ZetlandBear

My understanding the new STV system is that, as has been mentioned, you rank the candidants. Only your first vote is taken unless your first choice candidate has reached the necessary "Goal". The goal is worked out by a simple calculation Total number of votes for a ward divided by the number of available seats + 1 and the whole answer + 1. e.g. 2000 votes in one ward with three available seats (2000/(3+1))+1=501. This means that once a candidate reaches 501 votes they will be elected and any further votes for them (as first candidate) will be transfered to the 2nd placed candidate. Really quite simple. 8O

I never think Bressay was a viable option - just something that was mooted at the time to give some weight to the Bressay Bridge. Even if there had been no opposition to the Bridge it would realistically have taken about 5 years to complete the design, tender and construct the thing. With the level of demand for housing waiting 5 years to start building was never a serious option. Also the location of the bridge actually meant that it would be a shorter drive from Tingwall, Gulberwick and Scalloway to the Town Centre than from almost anywhere on Bressay. The Bridge would not have made Bressay a suburb of Lerwick - more likely a new location for large expensive houses that would look over the Town. Snob hill would have had to move.

If it was one off cases you could defend it but the list seems endless; "chief executive Morgan Goodlad in arranging financial support for SSG Seafoods; a fish farm business that failed in 2003 with the loss of £8 million pounds to Shetland funds just nine months after it received a council-backed £3.5 million guarantee to buy salmon feed in spite of its ‘perilous trading position’" "External auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers have castigated Shetland Islands Council for regularly drawing money (£20 million at the last count) from their oil reserve fund, much of which has been used to prop up ailing salmon farm companies, to balance their budget." "During 2004/05 £4.1 million was taken from the fund and a further £7.8 million is projected to be needed during 2006. However, Council convener Sandy Cluness defended the council’s actions" But the question of this thread is are the Councillors in control? The councillors have answered that themsleves by setting up a Scrutiny Committee to investigate the actions of the different departments through the council and by this press cutting about the Smyril Line where the Councillors were not being consulted over investments. "UNEASE is rippling through Shetland Islands Council after it emerged yesterday (Friday) that members would not be consulted over a £700,000 investment in troubled Faroese shipping company Smyril Line. Some councillors have expressed concern that a six man negotiation committee set up last year has assumed the authority to make the investment"

I think the point is, moorit, that it is supposed to be Councilllors who are in control and make these types of decisions but the reality of it is that they either are unaware of their responsibilities or are unable to control their department heads. Just because you have money (which is income from a finite source) doesn't mean that you should spend it faster than it is coming in - £7million this year. It is also worth noting that the Council is still hugely dependant on the stock market and a downturn, similar to that of 2001, would leave the council in dire straits. I agree that our facilities are second to none and with decisions like the waste inceneration plant and the district heating some good choices have been made but they are mirrored by some just as bad, Smyril, Bridge, Salmon Companies that go bust, etc. etc. The SIC do doll out grants to businesses and homeowners but what controls are in place to reclaim that money when breaches of the rules occur. I refer again to the example of the Salmon company that went bust after millions had been handed out - what did the SIC get from that? I would also point out that the council does have a £54Million debt which they are attempting to get written off by the Scottish Executive and this will increase by approx. £13million within 5-6 years. If you don't believe me ask to see a copy of the Audit Scotland report on the council control of money. Don't get me wrong i think some of the councillors are doing a fine job but the parish pump politics and narrow minded obsessions of a few of them threaten to overshadow all the good they do.

i think a good example of the stupidity of the whole mess can be sumarised in The Shetland News's headlines from yesterday (9th February) Trust asked to bail out (SIC) social work SIC "on target" for spending cuts Can someone answer me how both of these can be true? The left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.

I find it embarrasing that we are represented at meetings about Nuclear Proliferation by people who can't spell it. What do you think these people do when they turn up in Paris to discuss radioactive particles and climate change - something like 8O What can we expect from a list of octoganarians that cannot contemplate the changes that are required to bring Shetland into the 21st century. I sometimes think that have too much trust in what they are told by officers and do not put in the effort to research the material they are discussing. I find it so agrivating that if i think about it too much i get a sore head.

The problems with that theory is that you presume that the Councillors actually read the reports and if they ead them, understand them. If you have ever been to a council meeting it is like putting a bunch of kids in a room and asking them to complete the Rubix Cube. i honestly think that most Councillors don't ask questions out of fear of looking silly. They don't want to appear to be less informed than some one else on the committee.

If any private company was run the way the SIC is run they would havegone bankrupt a long time ago. I think North is quite right. There is no acountability through the whole system, primarily, i believe, becasue the people in the top jobs do not have the ability to do the job. We went through a period of employing senior directors into posts purely becasue they were "Shetlanders" never mind if they were capable of doing the job. This then has a cascade effect in that these incompetent directors then do not want to employ line managers who are more capable than them as they see it as a threat. There is also the fear that if a mistake is made then they will be moved aside (manager (MC) from the Bridge Project) or passed for promotion which means that every decision talkes forever and is invaribly what they percieve as being the "safe" choice. The whole thing makes me so angry - i find it embarrasing that the clowns at Lystina House are those who make decisions which affect every aspect of our lifes. I would also note that even when they are held to account (by audit Scotland) they stick their heads in the sand and claim that Audit Scotland "doesn't understand Shetland's special circumstances. God - time for me to get off my soap box and go and cool down. 8O

I honestly think that Microsoft are in cahoots with the computer manufacturers - every time they release a new package the requirements are so heavy that you need to spend a fortune to upgrade or buy a new computer. And it doesn't take long for the old programmes to be obsolete - who still uses Windows 97? Maybe Bill is in need of an extra Million or two - must be retiring shortly.

