27
January 2006
New boats now
NOW that it's clear that the current North boats are not best suited to the
needs of the route, I hope the Scottish Executive will not turn this into a
face-saving exercise by starting a new contract and using that as an excuse
not to plan for replacements.
This needs to be looked at urgently. Increased traffic which NorthLink
generated, means the present vessels are full in peak season. Increased
visitor numbers will further reduce on-board accommodation. If bigger
vessels can't be handled at Aberdeen, then we should look to a new Scottish
entry port for Shetland ferry services.
The current situation with Aberdeen Harbour in SE gales is bad enough.
Lengthy North Sea perambulations because of shallow depth over the harbour
bar are no joke for the passengers. If most freight and many people are
bound to and from the central belt, it makes absolute sense to use larger
capacity vessels between Lerwick and Rosyth, which also gives exporters the
option to connect with European ferries operating from Rosyth. Aberdeen will
still be accessible by air, but for sea-borne traffic, Rosyth would be a
sensible choice as a mainland entry port. Saving of road fuel and carbon
emissions would certainly make it a greener preference.
The executive should be taking a lead in planning for this and having
learned the lessons of less-than-adequate consultation over the NorthLink
lifeline service (it really is astonishing that livestock were overlooked!)
get on with planning for its eventual replacement now, not when the new
lifeline contract ends in six years.
If build time for replacements is two years, you have two years to consult
and two years to research and design and find buyers for the present
vessels.
These are vital services for the Northern Isles. The Scottish Transport
Minister says lessons have been learned from the past. As a Shetlander he
knows the situation himself far better than any of his civil servants. No
excuses please. Get on with it - and this time, Tavish, you are in a
position to make sure they get it right.
Yours sincerely,
Leslie Lowes
leslielowes@supanet.com
25
January 2006
Contract out of the EU
SCOTLAND lives in a strange political, twilight world where the Scottish
Parliament can only do what the Westminster Parliament allows it to do, and
the Westminster Parliament can only do what the EU allows it to do.
Effectively MPs at the Westminster Parliament contracted out their
responsibility for law making to the European Union, or the EEC as it was
then, in passing the 1972 European Communities Act.
The situation is summed up neatly in some of the key points in the Morgan
Judgement, issued 21/05/01, at Sunderland Magistrates Court. (www.bwmaonline.com/Legal%20-%20Morgan%20Judgement.htm)
"In passing the 1972 European Communities Act, Parliament surrendered its
sovereignty to the European Union.
"Every national court must set aside any national law that conflicts with
Community law.
"Membership of the European Union is not entrenched. The 1972 Act may be
repealed."
There are several problems with this. The EEC, a trading organisation, has
developed in the light of later European treaties into a political project
which will lead ultimately to the United States of Europe. In many ways it
is here already. Voters were asked 31 years ago if they wanted to join the
EEC but when were we asked about the EU?
Scotland could contract out of the EU and UK with a Scottish Parliament that
is elected by and answerable only to voters in Scotland.
Yours sincerely
Brian Nugent
Spokesperson
Free Scotland Party
www.freescotlandparty.org
25 January 2007
Don't throw out Teddy
HAVING read the report on Tuesday's infrastructure meeting I am appalled
at Jim Irvine's attitude and Barbara Cheyne's perfectly valid suggestion of
a "fixed link" instead of a bridge to Bressay.
How dare he speak to a fellow councillor in such a way. It would be a
disgrace in Holyrood or Westminster, never mind here.
If he read the report from Lord Reed properly the "council policy" is
invalid and reading between the lines the council should get its act
together and discuss democratically the alternatives.
Is the fixed link vital to the existence of Bressay, or is it really about
land values if Bressay became an extension to Lerwick?
"Don't throw your teddy out of the pram" just because the court ruling has
gone against the council and it will have to cough up even more of our taxes
to pay legal expenses.
Isn't it about time folk joined the 21st century and looked at the bigger
picture.
The council is overspent again, surprise, surprise. If it is intent on
throwing money down the proverbial plug hole such as the Smyril fiasco, the
Bressay Bridge/dredging debacle, the pursuit of Chris Hodge, giving grants
to dying industries that soon run into difficulties, how on earth can the
council sustain credibility?
Why is it so difficult to admit that mistakes have been made, give in
gracefully and go forward positively for the future of our precious isles?
Surely the fight for our rural post offices and the services that have been
taken away from them, district heating for all, cheaper fuel, more effective
energy saving methods are more important.
