Mec Vannin Make Believe

[Frances]

Skeddan - have you actually read Vol 1 ? - you can order a paperback copy in a plain wrapper from Manx Museum shop - like most academic texts it has those strange things called 'references' which give access to the work of others so as to provide a basis for any claims made. ELF "demonstrated the fact that the chance of finding a commercial field was now minimal due to the fact that the Holywell Shale was absent, having been eroded during late Carboniferous to early Permian times" - basically your assertions of a gas/oil field in Manx waters are 250Myears too late! If you are prepared to do a detailed plot of the charts then it may be possible that in the far corner of any Manx EEZ there is a possibility of drilling sideways into the periphery of the Northern field (which is estimated about 25% or less of the southern field) but I suspect any returns would be minimal but I await your detailed findings.

 

Now there may be a case re fishing - the agreement with UK re merger of fishing interests was some years in the past when possibly there was still a few Manx boats left to exploit non-manx waters - now that shell-fish are the mainstay of Manx fishing and given the debacle of the Peel scallop bed there may well be a case for revisiting this - however the Shetland and Orkney fisheries seem to handle things well without the need for special zones.

 

To return to the status of the IoM wrt UK then it may be worth re-reading James Gell's volume (now about 130yrs old) in Manx Soc volumes which looks at the various gifts to the Stanley family from a lawyer's viewpoint but as I said this is of purely academic interest given the grant by James and the subsequent 400 years of agreements.

[Freggyragh]

Frances - are you judging today's situation by 18th C standards?

 

Have you actually read Skeddan's posts? There are available without any wrapper - they are in this thread. The question being asked is - What does 'Crown Dependency' mean?

[Frances]

IMO and I am not a lawyer, like most things connected with the UK and its lack of constitution, it means whatever the current generation wants it to mean! - that the English Crown acquired it by conquest of the Scots is not I think in dispute, but quite what the status of the Island was then I'm not sure - vassal state to Norway, given to the Pope, independent Kingdom ? - and if you read James Gell (ManxSoc vol 12 ) you will see he too avoids defining exactly what it means - wriggle room has meant that both parties (Mann + UK) can reach some acceptable position and the boundary between local and London control shifts over time.

 

Since you seem aware of the detailed work that Skeddan has put in and yet he does not seem able to post any reference to it I presume you and he are the same ?.

[triskelion]

According to wikipedia:

'Although the dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom, the Parliament at Westminster has a competency and ability to legislate directly for them, although by convention does not often do so without the consent of their insular legislatures.'

[Freggyragh]

Yeah, right! That's hilarious Frances - only yesterday I was asking a moderator to confirm to Skeddan that I am not a sockpuppet for Drew 'King David' Howe!

[Freggyragh]

But at least we've moved on from Wittgenstien.

[Gladys]

IMO and I am not a lawyer, like most things connected with the UK and its lack of constitution, it means whatever the current generation wants it to mean! - that the English Crown acquired it by conquest of the Scots is not I think in dispute, but quite what the status of the Island was then I'm not sure - vassal state to Norway, given to the Pope, independent Kingdom ? - and if you read James Gell (ManxSoc vol 12 ) you will see he too avoids defining exactly what it means - wriggle room has meant that both parties (Mann + UK) can reach some acceptable position and the boundary between local and London control shifts over time.

 

Since you seem aware of the detailed work that Skeddan has put in and yet he does not seem able to post any reference to it I presume you and he are the same ?.

 

Without wishing to appear pedantic, the UK does have a constitution, (i.e. a body of law setting out what the 'state' is and how it relates to its citizens and other states) but not an embodied, written constitution. It is an easy mistake to make, and whether it is a good thing or not is constantly debated by academics on the quesiton.

[Frances]

Gladys - yes my reply was somewhat flippant but by not having a written constitution things can change yet 'be the same' - your definition of constitution is an operational one rather than a fixed in 'stone' written constitution (tho even the Americans have used great ingenuity in interpreting theirs) - if you look at the 1911 report on the constitution (http://www.manxnotebook.com/history/1911/index.htm (Macdonnell inquiry which gives a fairly concise history) you can see how much things have changed in 100 years tho I guess the one clear point is that London still has ultimate power but is constrained by convention from using it too blatently - even under the days of the Kingdom of the Isles care was taken not to provoke Norway too much as Mann was a vassall state

[Gladys]

That is both the attraction and frustration of an unwritten constitution.

