John Allan

Wiki? Not sure. Both Strasbourg and the European commission do http://en.strasbourg-europe.eu/member-states,44987,en.html here you will see the map of the "Member states", entitled "Member States of the European Union and the Council of Europe",  and all official EU commission directives sent to members are directed to and at "Member States".  Just do a search on Member States on the EU website, you will see what I mean. But call them anything you like   Its a pretty mute point to me. 

@ 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.

In the 1960/70s? Absolutely. Most economists on both side of the Brexit debate agree that becoming a member state strengthened the UK economy and avoided progressive economic decline, the reason we were given the title of the "sick man of Europe" in the 60s and 70s.

But as noted, time will tell on how are economy will look after 2019. I'm pretty optimistic that the UK economy is strong enough 40 years later, but I suppose we will see over the next few years.

 

... , so a free trade agreement with the European states was a pretty logical thing to do.

 

 

Democracy is a principle of equality upheld my elected representatives. This means we vote representatives to make decisions which they feel will benefit us as a people and a nation, and we should vote against them as representatives if we feel those principles are not met or upheld.  Democracy does not mean that every decision is put through an electoral process. That would be absolute mayhem.

 

We did have a referendum in 1975 on whether to join the common market (EU) and agreed to the Treaty of Rome based on that. The result was almost a flip-side of what we had with Brexit. Scotland and N.I. averaged 45%-65% for yes, with England and Wales averaging well over 65% and more for yes. Shetland and the Hebrides well below 45% for yes. The UK at this time had few other options, trade within the commonwealth was falling rapidly and the UK was losing world influence, so a free trade agreement with the European states was a pretty logical thing to do. I guess time will tell whether UK trade has now recovered enough to be independent of the EU!!!

 

With all that said, I would not trust the current level of competence of a politician at Holyrood, Westminster or Brussels at the moment.

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.

 

 

That is difficult to answer as no one knows at this point whether or not it is in the best interest of the country. Clearly remain voters do not, and leave voters do, both depending on their respective agendas.

Difficult to answer? How democratic, just like Westminster.

 

Vote SNP.

 

Do you mean diplomatic? Not sure a static comment can be democratic. While I wouldn't vote SNP, I agree with you. If you feel another party could change what you want, then vote for that representative.

 

How many of our political leaders can genuinely stand at the cenotaph and show respect when they are disobeying the countries wishes by not adhering to the national vote to leave the EU.

 

This means we vote representatives to make decisions which they feel will benefit us as a people and a nation, and we should vote against them as representatives if we feel those principles are not met or upheld.  Democracy does not mean that every decision is put through an electoral process. That would be absolute mayhem.

 

What should a politician do if they believe the referendumn decision was not in the best interest of the country, and/or the public were given false information upon which to make their descision?

 

That is difficult to answer as no one knows at this point whether or not it is in the best interest of the country. Clearly remain voters do not, and leave voters do, both depending on their respective agendas.  Politicians should have predicted and then stopped the concept of a referendum before it was promised if they felt it was in the best interest, and then it would not have become an issue.

> The college does a mean fish,chips

 

Where is that ?

 

And it it called "The College" ?

 

Google wasn't a lot of help there !

 

 

I'm guessing Shetland College. 

Democracy is a principle of equality upheld my elected representatives. This means we vote representatives to make decisions which they feel will benefit us as a people and a nation, and we should vote against them as representatives if we feel those principles are not met or upheld.  Democracy does not mean that every decision is put through an electoral process. That would be absolute mayhem.

We did have a referendum in 1975 on whether to join the common market (EU) and agreed to the Treaty of Rome based on that. The result was almost a flip-side of what we had with Brexit. Scotland and N.I. averaged 45%-65% for yes, with England and Wales averaging well over 65% and more for yes. Shetland and the Hebrides well below 45% for yes. The UK at this time had few other options, trade within the commonwealth was falling rapidly and the UK was losing world influence, so a free trade agreement with the European states was a pretty logical thing to do. I guess time will tell whether UK trade has now recovered enough to be independent of the EU!!!

