junior

On the beeb news last night, according to one gun-toting maniac, sorry "Hama affiliate", the fighting was not between Hamas and Fatah, not between Israel and Palestine, not between Zionists, Islamists and Secularists, it was between Muslims and infidels. If you are right about the elections DeMascus (having joined the debate late I assumed the coalition was of the democratic Scottish variety) then perhaps there is some justice in this, but with the people in charge having attitudes like that I noted above, I'd say the chance of peace and stability are next to nothing. Oh, and there's the small matter of the genocidal Hamas charter too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

According to Panorama, Tony Blair's reason for stopping the enquiry was that Prince Bandar (now Saudis Head of National Security) threatened to stop co-operating in the "war on terror". Presumably that doesn't mean he was going to stop financing the violent terrorist propaganda flooding mosques and bookshops across the west Keep your friends close....

If I remember the plans correctly, the main line of the three, that runs from the West to the East of the city does manage to stay completely off roads. From the West to the centre there is some open space where they currently have a bus only road (as opposed to bus lane) that will be converted to tram tracks, then a rail line for it to go along/next to. In the centre they have been widening the pavement on Princes Street for a while as traffic has been banned from it, so presumably that will be used. Then I think they might even get all the way down Leith Walk on the middle bit, which you could call a pavement, but it still leaves plenty down the sides. And that's it, bar the odd tricky bit (might need to knock down the St James centre or fly over haymarket ). It had very few stops on it too, 12-15 stops I think. Over the same distance of about 8-10 miles a bus could stop 40 times, with each stop having the potential on skinny roads to stop all the traffic behind the bus until it goes again. So it should do a reasonable job of reducing congestion. But, I couldn't help but laugh listening to that debate this morning where the purpose of some peoples congestion solutions seemed to be to clear the roads so that they could drive on them alone. Continually upgrading roads is pointless when the locations at either end of the road can't handle the traffic either.

We live in a capitalist society. There are always going to be people wanting to work others to death or make others work for less money to make them a larger profit. Bit of a misunderstanding there I think. By "them" I was meaning our communities. In other words, a migrant workforce can threaten communities. The capitalist/exploitation thing is "just" a case of enforcing minimum wage laws. If a capable migrant is willing to do a job for the minimum wage, and a Shetlander won't do the same job because they think they deserve more money for it, tough.

Slightly "on-the-side" but, is everything which isn't marked as FairTrade unfairly traded for? Can trade between a giant supermarket and a farmer ever really be fair? Yes it's not one of our more "distinguished" national traits, and I think its on the way out with farmers markets becoming more and more popular. I think people are becoming more willing to pay more for food, but whether you pay £1 or £5 for something from the supermarket, you can bet that they will have screwed every last possible penny out of the deal. That means either the buyer, or the supplier (or both) lose out.

Because our communities are worth protecting. Protecting from what? Evil outsiders But seriously, we should protect them against anything which could threaten their existence or prosperity, as a migrant workforce can.

Because our communities are worth protecting. The same can be said in the housing argument. Don't get me wrong, I'd echo the positive sentiments made already about the generally excellent ethics of incoming Eastern Europeans, I've posted about it on here in the past, but I won't feel guilty for having some bias. I think Styles had got it right, if residence in the isles is the deciding factor then so be it, otherwise the best man gets the job. I'm sure that is what already happens 99% of the time.

Maybe he's "diversifying his portfolio" by investing at Easter Road.... ..... or Aberdeen!

^^^ Thats an excellent idea.

The chap in the original article refers to pensioners who are entirely dependent on the basic state pension. There are obviously a lot of pensioners who are wealthy and can afford to turn up the heating in winter without thinking about it. Unfortunately some can't

re: monkey madness http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=47682602

As of fairly recently Sartori in Tangier by King Crimson. It has just the right level of "eclecticity" if you know what I mean. I found a youtube link but it doesn't do it justice so I haven't posted it. Previously probably Sheep by Pink Floyd.

Indeed, presumably Unst could get independence and claim all fields to the North. Oil is a global resource, I don't understand why people think it is their right to plunder that resource just because they happen to be closest to it.

