Davie P

I can only speak for satellite communications, the main problem some users experience with current GEO satellite communications is the latency, speeds and cost. However, this is a solution that many people use in remote locations and even oil and gas platforms. What will be interesting are the new LEO Starlink and OneWeb satellite constellation providing affordable pricing, comparable broadband latency with high bandwidth connections. I believe this week Starlink officially opened its network up to the UK for beta testing.
As David P said, satellite broadband won’t replace traditional communication links like Fibre optic broadband, but, it is definitely a good option for remote communities and even an option for home and business backup solutions.

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.

The types of satellite vary depending on the mission requirement. For example, GEO (Geostationary Orbiting Satellites) are most commonly used for telecommunications, satellite TV such as Sky and internet broadband. A lot of the satellites most people are hearing about are LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellites, Starlink is a good example. Shetland Space Centre is looking to support launch vehicles into a polar & sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) for LEO satellites.
Most satellites launching into a Polar or SSO are earth observation, imagery and radar etc. A lot of these satellites are long term mission multi sensor sats or small cube sats which are single purpose but have a shorter life span. An area which has picked up a lot of interest is using satellite imagery to help farmers understand crop health and where on the land isn’t producing. 
There is a lot of satellites and more to go up, but all have specific missions and operating in a variety of orbits.
I hope this gives you a little bit more of an idea around satellite operations, any other questions, let me know!

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.

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.

Try Malakoff on +44 (0)1595 69 5544. They’ll be happy to help  

Du’ll get nae peace fae da media efter yun revelations @Ghostrider.
I’m tinkin I might suggest a new column tae da Shetland Times caaed “Fae da Ebb”. As da title suggests, it wid feature stories aboot bruck and sports equipment folk have found in da ebb.
I’ll liklee need some market research tae prove tae da editor dat da “Fae da Ebb” column wid be as popular as I expect it wid be, so please ‘like’ dis post as an indication of your desire to regularly read aboot washed up auld dirt. Thanks in advance fur your support  

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

The Booth is Scalloway is a lovely space https://www.waspsstudios.org.uk/spaces/artist-space/the-booth/ but is likely booked up, and the Shorestation in Unst looks to be booked too https://www.airbnb.co.uk/rooms/884281
There are artist studio spaces in Bressay https://www.bressay.org/arts-crafts/studio-hire and I'm sure they'd be able to point you in the direction of affordable accommodation nearby.
Those are the only dedicated hireable studios I can think of, but I'm sure many other accommodation providers would be more than happy for you to paint.
As Colin says, you'd be lucky to get somewhere for a month in August for £500 but you might be lucky seeing as the tourist season probably won't be as busy as normal.

I towt dis was quite amusin! 
It's good to see folk being proactive aboot da street. It most be a tough time for da shops.
 

The Booth is Scalloway is a lovely space https://www.waspsstudios.org.uk/spaces/artist-space/the-booth/ but is likely booked up, and the Shorestation in Unst looks to be booked too https://www.airbnb.co.uk/rooms/884281
There are artist studio spaces in Bressay https://www.bressay.org/arts-crafts/studio-hire and I'm sure they'd be able to point you in the direction of affordable accommodation nearby.
Those are the only dedicated hireable studios I can think of, but I'm sure many other accommodation providers would be more than happy for you to paint.
As Colin says, you'd be lucky to get somewhere for a month in August for £500 but you might be lucky seeing as the tourist season probably won't be as busy as normal.

I find how some non-Shetlanders* refer to the outer isles irksome, for example, "I was on Yell" or worse still, "I'm going onto Yell".
Surely it's "I was in Yell" or, "I'm going into Yell".
My theory as to why this sounds wrong is that you go 'into' a community', but you go 'onto' an landmass. Yell is a community, ipso facto you go into it.
This theory is kinda backed up by the fact you go 'onto' the mainland, and the mainland is too big to be considered as a community in itself.
Or something along those lines....!
*IMHO, a Shetlander can be through birth or choice

Yis, dir 'saft arrrs*' seem tae be da main budder.
(*soft pronunciation of the letter 'r', rather than pliable buttocks)

I dunna get it? She looks nothin link Ian Krankie

I believe it was trialled on the Bressa and Whalsa routes but hasn't been rolled out for the other isles? I haven't been on a ferry for months so I'm not the best person to advise you!
It does seem a little slow off the mark though. I'd have expected it to have been in place years ago.

