21st June 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Why so quiet? (John Tulloch)

An open letter to Yes Shetland:

I can’t help thinking how very quiet you’ve all been since you were caught out, publicly, with your false scaremongering about an autonomous Shetland being restricted to a 12-mile Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ).

Your fingers were badly burnt on that occasion and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn you had all been told to “Shut up!” by your guides and mentors in Edinburgh as a result.

Here then is a wonderful opportunity to win credibility for your group and local support for your cause. All you have to do is make a formal public call for the £40m debt owed by government to SIC to be repaid in full and recommend that all your members sign the associated Shetland Times petition.

Yes, there is a catch. The problem is the whole issue of the £40M debt to SIC was precipitated by your guides and mentors in Edinburgh who decided to keep the Housing Support Grant (HSG) money provided to them by London specifically for the purpose of compensating the SIC for building the houses requested by London during the 1970s oil boom.

The longer you,”Yes Shetland”, stay quiet on this subject the more Shetland voters will come to realise that you are not supporting them, crucially, in their hour of need.

You have the consolation that your credibility is already at zero and can scarcely fall further however you also have this opportunity to restore it by joining the campaign for the return of the £40M.

Will you then dare to cross your guides and mentors in Edinburgh and:

1. Acknowledge the Scottish government’s renege on the HSG

and keeping London’s money intended for SIC is an injustice?

2. Privately lobbying your pals in Edinburgh for full debt repayment?

3. Formally calling on your supporters to sign the petition?

4. Signing the petition yourselves?

And by the way Alex Salmond rolling up in Shetland next month like Santa Claus restoring the housing support grant or even repaying the £40M debt in a blaze of publicity will not wash. We are not so dull as to fall for that little ploy.

Santa doesn’t steal children’s toys and then return them in their Christmas stockings.

No, Santa Salmond will be simply reversing a wrong for which he himself is responsible, a necessary but by no means sufficient condition for winning my own and I suspect many other Shetlanders’ votes lost by his foolish, unscrupulous, action of “annexing” the housing support grant.

I look forward to your early replies and seeing your signatures on the petition.

John Tulloch

Lyndon

Arrochar

 

49 comments

  1. I have signed the petition. I support Yes Shetland.

    Dis du wear Union Jack underpants?

    Reply
  2. John Tulloch

    Glad to hear it, Ivan however it’s the official announcement from “YES Shetland” I’m hoping for, as well as the support of individual supporters of principle like yourself.

    As I said above, they’ve been so quiet I can’t even remember the names of any of the leaders – extraordinarily reclusive for a group ostensibly founded to persuade Shetlanders to vote “Yes!” In a political referendum.

    Perhaps you could persuade them not to be so shy, offer to co-sign their letter or something?

    Above all, could you try and persuade them to carry out the above requests, it’ll be alright, Shetlanders will be delighted that they have decided to support them?

    Reply
  3. Katrina McLachlan

    Yawn.. Mr Tulloch.

    You forget there is many young folk oot dare!.. Who with any common sense!. and who pay attention to our planet!. Will vote for OUR country!.

    Too long has the lies been spread, by people who should know better.

    The only way Wir Shetland ever has a chance in Wir Time, is to Vote YES.

    Forget about wind farms and off shore wind farm’s’

    I hope we can have an open country, void off lies,encourage honesty and honor our own!

    Only the other day did my 17 year old niece confide in me that she did not want to vote!. Because of the fear factor!.

    Simple answer is to Vote Yes fir Shetland!.

    Reply
  4. John Tulloch

    Katriona,

    I trust you aren’t suggesting that I am telling lies?

    The direction of my vote will be determined by whichever of the Edinburgh or Westminster governments appears most trustworthy. As I explained above the Scottish government has “annexed” – misappropriated – money given to them by Westminster specifically to honour the pledge made by Scottish Secretary Bruce Millan during the 1970s to compensate the SIC for facilitating the rapid development of North Sea oil to the tune of £40M.

    This is YOUR money, Katriona, not mine – I live in Argyll now but want fair play.

