Urquhart resigns from SNP over Nato stance

Click on image to enlarge

Shetland’s regional list MSP Jean Urquhart has resigned from the SNP over the party’s decision to abolish its opposition to Nato membership at its weekend conference.

Mrs Urquhart will continue to sit as an independent MSP, but will have no official party affiliation. She been a supporter of independence for 25 years and a CND member for 35 years.

She came to prominence in the isles after standing as an SNP candidate in the 2011 election to the Scottish Parliament. She lost to sitting Liberal Democrat candidate Tavish Scott, but gained enough support to be elected to the Highlands and Islands list.

Fellow regional MSP John Finnie has also resigned from the party. Their decision to stand down was made at Eden Court in Inverness today.

In a statement Mrs Urquhart explained she could not belong to a party which supported Nato’s nuclear stance.

She said: “The issue of nuclear disarmament and removing Trident from Scotland’s waters is a red line issue for me, and I could not remain committed to a party that has committed itself to retaining membership of NATO.

“We are both steadfast in our belief that Scotland should be an independent country, and will actively and positively campaign for a Yes vote in 2014. We believe in an independent Scotland, not a Nato-dependent Scotland.

“John and I will continue to work with MSPs across the chamber for a fairer and more peaceful Scotland. Importantly, we look forward to continuing to represent the residents of the Highlands and Islands as we have done since May 2011.

“I’m delighted to have been part of the party for such a long time. We couldn’t have done it without Alex [Salmond] and Nicola [Sturgeon].

“We are full on for the yes campaign and full on for independence. I haven’t changed my mind on any of those thing, but I have campaigned for the last 30 years against Nato and against nuclear weapons.”


Add Your Comment
  • Ron Stronach

    • October 23rd, 2012 12:09

    I admire people who stand by their principles, but this lady was third choice in the election, she is only an MSP becuase of the ticket she got from the SNP; therefore she should stand down. How can she represent an Island that didn’t vote her in or stay in the seat her ex-party warranted?

    You either have principles or you don’t.

  • ian tinkler

    • October 23rd, 2012 14:06

    I have now, great respect for Jean Urquhart. I do not agree with her views but she has shown true spine and courage. What a refreshing change, an honest politician with a backbone, perhaps I miss judged her. Maybe a lesson hear for the fat banker(AS) and Mr fence sitter(TS).

  • Stewart Mack

    • October 23rd, 2012 14:41

    I agree 100% Ron, its amazing how “principled” some of our elected representatives can be when it suits them. As you say they are both list MSP’s elected on an SNP ticket, if they stop representing the SNP their mandate falls!

  • Gordon Harmer

    • October 23rd, 2012 16:41

    She is probably getting out before the rest of the SNP lies and U turns come to light, such as this gem today.
    Nicola Strugeon today has announced that the SNP have no legal advice on Scotland joining the European Community automatically if Scotland separated from the United Kingdom. This means that for months the Scottish government and Alex Salmond in particular has lied to the Scottish people, they have no advice on EU membership, so what else are they lying about?

  • Stewart Mack

    • October 24th, 2012 13:30

    It is truely shocking the lack of integrity or even to a certain extent honesy of our elected representatives – Representation by the people for the people seems to be all but forgotten. They all have their own agenda, and i have yet to see any that actually do their job – namely represent the interests of their constituents first.

    Even if she is getting out first, she was elected as an SNP rep, not as Jean Urquart and as such, if she is not part of the party she has no place in parliament at all. resign on a point of principle? it seems principles arent so much to the fore as is being portrayed.

  • Joe johnson

    • October 24th, 2012 15:00

    Politicians, they are all the same. Seen It all before, heard it all before.

  • Tom Parkinson

    • October 24th, 2012 16:42

    The assumption that SNP will govern in an independent Scotland is really, really wrong. They were elected to power in a devolved assembly not a national government. Once Independence is agreed the government will have to be dissolved as that assembly will no longer have a governing mandate.At that point most of SNP raison d’etre is passe; the left versus right “Scotland lovers” within the party will then tear each other apart.
    A whole new general election would have to decide who should govern the new (republic?) state.