Give support to small business ventures that have become so successful that
bigger premises are needed, but are hindered by red tape and lack of
backing. It is a pity that some of our councillors have forgotten why they
were elected and what their job description is!!
Mrs S. Willshaw
susanne.willshaw@btinternet.com
20 January 2007
Come on Mr Ratter
GIVEN the major commitment that SIC has now entered into - apparently on
behalf of all Shetlanders - in relation to wind farm energy, come on then Mr
Ratter tell us this.
1. Just specifically and in detail how do you intend to 'bring along the
public of Shetland' to what is a black hole scheme?
2. Just exactly how much is being committed in monetary terms by SIC/trusts
etc to this partnership plan 'before anything major is committed'?
Perhaps we are at the very least entitled to know these basic details.
Stuart Dobson,
West Yell.
stuart.dobson2@btinternet.com
19 January, 2007
Another little debacle
WHILST the news of the proposed high speed connection from and to Shetland
is to be welcome, it is a pity the SIC/Charitable Trust and enterprise
company did not seize a better and on-island indigenous opportunity through
ScotSat Ltd to do this in the 20th century.
There were proposals to develop a satellite earth station (sounds grand, but
its simple) with server farm in Shetland in March 1998 through ScotSat Ltd.
I still cannot believe it will take until 2011 to get the speed of
connection and business spin offs that they could have had 13 years earlier.
This proposal would have given Shetland the capacity (bandwidth) to develop
all kinds of internet/web businesses including offshore secure data
management and storage capacity, the ability to run the islands own
telephone company ( BT at the highest levels in Scotland expressed an
interest in this), internet café, news and media development amongst others,
keeping revenue generated within the Shetland economy.
Unfortunately those mentioned above were unwilling to invest (no reasons
given) in such a proposal. Perhaps the fact that they are only now seriously
looking at one option tells us that that they didn't understand it at the
time and relied on advice from officials who equally didn't understand it
and maybe because the proposers were not in with the in crowd.
Maybe the venture didn't have enough high failure risk like the salmon
farming and other fish related failures over the years, never mind Smyril
Line.
How much will the contract with our Faroese cousins cost i.e. how much money
are we pumping into a competing island economy? What control with Shetland
have over this? What happens when a boat (the Norrona) or piece of oil
platform debris falls on it and breaks it?
Maybe the whole thing is heavily subsidised by the Danish government - which
makes it alright then!
The money wasted on the bridge debacle to connect two bits of Shetland could
have been used for a better solution to connect Shetland to the rest to the
world.
Is it eight times the amount in legal fees for that stupidity compared to
the amount that would have been necessary to create ScotSat Ltd?
The business plan is a bit dust covered but still ready to go - just in case
there is a change of mind, or some improved decision making arrives on the
council after May to prevent another folly. It is a bit late perhaps, but
more material for Up-Helly-Aa, as if there is not enough!
Yours faithfully
James J Paton
26 Smalewell Road
LEEDS
jamesapton.1@ntlworld.com
19 January 2007
No fish zones make sense
I AM not a scientist, but it does seem to make logical sense to keep
areas of sea out of reach of fishermen. To do so would surely be in the best
interests of fishermen as it would help ensure replenishment of fish stocks
that will feed and breed in the marine parks.
What other alternatives are there? To continue to deplete the number of fish
remaining in the sea until they have reached a critical level? To whose
advantage would this be?
I am looking forward to visiting the Shetland Islands again this year and as
a tourist I maintain a keen interest in conservation issues. Friendly
tourism and sensible fishing policies go hand in hand.
Tim Hopper
Faversham
Kent
tjhopper@tiscali.co.uk
18 January 2007
Shetland, reveal yourself!
WITH a great deal of attention I read the article in today's News -
"Shetland takes the centre stage".
I think it's great that Visit Shetland is finally starting to do something
about serious publicity. It is very important Shetland show themselves and
make themselves more known and not only in the UK!
As I wrote only last week in a letter to Mrs. Hay, I strongly believe
Shetland should be represented on holiday and travel fairs in countries like
Belgium and the Netherlands. We are two very small countries and the Dutch
and the Belgians love travelling. We are not afraid of taking on something a
bit out of the ordinary and a lot of us do understand and speak English.
Always prepared for help and suggestions!
