20th August 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Scott urges ‘no’ vote for a stronger parliament

A “no thanks” vote to independence means a stronger Scottish Parliament within the UK, Shetland MSP Tavish Scott said today.

This week former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set out the timetable for new laws to strengthen Holyrood. Mr Scott is urging people to support this real change supported by the great majority of people across the country. And he is arguing that a stronger parliament must reverse the damaging centralisation agenda of Scottish nationalism.

Mr Scott said: “The choice we face in Shetland and across Scotland is clearer than it ever has been. There is now a clear plan to deliver more decision making to Scotland, while keeping the back-up of being part of the bigger UK economy.

“This week we have seen the economic risks of separation as billions of pounds have been taken out of the Scottish economy. That is the real risk to the funding of our NHS. That is the reality of independence and a yes vote.

“Every vote will count in Shetland as elsewhere and anyone’s vote could make the difference between the UK staying together or breaking apart. No-one can afford a protest vote in this referendum.”

Mr Scott is encouraged that all the UK political parties have set out ambitious plans for further devolution to Scotland. On tax all parties agree that the priority is further devolution of tax powers, in particular income tax, to increase the financial autonomy and accountability of the Scottish Parliament.

With welfare all parties agree that there are benefits closely tied to devolved services which should be devolved such as housing benefit, while the core of the welfare state should continue to share risk and resources across the UK.

Mr Scott is pointing out that in the event of a no vote there will be immediate action the day after the referendum to start the legislative process with all party proposals published on 30th October and a draft Scotland Bill published by end of January.

He said: “Scotland will see change starting on the 19th September. That means our islands need to be at the heart of these reform. I will make sure the Shetland position is understood and recognised.

“We must reverse the damaging effects of central belt, one-size-fits-all politics imposed by the nationalists. A stronger parliament, with new powers and within the UK, can make that happen. There is a real opportunity to deliver lasting change for Shetland and Scotland and the best way to do that is to reject independence on the 18th.”

29 comments

  1. joe johnson

    I will be voting no. To be honest I’ll be glad when the referendum is over. I’m fed up with it and its caused division in Scotland. Whatever the result is must be respected and I hope things settle down after the referendum.

    Reply
  2. Laurence Banks

    J K Rowling Quote Passed on

    I came to the question of independence with an open mind and an awareness of the seriousness of what we are being asked to decide. This is not a general election, after which we can curse the result, bide our time and hope to get a better result in four years. Whatever Scotland decides, we will probably find ourselves justifying our choice to our grandchildren. I wanted to write this because I always prefer to explain in my own words why I am supporting a cause and it will be made public shortly that I’ve made a substantial donation to the Better Together Campaign, which advocates keeping Scotland part of the United Kingdom.

    As everyone living in Scotland will know, we are currently being bombarded with contradictory figures and forecasts/warnings of catastrophe/promises of Utopia as the referendum approaches and I expect we will shortly be enjoying (for want of a better word) wall-to-wall coverage.

    In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I am friendly with individuals involved with both the Better Together Campaign and the Yes Campaign, so I know that there are intelligent, thoughtful people on both sides of this question. Indeed, I believe that intelligent, thoughtful people predominate.

    However, I also know that there is a fringe of nationalists who like to demonise anyone who is not blindly and unquestionably pro-independence and I suspect, notwithstanding the fact that I’ve lived in Scotland for twenty-one years and plan to remain here for the rest of my life, that they might judge me ‘insufficiently Scottish’ to have a valid view. It is true that I was born in the West Country and grew up on the Welsh border and while I have Scottish blood on my mother’s side, I also have English, French and Flemish ancestry. However, when people try to make this debate about the purity of your lineage, things start getting a little Death Eaterish for my taste. By residence, marriage, and out of gratitude for what this country has given me, my allegiance is wholly to Scotland and it is in that spirit that I have been listening to the months of arguments and counter-arguments.

    On the one hand, the Yes campaign promises a fairer, greener, richer and more equal society if Scotland leaves the UK, and that sounds highly appealing. I’m no fan of the current Westminster government and I couldn’t be happier that devolution has protected us from what is being done to health and education south of the border. I’m also frequently irritated by a London-centric media that can be careless and dismissive in its treatment of Scotland. On the other hand, I’m mindful of the fact that when RBS needed to be bailed out, membership of the union saved us from economic catastrophe and I worry about whether North Sea oil can, as we are told by the ‘Yes’ campaign, sustain and even improve Scotland’s standard of living.

