Davie P

Looking back on my old comment, I could see I was being a bit rude and brash. But I do still believe that there have been a lot of crappy politicians, as well some good ones. Boris does genuinely show compassion and care for his country and people but Scots down in the mainland seem to rage just by mentioning his name. My family is heavily conservative and unionist, my dad's side is Glaswegian and has been devout Protestant Unionist since the religion was basically invented. They seem to lean more to Boris's way of thinking. I don't know much about politics so I'm mostly neutral on it all, I just want what's best for our little island. Boris seems to be doing a decent job at the moment and the country doesn't look as if it's about to explode into a million pieces. But that isn't to say I like him either, nor do I like Nicola Sturgeon. I don't like what SNP have done with education and I'm sceptical of the independence referendum. I don't think all of the PMs have been corrupt, but nobody is perfect.

Here’s an idea. Let’s see if we can have a discussion without it going off topic with anti Westminster ‘witticisms’

Here's the full Retail Impact Assessment - good luck at making sense of it! https://pa.shetland.gov.uk/online-applications/files/953C3248ADDB20F61F783AA1F872D6A7/pdf/2021_106_PPF-RETAIL_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT_AND_ECONOMIC_STATEMENT-387700.pdf
After a quick read, it seems that there's a subtle but very important differentiation between having no impact and having no impact on viability - the latter essentially means that the Retail Impact Assessment tries to make the case that whilst there will be an impact, the shops can still survive and remain viable.
There's also some interesting statistics in there that makes a case that Shetland shops trade at higher than UK average profit (they use much more complex language, but that's the thrust), so it'll just be the local shops' profit margins that'll be impacted.
Obviously, the Retail Impact Assessment has been written from a specific perspective with one aim in mind, so make of it what you will!
I think that's down to the reporting of the report, rather than the content of the report

Here's the full Retail Impact Assessment - good luck at making sense of it! https://pa.shetland.gov.uk/online-applications/files/953C3248ADDB20F61F783AA1F872D6A7/pdf/2021_106_PPF-RETAIL_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT_AND_ECONOMIC_STATEMENT-387700.pdf
After a quick read, it seems that there's a subtle but very important differentiation between having no impact and having no impact on viability - the latter essentially means that the Retail Impact Assessment tries to make the case that whilst there will be an impact, the shops can still survive and remain viable.
There's also some interesting statistics in there that makes a case that Shetland shops trade at higher than UK average profit (they use much more complex language, but that's the thrust), so it'll just be the local shops' profit margins that'll be impacted.
Obviously, the Retail Impact Assessment has been written from a specific perspective with one aim in mind, so make of it what you will!
I think that's down to the reporting of the report, rather than the content of the report

I'd be interested to hear more about your research

Would you like to contribute to government policy? We, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), are currently researching the impact of mobile coverage in rural areas. This is part of our Shared Rural Network programme which aims to increase mobile network coverage across the UK to 95%. Now, we want to find out how this programme can help you in your daily life. 
 
We particularly want to hear from you if you live or work in rural UK! You can participate via this link: https://dcms.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_7QWTy9OUU4PNnmK
You can also contact Laura Hensel at laura.hensel@dcms.gov.uk if you have any questions about this research.
 
We hope to hear from you!
Building Digital UK (DCMS)

The 'victims' are people who don't like seeing the town vandalised.
And The War Memorial was a single location, whereas the last incident was several locations. There are arguments to be had regarding the relative symbolism and validity of the 'targets' but the scale is different.
From my perspective, the "outpouring of outrage and criticism" doesn't "far exceed" the War Memorial incident (which made it to the national news), but then I don't know where you're sourcing your outrage and criticism from.

The 'victims' are people who don't like seeing the town vandalised.
And The War Memorial was a single location, whereas the last incident was several locations. There are arguments to be had regarding the relative symbolism and validity of the 'targets' but the scale is different.
From my perspective, the "outpouring of outrage and criticism" doesn't "far exceed" the War Memorial incident (which made it to the national news), but then I don't know where you're sourcing your outrage and criticism from.

After trying a number of differet sprays, all ineffective to the point where I might as well hit the flies with the tin.. I found some stuff that might be of use..  It's called RAID and it takes the little buggers out of the air with no problem.
One quick spray around, and less than 10 minutes later, no files....  Mind you, I have no idea (yet) what it does to the wife and cat.  Hope the cat survives.. 
 

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.

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.

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.

Slowing da course o a virus was tae prevent health services being overwhelmed (and buy time whilst vaccines and treatments wir developed, and yis, herd immunity was potentially achieved). Dat is whit kept da mortality rates doon, and on da statistical whole dat wis relatively successful. Once folk had da 'rona, da treatments dat were given oot wir relatively simple, but dir is a limit tae how many folk da health services can look after at wance. When da health services were stretched, mortality rates geed up. Simple stuff. I ken plenty o folk who work in health services, and a few folk dat wir very ill we da 'rona, and dat is da story dey tell me too. I'll tak dir testimony at face value afore I listen tae keyboard virologists.
I don't recall ever hearing fae anybody we ony understanding o the 'rona that the health services advice wis in place to 100% contain it or dat dir widna be variants or new viruses in future - it wis tae slow da spread, which it did.
 
