Mec Vannin Make Believe

[VinnieK]

It's not an accurate critique, but it does show some understanding of literary criticism, although it is expressed in the most hackneyed terms. The failure to understand the metre and its use within the context of the poem is rather unpleasant to read. Not the product of education, nor a thoughtful critique - just Vinnie's usual crap.

 

I was wondering when you'd don an I.A. Richards or Kermode mask and pretend that you'd evaluated it to any depth beyond "Well, it's Manx, so it's clearly very, VERY good". I like the idea of "hackneyed terms" in criticism, a clever little way to imply credibility, but falls a bit short of the mark though since metre, structure and so forth are all fundamental aspects of poetry that are used in its study (unless you're a postmodernist, which would explain it: They'll clap their hands with glee at any old toss provided it came from the pen of someone who can claim even a shred of oppression or what have you in their history). If you want to counter anything said so far then by all means please do, you don't have to stay in that comfortable groove you've worn in the sidelines from which you hurl poor insults and even poorer poets at me.

 

Not that I wish to dismiss William Kennish's actual accomplishments. He was a talented man who achieved much in his life and became an excellent engineer, especially admirable given humble beginnings and a lack of formal schooling. As a poet, however, he was largely mediocre. This he largely admits himself, describing it as "rude" in one of his prefaces, as does the rest of the world in so much as he is virtually unknown as a poet outside of the Isle of Man. Why you would want him to be anything more than the fine man he was is as much an insult to his memory as it is a mystery. Well, perhaps it's not a mystery since it's clear that you desperately want him to be a master poet so you can bask in the reflected glory by mere virtue of being Manx, and lend your own opinions a pleasing amount of pathos by forming an example of another great Manxman overlooked by the world. You silly sausage.

[Freggyragh]

No, Vinnie you a silly sausage. A silly, silly sausage.

[staaue]

It's not an accurate critique, but it does show some understanding of literary criticism, although it is expressed in the most hackneyed terms. The failure to understand the metre and its use within the context of the poem is rather unpleasant to read. Not the product of education, nor a thoughtful critique - just Vinnie's usual crap.

 

I was wondering when you'd don an I.A. Richards or Kermode mask and pretend that you'd evaluated it to any depth beyond "Well, it's Manx, so it's clearly very, VERY good". I like the idea of "hackneyed terms" in criticism, a clever little way to imply credibility, but falls a bit short of the mark though since metre, structure and so forth are all fundamental aspects of poetry that are used in its study (unless you're a postmodernist, which would explain it: They'll clap their hands with glee at any old toss provided it came from the pen of someone who can claim even a shred of oppression or what have you in their history). If you want to counter anything said so far then by all means please do, you don't have to stay in that comfortable groove you've worn in the sidelines from which you hurl poor insults and even poorer poets at me.

 

Not that I wish to dismiss William Kennish's actual accomplishments. He was a talented man who achieved much in his life and became an excellent engineer, especially admirable given humble beginnings and a lack of formal schooling. As a poet, however, he was largely mediocre. This he largely admits himself, describing it as "rude" in one of his prefaces, as does the rest of the world in so much as he is virtually unknown as a poet outside of the Isle of Man. Why you would want him to be anything more than the fine man he was is as much an insult to his memory as it is a mystery. Well, perhaps it's not a mystery since it's clear that you desperately want him to be a master poet so you can bask in the reflected glory by mere virtue of being Manx, and lend your own opinions a pleasing amount of pathos by forming an example of another great Manxman overlooked by the world. You silly sausage.

 

Come on, give us a poem Vinnie the bard. I bet you have one about how shoit the Manks are.

[Skeddan]

Before this turns into a sausage sizzle...

 

Freggyragh's pastiche of VinnieK, while being very witty and perhaps justified, clearly did not address VinnieK's main point about meter and structure - as made in his earlier comment:

 

the techniques he uses to convey this meaning add nothing where they could be used to great effect. Instead the poem's power and scope for expression is limited by a bland rhythm, and an unvarying pace that serves only to create a sense of monotony as the poem draws towards its anticlimax

 

VinnieK, I don't think your observations about the rhythm etc are off the mark, and are indeed relevant, I just think you might be missing the point that this is used for effect. You coud think of it in terms of a funeral march, dominated by monotonous bland pace (like a state funeral may be monotonous with black, steady drumbeat and the like) with the 'unstructured' cadences of a cry of lament in the background. The one Manks word 'te' provides the dynamic which counterpoints against this - which is also - as Freggyragh noted - is Manks for ' 'tis' - and to do with 'to be' - the sound itself gives its own emphasis and this is by far the strongest sound in the work and is the crux of the 'climax'/'anticlimax' delivered in the last line. The funeral march evocations also (to my mind) work with the duality found in the poem touched upon earlier - sleep/death - and, given the other symbolism and meanings employed, the cry of lament one can recognise as being also akin to that of a war-cry, and what on one level is a kind of funeral march become evocative of another kind of march, albeit that this is buried beneath the apparent resignation to the death. Thus in itself this rhythm is perhaps being used to express what is perhaps a sense of underground opposition.