    Some of the most pro-independence people I know think that Scotland need not be afraid of going it alone, because it will excel no matter what. This romantic outlook strikes a chord with me, because I happen to think that this country is exceptional, too. Scotland has punched above its weight in just about every field of endeavour you care to mention, pouring out world-class scientists, statesmen, economists, philanthropists, sportsmen, writers, musicians and indeed Westminster Prime Ministers in quantities you would expect from a far larger country.

    My hesitance at embracing independence has nothing to do with lack of belief in Scotland’s remarkable people or its achievements. The simple truth is that Scotland is subject to the same twenty-first century pressures as the rest of the world. It must compete in the same global markets, defend itself from the same threats and navigate what still feels like a fragile economic recovery. The more I listen to the Yes campaign, the more I worry about its minimisation and even denial of risks. Whenever the big issues are raised – our heavy reliance on oil revenue if we become independent, what currency we’ll use, whether we’ll get back into the EU – reasonable questions are drowned out by accusations of ‘scaremongering.’ Meanwhile, dramatically differing figures and predictions are being slapped in front of us by both campaigns, so that it becomes difficult to know what to believe.

    I doubt I’m alone in trying to find as much impartial and non-partisan information as I can, especially regarding the economy. Of course, some will say that worrying about our economic prospects is poor-spirited, because those people take the view ‘I’ll be skint if I want to and Westminster can’t tell me otherwise’. I’m afraid that’s a form of ‘patriotism’ that I will never understand. It places higher importance on ‘sticking it’ to David Cameron, who will be long gone before the full consequences of independence are felt, than to looking after your own. It prefers the grand ‘up yours’ gesture to considering what you might be doing to the prospects of future generations.

    The more I have read from a variety of independent and unbiased sources, the more I have come to the conclusion that while independence might give us opportunities – any change brings opportunities – it also carries serious risks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies concludes that Alex Salmond has underestimated the long-term impact of our ageing population and the fact that oil and gas reserves are being depleted. This view is also taken by the independent study ‘Scotland’s Choices: The Referendum and What Happens Afterwards’ by Iain McLean, Jim Gallagher and Guy Lodge, which says that ‘it would be a foolish Scottish government that planned future public expenditure on the basis of current tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas’.

    My fears about the economy extend into an area in which I have a very personal interest: Scottish medical research. Having put a large amount of money into Multiple Sclerosis research here, I was worried to see an open letter from all five of Scotland’s medical schools expressing ‘grave concerns’ that independence could jeopardise what is currently Scotland’s world-class performance in this area. Fourteen professors put their names to this letter, which says that Alex Salmond’s plans for a common research funding area are ‘fraught with difficulty’ and ‘unlikely to come to fruition’. According to the professors who signed the letter, ‘it is highly unlikely that the remaining UK would tolerate a situation in which an independent “competitor” country won more money than it contributed.’ In this area, as in many others, I worry that Alex Salmond’s ambition is outstripping his reach.

    I’ve heard it said that ‘we’ve got to leave, because they’ll punish us if we don’t’, but my guess is that if we vote to stay, we will be in the heady position of the spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go. All the major political parties are currently wooing us with offers of extra powers, keen to keep Scotland happy so that it does not hold an independence referendum every ten years and cause uncertainty and turmoil all over again. I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay.

    If we leave, though, there will be no going back. This separation will not be quick and clean: it will take microsurgery to disentangle three centuries of close interdependence, after which we will have to deal with three bitter neighbours. I doubt that an independent Scotland will be able to bank on its ex-partners’ fond memories of the old relationship once we’ve left. The rest of the UK will have had no say in the biggest change to the Union in centuries, but will suffer the economic consequences. When Alex Salmond tells us that we can keep whatever we’re particularly attached to – be it EU membership, the pound or the Queen, or insists that his preferred arrangements for monetary union or defence will be rubber-stamped by our ex-partners – he is talking about issues that Scotland will need, in every case, to negotiate. In the words of ‘Scotland’s Choices’ ‘Scotland will be very much the smaller partner seeking arrangements from the UK to meet its own needs, and may not be in a very powerful negotiating position.’

