daveh

You can put whatever spin you want on it but it is simply fact that Labour spent far, far beyond the government's means and encouraged others to do so. Any growth they achieved was done so on the back of mountainous debt. It is only by luck and the coalition's actions that we haven't suffered like the Greeks & Cypriots. You can and probably will vote for more Labour mismanagement in 2015 but I and many millions of sensible people won't.

^^ You can believe what you want but the fact is you can't spend what you haven't got unless you brow and borrow again. This is what Labour did to get us into the mess. Incidentally, like the Daily Mirror, you also failed to mention Ed Balls speeding. If you are happy to put the UK economy in the hands of the idiotic Balls, then you are going to deserve all that will inevitably happen when the country ends up bankrupt. I must remember to tell you so if the disaster of a re-elected Labour government were to put him into number 11.

^^ Would you not agree that Labour wrecked the UK economy and any other party coming to power, in 2010, was going to have to tackle the mess that they inherited. Would you not agree that Labour created many hundreds of thousands of public sector non-jobs in order to keep their union paymasters sweet? If Labour were so wonderful in their policies, of steering the UK towards the mess that Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece and Cyprus experienced, how is it that they lost the 2010 general election? Get real ! You can't spend what you haven't got.

go.oot.by.dog - you have copied and pasted from the Daily Mirror thus presume it to be true. Rubbish ! That newspaper is a joke. Witness the fact that George Osborne's driver parked in a disabled bay which brought the story headline front page news despite the fact that we are about to be nuked by North Korea. Yesterday, it had front page news about Nick Clegg going on a skiing holiday and an inside story showing a photo of another disabled parking space where George Osborne was alleged to have parked on a previous occasion. There was absolutely no mention in the paper that the totally incompetent Ed Balls had been nicked for speeding and had his licence endorsed; something potentially more injurious to the public than a bit of mis-parking. As regards the number of bedrooms in Ian Duncan Smith's house; so what? I am fairly confident that there are many on the Labour front bench who have spare rooms in their houses but haven't taken homeless or under-privileged people in from off the streets. These are the same under-privileged and homeless people who would have been in the same situation under 13 years of a Labour government.

As I suggested earlier, I have absolutely no problem with "social housing" being allocated to those who need them. "Those" would include folks in poor housing and low incomes who would not be able to afford to live in the private sector. What I do and have always objected to, is the concept of the social housing being regarded as theirs for life. To be given such subsidised housing facilities is a privilege and not a right. In my opinion, the ability to be able to "swap" such accommodation around the UK is also wrong as tenants should satisfy local social housing criteria as set out by the relevant local authority and housing association. I have no problem, however, with folks swapping within the same area as this is natural downsizing and "upsizing" as families change. Obviously the concept of people choosing to be on benefits rather than go to work has been around for ages and I feel that such choices were actually encouraged by the Labour government as a vote-winner and hence the welfare budget mess that the coalition inherited and is attempting to tackle. I do feel that, periodically, those in social housing should be "means-tested" to see how their income and outgoings have changed since being allocated with the property. If their income has increased to certain levels, then they should relinquish the property and go to the private sector. It it morally wrong to see your income rise to decent levels and choose to spend it on cars, holidays etc whilst being subsidised and denying a needy family access to the property. Leftie union leader, Bob Crow, is such an example. He has a £145k per annum package yet boasts about the fact that he lives in subsidised social housing. He can "crow" about the fact that government ministers go on holidays but he must stash his money away somewhere rather than spend it on unsubsidised accommodation. The whole scenario stinks and I am in favour of the coalition seeking to sort the problem out.

You don't speak for me and I am very decent. If Labour hadn't totally f*cked up the UK economy over 13 years, including doubling the welfare budget, the austerity measures currently being taken would be nowhere near as tough as they have turned out to be. You can't spend what you haven't got and the UK budget currently sees many billions of pounds being spent in servicing the outrageous national debt. Blame it on Labour, not the coalition. Whoever were in government, following the 2010 general election, would have needed to reduce debt, I would have thought. However, Labour have opposed every single public sector expenditure cut and seem to only want to keep adding to the national debt. This is totally unsustainable and, were Labour still in government (god help us !), this country could easily have followed in the footsteps of Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece and/or Cyprus. In fact, when Ed Miliband became Labour's leader, he was still saying that he wouldn't rule out joining the Euro at some point in the future. I don't think he has retractred that since, in fact. Be careful what you wish for ! I would definitely

^^ Not my fault. Shetlink locked up several times whilst I was trying to post my message so I presumed that it hadn't been posted !

deleted

deleted due to shetlink duplication

deleted due to shetlink duplication

Did you receive any housing benefit to assist you in paying your mortgage? Also MIRAS (tax relief on mortgage interest paid) was abolished by the totally incompetent Gordon Brown, the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer in history, in 2000.