    Mr Salmond’s dishonourable action in this demonstrates to me that his administration is the less trustworthy of the two and thus he has, until I see evidence to the contrary, lost my previous goodwill and my, still finally undecided, vote.

    The only people exhibiting evidence of the “fear factor” to which you refer are the leaders of “YES Shetland” who haven’t the courage to stand against a blatent injustice perpetrated by their “guides and mentors” in Edinburgh.

    Your argument sounds more like “Say YES Shetland – to self-government!”

    Reply
  5. Katrina McLachlan

    Mr Tulloch.

    My name is Katrina Margaret McLachlan not Katriona.

    I am telling no lies!..
    I dunna ken de fae Toffee.

    Still wabbit we all dis PC bruk.
    Yes and I agree where are all the Journo’s oot dare!.

    Katrina McLachlan
    Da Makins
    Exnaboe
    VIrkie
    Shetland
    Scotland
    ZE3 9JS

    Reply
  6. John Tulloch, The vote next year is about independence, and is not about Mr Salmond. You may be appearing to protest too much.

    Reply
  7. John Tulloch

    Ivan,

    If the vote next year is about independence and not Mr Salmond then why do the “YES Shetland” leaders not support the petiition demanding the return of the SIC’s compensation money from Westminster which has been intercepted and seized by Mr Salmond?

    After all, Jean Urquhart MSP is pro-independence and has signed the petition and urged others to do the same so why can’t “YES Shetland”?

    Reply
  8. Douglas Young

    The housing debt has nothing to do with Independence, The YES campaign nor the Scottish Government.
    It is about self determination for a Nation and is the only election we will have a vote in that is not for a political party.
    Talk about nit picking.
    The future’s bright, the future’s YES.

    Reply
  9. John Tulloch

    The inability to read seems to hamper “YES Shetland” supporters, albeit less so than their leaders’ lack of political courage.

    Douglas, are you speaking for “YES Shetland”, if so, please confirm your position and answer, having first read and digested the argument and associated questions:

    Westminster have, at least, had the good grace to service SIC’s £40M debt incurred at their request to “expedite” vast cash flows to the Treasury from the North Sea oil boom. Westminster accordingly paid SIC the “housing support grant” of £2.4M per year to cover the SIC’s loan interest.

    Following Scottish devolution Westminster’s housing support grant money for SIC was channeled, in good faith, via Edinburgh to be paid to SIC. That continued happily until Mr Salmond & Co placed their sticky fingers on it and decided THEY would “huff” it.

    This therefore has everything to do with Mr Salmond and the Scottish government.

    As a Shetlander I shall vote for the best outcome for Shetland which is hard to see coming from a bunch of shysters who have unilaterally hi-jacked money rightfully belonging to SIC and worse, I am unlikely to be swayed by a local political group who are too cowardly to identify themselves, never mind speak out against this gross injustice.

    Will you “YES Shetland” ( whose own “future looks dim”) follow the courageous lead of Jean Urquhart MSP and both sign the petition yourselves and urge others to do the same?

    Reply
  10. I repeat, for your benefit: I have, some time ago, signed the petition.

    The point of an independence referendum is to ‘choose to choose’. You ‘choose to not choose’. But you also seem to conflate voting for “Mr Salmond” with voting for independence. This is nonsense.

    Reply
  11. John Tulloch

    Ivan,

    Are you speaking for “YES Shetland” and if so, what is your position in that organisation (I’m guessing you’re the “Riddler”?)?

    Reply
  12. Sandy McMillan

    Shetland has it all to stand on its own, and prosper for many a year, my vote is yes.

    Reply
  13. John Tulloch

    I’m for Scotland winning whatever level of autonomy it wants and I’m for Shetland winning whatever level of autonomy it wants, up Faroese or Isle of Man equivalent.

    That means Shetland would still be associated with either London or an independent Edinburgh as its “guardian” power.

    I want that “guardian” power to be trustworthy to carry out agreements and Mr Salmond unilaterally “huffin” the SIC’s £2.4M per year loan interest on their £40M for oil boom housing simply doesn’t pass muster.

