Davie P

This is quite disappointing https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2021/07/20/graffiti-defaces-lerwick-town-hall-and-esplanade/ ...and it's not even amusing or thought provoking. I expect it's not only Loki who isn't happy - the SIC cleansing team will likely be a little miffed too! Hopefully the paint comes off the stonework and pointing of the Town Hall without damaging it

It's getting serious! https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2021/07/02/popular-cafe-closes-after-plague-of-flies/

A bit of a lazy attempt at Westminster bashing there, when actually...

I don't think either of those options were seriously considered for very long by anyone with an understanding of how the virus was spreading (I assume you know that but are writing for dramatic effect). Since very early on the aim of the game was to slow the spread i.e. the 'flatten the curve' principal whilst vaccines were developed and/or herd immunity achieved. Surely there's enough evidence of health services around the world being overwhelmed for people to understand that aiming for herd immunity through the unchecked spread of the virus would have been catastrophic. It feels quite odd to be even writing such an obvious comment.

A very interesting article https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/nostalgia/3115162/the-ira-plot-to-bomb-the-queen-in-shetland-following-the-death-of-bobby-sands/

Depending on who you ask, and it's probably not a hugely useful comparison, but... Westminster (including the Commons, Lords and whatnot) cost £552 million in 17/18. The Scottish Parliament cost £99 million in the same year (source). So Westminster costs about 5.5 times as much as Hollyrood but has a lot more 'legislative throughput'

I wonder how many people say that in public but vote for more 'selfishly' in the privacy of the voting booth. Thanks not an accusation BTW @Muckle Oxters. I'm sure you're a selfless pillar of the community!

Moot point. If we stay in the UK we have a debt, if we leave we have a debt, and almost every country has debt anyway. Furthermore, it depends on how the settlement is calculated if we leave. A relatively regularly used method (for example, in the case of post Soviet or Czech and Slovak republics separations) is done per head of population, which would see Scotland come out with a considerably lower level than England. This is quite a frivolous thing to say, although I'm sure it was done for effect rather than actually believing that Scotland's economy is based on whiskey, wind turbines and tourists. However, it does get a bit wearing to read comments such as these that simplify, trivialise and talk our economy down - presumably inn an attempt to mislead people into thinking our economy is less buoyant than it actually is. For example, in 2020 Edinburgh was ranked as the 4th largest financial centre in Europe and the 13th largest financial centre internationally (source). That's quite a remarkable statistic that bodes well for an independent Scotland within a modern, global economy, if independence is the path we want to take. I'm open minded about Independence and all too often it seems to me that folk have long ago made up their minds about which 'side' they're on. Having a closed mindset like that is very unhelpful when one of the most important decisions any of us are likely to take will soon be upon us.

Out of interest, which Christian values do you agree with that you feel are in opposition to the values of other religions? (from my understanding, most religions are based on very similar core values) And what is preventing you from voicing your opinion? Is that not what you're doing here?

You haven't answer my question @Urabug, but is it fair to say that you believe anybody should be able to say whatever they want wherever they want to whoever they want unless it is illegal, and then it's up to an individual claimant to take legal action? And by extension, do you believe all Have Your Say websites should be completely unmoderated? I don't want to have a go at you directly, I'm just wondering if you think there's a middle ground somewhere.

In theory, would you expect the moderators to 'censor' someone on Shetlink if they started spreading misinformation about you on the forums? And in principle, would you support such 'censorship' or not?

Apologies for going off topic again..... Every social context has rules, whether explicit or assumed, about what is acceptable. A conversation in the Thule Bar will have different social rules to a conversation at the family dinner table. In this case of Shetlink, we are all responsible for setting the tone of the discussions - not just the moderators. I for one am grateful that the tone is generally constructive, respectful, and rarely personal. But it seems to me that some folk on here are in a cob after being asked to mind their language at the family dinner table. Claims about censorship and comparisons to communist dictatorships are hysterical nonsense! Never in the history of humanity have people had so many opportunities and mechanisms to express their opinions. If you feel you are being censored here, there are many other places on the internet you can go.

https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2021/03/22/rspb-adds-to-concern-over-spaceports-potential-impact-on-birds/

Maybe in Western Europe, but many areas of the world has patchy or no mobile / internet coverage. According to some statistics only about half the world's population has internet access.

