If the energy expended on working out whether England subsidises Scotland or whether all North Sea oil is in Scottish territorial waters could be connected up to the National Grid, then the wind turbine programme could be cancelled and electricity bills scrapped.

It is ironic that no mention is made of the Barnett Formula in connection with the Falklands Islands public finances.

The Falklands Islands government had revenues of £42.4 million from fisheries licences and taxation in 2009/10 and spent £47.6 million on public services for the Falklands. The Falkland Islands is “economically self-sufficient”, only relying on the UK for foreign affairs and defence. Defence of the Falkland Islands, i.e. one airbase, four Typhoon fighters, three radar stations, one thousand service men and women, several helicopters, one frigate, a patrol ship and a submarine costs “about 0.5% of the UK defence budget”, i.e. about £180 million per year for 3,000 people with a per capita income of about £40,000 and no unemployment. Compare that with Scotland’s figures of about £21,000 and unemployment around 8%. That’s not fair.

But, people say, so long as the Falklanders wish to remain a self-governing British Overseas Territory, we should skew the defence budget to protect the 3,000 mile logistics neck down to the South Atlantic. One or both of the £10 billion Queen Elizabeth class carriers is allegedly vital for the islands’ defence. After all, there may be oil down there – ignoring the fact the tax revenues from which will stay in Port Stanley.

Another argument is that the Falkland Islanders wish to live there with red phone boxes and fish and chips and Coronation Street on cable TV and we should support their right to do so. But that right was never granted to the inconveniently black Chagossians who were evicted from their homes in 1965 to enable the Diego Garcia base to be built. Thanks to a cunning plan in the form of a maritime nature reserve they will never be allowed to return.

The final argument propounded is that because 256 British servicemen died in 1982 to recapture the islands from Argentine invaders, the ground is sacred and forever part of Britain. Yet the UK is planning to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2015 after losing 375 sons and daughters and the vast majority of the 16,000 military deaths since 1945 were in former parts of the British Empire.

Is it fair for the wishes of 3,000 people to dictate the defence and foreign policy of 61,000,000? In Warwickshire, hundreds of people will be forced to leave their lifetime homes that will be compulsorily purchased for the unpopular HS2 train line and thousands forced to endure noise and loss of amenity for the “greater good”. Isn’t a negotiated transfer of sovereignty, with the opportunity of generous compensation and relocation to the UK or even New Zealand for people who didn’t want to stay, be the only sustainable solution to an ongoing problem that will be an increasing burden on the defence budget?

By Brian and cross posted from Subrosa Blonde

Jeremy Poynton
July 21, 2011 at 16:12

You have forgotten the oil…

Mount Pleasant
July 22, 2011 at 00:48

The neighbours haven’t …

Gewyne July 21, 2011 at 15:05

Is this post a subtle way of saying London should become independent and
throw the rest of the teat sucking UK to the world of sink and swim (with a
few charitable armbands thrown from our great capital so as not to seem to
harsh).

Old Slaughter
July 21, 2011 at 13:07

“Is it fair for the wishes of 3,000 people to dictate the defence and
foreign policy of 61,000,000?”

Ask the 61,000,000. Then this debate will end very quickly with a
resounding yes.

Unity July 21,
2011 at 12:48

Look, in foreign policy there are two basic classes of argument.

The first class are the arguments for domestic consumption, i.e. what you
tell the voter at home to keep them sweet which, in this case are the
arguments you’ve tried to debunk in you OP.

The second class are the real reasons why certain things are done as matter
of national interest. In the case of the Falklands, we maintain a presence
there because:

a) there are natural resources in an around the islands which could, in
future, be exploited,

b) the Falklands provide justification – under international law and treaty
– for the UK’s territorial presence in Antarctica where, again, there are
scads of natural resource that could, in future, be exploited, and

c) take a good close look at a map of the South Atlantic and it should be
obvious that, in the event of the shit hitting the fan militarily, a large
naval and RAF taskforce based on the Falklands would give us de facto control
over the South Atlantic and the passage between the Atlantic and Pacific via
Cape Horn and Tierra Del Fuego.

Although under-developed as a military base, the Falklands has considerable
strategic value on a par with Cape Town, Aden, Diego Garcia and the
Philippines, in so far as it provides a base of operations from which major
sea lanes can be controlled.

That’s more or less why we don’t give up on the Falklands.

