Roachmill Posted April 8, 2016 Report Share Posted April 8, 2016 You're splitting some mighty fine hairs once again. Are WS saying they back Tavish but don't want anyone to vote for him? Of course not. You simply cannot vote for him without voting for his party. Hence the current sh*tstorm. Add in now being outwardly opposed to the SNP and it's pretty blooming clear support is there for the LibDems by way of their sure-fire candidate. Quibble over a word here and a mini-trolling there, but WS is supporting the LibDems on this occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ghostrider Posted April 8, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted April 8, 2016 ^ There's a big difference between supporting a candidate to represent the local constituency because they're seen as the best for the job from what's available, and giving blanket approval and support to the policies of the national party they're a member of. The LibDems, as far as I am aware have expressed no real support for increased local autonomy, so they're in the same boat as Labour and the Tories. The SNP has expressed opposition to local autonomy, hence the criticism. Tavish has expressed a certain level of support for increased local autonomy, hence WS's support for him, but neither Barton nor Smith have expressed any interest and they're off the radar as a result, however Skene has toed the party line and opposes it, so obviously he's going to be criticised. *If* WS was backing the LibDems, would it not follow that WS would also be supporting a LibDem vote for the list vote? They've expressed no opinion in this area. If folk want to believe that support for an individual candidate because they are felt to be best for the job somehow translates to equal support for the party they belong to, that is their perogative. However that doesn't alter the facts, that while it well documented and undisputed that WS have given their backing to Tavish as preferred candidate, at noplace at anytime that I'm aware of has WS ever expressed an opinion on the LidDems in any way. whalsa, Scorrie and wilks 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roachmill Posted April 8, 2016 Report Share Posted April 8, 2016 Whatever the intention was, a vote for Tavish is a vote for his party. What's left of it. George. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urabug Posted April 8, 2016 Report Share Posted April 8, 2016 Whatever the intention was, a vote for Tavish is a vote for his party. What's left of it.Yes! usually when someone helps or comes to the aid of another they usually get praised,but not in politics . Never really understood what they did wrong,thought given the situation at the time it was probably a good thing, but I must be among the very few who think this way. Oh! they will be come back when we all discover the "others" cannot fulfil all there promises ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post whalsa Posted April 8, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted April 8, 2016 Folk are getting way too hung up on this Tavish Scott endorsement. As has been repeatedly explained the Committee took the decision to recommend Tavish for this one election. If that equates to helping the Lib Dems then so be it but that is not the intention, we are trying to do what is best for Shetland and helping or hindering UK or Scottish Parties overall does not really come in to it. Each member is fully entitled to vote however they wish we are simply issuing them with our belief that Tavish Scott is the most suitable candidate to assist us in our aims. Our detractors initially accused us of being a Tory plot but now they are labelling us a Lib Dem/Wir Shetland coalition. Many just can't seem to get it out of their heads that the main purpose of the group is to fight for Shetlands future NOT get involved in tribal UK party politics and Scottish Independence debates.We have recommended Tavish this time but if/when he is elected that support will end unless he helps us carry forward our aims for an autonomous Shetland. George., wilks and Ghostrider 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Colin Posted April 8, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted April 8, 2016 ^^ The memo that was on the Shetland Times website here...www..How can this not be political?.comIt'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. And, if he/she/it doesn't understand that, then there is no hope.... Da Burra Shop, whalsa and George. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capeesh Posted April 8, 2016 Report Share Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) WS became involved in tribal party politics the minute they backed the Liberal Democrat candidate Tavish Scott in the Scottish election.In addition, the endless churning out of SNP bad stuff (getting more and more hysterical the closer we get to the election) makes the claim they're some all encompassing group, desperate to avoid tribal party politics absolutely ludicrous.@Colin pfffft Edited April 8, 2016 by Capeesh paulb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ghostrider Posted April 8, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted April 8, 2016 (edited) ^ That's stretching it quite some distance. As has already been stated, WS is only interested in politicians/party politics if their policies have a direct positive or negative impact on WS's aims. I can't speak for WS, but I would hope that any politician/party that offers assistance to WS achieving what they've set out to would receive reciprocal support, as Tavish is, and any politician/politicial party proving to be an obstacle to WS's aims, criticised. As the SNP and Skene are being. Local Labour, Tory, LibDem etc parties have declined to express an opinion on WS's aims so far AFAIK, as have the local Labour and Tory politicians, so there's nothing to either support or criticise as far as WS is concerned. What the parties and party members bicker about nationally is AFAIK of no interest to WS, as guess what, its irrelevant, because WS stands for ridding local politics of national UK politics, and national UK parties. The criticism you preceive as being "anti-SNP", as I see it is anti-Scottish Government criticism, as they are the real problem. Obviously with the SNP having the majority they currently do and being the ruling party, it is understandable that "anti Scottish Government" criticism may appear to be "anti-SNP" criticism, but I have no reason to believe that exactly the same critcism wouldn't be aimed Holyrood's way right now, whoever the ruling party was, if that government's actions and policies were as inappropriate, negative and uncceptable to Shetland as the current government's have been and are. I don't suppose the previous two SNP led Scottish Governments will want to accept the credit, but it is they who have caused WS to be conceived. Had they