Helen McDermott-Van Driessche
Lokeren ( Belgium)
iain.mcdermott@pandora.be
18 January, 2007
Please help marine campaign
HAVING visited the Shetland Marine News website, we hope that you could
help us raise public awareness in the way marine accident investigations are
conducted in England.
I would also like to draw your attention to an e-petition, which has been
recently lodged at No.10, and which requests the PM:
"To instruct the Secretary of State for Transport to examine recently
revealed evidence regarding the loss of the trawler Gaul, as per the
requirements of the 1995 Merchant Shipping Act, para. 269.-(1), and either
decide to re-open the formal investigation or present clear technical
arguments for dismissing this evidence.
To introduce legislation aimed to safeguard the independence of maritime
accident investigations from political and commercial influence."
If you and your readers support either of these goals, we would be grateful
if you could add your names to the list of signatories at:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/marine-accidents/
For more information on our campaign, please visit the following websites:
http://the-trawler-gaul.blogspot.com
www.freewebs.com/inconvenientcitizen
Many thanks and best regards,
A. Drysdale
ronaldtomrom@aol.com
17 January 2007
Well done Tom Stove!
Congratulations to the Port Authority in winning their court case in
regard to dredging and the dreaded bridge. The Court of Session at least can
see sense.
And well done Tom Stove for speaking up in favour of the council not
appealing against the verdict and getting on with healing such childish
rifts that have cost us tax payers an unnecessary amount of money.
I agree the public meeting is now more important than ever, and a joint
settlement reached before any more money is sent down the plug hole.
Sincerely
Susanne Willshaw
susanne.willshaw@btinternet.com
17 January 2007
Windfarm output is not what it seems
The following table shows the output of a 2MW wind turbine. The maximum
mechanical power developed on the main rotor shaft is 4.1GWh(mechanical).
However, when this is converted to electrical power this output figure drops
to just under 2.2GWh(electrical).
It begs the question, where does the difference amounting to 1.9MWh(e) come
from on this grid connected wind turbine? I think that we can all draw our
own conclusions on that!
I think that we can interpolate from the table below that there is indeed
something rotten in the state of Denmark and deduce that the '50% capacity
figure for Shetland relates to the mechanical power and not the electrical
power
as any reasonable person would assume.
Remember, these wind turbines come with the import meter prewired by the
manufacturers and they may well have 'unwittingly' by-passed the meter in
their rush to deliver on time!
In short, over half the recorded output comes straight off the grid and is
'laundered', takes on a green glow and sold on for £47.50/ROC.
Kind regards,
Andrew H Mackay
Greenheat Systems Limited
TAIN
www.greenheating.com
AHMACKAY@aol.com
15 January 2007
What gives councillors the right?
In
view of the fact that SIC councillors are up for re-election within the
next few months and the council cutbacks needed to enable it to live
within its budget are being delayed - and lets not forget the prospect of
having just lost the dredging/bridge debacle which could cost the ratepayers
millions -, what gives Drew Ratter and the SIC the right to enter into a
Wind Farm Project Agreement without the full and detailed consultation
process to which they so often refer.
There are serious and fundamental reasons why wind farms on Shetland as
proposed are seriously flawed. What gives them the right to enter
into a pact to even consider the pouring of millions of pounds of rate and
tax payers money down the black hole of wind farm energy, when they can't
even carry out a proper consultation worth the name.
Its about time Drew Ratter and his fellow councillors actually spent their
time getting right what they are supposed to be doing on a day to day
basis for the people of Shetland without launching into yet another
financial black hole.
If they don't or can't then the voters will take them to task in the
elections this year. Unfortunately, it looks as though most of
them will have left the council when we get a chance to vote no doubt having
committed us to yet further madcap schemes!
Stuart Dobson,
West Yell.
stuart.dobson2@btinternet.com
13
January 2006
Toddling for Barnardo's
WE WOULD like to thank all the under-fives from the islands who took part in
the Big Toddle for Barnardo's last summer. These terrific toddlers helped to
raise over £1million for Barnardo's early-years work and for their local
community.
Toddlers in the islands were sponsored to walk a half-mile, to help
Barnardo's early years work. They joined youngsters from thousands of
pre-schools, nurseries and toddler groups across the UK. The charity,
believes in helping children in their early years, as we know that a better
start in life leads to a brighter future as an adult.
The Big Toddle is all about children helping children. Groups were invited
to keep 25 per cent of the money they raised for a local cause, or to
support their own voluntary group.
