Suffererof1crankymofo

@DavieP - And the Remainers campaigned on Project Fear and still are doing. Besides, the EU member states could collectively even now come together and decide that the UK could remain a member of the EEA, EFTA, etc. The Gov. leaflet which encouraged us to vote remain stated that previous deals had not been done (coughs, anyone remember Greenland leaving the EEA) but that doesn't mean new deals couldn't have been struck. We're a member of WTO both as the UK and also as a member of the EU. So, who campaigned and predicted the backstop scenario then?

Just how much clearer could the wording of the referendum been then? Honestly, you really couldn't get any clearer. The problem is that May's BREXIT isn't BREXIT, it's a mish-mash. There's a reasonable clip doing the rounds on Facebook right now of a parliamentary speech, in that there was never so much stink kicked up regarding the Welsh referendum; those who voted against it accepted the decision. What we are experiencing right now is politicians refusing to accept the leave decision; it's simple not cricket, dear boy!

I hate the sleeping pods, I don't recommend them at all.

@Urabug - thanks for the link to Wetherspoons, interesting read!

@ Colin - ah yes, nearly 600 pages but in what appears to be one and a half line spacing, with some pages only containing a couple of paragraphs.

The withdrawal agreement is available online:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration 599 pages available as a PDF. Amongst the waffle and the backstop stuff (which is meant to be temporary but there's no end date in it) is that we're basically agreeing to still keep EU Directives as part of our laws in areas such as environmental ... so ya know that fuel duty thingy you pay on ya lekky bill that is currently conveniently at 20%? I think, but not 100% sure, that that is an environmental EU tax (currently 20%) so if that rate changes and is higher in the future (yes, I said future), we still pay it. And all those other environmental 'goodies' under EU Directives - we've still got to abide by them. FOREVER by the looks of it, because do you really think they gonna agree to let us leave? We're agreeing still to contribute if there's a backstop thingy wotsits to pay a percentage into the European Bank and a whole other plethora of organisations. Likewise, with goods, we have to ensure they are to EU Standards - err why can't we bring back the BS kite mark? Will the USA, Canada, Australia and all those other countries want goods manufactured to their standards, BS standards or EU standards? On trade; well hell, if there isn't a hard border with Ireland apparently that's an advantage trade-wise and they want this back-stop thingy. We can only leave this agreement if all EU member countries AGREE. Noooo, none of this I'll give ya one month or three months' notice, we'd be tied in until they decided we could toddle off on our merry way. There's also a load of stuff about how we will take steps not to use security databases to which we're no longer entitled to (be too much for the EU to change the passwords then eh?) as apparently there is this super-duper intelligence/criminal/security database and OMG, we're all gonna dieeeeeee and be blown up if we can't have access to that; perish the thought that there is INTERPOL ... and info re the European Courts on how some stuff will be valid for up to four years after we leave (so if someone has a case now in the queue but it doesn't get heard in the next two years but does in say four years from now, the ruling would be valid). I always thought that the idea of discussing withdrawal was so that we left in an orderly manner; not for the EU to cherry pick which bits we must keep and what not to keep. It's an almighty mess.

There has been a cross party committee involved in BREXIT. The problem is that the EU won't budge, it wouldn't matter what political party sent representatives to Brussels, the answer from Brussels would have been the same. The Greeks said don't even attempt to negotiate with them because they'll shift the goalposts and mess you about; the only person who really got anywhere with Brussel was (ahem!) President Trump! Our actual neighbours, the ordinary person in the street living in Holland, France, Germany, Italy, etc., are FINE. The problem is their political representatives and the civil servants in the EU, not the European people. All this talk about being tied into EU rules. Well, does May not get that some of us don't want vacuum cleaners that are tested when empty and have no real power, don't want the horrendous EU permitted food colouring, don't want the petty rules which mean many of our cars end up failing an MOT because it has a split dust cover costing 20p but labour costs a fortune to get to the stupid thing (I remember years ago the threat of only having tyres on motorbikes that the manufacturers approved, yeah right, think it was BMW who had lobbied the EU for that gem) and all the other petty interference ... so if we stick to goods being designed for EU markets then what if a country outside the EU has different requirements? If under English law (and I think, if I understand correctly, Scottish law has even more protection) I signed a contract that was deemed to be unfair, it would be thrown out in Court. Yet that is what this draft agreement has, unfair contract terms. Normally, a contract can be ended not with both parties' agreement but with either party giving say one month's notice. Yet the BREXIT agreement would tie us in until both sides agreed we could leave. That's not giving us back power, that's us surrendering. By all means pay towards people's pensions who work for the EU but for other projects, etc.? NO. We don't buy the majority of our food from the EU. Whilst the EU countries collectively together make up being our largest trading partner, we still export more to the rest of the world. The scaremongering by the press and others is absolutely ridiculous. Didn't Greenland leave the EU? Not all EU countries are towing the Brussels' line right now, look at Poland, Hungary and Italy, for example. Many of us knew it was going to be a tangled web to unraffle, but that does not mean it is impossible and that there would not be bumps along the way. And yes, I do think many of those who had fought in the wars would be turning in their grave if they knew what was being proposed right now.

