Self-sustaining Shetland

[Ghostrider]

It seems from recent media that the chair only wants people involved that agree with him on every issue (otherwise why was he calling out Ms Westlake on her thoughts on education which was otherwise irrelevant to the discussion) and has no interest in 'risking' (my choice of word) a membership vote on something as important as who to support in the upcoming election.

 

A true 'multi-party' group wouldn't be so quick to alienate the second largest group of voters on the island.

 

It is my understanding that the Chair of WS had become aware of allegations that Mrs Westlake had publically declared support for a plan for Shetland's schools which from all apperances was completely at odds with WS's published policy on the subject, and he was attempting to establish her true feelings on the subject. For whatever her reasons, Mrs Westlake chose to go in to a series of waffling political non-answers in response, then leave WS.

 

There was no "discussion" per se, Mrs Westlake came on to the forum out of the blue and asked a question, to which she received a reply. The Chair simply used the fact she had chosen to be there and ask a question, to ask her one of his own back in return. Granted it could be argued that the whole exchange would have been more appropriately conducted in private correspondence, but it was Mrs Westlake who chose to ask the question she did, where she did, not the Chair's. And having done so, she can hardly complain when someone else reciprocates in kind, she laid down the ground rules after all.

 

Where does this belief that WS should have polled its entire membership before deciding which candidate if any WS should back, come from? WS has a governing committee, elected by the membership, whose purpose is to make executive decisions on behalf of the membership as necessary and appropiate, just like hundreds and thousands of committees of organisations everywhere. Such decisions taken are traditionally announced from the Chair or from another appropiate officer of the committee, on behalf of the committee. This is exactly what WS did, why would it be expected that WS should do anything else.

 

Strangely enough, it would seem that it is almost exclusively non-WS members who are the critics of WS not polling its entire membership on this, WS members, while, as is to be expected (you can't please all of the people all of the time) are perhaps not all wildly ecstatic about the situation, generally speaking the feeling seems to be tolerance for the outcome, and understanding and acceptance for why and how the decision came about.

 

If SNP voters feel alienated by WS, I'm pretty much at a loss to see what WS can do about that and still be WS. As I explained in a previous post I can see how someone could be a SNP supporter and a WS supporter, but if someone has a committment to the SNP to back their every word, the alienation they may feel is only something they themselves can resolve. The SNP have publically declared that they believe Shetland's place is as part of Scotland, and that Scotland's place in in the EU. WS's as I understnd it, is that Shetland's place is out of Scotland and out of the EU. These stances are mutually incompatible, and a situation of feeling alienated by a Shetland SNP supporter can on be resolved by themselves deciding which of thos eoptions they believe best for Shetland and whether they're loyalty to Shetland or to Scotland takes greatest precedence. There is nothing WS can do in this area to assist as far as I'm aware, that doesn't compromise WS's core principles, which would mean they were no longer WS.

[breeksy]

Ms Westlake asked a question that was refusing to the running of the group that she was a member of, in an appropriate forum. It was not a personal question about any individual, it was a question about policy.

 

Mr Tulloch asked a question that regard to Ms Westlake as an individual.

 

Mr Tulloch thinks he was justified in doing so.

 

In my opinion he is wrong on that.

referring to. Doh!

[Ghostrider]

....I hoped that wir shetland would stand a candidate,...

 

Several folk have said this, and I think I can understand why folk might feel this way. On the flip side though, in practical terms WS is still a very young orgnisation finding its feet properly, and because of that simply hasn't had time in the few months its been in existence to put in place a suitable person for candidacy, backed by adequate resources and groundwork to give them a level playing field and fighting chance against the declared field.

 

From a personal POV I'm not surprised or disappointed that WS hasn't put up a candidate this time, as even if they had, and won, I'm struggling to see what benefit they could have brought via Holyrood. For future national or local elections, yes certainly I believe fielding candidates is something WS should seriously consider, as in both Westminster and the Town Hall, their effect could be felt, but for what WS stands for, Holyrood doesn't have to power to deliver, relegting them to being nothing more than constantly fighting to amend SG legislation that was negative to Shetland, and not furthering progess to removing that as a problem once and for all by getting rid of the connection to the Scottish Parliament altogether.