 

However this is a very simplistic view, and there is much more depth to it that may be appreciated from the last line "Te osier reeds shall sigh your funeral dirge". This last line should show that the poem is not as simple as maybe might have been gathered so far. To my mind the sound of 'Te osier reeds' itself evokes a kind of incantation which given its layers of meaning shows how this counterpoints with the funeral dirge, and gives a new sense to the undercurrents of the poem. The ossier/willow symbolism and the reeds - used at Tynwald, but being evocative also of ancient Egypt, Ra, and the waters receeding... all of which tie in with the sacred and poetic - which is indeed 'sighed', which of itself is breathing - and not shouted, thus in its 'anticlimax' whispers how what may be thought to be dead is still alive. As might be gathered from the one Manks word and the sound of it, language and poetry is here being presented as an 'act' of resistance against the death of the country, its language and culture. It is not a war cry, but rather a voice. Maybe the voice of someone who wears the bottoms of their trousers rolled rather than an impatient hothead, and it may be softly spoken, but it speaks firmly and well.

 

But that is just a view - and there is much more depth to this poem than I have been able to lay out. Also I have nothing like the insight, depth of understanding or patient study that would be needed to be able to make anything like an informed comment on the work. Also I don't profess any proficiency whatsoever in literary criticism and my clumsy attempt to try to show that the rhythm and pace are important is no doubt open to ridicule as cliche, shallow, trite etc.

 

What I would suggest is if you look at the poem again, and give it more credit that you are inclined to, you will hopefully get more from it. Rather than rush to find fault, look for what might be of greater worth that you are missing. The words of the First Folio are good ones to keep in mind, and are applicable not only when reading the Bard, but when reading other poets as well: “read him, therefore, and again and again; and if then you do not like him, surely you are in some manifest danger not to understand him.”

[Skeddan]

describing it as "rude" in one of his prefaces

 

VinnieK, Shakespeare describes his work as 'untutored lines' and 'unpolished lines' in the prefaces of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece. What conclusions might be drawn from that about these poems? I think that this might alert one to look more closely at the work than one might otherwise. Remember the lines from Ovid Shakespeare gives - translated something like 'let base conceited wits admire vulgar things, I shall drink from Phoebus' springs'.

 

VinnieK - the rest of what you have to say seems to just descend into being highly presumptuous and just plain rude, arrogant and aggressive. Instead of thinking the worst of people and pouring scorn on them and gaining nothing and getting nowhere, use your intelligence in ways that would do you credit and which might be valued by others. If you read what you write, and consider how you would attack it in the manner you often do, I think you will start to get an idea of how you often come across. It's a shame because amidst that there is evidently intelligence, perceptiveness and some worthwhile insights, but more often than not it is lost.

 

Anyway, apart from all that I was feeling a bit left out - can't I be a silly sausage too!

[Skeddan]

have you done your basic research yet...

 

The article I'm referring to was the one I quoted from at:

 

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/mquart/mq14134.htm

 

The key point of note is Niocail'sl description of the events of 1899, representations to Whitehall and the manner of 'sprinkling cold water' that he describes. As I noted in the previous post this corresponds to the description given by the English school inspector of 1908, and is entirely consistent with 'colonial education' of the late 19th - early/mid 20th C (and in some cases up to 1970's as in Australia). Given all that together with the endorsement and it being evident that Niocaill obtained his information from local sources, I don't find his account to lack credibility when it comes to what he says about what went on in current memory of the time he was writing. (i.e. events of 1899 and very beginning of 20th C).

 

It is true Niocaill might have been an Irish nationalist, but that alone does not mean his facts are wrong, particularly given the endorsement as noted. It does mean that perhaps he is viewing facts from a perspective which is 'other' than one which is anglophile. As you will appreciate there has been a reappraisal of Irish history in recent years which is from a non-anglophile perspective, but that does not undermine the validity or soundness of what is presented.

 

The basic research which should be carried out is not to show that Niocaill might have had a non-anglophile perspective, but should be to confirm/disconfirm what he says about the number of teachers who were English in 1900-1914, the very specific information he gives about how Whitehall responded, about 1/2 hour a week being allowed in three schools, and this being dropped, etc. and to examine what happened in the school boards in the three years it took Whitehall to respond. I have not done this - but I have not written papers on the topic as others have done - and they have not done this either, despite drawing conclusions that overlook such evidence. However the number of teachers who were English is not the only point of relevance - as Niocaill observes, even Manx teachers could be 'persuaded' by a 'sprinkling of cold water' and having a 'hint' dropped in the manner of 'facilitating successful leadership'. Equally some English were supportive and positive - others not. One might look at how British songs were introduced into schools - and Manks songs displaced, etc. etc. I'd be delighted if you have details to either confirm/disconfirm Niocaill's observations about the events of 1899-1914 - this would be valuable whichever way - unfortunately I have not had access to such material. Perhaps one day there will be a reappraisal and a study made which does not commence by making the kinds of assumptions that are so often made, or which remain stuck within the kind of paradigm you seem to be so anxious to maintain in your insistence of how things were.