    If the majority of people in Scotland want independence I truly hope that it is a resounding success. While a few of our fiercer nationalists might like to drive me forcibly over the border after reading this, I’d prefer to stay and contribute to a country that has given me more than I can easily express. It is because I love this country that I want it to thrive. Whatever the outcome of the referendum on 18th September, it will be a historic moment for Scotland. I just hope with all my heart that we never have cause to look back and feel that we made a historically bad mistake.”

    Reply
    • Johan Adamson

      How can it be a mistake? It will be what we choose to make of it.

      Reply
      • John Tulloch

        Johan,

        The Scottish people may vote as they wish, however, Scotland’s and Shetland’s best interests are not synonymous.

        If Scotland, as a whole, votes “Yes”, the “great grand-daddy” of all mistakes would be for Shetlanders, also, to have voted “Yes”.

        I would put that in the category of “turkeys voting for early Christmas”.

  3. Johan Adamson

    What billions were taken out of the Scottish economy this week?

    The pound fell because without oil the pound will no longer be a petro currency.

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      The English and Welsh have huge onshore reserves of shale oil and huge onshore and offshore reserves of shale gas.

      Insofar as sterling is a “petrocurrency”, I suspect it will continue to be one.

      I was intrigued to hear that, while INEOS was buying out BG from its Central Scotland onshore “unconventional gas” joint venture with Dart Energy, in order to secure cheap supplies of feedstock for its struggling Grangemouth petrochemical complex, that the SNP Scottish Government were, simultaneously, formally objecting to UK government proposals to permit onshore use of the enabling technology, “fracking”?

      Last October, it took intervention by both the Scottish and UK governments and a humiliating climbdown by the UNITE union on job cuts to save the plant from closure.

      Reply
      • Johan Adamson

        I think the markets were reacting to the referendum, not to any shale gas deposits.

        The markets will correct themselves once things are clearer

  4. Neil Anderson

    yyyyyyeeeeeessssss ! 🙂

    Reply
  5. Jonathan Wills

    If I understand my neighbour Tavish Scott correctly, if we vote No we might get more powers for the Scottish Parliament. These promised powers were laid out by the Unionist parties before the referendum campaign began although the Tories, Libs and Labs still can’t agree on exactly what those powers might be.
    Assuming these promises are delivered – by parties which were in a position to deliver them before now but didn’t – that would indeed make the Scottish Parliament stronger. But not as strong as if it had power over all matters affecting Scotland. I hope I’ve got that right.
    Sorry, Tavish, but I won’t be fooled again. I will vote Yes, in the full knowledge that, even if there is a majority for “independence”, we will in fact get “devolution max” once the necessary negotiations are completed. No nation is truly independent these days and if Scotland still shares a currency union, a fiscal union, a customs union, a sovereign and an open border with the rest of Britain (as it certainly will), it will not be “independent”. But it will be largely self-governing and Tavish and his fellow MSPs will be able to decide its public policies in the interests of the people they represent. I would have thought an ambitious young politician like Tavish would be glad of that opportunity. It seems that in this, as no doubt in much else, I am mistaken.
    As your Prague correspondent has particular reason to know, I am not a nationalist, having studied fairly extensively the doleful history of European nationalist extremism since the 18th century. I also once received a fake bomb from an extremist nationalist sect who objected to my being involved in Scottish politics when I had an English accent. The English-spoken Scottish Labour MP Tony Worthington received a similar package. That was in 1994. I had to go to the Lerwick police station every day for a week to open our family’s Christmas mail. That alarming encounter with The Seed of The Gael confirmed my lifelong enmity for bigoted “blood nationalists” who are “proud” of their chromosomes.
    Wishing self-determination for your own country, within the reasonable bounds of international agreements, is not nationalist extremism. I have two countries, England where I was born and Scotland where I have lived almost all of my adult life. I am not “proud” of either of them but very glad to be a mixture of both. I wish my two countries to have self-government and to live in neighbourly amity with one another – another good reason to vote Yes next Thursday.