    “YES Shetland” doesn’t stand for Shetland going it alone, they stand for SCOTLAND GOING IT ALONE and any blethering about greater local autonomy within an independent Scotland must be judged against Edinburgh’s track record of changing the rules mid-game and “huffin” the SIC’s housing support grant.

    I won’t vote for any outfit that shafts Shetland before they get even more power.

    .

    Reply
  14. Gordon Harmer

    John, reading between the lines of Ivan’s comments I think he and the “YES Shetland” brigade are trying to disassociate themselves from Salmond.

    I can’t blame them as he must be an embarrassment to them, what with lies about EU membership, which currency Scotland will use etc etc. Now hanging on to the £40 million owed to Shetland is a step to far.

    As Ivan protests too much about next years vote being about independence and not Salmond.

    Sandy I hope you signed the petition as that £40 million would go a long way to fixing your drains.

    Reply
  15. Peter Dodge

    Remoteness in Arrochar really ought to be no excuse for ignorance. However, John Tulloch continuously persists in trying to demonstrate that he has the inside track on the Shetland community’s character and its future aspirations.
    To give him the benefit of doubt perhaps were John Tulloch not so distant from our community he would be well aware that Yes Shetland is a movement of individuals and in turn these individuals hold a very wide variety of very different political views. The movenent has absolutely nothing to do with the SNP.
    Having encountered a good many of them I as an SNP Offce Bearer can confirm that the majority are certainly not SNP members or even SNP supporters. Whilst a good number profess to being of no political persuasion it may be of interest to note that the Liberal, Green party and Labour background of many of them is a very revealing feature; as is their youth, their intelligence, their knowledge and their aspirations for Shetland.
    Be assured that they will not be influenced on the internet by old fuddie duddies such as many of the contributers on this site, of which I possibly might be considered as one; despite being well short of pension age.

    Reply
  16. John Tulloch

    What’s this, “AGEISM”? From an official of Scotland’s party of government?!?

    Are you saying this “movement” known as “YES Shetland” has no leadership or policies and is simply an unknown number of individuals acting at random who have nothing to do with the SNP?

    If so it seems strange that only one of those who has spoken out has claimed to have signed the petition for the returrn of the SIC’s money from London “annexed” by your glorious leader Alex Salmond.

    After all, Jean Urquhart MSP – very pro-independence – has signed the petition and urged others to sign.

    Does the Shetland SNP support the petition demanding the return of the SIC’s housing grant, and have you all signed?

    Reply
  17. Gordon Harmer

    Peter Dodge, “SNP office bearer” berating old fuddie duddies for having a point of view on independence, this is the SNP’s version of democracy .

    Take warning from this, Peter is an office bearer, therefore this is the official line the SNP are taking with those approaching and reaching pension age.

    We were so right to ask questions about pensions if Scotland goes independent, by the sound of it we will be expected to be seen and not heard,

    Thanks for clearing that point up Peter

    Reply
  18. Peter Dodge

    I am old! I feel old and at times I am made to feel old.
    I move in circles which encompass all age groups. I have quite different views from those generations coming behind me having shared many of the experiences of those who are older than me. Understandably, those of the up and coming generations have experienced very different circumstances from we who grew up in a traditional, disciplined, self-sufficient culture devoid of television and in some instances devoid of the services which today we take for granted. Coming to terms with the outlook and aspirations of those of the younger generations is not always easy to understand but it is a reality which many of us face on a daily basis. Therefore I am considered as being a fuddie duddie and ageist by numerous, younger members of the Shetland community.
    I recognise these traits in a number of the contributors here who appear strongly self-opinionated and inflexible in their reasoning. Not so the young and comparatively young of today, who exhibit an ability to question “authority” with ease and can surmount problematic challenges with minimal effort.
    In Shetland, there exists an up and coming generation who exhibit “a can do, will do” entrepreneurial attitude which nullifies the all pervading negativity which hallmarks their fuddie duddie seniors. They are international in outlook and may by the nature of their employment travel over the globe on a monthly basis. These are the youth who will shape Shetland’s tomorrow and from those recently encountered they hold allegiance to no political party and have no desire to obtain a prescriptive label but you do find them signed up to the Yes Shetland Yes Scotland movement. Very possibly they have signed the housing debt petition also, as naturally have members of the SNP.
    As for the reference to future pensions in Scotland, logic dictates that the existing collection and distribution system is probably unlikely to change in the near future. Naturally it is assumed that a fairer society would see a redistribution of wealth in proportion to need but that of course is for future politicians to decide according to the prevailing circumstances. They will naturally, as the nation rebuilds, also be called upon to select the towns which will employ the future administration centres requiring repatriation.