I'd be interested tae see ony evidence tae back up dy theory dat slowing da progress increases da chances o variants developing. I'm nae virologist either but it sounds lik a lot o dirt! Surely da mair a virus spreads, da mair chance dir is o mutations.
 
On wan hand du's saying dat "keeping a distance from other people and minimising transferrance from handling anything anyone else had handled" wis sensible. I agree, and dat was da core message fae da health authorities.
But den du says dat "the evidence all points everything they've said and done to having been wholly ineffective."
Dat wid seem tae be a contradiction
 
Du's throwing oot phrases lik "the potential to come with a far more lethal twist in its tail than anyone's worst nightmares could dream up." den saying "Isn't it time for a little perspective, and a little less mass hysteria."
Again, dat wid seem tae be a contradiction
 
And as for comparing the 'rona tae da good old day o da bubonic plague and Spanish flu, when understanding o sanitation, hygiene, germs, viruses and da lik were either non-existant in dir infancy..... Mibee we're aa joost a bunch o modern pansies and we should ignore what was learned fae those global pandemics, ignore da health professionals current advice and joost knuckle doon, get on we it, and let millions die needlessly.
I'm happy tae social distance, wear a mask, and wash me hands when needs be if it'll save even wan life.

https://www.rarebreeds.co.nz/endcattlepro.html
This an interesting story with a possible Shetland connection, there is a story that when a Shetland family emigrated to New Zealand in the 1800's, they also took with them their small flock of Shetland kye.
Has anyone heard of, or maybe be related to this family that knows the story?

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'

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!

It’s quiet simple. And even a unionist lik me can see it.
fir a start Scotland only costs about 10% to run as England.
The different countries raise money by taxing their population.
income tax, vat, corporation tax, inheritance tax etc etc etc.
We already pay for our 10% so that’s where the money comes from to pay for our portion of NHS, education etc.
noo there might be savings to be made by buying in bulk, ie as part of a larger state, so in the short term there will a level of panic about money, but nothing insurmountable.

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. 