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      Jonathan,

      I understand the question on the slip will be roughly “Do you think Scotland should become an INDEPENDENT country i.e in Scotland’s case, a “nation state”.

      Using the “Prague correspondent’s” definition, those voting “Yes” are supporting the creation of a nation state and are thus “nationalists”.

      Oh, but it’ll be “Devo-Max”! Oh, well, that’s alright, then…or is it?

      How many of Salmond’s “sops to the (voting) Cerberi” do you think will survive once he has his achieved a “Yes” majority?

      An overall “Yes” majority will mean Salmond has a mandate to go for full independence, probably, by “salami slices”, cut to his preferred thickness.

      The negotiations won’t be anywhere near finished by the next Scottish election, so manifestos will be vague and biased towards the prevailing euphoria of the public honeymoon period, during which Scotland will be able do and be all things to all people and the rUK will be “The Devil incarnate”; so they’ll do what they like.

      How long do you think the Queen will last before it’s President Salmond?

      (“Oh, well, if we can’t have a currency union AND expel Trident, then you can keep your “Queen”!)

      What about a date by which Trident will no longer be in Scotland?

      Now, like you, I’m not very keen on royalty, the House of Lords and all the guff that that entails. It’s anachronistic and needs to change, however, I’m not for splitting the Union over it, just because it won’t change next week.

      “Yes” voters can’t depend on getting “Devo-Max”, as opposed to full independence (Norway is pretty “independent”), they need to read what it says on the tin, because that’s what “Yes” voters are giving a mandate for.

      And most important of all, Shetland voters must beware of how voting “Yes” may affect Shetland, whose interests are not synonymous with those of Scotland.

      Reply
      • Robert Sim

        So what are the advantages of the Union, then, John, which make it the preferred option to the Scottish Government having full control over the income generated in Scotland? And full control over all areas of policy, such as social policy?

      • John Tulloch

        Robert,

        The advantages of the union are clear, well-documented and many, for example.

        We already have a currency union which an independent Scotland cannot have without sacrificing, at least, control of monetary and fiscal policy – so “Bang!” go your stated ambitions for independence i.e. “the Scottish Government having full control over the income generated in Scotland? And full control over all areas of policy, such as social policy?”

        More importantly, Shetland voters MUST consider the potential destruction of Shetland’s £300 million pa fishing industry that will result from Scotland leaving the UK and its derogation from the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) on quotas.

        Do check out the following link to Magnie Stewart’s insights into the risk to the fishing industry, implied by leaving the UK and re-joining the EU with an independent Scotland.

        http://www.shetnews.co.uk/letters/9231-a-fighting-chance

        Shetland voters MUST vote for SHETLAND!

  6. Kevin Learmonth

    Any last minute offers of “new powers” are meaningless. They are too little, too late. Besides, any legislation would have to go through Westminister, and currently would have to attract a Tory majority to pass.

    Scotlands fate decided by MPs elected in England. How familiar.

    Alternatively, vote Yes and get a democratic parliament reflecting all the voters of Scotland.

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      How often has England’s electoral “fate” been determined by MPs elected in Scotland? Plenty!

      Fishing is Shetland’s most important industry, worth more than £300 million per year,. Have you you read Magnie Stewart’s latest letters about the fishing (he knows what he’s talking about)?

      What about Shetland’s electoral “fate”, don’t any of you think about that?

      Reply
    • Robert Wison

      In the likely event of a NO vote followed by some devolved income tax powers to Edinburgh, the Barnett formula will clearly have to be scrapped and the block grant cut heavily. The UK will retain control of corporation taxes, VAT, oil taxes, whisky export revenues etc. Edinburgh will be forced into raising income taxes well above those of rUK or reducing public expenditure per head to rUK levels that will not be compatible with Scotland’s unique geographical requirements which the Barnett formula was created for. This will ultimately be highly damaging to our economy and we will end up in a downward spiral with little prospect of creating a fairer and more prosperous country. Only a YES vote will give us the necessary powers to create a thriving business environment and a country that is more socially responsible.

      Reply
  7. Johan Adamson

    What happens with this devo max for all the people who never wanted devo max? After the vote, if it is a ‘no’, will Westminster come to the conclusion that we cant have devo max because we never really wanted it? Maybe it should have been an option on the ballot paper?