    We would then vote to for a Nationalist or Labour, Consevative, liberal, democratic, republican, green; Scandinavianist or whatever type of government we wanted. Each of them would naturally be putting Scotland first because Scotland would be independent, so would you really need a Nationalist party? No!

    Therefore it is soooooooo unlikely to be ever anything to do with the SNP whether Scotland remains in NATO or not that this is a ridiculous resignation.

    All it does is weaken the SNP and they are the only chance the none-SNP majority of us have for an independent Scotland governed by our own particular political flavour of choice.

    Mrs Urquhart also needs to be “keeping rank” to help defend Scotland against cuts and the swingeing right wing blitzkreig on our social infrastructure during the two years we have to live before there is even a vote!

  • Colin Hunter

    • October 24th, 2012 20:30

    As an active member of “FairFuelUK” http://www.fairfueluk.com/ I write letters to various MPs/MSPs as part of campaigns to decrease Fuel Duty, or at least try to prevent further increases. Also about the price discrepancy which exists between the Mainland and the Islands, despite the public admission from the supplier that it only costs 2.7p to ship it here.
    I have received personal replies from both Tavish Scott and Alastair Carmichael, and an letter of acknowledgement from the PMs office. One of doubtless many thousand replies they sent to the same letter. I have yet to hear a peep from Ms Urquhart! Pity her principles do not seem to extend to that small courtesy! Or is she just along for the ride on this particular gravy train?

  • Johan Adamson

    • October 25th, 2012 8:58

    I used to believe in the SNP but now I dont as they havent done anything for remote and rural Scotland, they dont even understand it, they might as well be in London. Everything is being centralised, which effectively moves jobs to the mainland so there is nothing now in the public sector for our graduates to come home to, and the private sector graduate jobs disappeared a long time ago.

  • John McPhail

    • October 25th, 2012 9:20

    A list MSP is only there as a nomineee by a party. This Lady’s entire position is at the request of the SNP and she took up a post to represent the voters for the SNP. As such there is no mandate for her to remain. Her position is an SNP one and outside the SNP she has no moral right to remain. Principles only seem to extend to her own self indulgent selfishness.

    She has though this selfishness put the cause of a seperate Scotland, the central tennent of any narionalist, back and possibly even contributed to it’s failure. One has to question her motives in this respect for she is either extremely naive or calculating.

    As has been said, independence is not just an SNP issue. Many of us narionalist however know that it requires a strong party and push to have any chance of succeeding. Many of us know that once achieved a government of national unity will likey take over to continue negociarion before normal parties are developed and elections take place. This is about far more than the SNP but they remain critical if we are to succeed. This lady knows this and yet in a selfish pique of self righteous “principle” over something that she could have addressed after 2014, Mrs Urqhart has holed a once in a generation chance at independence. One has to ask what her ethical and moal imperetive was for joining the SNP and by extension putting her name forward on the list. Seems she only represents herself.

  • Harry Dent

    • October 25th, 2012 10:04

    I usually argue that elected officials who leave (or join) a party during their term of office should submit themselves immediately for re-election.

    In this instance I’m not sure – it’s undeniable that the two MSPs were only elected be cause they were high enough up the SNP List. However, when voters gave their support, it was to a party that had opposition to NATO membership as part of its platform.

    It is the SNP that has changed its opinion, not these MSPs, so perhaps it’s all the other List MSPs who should be resigning…

  • Colin Hunter

    • October 25th, 2012 18:45

    In response to Harry, this is what we call democracy in action, where a change of policy or whatever, is put to a vote and the majority carry the day. The people who “lose” should just take it on the chin and perhaps keep working to ensure that, that policy is reinstated at the next conference by going through the correct channels. They don’t have any chance of doing that if they have thrown the toys out of the pram and flounced off in the huff! The issue of Nato membership was not one that particularly bothered me, one way or another. More important is what will happen to Scots Nationals, Regiments etc in what is now the UK Military.
    I also agree that, because they were voted in on the “list”, rather than as individual candidates, they should now stand down and present themselves as independents in a by election.

