Malachy

If it's not possible to answer it, it didn't happen. ..... At any point in history you have to be able to say either Shetland was owned by the Crown or it wasn't - or do you say at some particular date it was 60% owned and 40% not? It's a simple enough question and the fact that it can't be answered is the reason it must be asked. As my post made clear, I don't accept this. Your argument is a simplification of the law, which is understandable because you are not trained in law. It's just not enough to pose your own question, then give your own answer. It is the law that defines the questions, not you. I must say I am concerned about this campaign. I have spoken to many people about it, quite a few of whom would be otherwise sympathetic to its aims. This technique of trying to whip people up into a baying frenzy of victimhood is very worrying, because it recalls so many unpleasant nationalistic campaigns. But the tone that you adopt, a tone of arrogant, patronising, almost messianic self-belief, is even more worrying for people. I read your website www.shetlandconversation.com the other day, and when I came to this section I had to read it over three times just to make sure I was not mistaken (I will quote the whole paragraphs so I am not accused of taking you out of context): Then later: I feel it is hardly necessary to highlight what is so shocking about these statements. But needless to say, your conclusion in the first paragraph, that a Shetlander couldn't lead a campaign like this, and that it requires someone who is ignorant of local politics and people (or perhaps national, I'm not sure) is, to put it mildly, wrong. And to say Shetlanders are not prepared to stand on toes when necessary is also wrong. The second paragraph is equally bizarre, and arrogant, and offensive. It is nice for you to think that you have come, uniquely equipped to enlighten the Shetland people of their situation, but don't be surprised that some people don't share your faith in yourself.

Yes, I agree the situation would change hugely in that case. It would be interesting to see what happened, and I think it would depend greatly on the kind of leadership that existed in Shetland at the time. Right now, I think people would be reluctant to follow our leaders into the nearest pub, let alone towards independence, but perhaps things will change.

Also, on a slightly different note, this argument about 'our' wealth being taken away from us, is pretty dodgy ground. It is the nature of a diverse state that different regions contribute different resources, levels of wealth, workforce etc. It is also the basis for the modern welfare state. The alternative is extreme regionalism and anarchy. London, for instance, could start saying that none of the wealth created in the City should leave the City. Which would sound ludicrous, but it's not much different from this argument.

Of course, that is what I have said before. The only important thing is what people want for Shetland, and I really don't see any grassroots movement towards independence (which, lest we forget, there certainly was in years past) just a few individuals rattling sabres. What concerns me most about this campaign is the tactics being employed. The aim seems to be to make us feel hard-done-by by highlighting the ways that we are being 'exploited' by Scotland and the UK, and the shaky legal grounds on which that exploitation is taking place. The campaign is trying to stir up these feelings in order to push an independence agenda. This tactic is the same used by nationalists the world over: pinpoint people's underlying concerns and then make them feel that they are the victims of some sort of conspiracy or campaign (this is certainly the feeling I get from reading Stuart Hill's arguments). It is exactly the same tactic that, say, the Nazis used, or the BNP use today against immigrants. And it will turn a lot of otherwise sympathetic people off. I am relieved therefore, that despite getting a huge amount of publicity, the campaign does not seem to be gaining any real ground. It is not a 'Shetland Conversation', it is a 'Shetland Monologue'. I would be interested to know how many people turn up to these public lectures / rants.