Barnardo's Big Toddle will take place again in June 2006. To find out how to
take part, please visit the website
www.bigtoddle.co.uk
Yours faithfully
Kirsten Goudie
Events and Volunteers Fundraiser
katrina.slater@barnardos.org.uk
12 January 2007
ID theft a serious problem
With regard to your recent article in the Shetland News entitled "Hill warns
of ID theft", I am just writing to suggest that you also
include a link to this crime prevention site that I came across linked to on
a forum in relation to it:
www.cornhilldirectcrimeprevention.co.uk/
Having been the victim of personal property crime myself and subsequent ID
theft, I can safely say that there is some very sound advice there...!
Best wishes and thank you for an excellent publication,
Mike Santini
m.santini66@googlemail.com
9
January 2006
Blowing away that
"smokescreen"
IT HAS been explained several times that capacity factor is a simple
calculation of the amount of power a wind turbine (or any type of turbine)
actually produces against a theoretical maximum production if the turbine
was to operate continuously over a period.
In an effort to stop your letters page turning into an open discussion board
I present, as my final contribution to this thread, some facts demonstrated
by recorded data: Burradale Windfarm outside Lerwick has a rated output of
3.68MegaWatts. Over the 8,760 hours in a normal year these turbines could
produce a theoretical maximum of 32,237MegaWattHours.
Between 1st January 2005 and 31st December 2005 Burradale Windfarm produced
18,671MegaWattHours. These are actual figures and people are welcome to
visit Burradale Windfarm and read the meters and rating plates for
themselves.
Somewhere among the obscure calculations in his most recent letter, Mr
Mackay says Shetland's capacity factor is 25 per cent. Last time I checked
18,671 was not 25 per cent of 32,237.
I will add the note of caution that capacity factors are very location
specific and a big windfarm in Shetland cannot be presumed to have the exact
same capacity factor as Burradale or any other windfarm, although it will
certainly be of world-class magnitude.
That is why precise wind data measurements are being taken in the region of
the proposed Viking Windfarm and the location of the Foula wind turbines,
which can then be modeled against turbine output information to give
accurate, reliable productionestimates.
Regards,
David Thomson
Chairman - Shetland Renewable Energy Forum
david.h.thomson@shetland.gov.uk
8
January 2006
Wind energy smokescreen
I found the vehement response by David Thomson quite interesting. He states,
"Andrew [Mackay] seems mainly to be confused about capacity factors and
suggests that the capacity factors used by the renewable energy industry are
some sort of smokescreen to "falsely manipulate figures to disguise
deficiencies."
Well, let's take a closer look. We have been led to believe that a modern
wind turbine in the UK has an average capacity or load factor of 26%. That
is precisely what the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) and its
cohorts, including SREF, want us to believe.
Load Factor is term long used by engineers to indicate what percentage of
the year any generating plant operates at its full power rating. A British
nuclear power plant will, typically, operate at full capacity for about 71%
of the year. Using this traditional method of calculation a wind turbine
will have a load factor of just 6% because the wind blows at the required
optimal speed of 16m/s or above for around 526 hours annually.
Now, with a deft lateral shift of the goalposts, the BWEA decided to
aggregate all the power generated at varying capacities and divide it by the
maximum theoretical output. (The maximum theoretical output is generally
taken to mean the plated capacity multiplied by the number of hours in the
year.) Using this definition, the answer works out at 13% because the wind
blows in the 8m/s to 15m/s range for no more than 56% of the year at one
eighth of its plated capacity. (That is 6% at full capacity plus 56% at one
eighth capacity or 7%)
With another shift of the goalposts the BWEA decided, without telling us,
that the maximum theoretical output shall henceforth be the plated capacity
multiplied by the number of hours in six months instead of a year! Dividing
13% by a half gives you a dodgy 'load factor' of 26%. The actual capacity
factor in Shetland is 25% not 50%. It is the former figure that should be
used when predicting annual outputs. If this is not a case of "falsely
manipulating figures to disguise deficiencies," I do not know what is!
The implications of this are far reaching. All figures relating to the Lang
Kames wind farm production should now he halved to give more realistic idea
just how little electricity these ineffectual machines generate annually. I
do hope that the Foula residents have kept their diesel generator because I
suspect that the 50% figure was used in their calculations as well as all
national ones.
The routine shifting of goalposts by the BWEA and SREF to get more
politically acceptable answers must be both irksome and onerous. Has David
thought of fitting wheels?
