Self-sustaining Shetland

[Urabug]

Well i do not need anyones advice how to vote. 

 

I certainly do not agree with Tavish all the time but he is definately a better bet ,he at least has the necessary experience and does not want to split the UK like some want to do.

 

Will the SNP  be so popular when they start to revalue the property bands!  

 

God forbid the SNP get a full hoose. 

[Roachmill]

"The SNP's policies and actions in Shetland have been so damaging that Wir Shetland has no option but to oppose them" - John Tulloch (http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/election-2016/news-feed/12504-councillor-quits-wir-shetland-after-tavish-endorsement)

 

Which is fair enough... but it's not the same as saying we're backing Tavish because he's shown some interest in our views. Anyway, this is all a bit sad really. While I am interested in the aims, I have little faith in the vocal majority of current members being able to do anything but stamp, shout and not consider their own actions (with Whalsa being the sole exception).

[Capeesh]

 ...How can a group be both multi-party and apolitical, thats a contradiction? WS is multi-party, and non party political...

Apolitical = not connected to any one particular party.

"Wir" Shetland is backing a single party in an election which makes the claim that they're "multi party" and "non political" laughable.

Why are they trying to mislead people?

[Urabug]

Shetland may well be renowned for it's friendlyness and kindness but when it comes to those" who have and the have nots" Wir Shetland is  very much divided.

 

I'm sure this is reflected very much in the way we vote,those who have, wanting to hold on to as much as they can,and we all want more and more.

 

The grass is always greener on the side of the fence.

 

Time will tell.

 

I doubt if autonomy in Shetland would work,it would be like like the VE project and would cause  many many divisions. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Urabug

[Ghostrider]

 

 ...How can a group be both multi-party and apolitical, thats a contradiction? WS is multi-party, and non party political...

Apolitical = not connected to any one particular party.

"Wir" Shetland is backing a single party in an election which makes the claim that they're "multi party" and "non political" laughable.

Why are they trying to mislead people?

 

 

"Not connected to any particular party" is a secondary definition of "apolitical", the main definition according to numerous Google hits is "not interested or involved in politics", hence my question, how can someone be a party supporter and also be apolitical, as that's mutually incomptible.

 

Regrdless, as its besides the main point. WS is not backing any political party, they are backing one individual candidate for this one election. Support for, or the support of the LibDem party or any other party has never ever been mentioned unless by those opposing WS, apprently as a method intended to dicredit WS. Furthermore, WS has never claimed to be "non-political", that is another untruth apprently put about by those wishing to attempt to discredit WS. It states clearly on the WS site that WS is "a multi-party campaign group...." and always has done as far as I'm aware.

 

Any misleading that is going on appears, as far as I can see seems to be coming from WS's detractors, no-one else.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Ghostrider

[whalsa]

"The SNP's policies and actions in Shetland have been so damaging that Wir Shetland has no option but to oppose them" - John Tulloch (http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/election-2016/news-feed/12504-councillor-quits-wir-shetland-after-tavish-endorsement)

 

Which is fair enough... but it's not the same as saying we're backing Tavish because he's shown some interest in our views. Anyway, this is all a bit sad really. While I am interested in the aims, I have little faith in the vocal majority of current members being able to do anything but stamp, shout and not consider their own actions (with Whalsa being the sole exception).

Again, Ghostrider has beaten me to it and summed it up pretty well. The reasoning behind backing Tavish was based on both his statements supporting autonomy as well as the SNPs current track record regarding Shetland, which most would agree is quite poor.

 

I don't consider myself for or against any political party I am simply seeking what is best for these Islands and tend to vote for candidates on a case by case basis.

 

I also think you will find the majority of members are non-vocal and simply joined because they believe in the idea. When people are passionate about something they may get carried away and say stuff they perhaps shouldn't but remember we are not politicians, simply enthusiastic amateurs.

[whalsa]

^^^ Well said again Ghostrider in regards to us "misleading" people.

 

And Urabug I am not sure what you are referring to regarding "haves and have nots" but I can tell you there are people from all backgrounds who have joined and believe in the group.

 

I consider myself very fortunate to find myself in good health with a decent job and a happy family. That does not mean my interests are simply to maintain that status, by supporting Wir Shetland I hope to help protect the way of life for everyone who lives here.

 

It is apparent to me that we cannot rely on distant self serving politicians to look after our unique interests effectively.

[Ghostrider]

I doubt if autonomy in Shetland would work,it would be like like the VE project and would cause  many many divisions. 

 

I don't see why it couldn't work, *if* its won transparenty and democratically.

