Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This has potential to be a disaster for Shetland, neither the SNP nor Labour will do anything for Shetland, and Europe is a total fiasco - the positive side being that it should not exist within another year.

 

Believing we will be better off controlled by foreign governments that we share no common language or culture with is laughable.

 

I don't have a solution - but any change does not look positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 431
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Westminster are the ones who have the power to make this happen, no one else.

 

I would think also that the military would have something to say. And on that subject, there could be National Service.

 

The oil may not want to go with Scotland or any of the off shoots. If they think that they are going to be the ones who bolster the new country and/or off shoots, they may feel that they will we more heavily taxed. I am sure I read the oil revenues would be no where near enough to sustain Scotland.

 

Where will the money come from to transfer all the NHS to the new country/off shoot, I see no one has taken up working out the taxes and seeing if even Shetland can stand on its own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stilll no word on how the SNP will benefit Shetland? :wink:

 

(from a non-Tory, non-'Viking' SNP voter)

 

Da sam wey as it'll benefit every idder coonty in Scotland by promoting an independent social democratic country, but more so, that looks ta Scandinavia as an example, but not a template

 

And quite unlaek da ConDem free market wasteland o rabid dogs wi da poor beneath der feet, rapidly developing ida UK.

 

That's not listing benefits, that is stating an ideal. How will Scotland becoming independent benefit Shetland?

 

What are the economic benefits? How will they be funded?

 

I am cynical about an 'Independent' Scotland, not because I have some allegiance to the Union or the ConDems but because for all the SNP waffle, I've seen very few hard facts placed in the public domain about how it is all going to work.

 

They're riding high at the moment, bouyed along by three groups: Genuine nationalists and (unfortunately) idiots who cannot see beyond getting one over on England and the 'toffs'. The same idiots who constantly blather on about medieval battles and have a notion of their own history based on one pretty crap movie.

 

The third group are people like me, those who voted for the SNP as they are definitely the party to run Scotland but who will definitely vote 'No' when it comes to the referendum unless the SNP prove quite conclusively that they have a full plan in place. And we are the group that the SNP need to convince before they claim any victory. And I ain't seen the evidence yet.

 

The SNP have a pretty poor track record in dealing with Shetlands cousins in Caithness and Orkney - indifference to an out of the way place is the best they have come up with so far. Shetland will get the same treatment, mark my words, the only difference being that they appear to be of the opinion that Shetland is a rock with oil reserves nearby.

 

So, point out the SNP's positive plans for Shetland as a working partner in an independent Scotland and I may change my mind.

 

Until then I will maintain Shetland is sleepwalking into serfdom under 100% Holyrood control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of what's behind the move for an independant Scotland i.e genuine belief in a "forward thinking" country or nationalism was mentioned at the Althing debate by Danus Skene when he said it was now the wish and movemment for a free and progressive country.

 

However, that may be the case for some SNP supporters but my experience tells me that for the most part it's (anti-english) nationalism.

 

It is a real shame that given Shetland and Orkney's historic unease towards Scotland that the SNP haven't come come to the table and said what they propose Shetland's place within in an independant Scotland would be.

 

Jean Urquhart mentioned that in the recent census X percentage of people in Shetland had marked their ethnicity as Scottish which signalled something but I think it was probably simply because many people felt that either a) well, they're certainly not English or B) because they felt that was the correct answer.

 

I appreciate, however, that many probably ticked Scottish because that's what they consider themselves but I just don't believe the statistics prove anything concrete.

 

In terms of my dad he just ticked Scottish because he felt it was probably what he was supposed to tick.

 

It's also worth pointing out that there was no specific Shetland option but if there was then it would have been interesting to see the results of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not listing benefits, that is stating an ideal. How will Scotland becoming independent benefit Shetland?

 

What are the economic benefits? How will they be funded?

 

The third group are people like me, those who voted for the SNP as they are definitely the party to run Scotland but who will definitely vote 'No' when it comes to the referendum unless the SNP prove quite conclusively that they have a full plan in place. And we are the group that the SNP need to convince before they claim any victory. And I ain't seen the evidence yet.

.

 

Better a positive ideal than no ideals.

 

The demand for total clarity on every aspect of independence seem mostly to be a tool to create an impression of fear. Not saying du is doing dat, but dat is how it's used by da unionist fraternity

 

No nation on earth that gained it's independence could provide a detailed 30 year business plan in advance. e.g. Norway couldn't have done in 1904 so setting such a bar would mean it would still be in union with Sweden.