Cheers for pointing that out; I'll be honest and only looked at a few pages and it isn't worded that way in the main introduction of their website.

@ John Allan They are member nations, member countries but they are NOT "states". It is not the United States of Europe, even though they try to persuade folk to accept that ideology. Edit: Wikipedia might well refer to "member states" but the EU website does not.

You personally might well vote in representatives to make decisions which they feel will benefit people and nation, I tend to vote for candidates on what they put in their or their party's manifesto. There's no such thing as "the European states", no matter how much the numpties would like you to believe that; there are countries which are members of the EU. The MPs had plenty of time to vote at various stages regarding BREXIT prior to the actual referendum and to try to go for a second referendum is insulting, as is May's current fudge. I voted to leave, I didn't vote to do the hokey pokey with one leg in and one leg out.

What, including the external building fabric, such as walls, roof, etc.? That's not the norm!

Flawed argument. SIC now will have the responsibilities of maintaining more buildings. Besides, given the SCT's 'remit' aka the wording of the Trust Deed, I'm failing to see how it is beneficial to the Trust's recipients (us mere plebs) that selling it to 'us mere plebs' representatives (the SIC) is a good deal. We owned it, we still owned it, and now we're buying it back.

@paulb - The health board could actually try asking for funding from the Scot. Gov. for the MRI scanner which they haven't done!

He should withdraw the book from sale.

@ Davie P - will do later, busy with work right now. In fairness, it did state that amongst the 80% of non-smoking related deaths, it did include those who had previously smoked. @ George - Ah skin. Would you like to ban all make-up too? I'd be interested in seeing statistics for cancer-related deaths of smokers and non-smokers with a breakdown of the genetic links; smokers/non-smokers in a family who carry the genes making them more susceptible to cancer.

"About 430 hospital admissions in the isles each year are estimated by the health board to be smoking-related. One in eight deaths in Shetland are smoking-related, NHS Shetland says." Estimated. Define "smoking-related". Despite a lack of research in all medical conditions, smoking is not necessarily the cause of death. If you're a smoker and die of heart disease, you can bet your bottom dollar that your death would be down as smoking-related despite being say severely overweight and an alcoholic. Guilty by association. A leading cancer charity states that smoking accounts for 15% of cancers. A quick google gave the results - non-smokers accounted for 80% of lung cancer deaths in the USA in 2008. So smoking is the bogeyman for cancer. 80% non-smoking-related deaths for lung cancer. Why aren't you all screaming from the rooftops about that statistic and demanding more research is done?