This is an interesting video. Not because it makes me change my mind on the subject, in fact its arguments are pretty poor, but because it contains a lady who's parents were killed by a gun-wielding mass-murderer, and she argues that with looser guns controls it wouldn't have happened. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869

I think I'm right in saying that the Dunblane tragedy was carried out using legal weapons. The gun crime in the UK that is rising is with illegal weapons. They have a saying in the states that an armed man is a free man, and an unarmed man is a slave. With that kind of mind-set it will take a lot (more than 30 deaths 8O) to get the constitution changed. I agree, its a no-brainer. What I would say is more worrying than the liberal gun laws, is the fact the such a thing as a "school-shooting" (or "mall-shooting") actually exists. Not only does the adopting of a phrase for it show a nations casualness where mass-murder is concerned, it also indicates that there is a particular type of, not uncommon person, who's greatest desire is to kill as many people as possible.

Sadly, no. I spend almost all day every week day listening to buskers, and you just get into the habit of switching off. With one or two exceptions (people I already know have good voice or good playing skills) I switch off the instant I realise they are a busker. Maybe thats partly the guilt thing the article talks about, there is an effort made to NOT listen There are lots of reasons not to stop, there is only one reason to stop, and you need to be on the ball to recognise it, unless you are young enough apparently.

90 8O Thank christ I didn't keep playing, thought I was doing well at 13. Can anyone explain the answer to the first question? Am I being daft?

I think that is also the Iranian attitude. I think that an admirable attitude. Just not one you want to fight against. An indication I think of the motives behind the whole thing, they are attempting to push us, seeing how much we will take. Apparently the first co-ordinates given for the British by the Iranians was inside Iraqi waters, when that was pointed out to them they changed their minds and moved the co-ordinates. If we didn't have freedom of speech in the UK you wouldn't be allowed to complain about it, I think it's more free here but thats another debate. Whilst I think that the roots of most our problems in the middle-east region are to be found in Saudi-Arabia, they're leaders haven't vowed to destroy the West, or wipe Israel of the face of the map, as Ahmadinejad has. The way of life of most people in Iran might be closer to what we would call civilised, but the man at the helm is a is a head-case of the highest order. As far as I'm concerned he has already justified military action against him and his country, long before this latest fiasco. A possibly more sensible approach for the Brits would be to get out of Iraq and leave it as a location for Iran and Saudi-Arabia to beat each other up over. Its going to happen anyway when we leave.

I wouldn't consider voting for them, because I see them as only having one policy. I agree with JAStewart when he says that independence is naive, not because we would struggle to get recognised or accepted by other countres or associations, and not because of the practicalities of power transfer, but because I just don't think that we would be better off on our own. United we stand... etc. Would we have as strong an international influence? Would we be as strong financially? Would we be stronger culturally? I'd say "No" to all three. Its a bit of a shame really, I quite like Salmond and Sturgeon, I think they could do very well in Scottish politics were they to get it into their heads that the people don't actually want independence.

Eeek, maybe you should consider a adding a button so that people can contrib ...... Aaah, you already have. Note to self......

Anyone reaching 10,000 gets a cyber-pat-on-the-back from me. Or, perhaps the prize is some of the Shetlink advertising revenue... Runs for cover...

Should family members of those serving in the forces automatically be granted citizenship? I, personally, don't think so. From Mr Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, I agree. From Mr Clelland MP, I agree again, a factor.

I heard once that firefox starts trickle-downloading from every link on each page you visit. So that if you happen to click on one of them you've already got a head-start (or could it be to bolster usage statistics....). Suppose that might look like a (poor) attempt to flood a server

I don't know if it's the same issue I am having Trout, but ever since I got the latest upgrade a couple of weeks ago (v. 2.0.0.2) an in-house thin-client application I use has had serious refresh issues with certain operations. I believe the refresh does eventually happen, but never have the patience to wait for it. Hasn't affected normal browsing though.

^^^ What he said They can afford nukes but not clean water for their people