@MuckleJoannie we've added the 'unread content' and 'mark as read' buttons (the peerie newspaper and tick icons) to the top userbar. Hopefully everything works as planned!

I believe it is

God bless the spacebar!

A sizeable number of English people that moved to Scotland would like Scottish independence- in search of a socialist paradise no doubt- so define “us”.

Some sense, and some not-sense.
E.g. the comedian claims Scotland has a 'debt' - our debt is a proportion of UK debt. It's pretty much a moot point. An independent Scotland might end up with a budget deficit and/or increasing national debt, or it may not, so it would be more sensible to talk about that, but at the moment we are tied to UK debt.
E.g. drawing parallels between a logo featuring a bird and comparing it to Nazi party imagery is lazy commentary and false equivalence. Beware of Godwin's Law!
E.g. Siol Nan Gaidheal members, at best a fringe political movement, have been banned from the SNP since 1982. They've turned up with banners at pro-independence rallys, as is their right, but the SNP have consistently distanced themselves from their message. It's bad judgement, or unawareness, that SNP members have been photographed around Siol Nan Gaidheal banners.
As with any party or political movement, there will be individuals who hold more extreme views than others. Personally, I don't see the SNP as anti-english, but there's no denying there are some SNP supporters who are anti-English. I'm not a paid up member of the SNP (or any party) but I'm considering voting for independence based on the simple fact that Scotland consistently votes differently to England - my position is not anti-english in the slightest.
Trying to demonise the SNP as racist in its entirety is very unhelpful when there are serious discussions to be had and decisions to be made.

This is indeed a hot topic! I’m sure the answer will be somewhere in this research which Google through up The Effect of Castration and Age on the Development of the Shetland Sheep Skeleton and a Metric Comparison Between Bones of Males
if you want to display your crofting knowledge and win back the admiration and respect of the agricultural world, try casually dropping in a couple of phrases from that research at the next Cunningsburgh Show 
“Yis Magnie, sex seems to be an important variable influencing the age at which epiphyses fuse. Thus females fuse earliest, followed by males, and castrates are much delayed. The delay in epiphysial fusion in wethers and absence of delay in dental replacement, bodes well for Payne’s suggested method for recognising the remains of wethers in archaeological collections.”

This is indeed a hot topic! I’m sure the answer will be somewhere in this research which Google through up The Effect of Castration and Age on the Development of the Shetland Sheep Skeleton and a Metric Comparison Between Bones of Males
if you want to display your crofting knowledge and win back the admiration and respect of the agricultural world, try casually dropping in a couple of phrases from that research at the next Cunningsburgh Show 
“Yis Magnie, sex seems to be an important variable influencing the age at which epiphyses fuse. Thus females fuse earliest, followed by males, and castrates are much delayed. The delay in epiphysial fusion in wethers and absence of delay in dental replacement, bodes well for Payne’s suggested method for recognising the remains of wethers in archaeological collections.”

I don't tink you're takin dis seriously! I wis tinkin I was da top boy and boastin aboot my knowledge o croftin, until I was put on da spot. Noo dirs folk makin a fool o me because I hardly ken da difference atween a gimmer, a tüp and a hug. And I only pit yun funny "ü" thing above da "u" in tup tae look lik I ken whit I'm spikin aboot.
Is a tüp joost a name for a ram dat could be ony age? Whit's da name o a castrated ram? No his personal name lik David or Peter, but a generic name Is a gimmer a yowe dat hasna had a lamb? Help me oot here!

Trump is almost guaranteed to be let off because of the fact that a significant number of the 'jury' (i.e. Republican Senators) could be implicated if he is found guilty.
Senator Josh Hawley, for example, was one of the most active 'stop the steal' conspirators, was at the pre-riot rally firing up the troops and started a fundraising campaign during the actual riot, and has reportedly not even been ion the Senate floor to hear the evidence against Trump. But he gets a vote.
How many Republican Senators would be willing or able to listen impartially to the evidence without considering their own political careers and their loyalties to colleagues? 17 of them need to vote against Trump, the most popular (populist?) Republican candidate in a generation. 
IMHO the US impeachment process isn't fit for purpose. It should really be a matter for the Supreme Court as they are (on paper) free from political influence.