 

There was no official scheme to outlaw the manks language - the courts continued to use it

 

my whole argument all along was that there was not a "Great English Conspiracy to Kill Off the Manks Language" but a whole collection of decisions, many well meaning and probably at the time the best, that led to its decline

 

I've said it was insiduous, not a conspiracy, but there was certainly colonialist type approaches by the British to assimilate Manks to become anglicised, and Whitehall certainly played a part in this. English became the official language - and teh courts did not continue to use Manks - as can be seen (apart from cermonial as at Tynwald or for witness statments - just as these could also be given in French or Dutch or other foreign language besides Manks). As for 'conspiracy', it was you who seemed to be saying it was some kind of great conspiracy - but by the Manx! That aside, there was a process of anglicisation, stigmatisation of the language, etc. Indeed much of this was probably 'well meaning' - just as colonialism was often 'well meaning' - bringing 'civilisation' to the savages and allowing them the priviledge of becoming productive subjects of the glorious British Empire. (Equally the Spanish conquistadors were 'well meaning' wanting to save the souls of the heathen). To get an idea of how this was indeed 'well meaning' you should watch an Australian film called 'Rabbit Proof Fence' about Colonial Education in Australia in the 1970's. People who mean well can still behaved badly, and the people who are the target of their good intentions do not always benefit from their efforts (sometimes showing marked stubborness and ingratitude!).

 

You say these decisions were 'probably at the time the best' - from whose standpoint and by what criteria do you judge this? Would adopting the same viewpoint then show that at the time the cultural genocide of Australian Aboriginals was 'for the best' - does this mean it should have been carried out more fully than it was? (Right decision, but mediocre execution!). Personally I think such moralising is simply apologistic nonsense - what happened happened - it shouldn't have to be whitewashed with this kind of stuff. Equally I think the kind of Mec Vannin skewed history is simply distortions to support moralising hogwash. Getting to grips with the realities of what did or did not happen is however important in understanding the history and is relevant to the question of the UK's treatment of IoM as an 'inner colony', its subjugation of IoM, and the nature of the political and constitutional relationship (which contra to what you say about this being simply 'academic', still has bearing today - as may be seen from the recent fiasco over the scallop beds - see the 'Scallop survey results defended' thread).

[Frances]

suggest you check out 1881 census - easy to determine origin - free on line (hint look at the number of 'pupil teachers')

+ 1901 census (I'm sure you can afford it)

then look at examiner annuals which list all paid teachers on the Island - hint look at the headships as well to see how the 1881 intake got promoted

you're a big boy now and I'm sure you can do your own research instead of relying on others

re the scallops - I'm sure that Phil Gawne relishes being called an agent of English Imperialism

[Skeddan]

I can indeed do my own research - as I said, this isn't my main area of interest - the point is others who write on this might have done this research, but haven't. As I said, I think there is reasonable prima facie evidence for now to suppose it to be correct. It's something else again to suppose that some sources can be neglected and others credited simply because they marry with one's own opinion. You are quick to dismiss Niocail, so it might be more incumbent on you to show his information is not correct. More to the point, isn't this an area which ought to be properly studied and researched?

 

I don't rely on others to do research so much as some others might do - e.g. relying on secondary sources that state that IoM was granted to Beaumont (when it wasn't) - (hint, look at Munch's misdating, hint, look at the ordinances of 1311).

 

What I do rely on a great deal is having access to documents - and on that I am enormously grateful to you (even though we may disagree about interpretations etc. and though may have 'spats' I hope I have not offended you and there are no ill-feelings).

 

Re scallops (and all that recent talk of 'plunder' in the news) maybe Gawne has been a push-over for UK fishing interests by ommission rather than commission, but I don't think I called him an agent for Imperialism which sounds Very Grand, and probably much too high-powered and suggests he might have some initiative of his own in this kind of exploitation of Manx resources. I think I might have called Phil Gawne a "big Pavola" - I'm not sure it's the same thing, though I doubt he'd relish being called that either.

[Frances]

to help others - by 1906 less than 10% teachers had non-manx names (apart from a couple of Douglas schools I would estimate that all other heads Manx but names are no guarantee so obviously I would expect any student to do the actual leg work)

in 1881 about 20% English (+slightly less Irish/Scots) but not always clear at which school they taught with a large amount of Manx born pupil teachers as the 'the imperialist' 1872 act also provided a formalised qualification scheme via pupil teachership which was quickly seized upon (in fact my grandfather came over from Ireland to England specially for such a placement combined with formal training but somewhat later) - I suspect many Manx trained teachers got jobs in England.