Mount Pleasant
July 22, 2011 at 00:47

I agree.
Isn’t the lesson the Chinese are teaching us in Africa that
it’s cheaper and easier to invest in a sovereign country and buy its
resources than incorporate it into one’s empire? It’s actually what Britain
did very successfully in South America in the nineteenth century and selling
those accumulated assets off was what enabled us to buy weaponry from
America in WW2 until we were bankrupted to its satisfaction.
Taking a
good close look at a map of the South Atlantic I see a group of islands
economically dependent on South America, 8,000 miles from Britain. That’s
one long supply line to defend if the neighbours get hostile, a bit like
Malta or Singapore in WW2.
Until the Argentine invasion in 1982, many
islanders were learning Spanish to cater to the expanding tourist trade from
their near neighbours and the Falkland Islands population was declining
until the late eighties due to dependence on sheep farming managed by an
absentee company . The krill fishery and, more recently, oil exploration
have massively boosted the local economy yet they are both heavily dependent
on logistics sourced from the mainland.
Since 1983 Falkland Islanders
with British Overseas Territory Citizenship (which replaced the old British
Dependent Territory version in 2002) have had, in addition, British
passports with the right of abode in Britain. British citizens have no
reciprocal right of abode in the Falklands.
Finally, contrast the
absolute veto rights of Falkland Islanders against British residents faced
with compulsory purchase orders on their homes. It appears only one category
of citizen can stymie government policy and put their interests ahead of the
national interest. Is it fair that people living in Britain should be second
class citizens?

Ken Ferguson
July 21, 2011 at 12:24

“Maybe we should throw them out to look after themselves? Then we could
continue the process with the Channel Islands, Shetlands, Isle of Man and
finally getting rid of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and all the other
small excess bits and pieces cluttering our country.”

And Wirral too please!!!!!!

http://www.wirralfirst.org/

woodsy42 July 21,
2011 at 11:22

Maybe we should throw them out to look after themselves? Then we could
continue the process with the Channel Islands, Shetlands, Isle of Man and
finally getting rid of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and all the other
small excess bits and pieces cluttering our country.
Sounds a good plan to
me as there is nothing as good as a simplifying declutter of one’s
obligations, although there are perhaps a few drawbacks I haven’t considered,
like the Isle of Wight being quite useful to keep the weather from Portsmouth
harbour so perhaps we should keep that?

Engineer July 21, 2011 at 14:08

If there’s one part of the UK that we could usefully lose, it’s the bit
inside the M25.

gladiolys
July 21, 2011 at 15:13

You’re right. Those of us residing inside said circumference would
happily see the rest of you deadweights piss off.

Engineer
July 21, 2011 at 16:58

You neatly illustrate why most of us residing outside that ringroad
have considerable contempt for the arrogance and lack of humility of
some existing within it.

Joe
Public July 21, 2011 at 17:06

Don’t forget the Bank of England printing works at Loughton is
inside the M25.

That factory makes more money than any other factory in the UK.

gladiolys
July 21, 2011 at 17:38

“arrogance and lack of humility” – hmm, and it was you who made the
original suggestion – I just agreed by turning it on it’s head….
still, I’m sure you’re comfortable with your “considerable contempt”,
a concept that fits well with humility. Not.

Engineer
July 21, 2011 at 19:42

My original comment was a slightly tongue-in-cheek addition to
Woodsy42′s list of bits of the UK that could be removed; many of us
who live outside the capital (and that’s 54 million out of a
population of 62 million) occasionally become mildly exasperated by
the attitudes displayed by some within it – attitudes exemplified by
the metropolitan bias of the BBC among others.

It’s often said of France that the people are fine once you get out
of the capital. Perhaps the same might be said of the UK. Maybe, like
problems of feather-pecking in battery chicken sheds, there are too
many creatures of the same species crammed into too close proximity.
Sadly, perhaps, London is not a place I enjoy visiting; far too many
people for my taste, and depressingly few of them particularly
friendly.

I’m sure there are many decent people living in the capital, and
good luck to them; but it’s not for me, and I think, a lot of other
Britons as well.

gladiolys
July 21, 2011 at 20:40

My reply to you was equally heavy on the sarcasm… I moved to London
20 years ago and the rest of my family are still “countryfied” – they
can’t stand it here and I feel like I’m an alien when I visit them. I
find Londoners friendly and I suppose you do have to develop different
strategies and ways to communicate when you do get so many different
types of people living cheek by jowl.

I love London, just like I love my country, but I love them for
different reasons. If I wasn’t in London, with its chance to mingle
with multitudes AND be completely anonymous, I’d be on a desert
island.

I can understand your perception of the BBC having a metropolitan
bias, but to be fair, so do they which is why they have diversified to
Cardiff and Manchester and they do have a chain of local stations (not
that they are always good, I know), but that’s the trouble with all
cities – eventually they develop their own ecologies, and in the years
to come, as the world becomes urbanised, these divides will become
pronounced everywhere.

But good luck with you countryside existence – and come to London
more often, we don’t bite.

Rob July 21, 2011 at 10:34

The point is valid that the Faulkland islanders should not expect others to
pay for their defence. So how can they maintain their sovereignty?

They should become a sovereign state themselves. Keep the Queen as head of
State and remain as part fo the commonwealth. As part of this process they
should join the various treaties that ensure protection from invasion from
other countries. Lets see the Argies justify an attack on a sovereign nation
rather than an alleged occupied territory. While oath to use international
law, it would force the EU, USA etc to support them on the same principle
offered to other nation states.

Lets not forget that if Port Stanley does become a rich oil state then it
can compensate the Govt. for the services provided. I think more independance
from the UK govt could only be a good thing and why not become a tax haven and
banking centre like Hong Kong and service the growing economies of South
America? It would soon have its own army and could tell others to go hang.

