Self-sustaining Shetland

[Capeesh]

Nicola was very nice.  I spent Monday morning with her.

Nice to hear an honest assessment from somebody who has actually met her.

I'm afraid views like this won't be tolerated in "wir" Shetland though.

The memo said we had to really dislike the SNP and boycott any meetings with them.

[paulb]

i find it odd how many ukip voters seem keen on an an independence movement. maybe if they could even be bothered to elected a leader that lived on Shetland they may be a little more believable. only thing that seems to spout out of their mouths is snp hatred. one does have to question the real motives behind this independent movement that backs lib dems. as a none party movement maybe they would have been better to not back anyone. yet lets not bother about facts lets just moan.  frances sounds you had a nice visit. why do i doubt Cameron or any another leader would do the same. 

[Roachmill]

^ Not on the committee, but am a member of WS and have heard the opinions concerning the SNP gathering of those of the committee who have chosen to express them.

 

At no time was I, as a WS member ever told to boycott the meeting, or if I went to be sure to only parrot group policy. Quite the opposite in fact, folk, as far as I could see were encourged to attend if they wished to, and to speak as freely while there as they felt necessary.

 

Any group that demands of me as a private individual that I don't attend a meeting if they say so, or attempt to force me to attend a meeting, or force me to only parrot group approved lines at a meeting, won't have me as a member for very long, and I would hope most folk would feel the same way.

 

Frankly I thought that kind of attitudes and thinking went out the window in the 80's when Thatcher clipped the Union's wings. Obviously if someone is attending somewhere as an official representative of a group its different, but the whole concept of individual members of a group being ordered to attend, not attend or only say certain things if they attend somewhere, is far to dictatorial/communistic/fascist for me to go anywhere near.

 

BTW, did the local Tory, Labour or LebDem parties, or the SIC, or any other organisation upon whom SG actions impact directly and significantly, send official representative(s) to the meeting to speak on their organistion's behalf, did any of them "order" their individual members to not attend/attend/only repeat official group policy at the SNP's meeting? The answer as far as I'm aware is "no". So where did this idea come from that WS would be any different in the same regard?

You're doing it again and could've saved yourself the bother of grabbing the wrong end of the stick and waving it about frantically as you do.

 

I did not say that WS told members to attend or not attend. I said *I* wouldn't have attended and asked WS related question were *I* a WS member as I think it'd reflect badly on WS considering the announcement made about boycotting the thing. That's about as basic as it gets. But don't let that stop you!

 

-10 points for a naff attempt at bringing in a fascism inference while being a UKIP voter

 

Did anyone else at all make an announcement about boycotting anything? You're right, the answer is "no".

 

You were rude to Frances too. There was no need for that. That's the sort of comment one would expect on the Shetland Times woop woop lol.

[whalsa]

Not been on here for a few days but I see the decision not to send an official presence to Sturgeons gathering has been fairly well covered. There was a discussion held and that was the decision, right or wrong, but as has been stated all members were free to go along and ask whatever they wished. I believe one of our members attended and asked about ferry subsidies in Shetland compared to other Scottish Islands. The answer provided was that the Scottish Government spent over £200 million on subsidising ferry routes - she did not mention that a declining £32 million of this is for Orkney and Shetland (down from £37 million 3 years ago) while over the same period the overall budget has risen from £144 million to £207 million.

If this is the type of evasive answers our questions would have received then perhaps it is just as well we didn't attend, as has been said already it is not as if we would have gotten to have an open debate with her. 

As for Nicola being a nice woman and visiting someone and never mentioning politics, that is all well and good but ultimately being nice and convivial to the public is not the main traits I am looking for in the leader of a nation - it is her job to talk about politics and the running of the country and to make fair and just decisions, not to be be fine person to visit for a cup o tae!

 

[Roachmill]

Thanks Whalsa. As ever, a reasonable post without any breast beating. I'm glad (believe it or not!) to hear that someone did go along and ask at least one question... beyond (no dig intended Frances) , "one lump or two?"

 

I'm guessing from your wording Duncan, that the person doing the asking didn't have the additional figures to follow up with? I would fully expect anyone (not just a politician) to emphasise the good points upon answering a question initially. I'd like to know what her response would have been to an informed retort. This is why I would have liked to have seen her put under at least some pressure by folk far more in the know than I.

[Ghostrider]

I did not say that WS told members to attend or not attend. I said *I* wouldn't have attended and asked WS related question were *I* a WS member as I think it'd reflect badly on WS considering the announcement made about boycotting the thing. That's about as basic as it gets. But don't let that stop you!

<---Snipz--->

 

You were rude to Frances too. There was no need for that. That's the sort of comment one would expect on the Shetland Times woop woop lol.

 

Which is exactly the same thing as saying, that if you were a SW member, you would have felt obliged to "toe the group line", regardless of anything else.

 

Like I said, I thought such dictatorial/communistic/fascist thinking died out in the 80's with Scargill's toppling. I fail to see how an individual member of a group attending an event where that group have simply decided not to send an official representative to speak on behalf of the group, and that individual member asks questions or expresses personal opinions on issues that the group they are a member has a policy on, can somehow be construed as reflecting badly on that group. Had WS "ordered" a membership boycott of the meeting, I'd agree with you, but they hadn't, they had just publically stated they did not intend to send an official representative to the meeting.

 

When, and where was I rude to Frances? She expressed a personal opinion on Sturgeon, and so did I. They may well be polar opposites, but so what, that's called freedom of speech. At no time did I comment on her opinion or address her in any way, so where did "rude" come in?