[EORH]

I wasn't going to post in this thread but I've read what you have posted previously in your lofty position of not living here, reading a couple of threads, and then looking at our constitution and deciding we are being ripped off.

 

oldmanxfella, it appears as if you might be suggesting that only someone who lives on IoM is entitled to hold or express an opinion on Manx affairs. Evidently you don't take issue with people on Manxforums posting opinions about international affairs, and as I see, consider yourself entitled to express an opinion on Russia (I take it you are not Russian yourself and do not live there). Your comment thus might seem to be somewhat hypocritical, but I trust I am right in thinking that this is only intended to stress your scorn and contempt and what you believe is an ill-informed opinion.

 

Of course you're entitled to argue that I am poorly-informed in many respects of Manx affairs, and I have no difficulty with you having such an opinion, and I would even go so far as to say that I wouldn't entirely disagree with you.

 

I will readily admit that I am not well informed about many of the details of the financial arrangements between the UK and IoM, but neither is anyone since these are shrouded in secrecy and there is no transparency or accountability in these. I doubt anyone who is properly informed could divulge the real facts without breaking the UK Official Secrets Act. You speak of "a rumoured £300m". If all one has to go on is rumours, then I don't think one can be particularly well informed, and I think that goes for most of the Manx electorate as well. Personally I'd be inclined to count the money before thinking I'd got the best end of the deal.

 

You might also bear in mind accounting ruses. The Ridley Scott film Alien, which was a major international blockbuster earning hundreds of millions, never went into profit. The film studio added all the paper costs they could and so those entitled to a share of net profits never saw any. 'Paper costs' of such a magnitude are a good way of making people think that they are 'better off with Britain'.

 

However seeing as you're so confident there is so much money flowing in thanks to the generosity of the UK government, perhaps you should be concerned that with the UK govt on track to get very cash-strapped over Northern Rock, that perhaps this generosity will end, leaving IoM in the kind of financial difficulties you describe. Funny how with such a risk exposure in its dependency on this rumoured money that IoM still gets a AAA rating. Perhaps the analysts don't give as much credence to these rumours as you do.

 

Also as mentioned by Cheeky Boy - the oil and gas platforms are all UK territory anyway so again what is being plundered? We've no oil rigs and the fish and scallops dried up years ago!

 

Oil and gas fields stretch over miles and are not confined solely to the site of the well-head. In the North Sea oil is being extracted from the same fields on both sides of the Norwegian and UK EEZs. Oil and gas fields happily cross international borders and EEZ boundaries. As I said before, there are huge oil and gas reserves in the Irish Sea, perhaps not to the extent of Iraq or Alaska, or what the North Sea used to be, but still very significant. Look at the map and see for yourself how much of the Irish Sea would fall within a Manx EEZ. The existing platforms are not that far outside where the Manx EEZ would lie, and would no doubt be closer to the UK if the field ran there. I would think it far from unlikely that the field extends some way into what would be the Manx EEZ. The UK rigs are pumping out gas from a field which probably mainly lies within what would be the Manx EEZ, and getting all the benefits because IoM is not in on the act. I wouldn't claim to be able to put a value on oil and gas rights within what would be the Manx EEZ, but the revenues that the IoM might earn from licenses, let alone other economic benefits, would probably be a mite bigger and more real revenue than your rumoured £300 million a year.

 

You say the fish and scallops dried up years ago. Was this because Manx fleets overfished these? Or was it because the fisheries in what would be a Manx EEZ were not protected, and hence these resources which would have been for the benefit of the IoM were exploited by others?

 

Perhaps unless one lives there one cannot assess whether IoM is getting value for money for its contribution to defence. Maybe this is reassuring if Manx would otherwise live in fear of Axis of Evil forces sailing up the Irish Sea and landing on the beaches of Chapel Bay. (Why they would want to when according to you IoM has no value or resources is to be wondered at). I take it that in your view the UK and UN would not take issue at this or take any action were it not for the payments being made. Here is another area in which I am ill informed, for despite all this money being paid I don't know of any treaty incorporated by an Act of Parliament which binds the UK to act for the defence of IoM in return for such payments. It seems money is being paid for something the UK is under no obligation to deliver. Not worried by this oversight? I don't think most people would be worried at a lack of response to such an invasion if not a penny was paid to the UK for 'defence'. Historically the lesson is that the UK has always got more benefit from the IoM for support of its conflicts than vice versa. What would the UK do if IoM refused to pay? Make rumoured cuts in the "rumoured revenue"? Invade and occupy? It seems you haven't noticed that they've already done that, some time ago. It used to be that IoM had this protection for only a token tribute of two falcons rendered at the coronation day, and had complete autonomy, now you pay nefgildi and are under the subjugation of the UK.

