trowie246

Yes, every Monday evening at the Sellafirth hall.  I've just copied and pasted from the Sellafirth hall Facebook page.
 
 
  Sellafirth Hall25 August 2015 ·  Also every Monday night from 6.30pm onwards till 9pm Needle Craft Club, come along and bring your knitting, sewing, spinning, or any craft really! Some experienced knitters, can help with any project if you get stuck!
 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/13251-hjaltland-s-latest-14-home-scheme-is-complete
 
This is all well and good for "da toon" but along with the huge development at Staney Hill (among others) am I the only one wondering why none of the rest of Shetland seems to be getting new social housing?

Services and development are being concentrated in Lerwick, leading to inflated demand, leading to a justification to carry on in the same fashion. 

Where will it all end, everyone living within a few miles of Lerwick, Scalloway and Brae and the rest of Shetland left to dwindle to tiny hamlets or ghost towns?

The financial situation is massively complex.  Despite years of looking at various facts and figures to do with school costs I am none the wiser really, probably because they are compiled by the SIC and they can make things look any way they want.  The nearest we got was with the school comparison report - comparing the 3 island authorities.  Even then Hayfield house had the audacity to try and say Shetland was massively expensive in the covering letter/report but when you started pulling apart the figures and comparing like for like, it became apparent that Shetland's secondary costs are no more expensive than Orkney or the Western Isles.
 
Any Councillor who wants to get to the bottom of the financial situation would have their work cut out for them but that is what needs to happen to get to the truth.  From what I've seen Shetland's primary and secondary education is no more expensive than the other island groups.  At one time Shetland had a massively inflated Quality Improvement budget (Hayfield house officers) but I'm not sure if that is still the case because some Quality Improvement officers have gone.  The other cost which in the past has been huge is the Additional Supports Needs budget but no one wants to go there, at least to any great extent.

I also know people at Quoys (another exposed hill) and the East Voe of Scalloway who are more than happy with their modern, well insulated houses.
They work, have children and don't have drug/alcohol addictions either, as far as I'm aware.
I think the Hjatland developments so far have been done well but at 400 houses this development is much bigger than anything they've done before.
The need is obvious, but is concentrating so many houses in one area a good idea?
It supports the idea that Lerwick is becoming a black hole, sucking investment towards itself, with 400 extra houses they'll need more money invested in the health centre, primary schools etc etc
They could have stuck to what they are good at and built smaller developments and spread them around Shetland.

Just like to remind the SIC that you have wasted alot of money, time, and family life with closing and attemting to close viable schools.
 
Reminding SIC that you saved nothing in closing Skerries Secondary School
Shame on you Dr Wills for the incorrect info  you told. I will never trust a word you ever say.

Don't know a lot about this subject but I try to keep up with local issues and I've been reading this thread with interest so here are a few observations.
 
Nobody likes an organisation that restricts your activities but it is tolerated by the vast majority because people understand that there is some sort of regulatory body needed.  My understanding was that 25 people turned up at a meeting held at the Tingwall hall but only 6 were licence holders.  I think there are currently over 90 licence holders in Shetland so this was a tiny majority of people who thought the SSMO should be dissolved.
 
As has been said before many other industries are also a closed shop - white fishing, salmon and mussel industries to name a few.  I don't hear many people complaining that they can't do a nice little side line in growing mussels but the fact is that they can't because all the suitable sites in Shetland have been bought up.
 
Orkney has been mentioned a few times in comparison but the inshore fishing in Orkney is nothing like in Shetland - they have far more suitable grounds and that is why they have more boats.
 
The SSMO is far from perfect and I don't suppose anyone on the Committee would say that it is.  The simple fact is that you will never please everyone.  On saying that I could see how things might be tightened up and improved - for example,  if the vast majority of boats is part-time you could lower the max number of creels/dregs in water per boat and create more licences to the same number, therefore giving more folk a chance at it.  Boats licences would need to be revoked far more quickly the at present - someone here has not landed in years and there licence has just been revoked recently.  Lots of things could be looked at but at the end of the day it needs to be policed in some way and that is why the SSMO is needed. I hear the velvet fishery is pretty poor now around Scalloway and Whalsay as it is, fishermen themselves need to taking some responsibility and asking themselves why that might be and not just blaming the SSMO or others.
 
Finally,  I would just like to say that I read the letter in the paper slating Chairman Ian Walterson and thought it was a wholly inappropriate and personal attack on him and after speaking to someone on the Committee to ascertain if there was a grain of truth in what was being said I was told that he had found him to be fair and open at meetings with one vote the same as the rest of the men there, although as Chair he would have the casting vote.  I think people who know Ian know that the person who wrote that letter was spaekin bruk.