With all that said, I would not trust the current level of competence of a politician at Holyrood, Westminster or Brussels at the moment.

I loved bonfire night when I was young, but then I got old and I stopped liking it as much, though I did enjoy taking my own bairns to firework displays before they grew up.  Traditionally it was an effigy of the pope that was burnt and not old Guido. Mind you, there is some irony that a mainly English celebration remembers the saving of a Scottish King  

Depends where you want to live. If you're happy on the outer Islands (Yell/Unst/Fetlar/Whalsay) you would get a place very quickly. Though jobs on the Islands are thin on the ground. In Lerwick, you could be waiting a few months. Alternatively, you move out of town but on the bus route, North or South of Lerwick. 

Private rental prices can be high. Not as high as they were in the boom years of the Oil. But all the same, some folk are still charging some ridiculous prices for flats. A bed(sit) in Lerwick will be anything from £450-£500 a month, yet outside of Town, you can get a house from £500 a month. Depends how convenient you want things.

There is always minimum wage going on Shetland and more professional jobs; Tesco, Co-op, fish processing, cleaning work, labouring jobs. If you're not proud and don't mind getting your hands dirty you can always earn a crust. Shetland Times on Fridays for the jobs pages and myjobscotland and SIC are good places to look. I would say that you need a job on Shetland. Not just for the money, but it is also a way of keeping in touch with people, especially if you're living out of town.

Shetland is a grand place to live, but you will be told quite accurately, that "you know you like Shetland" if you can stay through a couple of winters. This is when the white noise from wind can be incessant, the rain falls upwards into your face and you get a delivery estimate from Amazon that only shows the year    

I guess if they came across an unknown element then they will report on it. Unlikely though for the reasons already given. 

The thermometer? It seems it was invented in 1714 and used Mercury. I wiki'd that though 

 

Well scientists and astronomers use spectroscopy on any light source from the Universe, planet, star or another galaxy and they then break this light source down into known chemical natural elements. 

When they break it all down into "known chemical natural elements", what do they do with the unknown ones? What did they use to make thermometres before they discovered Gallium?

 

You're not wrong. I think it had something to do with the area being close to a supernova which was high in phosphorus. Meteorites carried this to nearby planets. Earth was lucky to be in that area. 

Cardiff University wrote something about it.  https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1143956-absent-phosphorus-questions-possible-life-on-other-planetsbut I've not read the whole article.

Right, forgive me if I'll a little wrong on the detail here but I've read a report recently that suggests the element phosphorus is critical to life and the Sol system is in an area of the galaxy that is very high in that particular element. There are wide areas of the Milky Way that is lacking in phosphorus so that might have a detrimental effect on the chances of life.  

Well scientists and astronomers use spectroscopy on any light source from the Universe, planet, star or another galaxy and they then break this light source down into known chemical natural elements. They can tell all sorts of things from this, but what they are looking at next in the newer generation of this (they need more powerful equipment), is for "unnatural" chemicals, those which must have been created by a third party (i.e. a life form). There is some pretty amazing science going on at the moment.  Earth punches well above it's weight. It's just a shame it is in such an inaccessible and quiet part of the universe. Or maybe that's it's advantage, who knows!

 

 While the Solar system is small, it contains all the known elements that will be found elsewhere in the Universe, yet it is the parameters of this planet which has created this wonderful world.

 

Yes, the solar system is small. It's not just small, it's less than miniscule in comparison to the rest of the universe that we live in. It contains all the known elements that will possibly be found elsewhere, but I have to use the word, "possibly" as I havn't yet seen, heard or become aware of any proof regarding that. If there is any relevant proof then Joe Public hasn't yet been told.

 

There have been an estimated five billion species on the planet since the first mix of elements first came together to create life on Earth!!! In the rest of the Solar System, there has not been one single example and there probably won't be. This planet, and all the life forms on it, are frankly amazing. While the Solar system is small, it contains all the known elements that will be found elsewhere in the Universe, yet it is the parameters of this planet which has created this wonderful world.

