Davie P

Davie P. As well as updating to a new phone, make sure your supplier allows you to use Wi-fi. If I mind right the likes of GiffGaff doesn’t. 

I had exactly the same problem with the lack of SMS on Vodafone Wificall until I updated the software on my iPhone. Now it's text-message-a-go-go

^Would suggest that there are ways around mobile signal problems at home.
When I moved to Hillswick 10 years ago, the phone would work if I was standing right in the middle of the living room, or lying in the middle of my bed. In effect, no use whatsoever. For the last three or four years though, the mobile phones that I've used operate by connection to the wifi router when I'm in the house. That means the mobile phone works throughout the house now - and that makes a great big difference.
May well be worth considering something like that.

@Davie P, I hope you don't mind but we added a poll to your post. We used the same wording as the 2014 referendum and added an undecided option too.

I see Sturgeon has announced a referendum in May if SNP wins the upcoming election.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/24/scotland-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon-snp-wins-may-
It seems likely that the SNP will will the election, and most polls indicate a majority of voters are in favour of independence too. I expect the Brexit bunfight and Sturgeon's better handling of Covid than Johnson will further swing the scales. Independence has never looked more likely.
I'm heartened to note that it is being promoted as an 'advisory' referendum from the outset. Brexit was also advisory but many pro-Brext politicians either failed to understand that or purposely tried to mislead people. So even if the referendum returns a 'yes' majority, it'll only be the beginning of a process....
It'll be an interesting few months if you're interested in politics!

There's a place on Harrison Sq that is worth a visit.  Coffee Culture? Great coffee and the chicken quiche I had was really good.

Well that is the thing. Fossil fuels, or I would rather describe it as fossil resources are limited. I remember years ago hearing a talk about climate change, about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and how mankind is affecting the weather. But what I remember from that talk was a comment in the closing remarks. I’m not sure that I can quote it exactly, but it was along the lines “Even if you don’t believe in climate change, oil and gas is too valuable to just burn”. That comment stuck with me.
Sitting at your computer, what is it made of? Your clothes, your furniture, significant parts of your car will all have plastics or other materials made from hydrocarbons. If oil and gas extraction goes on at present rates, how long will it last, 20 years? 200 years? I don’t know, but I’m absolutely sure it won’t last 2000 years. So I wouldn’t say that all oil and gas extraction should be totally stopped, what I think is important is that it should be preserved for making other things and not simply be burned for uses like generating electricity or powering motor cars where other options are available.
Yes preserving hydrocarbons has a “green” bonus to in terms of not producing so much CO2, but I think that reducing the use of a limited natural resource that is really useful is reason enough to try to preserve as much of it as possible for the future.

Building windfarms, and building and running fossil fuel stations, both have negative environmental consequences. But unless you're comparing specific shared criteria between them then the comparison is pointless - apples and oranges.
I expect that if Viking Energy was built out of sight then the strength of negative feeling about it would be fractional. It's absolutely someones right to object to the visual impact of a development, but that objection often doesn't carry any weight - frustrating for the individual, particularly when they group together and begin to believe that everyone shares their opinion. But from a personal ethics point of view I don't believe my subjective aesthetic opinions should matter much in the big scheme of things.
Most of the discussions I have had with people about the windfarm eventually boils down to the fact they don't like the visual impact, and the statistical / scientific / ethical / legal arguments they use are there to back-up and add substance to an existing aesthetic opinion.
For example, I don't recall any discussion about displaced peat or use of materials during the construction of Sullom Voe or the Gas Plant both of which arguably have a worse environmental impact than Viking Energy - but they're out of sight, out of mind, and after-all folk need energy and jobs, so no need to grapple with difficult ethics and environmental issues.
Disclaimer: the above is not meant to be an attack on people who are anti Viking Energy. It is merely an observation on human nature!

The gas plant comparison is very valid, and really highlights the emotive nature of the windfarm issue. The entire gas plant project was developed, proposed and constructed in a fraction of the time of what is now the Viking Energy Windfarm. Caused extensive disruption to peat and of course produces fossil fuels with all the negatives that brings. However, not a pleep in objection.
Partly because if wasn't the "cool thing to object to" on social media, but also because the majority of people who are aware of them, myself included, are willing to balance the benefits both locally and in the bigger picture, with the damage and pollution they cause, knowing better options will come along sooner rather than later.
I'm going to offer a very personal view now. 
I was born in the early 70's. I had no say in Sullom Voe Oil Terminal, though I do know there were councilors for an against at the time, and they were voted for accordingly. I totally understand the huge economic positives the oil industry has brought to Shetland. From roads and leisure, to the care services and beyond. Mismanagement and controversy aside, these funds have played a massive part in Shetland being what it is today, and still do. 
But they came, and come, at a price. As a young man, I had to clean up the dead oily birds from the shore. We had to wear shoes on a summer day at the beach because of tar balls. Even tonight, I look out at the bonny clear sky to the north, as the view south is dominated by the glow of the flare stack (and I live in Yell, for those who don't know).
But no matter where we live. We all need power. Flowing through the power lines that claim the lives of many birds every year held up by ugly "hydro poles" all ower the islands. (Imagine that project starting now) 
So, thought all the local elections and public consultations, I fully supported the cleaner option, and as it developed from when the Susetter windmill went up in the 80's (my personal memory of the potential), voting for "The Windfarm" was the way I went.
Now, at last, after all these decades of hope, I can finally see a sustainable future for Shetland that wir bairns can be proud of. And maybe I will be able to go on the back porch in a few years and see the stars in the southern hemisphere clearly fae hom for the first time. Already I know of at least one young Shetland family of four who have moved back home because of the work and promise from the windfarm. 
 
