Colin

"Westinster comes to mind, whether or not......."
 
Er, I thought that Hollyrood (Krankie & Co) made up the local(?) rules re Lockdown.  ?  Can't quite see how you can blame this on Westminster... unless, of course, you think that Hollyrood slavishly follows Westminsters dictats... ?
 
Just wondering ...
 
BTW;  Just where is "Westinster".  

There is absolutely no guarantee that Scotland would get into the EU.   They already have enough basket case, sh!th0le countries.  Why would they want another ?
 
Anyway, Scotland as part of the EU, would NOT be independant.
 
Before anyone says anything, I live in Shetland, not Scotland..

This is one clear reason why we need some form of self governance. Neither Westminster nor Holyrood understand or care about Shetland. Instead of wasting our energies arguing about who is worse we would be much better off running our own affairs and prioritising the things that matter to us.

Perhaps the SNP need reminding that during the last little bit of "unpleasantness" with our European neighbours, one of the few foods that was not rationed was Fish and Chips.

I  didn't say that Shetland should set out to become a Tax Haven.  I suggested that one of the consequences of a lower local tax regime would make this almost inevitable in the longer term.
 
If you wish to address the high number of minimum wage jobs, fuel poverty, etc. in the local economy, then the extra money has to come from somewhere.  It's not all "milk and honey"

Your "common knowledge" is in fact, incorrect. Once upon a time, the Isle of Man was run in this manner but now the "Lieutenant Governor" is a ceremonial role and all domestic matters are handled locally. Indeed, the next Lieutenant Governor is due to be appointed by a local panel as opposed to the Crown as has been done previously. The UK government is responsible for defence and international matters. 
 
If you are going to criticise the concept, I think you should do some research into the difference between British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, as well as the varying constitutions and levels of self governance held by each.
 
Furthermore, those are but two existing constitutional models (with variances across the individual territories). There is no reason why Shetland would have to copy any of them, we could adopt "The Shetland Model" which could be set up in a way that suits both ourselves and the UK.
 
The only factual thing you said is we are not Danish. We are Shetlanders and we have as much right to choose our own future as anyone else does. 

"If Scotland breaks away on its own it gives us a significant advantage, as we can play them and England off against each other to see who will give us the best deal to 'side' with them."
 
You might wonder just what Scotland could offer after they have turned the island into a giant windfarm and wold "sell" what is left of the fishing and oil to Europe in order to gain entry.

"More chance of achieving genuine Faroese type autonomy, (if that's what the majority of Shetlanders want), as part of an independent Scotland in my opinion."
 
Do you think that "fandabbydozie" and her crew will allow that when they want what's left of the oil and fishing rights as bargaining chips to get into the EU and any un-occupied bit of land on the island for windmills to boost their "green" credentials ? 
If so, then I think that you had better make ready for a massive extension to be built at Sumburgh airport.  Somewhere big enough for all thos flying pigs to land..

The point of achieving home rule/self governance/autonomy (whatever you want to call it) for Shetland is not about arguing who is worse, Holyrood or Westminster. It is about obtaining the necessary financial and political freedoms to largely manage our own affairs, making the regular circuses and partisan political games at those two Parliaments of much less relevance to us. 

We have the resources and the people needed to make Shetland prosperous. All we need is the powers to do it. 

On a baser level, and I could be wrong here, but common law says that in order to have a "crime", then you must also have a "victim".
 
Name both parties or neither has to be the rule.
 
These days we seem to have trial by (social)media before any case ever gets to be heard by a court.  This makes a fair(?) trial virtually impossible as jurors will have been exposed to (and possibly influenced by) so much "evidence"(?) well in advance of any hearing.

Serves him right !!!  He had NO right of access anyway..

The thought police are here !!!
 
Anyone for martyrdom ?

The SIC should keep it's nose out of things that are none of it's business. 
The flag is just "grandstanding" by a bunch of "right on" politically correct  numpties and has no place representing the people of Shetland (who may, (or may not) be opposed to the LGBT agenda.

Telling us what we can and cannot do in our own "free" country, dictating what we can watch on TV ect,destroying our heritage is this the way to address systemic racism.
 
No those who decide to stay in the UK should be prepared to adopt to our way of life or get out.
 
Sorry that many do not have my sense of harmless humor but banning some of our old comedy shows just because they "upset" a minority is not acceptable 
 
All that this racist chant is doing is making things even worse for those it is supposed to help.
 
I'm not racist but when this nonsense starts to affect the way I live,then my attitude towards those that implement those changes certainly do.

But, isn't that they way that some people operate ?  Stifle discussion and scream so loudly that they get the attention they crave...
Personally, I do no like having my agenda set by a clique of self satisfied "influencers".  Much prefer to make up my own mind on things.
 