Booked my car in for a service and get the heater fixed as it was blowing out cold air only.  Spent the whole day in Brae, 10am -4:30pm and they didn't get the heater fixed.  I had filled the car up with diesel the day before and by the time I got home from Brae the fuel light was on.  The mechanic hadn't put on the fuel filter correctly and lost the full tank of diesel.  Nearly went off the road as I almost lost her on a corner on the way home as my tyres were so greasy with diesel.
 
In all fairness they were very apologetic afterwards and sent someone up straight a way to fix it. The thing that annoyed me was they charged me for work on the heater although they didn't fix the problem.  I claimed the fuel back but didn't bother querying the bill which if I remember correctly was well over £200.  I just made up my mind I was never going back there.

For anyone unfortunate enough to have entrusted their car into the hands of Hillside motors recently it will come as no surprise that they went bust. Our car hasnt been the same since it was there. 
With waiting times of up to a month to get an appointment in a Lerwick  garage and at least a week in the country you have to be a special kind of useless to make a garage fail in Shetland nowadays. 
Maybe he should have filled it full of one arm bandits. He,s an expert in those apparently. LOL

I don't know much about the Shetland Home Company or whatever they call themselves but I did wonder about Karibuni when it closed.  Cope owned the building, were running a business which was subsidised, employing workers on relatively low pay. It was reported that they had about 100 regular customers a day. Yet they closed because they were having a 10% cut in subsidy.
 
 Something is wrong there.
 
The person who runs it now has to pay rent to Cope and presumably gets no subsidies to run it and appears to have a thriving business.
 
Could it be managerial and administration costs of running Cope means that some businesses will never be viable?  Shetland Home Company could be the exception to the rule but it does make you wonder who they are actually helping and providing jobs for.

I don't know much about the Shetland Home Company or whatever they call themselves but I did wonder about Karibuni when it closed.  Cope owned the building, were running a business which was subsidised, employing workers on relatively low pay. It was reported that they had about 100 regular customers a day. Yet they closed because they were having a 10% cut in subsidy.
 
 Something is wrong there.
 
The person who runs it now has to pay rent to Cope and presumably gets no subsidies to run it and appears to have a thriving business.
 
Could it be managerial and administration costs of running Cope means that some businesses will never be viable?  Shetland Home Company could be the exception to the rule but it does make you wonder who they are actually helping and providing jobs for.

I don't know much about the Shetland Home Company or whatever they call themselves but I did wonder about Karibuni when it closed.  Cope owned the building, were running a business which was subsidised, employing workers on relatively low pay. It was reported that they had about 100 regular customers a day. Yet they closed because they were having a 10% cut in subsidy.
 
 Something is wrong there.
 
The person who runs it now has to pay rent to Cope and presumably gets no subsidies to run it and appears to have a thriving business.
 
Could it be managerial and administration costs of running Cope means that some businesses will never be viable?  Shetland Home Company could be the exception to the rule but it does make you wonder who they are actually helping and providing jobs for.

I see the flea ranting on  about the amount of money wasted on consultations. He probably has a point. The SIC must have wasted millions on them over the years.
The main problem with SIC,s education consultations is that they seem to have decided what answers they wanted at the beginning. And if you can see through that sham and vote against it then your an idiot apparently.

If your spending 48.5milion pounds on education . And closing two small schools with all the damage that entails is only saving a paltry 156k. Then it seams to me that even a 5yr old child could work out that the small schools are NOT the problem.
Would it be too much trouble to ask the education department to produce an "honest" pie chart so the people of Shetland can see where all these millions are being wasted.
It might be a start in trying to build bridges again . And actually finding some sort of solution to the huge funding gap that clearly exists.

Da Flea is like a stuck record.
 
We've discussed this before on Shetlink,  apart from what you've already mentioned above, the school which the pupils were moving to was a brand new purpose built primary school, which if my memory serves me correctly was no more than 3 or 4 miles away from the existing schools.
 
The Northmavine schools are a completely different situation but it's easy to ignore that if you have a different agenda.
 
I have to admit I've not studied these closure proposals very closely but I have learned a few things today:
 
There is a problem with the time limit for pupils from Eshaness in that the bus journey could not be completed in under 40 minutes.  There still seemed to be an insistence that this could be overcome - probably with an express bus or taxi which would of course cost extra money which has probably not been factored into the costings.  My own personal opinion is that no primary age pupil should be travelling for more than 30 minutes to get to school, if at all possible.
 