  • johnmcphail

    • October 26th, 2012 9:07

    Parties are allowed to change policiea. Labour have done it, Liberals have done it, Tories have done it. Through a democratic debate and voting process the SNP have sone it. In doing so they have actually moved more in line with the views of the public. These two LIST MSPs simply didn’t like their party policy change which is within their rights but no matter how you dress it up, their position is entirely at the behest of that party. They did not get elected. The party did. So taking a moral stand is all good and well but ethics and morals are not a pick n mix and if you place ethicak and moral principles such as an anti NATO stance as core to your decision to leave and claim moral superiority then how can you hold to hostage the position secured by that party. Morals seem somewhat interchangeable to these two, when it suits them. Hypcrisy. And in itself ethically bankrupt.

  • ian tinkler

    • October 27th, 2012 19:43

    These two LIST MSPs, Urquhart and Finnie, are actually being honest and honourable. They campaigned and were voted for on the previous anti NATO stance of the SNP, prior to the last election. Be of no illusion, the only reason Salmon and his bunch of acolytes now take a pro NATO stance is to try and avoid the obvious stupidity of an independent Scotland standing alone and vulnerable, something no patriotic Scott would tolerate. Their true views on defence have not changed one iota, they have simply changed policy to prostitute themselves to public opinion and further their own narrow ends. No honour, no honesty, no firm policy just oily politicians trying currying public favour. Well done Salmond et al, your true colours at last showing you will do anything to win, turncoats and weasels through and through.

  • Colin Hunter

    • October 30th, 2012 12:10

    I see Mr T is back to doing what he does best, namely casting aspersions and name calling. The decision to change policy was carried out in a proper and democratic manner at the party conference and, as is the norm with these things, the majority decision carries the day. That is the basis of true and fair Government in any free country.
    Most of the people who voted SNP didn’t care a hoot whether we were in NATO or not, merely that we felt we were doing our part to ensure that OUR Country got a true and fair Government which represented the Scottish People, and not some offshoot of an archaic English political party which would end up dancing to the tune played in Westminster.
    One of the greatest freedoms afforded to the population of a truly free country is the right to leave. I would say that if you don’t like what is being decided by a democratic majority, then you should feel free to exercise that right. After all, you have praised Urquhart and Finney for doing the same!

  • ian tinkler

    • October 31st, 2012 10:07

    Well said Colin. Now, how about the right of Shetlanders to leave an SNP socialist nationalist independent Scotland. “OUR Country got a true and fair Government which represented the Scottish People” you state, now how about a local governance in a Crown Dependant Shetland with Shetland folk free of Salmond’s Socialist free state. Just out of interest how can an independent Scotland be in NATO if free of Nukes? All the members of NATO at present permit port and air base facilities to be used by nuclear armed ships and aircraft. Salmond seems to be unaware of this, or conveniently ignores that fact.

  • Colin Hunter

    • October 31st, 2012 16:53

    Ian, I see Scotland as a whole, Islands included, it’s one country. Like it or lump it, that one isn’t going to change! If you want to start hacking bits off to appease some sense of angst that you obviously feel towards the democratically elected majority government of this country, and it’s leaders, then, by default, you are as bad as them in wanting Shetland independence! Dream on! The people have the right to leave, as I said, But the islands are and always will be, part of Scotland
    We went to the Polls, the people voted, the Ballot box spoke! Live with it! I had to when we were subjected to years of Labour and Liberal “rule” that I didn’t vote for.