I have no reasonable response to the concept of "It's life Jim, but not as we know it", but I hope we all "Live long and Prosper" if nothing else 

That last link is great, and ties in to my view that when we talk about life elsewhere, what we are actually talking about is only "life" as we know it. There must be billions of things in the universe that are "alive" in one way or the other.

 

It is vital to remember what a minute blip us humans are in earths history, let alone the universe, and frankly the sooner we're gone the better! 

Yes I agree, there are many synthetic elements that might be discovered, like 115. But they are synthetic and would not exist without a scientist involved.   

 

The Earth has all the known elements that exist in the Universe. From these elements life has been created and developed. So any life in the Universe would also be made of the same elements and would have the same restrictions for existence, and would need similar environmental conditions.  This is not to say that there would not be different looking lifeforms if these conditions did exist. But the limitation of the required elements is the reason we don't have flaming Venusian lifeforms running around the Universe, or green skinned maidens from mars crying out "show me more of this Earth thing you call kissing" etc etc.

 

You are probably correct, W&F. Planet Earth probably does have some of every known element that exists within our universe. I would suggest however that they are only the known elements. That can possibly be said at present but it is likely that we have not yet identified all elements on earth. Ununpentium, atomic number 115, was discovered by some Swedish scientists in 2013. Haven't yet found out yet if Ununpentium exists anywhere else, other than on Earth.

 

However, we are still discovering this, that and the next thing. This means that we are still not sure that we know every single element on Planet Earth and it has to be said that at present our universe only has in it the things that we know about and can therefore identify, therefore there is quite possibly a lot more to be found out there and a lot more to be learnt. There is no proof to suggest otherwise - at present.

 

This suggests that there is possibly a lot more to discover. Will this mean aliens in the solar system, the universe - or somewhere that has yet to be discovered?

 

The Earth has all the known elements that exist in the Universe. From these elements life has been created and developed. So any life in the Universe would also be made of the same elements and would have the same restrictions for existence, and would need similar environmental conditions.  This is not to say that there would not be different looking lifeforms if these conditions did exist. But the limitation of the required elements is the reason we don't have flaming Venusian lifeforms running around the Universe, or green skinned maidens from mars crying out "show me more of this Earth thing you call kissing" etc etc.

To believe means that you are happy to do what you're told, claim what you're told to claim and think what you are told to think.

 

A non-believer, a disbeliever, an agnostic or an atheist however asks questions. They don't just swallow what they're fed.

I don't mean to be rude, but that is nonsense. I'm an atheist myself but throughout the European reformations and counter reformations there were thousands of men and women who questioned the state of the church and what they were being told to believe. They were willing to be tortured and burned alive to have their own beliefs and ideas accepted. Obviously, you may see this as stupid now, but there was an historical context which makes this difficult to understand in today's modern world, and it was also the first fight towards allowing people to have a political opinion. What it definitely does say is that the analogy that "religious people are sheep" is simplistic at best.

Good link. I read his book of the same name as the youtube video, it's pretty thought provoking. In the book he goes through each of the main theories and gives the pros and cons of each. 

 

The earth is on the backside end of the Milky Way Galaxy which contains around 200-400 billion stars (which is a lot).  Though the Milky Way itself is a pretty insignificant galaxy (though both are very nice treats). In comparison, the observable universe alone has around 300 sextillion stars (which is really loads). But, there is far more "space" than there is physical objects and the distances between them are astronomical.

 

While the above numbers may make the possibility of life being found in the right conditions on theory, the Universe is expanding at an amazing speed and this is speeding up. Unless the human race develops a mechanism very soon that can take advantage of something like superluminal communication (the only known theory of sending a signal faster than the speed of light, it's basically time travel), then contacting any life in the Universe and still being here when the response comes back is extremely low.

 

I guess the only hope is that another life form with this technology has already done that and we are the receiver. Though as noted, this part of the Galaxy is a bit of a backwater and our sun is extremely small, so it might not be note worthy enough for another life form to send messages our way.