The majority of the savings which they stated would be saved if N Roe closed would only occur for a year,  as school rolls are rising in Northmavine so Ollaberry would have had to employ an extra teacher, therefore knocking out the majority of the savings from closing N Roe.
 
Da flea needs to start looking at the facts of the schools being consulted on instead of dredging up something which happened 50/60 years ago and which bears no relevance to this situation.

The new hostel is too small, as is the existing hostel as it has even fewer beds. It can't accommodate all the pupils if they discontinue education in S3 and S4 in the isles. There are 59 pupils boarding at the moment and you will double that number if proposals go ahead, with the possibility of requiring even more beds depending on the girl/boy split and building in extra capacity. The new hostel can take 46 boys, 46 girls and 6 ASN pupils = 98. The Janet Courtney can hold 91 pupils.
 
I've been reassured that the officials are aware the new hostel might be too small.
 
Unfortunately, a decision will be taken shortly on the size of the hostel, before the councillors make a decision on education in the isles.
 
The hostel can be extended if necessary but I would imagine that this will be of significant cost to the SIC.
 
I'm not sure what will happen in 2015 when pupils are due to transfer if these proposals goes ahead as obviously the new hostel will not have been built.  Presumably they will remain in the JHS's until accommodation which is fit for purpose has been sorted out.

Cllr Andrea Manson was a breath of fresh air on Radio Shetland last night.
 
She was at the march and when the point was put to her that the SIC just doesn't have the money anymore said that the SIC has plenty of money, it's just that "we're spending it on the wrong things".
 
Listen here from 16.50 and the money comment 17.28.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radioscotland/news/rs_good_evening_shetland/
 
She's right.
 
And as I said in another post the SIC machine(tiers of officals & paper shufflers) have sacrifised the front line to protect the machine.
 
Also, I don't care what Scotland is doing, I just want us to do what is best for Shetland.

My point is that the SIC plans to takes kids away from home compulsorily and I think this is wrong.

You seem to have difficulty in understanding a simple factor. Rates previously set for town and country. Services cuts greater in country areas thus a poorer service for country areas in comparison with the town. If you lived here you would be feeling it,.
 
Pete why do you insist in breaking down everything someone posts then cherry picking bits to tear apart like lord judge and jury. Then reply with issues that have little to do with the point.
 
Fed up, I give up on this issue. I can understand why other closed their accounts.
 
By the way do your best as I have no intention of replying.

If I was a councillor I would find out how the revenue grant system works.

If I were a councillor I would go into each of the department offices and shadow people for a day and enquire what they did.  I would try and find out how much duplication goes on in the SIC and look more closely at the recharging of services between departments.  I would then examine what is statutory and what is non-statutory requirements of the SIC.
 
We get in the region of £95 million in revenue grant from the Scottish Government.  We spend about £75 million of that on staff wages.
 
If this isn't ringing alarm bells in councillor's ears than nothing is.
 
Nobody wants to see anyone out of a job but the bottom line is that a combination of too many employees along with high salaries is draining the SIC.  They've cut all the front line staff that they can, it's now time to tackle those offices.

What exactly would you be getting for your money, besides 10% off popcorn?  I keep thinking of the term "friends with benefits" but I assume that this would normally be of mutual benefit to the participating parties, whereas in this case it's just Shetland Arts scr£vv1ng the customer??

There are no doubt many people on here who would stay that there should only be one school in Yell, the JHS in Mid Yell, and both Cullivoe primary and Burravoe primary should shut. Mid Yell primary dept has 42 pupils and two teachers.  Cullivoe has 26 pupils and Burravoe has 11 pupils. Travel time would be about 45 mins. which is over the maximum travel time recommended for a primary pupil.
 
Currently the SIC get Grant Aided Expenditure to help run it's rural schools.  This money, as someone has already mentioned, is not ring fenced so basically it is divided up amongst all the schools. The GAE is only for schools with less than 70 pupils and is between £2,500 and £2,900 per pupil depending on the remoteness of the school.
 
If Cullivoe and Burravoe shut it will create a primary dept with 79 pupils, which means the SIC no longer qualify for the GAE, so they lose this money they currently get from the Scottish Government for the two small schools.  Then they will have to employ an extra 2 teachers at Mid Yell because of pupil numbers. Then there's the fact that the new Mid Yell school is not big enough so a portakabin will have to be placed outside the school. Then there's the cost of extra transportation which does not come out of the education budget but is still a cost to the SIC because it comes out of the transport budget.
 
Any "savings" are soon eroded away which leads to the question what is the smallest figure of money which makes it worth while to shut a school?  I personally think that closing Cullivoe and Burravoe might actually cost the SIC money. When a school shuts the children do not disappear they still have to be taught and fed etc so there will be extra costs for the receiving school in resources.
 