I can't help thinking that you are simplifying matters too much here, Stuart. I think that this question you are choosing to ask, "When did the Crown get ownership?" is deliberately misleading, because you know fine well it can't be answered definitively. But I suggest that this doesn't prove your point; rather, it just means you are asking the wrong question. As you have shown, it is not really possible to pinpoint a specific date on which Shetland became part of Scotland. But that doesn't mean that it is not. Shetland has been gradually subsumed into Scotland over the centuries, legally and culturally. Trying to argue otherwise just seems shortsighted. I'll give you an example... In the centuries after Shetland was pawned (or whatever you want to call it) to Scotland, Denmark requested a number of times that it be returned to them. Scotland's response (to put it in simple terms) was "What are you going to do about it?" To which Denmark said, "Nothing". The more powerful country simply bullied the smaller into backing down. But.... If Denmark had stood its ground and decided to fight over Shetland, they would, we can assume, have lost. In which case, your claim would no longer stand. Scotland would have won Shetland by force. It seems to me that Denmark's acknowledgment of its inability to fight for Shetland is really not so different from an actual loss by force. Scotland flexed its muscles and Denmark surrendered. It is a battle without bloodshed (for which we can be grateful). Clearly the legal position on this is ambiguous, but I suggest that there are many other parts of the world where the question of ownership is far more ambiguous than here. Muscle-flexing goes a long way in terms of land ownership. I admit I am playing devil's advocate here to a certain extent, but I do think that your case is weakened massively by the fact that your all-important question is actually not that important at all.

That's incredible! All those decades of research by the world's top scientists and droilker has managed to sort the whole mess out with a few "facts and figures regarding glaciers on't internet". Brilliant! I'm convinced. Nobody has denied that some glaciers are advancing, and there can be any number of reasons for that, specific to each location. However, many of the "facts and figures" that can be found from a quick trawl through "t' internet" are not to be trusted, and glaciers are a good example of this. One of the figures often quoted by climate change deniers is that 555 of the 625 glaciers being monitored by the World Glacier Monitoring Service are actually advancing. You can find these figures all over "t' internet", but they have been conclusively (and amusingly) shown to be the result of a typing error by David Bellamy, when writing a letter to New Scientist magazine. He meant to write 55%, but he missed the shift button. The 55% figure that he intended to write (but never corrected) has also been shown to be free from any scientific basis. There is an examination of the claim here - http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/ - complete with references and sources.

I thought individuals were not supposed to be singled out for this kind of attack on Shetlink, particularly when the attack could potentially affect his job. How is this different from the discussion about the wanna-be jarl, which was removed? Or are homeless people exempt from the rules? I have to say though, having spoken to the guy, he seemed perfectly pleasant and reasonable to me (and yes, he is homeless). I think if I had nowhere to live I would probably get fed up and angry some of the time, particularly at people who try to pretend you don't exist. Also, droilker, it's pretty difficult to get a job when you don't have an address or a bank account. That's why he's selling magazines. It's not a lifestyle choice.

Eileen Brooke-Freeman is the place names person at the Amenity Trust. The project has been going for quite some time now, and I imagine the plan is to make the information more widely available in some way or another.

Now here's a subject I can really get my teeth into! Sorry The co-op has good ones, and they seem to be just slightly undercooked so you can finish them off in the oven (that's my theory anyway).

Here's a good quality video with desk audio, from Shepherd's Bush Empire. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WabnyqD5NGg

An ivory tinkler is required for recording next year. You'll need to be a good player, and confident with writing your own parts to songs. Singing would be a massive bonus! Rehearsals will hopefully begin around Christmas time. If you'd like to know more or hear demos of the songs, please PM me. Thanks Malachy

I don't think there's any PC conspiracy going on here, to make life difficult for people. The issue is about respect. If you make it known to people that you don't want to be called a Sheltie, or any other term, then you would hope that people would respect your wishes. And the same should go for others. Some words are inherently racist, usually this is related to their history - they may have colonial connotations, like <uuh uhh anality!! moo! sproot!>, or it may be wartime nicknames like Gerry, Wop, Nip etc. Usually though the perceived racism comes almost from an idea of laziness. You shorten the word because you can't be bothered to be accurate, which is understandably percieved as racist. Calling someone Pakistani rather than Pakistani - why would you save yourself the one syllable when you know people don't like the word? Same with Chinki. And calling someone Pakistani when you don't know if they're from Pakistan, India or Bangladesh is obviously a complete lack of respect for their history and their identity. I don't think you can ever go wrong with simply being accurate. (There are obvious exceptions, where it is simply a matter of knowing the correct term, which again is a matter of respect. If people prefer the word black to coloured, who am I to go against that? These sensitivities come about for good reason. Racism does exist remember, and I imagine it's pretty unpleasant to find yourself the victim of it).