[Ghostrider]

Ms Westlake asked a question that was refusing to the running of the group that she was a member of, in an appropriate forum. It was not a personal question about any individual, it was a question about policy.

 

Mr Tulloch asked a question that regard to Ms Westlake as an individual.

 

Mr Tulloch thinks he was justified in doing so.

 

In my opinion he is wrong on that.

referring to. Doh!

 

Westlake, as an individual member of WS asked a question about a specific point of precedure on running WS, and got a reply.

 

The Chair, who provided her with that reply, then asked her a question about a specific point concerning her alleged support for an issue that was in conflict with published WS policy. Whether she'd made that alleged statement of support as an individual, as an SIC Councillor, as a WS mmeber, or all three is unknown, as she did not state which, nor did she attempt to discuss in which capacity she made the alleged comment when responding.

 

Surely if an ordinary member of a group expects to be able to query the procedure of that group, it is not unreasonble for an office bearer of that group to query an individual member's point of view concerning an item of published group policy. Especially when that office bearer has become aware of allegations that that member is publically supporting policy opposing that of the group.

 

How, and when do you suggest it would have been approprite for a WS office bearer to approach Westlake on this untenable issue? She turned up querying something that presumbly she felt important to her reltionship with the group, and had her question answered. As the situation had presented itself, an office bearer used it to query something that they felt important to the relationship between the group and the member concerned. People do exactly this in all kinds of circumstances every day, what was so wrong with it in these circumstances, and how differently should it have been done for it to have been "done right"?

Edited April 10, 2016 by Ghostrider

[breeksy]

How and where? As you said. In private correspondence.

 

Although it is unlikely that in a group of this sort, every individual is on board with every policy that the group has. To otherwise is naiive at best.

[brian.smith]

This is all a bit of a horror story. I have been reading the letters on Shetland times and quite frankly you have to laugh. One question gets answered by another question fight breaks out toys out the pram time. Dummies getting spat out all over the place.

 

Jeez easy lesson on how to completely ruin an entirely plausible idea self autonomy for Shetland.

 

The only one I have heard talk any sense is Whalsa on here. If you think you are going to amass the support you need to achieve your hopes and dreams you are sadly deluded with the behaviour thats been going from both sides I might add 

[Roachmill]

I reads pretty clearly like John Tulloch didn't want to answer the question as it's fairly obvious where that topic would go given the truthful answer. He merely attempted to very quickly deflect and counter attacked with his own doozy of a question which he kept pressing for an answer to keep Amanda on the back foot. That is how it reads to me. No need for a wall-of-text there!

 

Whether there's meat on the bones of his probe remains to be seen... but I can completely understand Amanda not wanting to answer it on a semi-public forum. His question, were it a genuine concern, should have been asked in private as Breeksy pointed out.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Roachmill

[Ghostrider]

How and where? As you said. In private correspondence.

 

Although it is unlikely that in a group of this sort, every individual is on board with every policy that the group has. To otherwise is naiive at best.

 

Yes, private correspondence argubly would have been better, but for both questions. Neither one was either prticularly appropriate nor worthy of general membership debate.

 

It was Westlake though that put it in front of the entire membership, she chose the question, and the time, and the place, and the person to call out for an answer on it. She could have asked the question to the membership in general, or she could have contacted any committee member or many of the general membership and asked, she could have read the group constitution, and she'd have gotten exactly the same answer.

 

I sincerely don't "get" how a member of a group calling out a specific office bearer of that group on the membership discussion board with a question that presumably is bothering them about their membership of the group, is somehow "ok", but when the same officer bearer asks the same person at the same time as answering their question, a question of their own thats bothering them about that member's membership of the group, that's "not ok".