 

An observation may be that the countries with written constitutions expend more energy in circumventing the letter of the constitution than we ever expend in observing the spirit of the unwritten constitution, whether here or in the UK.

 

Just a small point.

[staaue]

A belated 'fialt er oo' My Kiwi King of the sea. (for those of you who are English speakers, it's Manks for welcome)

 

Keep up the good work mate , you're very much verbally kicking their arses.

 

Frances, if I recall correctly a debate with you some time back, when you called Illiam Dhone all manner of bad things. Even claiming that Illiam had gotten a young girl in his charge pregnant etc. You also were substantiating this claim with very little or reliable evidence...!! The reason I bring this up, is because I find you chirping on here about someone not giving convincing (to you) evidence or sources.

 

Skeddan, I am enjoying your threads, except the first one about Illiam and the Sons of Mann; I've spent many years trying to understand who he was and why he did what he did. Very few people really understand Illiam Christian to the best of their ability. That said, if he was alive today, I wouldn't think that much of him, after all he was an English servant who believed himself higher than most around him. I believe Illiam Christian was indeed working in his best/own interests; who the hell doesn't (Frances). But his actions teach us that the man was a patriot at the end of the day, and a very Manks mannanagh mie at that. Any true Manksman or woman would be happy to salute him for his final act.

 

Skeddan, your first post did upset me a lot, so please ellaborate more on these views, if I'm wrong or misled in anyway about my nationality, then I want to learn why. I sure you would also enjoy learning some more on this subject, due to you starting a post all about it.

 

Your first post 0/10 but all the others 10/10 for content and interest.

 

I hope we hear more from you.

 

Regards.

Staaue.

[Skeddan]

Skeddan, despite your focus on the question of the EEZ, the main point of your argument has been that the Manx are subjugated and made fools of by a foreign power who control us via a "Quisling government".

 

VinnieK, yes, in essence you are right here, although you characterise, and have characterised, my view in loaded language (“made fools of”, “wicked imperialist plot”). It is right to clarify exactly what it is that is being said and what exactly my main argument is. The ‘plain vanilla’ version of my main argument is this:

IoM is under the subjugation of the UK which is the ‘Administering Power’, and the the IoM Administration is essentially the civil affairs administration of the Administering Power, and subject to its control and influence.

 

To save sifting through the thread, here are the key points I have so far put forward on this issue:

 

In post #13:

 

If you are under the mistaken belief that there was a legitimate purchase of the sovereignty of the Isle of Man, you should bear in mind that the King of England cannot acquire anything but by matter of judicial record. There is no such judicial record; even the so-called contract for the sale is non-existent (try finding it in the National Archives - I can send you a copy of an email from them confirming the 'file' which should hold this is empty!), and Manx sovereignty could no more be acquired by a public act of Parliament than it would be possible to acquire the sovereignty of Japan by this method.

 

English monarchs, such as Queen Victoria, have always, very properly, declined to adopt this title. Official statements show the Queen is head of state of 16 countries (if you count them up and cross reference these, you will see it should be 17 IF she were head of state of IoM, which is NEVER included). and the responsibility for 'good government' is exactly the responsibility of an Occupying Power over territory under its effective control. 'Crown Dependency' is a nice euphemism for a territory whose sovereignty is under the subjugation of the Crown of England (otherwise it is a constitutional anomaly unknown in law).

 

Then in post #341 in the ‘King of Mann’ thread, and which was referred to in this thread (as below), I responded to Frances with the following:

 

'Crown Dependency' - this sounds Very Special, but what does it actually signify? Can you perhaps explain what that is? (The Kilbrandon Report couldn't, or chose not to). Is it a personal union or a political union, or something else - if so, what? Do you perhaps go along with the idea that it is some bizzare peculiarity that defies rational explanation and falls outside the compass of legal understanding? (Very Special indeed, but not a very good basis for a supposed legal title). As far as I can see, the only coherent explanation is that this is a euphemism for territory over which the Crown exercises de facto sovereignty without having legal title (as in the case of territory held by an Occupying Power or Administering Power - which has responsiblity for good government - and under ergo omnes principles of international law has only limited powers to impose laws on the territory (principles of international law which the UK has, for the most part respected and adhered to 'by convention'). Occam's Razor can also be applied to legal questions, and it is not very sound to invent anomalous entities for the reification of an invented term.