I'm not using 'age as an excuse', rather pointing out that with it age brings the benefit of having heard countless arguments over the years as to the ethical/moral/legal etc 'unacceptability' of a infinite number of behaviours and terminologies, which tends to give a more comprehensive  understanding of which may be genuine and valid and what may be weak or spurious.
Just because someone claims they're 'offended' doesn't necessarily prove they are, they could be lying for ulterior motives, or they could be genuine, but have very weak reason(s) for being so.
Claiming to be 'offended' does not give anybody the right to force change, only a robust argument with sound verifiable supporting evidence does. The establishment of validity and a justifiable, proportionate viable response is paramount to the legitimacy of the 'solution' and its success.
Every opinion has its fair share of extremists, the 'lunatic fringe', and unfortunately in the global culture of the present the 'lunatic fringe' of being 'offended' seems to have acquired far more power than it has any business having. Rightly or wrongly the impression given is that all you need these days is one voice shouting loudly enough about it, regardless how (un)justified or (ill)informed to launch a tidal wave that is hi-jacked and acted upon by people who should have more intelligence and sense of responsibility.
If any individual on an individual level wishes to heed all claims of 'offended' and modify their own lives accordingly, that is of course their prerogative to do so. Its when its forced upon others that that kind of thing becomes a problem, especially in today's apparently apathetic (self-centred?) attitude of the vast majority, of just going along with whoever shouts loudest for the sake of peace and to appear to 'care. 'nsofar as it creates an open season for those who have no scruples about abusing the 'offended' tag for their own ends, to create a tail wagging the dog situation where a tiny minority control the majority entirely through intentional manipulation, and the majority don't sense it until its too late and they've already committed themselves. Who's abusing who come that stage? As that's the stage we're at with a lot of it right now
While social reformation in the past has done a very great deal to address some dreadful abuses, and no doubt worldwide there's many, many more going on every day that desperately needing their attention, it comes across very much these days that they have largely been hi-jacked by, or so it appears, an ever increasing number of selfish people who just simply want their own way and will do or say anything to achieve that.
Any reasonable person, I would hope myself included, would respond positively to where any soundly based and reasoned case was put forward, but when you start getting to the stage, as some of us old duffers are now, of hearing the same minorities putting forth the same argument repeatedly over the decades, just inserting a new word they're offended by, it all gets to be a bit suss.
'Professional victim' is a thing.
The use of the 'n' word being 'offensive' is a classic example. Fine, it was pointed out that it was a corruption of a legitimate word so that it had derogatory connotations from the start which had just increased over time with usage. We got that, and stopped using it, it was a sound argument. It was made known that instead we should use 'black', again fine, despite misgivings on account of other usage of the same word elsewhere, we, out of politeness went along with that. A little time passed, then they took umbrage to 'black', they wanted 'African American', but some wanted 'people of colour' and they've been bickering amongst themselves ever since. Meanwhile the rise of their lunatic fringe sees random eruptions of destruction and vows to destroy everything that is not of their own kind. Yeah, well forgive me, but when on one hand an ethnic group cannot seem to have enough sense of self-identity to be able to know what to call themselves, and on the other hand are vowing to destroy everything not of their own kind while at the same time just destroying indiscriminately whatever kind's it is, I can't take very seriously, its attention slut behaviour as it stands.
Similarly and one I can speak of from both sides of the fence, is the number of different words that have been applied to 'disability' and certain specific 'disabilities' over the years as over time in use ones have been deemed 'offensive'. Anyone with a 'disability' was used to universally be known as a 'cripple'. That became un-PC and was outlawed. I actually prefer and use cripple as a self-description, primarily due to the slightly different meaning for cripple in Shetland being someone who cannot walk properly, and that 'disability' in my mind implies that which has been purposely and intentionally had batteries/components reoved, wires disconnected etc by another and is very impresonal and dehumanising.
I also self-describe as knackered, a crang, a corpse, the liiving dead, totally fxxked, zombie and any number of similar terms for my 'disability'. Yet I am repeatedly told by 'society' that I must not use such terms for 'disability' as they offend the 'disabled'. WTF!  I AM, according to society, 'disabled', but society, the vast majority of whom aren't 'disabled'  apparently gets to dictate to me how I self-describe. FXXK THAT!
To get to the point, the above two examples of constant changes in terminology attempting to address a perceived 'offend' in previously used terminology just suggests one thing, that it is not necessarily the terminology itself it 'offends', but the meaning that is established for the term, and consequently it won;t matter how many times names get changed, as long as the thing or act it describes exists negativity is going to be associated with it. Some things will always remain 'negative' in the eyes of the majority, no matter how prettily you try to dress it up, better to accept that and deal with it than keep on doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
There is also the added negativity of all this renaming everything, particularly for charaties, who rightly or wrongly usually lead the vanguard of future name changes. Is that in attempting to find increasingly benign and 'unoffensive. names for themselves, they've now reached the point that long gone are the days where a charity name made it crystal clear who they were trying to assist, and consequently people are finding it increasingly difficult to locate and identify charities they are seeking, either for assistance or to donate to.
'The Spastics Society' worked, 'Scope', not so much.
Apprarently Mongolism, Downs etc is no longer a thing with charaties, as such things are all lumped under a cryptically named umbrella organisation 'Enable'.
Some 'Disability' charities seem to already be feeling 'disability' is no longer an 'unoffends' term, choosing things like 'enable' instead, again diminishing quickly establishing their MO from their name.
 
 
 
 

I assure you you're wrong. If we deleted everything we didn't agree with then there wouldn't be much discussion 'round here!
Most moderating goes on behind the scenes, and it's pretty unglamorous stuff - deleting spam and spammers' accounts, sending friendly Private Messages reminding people of T&Cs, merging threads, sending password reminders, dealing with disputes between members etc. Occasionally, for the greater good, the duties extend to removing content we feel is in breach of the community protocols.
We started Shetlink over 14 years ago to encourage debate about Shetland related issues and as a way for Shetland diaspora to stay in touch, and the community values have evolved over time. But if someone feels they're being 'gagged' or their 'freedom of speech' is being impinged because of the community values (that the moderators have volunteered to uphold), then I suggest this probably isn't the best community for them to be a member of.
There are plenty of websites out there with little or no moderation, and I would suggest that constructive, civilised debate is generally not a hallmark of such websites. If unmoderated Freedom of Speech is the goal, then good luck in finding a website to hold a discussion that doesn't descend into spam, porn, flaming and trolling - unfortunately, that is what absolute Freedom of Speech looks like on the internet. I've been moderating forums for 20+ years and can't think of a single example of an unmoderated forum which hasn't devolved into an absolute rattle o' dirt! 
When people talk of Freedom of Speech as an ultimate and ideal goal, it is easy for them to forget that there has to be a space for such speech and freedoms to be exercised. It's about finding a workable balance.
--
And please, lets not go down the route of claiming that 'there was more Freedom of Speech in the olden days' etc - in my experience, that's a result of people having ever more options to express themselves publicly but finding that there are even more options for people to disagree with them and call them out too. Expressing some 'colourful views' across the garden fence or down at the social club was one thing, but posting them online for the world to see is another, and it should come as no surprise that there are plenty more folk who will challenge those 'colourful views'.

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.

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.

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/