north

Check out this story from February 2010, before the election. The fundamentals of economics are clearly visible here - if you can't pay directly, you borrow to pay your bills - think of it like a giant credit card! But at some point you are beholden to the owner of your debt, and WILL have to pay it back - unless you decide to default, and just consider the long term implications of that for a nation, if you want to be scared! The numbers are clear and easy to understand. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8521587.stm I do wholeheartedly agree about education. Look at the nations that are rising to prominence and look at those that are declining. Now equate that to the emphasis on education as a means to freedom and advancement. Whatever the level of spending, much of the ultimate individual outcome is a result of personal motivation - otherwise Shetland would never have turned out the calibre of people that it has from the days of extremely constrained educational budgets.

Well, there's no denying that planting a nice garden can help in making you feel good in tough times! I can't wait for mine to appear this spring... (*** Mod edit - this isn't quite the non-sequitur (or should that be 'secateur' ) it might appear to be; I removed a piece of spam about gardening directly above this post ***) Payroll or corporate taxation at source is a finite means of government revenue generation, and really doesn't vary that greatly as a result of percentage increases in comparison to some other strategies. For some there is always an inclination toward increased taxation levels as a punitive mechanism to penalise success, whether for individuals or corporations. A far more successful means, might be to lower basic taxation rates to increase the cash that consumers, whether individual or corporate, have to spend. More cash, results in more spending, and the greater the spending power, the greated the overall business generation and growth of transactional taxation (VAT) and resultant increase in real tax revenues. More business means more jobs, and that is a positive for everyone. More people working means even greater tax revenue and lessening demand for government services. All the taxation levels in the UK are far too high, it is much healthier to have lower taxation levels and incentive for individuals and business to be rewarded for their efforts - as described above. Much of this taxation is wasted upon multiple levels of inefficient or unrequired government and bureaucracy, that produce nothing but expense - and I would include both the Scottish and EU parliments in those categories. With the right balance, every part of the population and economy can grow, and government can still provide services at levels that meet consumer expectations and governmental budgets - admittedly not an easy challenge. Many seem to believe that nothing should change or be adapted to meet the economic changes that have occured globally in the past couple of years. The real effects that these have had on countries such as Greece and Ireland have to be witnessed to be clearly understood. Greece is in the middle of such massive internal turmoil that at best it may take a decade to recover, at worst it may be in a state of terminal decline to become a European third world nation! And they are not alone... Living within your means is something that every one of us understands as individuals, but it is extremely difficult when it comes to Government - at every level, in any country, or organization. I am with JA Stewart; there is nothing wrong with real applied efficiency to ensure the same or similar levels of service at a reduced cost. Many of the most vulnerable individuals, who have contributed to this system for their entire lives, are now liable to be let down by the same system, just as they may become reliant upon it - this is a completely unacceptable situation. There are many potential solutions, and all need to be considered in the context of the big picture and the potential ramifications that each interaction creates. Government can never be the last bastion against change, but needs to continually examine, evaluate and adapt - something that it may not be noted for doing very often!

Hear, Hear. And peace to all.

I have to agree with Muckle Joannie. The downfall of each of these individuals, was they couldn't leave well enough alone when they were ahead - by whatever deceptive means! It might make you wonder about the veracity a lot of the other scandalous stuff that the tabloids pump out, as the targets neither respond or deny the allegations. Politicians seem to be the most susceptible to either vehemently denying and defending their reputation (rightly or wrongly), or confessing all as soon as it is published. Some might even suggest that the more vigorous the denial, the greater the likelihood of fire at the source of the smoke!

Nothing like the raw words from the trial itself. http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/217073-top-quotes-from-the-sheridans-trial/ With politicians, tabloid journalists and even Downing Street's director of communications giving evidence, there were always going to be colourful phrases used. "JK Rowling couldn't make up the kind of stories you have made up in the course of this court case. It's Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings combined." Alan McCombes "I said to him that he had been voted for as a man of integrity, if there was any suspicion of him leading any kind of double life he would lose his ability to help people. Anvar Khan "He said: 'Don't talk about my business. MI5 are listening to me on the phone right now'." Anvar Khan "Is this your whole defence? They're lying, they're lying, they're lying? Liar, liar pants on fire? Is that your defence in the whole of this?" Frances Curran on Sheridan's defence strategy "You must be the most unluckiest (sic) person in the world because what we have heard is that everyone you have met in the last 20, 30 years is either lying or conspiring against you." Allison Kane "Can I apologise to the jury for the volume of my voice to date? I have been chastised by my wife and I will try to keep my voice down." Tommy Sheridan apologises to the jury for shouting during proceedings "You can call me guilty of getting my dates wrong, of being naive and silly. I'm guilty of thinking you had charisma and I'm guilty of having sex with you. Yes, I'm guilty of all these things, but I'm not guilty of lying in court." Katrine Trolle "You knew I was married to a stunning woman who I had known from the age of 13 ... Your newspaper covered the wedding, you knew at the time that you were splashing with this five-page exclusive that she was expecting her first child at the age of 40, didn't you. You knew she was only eight weeks pregnant and at a very sensitive stage in her pregnancy ... You were prepared not only to risk the life of my unborn child to get your story...you were blinded by your desire to bring me down and get your front page exclusive." Tommy Sheridan gets emotional during his cross-examination of Scottish News of the World editor Bob Bird "It's not our fault that you had been unfaithful." News of the World editor Bob Bird refutes claims his newspaper had set out to destroy Sheridan's life "He said 'I'm Tommy's best man', at which point my blood ran cold as I thought Tommy Sheridan was going to burst into the room with a video camera." Bob Bird recalls undressing in George McNeilage's living room "I held a sign up: 'Don't speak. Take your clothes off.' I had the News of the World editor standing in my living room in his boxer shorts. It was just a bizarre situation." George McNeilage describes how he asked News of the World editor Bob Bird to strip before watching a video in which Sheridan confesses to going to swingers' clubs "You are a fake, and you have shown that over the past few weeks by abusing your wife and putting her in the dock." George McNeilage "They were drunken Scottish customers as far as we were concerned ... we didn't play with them ... They weren't our sort of people." Tony Cumberbirch describes seeing Sheridan at a swingers' club in Manchester