I'm going out on a limb here - not entirely sure of my facts, but this is what I seem to remember about it... In the past sheep were often rounded up individually, ie using a dog that would tackle an individual sheep, knock it over and keep it still. Shetland sheepdogs were good at that and were bred with this use in mind. These days though, sheep are generally caad in groups, so people have dogs that do this job better - usually border collies I think. As I say, I could be entirely wrong, but that's my memory of it.

No, unfortunately Steven won't be joining me until the 15th, at Plymouth. You should still come along though.

No, unfortunately not this time. Half the gigs will be solo and the other (latter) half will be me and Steven (Laurenson).

I will be touring various English venues in October as support for Runrig. Please come along if you happen to be in Englandshire at the time. The dates are as follows - booking details can be found at www.runrig.co.uk/tour.html 03/10/2007 GRAND OPERA HOUSE York 04/10/2007 OCTAGON Sheffield 05/10/2007 CITY HALL Newcastle 06/10/2007 KING GEORGES HALL Blackburn 08/10/2007 ROYAL CENTRE Nottingham 10/10/2007 GUILDHALL Preston 11/10/2007 CIVIC HALL Wolverhampton 12/10/2007 UEA Norwich 13/10/2007 REGENT THEATRE Ipswich 15/10/2007 PAVILION Plymouth 16/10/2007 DERNGATE Northampton 17/10/2007 LEISURE CENTRE Gloucester 18/10/2007 COLSTON HALL Bristol 19/10/2007 GUILDHALL Southampton 20/10/2007 THE ANVIL Baisingstoke 22/10/2007 CORN EXCHANGE Cambridge 23/10/2007 SHEPHERDS BUSH EMPIRE London

There seems to be a fair bit of "Get out of Shetland and don't come back" from the sheriff here, so maybe this is payback.

I presume it's related to 'gaard' in Danish/ Norwegian. Meaning much the same.

I've never heard this theory before, that enVIROmentaliSTs are funding climate research in order to reap the financial benefits for themselves and their devious, er, shareholders...hmmm. Call me naive, but I suspect it might be untrue. ENviRonMeNTalisTs tend to be people who care about the environment after all. Climate change is slightly inconvenient for them in that it means they are distracted from their real work of saving pandas. I suspect the reason environMENtaLISTS want us to believe in climate change is that it's true. And quite important.

Yes. It is.

Article 7.1 of the CAP Advertising code states: And here's how you can make a complaint with Advertising Standards, very simply... http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/

Well, they might not. But it's always worth trying.

Failing that, you could always just email the producer. I'm sure they'd be happy to help.

Yes Greenpeace have done and still do a lot of good work and important research. Their website - http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/ - is very useful and interesting. It is a terrible shame that in our current media climate, people are forced to resort to stunts to attract attention to causes. You'd think that the plain facts of global warming, and the related issue of peak oil, would be enough to get people's attention, but it seems not. The truth, of course, is that if governments did decide to react sensibly to the threat of climate change, peak oil would become less of an issue. Because (this hardly needs spelt out, but just in case...) if we used less oil, what is left would last longer. Reducing our consumption (dramatically would be wise, I suggest) will ensure that there will be supplies for essential use for a long time to come. Suddenly finding ourselves unable to afford any oil at all will be catastrophic for society. Drastic but gradual reductions is usage beginning now will allow us to adjust. I sound optimistic. I'm not.

The idea of deporting anyone to another EU country seems a bit daft since there's supposed to be complete freedom of access for EU citizens. Also, if he's been here since he was six I don't see why we shouldn't take responsibility for him. But anyway, I heard the interview on the Today programme with Mrs Lawrence and it wasn't quite as clear cut as the quotes taken out of context suggest. She said that if she was one of the judges she would have made the same decision. She also suggested that the reason she was upset was more to do with the shock rather than the fact of his staying in the country. She has been told all along by the government that he would be deported, and it turns out they were wrong - they didn't know the law. Having him deported wouldn't make her feel any better, it would simply be a lazy way of dealing with a problem.