    Reply
  19. John Tulloch

    Not content with his astonishing AGEIST attack today on readers of the Shetland Times Blog in which he called them “old fuddie duddies”, the Shetland SNP have permitted him to compound it with a repeat reference to “old fuddie duddies” (above) in the context of being inferior to young people.

    As an official in Scotland’s party of government, I’m surprised he wasn’t instructed to withdraw it and apologise?

    The question now is, who is doing the “Corporal Jones” bit at Shetland SNP Branch HQ – Iain Morrison or Danus Skene?

    “Don’t PANIC, Don’t PAAANNIIIICCCCKKKK!!!

    Reply
  20. Gordon Harmer

    So an SNP official claims “in Shetland, there exists an up and coming generation who exhibit “a can do, will do” entrepreneurial attitude which nullifies the all pervading negativity which hallmarks their fuddie duddie seniors”.

    He is old, he feels old, and the poor soul is also made to feel old, I would say this is a very negative and ageist person.

    Some advert for the SNP and independence, an official who publicly calls the senior population of Shetland a bunch of pervading negative fuddie duddies, that’s going to win you copious followers.

    Peter maybe this is the time to stop digging, for one so old you could be digging your own grave. Or should that be political grave.

    Reply
  21. John Tulloch

    Good wan, Sandy, I kent dee hert wis in da right place!

    Reply
  22. Robert Sim

    John, I feel compelled to point out it’s not a blog but a forum. As in very frequently posting to.

    Reply
  23. ian tinkler

    Never mind the ageism John, how about a bit of classic Peter Dodge. To quote Peter, “Oh dear, he we go again, the same auld theme, how wearisome. The fifth column is once again on the march. What tune this time – There will always be an England or Land of Hope and Glory? It’s very obvious tae onybody, Shetlander or incomer that the promoter of this line of attack always comes from that behemoth nation tae the sooth of Scotland,” – Peter Dodge May 11, 2011, in response to myself. Any apologies here from the SNP or is this their actual xenophobic views Peter is expressing?

    Reply
  24. ian tinkler

    Reference: http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2011/05/10/independence-a-risk-for-windfarm-ian-tinkler ,for the above little Peter gem. The one below seems a bit at odds with Salmond’s present turncoat mantra.
    “No.4; Queen Elizabeth 11 is our queen and don’t you forget it. Well really she is Queen Lizzie 2nd of Engerland whose inhabitants are her subjects. (That was all televised away back in the 1950s). It is presumed that she signed the relevant administrative forms which also led to her being Queen LIzzie 1st of Scots. Never have met anybody who witnessed that or who has seen the document! Recalling of course that she is not Queen of Scotland since such a title doesn’t exist.” Peter Dodge 2011/05/10/ SNP Office Bearer

    Reply
  25. Gordon Harmer

    “Oh life becomes so much more fun when you start to shake the shackles and learn the facts!” – Peter Dodge, May 18, 2011.

    I think Mr Dodge should practice what he preaches.

    I notice Robert Sim was unavailable to administer politically correct retribution to Mr Dodge’s xenophobic comments in Ian’s post above.

    @ Robert, the dictionary’s definition of a blog is, “a web site containing the writer’s or group of writers’ own experiences, observations, opinions, etc,and often having images and links to other Web sites”. Which I reckon makes this site either a blog or a forum.

    Reply
  26. John Tulloch

    Anyone who rejects the idea that local SNP politicians may have been told to keep quiet will receive an unpleasant jolt by reading the article on the the attached link.

    SNP councillors in Argyll have allegedly been instructed by SNP “heid yins” not to co-operate with other parties in governing Argyll, the rationale apparently being that they would be “safe” in opposition where they can criticise difficult decisions on spending cuts, etc., as opposed to having to take them and thus lose electoral support for the independence vote next year.

