Colin

Come here in winter to try  it out.
Don't try to change anything, just aceptit for what it is.
Also, it's Shetland not The Shetlands

^ Scotland can do anything they please, on one condition. That, in the event of Scotland holding a referendum, and the result is in support of Scottish Independence,  that they then give Shetland and/or Shetland and Orkney the opportunity to hold a referendum to decide whether Shetland and/or Orkney goes with Scotland as an independent country, stays with the UK, or something else.
Exactly the same reasons pro-independence campaigners cite as being the 'problem' with Scotland being part of the UK exist for Shetland being part of an independent Scotland.
Shetland is approx equally physically distant from Edinburgh as Edinburgh is from London, and while Westminster is generally run by those from south of Watford, Scotland is run by Central Belt Socialists. We are neither, so are 'outsiders' to both.
If the Scots are willing to let us have that referendum, they can do what they please with what's between John o' Groats and Hadrian's wall, I really don't care about what goes on there. However, if they're not willing to agree to a referendum for us, then we should be blocking their's at any opportunity on the grounds they're hypocrites.
I won't argue about what Westminster may or may not have done post 2014 that has affected Scotland's relationship with the Union, need a crystal ball and all that. However, had the Nat's 'independence' proposals in the run up to the last referendum been genuine plans for independence, some of us 'No' voters might have been tempted to go with 'Yes' instead. Independence is wholly incompatible with sharing/retaining the Monarchy of another separate nation, and it is financial suicide to share/retain a common currency with another separate nation, especially when the currency remains 100% within the control of the other separate nation. At very best that's 'Devolution Max', not independence.
Regardless of whether Scottish Independence would be a good or bad thing, that 'mis-selling' of what they were asking people to vote for was more than enough to make some of us drop it like it was red hot and acquire an eternal deep suspicion and distrust of the people trying to sell it.
 

Does it really matter if the EU becomes an election issue ?   We all know that it's on the table anyway.

I feel the same @Wheelsup. In my case it's an instinctive reaction, and having reflected on it, it's because this individual doesn't seem to have an understanding or interest in the nuances of UHA of someone who had grown up in the "Lerwick Up Helly Aa Community" (to quote @Muckle Oxters). UHA is more than an event to many men and women - it's a lifestyle, and a strong part of their identity. By attacking UHA from various 'legal' angles, and trying to play down folks wishes and concerns as sexist, misogynistic and backward, he is likely to do more harm than good to his crusade and is unlikely to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Lerwick Up Helly Aa Community.
This individual seems to be trying to portray people who do not agree with him as xenophobic or anti-incomer, when most people I know who don't agree with him don't care where he came from - it's his lack of understanding and empathy they resent.
I only know what he has written in letters, but there also seems to be an element of virtue signalling and wishing to be a knight in shining armour.
I'm quietly in favour of women's involvement in squads, but it's not my decision, and I agree that the avenues he is pursuing is likely to result in heels being dug in and divisions being strengthened.

I know this will come out wrong, but despite my sympathy for women's rights, this feel like another incomer trying to tell the locals they are doing it all wrong. It makes you want to dig your heels in for another 20 years. And I am no really involved.

Selling Council Houses wasn't really the problem.  It was not allowing Coucils to replace them with new build stock (+ the extra that were needed) that caused the current problem.
Unfortunately, we seem to have a points based 'needs' system that prioritises those deemed 'needy' over those who can actually contribute to society via gainful employment. 
I have a son who has been living in a Private Rental for an awful lot of years.  He has little, or no, chance of a Council let because he is able bodied and working full time, and I have another son who is still at home for the same reasons but doesn't really earn enough to pay someone else's mortgage.
Don't get me wrong here, but wouldn't it be wiser to offer the 'needy' a home on somewhere like Fetlar and keep the few availble houses in 'choice' areas for the folk that work in those areas?

There would be little point in moving to places like Fetlar if the bulk of your work is in the Cetral Mainland.
As for allocation of available housing, most of it seems to go towards reprobates, renegades, runaways and misc others who seem to contribute very little to the local economy.  All paid for with our taxes.
If you are young(ish), fit and willing to work, one of the few options available is to rent privately.  Problem with this is that you will end up paying a high price to clear someone else'e mortgage/bank loan etc. with little hope of ever being able to save enough to buy your own place.
 