^^ How much have you paid over the years on various house repairs and refurbishments ? I have paid a fortune for all sorts of things such as double glazing, installing central heating, re-wiring, fencing repairs, outside painting, plumbing repairs, roofing repairs etc.

^^ That was a fair and reasoned response but I disagree with you on a number of points. By us saving for the mortgage, we were placing monies into a bank for it to then lend it onto others who could easily have been boosting the economy by borrowing to pay for cars, holidays, house improvements etc. Once we moved into our small terraced house, we employed local tradesmen to do various repairs and improvements as they became necessary and we could afford to pay for them. That was boosting the economy, surely. Your were, I think, suggesting that we would have helped the economy more by staying in our council flat, after we had saved enough to move out but I saw that as being a drain upon the community who would have had to subsidise us being there indefinitely. Far better for us to vacate and give someone else the chance of improved accommodation. I fail to see any justification for council tenants to regard the council tenancy as being theirs for life as many did back in my time and seem to do now. The fact that a reduced rent, payable by us for 30 months assisted us to save for a deposit is very largely irrelevant. It was always our intention to move out and I feel that it was our scrimping and scraping, selling our old car, not going on holidays etc for 30 months that made the difference. One other thing - you refer to my having "pulled up the ladder". I have done nothing of the sort. Families in need should be definitely be able to benefit as we did back then by having access to council houses and flats. I just don't accept the "subsidised council tenancy for life" approach. If folks have enough gross income, not net income after all their outgoings on cars and holidays, there should be a phased move towards them relinquishing their tenancy for others to take it over. Anyway, I don't presume that you will agree any of my points but so be it.

Many years ago, when newly-married and with a baby, my then wife and I were re-housed from our shabby tiny privately-rented flat into a two-bedroomed council flat. We were in the council flat for just about 30 months whilst we saved whatever we could to get enough for a deposit on a small terraced house with a small garden so that our little girl could play outside in safety. We moved out of the council flat when we had secured our mortgage. Subsequently another needy family moved into the council flat shortly after our departure. A couple of other families that we were friendly with, in the tower block, said that they had no intention of ever moving out and, whilst we saved up to move on, they happily enjoyed good holidays and changed their cars each year. It seems that there is still, as there was back then, many who regard a council property as being theirs for life; irrespective of how much their income may increase over time. Outside many council properties, you will see cars with fairly recent registration plates whilst the rent being paid is subsidised by the taxpayers and ratepayers. Morally, that is totally wrong in my eyes.

Apart from some of the points noted above, even though it was a story, I don't think that having two murders (so far) is a good selling point for the islands. Incidentally, nice to see the shot of St Ninian's in the programme but what did it have to do with the story? Also, why call the drama just "Shetland"?

He grows some terrific veggies, though.

Thanks for the response, LauraJane. Without being "childish", I feel that I wasn't misguided about the tone of your original post. To write "If it does turn out to be true, then they've got some cheek doing things behind Jane's back... Back stabbers is a close term to what I would use" was, to my reasonably uncluttered mind, unnecessarily aggressive. When you now write "I merely said that Cunjo ones who are doing such planning haven't answered the question, and to me that would make them seem embarrassed by the post WAD put or they're not willing to share what's going on...", you should perhaps accept that not everyone is signed up to Shetlink thus the potential organisers, behind a possible re-opening of the shop, may not have seen the original post to be able to respond to it. I am not blaming Tesco alone for the problems in making the shop profitable but it would undoubtedly have had an effect. I would presume that Jane might have been able to buy supplies for the shop cheaper from Tesco than being supplied from her normal sources and that cannot be denied. The fact that there is a regular bus service and shopper service, free to those with bus passes, means that locals would have been able to get to town free without the need of using their precious car fuel. I am not seeking to enter into a heated dispute with you on this topic but am merely responding to the points raised. I would add that I was also aware that Jane was thinking of closing the shop a fair while ago but that she had decided to soldier on for a while longer. When the final decision was made to close last month, the shop closed very soon afterwards so any potential organisers, wishing to re-open it, didn't get enough time to get things moving following the decision. My wife and I, like yourself, would be keen to see the shop re-opening it so will be watching out for any further developments. I would guess that any decisions to get the community together about it would need to be communicated via a leaflet drop or the Shetland Times. Putting a notice about it on the board, outside the closed shop, would now be seen by hardly anyone as they would have no need to go there. In fact, it is a shame that the village doesn't have a notice board at all now.