 

There are other points you raise that I'd be happy to address if you like, but let me turn to a point of potential misunderstanding. It would seem from your last statement that you think I am advocating independence and a complete break from the UK. As I admitted earlier, I am not well enough informed, and so would not be able to substantiate such a position. The information needed to make an informed assessment is, funnily enough, a matter of state secrecy and protected under the UK Official Secrets Act. (Presumably because it is not in the UK's national interest for there to be informed debate on the topic). Ill-informed debate tends to break down and gets nowhere (apart from perhaps creating rifts, divisions and ill feelings). I would however advocate the right to self-determination as given by the UN - do you find that objectionable?

 

As I noted earlier I believe the constitutional relationship between IoM and the UK is that of a territory under the control of an 'Administering Power' and that the UK does not have legal title to the sovereignty of IoM. That is something I could go into detail about if you care to go into the legal ins and outs, and show that this explains the otherwise 'positively bizarre' and otherwise unknown legal status of 'Crown Dependency'. It also explains, incidentally, why the Queen is not head of state of the Isle of Man and is never listed as such officially (contra to what you claim, presumably on the basis of being ill-informed by the Manx Administration).

 

I admit I may not have put forward "what the alternative to our position is". The only alternative to your position I can suggest is being well informed and getting to the truth of the situation (which I trust you would admit has always been fudged, such as in Kilbrandon Report). Perhaps my analysis may turn out to be wrong and will be disproved. However until there is a mature and sensible exploration of the issues and an informed debate, there is not likely to be any alternative.

 

Perhaps oldmanxfella, you are better informed than I, and can give a satisfactory and coherent explanation of the constitutional and legal nature of the constitutional relationship between IoM and UK which does not parrot Kilbrandon's non-answer. If not, then given your evidently strong feelings about being ill informed about Manx affairs, I am sure you would want to get to the bottom of this, and, whichever, agree or disagree, if you care and have something to say, and can offer informed insights, I'd sincerely welcome your input into addressing this question.

I noticed that Kate Beecroft was asking a question on why the Isle of Man was paying £3million to the UK for Defense,and of course Allan Bell's answer.

I found this long statement from 2008 about the constitutional arrangement with the UK,it mentions Defense payments etc,what if the Isle of Man Government refused to pay,what would they do,and what would happen,reading this view by Skeddan sure opens up a good arguement,what do others think,linking back to the original subject,IE Mec Vannin,some who contributed to this are still around,the question is are we being kidded by the UK,it also mentions the so-called £300million VAT agreement,they didn't know at that time what was to come with the VAT loss.

[Chris Thomas]

I wasn't going to post in this thread but I've read what you have posted previously in your lofty position of not living here, reading a couple of threads, and then looking at our constitution and deciding we are being ripped off.

 

oldmanxfella, it appears as if you might be suggesting that only someone who lives on IoM is entitled to hold or express an opinion on Manx affairs. Evidently you don't take issue with people on Manxforums posting opinions about international affairs, and as I see, consider yourself entitled to express an opinion on Russia (I take it you are not Russian yourself and do not live there). Your comment thus might seem to be somewhat hypocritical, but I trust I am right in thinking that this is only intended to stress your scorn and contempt and what you believe is an ill-informed opinion.

 

Of course you're entitled to argue that I am poorly-informed in many respects of Manx affairs, and I have no difficulty with you having such an opinion, and I would even go so far as to say that I wouldn't entirely disagree with you.

 

I will readily admit that I am not well informed about many of the details of the financial arrangements between the UK and IoM, but neither is anyone since these are shrouded in secrecy and there is no transparency or accountability in these. I doubt anyone who is properly informed could divulge the real facts without breaking the UK Official Secrets Act. You speak of "a rumoured £300m". If all one has to go on is rumours, then I don't think one can be particularly well informed, and I think that goes for most of the Manx electorate as well. Personally I'd be inclined to count the money before thinking I'd got the best end of the deal.

 

You might also bear in mind accounting ruses. The Ridley Scott film Alien, which was a major international blockbuster earning hundreds of millions, never went into profit. The film studio added all the paper costs they could and so those entitled to a share of net profits never saw any. 'Paper costs' of such a magnitude are a good way of making people think that they are 'better off with Britain'.

 

However seeing as you're so confident there is so much money flowing in thanks to the generosity of the UK government, perhaps you should be concerned that with the UK govt on track to get very cash-strapped over Northern Rock, that perhaps this generosity will end, leaving IoM in the kind of financial difficulties you describe. Funny how with such a risk exposure in its dependency on this rumoured money that IoM still gets a AAA rating. Perhaps the analysts don't give as much credence to these rumours as you do.

 

Also as mentioned by Cheeky Boy - the oil and gas platforms are all UK territory anyway so again what is being plundered? We've no oil rigs and the fish and scallops dried up years ago!