  • ian tinkler

    • November 1st, 2012 12:06

    Colin, how come you would follow and laudate a democratic vote for Scotland to become independent of the UK whilst vehemently opposing the same right of Shetland folk to democratically vote for Crown Dependency, with autonomy from both Westminster and Holyrood. A bit of a double standard is that not? You clearly despise Westminster yet happily embrace the SNP conveniently forgetting proportionally far more Shetlanders voted for UK parties than the SNP. About 100 to 1 at a rough guess. Does that not tell you something about prejudicial views? I have absolutely no objection to an independent Scotland if that was the majority view of the population, but under Salmond! In NATO but denying bases to NATO vessels and aircraft. Sharing the pound Sterling with the rump of the UK, but with the currency under the control of Westminster and Osborne! Sharing the same electrical power grid, but an independent and non-obligated England, having far cheaper energy sources to purchase than Salmond’s expensive ROC green energy. There is no way expensive Salmond wind generation can compete with shale gas, Norwegian Hydro and the new English nuclear build. Why would the rump UK bye expensive, intermittent Scottish wind power? The final Crowning Glory, Scotland keeping the UK monarchy. With every respect to Queen Elizabeth, the Windsor’s, I believe they have precious little Scottish blood if any. German (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), Greek (Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg) and at last, a bit of English (Spencer). Where is the logic here? (Geniality may be a bit rusty here, but still not much Scottish blood). All the above examples are Salmond’s recently adopted and changed agenda to try for a few more votes, typical political fawning and manipulation to gain popularity, very little true logic or benefit to Scotland…

  • Stewart Mack

    • November 1st, 2012 13:53

    I am totally amazed that certain writers can consider the antics or Urquart et al as honest and honourable – it is, and can only be, an utter sham. If they were elected in their own name then yes, i would have to agree with that statement. But they werent, No where on the ballot paper did any Shetland (or highland) resident tick the name “Jean Urquart”. She, like finnie was elected as a list SNP member. If she fails to represent SNP any longer her whole political mandate falls. I cannot comprehend why thats so difficult to grasp. So tell me, whats “honest and honourable” about continuing with your nose in thr trough once you have lost your mandate. It is certainly no sort of politics i will support. If she is as honest and honourable as is suggested she will resign abnd seek election in her own name rather than staying in holyrood under false pretences. If she is as good an MSP as (she) thinks then wheres the problem, surely she will fly back to her seat- Theres only one way to describe the current situation – Its an utter farce!! Before this, very few of her “constituents” had even heard of her – We hear from Colin, she was too busy to even grace him with a reply. Too busy doing what? Trying to get her face in the press. Absolutely disgraceful

  • W Williamson

    • November 1st, 2012 16:40

    Mr Hunter said (and I modified):
    “I see Scotland as a whole, Islands included, it’s one country. Like it or lump it, that one isn’t going to change!”
    (Whilst at the exact same time, a group of Scottish politicians and nationalists are tryin ) to start hacking bits off (The United Kingdom) to appease some sense of angst that (They) obviously feel towards the democratically elected majority government of (Westminster), and it’s leaders”

    How is that mentality different from that of Shetland wanting to break free from Scotland?

    The scale is different, but the principle is exactly the same, rendering your point moot.