 

I was only interested in our backyard rather than the entire city, so to speak, but I'll draw your attention to this YouTube TED Talk video 

which should give a little food for thought, regarding the rest of the visible universe. The last five minutes or so is certainly an eye-opener. 

 

Absolutely. Interesting response to the question "Are we really made of stardust?" is here http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-we-really-made-of-stardust.html

Nothing  comes to an end,it changes from one thing into another.

 

When i die my body will decay but there will always be the remains which will amalgamate into the earth and eventually move around from place to place but never can be completely destroyed.

 

If we travel into space and reach a wall there must be something on the other side .

 

There is no end that we can logically understand .

 

everything is made from something else.

 

Is it possible that all the" bits" that make me could come together and reincarnate me, well I have serious doubts on that one !

 

There is an awful lot we do not understand and never will.

 

Some people say the body dies and the spirit goes on, I say the spirit dies and its the body that goes on.

The earth is on the backside end of the Milky Way Galaxy which contains around 200-400 billion stars (which is a lot).  Though the Milky Way itself is a pretty insignificant galaxy (though both are very nice treats). In comparison, the observable universe alone has around 300 sextillion stars (which is really loads). But, there is far more "space" than there is physical objects and the distances between them are astronomical.

While the above numbers may make the possibility of life being found in the right conditions on theory, the Universe is expanding at an amazing speed and this is speeding up. Unless the human race develops a mechanism very soon that can take advantage of something like superluminal communication (the only known theory of sending a signal faster than the speed of light, it's basically time travel), then contacting any life in the Universe and still being here when the response comes back is extremely low.

I guess the only hope is that another life form with this technology has already done that and we are the receiver. Though as noted, this part of the Galaxy is a bit of a backwater and our sun is extremely small, so it might not be note worthy enough for another life form to send messages our way.

I'm not sure if you read the complete article. Photosynthesis, creating a greener environment highlights an increase in carbon dioxide. 

 

 

Look on the bright side a warmer earth will mean a greener earth . The deserts could bloom again 

 

 

NASA scientists analysed ice samples for that last 400,000 years and noticed that in that time carbon dioxide never reached more than 300 parts in a million, with most changes due to orbital changes. In the last hundred years or so this has spiked to 400 parts in a million, a level never seen before. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  NASA have also reviewed data from other respected scientific organisations and the consensus is that this IS happening https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I will probably err on the side of caution and come down on the side of NASA in regards to this issue, rather than the more unscientific research Donald Trump probably did on twitter.

On a more serious note. Young people can be targeted with this sort of scam. If any young person is reading this and concerned they should go to the https://www.thinkuknow.co.uk/which is a great resource for young folk and parents alike.

If they put my face on a rocking body with a six pack I'd probably be sending out the video myself.....

>>Friendliness

Tourists are easy to deal with, they come and go. Relationships in a closer quarter are always different. So this will be as much up to you as it is the other person. There are usually local opportunities to join in. Local dance nights, teas, home bakes (there are a lot of home bakes on Shetland).

>>Is there enough to do? 

There are a number of choirs and singer nights. You do need something to do in the Winter, as mentioned choirs or an evening class. Summers are easy, fairs, events, dog shows, boat galas etc....etc...

>>I'm also big into my food. 

We have many places to eat, which also include Vegetarian options. Shetland is culturally broad in many respects, so a number of differing options.

>>What about dating? 

You will not be the "only gay in the village" so to speak. Though I can't tell you what the scene is like, maybe you should try contacting the Shetland LGBT community @ShetlandLGBT on this.

>>And lastly I thought about holidays. 

Always budget for around £150-£250 more than you would normally pay.

Shetland is a great place to live, it has issues here of course, but not on the level you will find in the smoke.

Many houses have two meters, not all though. Just look in your electric cupboard. Not sure why USwitch can't deal with that though, because I used it to look up for a cheaper supplier and I have a meter for storage heaters and the other for general purpose electric. BUT that was a while back so maybe this is a new thing.

Whats this 2 meter system your talking about ?