 

I could ask: What are the economic benefits of the UK continuing? Don't look that rosy to me - a chronically structurally imbalanced economy with far too much emphasis on financial speculation and not enough on actual productive work.

 

We can see that at present Scotland at least pays it's way in the UK - the hysteria coming out of unionist sources since the New Year suggests the balance of payments is more positive than we think.

 

And then there is the repatriation of current subsidies to the rest of the UK - e.g. as the Sunday Herald pointed out we will pay £1bn for the Olympics but the return to Scotland is £1m. Ditto the BBC spend, and above all the military spend - Scotland contributed £5.6billion more to the UK military budget than was spent here during 1997-2007. Consider what £5billion pounds could do, spent constructively. Shetland has a housing crisis, does it not? Which is not to say I agree with all of current Scottish Government Housing policy! Good in parts

 

Pegging the currency to the pound (as Australia and Ireland did, and as Hong Kong does with the US dollar) is a smart move. Not least to eliminate the risk of the City of London attacking the currency in spite.

 

Given the 40-50 years of oil revenue remaining, a move to a completely separate currency early on does run the risk of it being too 'hard' (as Mcrone suggested) so gently does it. Then again - A Salmond, former economist, G Osborne, former hotel towel folder and cocaine user. A easy choice.

 

On every forum you can find there are people asking for a positive case for the Union. ssssss......tumbleweeds. T

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fake vikings?. That'll be Up-Helly-Aa which I loathe for being just that!.

Your scorn for UHA always gives me a chuckle. I can't quite see why a fake Viking is much different to a fake Norsky house or any other fake concept. Guizing is essentially based on fakeness and fantasy. As we often say "it's not traditional Viking, it's traditional Up Helly Aa." :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fake vikings?. That'll be Up-Helly-Aa which I loathe for being just that!.

Your scorn for UHA always gives me a chuckle. I can't quite see why a fake Viking is much different to a fake Norsky house or any other fake concept. Guizing is essentially based on fakeness and fantasy. As we often say "it's not traditional Viking, it's traditional Up Helly Aa." :wink:

 

Ha, ha!. Well I hear what du's saying but for me Up-Helly-Aa is fake because a) our norse, and other norse, ancestors never dressed like that(winged helmets?) and B) assuming it's supposed to be a representation of "vikings" I doubt very much they looked like that either!. I'm sure I remember reading that Norwegians have refered to it as "Hollywood vikings".

 

On that note, I cringe at the thought of what our Norwegian and Faroese neighbours think about it. This(Up-Helly-Aa) is how Shetland "marks" its' norse history....?.

 

To be fair though, it is a step forward when a jarl squad tries to make the suits more realistic to what it was or might have been but for me that's about all that can be said for it.

 

Oh, and what's a fake Norsky house?!.

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fake vikings?. That'll be Up-Helly-Aa which I loathe for being just that!.

Your scorn for UHA always gives me a chuckle. I can't quite see why a fake Viking is much different to a fake Norsky house or any other fake concept. Guizing is essentially based on fakeness and fantasy. As we often say "it's not traditional Viking, it's traditional Up Helly Aa." :wink:

 

Ha, ha!. Well I hear what du's saying but for me Up-Helly-Aa is fake because a) our norse, and other norse, ancestors never dressed like that(winged helmets?) and B) assuming it's supposed to be a representation of "vikings" I doubt very much they looked like that either!. I'm sure I remember reading that Norwegians have refered to it as "Hollywood vikings".

 

On that note, I cringe at the thought of what our Norwegian and Faroese neighbours think about it. This(Up-Helly-Aa) is how Shetland "marks" its' norse history....?.

 

To be fair though, it is a step forward when a jarl squad tries to make the suits more realistic to what it was or might have been but for me that's about all that can be said for it.

 

Oh, and what's a fake Norsky house?!.

 

:D

 

Just picture it. Its the ninth century. at a coastal monastry. They look up and see a couple of dragon ships discourging a band of bearded cross dresses tripping over on their high heels swigging from a can of larger.

 

no wonder they bred dred into the locals and fear into the women. after all they may knick there tights.

 

fire festivals accure all over the uk. most would be simular to the pre viking and ship era. maybe its history goes further back than the norse it could be a hangover from an earlier celtic tradition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...