  • Colin Hunter

    • November 1st, 2012 19:43

    Ian. I do not vehemently oppose the idea of Shetland becoming a Crown Dependency as you put it. I am enough of a realist to know that it just isn’t going to happen. Ever! End of! It is not and never will be an option on a ballot paper, whereas the issue of Scottish Independence, including the islands, will be. It is up to the electorate to do their duty on the day and put their cross on that paper as they see fit. Win or lose, I will still be here. The only other person to advocate Shetland “independence” lately was locked up and called a “silly old man” by the Sheriff! Well said that man!
    In do not “despise” Westminster as such, merely the typical Southern English attitude that seems to think that nothing but wilderness exists north of the Watford Gap, let alone Scotland, where one gentleman in Perth was recently told that he could not receive a parcel from them, because he was not on the UK Mainland! As if that makes a difference to the postal rates anyway! However, I digress!
    Mr Salmond, in line with SNP policy, has stated that they wish Scotland to be free of Nuclear weapons, not conventionally armed and powered ships and aircraft. An admirable wish. Whether or not it is achievable is another question.
    Why do you keep harping on about Salmond? it’s Salmond this, Salmond that! He is the democratically elected leader of the SNP and Scotland’s first Minister. he is only reinforcing his parties wish to have more renewables in Scotland. I don’t suppose it was his idea alone.
    And would you sooner have the Euro? The words frying pan and fire spring to mind here! And as for the power grid, There is an inter-connector in place across the English Channel in case you had forgotten. Or do you prefer “La Manche?”
    Also who actually cares about the genealogy of the Royal Family? The Queen is still head of state in Australia, New Zealand and Canada the last time I looked, and head of the Commonwealth. That’s good enough for me at any rate!

  • ian tinkler

    • November 1st, 2012 22:57

    Stewart, I was only comparing their behavior to that of Salmond. Honorable by comparison but both a total waste of space for Shetlanders, just like the SNP!

  • Ron Stronach

    • November 2nd, 2012 12:33

    She should resign and stand on an independent ticket, I think most of us agree. I do not like the SNP either so please do not think I support them unless it stands for the Shetland Nationalist Party. However, I do agree with Colin, I cannot see it happening, Who would lead it for a start?

    Scotland being independent from the UK lead by the SNP would soon discover that Devonport Dockyard would become the homebase for the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet and therefore Faslane would close. This would result in a potential job loss of 6000, right in the heart of SNP country! Do you feel another U turn coming?

  • Ian Tinkler

    • November 2nd, 2012 13:32

    Great news Colin. Tavish Scot and Mr Malcomn Bell have visited “The Manx Crown Dependency” and were impressed. Shetland has a once in a lifetime opportunity for autonomy from both Westminster and Edinburgh. Do not mock it; if enough people make their views known it will happen. (Shetland Times, Viking similarities). Just think, Shetland controlling its own sea bed and environment that in itself is a dream well worth fighting for. As for the SNP unless a miracle were to occur Salmond has shot his bolt, odds against Alex and the SNP 2:1 against in all recent polls, but who knows? Dream on.

  • Stewart Mack

    • November 5th, 2012 13:37

    Exactly how on earth will Shetland become a Crown dependancy? – not withstanding Malcolm Bell and Tavis Scott travelling to the Isle of Man (i hope that wasnt funded from public funds!) – and declaring their trip a wonderful success, at what point, ever, would either the Scottish Government or Westminster parliament relinqiush control of a major financial asset? Salmond needs Shetland to balance his books (and trust me i use the term “balance” loosly) and Westminster equally needs the revenues to prop up their “austerity” budgets.
    If the Isle of Man had any sort of tangible assets at the level of Shetland waters do you think they would still be a “crown dependancy”
    So, who is going to authorise the vote? who’s going to promote the creation of a new crown dependancy? 24,000 voices (assuming total and absolute support) against either the population of Scotland or (more likely) the UK as a whole – short of a full and complete civil uprising “Dream on” is a very apt phrase i think

  • ian tinkler

    • November 5th, 2012 15:14

    Watch this space Stewart. A sea of negativity will achieve nothing. Westminster would certainly approve a Crown Dependency rather than see Salmond strip Shetland assets for Gloriana Scotland. The UN charter and the right to self-determination have legal president so let’s await developments. My preferred option would be preservation of the Union with more autonomy for Shetland. Interesting times ahead but only if the apathetic get off the fence and take a stand and make their views known. So dream away your negativity Stewart. What change would you want to see or simply just carp on like a wet blanket and accept the status quo and acquiesce to whatever is thrown at us?