    Reply
  8. Harry Dent

    Being urged to vote no to get more powers is a bit like being urged to vote Liberal to keep the Tories out – unconvincing nonsense from a bunch of charlatans.

    Reply
  9. Keith Jamieson

    As a descendant of Shetland living abroad and a visitor at the last hamefaring I believe a no vote is in the best interest of the more remote and smaller communities in Scotland. There is no way that Scottish revenues would increase with separation from the rest of Britain and its hard to think that a small possibly fragile economy will be welcomed into the EU. Scotland is already recognised world wide as being its own entity and independence won’t change this except in the minds of some radical nationalists who will focus even more than Whitehall on those areas with the largest amount of voters. I noted on my visit that the Shetland blue cross flew more predominantly than any other flag with the Union Jack coming second and St Andrew’s flag rarely sighted. I too live in a smaller jurisdiction in my country and can understand the frustration that sometimes brings, but separation from the bigger states would be disastrous. If free speech, democracy and the inability to follow one’s customs were prohibited then sure go for it, however this is not the case and the Scot or Shetlander probably exercise those rights more than other residents of the UK. If the vote is yes then Shetlanders will have to have a hard look at the possibility other parts of Scotland will be supported by them and they will miss out.

    Reply
  10. John Smith

    Unfortunately the words Emperor, President, or King, don’t fit in with the words Salmond or Sturgeon.

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      I don’t know, “King Alexander IV” has a certain “je ne sais quoi”?

      Reply
  11. Brian Hughson

    Checking election stats since 1920 it would appear that only on two occasions were Scottish MP’s a deciding factor in the ‘majority’ of the government formed. Since 1945, removing Scottish MP’s would have made no difference.
    My Grandfather was one of the ‘20,000 exiles’ and I have always watched Shetland closely.
    I intended to vote YES in the referendum, with some thought as it being a vote that would benefit Shetland, as well as for the socialist/Christian values that I believe in.
    Having followed the debates as best as I can, I note much cynicism and am not easily assimilating the thread of the argument to that going on around me.
    I confess that I find the term ‘raging beast’ being applied to the YES movement not to indicate calm, reasonable and respectful debate.
    History is interesting but must be viewed with a modicum of current relativity.
    My apologies if I am intruding in an internal discussion. But seeing things from a different perspective may help to increase my objectivity.

    Reply
    • Andrew Wills

      Hi Brian,
      The last time the Conservatives actually managed to win a UK general election outright, in 1992, they got 25.6% of the vote in Scotland, which meant that 11 Scottish Conservative MPs were sent to Westminster.
      Without those 11 Scottish Conservative MPs, John Major would have had to try to form a coalition government, or a minority government, because he would have had no absolute majority in the House of Commons.

      Reply
  12. Andrew Wills

    I think a majority of the Shetland Times readership, and of Shetlanders generally, stand shoulder to shoulder with Tavish Scott as he negotiates greater powers for our Scottish parliament within the UK.

    It is clear that across the UK, the majority of people are fundamentally committed to keeping the UK together. This referendum debate has concentrated their minds. Now, through our own Scottish parliament, we have established a simple mechanism for leaving the UK at any time in the coming decades. If we choose to remain in the UK, this makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to resist the pretty well universal will of the Scottish people for massively increased powers to be devolved to our Scottish parliament. If we don’t get the devolved powers we want, then we will leave the UK at the next referendum. It’s as simple as that.

    Full independence is impossible for small European nations like ours. A yes vote would therefore bring something like “devo-max”. It makes no sense to throw away all the economic and security-related advantages of the UK by voting yes, when we can achieve that same “devo-max” within the UK.

    I expect that your readers will be sceptical of all claims about the future of an independent Scotland that are portrayed as certainties. It is simply not true to state that the outcome of post-independence negotiations with the UK and EU is certain. To have any credibility at all, such claims must be accompanied by a caveat along the lines of: “I reckon…”, “Probably…”, “It is hard/possible to imagine that…”, “It seems likely that…”, “x would have an incentive to insist on y…”, etc.