 

 

Then in post #100 in response to Frances saying she thought my arguments could be ‘neglected’, I responded:

 

I have offered a perfectly cogent and coherent explanation of the constitutional relationship between IoM and the UK, offered prima facie support for this view, noted that there has never been any clear and coherent alternative explanation offered, noted that such explanations have consistently been fudged, and indicated that there are serious, if no insurmountable difficulties in putting forward any credible alternative explanation of the nature of this constitutional relationship.

 

I have invited you and others here to provide a clear and coherent explanation of this constructional relationship which might offer an alternative to the explanation I have offered. The Kilbrandon Report couldn’t, or wouldn’t explain it and only offered non-answers which fudged the question. I put the question directly to you in my post #341 of 9th January in the ‘King of Mann’ thread, to which you have given no response.

 

I’d be happy to clarify, substantiate, and explain further, and I would more than welcome you or anyone putting challenges or objections which might ultimately disprove the hypothesis.

 

This is far from a complete argument in support of my view, however the essentials are there with prima facie support, and this has been open to challenge should anyone wish to counter this and offer counter-arguments or objections.

 

Moreover Freggyragh in post #32 gave a (generally) correct but far from complete reminder of ‘facts on the ground’ which are consistent with the claim that IoM came under military occupation. (I note now Freggyragh mentions ‘army of occupation’ in Ireland, yet this did not come under criticism for being a ‘rant’ about a ‘wicked imperialist plot’).

 

1765 - A naval blockade, British troops with fixed bayonets marching through the streets, military takeover of the government, striking down the Manx flag and hoisting up the English, imposition of a new regime that bankrupted the local economy (because we dared to have competitive rates of duty!) - barring Manx people from senior positions in our own civil service (the first Manx head of education was less than 20 years ago! - Still waiting for a Manx head of police!), and resultant poverty that forced hundreds upon hundreds into in the British Navy, and 300 into the army of occupation in Ireland, and set in motion the whole history of Manx emigration hmmm

 

It is not unreasonable to pose questions about IoM’s status and constitutional relationship with the UK, to ask what does ‘Crown Dependency’ mean, and more specifically still, it is not unreasonable to ask how is this different from being a territory held under Occupation or under the control of an ‘Administering Power’.

 

Though you have correctly identified the main point of my argument, your umpire’s ‘summation’ would seem to disingenously suggest that this main argument has been effectively countered.

 

“you've made some pretty ropey statements, others have countered them”

 

I accept that some of the statements I have made on the secondary topic of gas reserves in a Manx EEZ are not on safe ground; looking back I see I have without proper substantiation made definitive assertions that there are such gas reserves in what might be a Manx EEZ. In my clumsy attempt to explain the issues to oldmanxfella in a clear and straightforward manner I made the mistake of not using the more cautious ‘might be’. I think it ok to still stand by my original more tentative position, as for now at least there is still a question mark over the Millom field. I fully accept that I was wrong to make conclusive statements that there are gas fields in what might be a Manx EEZ.

 

However, despite your air of objective assessment, this summation is distinctly one-sided. You have not considered how others arguing against me have also made ‘ropey statements’ which I have countered, both on the main topic of the constitutional relationship, and on secondary topics, such as on IoM’s supposed subsidies from the UK.

 

Moreover while I accept that any definitive statement that there are gas reserves in a Manx EEZ has been countered, this is by no means fatal to the main argument concerning the nature of the constitutional relationship. That should be very evident to you.

 

Your assessment neither notes this point, nor does it explicitly address how others have supposedly ‘countered’ my main argument. Given that you explicitly, and with good reason, identify this as my main argument, this ‘oversight’ seems disingenous, particularly as your sweeping generalisations would suggest all that my whole argument can be dismissed, and the whole case has collapsed. This is further suggested by you charging that having thus been ‘countered’ I am now seeking a ‘stalemate’. Nonsense. It is far from a stalemate. If you want to put it in such terms it is only a lull in the first skirmish.

