheries, Tourism and the Revenue functions could have more potential if increased independence meant increased flexibility to manage the Manx economy to attract appropriate inward investment and to generate more value from our own national assets.

 

Think of Singapore - it is not successful because of its participation in the UN but because of the way it maximises the benefits of its educated population and its geographic location.

 

Pardon my cynicism about 'jollies'. Having seen the problems over accountability for MEPs' travelling expenses (and the unaudited use of public funds for MEP private pension top ups) the track record seems pretty patchy to me. How often do we (taxpayers) actually get full public accountability for these activities that allows us to feel confident about the cost/benefits? Maybe if politicians and public servants were more open about these matters we would feel/see that we are getting value for money...

 

Would also like any paper to seriously discuss what the benefits of Commonwealth membership are. An independent Manx state needs to decide whether it should be totally independent, a republic within the Commonwealth or retain HMQ as Head of State.

 

PS: I like Washington. The Smithsonians and Georgetown are great to visit. Lots of Civil War sites nearby too. Lovely in the Spring and Fall.

[triskelion]

Whether the main benefit of independence is the ability to participte fully in international organisations or to improve the living standards of the local population is something that would need to be worked out in the rationale for independence. What do you see as the practical added value benefits to Manx citizens from full participation in these organisations?

It isn't an 'either or' matter. However, if the Island were to become independent, it would obviously take over the responsibility of external relations from the UK. Organisations such as the IMF, the UN, the Commonwealth of Nations etc etc, are the forums through which these relations take place. Singapore may provide an inspiring example of what can be achieved by a well-placed country with an educated populace, but if it refused to engage with the rest of the World through these organisations, I'm certain it would be unrecognisable.

 

In all honesty I do not get the impression Manx politicians are in anyway secretive about their reasons for travel, however people just see the 'trip to x' part. How do you suppose awareness is among the Manx people as to the importance of promoting the Island to members of the American legislature in order to maintain the status of the Island's economy? Low? Very low?

 

That's why people react to news of trips to India/London/Washington/Brussels with "How can they justify spending money on a trip like that when we've got 'issue x' going on here?" (Where issues x is insert crime/benefits/old people/pensions/education/traffic/rain/taxes/wages/immigrants/waiting lists/dentists)

 

And yet, if it all did hit the fan and the bottom fell out of the financial sector, would those sections of the public hold their hand up and say "We got it wrong. We completely underappreciated the importance of good international relations to preserving the Manx economy." As if; they would be the first ones to cry "Our politicians are a bunch of incompetants."

 

Bit of a rant, I know, but I suppose I didn't previously appreciate the tiny extent to which the general population (myself included) understand the roles and importance of international organisations until I started writing this post. I like to think I am above-average informed, but I have no real idea what the IMF does.

[manshimajin]

It isn't an 'either or' matter. However, if the Island were to become independent, it would obviously take over the responsibility of external relations from the UK. Organisations such as the IMF, the UN, the Commonwealth of Nations etc etc, are the forums through which these relations take place. Singapore may provide an inspiring example of what can be achieved by a well-placed country with an educated populace, but if it refused to engage with the rest of the World through these organisations, I'm certain it would be unrecognisable.

 

I don't dismiss participation in international bodies but was commenting in relation to your comment:

 

Surely one of the main benefits of full independence would be the ability to participate fully in these international organisations?

Taking the Singapore example the reason it has a voice that can be heard a little in international bodies is because of the way it manages its economy. I should think that for a small independent state getting the economic part of the equation right has to be priority one. Unoubtedly foreign relationships facilitate this but need to be subservient to achieving the economic benefit goals.

 

My point about the politicians is that, as paid representatives, they need to give proper feedback and accept full public accountabiity for their offshore trips so that we can understand the usefulness of what they have done. How often do politicians speak publically about how they are promoting the Island to members of the American legislature in order to maintain the status of the Island's economy? Very often? Sometimes? Never?

[Lost Login]

Wouldn't the 'magic way' of raising this be simply to introduce VAT or GST at the same rate?

 

So does the UK subsidise IoM or not?