 

Oil and gas fields stretch over miles and are not confined solely to the site of the well-head. In the North Sea oil is being extracted from the same fields on both sides of the Norwegian and UK EEZs. Oil and gas fields happily cross international borders and EEZ boundaries. As I said before, there are huge oil and gas reserves in the Irish Sea, perhaps not to the extent of Iraq or Alaska, or what the North Sea used to be, but still very significant. Look at the map and see for yourself how much of the Irish Sea would fall within a Manx EEZ. The existing platforms are not that far outside where the Manx EEZ would lie, and would no doubt be closer to the UK if the field ran there. I would think it far from unlikely that the field extends some way into what would be the Manx EEZ. The UK rigs are pumping out gas from a field which probably mainly lies within what would be the Manx EEZ, and getting all the benefits because IoM is not in on the act. I wouldn't claim to be able to put a value on oil and gas rights within what would be the Manx EEZ, but the revenues that the IoM might earn from licenses, let alone other economic benefits, would probably be a mite bigger and more real revenue than your rumoured £300 million a year.

 

You say the fish and scallops dried up years ago. Was this because Manx fleets overfished these? Or was it because the fisheries in what would be a Manx EEZ were not protected, and hence these resources which would have been for the benefit of the IoM were exploited by others?

 

Perhaps unless one lives there one cannot assess whether IoM is getting value for money for its contribution to defence. Maybe this is reassuring if Manx would otherwise live in fear of Axis of Evil forces sailing up the Irish Sea and landing on the beaches of Chapel Bay. (Why they would want to when according to you IoM has no value or resources is to be wondered at). I take it that in your view the UK and UN would not take issue at this or take any action were it not for the payments being made. Here is another area in which I am ill informed, for despite all this money being paid I don't know of any treaty incorporated by an Act of Parliament which binds the UK to act for the defence of IoM in return for such payments. It seems money is being paid for something the UK is under no obligation to deliver. Not worried by this oversight? I don't think most people would be worried at a lack of response to such an invasion if not a penny was paid to the UK for 'defence'. Historically the lesson is that the UK has always got more benefit from the IoM for support of its conflicts than vice versa. What would the UK do if IoM refused to pay? Make rumoured cuts in the "rumoured revenue"? Invade and occupy? It seems you haven't noticed that they've already done that, some time ago. It used to be that IoM had this protection for only a token tribute of two falcons rendered at the coronation day, and had complete autonomy, now you pay nefgildi and are under the subjugation of the UK.

 

There are other points you raise that I'd be happy to address if you like, but let me turn to a point of potential misunderstanding. It would seem from your last statement that you think I am advocating independence and a complete break from the UK. As I admitted earlier, I am not well enough informed, and so would not be able to substantiate such a position. The information needed to make an informed assessment is, funnily enough, a matter of state secrecy and protected under the UK Official Secrets Act. (Presumably because it is not in the UK's national interest for there to be informed debate on the topic). Ill-informed debate tends to break down and gets nowhere (apart from perhaps creating rifts, divisions and ill feelings). I would however advocate the right to self-determination as given by the UN - do you find that objectionable?

 

As I noted earlier I believe the constitutional relationship between IoM and the UK is that of a territory under the control of an 'Administering Power' and that the UK does not have legal title to the sovereignty of IoM. That is something I could go into detail about if you care to go into the legal ins and outs, and show that this explains the otherwise 'positively bizarre' and otherwise unknown legal status of 'Crown Dependency'. It also explains, incidentally, why the Queen is not head of state of the Isle of Man and is never listed as such officially (contra to what you claim, presumably on the basis of being ill-informed by the Manx Administration).

 

I admit I may not have put forward "what the alternative to our position is". The only alternative to your position I can suggest is being well informed and getting to the truth of the situation (which I trust you would admit has always been fudged, such as in Kilbrandon Report). Perhaps my analysis may turn out to be wrong and will be disproved. However until there is a mature and sensible exploration of the issues and an informed debate, there is not likely to be any alternative.

 

Perhaps oldmanxfella, you are better informed than I, and can give a satisfactory and coherent explanation of the constitutional and legal nature of the constitutional relationship between IoM and UK which does not parrot Kilbrandon's non-answer. If not, then given your evidently strong feelings about being ill informed about Manx affairs, I am sure you would want to get to the bottom of this, and, whichever, agree or disagree, if you care and have something to say, and can offer informed insights, I'd sincerely welcome your input into addressing this question.

I noticed that Kate Beecroft was asking a question on why the Isle of Man was paying £3million to the UK for Defense,and of course Allan Bell's answer.

I found this long statement from 2008 about the constitutional arrangement with the UK,it mentions Defense payments etc,what if the Isle of Man Government refused to pay,what would they do,and what would happen,reading this view by Skeddan sure opens up a good arguement,what do others think,linking back to the original subject,IE Mec Vannin,some who contributed to this are still around,the question is are we being kidded by the UK,it also mentions the so-called £300million VAT agreement,they didn't know at that time what was to come with the VAT loss.

