Self-sustaining Shetland

[Urabug]

I very much support free speech,and thankful that in this country we are still able to make our own decisions as to who we want to go and listen to.

 

So I stayed at home and let the Viceroy from Holyrood rave to those who cared to listen to her . 

 

Working in the garden was'nt all that exciteing either but definately more productive.

[suuusssiiieee]

Looking at the photo stream of Nicola on the Hjaltland via social media all i want to know is did she cough up her £18.50 for the Magnus Lounge like us mere mortals have to?

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

There's little chance of my 4 year old stopping pounding the coffee table with his favourite Batman toy. I still tell him not to, as, at least then, I have the right to complain about it if nothing else.

 

Please don't tell me to take the toy away or be a better parent (he doesn't actually hit the coffee table). I'm merely trying to highlight the simple fact that, if you don't tell someone something, you have little right to moan about it. There's a saying about "getting of the pot" that would apply nicely here.

 

Then you're sending out mixed signals.

 

I'd quite happily tell Sturgeon where to go impolitely so that my signal to her was loud, concise and clear.  Going along to a Q&A session with her would be fruitless because she wouldn't listen, she pretends to want to listen ... unless you happen to be a well-known TV journalist, you'd get to ask your question once, she'd do the standard politician's reply of fudging the issue and then move onto the next question; you wouldn't get the opportunity to pull her up on it.  These Q&A sessions with politicians are farcical.  Edit:  And this isn't a hustings, it's for the SNP organised by the SNP, isn't it?

Edited April 4, 2016 by Suffererof1crankymofo

[Capeesh]

I find the "wir" Shetland boycott very amusing.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Capeesh

[Colin]

I find the "wir" Shetland boycott very amusing.

Amusing?

 

Sturgeon is no fool and, she (and her people) must be aware of them. 

 

Perhaps they are just "hiding in plain sight"?.

 

As someone else pointed out, the ORGANISATION has decided not to make any kind of challenge but, there is nothing to prevent INDIVIDUALS from doing so if they wish.

 

Personally, I will make my case at the Ballot Box....

 

PS...  I am NOT a member of "WS" but, I do, broadly, support their aims and ambitions. 

 

I wonder how many others there are that share my position?   Might be enough to be "amusing"

[Roachmill]

^ WS, as an organisation may have taken the decsion that a boycott of the event by any person(s) endorsed by or speaking on the group's behalf is the way to go, but AFIK that doesn't stop any individual, member of WS or not, from attended and asking whatever question(s) they see fit, if they see any point. Which I don't.

Really? If an organisation cannot maintain a united front then it ain't going very far. Joe Blogs is more than welcome to voice their concerns but, were I a WS member, I wouldn't as that would seemingly go against the wishes of my organisation.

 

 

There's little chance of my 4 year old stopping pounding the coffee table with his favourite Batman toy. I still tell him not to, as, at least then, I have the right to complain about it if nothing else.

 

Please don't tell me to take the toy away or be a better parent (he doesn't actually hit the coffee table). I'm merely trying to highlight the simple fact that, if you don't tell someone something, you have little right to moan about it. There's a saying about "getting of the pot" that would apply nicely here.

 

Then you're sending out mixed signals.

 

I don't see what's mixed about any of that. Piddle or leave the bathroom - just don't complain about needing a piddle after you've had the chance and done nothing. And please avoid the urge to blow this up into a parenting issue. That was not the point and is entirely fictitious.

 

I'm most certainly not above having a good long-winded rant about things (just ask the Better Half). But, similarly, I'll STFU if it's something I can't be bothered to do anything about or, conversely, do what I can to try and make it better. This isn't to say that WS are doing nothing; more that this looks like a missed opportunity to make themselves heard. Were I in Sturgeon's shoes today I'd be considerably less worried about WS than before I came up. Which is a real shame IMO.

[Colin]

"Really? If an organisation cannot maintain a united front then it ain't going very far. Joe Blogs is more than welcome to voice their concerns but, were I a WS member, I wouldn't as that would seemingly go against the wishes of my organisation."