    If true this means that had Danus Skene and Iain Morrison been elected as councillors – no individual disrespect intended – they would likely have been instructed to oppose all the necessary, disagreeable, cuts necessitated, in part, by the Scottish government’s freeze on council tax and reap independence referendum benefits

    http://forargyll.com/2013/06/first-ministers-call-for-grown-up-politics-countered-by-order-from-the-top/

    Reply
  27. Robert Sim

    @ Gordon I deplore xenophobic language from whatever source. On your other point about blogs/forums, a blog is one writer(s) views, rather like an online diary, on which others may post comments. It is the blog-owner’s views, though, which are the focus. A forum, on the other hand, consists of various topics (or “threads”) where anyone can post opinions with no one writer’s opinions taking precedence. Newspaper articles/letters aren’t a blog; but do provide the headings for various forum threads.

    A consequence of the forum setup can be that a few individuals post repetitively irrespective of the topic. The same phenomenon has been seen for years in the letters page of The Herald and Scotsman, for example. A side-effect of free speech, I guess…

    Reply
  28. ian tinkler

    Just a bit off topic! “A consequence of the forum setup can be that a few individuals post repetitively irrespective of the topic” What a load of total Bull “£$%. A bit intoxicated with our own loquacity are we Robert, or just a bit verbose… What does this gibberish have to do with an open letter to Yes Shetland? Or are we being a tad pretentious?

    Reply
  29. scott miller

    John Tulloch

    You ask why I haven’t signed the petition, I’ll tell you why. I have been off island and out of circulation receiving treatment for injuries sustained, whilst fighting for the Westminster Government.
    I am the spokesperson for Yes Shetland and I do not belong to any political party. never have done never will do.
    I do call on everyone both in Shetland and further afield to sign and back the campaign. I call on the Better Together (Shetland) group to also sign up.

    Reply
  30. John Tulloch

    Robert,

    I know you are an intelligent and reasonable fellow. Once you and your friends and colleagues in “YES Shetland/SNP” have signed the petition and called on your supporters to do the same I’ll be pleased to listen to your advice about the semantics of web terminology, how many angels you can get on the head of a pin, etc..

    Until then, subject to the good editor’s acquiescence, you may have to put up with further references to this uncomfortable subject for you and your group, the injustice perpetrated on Shetland by the Scottish government..

    After all, Alex Salmond and his SNP ministers caused all the trouble by “annexing” the SIC’s housing support grant provided by Westminster specifically to compensate SIC for the houses they built to facilitate the 1970s oil boom.

    Reply
  31. John Tulloch

    Thank you, Scott Miller. I had not singled you out and was unaware of your predicament however I apologise for any personal offence I may have caused you.

    I am not opposed to whatever degree of autonomy the Scottish people wish to have, indeed, I support it for much the same reasons as I support autonomy for Shetland.

    My main purpose is to support the campaign for justice for Shetland and it follows that I very much welcome your support for the petition which I am sure will be heeded by many of your supporters.

    Thank you once again.

    Reply
  32. Robert Sim

    John

    I assume you are an intelligent and reasonable fellow too and am therefore a trifle baffled as to how you arrive at the idea that I am a member of any political or quasi-political organisation, let alone the ones you mention. In any case, I certainly wouldn’t let my voting preferences skew my opinion on the matter being discussed on this thread.

    What bothers me about your original letter is that you seem more intent on having a go at Yes Shetland than in straightforwardly supporting the cause of repaying the housing debt. I am entitled to that opinion, as you are entitled to post to these forums.

    Reply
  33. John Tulloch

    Robert,

    The above letter, like others I have written on the subject of the injustice to Shetland of the Scottish government intercepting the SIC’s housing support grant from Westminster, was directed specifically at a political group who like you and the SNP had not, at the time of writing, voiced support for the ST petition demanding that the SIC be reimbursed for the £40M they are out of pocket due to helping to speed up the 1970s oil boom.

    Scott Miller has now explained his silence on the matter and given his full, unstinting support for the petition and I welcome that.