Sorry, but I am pretty well familiar with the local employment market.  Maybe you should try taking a closer look. 
I know quite a number of people who struggle on minimum wage BECAUSE the cost of living is higher up here.  I also know a few employers who pay the minimum wage BECAUSE that is the minimum that they have to pay.  The result is that the minimum wage employees have to claim some of the various Government top ups/allowances that are available.
I would be happy if anybody could explain to me just why the taxpayer, in general, should have to subsidise/top up the wages paid by some employers. 
As for 'slavery', if you cannot make ends meet in a low paid job, then it IS economic slavery.  OK, folk have an opt out in so much as they can choose not to work at all, and depend on the state to keep them alive.  Given some of the 'zero hours', 'minimum wage' jobs around here, who can blame them?  Why bust a gut working some anti-social hours job only to be looked down on by your customers who are, somehow, 'better' than them.
Nobody really wants to live on 'hand outs' and EVERYBODY is entitled to a fair days pay for a fair days work.

I don't think that it's quite fair to blame Brexit for all the employment woes faced at the moment.   Truth is that hospitality in particular has always been a rubbish career(?) with transient workers, long antisocial hours, and low pay.
Other long hours, low pay occupations are also suffering as well.
East Europeans (and before them, transient Aussies/Kiwis/Jamaicans) did those jobs because many of our own people were not (and are not) willing to put up with such a poor lot, and honestly, why should they put up with minimum wage jobs just to pay their rent when they are better off (financially) by not working.
Don't forget, we abolished slavery a long time ago, and we shouldn't expect people to break their backs for little or no real compensation.  Cheap unskilled labour is (hopefully) a thing of the past.
The good thing that is likely to come out of this is that employers are going to be obliged to charge a little more and pay a decent wage, or shut up shop.

afaik, it is a trading affilliation to the Landmark Wholesale Group (now UNITAS(I think)).  Local distributor is J W Gray @ Co.
 

Certainly the more local the issue, the better the quality of information and debate that can be had.
Its the stuff where you have little knowledge of the issue, locality or who are or aren't the more reliable sources of info that thing get rapidly more murky. Classic example, the BLM 'riots' the other side of the pond a bit back, mainstream media was describing them as 'largely peaceful protests' at the same time as numerous photos of 'rioters' silhouetted against blazing vehicles and whole streets of smashed shop windows and looted shops were being posted on other sites. Ummmmm.........  Either there were an awful lot of fake photos, or if that was mainstream media definition of 'largely peaceful', I'd not be keen to meet their definition of 'largely violent'.

Perhaps, because it is a global phenomenon ?  It's the power (and major failure) of social media.  It has become so 'cliquey' that, unless you share an opinion that is common with the majority, you become something of an outcast.
Television News, I don't bother watching it these days.  Far to much 'drivel' and opinion pieces in there. Not enough substance. 
Newspapers, I haven't bought one in years.  As with television, except that they stick 'boobs' on page 3 or something.  They lie more than politicians do.
Politics, I ALWAYS cast my vote.  Generally based on the historic performance of particular candidates.  Still doesn't guarantee that they will not mess it up though.
 

Minimum wage + 60p (pence) is hardly going to make the earth move.  It's only £20 or so for a full 40 hour week.  Even less for those on 'zero hours'.   IMHO, it is NOT a living wage.
 

Sorry, but I am pretty well familiar with the local employment market.  Maybe you should try taking a closer look. 
I know quite a number of people who struggle on minimum wage BECAUSE the cost of living is higher up here.  I also know a few employers who pay the minimum wage BECAUSE that is the minimum that they have to pay.  The result is that the minimum wage employees have to claim some of the various Government top ups/allowances that are available.
I would be happy if anybody could explain to me just why the taxpayer, in general, should have to subsidise/top up the wages paid by some employers. 
As for 'slavery', if you cannot make ends meet in a low paid job, then it IS economic slavery.  OK, folk have an opt out in so much as they can choose not to work at all, and depend on the state to keep them alive.  Given some of the 'zero hours', 'minimum wage' jobs around here, who can blame them?  Why bust a gut working some anti-social hours job only to be looked down on by your customers who are, somehow, 'better' than them.
Nobody really wants to live on 'hand outs' and EVERYBODY is entitled to a fair days pay for a fair days work.