  • Colin Hunter

    • November 5th, 2012 20:43

    And exactly what have Westminster been doing for the last 30 odd years of North Sea oil but stripping Shetlands (AND Scotland’s) Assets? What about the Millions in Housing debt that the SIC ran up so that the country as a whole could benefit? The millions that Westminster could have repaid time and time again out of the BILLIONS they have ripped out of the North sea, and reneged at every turn? Get real Ian, They don’t give a pink Damn about the people up here and will certainly never agree to allowing us to become a Crown Dependency, not until they have squeezed out every last drop and we are, in fact, dependent once more! Then all that will be thrown at us scraps from the Westminster Banquet table! They need us a damn sight more than we need them! The words “Hole in the head” spring to mind here!

  • ian tinkler

    • November 6th, 2012 11:07

    Well Colin, Shetland has had one of the highest standards of living, prior to devolution as anywhere in the UK. Lowest level of unemployment and regarded as the best place in the UK to live. No bad for a Westminster repressed area. Now kept safe and secure during the cold war by NATO with every civil freedom imaginable, also allowed under freedom to host Iron Curtain sailors (Klondikers) although in a very dangerous strategic position (Iceland Faeroes gap and real risk from soviet navy). Not bad for a tiny offshore island. On a more personal level Shetlanders welcomed to any England higher Education centre of further education. Yourself a good example of course funded by Westminster. Regarding the Millions in Housing debt Westminster put money to Scotland to cover this dept., unfortunately kept by Salmond and only now a fragment forwarded by to Shetland. Now just look at the SNP record, kept housing monies back, put Northlink to Serco, hoisted Urquhart on us (great move that one), proposes to neuter NATO and our defences, supported Fred the Shred and Salmond personally adviser and congratulant to Royal Bank of Scotland just before the largest cooperate bankruptcy in Scotland’s history!! With a record like that whole in the head is very appropriate, but just who’s head?!

  • Gordon Harmer

    • November 6th, 2012 12:39

    In the last election Salmond was given a red card by the electorate of Shetland, a number of years ago the common market was given a red card by the electorate of Shetland. We were right then and we are right now, we will be no better off under a fabulist despot like Salmond than we are under a public school toff like Cameron.
    Let’s have a bit more autonomy for Shetland and more say in the infrastructure of services paid for out of the public purse. Holyrood will be as bad if not worse than Westminster at supplying services to our island community.

    Graham Avery, now viewed as a reliable source by the nats, has only confirmed that that an independent Scotland would almost certainly be compelled to sign up to the single currency and Schengen. It doesn’t matter how much this issue is dismissed as irrelevant by the nationalists, it is not going away. And for good reason.

    ‎”The SNP are so anxious not to fight the referendum on joining the unpopular Euro—, and they accept it is not now credible to talk of a Scottish pound, so they have now landed themselves with the most ridiculous proposals that an independent Scotland will have its monetary policy dictated by the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Under their plans all the decisions in an economic crisis would be made for Scotland by a separate government and bank from the rest of the UK, a form of self-imposed colonialism more reminiscent of the old Empire than of the modern world, setting Scotland including Shetland back years.

    The incoherence of their policy is such that while they claim independence will give them more freedom, they now have to admit they might have to sign a fiscal pact with the English Welsh and Irish under which the rest of the United Kingdom would limit the freedom of the Scottish state to spend or borrow.”

    Published treasury documents showed that while government spending per head dropped everywhere in the UK in 2011-12, it fell nearly twice as quickly per head in England as in Scotland.

    While Scots saw an average of £10,088 being spent on them – a £117 fall from 2010 – people in England made do with just £8,491 – a drop of £224 per head. It means the per person gap in spending between Scotland and England is now £1,597.

    The SNP now have proposals to ban new drivers from carrying passengers under 25 years old and from driving at night. So they want 17 year olds to vote, but this same age group is not responsible enough to drive their parents round to a friend’s house 5 minutes away?