    It follows that I am no longer “having a go” at “YES Shetland, I am having a go at people like you and the SNP who know only too well the circumstances surrounding this injustice and will neither condemn the Scottish government’s money-grubbing nor support the petition.

    The longer you all “keep stumm” the more Shetlanders will realise you are not supporting them in their hour of need.

    Reply
  34. David I Smith

    John

    It may be me, but your correspondence on this topic appears confused.
    Your letter on the Shetland News website “sign the petition” demands that Alex Salmond return £40 million. The Scottish Government have not been given £40 million to pay off this debt. As you will be aware they get a grant from London with which to provide services in Scotland. The Scottish Government have as a consequence of a much reduced grant withdrawn Shetland’s Housing Support Grant. I understand that the HSG went some way to covering the interest on the debt, but any reduction in the capital figure has come from the people of Shetland and its housing tenants. London politicians like to deflect debate towards the HSG, so they can avoid honouring their commitment to pay the actual housing debt.
    Just one more reason to vote YES in 2014.

    Reply
  35. John Tulloch

    Thanks, David. I agree London is far from blameless however if you’ll bear with me, they provided the housing support grant to cover the SIC’s interest payments which the Scottish government decided to keep for themselves. That fact is not in dispute.

    Obtaining £2.3 M per year interest is akin to having £c.40M invested at a little over 5% interest so, effectively, it’s as if the Scottish government have got the £40M for nothing and invested it and are keeping the interest.

    My preference would be for London to pay SIC the £40M and adjust the annual money paid to Holyrood, accordingly however the Scottish government have caused the crisis by hi-jacking the housing support grant and they are the sole beneficiaries so as far as I am concerned, the heat is on them.

    The petition is addressed to BOTH LONDON AND EDINBURGH, do you support it and have you signed it?

    Reply
  36. Gordon Harmer

    David this is nothing to with London politicians (another “YES” / SNP smoke screen) this is about the present day Scottish government withdrawing the HSG. The SNP are using oil revenue as a propaganda weapon in their bid for independence by saying the oil is theirs. That oil has cost the Shetland rent payer dearly because of the house building program forced on to the Shetland council in the construction days of the Sullom Voe terminal. We are owed that £40 million and we hear nothing from the Scottish government about getting it back for us, no SNP support or help to repay this debt. One big reason to vote NO in 2014.

    Reply
  37. David I Smith

    John
    Thank you for your reply and for your patience. As I understand it, the petition seeks to have the housing debt, which is clearly a Westminster liability, eliminated. Why then is the Scottish Government being petitioned? In my opinion, it weakens the desired impact and allows the conflation of the debt issue with the Housing Support Grant problem (a gift for politicians).
    I would accept that more clarity is needed around how the funding for the HSG is paid. Whether it is part of the Barnett formula block grant or is, as Alistair Carmichael claims, paid out-with that. If that is the case then I’m sure he would be happy to provide the evidence which would allow us to lobby Edinburgh for its return, or arrange its payment from London direct to Shetland. Either way it needs to be a sum which covers the interest and pays down the capital.
    In answer to your question, I support the principle of the petition, but, as yet, have not signed it.

    Gordon
    Only you could believe or argue that “this has nothing to do with London politicians”

    Reply
  38. Gordon Harmer

    David, if you took the time to read Johns letter at the head of this thread you would see it is nothing to do with Westminster. It is about Salmond withdrawing the HSG
    which is specifically for the purpose of compensating the SIC for building the houses requested by London during the 1970s oil boom. If it is to do with Westminster why is Salmond not knocking on number 10s door on our behalf and demanding the £40 million back. I will tell you why, it is because he like you would rather come with childish insults and rhetoric than constructive actions.

    Reply
  39. John Tulloch

    David,

    I can see where you are hoping to wriggle away to however:

    Before the HS Grant was hi-jacked the SIC effectively had no debt because Westminster, were taking care of the interest payments. Once the Scottish government hi-jacked the HSG the interest payments will now be met by SIC tenants who will face large rent increases. So SIC and its tenants are effectively £40M worse off than before.

    The Scottish government, by contrast, are £2.3M per year better off, equivalent to the SIC’s £40M invested at over 5%.

