Malachy

Yes, well I was just hoping not to have to add another one to the list of jobs. I have quite enough already thanks!

Might I also make a suggestion that the word 'author' is not entirely accurate here. Perhaps the description 'writer' would be better? A number of the people on the list (including me) have never written a book (of prose, at least), so couldn't really be called authors. (I also know one of the folk would never call herself a writer either, but that is perhaps by the by.)

Walter Scott's The Pirate would be an obvious one.

Just finished reading Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning by George Monbiot (monbiot.com) and Six Degrees by Mark Lynas (marklynas.org), which looks at what we can expect to happen with each degree of warming over the coming century. Unfortunately I read them in that order, beginning with the optimistic one and ending with apocalypse. Although I thoroughly recommend reading both of them, I would suggest you start with Lynas and finish with Monbiot. That will have you enthused for action, rather than wallowing in a state of depression at the impending collapse of life on this planet.

She didn't live here, she worked at the bird observatory for one summer, maybe two. She spends a lot of time in Shetland but I don't think that counts.

So this is where he's gone http://www.stuff.co.nz/northland/4079320a1927.html

Apologies if this has been posted before but it's the first time I've noticed it. Weir's Way in Shetland: Tom Weir speaks to Rhoda Bulter about the Shetland language. http://www.scotlandontv.tv/?channel=Town+and+Country&clipid=1380_SMG115

The two main islands there are East Falkland and West Falkland, which makes the term 'Falklands' at least grammatically explicable, though I think it is still incorrect. I have read somewhere that although 'the Shetlands' is absolutely and always wrong, 'the Orkneys' is actually gramatically correct. But I can't remember where I read it, and I can't think of any possible reason why it might be the case. Also, Orcadians I know object to 'the Orkneys' just as much as Shetlanders to 'the Shetlands', so I suppose, right or wrong, it shouldn't be used.

It's all the basketball matches that are driving us under the water.

You can't really say that the stunt didn't work though. When was the last time North Sea cod stocks were mentioned on the main news bulletins? While I don't think that putting lives at risk is a worthwhile excercise, in some ways they have been forced into it. The mainstream media is completely uninterested in environmental news, so Greenpeace have realised that the only way to keep their campaigns in people's minds is to use stunts. They may lose some sympathy when they go overboard like this (excuse the pun) but they are good at reminding people that there are still two sides to the debate. Scottish media in particular are very bad at showing both sides. They tend to just take the fishermen's word as gospel.

Well I live in Fair Isle and I've not heard about any of this. As far as I know the piers and old slipway in the harbour are not any further down than they were when built. One inch per 100 years sounds very plausible, but noticable differences within a lifetime don't. Who is this person who's been living here doing studies? I think they might be pulling your leg. Er...no. There are some places unsafe for people and animals. Cliffs, for instance. Slippery rocks next to the sea. Rabbit holes concealed by vegetation. In front of a moving tractor. But unless health and safety rules are getting very tight indeed, I don't think we'll need to be evacuated just yet. Thanks for your concern though.

Surely the sea level is rising, rather than the land is sinking? I live on ahill, so I'll be alright.

Yes, that will certainly give folk something to think about. It seems to me that marine power has just been something people talk about because they don't like windmills. They actually know little about the technology or the potential for electricity production. And they certainly don't realise how far behind the technology is. That's not to say that we shouldn't be investing heavily in research, but that the level of urgency required simply doesn't allow us to sit back and wait for technology to come along.

It was the "near future" bit that I think was important. The suggestion is that it will be decades before the technology is anywhere near to being able to provide the amount of power Viking Energy is talking about. And that is not soon enough.

Just for folk's interest. We have an article in this month's Shetland Life magazine on tidal and wave power and its potential in Shetland. You can read it online here http://www.shetlandtoday.co.uk/shetlandlife/content_details.asp?ContentID=22191 if you haven't already bought the magazine, that is. It may disappoint a few people who were thinking that marine energy was a viable alternative to wind power in the near future.

My left pupil is bigger than my right. (And before I get any hilarious replies - I mean my eyes!) It's not very exciting, I know. But it makes me feel special.

Labour have done particularly poorly here for the last few elections. As far as I recall, most of the local party defected to the SSP a while back.

You think once the sea starts lapping at our doors and the crops refuse to grow then the SNP will decide it's wise to spend billions of pounds on a nuclear weapon?

^^^ That sounds like a very sensible vote. I can't see the wisdom in electing a constituency candidate who doesn't live in Shetland, and there is only one to choose from. For the list, I think voting Green is absolutely necessary. We need their voice in the parliament (and Eleanor Scott strikes me as a good, hardworking and efficient MSP). C'mon the Greens!

Yes, goodluck with it. Thanks for answering questions. (Maybe you could answer my email when you get a chance.)

Yes, it is interesting that he claims to be "independent" and that he giving Shetland a voice, yet he has clearly made his mind up beforehand what he wants Shetland to say. I wonder if he'll have to change the name when nobody votes to da peerie poll. Did anyone read the story of Thulina? It's hilarious. I noticed the very small writing at the bottom of the editorial claiming that the newsletter is published by "Real Aerofoil Wing Sails Ltd". Who's that then?

Bye! http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0011.gifhttp://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/happy/happy0005.gifhttp://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0011.gif

And crofting, I think you'll find people were crofting in Shetland before 1469. In fact, they were doing much better at it before they had to start giving up their produce to Scots landlords.

Also Brochs, lochs, burns an 'wirds at Scott wret mony a time an Robbie Burns sang' (as wis wi Vagaland). I had no idea that our brochs, lochs and burns were imported from Scotland. That must have been some haulage job!

I felt it was pretty clear from the start that the positions were still up for discussion. Apparently many folk have just looked at the map without reading the text though. It seems quite sensible to give the option of moving the turbines if necessary. Why should they just give us a simple "take it or leave it" option. I don't think people would be impressed by that. I feel Viking Energy have been remarkably open, and to criticise them for it is bizzarre, since I get the feeling you would be just as critical if they weren't. It probably doesn't help debate to be quite so hostile in your attacks, islandhopper, especially when it may be that you just didn't notice the relevant information. I think Shetland has a fairly unique opportunity here to discuss the details of this project and to find out as much as possible from Viking Energy about the plans. Most developers would never allow the public that kind of access. I think that engaging in open hostility is possibly abusing that process.