Nonsensical document (Brian Smith)

Shetland Islands Council will soon be discussing a report whose implications for life in Shetland, and the islands’ economy, is very important. The council made the report available at the very last moment, so many people may not be aware of its contents.

In an appendix to the report devoted to “service change options 2012-13 and beyond” there is a column entitled “socio-economic and jobs”. It is a section that many Shetlanders will be reading with keen attention, and, in some cases, fear.

“Socio-economic and jobs” is an area where the authors of the report should have been as explicit as possible, to leave no doubt at all in the minds of councillors about the implications for their staff’s and constituents’ livelihoods. Instead, the column is full of vagueness: “overall impact likely to be negative”, “overall likely to be negative in the long term due to … reduction in jobs/economic activity” and the like.

At a meeting on 23rd January UNISON and the GMB unions drew officials’ attention to these inadequate descriptions, and pointed out that councillors would not have a clear idea about the impact of their decisions without concrete information. The officials told us that it was impossible to provide such information before councillors meet!

Meanwhile, the council has published a report which has a lot to say about “socio-economic and jobs”. The Hutton report, by George Dyer, tells us that the council’s proposed cuts “could result in 600 full-time job losses, 422 of them from the council, and a 4.5 per cent fall in Shetland’s total output”.

Most of us would regard that as a catastrophe. But Hutton, and presumably the council, see a silver lining: “that assumes no growth in the private sector, which [Dyer] describes as an unrealistic scenario”. Never fear, the business community will make up the shortfall in a twinkling!

Councillors will arrive at their crucial meeting with inadequate information. They will be fortified by a nonsensical document about Shetland’s economic future. They should throw out the budget report and go back to square one.

Brian Smith
Local services branch,


Add Your Comment
  • George Smith

    • February 7th, 2012 21:38

    You are absolutely right Brian. The ” socio economic and jobs” section is so superficial that if this wasn’t such a serious report it would be laughable.
    We are in the death throes of this Council. I would suggest that those Councillors who intend standing for re- election in May should vote to defer consideration of this report until the new council is elected and those not seeking re-election have no moral mandate to vote this report through.
    No wonder the Council did not have the follow -up public meetings to the “Have Your Say” meetings,as promised by the Council Leader!

  • Tom Neal

    • February 8th, 2012 15:35

    George Smith . . . your idea to postpone the report until after elections in May is a good one. Let every candidate stand up and be counted before they’re elected.

    Thanks for listening,

    Tom Neal


Add 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 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.

200 words left

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


Get Latest News in Your Inbox

Join the The Shetland Times mailing list to get one daily email update at midday on what's happening in Shetland.