LOL, so you reckon smokers do not have all the information available about smoking? You're right - we don't ... in that tobacco on its own isn't what we smoke but all the ingredients added to ensure the tar is reduced in order to meet EU Regulations in manufactured cigarettes, highly taxed by our caring governments. Manufacturers bulk out the ciggies; smokers notice the difference with those bought outside of EU countries. But the OP is very specific about asking why people continue to smoke tobacco. By applying the logic that people are either "Addicted, ill informed or irrational", then by that same logic, one can assume that you are insinuating that people want a long life, despite the fact that each day we live we're getting more decrepid, with the risk of such 'delights' as dementia. Would it not be logical to die before getting dementia? Each day many people get up, work hard, struggle to earn a decent crust, only to do the same thing the next day. It's not other people's business to interfere with other people's life choices. If I'm ill informed about smoking, then that is the fault with the information that is available to the general public. Many smokers don't succeed in jacking in smoking for the simple reason they never wanted to quit in the first place but were vilified and pressured into doing so. Granted, there are those who have partners who smoke or socialise with other smokers, or simply couldn't manage to quit within the time period set by the NHS and weren't permitted to re-join a smoking cessation scheme for at least another 6 months. Incidentally, the idea re vaping - only the other week some medical professional announced that people still get throat cancer and other cancers caused by vaping. To me, it's wrong to lump all smokers into the categories outlined above because there are those who have quit (like, when being skint for weeks at a time, so long that they are no longer physically addicted) but return to smoking because they like smoking. Some people started smoking tobacco instead of smoking crack cocaine, is that irrational swapping one 'evil' for another? Or the person who stopped drinking whisky but instead drank more lager? Both one could argue are harmful (in excess). Or the person who only smokes the very occasional cigar at Christmas or smokes 5 cigarettes in a week; such people do exist. But by the logic demonstrated within this thread, all smoking is bad. Well, cannabis isn't legal yet in the UK ... There's another article in the press today about nature prescriptions, and how getting out in the fresh air into the open countryside is good for one's health. Perhaps that's because by doing so, a person is getting away from other interfering people who seem to think they have the right to dictate what others do with their lives. If you pardon the pun, such interfering do-gooders need to get a life and butt out!

@ Davie P I'm definitely not in support of an authoriatian government and yes, I do believe the post was passive aggressive. I'm putting forward a counter argument, in that medical professionals themselves are biased. Devil's advocate here: how many consultant posts would be lost if it wasn't for smokers then? The whole attitude towards death and dying, be it through smoking or other diseases, needs a re-think - we all DIE. There have been those within the medical profession who have been criticised for pointing out that the cure for cancer, with damage to internal organs severely affecting people's quality of life; I personally know at least one person who has undergone 10 operations not for cancer but for the damage caused by the treatment. Yes, some cancers are treatable with results improving compared to years ago but you try getting the figures of those who have had the cancer return years later; those figures aren't so easily obtainable. Drug companies make money out of patients and doctors rely on patients for their livelihood. So if you're saying that addicts, who are fully aware of what they are doing and what they are choosing to do, have diminished capacity? Are you seriously suggesting that people who smoke have diminished mental capacity? Are you suggesting that they are incapable of reading the literature available and deciding not to believe it? I sure as hell don't need the nanny state to tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing. I might die in my sleep but there again, I might get run over by a bus or die of a heart attack or die of cancer. In any event, I'm going to die. It's none of the Government's business as to whether or not I choose to accelerate my death. There are plenty of non-smokers who die of cancer. So whilst George might well be happy on his sugar high, I note that nobody is touching the alcohol argument yet I, for one, lost a relative due to drink-driving. She was killed outright by a drunk driver on his third offence. Plus, your link, whilst interesting, is also biased - it's written by medical professionals who obviously have a vested interest.

Passive aggressive much? You really do believe in Big Brother 1984, don't you? Why on earth do people buy water in plastic bottles? Why do people not wear masks when changing toner in photocopiers? Why do people drink alcohol? Why do people work in nuclear plants? Why do people live near substations? Why do people still allow petrol and diesel cars to exist? Why do people participate in jogging/boxing/horseriding/rugby ... the list is endless. It's called choice. Individuals will always participate in activities that others might not approve of. I'm just waiting for the total ban on alcohol and see how many of you like that then. Freedoms are being wittled down but apparently that's okay because carry on like it and you'll destroy what you so dearly 'love' about 'society'.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the developed world where things aren't so backwards, an island resort has been created from the ash from an incinerator and it doubles as a nature park. It's a tourist attraction just off Singapore. Singapore reports that they still have a problem with plastics due to the increased use. Other countries outside the EU are also using incinerators. Want to curb the use of plastics? Don't recycle them but force manufacturers to use other packaging materials.