Edited April 6, 2016 by Ghostrider

[Roachmill]

You what? I would have felt obliged were I a member. I've said that many times now. I still fail to see how one fictitious members thoughts for the greater good is somehow fascist thinking. I have explained a few times now and this is my last attempt:

 

 

Organisation: "We're boycotting! Not going to press Evil Corp. for revealing answers. Nope!"

 

Later that same day at Evil Corp. meeting...

 

Organisation member: "So, what about this key Organisation related topic?"

 

World + dog: Hang on a minute. Organisation said one thing and then some member went and did the opposite!

 

Next time Organisation says something: world + dog is a little bit unsure to believe what has been said.

 

I see that as common sense yet you see it as some form of fascist bully-boy operation. I suspect we'll be getting a few words more on the subject!

 

 

And yet you'd be fine had "Organisation" mandated that nobody say anything. *speechless*

 

As for not being rude... dress that as freedom of speech all you like.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

Nicola was very nice.  I spent Monday morning with her.

Nice to hear an honest assessment from somebody who has actually met her.

I'm afraid views like this won't be tolerated in "wir" Shetland though.

The memo said we had to really dislike the SNP and boycott any meetings with them.

 

 

So you received a memo?  Who from or are you just trolling?

[Ghostrider]

Organisation: "We're boycotting! Not going to press Evil Corp. for revealing answers. Nope!"

 

Later that same day at Evil Corp. meeting...

 

Organisation member: "So, what about this key Organisation related topic?"

 

World + dog: Hang on a minute. Organisation said one thing and then some member went and did the opposite!

 

Next time Organisation says something: world + dog is a little bit unsure to believe what has been said.

 

<----Snipz---->

 

And yet you'd be fine had "Organisation" mandated that nobody say anything. *speechless*

 

I think you're being decidely disrespectful to them by belittling world + dog's intelligence.

 

I think for the very greatest part world + dog are more than capable of clearly distinguishing very clearly the significant difference between a private individual asking questions for their own personal interest, and espousing their own personal views, and a representative of a group asking questions and espousing group poilcy.

 

I never said I'd be "fine" with an orgnisation who demnded silence. Quite the opposite in fact, a couple of posts back I clearly stated any orgnisation that demnded that level of obedience wouldn't have me as a member for very long.

[Roachmill]

I sit corrected. You did say you'd agree (I know!) with me had they ordered a boycott. Sorry about that.

 

As for the rest - you're crediting the world + dog with a healthy amount of intelligence on this occasion - where it suits your argument. I'm sure there will be occasion when the opposite is the case: politicians, SIC, NHS and SNP folk are part of world + dog.

[Capeesh]

 

 

 

 

Nicola was very nice.  I spent Monday morning with her.

 

Nice to hear an honest assessment from somebody who has actually met her.

I'm afraid views like this won't be tolerated in "wir" Shetland though.

The memo said we had to really dislike the SNP and boycott any meetings with them.

 

So you received a memo?  Who from or are you just trolling?

The boycott was on the Shetland Times website.

The SNP bad stuff is in every comment and letter emanating from "wir" Shetland, it seems to be their raison d'être.

As a Shetlander myself, when I hear the title "wir" Shetland getting bandied about I just assume it means me too, is this not the case?

If they were a true multi party, apolitical group campaigning for more powers for Shetland I would join in a heartbeat.

Sadly this group appears to be nothing more than another platform for anti SNP rants.

[Ghostrider]

^ The Shetlnd Times reported that WS were not sending a representtive to the SNP rally, the choice of the word "boycott" was their's, not WS's as far as I'm aware. Anyway, since when was an item reported in the local rag a "memo" on anything to anyone?

 

Yes, a lot of current WS material is critical of the Scottish Government, which by default of the SNP being the Scottish Government, is SNP critical. Its called "education", as in "this is what they're up to, and/or planning to get up to. Are you happy with this being done in your name, wouldn't you prefer to be trying to do something about it and achieve a better outcome?"

 

You know what they say about "assume" - it makes an 'ass' [of] 'u' [and] 'me'.

 

"Wir Shetland" is the name of the group, its members and supporters appear happy to be identified by it, others need not wear the cap unless it fits.

 

How can a group be both multi-party and apolitical, thats a contradiction? WS is multi-party, and non party political, and just in case you come back with the Tavish backing issue, a few facts. WS is backing Tavish as a preferred candidate for the May '16 SG election only. There is no backing being given to the LibDem party of any sort at any time, and as soon as the election is over, WS's backing of Tavish the candidate expires.

 

Tavish is NOT being backed because he's the LibDem candidate, he's being backed because he's the only candidate whose shown the remotest interest or enthusiasm in increased Shetland autonomy.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Ghostrider

[Roachmill]

^You may want to nip over to the ST site and tell Tinkler that. He's busy banging on about Tavish being the smart move to block the SNP.

[Ghostrider]

^ And is that Tinker speaking on behalf of WS, or Tinkler expressing a personal opinion?

 

My understanding of WS's reasoning for choosing Tavish is his acknowledgement of a desire for greater autonomy. Yes, if he gets back in, it keeps the SNP out, which is no bad thing in my personal opinion, given that they stand behind just bout everything WS wants rid of, but I'm not aware of WS having publically expressed an opinion on using a vote for Tavish for tactical reasons.

[Roachmill]

I think he speaks for God Almighty!