SCOTTISH fishermen's leaders and environment secretary Richard Lochhead have united in condemning a decision by the Isle of Man government to ban the bulk of Scotland's scallop trawlers from Manx waters.Not being affected by EU fishing "guidelines" and also as self-governing Crown Dependency, the Isle of Man is legally entitled to impose such restrictions; whether or not it morally justified to do so is obviously another question. However, the role of the UK ministers (plural?) mentioned here is a curious one.
The Manx authorities have introduced a bye-law that effectively prevents large Scottish boats from fishing in their traditional scallop grounds around the island.
Mr Lochhead said: "The Scottish Government believes the Isle of Man bye-law is unnecessary and unwarranted and I have been in contact with the Isle of Man fisheries minister - and UK ministers who gave the go-ahead - to make my concerns clear."
Why would their permission be required?
2 comments:
I was under the impression that there was a convention not to interfere if, as Aberdonian points out the law does not go against human rights, which some of the West Indian territories have fallen foul of. The Cayman Islands for example were not legendary for their tolerance for homosexuals until they were required to develop it by westminster! The crown dependencies are I think given a much looser leash than the overseas territories. The ECHR wields more influence over policy, which is I believe how corporal punishment got banned, not Westminster interference.
Brother Cadfan raises the interesting question of the other dependencies. The major difference between the Crown Dependencies and the others (such as Gib, Falklands etc) is the the Justice Ministry deals with the Crown Dependencies whilst the others are dealt with by the FCO.
Also the Crown Dependencies crowd have an automatic right of residence in the UK which I do not think has always been extended to the others.
The Isle of Man has passed through many hands in its history - most notably Norway and Scotland. It was rented out to Scotland by Norway as part of the same deal that Scotland got the rent of the Western Isles.
During the Wars of Independence, the English seized the island and the English crown gave it to the Stanley family as their personal fief - but did not annex it into England. Apart from Robert the Bruce trying to get back the island, that was its constitutional position until the 18th century. By that time as a non-part of the UK, the island became a haven for smugglers who took cheap goods smuggled from abroad and then transported them to the UK to annoyance of customs. It was annexed as a Crown possession with the British monarch becoming "the Lord of Man" - the title the Stanleys had. Weird that London never annexed island into the UK during this period. Must have been some sort of fiddle or something going on.
The Channel Islands are another matter. They are the rump of the old Duchy of Normandy and from what I can gather the islanders' conceit is that due to 1066 and all that, the UK belongs to the Channel Islands and not the other way around.
You may scoff at this conceit. But consider this, when a bill from a UK legislature (UK, Scotland, etc) gets royal assent, the bill is signed by the clerk of the House of Lords:
"La Reyne le veult"
Norman French for the "the Queen wills it"
King Billy's (in the chain mail - not the white horse) lives on. The Channel Islanders are technically the daddies and the Brits their subserviants/bitches.
(Personally I think it is a disgrace that Scottish bills are assented this way as we were not invaded by the Normans. My ancestors - I bear a Scottish-Norman name - were invited in - the should reinstitute the old Scottish method of touching the bill with the Scottish sceptre!)
Post a Comment