I posted this opinion, because that's what it is, my opinion, on social media a few weeks ago. It is staggering how many abusive private messages I got before I took it down. Ranging from calling me a liar to just straight up abuse. No fine, but I keen (hope) they're just caught up in mob mentality.
 

Do any of the anti Facebook groups have a constructive purpose? Are they taking any positive actions (beyond petitions and demanding work be stopped)?
The handful of groups I've seen or been invited to seem to be (I say this with respect and empathy) collective handwringing support groups for people who genuinely believe Shetland is being destroyed. There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement that there could be any kind of positive side to the windfarm. 
I expect membership of the anti groups would further compound those ideas and biases and serve to collectively increase the anxiety levels of the group members.

My advice is that if you ever find yourself using the phrase "once the Woke left establishes a 1 party state in almost all western countries", it's time for a lie down in a quiet darkened room.

It's tight so far, but a long night ahead.....

Personally, I don't think either candidate is particulalry suitable for the job, but my opinion matters little. But I'm not sure that anyone has to try any tricks to prevent Trump from being relelected as the facts speak for themsleves.
 
I'm intrigued by why so many people support Trump who has, as far as I can see, achieved very little during his presidency - no wall, no healthcare reforms, a fairly flat economy, no swamps drained - but has badly mishandled Covid-19, has ostricised the USA in many global contexts and has overseen a period of american political history notable for polarisation and civil unrest.
 
If we look beyond the tweets, the self agrandising narcisism, the populist rally showboating and self perpetuated media fueled controversies, the previous 4 years' facts and statistics reveal a fairly ineffective presidency. And he seems to have very few detailed policies regarding what he would do with another 4 years in power.
 
I'm interested to hear why folk think Trump should get another chance, and what another 4 years would achieve?

It's hardly the "Press and Journals take" - it's just a statement from Douglas Ross which is riddled with misrepresentations.
 
Sometimes I wonder if you read the articles you post links to as your one-line summaries are often way off the mark. 

Bang on the money with this post, at last a bit of hard nosed realism.The EU has something the UK desperately wants, they can grant or deny unfettered access to EU markets, there's never one side in a negotiation and it doesn't take a genius to see how it's all going to pan out, either the UK caves or they take a huge financial hit.
No amount of spitfire fly by's, union jacks or royal babies can hide this reality.

Edinburgh and Westminster can blow back and forth to each other to their heart's content, and Westminster can trumpet the 'taking back control' rhetoric, but it'll all come down to the negotiations with the EU. The Westminster legislation is likely to have to be watered down significantly, and the Tories have a grim track record of supporting fisheries when it comes to EU negotiations. I'm not sure why people believe this will be any different.

It's hardly the "Press and Journals take" - it's just a statement from Douglas Ross which is riddled with misrepresentations.
 
Sometimes I wonder if you read the articles you post links to as your one-line summaries are often way off the mark. 

For the sake of accuracy, the UK wasn't a signatory of the 1957 The Treaty of Rome/ Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (it was signed by Belgium, West Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg & Netherlands). It's been pointed out many times over the years when you mistakenly post that.

I was very pleased to hear the BBC are planning to tone down the jingoistic nationalism of the Last Night of the Proms. I very much look forward to and enjoy Proms season but I feel 'Last Night' sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the other concerts. It's like a parody of the end of a Tory Party conference.
 
There have long been calls for the BBC to make changes to Last Night programming (which I personally find to be extremely dull and predictable) but I expect whatever they do they'll be under fire from the right wing who will no doubt go into a frenzy about traditional Britishness being under attack etc etc.
 
I'm sure there are many people who will be getting offended by the potential change who don't engage with The Proms or appreciate the work the BBC put into supporting and promoting British classical music throughout the entirety the 8 week Proms season, and throughout the rest of the year for that matter.

That is my point. The name doesn't reflect the services it pays for

Does anyone know what the story is with the recent installation of roadside poles with solar panels is? The roads appear to have been cut in a grid pattern too.

Folk can crack on however they want.

Some o you guys are amusin. Wan o you posts a link tae a story in a right wing comic lik da Sun or da Daily Mail and exaggerates whit it says, den folk add dir ain exaggerations to each idders exaggerations and you aa get your kickers in a collective knot.
 
Wan minute NASA is drappin twatree past-dir-sell-by-date nicknames, next minute dey've discovered offensive planets, da next minute folk are worryin aboot being arrested for saying 'black hole' by a police force dat doesna exist, and dis is aa da fault o loony lefties and snowflakes.
 
It most be ootwearing being so easily offended by folk you're accusin o being easily offended. I don't suppose you see da irony though.

The times are like any other business - they have employees and other overheads that need paying and I suspect an increasing number of us ‘use’ the service they provide online without ever paying them a penny.
 
It used to be the main, if not the only, way for folk to advertise locally and as (free) online alternatives started taking the place of that even before coronavirus I suspect they’ve seen a huge drop in advertising revenue in recent years. At the same time more folk are going online to read da paper, they’re losing revenue from paper sales, in turn that makes advertising less attractive for businesses - and it’s a downward spiral.
 
I do still buy da times every week as a way of supporting what I get for free online as much as anything else and would be saddened if it was lost locally.

Have you looked at Peter Guy's books on walking in Shetland? Hard to get hold of now but the library may be able to help.
 
https://www.goodreads.com/series/217923-walking-the-coastline-of-shetland