Tom
Paine July 21, 2011 at 11:14

The Argentinians will never recognise that sovereign state, so that’s
just another way to throw the islanders to the wolves. As you imply, the
precedent is Hong Kong, where our abandonment of Hong Kongers to perhaps the
nastiest totalitarian regime on Earth has (touch wood) worked out pretty
well so far. The day may yet come when the scale of that betrayal becomes
apparent and our name is blackened by historians forever.

To apply that approach again (eugh) would require intelligence rather
than emotional (and historically unsound) nationalist ranting from the
Argentinians. Not to mention a basic understanding on both sides of the
Chinese concept of ‘face’

Embarrassing HM the Q by making her Head of State of new countries that
could never defend themselves is not a good idea for our prestige in the
world. It’s also a bit much to ask God to ‘send her victorious, happy and
glorious’ and then line her up for a humiliating defeat. Even a republican
like me baulks at using her so disrespectfully!

Rob July 21, 2011 at 15:24

I think the issue here is that the UK of GB and NI should obviously
defend its territory and its people.

I concede the point although the Hong Kong scenario is so different in
so many ways as to make your comparrison rediculous. I was merely trying
to see a future scenario that would help to stabalise the situation in the
long term without leaving the fate of the islanders to the political whims
and advantages of politicians of any stripe.

If there comes a time when the Faulklands are rich enough from oil
production that they could sustain their own defence then they may well
feel that this is a more secure option for the long term. I certainly
would not trust future Labour or LibLab coalition Governments that could
blame the other party for their actions.

I also think the calculation of cost is wrong. We defend the
territories of our nation state, wherever they may be and then we
calculate the cost of our defence per capita. If the Irish were invading
Cornwall we would not say that it was not fair that the cost of protecting
Cornwall was being borne by tax payers in Manchester.

The only fly in the ointment is the fact that the taxation that the
Islands collect does not come back to the common pot. You can’t have your
cake and eat it. Or maybe you can. . . . . . .

tangentreality July 21, 2011 at 10:27

An interesting take on the Falklands situation, and one which should bear
consideration. I have always been of the opinion that as long as the people
living in the Falklands want to remain part of the UK, they should be allowed
to do so. However, in a hypothetical situation where we decided that we didn’t
want them, then they should go, because political union can only be successful
if it is mutually agreed.

However, even if they were to secede from the UK, the position of the
Argentinian Government is still unacceptable, as the Falklanders have made it
clear they have no wish for political union with Argentina. Independence would
probably be the best option, but I doubt the Argentinians would like that.

M Barnes July 21, 2011 at 10:08

ooooo controversial! The Falklands is all about emotion – not logic. Your
economic points are well made and correct as is your clear sighted recognition
that a lot of our ‘promises made’ justifications are unhappily predicated on
the people we made the promises to being white. Well worth the read SBML.

Engineer July 21, 2011 at 09:56

In 1982, we promised the Falkland Islanders that for as long as they wished
to remain British, they would. We should honour that promise. It’s a promise
we made before before oil was discovered, so that has nothing to do with
it.

Talwin July 21, 2011 at 09:47

I’ve had fish and chips in the Falkland Islands. They were sh*te.

Gildas the Monk
July 21, 2011 at 09:34

I am afraid I am in the “what we have, we hold” camp on this.

binao July 21, 2011 at 08:11

We haven’t colonised Afghanistan (I think). Let’s just be grateful we don’t
have the same expense protecting Gib and NI from Spain and Eire.

Jose July 21, 2011 at 08:03

Presumably you must have thought the islands should never have been
reclaimed by Britain after the Argentina invasion. On simple cost grounds they
should neither have been recovered nor retained but some things are more
important than simple finance.

Russia sold Alaska to the Americans perhaps we should negotiate the ‘sale’
of the islands to the Argentinians and use the revenues on a 3rd aircraft
carrier.

Ed P July 21, 2011 at 07:38

There IS oil down there! Did the tax revenues from North Sea oil stay in
Scotland? In only a few decades the oil itself could be such a valuable asset
that where the tax revenues stay will be secondary – it’s possession of the
black gold itself that’ll be paramount.

PT July 21, 2011 at 11:50

Exactly the point, and in all probability why the Argentinians invaded in
the first place, before the fact became common knowledge, and why GB went
and kicked them out, at considerable cost in casualties and assets. (Quite
apart from any considerations of glory for Mrs Thatcher.)The Argentinian
capture of South Georgia and the other tiny Falklands dependencies further
suggests that Argentina wished to subtend a greater segment of Antarctica
for negotiation purposes when that continent, inevitably, starts to be
exploited. Resources of oil and minerals are getting scarce. There will be
more wars for this reason. The real question is, do we want to fight for
what we can get, or shall we become a backwater, resourceless country,
unable to feed its large population?

Joe Public July 21, 2011 at 07:15

Perhaps those who wish to abandon the Falklands should advise when the
Shetlands should be abandoned?