I thought that politicians on both sides of the argument lied in equal measure.  Only a complete idiot would have believed more than two words that any of them spoke.  I used my personal judgement (right or wrong, who knows?) to vote the way I saw fit.
As for price hikes.  That's just 'capitalism' at work.  Not that it sits well with me as a lot of the rises are 'because we can' and not 'because we have to'.  Gas doesn't really cost any more to get out of the ground.  It doesn't have to be 'produced' as such.  Just tighten the supply and increase the price.  Oldest trick in the book.
The problem with the NHS is that it has been a political 'football' for decades.  It also suffers from a lack of any real boundaries in who, or what it treats, and because of this, it has been abused (to a degree) by patients.  It has lost it's way.
However, selling the choice bits off to the highest bidder is, imho, NOT the best way forward.  Who on earth would want an Americanised 'for profit' NHS where the choice can be, quite literally,  between a lifetime of debt, or death.  Far better to pay a little extra in taxes and keep the money grubbing parasites out. 
Yes, I know that we already have a 'for profit' medical sector where you can pay (often the same doctors etc.) for early treatment etc.  Why are these people allowed to use NHS facilities?  If you want to pay twice, go ahead, it's your choice.
 
 

Deliberately omitted the capital in 'westminster'.
My little dig at them.
 

So, David Davis was lying then ?  Who would have guessed that a politician would have been a little 'economical' with the truth ?
I wonder what we ever did for stuff before Wilson/Heath signed us up to the Common Market ?
Anyone who ever thought that getting out of the whole mess(?) without some pain 'should have taken a little more water with it..'

Sorry, but I am pretty well familiar with the local employment market.  Maybe you should try taking a closer look. 
I know quite a number of people who struggle on minimum wage BECAUSE the cost of living is higher up here.  I also know a few employers who pay the minimum wage BECAUSE that is the minimum that they have to pay.  The result is that the minimum wage employees have to claim some of the various Government top ups/allowances that are available.
I would be happy if anybody could explain to me just why the taxpayer, in general, should have to subsidise/top up the wages paid by some employers. 
As for 'slavery', if you cannot make ends meet in a low paid job, then it IS economic slavery.  OK, folk have an opt out in so much as they can choose not to work at all, and depend on the state to keep them alive.  Given some of the 'zero hours', 'minimum wage' jobs around here, who can blame them?  Why bust a gut working some anti-social hours job only to be looked down on by your customers who are, somehow, 'better' than them.
Nobody really wants to live on 'hand outs' and EVERYBODY is entitled to a fair days pay for a fair days work.

Looks like you got sh*t on one way or another.. 

https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2021/08/09/new-supermarkets-would-have-no-impact-on-smaller-shops-developer-insists/
I'm not for or against either development but, I think that the first paragraph of this article is so plainly 'wrong' and misleading that it beggars belief.
How can the opening of a new store have no 'detriment' towards existing establishments?  Are they trying to convince us that there is a pool of potential customers with unspent money just lying around for them to hoover up?  etc. etc. etc.
It is plainly obvious (to me anyway) that any customer who switches allegiance from one store to another will have an impact on the 'loser'.
Maybe they are just going to magic up some new customers for these stores...  Problem solved...
 

This is an old topic but, I think that it is still relevant.
https://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2021/07/23/carmichael-concerns-over-photo-id
Looks like our elected 'betters' might be trying another attempt at this one.  They don't give in, do they ?
 

Beats me as to why anyone would want to do this kind of thing.  It's really dumb and only serves to alienate anyone who 'might' have supported their cause(?).
Interesting that plod is appealing for any CCTV footage that might be out there.  I seem to remember 250K + being spent on a system just so they could use it in situations like the aforesaid.  What happened I wonder ?
 
 

After trying a number of differet sprays, all ineffective to the point where I might as well hit the flies with the tin.. I found some stuff that might be of use..  It's called RAID and it takes the little buggers out of the air with no problem.
One quick spray around, and less than 10 minutes later, no files....  Mind you, I have no idea (yet) what it does to the wife and cat.  Hope the cat survives.. 
 

After trying a number of differet sprays, all ineffective to the point where I might as well hit the flies with the tin.. I found some stuff that might be of use..  It's called RAID and it takes the little buggers out of the air with no problem.
One quick spray around, and less than 10 minutes later, no files....  Mind you, I have no idea (yet) what it does to the wife and cat.  Hope the cat survives.. 
 

After trying a number of differet sprays, all ineffective to the point where I might as well hit the flies with the tin.. I found some stuff that might be of use..  It's called RAID and it takes the little buggers out of the air with no problem.
One quick spray around, and less than 10 minutes later, no files....  Mind you, I have no idea (yet) what it does to the wife and cat.  Hope the cat survives..