Carlos

Great to see so many folk out and enjoying it

The published plan doesn't have any detail on the Clickimin extension(s) or layout detail for the the buses, parking and accesses. Still a work in progress I guess.

Is that the original school site only, or the entire footprint now? The site for the new hospital will likely be getting narrowed down by the time the current AHS is no longer used, so that'll no doubt be one option.

No flat 5m ban - If you do a planning application for something below the 5m contour, you'll have to do a detailed flood risk assessment, which will look at the specific issues on that site. Assuming I can link this time.... http://www.shetland.gov.uk/planning/documents/WaterandDrainageSupplementaryGuidanceV7cjs6thSept..pdf Otherwise it's on here http://www.shetland.gov.uk/planning/LocalDevelopmentPlan.asp Insurance may or may not be an issue, but it's a different issue.

technology! I did not write any of that ^^ technology! The planning links are dynamic, and stay "correct" long enough for you to check that everything works in the post you made, before they stop working....

technology!

Links are always good Plan http://pa.shetland.gov.uk/online-applications/files/F5A2BB795E4956C7549BEBDA52855FB6/pdf/2013_163_PPF-SITE_PLAN-82345.pdf 3D views http://pa.shetland.gov.uk/online-applications/files/829B6A41107FE8137736761315A7A102/pdf/2013_163_PPF-PHOTOMONTAGE-82348.pdf

Imagine this is 1913, planning to build a hospital to be open in 1925, and then to be in use until 2000. Lots of changes in lots of things in that time that would have been very hard to predict with much accuracy.... For this one I suppose you have to decide if you build it on the outskirts with more parking and easier groundworks, or build it with more houses closer to the site, but more spend/compromise on making it work. Ness of Sound is likely another one that'll be looked at, but compromises there too.

If you try to decide the overall effect on the Shetland ecconomy of the money from the extra jobs.... I'd guess you'd have to make so many assumptions that it's hard to tell? If you look at one off items then the money flow is clearer but the cost/benefit is still to be argued - the report highlights the spend on North Isles ferries, and you can argue whether that was a good decision or not, but the council still gained an asset for the money it spent. If you have something more direct in mind.... maybe more hints needed?

Chart all kinds of historic public spending http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1900_2015UKp_12c1li001lcn_F0tG0t

Lerrick South Mainland

It's potentially more complicated. Coal gets 40 odd % of the energy from the fuel into electricity. But that doesn't count things like the energy cost of fuel production. On the other hand, the wind turbine may output an average of 50% of its theoretical maximum over the course of the year, but will still only transform a much smaller % of its potential "fuel" into electricity - the energy in all the wind that passes through the area its blades sweep in that time. Efficiency figures are very dependent on which question you have decided to try and answer, and that might not be the most useful question.

Poor compared with what?

That'd be the "police act or not" bit. What do you want the council to do?

What is your ideal solution? Option 1 (now) - It's illegal, the council put up notices, the police act, or not Option 2 (before) - It's illegal, the council does not put up notices, the police act, or not. Option 3 - Some council action to specifically make it legal to sell cars there? Not sure if a simple by-law can overrule national law, but maybe there is some way? Likely some costs with that. Should the council spend money on it? Should they try and recover that cost from the sellers?

You would have preferred that the council saved that half an hours wages, did nothing to inform the car sellers, and left them to take their chances with the police?

- People have complained - Turns out it's illegal - People doing it probably don't know it's illegal - If the police enforce it they'd get fined Council action - put up some notices so let people know that they are doing something that might end up getting them a fine and have a chance to sort it out before it comes to that. BAD Council!

That's the point I was trying to bring out - to be clear on what you mean by "profit". If you enjoy crofting, it is not too hard to set it up as a "self financing hobby" to do alongside another job, and get your reward from enjoying doing what you do. If you are thinking in terms of buying into a business that can pay wages for each hour worked, and still make an annual return on the investment, then that is something different.

Thinking in accountancy terms, I doubt there would be many that made a profit if all hours work were paid at minimum wage first....

Looking at the ferry service, with more demand than capacity at peak times on some routes. Would the best private company response not be to raise fares at peak times until the demand reduces to match the space available? And then set the other fares and sailing times to maximise income per trip? When fuels prices go up, add surcharges to pre-paid tickets? All measures that the shareholders would expect from a CEO with a captive market and an eye on the balance sheet?

I think that was maybe part of Spinner's point? It's maybe more similar to a private company being tied into a loss making contract?

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/4282-sic-announces-new-managers In June this year, the council agreed a slimmer management set-up, which would replace the existing structure of 75 people including one assistant chief executive, two executive directors, 16 heads of service and 56 managers with one that comprises of one chief executive, five executive directors and 32 executive managers. So 75 management staff cut to 38, on headline figures at least.

Shetland Times article from 2010 - The Scalloway and Whalsay trees are the Norwegian gifts. http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/12/05/christmas-deck-the-halls

Does this one maybe come down to 2 different perspectives on "straight ahead"? From Rule 186 - https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/roundabouts-184-to-190 When taking an exit to the right or going full circle, unless signs or markings indicate otherwise signal right and approach in the right-hand lane keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to exit the roundabout signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want. Now to some, driving Holmsgarth Road to "that bit of the A970 that I'm not sure if it has a name" might be thought of as "straight ahead", while others will be sure that, as there is more than 180 degrees between the 2 roads, it's clearly "an exit to the right"? Going from the Co-op arm to the north is pretty much the same angle... how should that turn be signaled?

Report to the Environment and Transport Committee on those works. http://www.shetland.gov.uk/coins/submissiondocuments.asp?submissionid=13682