 

If it doesn't, then there isn't the economic hurdle to independence as seems to have been suggested.

 

I do not know if the UK subsidises the IoM but GST would unlikely to be able to replace VAT as we have to consider where the majority of the VAT income comes from in the IoM and it is not truly local goods & services, i.e. selling TVs, Telephone bills etc. We have to remember the net VAT income to the IoM on a TV is the VAT element of the profit not the sale price as the retailer will reclaim the VAT on the purchase price.

 

I have always assumed that the majority of our VAT comes via the finance industry and particularly in respect of commercial prioperty in the UK owned by IoM Compaies. A ten million per annum rent produces to the Isle of Man government a net £1,750,000 VAT receipt as invariably the income is an expense in the UK. Therefore it is an input claim in the UK not in the IoM. The film industry in the IoM made money for the IoM in a similar way, i.e. the IoM received the VAT on sales, but the Input Vat was reclaimed in the UK.

 

If we lost VAT, GST would not replace or replicate this. It does not in Jersey and if you are a Jersey property business you have to register in the UK. The UK and not Jersey therefore benefits from any VAT. More importantly for many, the UK revenue & customs then have the power to inspect the books and recods of those Jersey companies!

[triskelion]

It isn't an 'either or' matter. However, if the Island were to become independent, it would obviously take over the responsibility of external relations from the UK. Organisations such as the IMF, the UN, the Commonwealth of Nations etc etc, are the forums through which these relations take place. Singapore may provide an inspiring example of what can be achieved by a well-placed country with an educated populace, but if it refused to engage with the rest of the World through these organisations, I'm certain it would be unrecognisable.

 

I don't dismiss participation in international bodies but was commenting in relation to your comment:

 

Surely one of the main benefits of full independence would be the ability to participate fully in these international organisations?

Taking the Singapore example the reason it has a voice that can be heard a little in international bodies is because of the way it manages its economy. I should think that for a small independent state getting the economic part of the equation right has to be priority one. Unoubtedly foreign relationships facilitate this but need to be subservient to achieving the economic benefit goals.

 

My point about the politicians is that, as paid representatives, they need to give proper feedback and accept full public accountabiity for their offshore trips so that we can understand the usefulness of what they have done. How often do politicians speak publically about how they are promoting the Island to members of the American legislature in order to maintain the status of the Island's economy? Very often? Sometimes? Never?

Whilst I agree that the economy has to come first, my impression is that participation in these organisations is not something that can necessarily be done on a 'take it or leave it' basis. Furthermore, there are benefits from participation beyond getting a better deal for the Isle of Man. Firstly, they could be used to raise the profile and boost the identity of the Isle of Man in the international arena, and secondly, they present oppourtunities for 'back scratching' other countries. This latter point sounds somewhat perverse, but voting with one country on an issue could build up 'stock' with them.

 

My point is, being able to participate more fully in the international community, rather than by proxy as is currently the case, is surely one of the main benefits to the Island. If it doesn't produce a clear improvement in the standards of living for residents, there are definite advantages, not least chances to promote ourselves as something other than a shady backwater operating under the aegis of the United Kingdom.

 

On the subject of further accountability for foreign trips, I can't see how that would be achieved. Many of the meetings will have been informal or perhaps confidential. What is it you would like to see?

[triskelion]

triskellion I agre.

 

i think we do need a party system so we have a real choice of policy and I think that we desperatrely need a move away from national Politicians actings as untrained social workers for their constituents.

 

Tha must mean a strong devolved local government with responsibility for planning, within a national and regional plans, housing, roads except TT course and the following three national trunk roiutes Douglas to castletown or at least airport, St Jphns to Peel and Douglas tp ramsey, coast road. all litter collection and processing including animal byproducts and recycling cemeteries libraries, swimmig pools, sports facilities etc. 4 regional authorities for day to day struff and a joint authority for the big stuff with local councillors with real responisbility

John, I have no doubt we could debate how the power would be seperated ad infinium. The main problem I can see is the potential for unnecessary dupilcation, which ultimately benefits no one.