Th latency is indeed an inherent problem, but the new communications satellites tend to be small and in a low earth orbit so there's less physical distance for signals to travel. Fibre will likely still be the preferred option for cities and urban areas, but for many areas installing or improving physical connections are challenging (i.e. remote areas, areas with difficult terrain, or countries with unstable governments where infrastructure developments are problematic) As mentioned, on the whole newer satellites are quite small (e.g. shoebox size), relatively cheap and are in a lower orbit than older, larger and more expensive satellites which only government agencies could afford. It's really just economics - communications service providers know that there's growing demand in lots of poorly serviced areas, and satellites are a relatively quick and affordable way to reach them.

Hello there. It sounds like a really interesting business, and I hope you do well in Shetland. Shetland is relatively pricey for accommodation so you might have to look for somewhere outside Lerwick for something of the size you need in that price range. But compared to the much of mainland UK, the commute tends to be short and scenic! There are properties listed here https://www.njord.market/accommodation/1 and you can post wanted ads. I believe there are Facebook pages for local accommodation too (but I don't use FB so can't provide a link)

Presidents can be voted in and out through democratic processes as a result of their abilities, performance and/or popularity. The Royal Family can't be voted in or out and are the classic example of inherited wealth and privilege that is in no way linked to their abilities to perform the limited 'duties' royalists claim the royal family perform.

There's about 2,500 satellites currently in various earth orbits. The majority are for communications, and there's currently a push to launch thousands more to provide global high-speed wireless internet access (much cheaper than running fibre optic) There are several international organisations who 'license' satellite launches and orbits, in particular to avoid collisions. Low earth orbits are quite strictly policed as there are so many operational and defunct satellites in orbit that collisions are becoming more common, and the collisions themselves produce more debris which in turn cause more collisions.

To be pedantic, it's not just the 'common man' who contributes to the Sovereign Grant, it's every individual, organisation or company that pays taxes.

They do cost us money. That's a fact. They get grants and expenses every year. Whether or not there's a quantifiable net benefit to the economy that may trickle down and/or offset some of the taxpayers investment, and whether the unquantifiable benefits such as feelings of national unity, international diplomacy etc, is worth the taxpayers' money is what is open for debate. Fair enough, but that's whataboutery. Just because some schemes have been poorly managed doesn't justify taxpayers money going to the Royal Family.

I fear you're looking for a simple answer to a complex question - it depends on what is included in the calculations, and who you ask. Royalists will make the case that they're net contributors to the economy, anti-royalists generally consider them to be a net draw on taxpayers. Each 'royal' has multiple incomes - almost like a mini economy of their own. Higher ranking royals are supported through a 'Sovereign Grant' (essentially tax payers money), most royals inherit extensive estates and earn taxes and rentals from their land, they have business interests that benefit from royal association, interest earned on their inherited wealth, incomes from the Crown Estate, multiple tax exemptions, loopholes, you name it.... the list is long, historical, and pretty much impossible to unpick in terms of how much it contributes to, or draws from, the economy. To remove the royal family from the picture is essentially a series of 'what if?' scenarios. The money they bring in through tourism, which is often used by royalists as a justification for taxpayers to subsidise their existence, it nigh on impossible to estimate. As the Independent recently reported: "we should treat even estimates of economic activity linked to the royals with a large dash of scepticism. The only way to reach these numbers is to estimate the counterfactual – what would have happened to UK tourism or trade if the Royal Family didn’t exist? Or if the official Royal Family was significantly smaller and less expensive to run?.... In the end, the question of whether the Royal Family is worth it, or not, is probably less a financial question than a political, moral and aesthetic one." Whether the Royal Family cost me £1, £10, £100 or £1000 a year.... I morally object to taxpayers money being used to support the lavish lifestyle of an already unfathomably wealthy family.

It's not a simple calculation, and much of the costs relate to the maintenance and renovation of properties which would likely be funded by the government anyway. But here's a nice graph from https://www.statista.com/chart/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/

This amused me https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/monarchy-in-crisis-because-there-is-no-fking-point-to-it-whatsoever-20210309206008 "Basically the monarchy is in perpetual crisis whenever anything goes wrong because the country notices it, realises what a complete waste of money and time it is and wonders how hard it would be to get rid of."

I found an LHD fishbox? Does that count?

....but I s'ppose Frank Strang is Shetland's answer to Elon Musk