Dratsy

no its not when the other 55% overrule you. then all it is is 45% of the costs and no say. Now this is being sold to us as a 50/50 project which it is not and never has been. The burradale boys would have to be daft to vote against their own interests and they might be many things but daft enough to vote themselves out of pocket, I seriously doubt it. We are a minority shareholder. Now if the agreement says the boys have to vote with the CT come what may then that is another thing but until we see the agreement in black and white then we will never know. But I for one would never agree to that and I doubt they did either.

Send your bairns to whatever you like or not as the case may be. it was this that has me shaking me head in wonder

like football, rugby, hockey, gymnastics etc etc etc. I'm sure they are delightful bairns, juries out on you though

seems like a good idea to me we used to run around like dafties when we were bairns climbing da banks on roofs you name it, This at least will have some aspect of safety involved so no need to worry too much about them hurting themselves. snowflake if you don't let your kids run a bit wild now they will never learn about risk management and are more likely to hurt themselves in the long run. kids bones break but they heal easy enough better they do it now than when they are older and take longer to heal. broke plenty of bones when I was a kid and none the worse for it now, but injuries sustained as an adult just keep niggling away. I too would like to know how much funding and from where has been obtained for this though

As minority partners we have no bloody say anyway, and dont let the bullshifters tell you otherwise

Orkney gold beef is available fae local butchers so my only beef is they weren't shopping local.

English mustard applied to the cats ass will stop it making an appearance anywhere near your house ever again and is also quite ammusing. (so I'm led to believe)

mention him aa du wants but be ready to run

Now welfare reform I can understand why you are so opposed AT and its not some altruistic tendancy, but if it gets rid of scroungers who are not deserving of benefits why is it a bad thing, that would be the brucks of £200 million that could be better spent on folks that are in need.

Maybe folk would not try to avoid tax if it was not so steep. And while the tale of the economics class is probably made up the 5 sentences at the end are valid. But I doubt you are ever going o agree. I know plenty of folk that have upped sticks because of the tax system in the UK and now they pay no UK tax at all and all their money is now spent outside the UK, so the policy of hammering the wealthy actually gathers less tax than a fair system that allows folk to keep the majority of what they earn. The tax system under gordon brown became so complecated that the folks employed to run it don't have a clue about how the rules should be applied. A straight forward 20% tax rate for all with no loopholes would gather more tax from the wealthy than a 50% rate that encourages the wwalthy to move both themselves and their wealth out the country. But for you AT it seems to be more about punishing the wealthy or having the audacity to suceed in life where you and your like have failed. So maybe you or peat might like to explain why those 5 statements in my previous post are wrong, I could do with a laugh.

I can mind wan aald wife dat lived oot by da jubilee shu wis in her 90s and shu walked in ower ta templetons got her errands and walked back again stoppin off for a cup o tae we her daughter wha wis in her late 60s an wis still workin. Times move on an things change but no alwis fir da better

go to your local shop an park right next to the door. If you are disabled local shop staff have been known to carry your shopping out to the car.For parent and toddlers there's less traffic so much safer.

To be honest I thought the whole point of getting tourists here was to make some money out of them, not subsidise their holiday experience.

To be honest I thought the whole point of getting tourists here was to make some money out of them, not subsidise their holiday experience.

Yes renegotiated by one Malcolm Green he was advised by many folk in the oil industry to go in and negotiate hard to start a 5p a barrel and when they refused to walk out and return the next day at 10p a barrel and so on with an annual rise in line with inflation, and if they didn't like it to pack up clean up and sausage off. Remember the original deal had them reinstating Sullom to the way they found it, something they are not yet prepared to do, the cost to them at that time would far out way the cost of paying us off. No malcolm like clark was here to line his own pockets and to hell with us. I do agree with shoogler on one thing and that is we do need to ween ourselves of the level of services we have become accustomed to