treated us more fairly, getting something like WS off the ground would have been a Herculean task, as it is it has largely formed itself. So thankyou to the SNP at least for giving us that - the reasons and motivation to get off our arses and take control of ourselves. Edited April 8, 2016 by Ghostrider George., whalsa, LGR PATONEXCHANGE and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capeesh Posted April 9, 2016 Report Share Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) ...because WS stands for ridding local politics of national UK politics, and national UK parties...By backing one of them? ...The criticism you preceive as being "anti-SNP", as I see it is anti-Scottish Government criticism, as they are the real problem...I have wondered why the Tory government in Westminster by and large gets let of the hook by WS....I don't suppose the previous two SNP led Scottish Governments will want to accept the credit, but it is they who have caused WS to be conceived...I agree, but for a different reason than you've given, it seems more likely to me it had more to do with the anti SNP mob being alarmed at the increase in SNP support in Shetland at the last election....So thankyou to the SNP at least for giving us that - the reasons and motivation to get off our arses and take control of ourselves...Thousands of Shetlanders voted for the SNP in the last election, if this was really about more powers for Shetland would it not make sense to avoid alienating them, I'm sure many of them would like to see more powers for Shetland themselves. Edited April 9, 2016 by Capeesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ghostrider Posted April 9, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted April 9, 2016 ^ As has been said repeatedly, WS's backing of Tavish is for the individual, not the party, but if that backing is perceived by some as backing for the party, for now, its tolerable. The alternatives were to back no-one, as there are no independents standing, or field a WS candidate, both of which were AFAIK deemed less desirable at this point in time by the WS Committee. Westminster, whoever is in charge, may seem to be getting off with less WS criticism, as, at the moment they're largely the lesser evil. The Scottish Government is the greatest problem, closely followed by the EU IMHO, getting rid of one of them would be good, getting rid of both would be better. Getting rid of Westminster would achive very little as long as one or both of the other players remain in the game. Without the other two sticking their noses in, Shetland might just be able to negotiate a mutally acceptable co-existence with Westminster, but if not they would be the next to go. Isn't the existence of the last two SNP Scottish Governments and the apparent increase in local SNP support inextricably linked? Whether local support has anything to do with approval for the effects of the Scottish Government's policies and actions in Shetland, or a bit of mob mentality "gotta be on the big bandwagon" - "confused by crap" - "blinded by sprootle" coming in to play, only each individual supporter knows for themselves. Whether presenting a different choice to local SNP supporters alienates them, or gives them food for thought is what politics is all about. You do it to try and encourage folk to question and re-examine their current stance, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, that is the nature of the game. Very likely current Scottish Government criticism by WS is just going to rankle and wind up those who are blinkered dyed in the wool Nats, so what? Those people are beyond reach to any other philospophy and thinking than their own, however if presenting a different approach and/or pointing out apparent shortcomings in the present set up can result in getting some of the open minded to reconsider, its job done. Personally I see no real conflict in being a SNP supporter in principle, and also being a WS supporter, and being able to accept that while the SNP may be what they feel is best for Scotland as a whole, they are not the best for Shetland as an integral part of Scotland. The SNP mantra to push Scottish independence included the fact London was too remote from Scotland both in physical distance and attitude/circumstances etc to be able to govern Scotland well. Shetland is almost as remote in physical distance and attitude/circumstances etc from Edinburgh as Edinburgh is from London. To sit in Edinburgh, 332 miles from London and accuse London of being to remote too govern them, yet also sit in Edinburgh and refuse to acknowledge that being 292 miles, more than 150 over water from Shetland, makes them also almost equally too remote to govern Shetland, is at best illogical, and at worst hypocritical. If pointing out the "proof" of this on the ground in Shetland alienates the SNP faithful, they were never going to support Shetland autonomy anyway IMHO. Da Burra Shop, crofter, Suffererof1crankymofo and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capeesh Posted April 10, 2016 Report Share Posted April 10, 2016 (edited) ^ As has been said repeatedly, WS's backing of Tavish is for the individual, not the party....Yes, but I'm not a member of your group, I don't need a committee to tell me how to think, who to vote for and what to boycott, I'm free to look at the actions and words of WS and make my own mind up. In the WS statement the chairman of WS said he and his committee had decided for their members that WS were going to back the Liberal Democrat candidate in the election. Following on from that was a full dose of the obligatory anti SNP waffle, then (in what reads like a party political broadcast for the LibDems) started waxing lyrical about how wonderful the LibDems were. After all this WS are still trying to convince people they're some kind of all encompassing, multi party group. I don't think people will swallow that one but who knows? Edited April 10, 2016 by Capeesh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breeksy Posted April 10, 2016 Report Share Posted April 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concerned shetlander Posted April 10, 2016 Report Share Posted April 10, 2016 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted April 10, 2016 Report Share Posted April 10, 2016 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. concerned shetlander 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffererof1crankymofo Posted April 10, 2016 Report Share Posted April 10, 2016 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. So you reckon that's the case with Wir Shetland? The Chair announces on behalf of the Committee and that's no different to a lot of organisations. I'm not seeing Wir Shetland being dragged around by a few vocal individuals, what I am seeing is that people are free to air their own views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now