If they cut his nuts off, it might solve a lot of problems.

Move everything to the North Ness. Town Hall, SIC HQ, all SIC employees, all schools for all ages, library, museum, mareel, and hold UHA there as well. Could also be a hub for tunnels to each of the outer isles, a ferry terminal, airport and construction camp for Sullom. It would also be a great location to put at least 400 massive wind turbines, that would rotate at hypersonic speed with all that hot air pouring out of the complex! Hmmm, maybe I should run for the council with ideas like this?

I would quite agree that the responsibility lies entirely with the operators of the establishment. Some supervision, training and a visit from the food hygiene inspectors might be well served!

Heaven forbid that these child labour inspectors might find their way into any of the recreational centres in Shetland. Children preparing and serving the most inedible food - they wouldn't be qualified to feed themselves at home, let alone paying customers in a public place!

No wonder they had to cancel the music tuition. They had much better things to spend it on! And the rest of the council sits silently as Nero fiddles away!

So who were you again?

You might not want to find yourself here... http://www.lat-long.com/Latitude-Longitude-390340-Idaho-turde_Creek.html

It is very diffcult to figure out the reality of this subject, but thanks to the 24 hour posting hysteria of the global warming believers, it is easy to lose any interest you have ever had, thanks to their boring graphs and facts. I am putting my faith in this one though! http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/funny-graphs-climate-change.jpg

Yes, I believe it would. I think that many people underestimate the demands that are put on councillors, including many that run for the position. Being a councillor is a full time, and often thankless job. It is vastly underpaid and their efforts and commitment are often grossly undervalued by the public. That said, they cannot shirk or hide from their duties in managing the group as a whole. Whilst the regular council activiites are a full time occupation, being on the board of the SCT is a much less demanding, although extremely responsible, position. The role of the board is to determine the direction, policy and governance of the SCT. The SCT executive is extremely well managed and operated, by highly talented and capable individuals that are paid to execute and manage the decisions of the board. If the SCT board were to be run independently, I believe it would appeal to many individuals across a broad range of expertise, knowledge and commitment and attract some incredible talent that is beyond the political interests or ambitions of those currently running it. It would also attract many who simply are unable to to commit to the demands of performing the role of a councillor. Shetland has some incredible brains, experience and capabilities within it's confines - and with that I include everyday people, not just highly qualified professionals. The Charitable Trust holds the foundation for sustaining change and development for the long term benefit of all Shetlanders, and I believe that these positions will attract people who share those common goals. The idea of staggering the elections away from the general council elections is also a good one. Let's focus on one thing at a time; pick the best people, measure their performance and hold them accountable.

In all honesty, I really don't have a problem with serving councillors serving on the board of the Charitable Trust. As far as I am concerned, the positions should be filled by the most capable, able, talented and engaged individuals that are available in Shetland - mind you, exactly the same criteria applies for the council. To my mind, the biggest issues are that the board members be individually elected to the position by the electorate, and the candidates stand specifically for that position. With the necessary governance, protections and recourse to ensure that they do their job well, or that the electorate has a mechanism to remove them (ahead of a scheduled election) should the need arise, this board will be independent and accountable for a very substantial stake in Shetland's long term future. The larger issue is that the Charitable Trust is co-opted from the council, and a major conflict of interest potentially arises within the combination of roles. What is proposed here, is a very real opportunity to reform the management and operation of the trust and ensure that the budgeting and goals of the council are clearly separated from the keys to the treasure chest to make up shortfalls, or chase the flavour of the day. The council is here to SERVE the people of Shetland to the very best of their abilities, whether it is the employees, or elected members. Somehow this seems to be getting lost in the political machinations of an organization that appears to spend more time dealing with it's internal affairs, politics and ego than it does with the business of running Shetland for the people of Shetland.