I loathe with a passion the competitiveness of funds whereby some bright spark decided it would be a good idea to hold an event on one day whereby 'locals' were meant to go along and vote for a 'local' project. Now that might work fine in town, not so much down here. Haven't the last two been held in Sandwick? Who got the bulk of the funding? (It's not hard to guess). So that one day when some might be working or unable to get a lift to travel 10 miles, can't get a bus there and back in time, etc., or so to a venue where you know you're already at a disadvantage if you don't live in or close to said location where event is being held. I'm not blaming the folk who live in that particular place, I'm not blaming the community council concerned. I am, however, blaming whosoever dreamt up such a scheme in the first place and all community councils who agreed to participate in such a biased and unfair scheme instead of collectively telling the SIC/Scot. Gov. where to shove it. It's wrong to have people compete for what should already be provided and then state that the local community voted for it. Another initiative involved online voting ... only it wasn't working properly (that one included Grutness toilets). Nigel, a lot of what the community councils do now is administer small grants to say those participating in sports and wanting help with travel costs. The meetings themselves are attended by 3 local councillors and the police plus community councillors (and not all of them attend). It's really annoying to read about someone being arrested or how police were called to an address in X location when you live in a small area - since when does an arrest amount to being guilty of an offence?

The local one appears to be a glorified talking shop. The SIC appear to think that if they consult with a community council that they have fulfilled their obligations for anything which requires public consultation - it doesn't. The CC expects people to approach them. They're not cheap either and not value for money. The last time a community council newsletter was published around here was about 8-9 years ago. I can see the benefit of having one in the town but the outer areas - nope.

@ Davie P And likewise with respect, some of those quite specific questions had been posed by other people on their Facebook thread but they were deleted! I should have used italics. How do you refer to people who commit crime? Criminals. Those committing undesirable activities in such shelters ... you know where I'm heading. It's not just a police matter when people participate in undesirable activities. For starters, you're not meant to smoke on NHS property or within bus shelters but you can bet that someone will smoke in the shelter. Those commiting public order offences (shooting up in public, off ya face in public, etc.) are people participating in not just criminal activities but what are these days deemed to be undesirable activities, and those designing and proposing to place shelters in such a location as is being proposed here, I would argue do have a responsibility; ergo, it is not just a police matter. Did you know that bus shelters these days are designed not to have comfy seats for the purpose of discouraging certain folk from sitting there all day? Crikey, semantics! (and yes, I know that's a tad of waffle but it's 2.50am and I can't sleep!)

Re my earlier comment that the funding came from Scottish National Heritage; it's a real shame that Healthy Shetland have seen fit (if you pardon the pun) to remove several of their own comments and others enquiring about maintenance (who will pay for it; after all, they don't have the funds to adequately maintain the existing NHS buildings), alternative designs, why no handrail on the path, etc. Scottish National Heritage state on their website that they get most of their funding from the Scottish Government. I've been pretty neutral so far on this thread but inside; yes, I am taking it personally. I am taking it personally that the Scot. Gov. would rather spend money on a few shelters quite a distance away from the hospital rather than to address the real issues. I'm currently on a 28 week waiting list. I have an incurable disease, yet there is a nationwide shortage of consultants. There are hardworking staff who frequently go without meal breaks yet these shelters are meant to be a place for them to enjoy too? Gosh, when will they get the time? When I visit GBH, I'm more concerned with how close I can park my car to the front door and can't always get a parking space in the GBH car park so have to park elsewhere instead; this won't get any better when they dump the MRI mobile scanner in the car park. I then have to get back home as quickly as I can to return to work. On days I don't feel up to driving I take the bus but even then, I don't think I'd manage to get beyond the bus stop to where they propose to site this shelter. To me, it's a case of priorities. Sure, encouraging people to exercise is a good thing but as Colin so eloquently pointed out above, let's look at the priorities. We have buildings falling down, a lack of what is regarded as pretty basic standard diagnostic equipment these days (MRI scanner), long waiting lists, vacant posts, etc. Never mind, let's whack a shelter up. No, let's not. Will it have lighting? Solar powered? Or mains fed electricity? Who will pay for its maintenance? Who will stop 'undesirables' using it at night or during the day? Will it become a glorified fag shelter? Then don't forget the fact that there's bound to be signage to pay for too, so that those visiting the hospital can find where it is. It's all money coming out of the Scot. Gov.'s pot, yet we have a health service that right now, simply cannot afford such niceities.