 

Since you fail to consider whether my main argument has indeed been countered as you seem to suggest, let me offer my assessment.

 

 

In post #95 Frances suggested that my argument could be ‘neglected’. Her only points that might possibly have any substance to back this view as I understood it was a) a notion of a ‘fait accomplit’ argued on the basis of her understanding of New Zealand history, Australian and American history, and b) a notion there should be some kind of arbitrary cut-off point.

 

In post #100 I responded to this, noting Frances’ mistaken view of aspects of colonial history, and that of NZ in particular, and, as you can see, supported this by reference to the Treaty of Waitangi, Mabo v. Queensland, the lack of standing of her suggested notion of a cut-off point, and referred to various legal principles as set forth by Lord Coke.

 

Frances has not given any direct reply to my response to her somewhat hollow argument (if it ever was an argument), and I do not think these points of hers can be considered having ‘countered’ my main argument.

 

 

In post #104 Frances stated:

 

plans were afoot in 1726 to re-acquire the regalities but … they were not realised until 1765.

 

This is just an assertion that the sovereignty was acquired in 1765 - assuming this is what Frances means by regalities (?). It provides no substantive argument against my argument that this was not the case, not counters my contentions that Parlimanent did not have jurisdiciton over IoM and that an act of Parliament itself could not acquire sovereignty in this manner, nor addresses that this does not appear as a matter of judicial record, and that there is no contract, treaty or the like to be found. (There are multiple other arguments I could add, but even this prima facie argument has not been countered by this assertion). I would not say Frances presented this as a counter-argument, but it is at odds with this view, hence it is included here. It certainly does not ‘counter’ my main argument with substantive counter-argument.

 

 

Though posted after you gave your summation, Frances’ latest post is worth noting.

IMO and I am not a lawyer, like most things connected with the UK and its lack of constitution, it means whatever the current generation wants it to mean!

 

Here if Frances is addressing ‘constitutional relationship’ rather than ‘constitution’ (?) then I think this ultimately argues that this relationship is essentially a merely a matter of opinion (though whose exactly she does not say). This ‘bettle in the box’ view is hardly a substantive way of countering my argument. Here to her credit she also conceeds that she does not have the legal expertise on the matter, though I have little doubt that once set out she would be able to grasp the issues and check and assess these for herself. She also reasonably says this is just an opinion, she does not seem to attempt an argument as to what this status is.

 

Frances also notes:

 

- that the English Crown acquired it by conquest of the Scots is not I think in dispute, but quite what the status of the Island was then I'm not sure - vassal state to Norway, given to the Pope, independent Kingdom ? - and if you read James Gell (ManxSoc vol 12 ) you will see he too avoids defining exactly what it means - wriggle room has meant that both parties (Mann + UK) can reach some acceptable position and the boundary between local and London control shifts over time.

 

Without entering into the details of what exactly might have been acquired by whom and when, this highlights that there is obscurity on the status of IoM and the nature of its relationship to Norway, Scotland and England, and it shouldn’t need spelling out for now that this has bearing on the question of the constitutional relationship in the 1300’s, 1765 and today.

 

Frances then also notes that there has been what is sometimes called ‘constructive ambiguity’ in the constitutional relationship between IoM and the UK. How constructive this ambiguity is for IoM is another matter. The point does however suggest that far from there being a substantive argument to counter mine, all that can be offered is vagueness and ambiguity, even from some of the best authorities.

 

Take or leave Frances’ latest post in your evaluation – so far there is nothing like a substantive counter-argument.

 

Furthermore from Frances’ comments about ‘elephant traps’ and fields of expertise, I take it that rather than be drawn into attempting to counter my arguments on the constitutional relationship, she would instead rather limit herself to contributing her historical understanding or references to material that might be relevant. (?)

 

Aside from Frances’s comments, the only other way I can see my main argument has in any sense been ‘countered’ in the forums is in your posts:

 

Post #103:

 

I'm sufficiently content not to be that bothered about the issue of whether or not we're the victims of a wicked imperialist plot.

 

Which we're not.

 

Aside from the loaded langauge by framing it as “wicked plot”, this is simply a bald assertion without any backing, tantamount to saying no more than “That’s not the case”

 

Then in your latest post, just after stating what you give as my main argument you state:

 

The fact of the matter is that this is largely balderdash.