^^ That would be a question for Jane to answer. I recall that the shop was open later on Friday evenings; possibly to 8-00pm whareas it closed at 6-00pm on other weekday nights. I may be wrong on the times, though.

Wasn't there talk, at one time, of fuel being brought up by private tanker lorries on a ferry or would that be a huge risk when there are stormy seas? The SIC are big users of fuel. How is their fuel delivered to the islands and is it at a cheaper rate than is supplied to the service stations here? If so, is there scope for their order to be increased with the fuel then being delivered around a a price that would enable the SIC to recover any additional costs incurred? Just basically thinking out loud on this one as the problem hasn't been solved for all the talking and reports that have gone before.

^^ Not so easy for a government to start reducing the tax and duty on fuel, though great in theory. I also grit my teeth every time I fill up the fuel tank with diesel here. The coalition inherited a vast debts and deficit after some 13 years of total financial mismanagement by Labour. It has reduced the deficit by 25% but has a long way to go. If the tax and duties on fuel were reduced, it would need to be replaced by some cuts or increased revenues elsewhere.

I don't know who LauraJane90 is but she (?) has taken an unnecessarily aggressive stance over this in her post to this thread. As a Cunningsburgh resident, I was of course sorry to see the shop disappear but know that Jane did all she could to keep the shop open as long as she was able to. I don't know what else she could have done to have made the shop profitable as she has competed with the businesses in Lerwick in recent times and there was only really going to be one winner at the end of the day. Within Lerwick also, shops have closed as a result of the presence of Tesco. Whether or not the shop is re-opened as a co-operative is as yet unknown but it seems that such as a Bigton-type operation would be the only possible way to go. Whoever might end up being involved in running a co-operative, it would presumably be done on a voluntarily and unpaid basis so posting such a (to my mind) bullying post, as LauraJane90 has, is not particularly helpful. The shop has been closed only a short time so I guess the Shetland Times article was written with the idea of galvanising opinion and action within the village and surrounding area. Whether it has or not, I have no idea. If anything were to happen, I am confident that Jane would be approached by the organisers in time.

Maybe you are right on that assumption. However, where money is concerned, I am just cautious about most things.

The petrol pumps re-opening would have been good but there would have been problems associated with that. Firstly, the cost of the fuel would have been cheaper in Lerwick and that would have been a problem in terms of the volume sold making it a worthwhile venture Also, there would have been a big problem security-wise. If the shop had taken over the pumps, the staff there would have had to rely on total honesty of everyone uing the pumps. From within the shop, you cannot see the pumps and the loss of someone filling up without paying would have been a huge burden on the business if it happened just once or twice a week. When the pumps were operational, Adamson's always had someone working in the office with a window always looking out at the pumps and this deterred the potential thieves. The cost of the shop employing someone to just look at the pumps would have pushed the fuel prices way beyond the reach of customers.

I may be wrong on this but I thought that you had to have your car taxed to leave it there. Apparently you can't have a valid tax disc on your car to drive it there but leave it there after the disc expires. If this is the case, then it is deemed to be part of the public highway in some for. If so, then surely you have every right to leave it there. If it is a health & safety issue, though, then perhaps sellers should go and park at the car park opposite the old library; near the town hall instead. That will upset all the SIC fat gits who park their cars there; enough to change their minds, perhaps. Why not all go there now, instead?

I just cannot understand the reasoning behind this SIC decision at all. The Clickimin car park is huge and and is more than enough to cover for parking at all events except, perhaps, the classic car show when some of the exhibits are outside. The cars and other vehicles up for sale were doing nobody any harm whatsoever. I would be more than happy to sign any petition to get the council to change their mind over this.