unlinkedstudent Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 ^^ I'd have more faith and trust in it all if historians skipped (a) and (, and simply provided their sources along with ©. Then were willing to answer any and all questions on what they'd provided. Providing a conclusion and why they have reached that conclusion, which either comes across to their audience as 2+2=5, or does not also explain satisfactorily why issues members within that audience believe are relevant, but have been ignored, explains and settles nothing. It only serves to heighten distrust in and suspicion of both the source(s) and the messenger(s). Yup, without official documentation history is just; well, "His story". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 simply provided their sources along with © ... The trouble with that is that everyone interprets © in different ways. If the historian says what s/he thinks, and how s/he has reached that conclusion, clearly referring to the sources s/he has used, everyone should be happy. Or at least happyish! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 A couple of questions. Where were the police ? (I thought they had to attend all public gatherings). Where was the traffic warden ? (CC's car was parked on the cross for several hours) Was planning permission sought and obtained for yun hellish big poster? It's a shame neither the police nor traffic warden had a go, but then we all know it would have just led to a "stand" being taken and as he was causing no real problem, better off ignored. Ditto the sign. Still, the news say 20 joined him, if said people do unite and refuse taxes etc it should have more effect than one lone pensioner. If the authorities still ignore the issue, it could be an interesting story were it to spread further. (Enjoying the historical links being posted, keep 'em coming ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skaterboy Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Brian you were the first one to accuse Stuart of being politically motivated yet your own politics rely heavily on Shetlands oil money remain within the grasp of Scoty socialists.Seeing as you are quick to a attribute Stuart hills conclusions of his reading of the historical documents to his political leanings then we must rightly attribute your conclusions to your political leanings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 Do you know, Brian, if it is correct that Oliver St John, Viscount Kirkwall is the earl of Orkney, and does this still apply to Shetland too? Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Njugle: see the final section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Orkney It gives details of the 'third creation' of earls of Orkney - nothing to do with Shetland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breeksy Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 He has managed to collect twenty signature so far. Stuart, if you are reading this, how many have Shetland addresses, and how many live somewhere else - i.e tourists and hamefarers? (As in, in a referendum based on the inhabitants of Shetland, how many would truly be able to vote and have a say) Twenty. Not much of a mandate to change the political situation of an island with the population of 20,000 +. And if Shetland is given this mandate, should we have Shetland passports? Who would decide who would be given residency? And would Mr Hill qualify?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodle Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Just out of curiosity, who is going to be running this sovereign state, and taking control of all these lovely hundreds of millions of pounds that will be pouring in? Sandy Cluness and the present gang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Njugle: see the final section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Orkney It gives details of the 'third creation' of earls of Orkney - nothing to do with Shetland. Thanks Brian. I strayed into the divergent history, rather than parallel or shared then. Is there any comparable situation for Shetland? Are we without earl in the UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Zetland A family of racehorse enthusiasts ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Ah! Of course, Zetland, not Shetland. No wonder I drew a blank. Much appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voicebox Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 Is anybody going to this Conference on August 26th, 27th and 28th? Sovereign Nation means Monarchy surely? Anyhow, does anybody know if the people involved are from SIC or involved in Governance of Shetland already? Their website is www.sovereignshetland.com Interesting... would be good to see what others think... also got two tickets available as we can't get there now... pm if interested... (***Mod Edit - Merged with existing thread***) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tirvaluk Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 It's Captain Calamity! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachcaster Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 The answer to all you question is no. see this thread.... http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9992&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voicebox Posted August 15, 2010 Report Share Posted August 15, 2010 Trouble is what he's saying is worth considering but HE might not be the best person to represent the argument... We also have to be aware that other forces can be at work to trash ideas before they take hold - like putting a 'crazy' in so that any further talks of this nature are always linked to an 'event' and therefore gain no footing and make no headway in the future. It seems on the thread that many didn't disagree with what was being said but the fact that HE was saying them. Most of the time we don't realise how manipulated we are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.