This sounds like a rant that our esteemed Councillor Drew Ratter would make; "more houses in Brae less in town" i don't think he ever checks the facts before speaking. In Hjaltland's defence, i do know that they are building houses in Burra, Sandwick, Scalloway, Aith and Yell. I also saw recently that they had made an application for 6 houses in Brae. I would also say that it is not SIC Housing's (or HHA's) fault that most people are wanting to live in the town (near the majority of jobs) and until a decent policy has been made about de-cetralisation and public transport that is not going to change - possibliy for a different topic.

With the SIC "investing" £13million in housing (almost all in Lerwick) and Hjaltland HA developing as they hope (press state approx. 400 houses in 5 years) then many more people will be getting access to houses. What people who are in need of houses should do is put in letters of support for planning applications where housing is being developed. I would be interested to know how many applications made by the SIC and HHA for new houses received any letters of support from the general public against the number of objections. When Hjaltland had their Grantfield application refused i'm sure i read that there were over 30 letters of objection - how many letters of support? There are approx. 600 people on the waiting list for Lerwick and if even 10% of those wrote a simple letter of support for each application which is submitted for social housing i think the powers that be - namely the SIC Councillors would get the point. My friend recently got awarded a house with Hjaltland after many years of trying. This was however a Shared Ownership house which may be an option for those who don't have enough points to get a rented property.

I think we will all be sad to see the old girl go - i will especialy miss the rain dripping through the roof and the ceiling bouncing with the dancers above. i am only surprised it has been allowed to stay open as long as it has. I understand that Hjaltland are going to do a design competition on the replacement for the buildings - are they going to be on public display for comment or are a select few going to decide? i look forward to seeing housing going into the centre of town - hopefully it will bring some life back to the street. I think more of the empty building should be used for new flats - St Olafs Hall (missing roof and all), St Clements, etc. The NHS are moving into the old finance offices i think and i understood that the SIC bought the North Ness with a view to moving many of the departments down there lock stock and barrel - including housing and social work.

I think another question that should be asked is what are all the staff who have been dedictaed to the bridge plan (the infamous bridge team) going to do if it doesn't go ahead. There have been several SIC staff doing nothing except working on this for years. if it is not now going ahead are they to be laid off or moved aside? Its no wonder the SIC councillors were being kept in the dark by the officers when their kjobs were on the line if it didn't go ahead. This is the major proble with all aspects of the SIC - no responsibilty or accountability for anything.

But the powers that be have made their decision - cars are a must. Lets just hope that Hjatland can make some scheme works that doesn't involve some high rise block with miles of tarmac parking bays. Having just seen the new houses "in the hill" i must say i was pleseantly surprised. After all the negative comments at the start it appears to be a nice looking estate (but what are the houses like inside?) - hope that something as nice is planned for Grantfield.

Sorry JVR but the Scalloway fire festival and the other country UHA's are not the same as the LK one. I am not saying it is better - only different. LK has grown beyond the others to such a degree that i don't think it is what it once was. The others retain some of the original "feel" and concept of what UHA is all about. LK has lost some of that due to media invasion and tourism requirements. In its defence i would say that as a spectacle it is unmatched by any of the others and it does contribute massively to the Shetland economy - what other reason would tourists have to come to Shetland in January?

Sadly it appears that having a car is more important to some than having a roof over their head. I cannot understand why they would want to have yet another car park in an area which already has 2 (which both sit empty every night). I think it would be good to have a continued presence in the centre of town to support the small independent shops instead of living in the burbs with a car. If anyone has a car they will just go to the supermarkets. Sorry, Bigmouth but just because you walk everywhere does not mean that others will do the same. I agree with Carlos that people should have the choice.

i'm not a huge Tavish fan but he has broken no rules and we Shetlanders should be proud that our MSP is a fully fledged Minister (of transport no less) and not some quiet, ineffectual back-bencher who will never achieve anything in Edinburgh but will still walk away with a nice salary and as many benefits.

I seem to remeber reading that Drew Ratter wanted some sort of housing strategy for Shetland. I was on the SIC website and low-and-behold i found one. Perhaps someone should tell Mr Ratter that the Council he represents already produce the same documents he craves. Does anyone else find it embarassing to be represented by these old, senile folk who are more interested in parish pump politics than the good of the meek? (when are we suppposed to inherit the earth?)

Up Helly Aa is what it is. There is no point in trying to change it. We would all miss it if it wasn't there and those who slag it off probably have no idea how much organisation it takes to sort out 1000 drunkards (all carrying burning torches) without any injuries year after year. I was trying to get my house insured the other day - can you imagine the problems those guys must have to get insurances?