 

Really? Maybe it's not that kind of "organisation" preferring instead to leave a democratic and unhindered approach to matters to the individuals who subscribe to it.....

 

AFAIK, WS have NEVER (yet(?)) attempted to constrain it's membership by insisting that they (the members) adhere to the party(?) line and, again AFAIK, have NEVER claimed to be "one voice" for all it's members...

 

Maybe it's because they are not a "party" in the accepted sense..

[Roachmill]

And maybe it's not. You are not an organisation by definition if you're not organised.

 

FWIW, "one voice" is indeed what WS (or the leader anyway) claims to be:

 

"Mr Inkster does not speak for Wir Shetland, I do." - John Tulloch

 

To his credit he was trying to dampen the sh*tstorm a certain comment made.

[Frances144]

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

We actually never spoke about politics. She did not visit us to canvas our opinions. She wanted to meet the ponies and Lambie and have a cup of tea and cake. She asked us questions about our lives and not one mention was made of Scotland. It was like having a friend over. She loved Lambie and the ponies.  Bjørn Roar Larsen said he liked her hair and she was relaxed and didn't want to leave. A really normal morning spent with a new friend, not a politician at all.

http://myshetland.co.uk/lambie-has-an-audience-with/

(and she loved Lambie - what is not to love?)

[Ghostrider]

Nicola was very nice.

 

She has what it takes to be an almost half decent actress, I'll give her that much.

[Ghostrider]

 

^ WS, as an organisation may have taken the decsion that a boycott of the event by any person(s) endorsed by or speaking on the group's behalf is the way to go, but AFIK that doesn't stop any individual, member of WS or not, from attended and asking whatever question(s) they see fit, if they see any point. Which I don't.

Really? If an organisation cannot maintain a united front then it ain't going very far. Joe Blogs is more than welcome to voice their concerns but, were I a WS member, I wouldn't as that would seemingly go against the wishes of my organisation.

 

Thats not what I said. No one individual member is entitled to speak on behalf of WS without Chairman or Committee approval, this is standard practice across virtually all organisations and WS is no different in that respect. As an organisation WS chose not to send a representative the the SNP rally to speak on their behalf, but at no time ever suggested that any individual WS member wasn't entirely free to attend it as an individual and ask whatever questions they saw fit, regrdless whether their content WS had a stnce on or not.

 

WS has a perfectly united front on the issues they wish to express an opinion on, it is you who is expecting them to be something they are not. No member is gagged or committed to total obedience to follow WS's lead, where the committee feels it is worth their bother to mke their presence felt, they will attend as they feel approprite, and while support from the general membership my be appreciated in such circumstances, it is not mandtory, nor is any member prevented from saying if they feel the ction is wrong.

 

It is quite easy to have a strong organisation that only concentrates on very specific issues, there is no need to have an opinion on everything and turn out at every event that conceivably could be construed as remotely relevant to the organisation's core beliefs for it to have strength.

 

In this case the WS Committee felt that more could be gained by staying away, officially at least,  from Nicola's little get together, than could be gained by attending. Maybe they were wrong, maybe they were right, but I tend to agree with their logic given what the event was.

[Frances144]

 

Nicola was very nice.

 

She has what it takes to be an almost half decent actress, I'll give her that much.

 

Because you were there?  Funny, I never saw you.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Frances144

[Roachmill]

Nice big wall of text there once again! Are you a WS committee member Ghostrider? You are talking as if you know the thoughts of such. I'd like to know if you're in the know or just spit balling.

[Ghostrider]

^ 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?

Edited April 5, 2016 by Ghostrider

[Ghostrider]

 

 

Nicola was very nice.

 

She has what it takes to be an almost half decent actress, I'll give her that much.

 

Because you were there?  Funny, I never saw you.

 

 

Nope, I wasn't there. I hate watching repeats, which is why I threw out the telly. And all she ever does is repeats.