[BBC News] Meeting on UK and Manx relations

[Holy Paladin]

yer whats happened to David..lol he never got that book and film deal after all.. shame.. real shame..

[Sebrof]

Is a semi autonomous IOM already so much different from a semi autonomous Scotland?

 

Scotland has limited autonomy within a state (the UK) which is part of the EU. The IOM is not part of that EU member state, nor any other.

 

Different versions of semi autonomous. And the IOM, via the obscure protocol is already not completely detached from the EU - affected but not directly represented and therefore not enjoying the full benefits.

 

So different but also essentially not dissimilar. Equally but differently semi autonomous. But not so different.

 

They are not different versions of semi-autonomous. There is only one set of laws in the IOM, and they all derive from Tynwald. Scotland, bizarrely, has two sets of laws; most are passed by the UK parliament, and a few, less important ones, are passed by the Scottish Assembly. One has its own currency, the other uses the UK currency. One sets its own taxes, the other doesn't.

 

The IOM is autonomous except for foreign affairs; Scotland is an integral part of the UK with a few devolved responsibilities. But the crux is that one is not part of the UK, and the other is.

 

Frankly, I think that the IOM's constitutional arrangements are bizarre, and it is issues such as this (EU membership and relations with America) which show how anomalous and unsatisfactory they are. The island really needs to have a debate over whether it would be better off fully independent, or as a UK county. I have to say it is a hard one to call. It would be great to be independent, but I don't think the IOM is big enough for it to be practicable. And I don't think a federation of the isles would work too well, either.

 

S

[Skeddan]

UK Treasury moved quickly to deny Mr Darling was considering a review of the constitutional relationship with the Crown Dependencies.

That makes it quite clear that the constitutional relationship is not up for review.

 

The relevant part of Treasury Select Committee session is well worth watching.

 

As I see it Darling is 'side-pedalling' with this comment.

 

One of the things that came out of the hearing is a lot of people might have invested in schemes in IoM through UK financial institutions without appreciating this was not protected and regulated as a UK scheme. The point is made by Chairman of FSA that nothing in the fine print implied the scheme would be protected, but Darling seems to come close to slipping into accepting that many depositors might have had 'reasonable expectation' they would be protected. Together with consumer contracts legislation and EU regulations this could be awkward (arguably the contract etc. would have to be clearly spell out and explain to consumers that it is not regulated by UK and not covered by UK depositor protection, and explain IoM regulation and deposit protection).

 

Potentially then many depositors in KSF IoM might claim right to be covered under UK depositor protection. Worse, HMG could be in the firing line due to negligence of FSA and Treasury in allowing such products to be sold in this manner without proper contracts. The Select Committee didn't get as far as that, but possibly Darling felt it might be getting a bit hot and awkward, and turning to the regulatory relationship with IoM in this way was probably an astute move, accepting that the regulatory framework needs to be looked at if it is leading to "people not being clear about what their various rights and responsibilities are".

 

This is partly conceding room for improvement, and a need to ensure there is clarity. Such acceptance of a need for a long hard look (carefully and slowly over a long time) sidesteps any immediate question of KSF IoM depositor rights under EU consumer contracts regulations.

 

A second thing of note is that this response comes after some questions that could potentially have been quite awkward. UK Treasury owes responsibility to UK depositors. However transfer of £550m to KSF UK happened after UK Treasury aware of problems in Iceland, and that there was this threat to the UK's security. UK is responsible for IoM's international relations, so appropriate advice and updates on the situation arguably should have been given - and according to Lord Turner, does not seem to have happened. Had this happened, quite possibly the £550m would not have been transferred to KSF UK. This is close to opening up a huge can of worms - with very awkward questions one would not want to have to answer on the hoof.

 

Hence - as I see it - the issues raised may very understandably have prompted Darling to make this statement of needing to take a long hard look at the financial regulatory framework with IoM.

 

The relevant section is about 17mins long from 1:30.30:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00fl...ttees_08112008/

[pongo]

They are not different versions of semi-autonomous.

 

Yes they are.

[Sebrof]

They are not different versions of semi-autonomous.

 

Yes they are.

 

To save you time:

 

Sebrof: No they're not!

 

Pongo: Yes they are!

 

Sebrof: No they're not!

 

Pongo: Yes they are!

 

Sebrof: No they're not!

 

Pongo: Yes they are!

 

Sebrof: No they're not!

 

Pongo: Yes they are!

 

And so on.............

 

S

[Skeddan]

"Our meeting was most positive," chief minister Brown says. "I am pleased we have received assurances the UK has no plans to examine the constitutional relationship between us, a relationship which remains robust and is clearly defined by a framework signed between our two governments in 2007."

 

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=826358

 

No surprises there. (though notion that it is clearly defined by the 2007 document is very questionable).

 

... the exact nature of the constitutional relationship is one which the UK will continue to keep a tight lid on. .... I'm sure if Tony Brown has any doubts over this, it will soon be put to rest.

 

Edit to add:

 

This from interview with TB on MR:

 

"The big point was in relation to the statement about our constitutional position, and that was why I had the meeting with Jack Straw – and I think we need to recognise that to get a meeting at that level in a very short time shows the seriousness not only we showed on it, but also that they saw on it."

 

http://www.manxradio.com/readNEwsItem.aspx?id=27996

 

I think this just shows the UK didn't want to waste any time setting this to rest or have people speculating about the constitutional position.

 

Silly thing is Alistair Darling never made any statement about hte constitutional relationship - TB was just getting knickers in a twist over this - or perhaps claiming credit for having 'resolved' what was always a non-issue.