    Salmond and his cronies treat the Scottish population (supporters and non supporters including 16 and 17 year olds) with utter contempt. I would sooner have Lady Thatcher back in power than an ex banker would be despot who would bring Scotland including Shetland to its knees.

  • Gordon Harmer

    • November 8th, 2012 11:20

    Alex Salmond yesterday hinted he could quit politics if Scotland votes to stay in the United Kingdom. Perfect reason for every one to vote NO in 2014, Tidy.

  • Tom Patterson

    • November 8th, 2012 17:07

    Its a shame that those who may want an independent Scotand think they can only get there by supporting the SNP. If I wanted an independent Scotland run by and independent Scottish Labour party; or Independent Scottish Liberal ,Democratic, Liberal or Viking part, I had to make sure the SNP get the referendum.

    However, lets be clear, a “yes” vote in the referendum is not a vote for the SNP. They will have to stand down immediatelypower is handed over and a new election called in a new Scottish Government with a new constitution, not this current Devolved Assembly.

    All parties should be looking at what their policies would be in an independent Scotland, and campaigning in the run up for the referendum on that ,otherwise the SNP will be the only choice, and that could seriously limit Scotland’s potential.

    That being the case the SNP should be redundant in an independent Scotland . There are left and right wingers in the party as well as centre-ists, and they would tear themselves apart trying to decide where they stood once the primary directive of an independent Scotland was achieved.

    This NATO/Trident debacle is just the tip of the iceberg.

    I don’t know what is best for Scotland , but I do know that if we vote “n”o in the referendum, Westminster will be able to do what Thatcher did to us with impunity because its only fear of the referendum that is holding them off at the moment.

    Once that loaded gun at their head is disarmed they will knock us down and give us a good economic and financial kicking and so much more than our fair share of “cuts”.Re-locating jobs etc to England where they will vote Conservative?

    So what is the least worst option? Possibly an independent Labour or Liberal Scotland?. Or even one where the majority of MPs are sensible philanthropic independents of integrity?

    Lets not focus on the SNP defence policy…its a red herring distraction and they will never have the decision to make!

  • ian tinkler

    • November 9th, 2012 8:57

    Here we go again “I don’t know what is best for Scotland , but I do know that if we vote “no” in the referendum, Westminster will be able to do what Thatcher did to us with impunity because its only fear of the referendum that is holding them off at the moment.” What a load of Nationalist, xenophobic claptrap. Tom just who are this wicked group ‘’them” who are going to do a Thatcher on us? Enlighten me please Tom, tell us exactly what Thatcher did that was unique to the Scotland? I thought she did the same to all the UK. Thank God she stuffed comrade Scargill and the extreme left wing Unions; otherwise we would all be in our own little Soviets now, equal misery for all!!

  • Harry Dent

    • November 9th, 2012 13:14

    Misery is pretty much what we’ve got as a result of the actions of the Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown governments, who all hacked away at public services and privatised anything that moved.

    Now Cameron is going further than Thatcher ever dreamed possible.

    Except it’s not “misery for all”, is it? Those at the top are, as usual, doing very nicely for themselves out of the depression whilst the rest of us pay the price.

    I can’t in all honesty separate the SNP from that gang – privatisation has carried on apace under Salmond, and I guess that would get even worse if his party were in charge of an independent Scotland.

    I’m certainly for independence, but the crucial question will then be, what sort of Scotland we build.

  • ian tinkler

    • November 12th, 2012 9:14

    Now Alex is rapidly becoming the best argument for the “better together” movement. Now perhaps people will agree, Jean, irrelevant as she is to Shetland, is at least honest and sticks to her principles. The same could not be said of Salmond .(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9644233/Alex-Salmond-refuses-to-attend-Holyrood-debate-on-liar-accusations.html) (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2012/10/24/bare-faced-liar-alex-salmond-s-reputation-in-the-mud)


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 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.

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.