 

Bluntly, if she didn't relish the thought of discussing how the group viewed her membership of it in front the the entire membership, she shouldn't have opened the batting by attempting to discuss how she viewed her membership of the group, in front of the entire membership, as at the end of the day they are two halves of one whole.

 

Of course not everyone is solidly behind ever policy, but usually members are realistic enough to appreciate that some degree of flexibility and compromise is needed for the greater good - anyone who isn't open to that, isn't going to remain a member of any group very long. The point in hand is different though, in that Westlake was alleged to be supporting a view the polar opposite of one of WS's main policies, and if she was doing so whilst making no attempt to make it clear whether she was speaking as a WS member or not, the risk of generating confusion among the public as to what WS's policy actually was was high.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Ghostrider

[whalsa]

Not been on here for a few days again. Ghostrider has continued to do a good job of covering the topic of why we decided to endorse Tavish so I won't say any more than I have already on that. 
 

I thought Wir Shetland was an interesting idea. Thought I'd hold off for a bit to see how things panned out.

It seems from recent media that the chair only wants people involved that agree with him on every issue (otherwise why was he calling out Ms Westlake on her thoughts on education which was otherwise irrelevant to the discussion) and has no interest in 'risking' (my choice of word) a membership vote on something as important as who to support in the upcoming election.

A true 'multi-party' group wouldn't be so quick to alienate the second largest group of voters on the island.

Mr Tulloch seems to have delusions of importance, where his views trump the views of others.

He does seem to have a few committed supporters, but he also seems to have a few that are very unhappy with the way things have been played out.

Personally I think the only way forward for the group's survival is to elect a new, more open, chair. One that might encourage people to join, rather than leave, the group.

 

To you breeksy I would say don't pay too much attention to the arguments going on in the media, there is a lot of point scoring going on. As for not being sure about joining or being sold on our chairman I would still urge you to join and contribute to the group. We have only just started and if you are interested then perhaps helping drive change from within would be an idea? There are plenty in the group who are open to reasonable discussion. 
 

I was very interested in wir shetland as I did not want to either vote snp or tavish. I hoped that wir shetland would stand a candidate, but was very disappointed when they backed tavish. Tavish and Carmichael are just career politicians, and tavish knows his best chance of keeping his nice little earner is to agree with wir Shetland and get a few votes that way, which is definitely working. After he's won the vote again by mis truth, lies or whatever gets him there he will just be the usual tavish doing exactly what he wants. He is not there for any of our good, he is just there for himself. Where are our politicians with a grain of common sense and integrity and concern for the shetland public and not their own interests.

The reasons we decided to back Tavish and did not stand our own candidate are well covered in this thread. However I would say that if Tavish is elected and it becomes apparent he will not help to advance our aims then we will withdraw our support. We are NOT blanket supporting the Lib Dems nor are we providing Tavish with an eternal, unconditional endorsement.

 

 

I thought Wir Shetland was an interesting idea. Thought I'd hold off for a bit to see how things panned out.

It seems from recent media that the chair only wants people involved that agree with him on every issue (otherwise why was he calling out Ms Westlake on her thoughts on education which was otherwise irrelevant to the discussion) and has no interest in 'risking' (my choice of word) a membership vote on something as important as who to support in the upcoming election.

A true 'multi-party' group wouldn't be so quick to alienate the second largest group of voters on the island.

Mr Tulloch seems to have delusions of importance, where his views trump the views of others.

He does seem to have a few committed supporters, but he also seems to have a few that are very unhappy with the way things have been played out.

Personally I think the only way forward for the group's survival is to elect a new, more open, chair. One that might encourage people to join, rather than leave, the group.

Most of what you say is the main reason I have not joined WS... 

 

Although I support their aims, I feel that they (WS) are in danger of being dragged around by a few vocal individuals and, I don't want to be their "cannon fodder" being "tarred with the same brush" and having to justify their views to anyone.

 

Maybe it's a "Shetland Thing" where the chairperson of most local organisations seem to think that t is they who run things and that the rest, pretty much, have to do as they are told.

 

"People Power" is great but, "Power People" are dangerous.