What a classic statement! And what exactly are the normal local authority procedures to depose a despotic autocrat? Revolution? Rioting? Kidnapping by Vikings and burning in a galley? I wonder if the King has the same condescending contempt for the electorate to whom he is ultimately answerable? This type of comment beggars belief and simply confirms (in his own words) that his time is up. As one of my favourite dictators once said about the interlopers; - Robert Mugabe

One of the foundations of a reconstituted board, must be a recall mechanism, where the electorate has the ability to petition for removal of board members, or even the entire board, should the necessity arise. With enough signatures for a recall, the proposal would have to be put to the electorate. I can see no reason why the Charitable Trust cannot be managed entirely satisfactorily by willing and qualified candidates, duly elected by the electorate of Shetland. In fact, conversely, some might suggest that the Charitable Trust is being managed entirely unsatisfactorily; by an elected group that is squandering it's value, lacks accountability for it's decisions, and is now running headlong, with it's eyes open, into a trap that has the power to eviscerate any unfortunates who enter that arena! The arrogance of this council occasionally bewilders me. The belief that they, and only they, are clever enough to understand the intricacies and nuances of big money, sound investment and long term strategies are so far wide of the mark, and so gratuitously vain, that they don't bear consideration - especially considering that all the money is managed, and that ever time the market turns down, they fire the money managers! That the Trust might finally be managed in an orderly, open and beneficial manner by an independent and accountable group offer a refreshing change and a ray of hope for the long term success of the fund. The opportunity to budget and manage this under specific controls and conditions, with the long term interests of Shetland in mind, cannot and should not be missed.

Time for change? Let's see if the elected leadership has taken any of the advice of the Accounts Commission, the OSCR, it's own legal advisors and perhaps even the new Chirf Executive? Or are we destined to waste a lot of money in a pointless legal battle? Any SIC councillor who abstains from voting should not be allowed to remain a member of the trust. Don't abstain - resign your position on the council and let the electorate decide. Since the report has been issued, it seems that the good old boys are just doing business as usual.

Depends on your appetite for change, improvement and advancement. Or your degree of apathy?

Because this is the typical outcome of ineffectual government on a disaffected electorate - total apathy. These might be considered the progressive steps that should forge activism and revolution in society; but in Shetland they seem to simply inspire even greater perfunctoriness in both the elected membership and the electorate that enables them. The ability and necessity for change and evolution are clearly demonstrated mechanisms for societal development. Shetland seems to be locked into an inertial black hole damning it to repeat failure after failure, and an inability to embrace change away from the steadfast commitment to "the way it has always been done". That, dear Brian, is why I continue to occasionally comment upon it.

I would bet anything that nothing is going to change. The entire council has reached a level of ineffectiveness, incompetence and the demonstrated inability to make any resolution for change. If the SIC were to be abolished, would anyone ever notice?

Nothing like a little equalization and reducing the citizenry to the state of paupers and destroying their self respect before they die, eh, gavva? Of course, there are methods of avoiding this eventuality if you plan adequately in advance and strategically move your assets into trust. The other means, is to simply never save, buy a house or plan for your future - just spend it all. And then the most cynical and cruel exemption from death tax - donations to political parties are exempt from tax - talk about a demonstration of self serving greed and unmitigated self importance, from the very people who write the laws! F^@& 'em - spend it all while you're able and don't let them get their hands on a single penny of it.

This is an excellent step in the right direction. Let's air a few facts and get to the crux of the entire matter. Then we can see if those responsible take responsibility for their decisions and actions, or if they intend to shirk the matter onto the group as a whole, or specific individuals or groups. I see COSLA being a great way to deflect all responsibility and liability from the incumbent cabal, but time will surely tell. I can't wait!

Lets not forget all 22 councillors are criticized in the report for failure in leadership, rightly so, as most of the problems stemmed from full council decisions. More bananas, anyone?

And that I think sums up the very crux of the issue, Styles. The same people that created every part of the problem from start to finish, determined the exit strategy and held all the information, are still there. They are also in sole possession of all the facts and are intent on ensuring that the very people they were elected to serve, are deprived of any damning facts that might incriminate them themselves. The report is going to criticise precisely the same participants that hired and fired the Chief Executive and still control the elected body at the SIC - and there is absolutely NO accountability or redress for them. The leadership of the SIC have built themselves an insular defence system that is impenetrable by the electorate or anyone else, and can only be changed at the whim of the other councillors - there is no public recall or mechanism to depose a dictator who rises to the top of the banana republic. It is like Mugabe, Chavez or Castro; only it is in our back yard. This current regime is neither prepared to resign, or to be driven out by the majority of the councillors who seem to simply go with the flow. The vast majority of councillors certainly appear to do very little independent thinking for themselves, and they will surely sink at the next election as the facts arise. Facts, which incidentally, have thus far all supported the popular public perception of what was going on. The councillors that have publicly stood up to this ludicrous outrage, are well known and should be the foundation of a platform for change at the next election. So keep up the leaks. Put everything you can into the public domain and let the facts embarrass those who are so determined that they should not be seen by those who elected them and whom they are elected to serve. The SIC seems to have completely lost the concept that it's SOLE purpose is to SERVE the people of Shetland, and the sooner that focus is returned, the greater the potential for a structured and managed strategy for the benefit of all.