Ban this, ban that, ban everything you can because someone "objects" or is "offended" or someone else is "outraged".  Why so many rules ?   Are we going to ban the government or police from referring to people as "IC3" or "IC1" etc.  or is it "OK" for the "authorities" to do it and not the rest of us ?
 
The undeniable fact is that ;
People come in a variety of different skin colours. 
You cannot "ban" that from happening.

"yes but where are the building and street names in lerwick celebrating the barbery slave traders"
 
Our streets are named after slavers of a different kind... Lairds etc.

Back on topic,
 
Pulling down statues and wrecking them is, imho, pretty dumb.  Just vandalism.
 
You have to remember that most of the statues were erected because the subjects actually did something "good" for their communities. 
 
As for the AHS being a "shrine" to slavery, get a grip, it's a school, and it's name is not important, it's what it does that matters.
 
Anyway,
I can't seem to find any links suggesting that Arthur Anderson was involved in the slave trade but, he did free  a lot of people from bondage by bringing them education and shelter.
If you want to vilify his name, go ahead, I don't think that he cares to much anyway.

Back on topic,
 
Pulling down statues and wrecking them is, imho, pretty dumb.  Just vandalism.
 
You have to remember that most of the statues were erected because the subjects actually did something "good" for their communities. 
 
As for the AHS being a "shrine" to slavery, get a grip, it's a school, and it's name is not important, it's what it does that matters.
 
Anyway,
I can't seem to find any links suggesting that Arthur Anderson was involved in the slave trade but, he did free  a lot of people from bondage by bringing them education and shelter.
If you want to vilify his name, go ahead, I don't think that he cares to much anyway.

Not making excuses for him as I think he was "winging it".
 
Probably took his wife and kid with him so that he could have someone to tell him which way to go. 
Think about it, he "re-located" his family to keep them safe, then he exposes(?) them to an un-necessary risk by driving them around when he was not sure that he was fully able to control a vehicle. 
 
Apart from there being a Road Traffic Offense in there somewhere, the whole load of "excuses" lack credibility.
 
A definite case of "Should have gone to Specsavers"  

@Claadehol
 
I am going to ignore the vast part of your post, which seems to me to be nothing more than conjecture and supposition.
 
Football players are "contracted" employees and you just cannot tear up/amend a contract when it suits.  It takes agreement from both sides.
 
If you had followed the link I posted earlier, and studied the data it contained, you would recognise that not all footballers are "multi millionaire players" although I would agree that nearly all of them could "take a hit" on their contracts.  After all, whilst they are not playing, they are "worthless" to their clubs.
 
However, I would argue that footballers are just the "low hanging fruit" that is easily picked (on).  There are company bosses that earn far more in wages and bonuses than any footballer does.  What of them?
Do you think that the whole world should take a pay cut just because the Chinese have exported yet another virus ?

You sound like my wife... 

I played a bit of rugby in my youth and, yes it was a bit "physical", but nowhere near as physical as the time we and the opposition stood on the pitch and watched the (small) crowd fighting.
 
Rugby is just as "tribal" as football.

If it was asked by Boris or Donald I'd suggest the bleach, two sugars, and served in a pint pot.

Lockdown was never intended to protect the population.  It was (as they keep telling us) to "protect the NHS" and prevent it being overwhelmed.
It was also (I believe) intended to buy some time in the search for a "cure".
This is a bit hard to swallow from a bunch of "hoorays" who have done everything possible to undermine the NHS every time they get elected.
Truth is that there is (presently) no "cure" and, once the virus is "in" we are stuffed.  Eventually, the majority will become infected.  Some will just brush it off, others will succumb to it's effects.
More to the point, if a "cure" is eventually discovered, the general population will be the last to recieve it.  I would guess that the 1st to be innoculated would be our "rulers" and their support (police, army etc) so that they can continue to maintain "social order" and suppress the "masses".

Lockdown was never intended to protect the population.  It was (as they keep telling us) to "protect the NHS" and prevent it being overwhelmed.
It was also (I believe) intended to buy some time in the search for a "cure".
This is a bit hard to swallow from a bunch of "hoorays" who have done everything possible to undermine the NHS every time they get elected.
Truth is that there is (presently) no "cure" and, once the virus is "in" we are stuffed.  Eventually, the majority will become infected.  Some will just brush it off, others will succumb to it's effects.
More to the point, if a "cure" is eventually discovered, the general population will be the last to recieve it.  I would guess that the 1st to be innoculated would be our "rulers" and their support (police, army etc) so that they can continue to maintain "social order" and suppress the "masses".