 

I can understand your viewpoint Colin but I would also urge you to join the group. Anyone who agrees with the ideas but not the personalities involved simply has to join to have their say in who will be on the Committee next year. 

I have been saying this for months, I urge people to focus on the actual ideas being discussed rather than the vocal personalities prevalent on various forums. There seems to still be a lot of post referendum bitterness which clouds much of those debates. I would urge anyone who believes in the principles of Wir Shetland to join and help from the inside rather than sit puzzled on the sidelines. 

 

[whalsa]

This is all a bit of a horror story. I have been reading the letters on Shetland times and quite frankly you have to laugh. One question gets answered by another question fight breaks out toys out the pram time. Dummies getting spat out all over the place.

 

Jeez easy lesson on how to completely ruin an entirely plausible idea self autonomy for Shetland.

 

The only one I have heard talk any sense is Whalsa on here. If you think you are going to amass the support you need to achieve your hopes and dreams you are sadly deluded with the behaviour thats been going from both sides I might add 

Brian in defence of Wir Shetland a lot of that bickering and "toys out the pram" stuff has been going on on the ST comments section from long before WS launched. Like I said above I think the hangover from the referendum is still poisoning debate there. 

 

I appreciate the comment regarding my contributions but there are many other members who talk sense, some are on here but many are not. 

 

The idea is far from ruined, the idea is as sound as ever, but I hope we can get through this period of unpleasantness and come out stronger as a result. 

[Ghostrider]

^ What Whalsa said, and. Its a cliche, but if you don't like the personalities that are in right now, or the precise direction they are driving things, be the ones to change that by joining and wading in and making your mark. The idea is bigger than any one person, or even small group of people. There's bound to be differences of opinion in how things should be done and who should do them, but its only by everyone who does care getting in there and having their say can the middle ground be found that everyone can accept as tolerable. WS can only do and be as good as the sum total of the people who participate, and strength and resilience only built upon weight of numbers of members heading in one direction with a single goal.

[breeksy]

Ghostrider, if you think that a question that relates to how a decision that affects the entire membership should not be asked in front of aforementioned membership, then it sounds like you are part of an organisation that does not value transparency.

 

She was asking how it was decided. She wasn't 'calling out' an individual. Unless said individual made the decision, I'm not sure how it can be seen that way.

 

Clearly we disagree on this. I've said all I have to say on the matter.

 

Whalsa, I hear you. Your arguments are certainly more compelling than much I have seen come out of the wir Shetland camp. Sadly, however, there you are outnumbered by a vocal few that I have seen post on public platforms that I would in no way wish to be associated with on any level.

[Ghostrider]

Ghostrider, if you think that a question that relates to how a decision that affects the entire membership should not be asked in front of aforementioned membership, then it sounds like you are part of an organisation that does not value transparency.

 

She was asking how it was decided. She wasn't 'calling out' an individual. Unless said individual made the decision, I'm not sure how it can be seen that way.

 

I never said the question itself shouldn't have been asked publically, it was how she chose to ask the question that made in one she'd probably have been wiser to ask privately. She posted on a forum where all members have access, but chose to address her question directly at the Chair only, to the point of linking it directly to the Chair's F/B account, as best as I recall. If that doesn't constitute "calling someone out" I don't know what does.

 

If she genuinely didn't know how the decision had been reached, and had simply posted a question there asking, it would have been a whole different matter. She chose, for whatever her reason(s), to open up a 101 discussion between herself and another individual on a members' forum, then tried to cry "foul" when the same was turned round on her.

[Roachmill]

He did his very worst to dodge a question from a group member he should be able to answer and went nuclear instead. Call that reasonable behaviour if you like, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to ask John anything much after this.

[brian.smith]

He did his very worst to dodge a question from a group member he should be able to answer and went nuclear instead. Call that reasonable behaviour if you like, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to ask John anything much after this.

Maybe that was his aim all in all the whole affair and the fall out is nothing more than an embarrassment to an organisation with what I  think is a good theory that needs to be debated