    As far as I am aware the Scottish government is not helping SIC in any way to get the money back from Westminster and are content to keep the £2.3M per year rolling into their coffers.

    Will you sign the petition soon?

    Reply
  40. Union Jack underpants, tartan underpants or Fair Isle pattern underpants … you are all wearing them oot ower noo! And that is a riddle solved! Yours, The Joker

    Reply
  41. John Tulloch

    Good one, Ivan, I like that! (LOL as wis wi Davvit Spence).

    Mine are definitely Fair Isle – “worn on me heid wi da leegs shewed up” – setting off a blue suit with a white cross in the middle.

    Reply
  42. John Tulloch

    There’s a gentleman called Bill “Guillermo” Hall of Torre del Mar who has written an amusing, bizarre, piece to Shetland News suggesting I live in the Central Belt and have “gone native” as a Labourite.

    Arrochar is surrounded by 3000 ft mountains, is in Argyll – in the Highlands – and is SNP in flavour. I am also on record as saying the SNP government has been broadly more competent politically and practically than its feckless Labour predecessors.

    “Guillermo” may then benefit by taking his own advice to me:

    “Whatever the case may be, I think the advice given in Deuteronomy is very apposite…… “When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations”.”

    That is, don’t tilt at imaginary fantasy enemies as is reportedly traditional in Spain.

    Reply
  43. Iain Morrison

    Mr Tulloch,
    I live and work (nursing!) in Shetland and care enough about the people of Shetland to put myself through a less than comfortable electoral process in 2012. Just because YOU think we are doing nothing doesn’t mean to say we aren’t. I have not been leant on by anyone to take or not take any action. I have signed the campaign ,this debt needs to be addressed. I hope Arrochar is nice.
    Regards

    Reply
  44. John Tulloch

    Good show, Iain! Well said, too.

    Reply
  45. Slippery salmond steals shetland monies – vote no and get rid off this ex royal banker. He was in favour of the takeover by RBS of the famous bank that was well and truly overvalued by fred the shred!. He will fall if there is a NO VOTE. SNP government as done no favours to Shetland or Orkney in the last years. Serco northlink just for starters.

    Raymond Smith
    Kirkwall

    Reply
  46. John Tulloch

    Iain,

    I wrote my above comment when I saw your name appear in the petition.

    My concern in writing about you and Danus Skene isn’t personal or, indeed, party political, I have no reason to imagine you aren’t both perfectly decent, reasonable fellows. I am however less enamoured of your “trow god-leader Peester-Salmondie” who has “annexed” the SIC’s housing support grant in fine old Edinburgh tradition.

    If Shetland is to negotiate increased autonomy it must be with a partner who can be trusted at their word; the Scottish government by its action on the HSG is clearly the less trustworthy between Edinburgh and London.

    My concern then is to get as many signatures as possible on to this petition which is where you and Danus come in.

    Because you are both prominent local SNP politicians and people went to the trouble of voting for you in the SIC election you have considerable influence to help swell the number of signatures on the petition from your following.

    It follows that I very much welcome your, albeit half-hearted, support and even though I’ve had to “shoe-horn” it out of you, I appreciate it all the more in the knowledge that the more signatures, the more embarrassing it will be for “Peester-Salmondie” when he comes to Shetland in July to face those whose pockets he has lightened.

    Your support for the campaign leaves Danus Skene and the Shetland SNP Branch isolated, it must be getting rather lonely for them?

    Reply
  47. Douglas Young

    If there is a No vote, neither the SNP nor Alex Salmond will fall.
    If there is a YES vote neither the SNP nor Alex Salmond will fall.
    2014 is a referndum.
    Not an election.
    So simple most 16 and 17 year olds who are eligble to vote, understand.

    Reply
  48. Gordon Harmer

    If there is a NO vote Salmond should do the honourable and resign along with his cabinet.

    Reply
  49. Gordon Harmer

    If there is a YES vote we will be living in Salmond’s dream of being the great dictator of a vicious, censorious, Nat tyranny and a dismal, joyless dump typified by the old Soviet Union

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.