 

Again this is an unsubstantated assertion presented as being ‘the fact of the matter’. You then go on to argue that ‘even if this was the case’ (and then make various points which are equally vacuously argued and which I might turn to later). However in none of this do you counter the main argument by tackling the question of whether or not this is the case. The only 'counter' to my main argument is in what is quoted above.

 

Have I missed something? Where and how has anything here been put forward which has substatially addressesed my main argument, or offered anything like a counter-argument or substantive objections, let alone ‘disproved’ it?

 

If substantive points have been made, or there are points which seem so obvious to everyone it seems they need not be put forward, I would like to hear them – I’m sorry if I missed anything or that I’m not clued into some unspoken understanding.

 

Since, as I understand it Frances has excused herself from attempting to offer anything like substantive counter-arguments to my position on the constitutional relationship, the only person offering any ‘counter’ to my main argument is you, the self-appointed umpire who declares this victory that supposedly has Skeddan cravenly seeking a stalemate, meanwhile cloaking one-sidedness with conceited and insincere airs of objectivity, reasonableness and bonhomie. I don’t know whether to snigger or spit.

 

You suggest that I have failed to tackle arguments by “substantially addressing them or providing anything to bolster the strength of your own assertions”. This assessment more readily fits your own unsubstantiated assertions given in response to my main argument which are nothing more that “It’s not so” and “that’s balderdash” (presented as being ‘the fact of the matter’).

 

Has my main argument been ‘countered’? I doubt Frances would think she has done so, so the only way that this could be is perhaps in a very conceited view that you might hold of the strength of your own unsubstantiated assertions.

 

You say that you have an interest in the constitutional relationship, so presumably you might be able to offer some substantive arguments on the topic. If so, then please do so, and I’d be delighted to debate this, hopefully without either of us sinking further into personal attacks, and in a manner which avoids ad hominem and underhand arguments. If you think my main argument can be so easily dismissed, then rather than do so out of hand, counter it with arguments and reasons. Bring it on, and let’s see what comes out of that. If not, I think you shame yourself by this self-declared sham ‘victory’.

 

Beyond that I would add that by introducing the issue of the EEZ this highlighted that such ‘academic’ and historical issues may indeed be highly relevant to both the present and future of IoM, albeit that this was done in a provocative and inflamatory way. You perceive this as ‘justifying indignance’. The criticism would be more on the mark if you said this was a clumsy and misguided attempt to elicit interest in a topic which generally meets with the kind of apathy you yourself professed.

 

You may think that my statement that Manx resources are being plundered has also been countered. This is present continuous tense, and such resources have been plundered since 1765. You may scorn at a ‘few quid’ in ‘defence contributions’ and exploitation of the little that might be left of the fisheries as being insignificant today. That is your opinion. Better men than you and oldmanxfella have not considered this to be so, and have found great quarrel in a straw when honour is at stake. You may be complacent and care nothing about such matters as long as things are cushy for you, but this does not mean that others with a truer sense of their Norse-Gael heritage share your opinion. Nor does your scornful opinion of the ‘once proud Manx nation’ mean your impoverished sense of dignity which is compensated for by such scornful arrogance is shared by others. You may like to think everyone is a ‘vinnie’, I would not insult anyone so.

 

As for your generalised scornful criticisms of me, you might consider that much of the same could be levelled at you, and might well be more justified. Beyond that I won’t get into here in the hope that maybe perhaps that your future posts might offer a productive and constructive contribution to this discussion. If you want to keep playing this style of argument and comment, I will happily set out how such comments backfire and rebound against yourself. I hope I need not expect a glib and snide response, but something more befitting someone who is capable of dignity, integrity and self-respect.

[staaue]

I don’t know whether to snigger or spit.

 

Welcome to Manxforums.com

 

Please don't lose hope... Hey, if you're playing against Frances, and Vinnie is the referee, then does that make me a supporter?????

 

:lol: Skeddan :lol:

 

Sod it, lets invade the pitch and ruin it for everyone..!!!!!