 

I would prefer the local authorities were kept local, rather than having regional authorities, though, as now, there should be no obstacles to joint initiatives. I would like to see LAs responsible for housing, planning, litter collection, public spaces, beaches, residential care, community service and attracting businesses. This is not an exclusive list, just what I would consider 'baseline services' and which would benefit from a local-driven approach.

[Albert Tatlock]

Smallest countries in the world.

 

Rank, Country, Sq. Miles, Population

1. Vatican City 0.2 - 770

2. Monaco 0.7 - 30,000

3. Nauru 8.5 - 10,000

4. Tuvalu 10 - 12,100

5. San Marino 24 - 25,000

6. Liechtenstein 62 - 29,000

7. Marshall Islands 70 - 52,000

8. St. Kitts and Nevis 104 - 41,000

9. Seychelles 107 - 69,000

10. Maldives 115 - 181,000

11. Malta 122 - 362,000.

12. Grenada 133 - 98,000

13. St. Vincent and the Grenadines 133 - 109,00

14. Barbados 166 - 260,000

15. Antigua and Barbuda 171 - 83,000

 

 

 

 

_

[Skeddan]

Oldest countries in the world.... I guess IoM would rank among the top 10 if not top 5. After all it was independent and an 'ancient and absolute kingdom' - independence wouldn't be anything new.

[manshimajin]

My point is, being able to participate more fully in the international community, rather than by proxy as is currently the case, is surely one of the main benefits to the Island. If it doesn't produce a clear improvement in the standards of living for residents, there are definite advantages, not least chances to promote ourselves as something other than a shady backwater operating under the aegis of the United Kingdom.

 

On the subject of further accountability for foreign trips, I can't see how that would be achieved. Many of the meetings will have been informal or perhaps confidential. What is it you would like to see?

 

I suspect we are saying something like:

 

"Full independence is worth doing if the opportunity to participate and be more visible in the international community significantly improves the opportunities and quality of life for Manx citizens." Otherwise why do it?

 

So perhaps point one on Albert's list should be a statement of the goal of independence?

 

On the accountability front the costs of overseas trips are more visible than the benefits acruing from them. In consequence people rightly ask 'why are we spending money on this when we have not been able to fix up care homes etc etc...'. The best way to address this problem is for politicians to make sure that their electorate is better informed about what is being achieved by these trips.

 

I recognise that some issues are confidential but as a general principle it would be very constructive if there was some way of saying:

 

"the reason I went to XXX was...... and as a consequence of my trip the following benefit have been achieved for the IOM...".

 

For every cost there should be a benefit - otherwise it is a junket or the trip has failed.

 

At the moment politicians are very reactive to this issue - only coming out of the bunker to comment if they feel under attack. In a small democracy it might be better, and more professional, to be proactive in letting people know rather than waiting to be criticised.

[triskelion]

Whilst I don't disagree with what you are saying, it still remains an extremely problematic issue.

 

For example, using your model: "I and the Treasury minister recently attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting in Wellington. As a result of this trip, we were able to discuss issues such as renewable energy and poverty with the leaders of countries from all over the world."

 

That is generally what we get already, but its obviously a bit intangible. I suppose they could maybe add some depth by adding something like "Great interest was expressed in the proposed TTxGP," but its still a bit flimsy.

 

At the end of the day, we aren't talking a summit of the G8 here, and it is unlikely any thing concrete would actually be sorted at these meetings, as those that went would have to return and sort out legislation etc.

 

What I'm trying to say is, you aren't going to get very tangible benefits for the Island from attending these meetings, but it does provide good experience for civil servants and politicians to discuss various issues with their international counterparts. As an example, John Shimmin might easily read about the UK's renewable energy measures on DEFRA's website, but that doesn't mean there's no value in discussing the issues with Hillary Benn or whoever.

[manshimajin]

Whilst I don't disagree with what you are saying, it still remains an extremely problematic issue.

 

Maybe we need to stick to the issue of whether full independence is a worthwhile goal and if so how it could be achieved!

 

On this issue I remain a sceptic as I have yet to understand what additional significant benefits would acrue.