 

Cables and pipes, windfarms, fish, coal and other minerals - these are all matters connected with the international waters in the British Exclusive Economic Zone surrounding the IOM's territorial seas. Zac Hall has been asking a series of questions about cables and pipes. 1980s and 1990s negotiations are relevant, but things probably changed with devolution in UK and with reciprocal arrangement renegotiation (revenue sharing, health etc.) in last few years. How should the IOM manage opportunities and risks now?

 

Centrica is speaking in Island next week about proposed Irish Sea Offshore windfarm between Anglesey and IOM. There is a constitutional-related quote in its leaflet:

 

"The zone .... was identified by Crown Estate in 2010 as potentially suitable for offshore wind development. The Crown Estate owns the majority of the seabed up to 12 nautical miles from the UK coastline and since 2004 has had the right to lease the seabed for the gneration of renewable energy out to the 200 nautical mile limit. The IOM Goverment owns the seabed around the IOM..... following a competitive tender process, the Crown Estate awarded Centrica the rights to develop offshore wind farms within the zone (subject to obtaining the necessary consents) in January 2010"

[manxie44]

I wasn't going to post in this thread but I've read what you have posted previously in your lofty position of not living here, reading a couple of threads, and then looking at our constitution and deciding we are being ripped off.

 

oldmanxfella, it appears as if you might be suggesting that only someone who lives on IoM is entitled to hold or express an opinion on Manx affairs. Evidently you don't take issue with people on Manxforums posting opinions about international affairs, and as I see, consider yourself entitled to express an opinion on Russia (I take it you are not Russian yourself and do not live there). Your comment thus might seem to be somewhat hypocritical, but I trust I am right in thinking that this is only intended to stress your scorn and contempt and what you believe is an ill-informed opinion.

 

Of course you're entitled to argue that I am poorly-informed in many respects of Manx affairs, and I have no difficulty with you having such an opinion, and I would even go so far as to say that I wouldn't entirely disagree with you.

 

I will readily admit that I am not well informed about many of the details of the financial arrangements between the UK and IoM, but neither is anyone since these are shrouded in secrecy and there is no transparency or accountability in these. I doubt anyone who is properly informed could divulge the real facts without breaking the UK Official Secrets Act. You speak of "a rumoured £300m". If all one has to go on is rumours, then I don't think one can be particularly well informed, and I think that goes for most of the Manx electorate as well. Personally I'd be inclined to count the money before thinking I'd got the best end of the deal.

 

You might also bear in mind accounting ruses. The Ridley Scott film Alien, which was a major international blockbuster earning hundreds of millions, never went into profit. The film studio added all the paper costs they could and so those entitled to a share of net profits never saw any. 'Paper costs' of such a magnitude are a good way of making people think that they are 'better off with Britain'.

 

However seeing as you're so confident there is so much money flowing in thanks to the generosity of the UK government, perhaps you should be concerned that with the UK govt on track to get very cash-strapped over Northern Rock, that perhaps this generosity will end, leaving IoM in the kind of financial difficulties you describe. Funny how with such a risk exposure in its dependency on this rumoured money that IoM still gets a AAA rating. Perhaps the analysts don't give as much credence to these rumours as you do.

 

Also as mentioned by Cheeky Boy - the oil and gas platforms are all UK territory anyway so again what is being plundered? We've no oil rigs and the fish and scallops dried up years ago!

 

Oil and gas fields stretch over miles and are not confined solely to the site of the well-head. In the North Sea oil is being extracted from the same fields on both sides of the Norwegian and UK EEZs. Oil and gas fields happily cross international borders and EEZ boundaries. As I said before, there are huge oil and gas reserves in the Irish Sea, perhaps not to the extent of Iraq or Alaska, or what the North Sea used to be, but still very significant. Look at the map and see for yourself how much of the Irish Sea would fall within a Manx EEZ. The existing platforms are not that far outside where the Manx EEZ would lie, and would no doubt be closer to the UK if the field ran there. I would think it far from unlikely that the field extends some way into what would be the Manx EEZ. The UK rigs are pumping out gas from a field which probably mainly lies within what would be the Manx EEZ, and getting all the benefits because IoM is not in on the act. I wouldn't claim to be able to put a value on oil and gas rights within what would be the Manx EEZ, but the revenues that the IoM might earn from licenses, let alone other economic benefits, would probably be a mite bigger and more real revenue than your rumoured £300 million a year.

 

You say the fish and scallops dried up years ago. Was this because Manx fleets overfished these? Or was it because the fisheries in what would be a Manx EEZ were not protected, and hence these resources which would have been for the benefit of the IoM were exploited by others?