 

Much of the trouble with VE is that in many people's view any democracy that got anywhere near VE was very stretched, contrived or by sleight of hand, and transparency never had a look in. Whichever way VE were to go, obviously a sizeable chunk of folk were going to be disappointed, but I do think that if everybody felt they'd had their opinions heard and addressed, and that they'd put up their best argument but in the end it just wasn't enough and the opposing viewpoint grnered most public support, they'd be big enough to accept that for what it was, and move on making, what for them was the best of a bad lot.

 

After all, we've spent over 60 years living under a Government in Westminster we didn't put there, and 15 or however many it is under a Scottish Government we didn't put there or that some of us even want to exist, and god knows how many incarnations of the SIC that we'd happily see far enough once they'd shown their true colours. Not to mention being attached to a nation for over 500 years, some of us want to have nothing to do with. Can trying something new and completely different, if the majority who choose to express an opinion support it, be so bad for the minority who don't?

Edited April 7, 2016 by Ghostrider

[Da Burra Shop]

 

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.

 

What memo?

[Capeesh]

^^ The memo that was on the Shetland Times website here...www..How can this not be political?.com

It's no skin of my nose if WS wants to back the LibDems in an election or release endless anti SNP rants.

If they want to try and keep up the pretence that they're a "multi party, non political group" while doing so, good luck to them, I'm sure people can make up their own minds.

[Roachmill]

Again, Ghostrider has beaten me to it and summed it up pretty well. The reasoning behind backing Tavish was based on both his statements supporting autonomy as well as the SNPs current track record regarding Shetland, which most would agree is quite poor.

 

That's fine. I get and understand all that. But that's not what has been the "party" line; although it's been pretty self evident since year dot that it's an anti-SNP deal.

 

I don't consider myself for or against any political party I am simply seeking what is best for these Islands and tend to vote for candidates on a case by case basis.

+1 there!

 

I also think you will find the majority of members are non-vocal and simply joined because they believe in the idea. When people are passionate about something they may get carried away and say stuff they perhaps shouldn't but remember we are not politicians, simply enthusiastic amateurs.

Well I'd like to see and hear evidence of the better balanced members but I realise that it's unlikely by virtue of being non-vocal Besides yourself I've yet to see anyone pass a fair comment on a topic.

 

Neither of the two main candidates are exactly exciting prospects either which doesn't help!

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

 ...How can a group be both multi-party and apolitical, thats a contradiction? WS is multi-party, and non party political...

Apolitical = not connected to any one particular party.

"Wir" Shetland is backing a single party in an election which makes the claim that they're "multi party" and "non political" laughable.

Why are they trying to mislead people?

 

 

At present, Wir Shetland is not registered with the Electoral Commission and therefore is not regarded as a political party.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

^^ The memo that was on the Shetland Times website here...www..How can this not be political?.com

It's no skin of my nose if WS wants to back the LibDems in an election or release endless anti SNP rants.

If they want to try and keep up the pretence that they're a "multi party, non political group" while doing so, good luck to them, I'm sure people can make up their own minds.

 

Since when has a press report been a memo?

[Ghostrider]

^^ The memo that was on the Shetland Times website here...www..How can this not be political?.com

It's no skin of my nose if WS wants to back the LibDems in an election or release endless anti SNP rants.

If they want to try and keep up the pretence that they're a "multi party, non political group" while doing so, good luck to them, I'm sure people can make up their own minds.

 

if you persist in claiming you believe the backing of an individual as a preferred candidate by WS equates to equally backing an organisation that individual belongs to, when you've been told repeatedly that its wrong, that anybody ever claimed WS was "multi party, non-political" (quite apart from being impossible), when you've been told also repeatedly thats wrong as well, i think it says more about you than the folk/orgnisation(s) you are criticizing.

 

Where has WS, or even a WS member or supporter claimed WS supported the LibDem party, where has WS, or a WS member or supporter claimed WS was "non-political"? A link or a quote would work.

 

Of course WS is political, its business is constitutional change, things don't get much more political than that. WS is NOT party political, and couldn't be, even it wanted to, without forming itself in to a political party, which it hasn't.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Ghostrider

[Da Burra Shop]

^^ The memo that was on the Shetland Times website here...www..How can this not be political?.com

It's no skin of my nose if WS wants to back the LibDems in an election or release endless anti SNP rants.

If they want to try and keep up the pretence that they're a "multi party, non political group" while doing so, good luck to them, I'm sure people can make up their own minds.

I see no memo there just a piece written by the times.