    I have asked one of your Bressay correspondents to vote on my behalf in the referendum as my proxy, because I’m away at the moment. He’s going to vote differently on his own behalf, but I trust him absolutely to cast my vote the way I ask him to. I trust him because I’ve known him all my life, but anyone who knows him even a little bit can trust him. This is shown by the insistence of his constituents on repeatedly re-electing him as their councillor by wide margins. That is not simply the result of a mafia campaign orchestrated by Aunty Baba. He may disagree with my opinion but he would defend to the death my right to express it. If that sounds like a melodramatic assertion today, it’s because people like your Bressay correspondent have been standing up for free speech through the generations. If anybody tries to short-change the people of Shetland, he will stand up to them toe to toe and blow for blow, if necessary alone, if necessary for years, and no matter how rich, powerful or influential they are, or how unassailable their institutional position seems to be. Nor could anybody who knows him doubt the force of his lifelong enmity for bigoted blood-nationalists.

    When I feel that there is a danger of getting lost in the sands of post-modern semantic ambiguity, I reach for the Oxford English Dictionary. Here is its definition of the word nationalist: “an adherent or advocate of nationalism; an advocate of national independence.” The definition allows for nationalists who do not advocate national independence. They may just be proud of or loyal to their nation’s existing traditions and institutions.

    Advocacy of national independence, however, is the defining point of political nationalism, as the OED confirms, which is why all those who do advocate it are referred to, correctly, as nationalists.

    As far as I know, no one has suggested that all nationalists are extremists, or that they are all prejudiced or chauvinist in some way. I certainly haven’t. I would be astonished if the Shetland Times decided to print such a scurrilous allegation. Equally, I think everyone can agree that wishing self-determination for your own country is not nationalist extremism.

    Everybody wants self-determination. The question is whether or not national self-determination, through secession from a multination-state like the UK, to form a nation-state, is beneficial. I believe that, although many of the nationalists who advocate it are liberal-minded people, this form of national self-determination unintentionally plays into the hands of other nationalists who are indeed extremists, and tends to deepen social divisions generally.

    In my Sounding Off, published in the Shetland Times on the 8th of September (see link below), I explain how I have reached this conclusion.

    http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/09/08/nationalism-why-its-a-retrograde-step-in-history

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      Andrew,

      We know the “Bressay correspondent” isn’t spending his spare time in the shed, making Molotov Cocktails, any more than the “Kalliness correspondent” is, but your definition provided an opportunity akin to seeing a big protruding backside under a school desk, the urge to stick the point of a set of compasses into it was irresistible!

      🙂

      Reply
    • Brian Smith

      “I think a majority of the Shetland Times readership, and of Shetlanders generally, stand shoulder to shoulder with Tavish Scott as he negotiates greater powers for our Scottish parliament within the UK.” (Andrew Wills.)

      Surely things aren’t as bad as that!!

      Reply
      • John Tulloch

        I expect most Shetlanders, at least, those who care about the future of the place, as opposed to achieving a purely political goal, will have taken heed of Magnie Stewart’s warning about the grave consequences for the Shetland fishing industry that would flow from Shetland joining an independent Scotland, leaving the UK and it’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) quota derogation and joining the EU under fresh terms which will include accepting the CFP win no quota derogation.

        I find it astonishing – and repugnant – that any Shetlander, especially, councillors, would vote Yes, against the best, vital, interests of Shetland, simply, to achieve the goal of establishing a cosy little socialist “closed shop” at Holyrood.

        Housing support grant seizure? You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet, folks!

        If both Scotland and Shetland vote Yes, it will be like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.

        For heaven’s sake, don’t hand it to them on a platter,

        All sane Shetlanders MUST vote NO to give themselves a chance of negotiating their own destiny, in the event of a Scottish Yes vote.

      • Andrew Wills

        It’s ok Brian. It’s all right to get new powers.

      • Brian Smith

        I’m no haddin me breath.

  13. Andy Solyom

    Would it throw much of a spanner in the works if, after a ‘Yes’ win, Shetland decided to hold their own referendum and subsequently voted to go fully independent?

    Who would own the oilfields then? Is it possible that the islanders might suddenly find themselves to be very wealthy people?

    Might upset the Scotland a bit though.

    Just a thought.

    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.