[Frances]

Staaue - I gave then the ref to William Christian which is Lib Scacc (on microfilm in Manx Museum), I presume Mec Vannin sent down its member to check it out as no-one came back at the time - btw the young girl was his own illegitimate daughter - you can go read the accusations, the Governors response, his request to the Keys and WC's hurried departure a day or so later and then WC's brother being hauled in for helping WC's unauthorised departure (btw the Governor was Parliamentary at this time).

 

The English crown never lost the ultimate control (ie sovereignty) gained by defeat of the Scots - the regalities (the power to make law, exact taxes etc) was given to the Stanley family who were liege subjects of the English Crown (twice tho possibly the 1st gift in 1405/6 was somewhat questionable as the previous holder was not yet attainted but the 'gift' by James in 1606 is taken as the decider) - these regalities but not the manoral rights were re-acquired in 1765 (the manoral rights in 1826) - unlike Orkney + Shetland which were similar Norse vassal states the Island was not merged into a larger entity (as eg happened to Wales and Cornwall) but kept its by now unique institutions - the actions following 1765 but esp 1866, and then from the 1950's onwards has seen the Island re-acquiring control over nearly all aspects of its affairs (probably very much in the sense of the Manx-Norse kingdom of Man & the Isles which tho nominally a vassal state of Norway seemed to steer its own course by playing off its more powerful neighbours)

[Skeddan]

The English crown never lost the ultimate control (ie sovereignty) gained by defeat of the Scots - the regalities (the power to make law, exact taxes etc) was given to the Stanley family who were liege subjects of the English Crown (twice tho possibly the 1st gift in 1405/6 was somewhat questionable as the previous holder was not yet attainted but the 'gift' by James in 1606 is taken as the decider) - these regalities but not the manoral rights were re-acquired in 1765 (the manoral rights in 1826) - unlike Orkney + Shetland which were similar Norse vassal states the Island was not merged into a larger entity (as eg happened to Wales and Cornwall) but kept its by now unique institutions - the actions following 1765 but esp 1866, and then from the 1950's onwards has seen the Island re-acquiring control over nearly all aspects of its affairs (probably very much in the sense of the Manx-Norse kingdom of Man & the Isles which tho nominally a vassal state of Norway seemed to steer its own course by playing off its more powerful neighbours)

 

Frances, there is a good deal of garbled history and mistakes in the sweeping summary you give here. I will try and address at least some of these soon, but meanwhile do please perhaps look at the primary sources. (So many of the secondary sources are full of nonsense like the idea that it was given to Piers Gaveston by Edward II ). I'd suggest you begin by reading the various Letters Patent and Acts - including the 1765 and 1826 ones - you will then see some error in what you say here.

[VinnieK]

Nor does your scornful opinion of the ‘once proud Manx nation’ mean your impoverished sense of dignity which is compensated for by such scornful arrogance is shared by others.

 

You silly man, I don't have a scornful opinion of the Island. I do however recognise that due to its size and limited economic potential (in absolute terms) that it is always to some extent or another going to be economically dominated by the U.K., and that the current relationship we have with the U.K. is overall not that bad. We have a fair amount of autonomy in terms of the budget and choosing who heads our (in your own words) Quisling government, so it's difficult to see just how we are subjugated other than in your own view.

 

this does not mean that others with a truer sense of their Norse-Gael heritage share your opinion

 

And thus we discover the wellspring of your fervour: a misplaced notion of "heritage" that's been hammered into something vaguely resembling an identity, and one that's dominant characteristic is at best one step removed from ancestor worship - in other words, the frustration of some celt fanboy who's found to his disappointment that his ancestors didn't spend all their time coming up with jaunty poetry and slaughtering the English.

 

I'll say this much: It is very unlikely you have any true sense of "Norse-Gael" heritage. That identity was long diluted and faded by external influences and the passage of time before even our grandparents were born. That of course isn't to say that there isn't a certain "Manxness" that owes something of its character to this heritage, but what actually remains of it is but a very vague remnant. What you have instead is closer to a hat load of romantic notions. I don't know if you've read through the excellent Manx Notebook that's online, but one of the defining characterists of the Manx that always seems to be mentioned in accounts of the Island is a general apathy (perhaps to the point of complacency) when it comes to politics and change, so if you really want to embrace your heritage you should probably stop caring about all this toss about independence and constitutional matters.