 

Perhaps unless one lives there one cannot assess whether IoM is getting value for money for its contribution to defence. Maybe this is reassuring if Manx would otherwise live in fear of Axis of Evil forces sailing up the Irish Sea and landing on the beaches of Chapel Bay. (Why they would want to when according to you IoM has no value or resources is to be wondered at). I take it that in your view the UK and UN would not take issue at this or take any action were it not for the payments being made. Here is another area in which I am ill informed, for despite all this money being paid I don't know of any treaty incorporated by an Act of Parliament which binds the UK to act for the defence of IoM in return for such payments. It seems money is being paid for something the UK is under no obligation to deliver. Not worried by this oversight? I don't think most people would be worried at a lack of response to such an invasion if not a penny was paid to the UK for 'defence'. Historically the lesson is that the UK has always got more benefit from the IoM for support of its conflicts than vice versa. What would the UK do if IoM refused to pay? Make rumoured cuts in the "rumoured revenue"? Invade and occupy? It seems you haven't noticed that they've already done that, some time ago. It used to be that IoM had this protection for only a token tribute of two falcons rendered at the coronation day, and had complete autonomy, now you pay nefgildi and are under the subjugation of the UK.

 

There are other points you raise that I'd be happy to address if you like, but let me turn to a point of potential misunderstanding. It would seem from your last statement that you think I am advocating independence and a complete break from the UK. As I admitted earlier, I am not well enough informed, and so would not be able to substantiate such a position. The information needed to make an informed assessment is, funnily enough, a matter of state secrecy and protected under the UK Official Secrets Act. (Presumably because it is not in the UK's national interest for there to be informed debate on the topic). Ill-informed debate tends to break down and gets nowhere (apart from perhaps creating rifts, divisions and ill feelings). I would however advocate the right to self-determination as given by the UN - do you find that objectionable?

 

As I noted earlier I believe the constitutional relationship between IoM and the UK is that of a territory under the control of an 'Administering Power' and that the UK does not have legal title to the sovereignty of IoM. That is something I could go into detail about if you care to go into the legal ins and outs, and show that this explains the otherwise 'positively bizarre' and otherwise unknown legal status of 'Crown Dependency'. It also explains, incidentally, why the Queen is not head of state of the Isle of Man and is never listed as such officially (contra to what you claim, presumably on the basis of being ill-informed by the Manx Administration).

 

I admit I may not have put forward "what the alternative to our position is". The only alternative to your position I can suggest is being well informed and getting to the truth of the situation (which I trust you would admit has always been fudged, such as in Kilbrandon Report). Perhaps my analysis may turn out to be wrong and will be disproved. However until there is a mature and sensible exploration of the issues and an informed debate, there is not likely to be any alternative.

 

Perhaps oldmanxfella, you are better informed than I, and can give a satisfactory and coherent explanation of the constitutional and legal nature of the constitutional relationship between IoM and UK which does not parrot Kilbrandon's non-answer. If not, then given your evidently strong feelings about being ill informed about Manx affairs, I am sure you would want to get to the bottom of this, and, whichever, agree or disagree, if you care and have something to say, and can offer informed insights, I'd sincerely welcome your input into addressing this question.

I noticed that Kate Beecroft was asking a question on why the Isle of Man was paying £3million to the UK for Defense,and of course Allan Bell's answer.

I found this long statement from 2008 about the constitutional arrangement with the UK,it mentions Defense payments etc,what if the Isle of Man Government refused to pay,what would they do,and what would happen,reading this view by Skeddan sure opens up a good arguement,what do others think,linking back to the original subject,IE Mec Vannin,some who contributed to this are still around,the question is are we being kidded by the UK,it also mentions the so-called £300million VAT agreement,they didn't know at that time what was to come with the VAT loss.

 

Cables and pipes, windfarms, fish, coal and other minerals - these are all matters connected with the international waters in the British Exclusive Economic Zone surrounding the IOM's territorial seas. Zac Hall has been asking a series of questions about cables and pipes. 1980s and 1990s negotiations are relevant, but things probably changed with devolution in UK and with reciprocal arrangement renegotiation (revenue sharing, health etc.) in last few years. How should the IOM manage opportunities and risks now?

 

Centrica is speaking in Island next week about proposed Irish Sea Offshore windfarm between Anglesey and IOM. There is a constitutional-related quote in its leaflet:

 

"The zone .... was identified by Crown Estate in 2010 as potentially suitable for offshore wind development. The Crown Estate owns the majority of the seabed up to 12 nautical miles from the UK coastline and since 2004 has had the right to lease the seabed for the gneration of renewable energy out to the 200 nautical mile limit. The IOM Goverment owns the seabed around the IOM..... following a competitive tender process, the Crown Estate awarded Centrica the rights to develop offshore wind farms within the zone (subject to obtaining the necessary consents) in January 2010"

 

Nice to see this has developed into a proper debate, and that you have left the foul mouthed, ill-informed [if informed at all] behind, together with their apparent hatred of the Manx. This hatred would seem two come from the new residents from one country, cursing everyone and everything around the world. Our only consolation is that most of the rest of the world certainly hate them