As for not having enough money for pens and pencils etc, I have two bairns in secondary and parents are expected to pay for these items and I don't mind doing that.  Our parent council also does fund raising to pay for "extras" in our school  ie. French resources and recorders and music books.  People shouldn't just expect things to be handed to them in times of austerity, if we all share the costs for these items it really doesn't add up to be that much money per family.

There are no doubt many people on here who would stay that there should only be one school in Yell, the JHS in Mid Yell, and both Cullivoe primary and Burravoe primary should shut. Mid Yell primary dept has 42 pupils and two teachers.  Cullivoe has 26 pupils and Burravoe has 11 pupils. Travel time would be about 45 mins. which is over the maximum travel time recommended for a primary pupil.
 
Currently the SIC get Grant Aided Expenditure to help run it's rural schools.  This money, as someone has already mentioned, is not ring fenced so basically it is divided up amongst all the schools. The GAE is only for schools with less than 70 pupils and is between £2,500 and £2,900 per pupil depending on the remoteness of the school.
 
If Cullivoe and Burravoe shut it will create a primary dept with 79 pupils, which means the SIC no longer qualify for the GAE, so they lose this money they currently get from the Scottish Government for the two small schools.  Then they will have to employ an extra 2 teachers at Mid Yell because of pupil numbers. Then there's the fact that the new Mid Yell school is not big enough so a portakabin will have to be placed outside the school. Then there's the cost of extra transportation which does not come out of the education budget but is still a cost to the SIC because it comes out of the transport budget.
 
Any "savings" are soon eroded away which leads to the question what is the smallest figure of money which makes it worth while to shut a school?  I personally think that closing Cullivoe and Burravoe might actually cost the SIC money. When a school shuts the children do not disappear they still have to be taught and fed etc so there will be extra costs for the receiving school in resources.
 
As for not having enough money for pens and pencils etc, I have two bairns in secondary and parents are expected to pay for these items and I don't mind doing that.  Our parent council also does fund raising to pay for "extras" in our school  ie. French resources and recorders and music books.  People shouldn't just expect things to be handed to them in times of austerity, if we all share the costs for these items it really doesn't add up to be that much money per family.

Baltasound is back in the closure mix again. I have a child with additional needs there. He will not be boarding in Lerwick.
So what do we do? Leave I guess or home educate. He has changed completely at Baltasound with the pressure of having to deal with lots of people taken away. His needs can not be met in a large school because it is a large school and even if kept in 'a unit' everyone is still there. Fortunately he should have left before closures take place. Out here in the Northern Isles he may find a job working with a few people and have a future. Dragged into a town he potentially faces a life of hell.
It would seem that the 'getting it right for every child' does not apply to those with additional needs who need something different to the one size fits all approach. Those like him -and worse -will need an escort from home to school and back again each week. They will need a lot of evening supervision in the hostel. Some will need all night supervision. Most can not share rooms. Where currently in small classes they cope with minimal extra help 1-1's will be needed in class. Where mum acts as homework scribe currently an evening scribe will need to be employed to do homework....the costs mount up. oh doing homework in a room with others wont work either as some can't cope. Then there is food with a child who does not like eating certain things and the autism problems of food touching on a plate... The closure of small schools that people have deliberately moved to be near because they met their childrens needs is going to cost a fortune in the long run. More than keeping schools open.
Oh and don't give me the rhetoric about cost because education closures is meant to be about education not cost. It is not possible to give a better education in a larger school because size is the problem...

^^^ Agreed.
 
And although you mention Skerries as having potential savings overall, I disagree on this point.
 
In theory, by closing Skerries Secondary dept, you could actually cost the SIC money.
 
This is largely hypothetical (as I am relying on my memory which is not always reliable) but I did read the socio-economic report done on Skerries and I remember that a large number of people living there, especially the women, have two or more jobs.
 
So for arguments sake, one woman not only works in the community owned salmon, which helps bring in money to the Shetland economy, but home helps and cares for the 82 year old living up the road. She has two children, one in primary, one in secondary. The older child has additional support needs. Her husband also works in the salmon. The secondary department closes. They have to leave the isle for the sake of their eldest son. The salmon industry is now struggling and forced to close. Other workers have to leave the isle in search of other work. The elderly lady has to leave the isle and move into a care home. She has no money of her own so this is costing the SIC money.
 
Loss of income into the Shetland wide community. An added cost for care of the elderly.
 
Please note that the above is hypothetical and might not happen in reality. But in these fragile communities the very smallest change can have wide ranging consequences not just for the isle but for the whole of Shetland.