Yours faithfully,
Andrew H Mackay
Causewayside
Glenaldie
TAIN
www.greenheating.com
8
January 2006
Amused by nappy news
I READ your report on nappies with some amusement. It's almost as if it's
something that's never happened before, especially that the GBH started
using them last June.
Back in the mists of time I had the pleasure of giving birth at 'the annexe'
as it was then called and disposable nappies were a thing of the future. We
were given a list of things to bring in for our babies and cloth nappies
were certainly a priority as there was no alternative. This is what was
done.
I can't remember the last time I saw a line of nappies hanging out. It was a
daily procedure, often done by hand, for those who couldn't afford a washing
machine. It took a bit of practice, but what a triumph when you mastered it.
The price involved in buying disposable nappies for nearly three years is
unbelievable, I know that working mothers have to look for easy
alternatives, but for the lucky stay at home mothers, what a saving!
I am totally behind this revival. Steep them overnight and get them in the
washing machine in the morning. Surely we all have them now.
No doubt there will be other revivals on the horizon. I'll wait for the next
one. Meanwhile, I'll be looking out for the lines of nappies,
Carole Radford
carole.radford@tiscali.co.uk
6
January 2006
In favour of Third
Party Right Of Appeal
Dear First Minister & respected MSPs
I am a 53 year old graduate agent of social & environmental justice, active
campaigner on issues of social & environmental justice & more recently,
elected onto the board of FOE Scotland.
I responded to the consultation process associated with the white paper
"Modernising The Planning System" for two reasons. Firstly because I support
fairness & equal rights for the ordinary folk of this country (social &
environmental justice) and secondly because I am probably one of the only
people in the UK that has practical - hands on - experience of Third Party
Right Of Appeal (TPRA) and have used it to influence developments in
Shetland to the benefit of ordinary local people and as a marker that
developers & councillors must take more notice of the concerns & wishes of
the people most affected by developments. The Shetland Islands are unique in
the UK in that we have a limited TPRA in our planning system thanks to a
piece of primary legislation, the ZCC Act 1974.
The recent publication of the analysis of responses to the white paper is
interesting in many ways but I focus on just the TPRA issue which is the key
issue in any changes to the planning system as far as fairness, equality and
a just system are concerned. The majority of responses (62%) were in favour
of TPRA so you have a democratic majority here in the consultation exercise.
The type of responses in favour of TPRA were mostly the public, politicians
& voluntary sector. The type of responses against TPRA were from business,
professional & academic sectors, many of which do not live in the areas
subject to the developments but who gain in some way.
TPRA in Shetland gives equal status & brought the industry, local authority
and objectors together to work things out in an improved way and there have
been no TPRA incidents for several years. This i feel speaks for itself.
The Scottish Executive have used the phrase environmental justice many times
but it is not a definition that only fits policies, strategies or actions in
certain areas at certain times, when it suits. Environmental justice is
needed in every policy, every review, every strategy, every action etc. If
you choose to ignore the majority findings in your own consultation process,
fail to allow those most affected by a process to have an equal right in the
system that will impact on their lives, you loose all credibility and the
right to speak about environmental justice.
In pure social & environmental justice terms, in a fair, equal, respectful &
democratic system - the folk most affected by a developer (who in many cases
live miles away from the affects of the development) should not even be
termed a third party. The local residents are the true first party with the
local authority the second party (representing the local democratic
situation) It is the developer who should in most cases be termed the third
party.
It is good to see the white paper talking about a system that encourages
more local involvement in the early stages of a proposed development but
where is the equability or fairness in a system that does this whilst
barring them from any further action once the decision has been made, whilst
allowing the developer a right to appeal if the decision goes against them?
Developers seem not to like operating a business in a fair system though
once in their own homes I believe they also expect fairness, but they could
operate in a fair system, so why should ordinary folk have developments
forced on them by an unequal system? I recommend all MSP's visit Greengairs,
South Lanarkshire and the surrounding area, even better live there with your
family for a year or so - it is a crime to inflict this kind of environment
on anyone living in a democracy. Shame on you.
Vic Thomas
Sandwick
Shetland Isles
vic.thomas@btinternet.com
3
January 2006
A matter of class
I REFER to the letter from Brian Nugent. A friend of mine posted her
Christmas card on Shetland, did not complete the address or post code and
added a 2nd class stamp. It was posted in the week leading up to Christmas
and took just 2 days to arrive at my home in Taunton, Somerset.
Another friend of mine put a 1st class stamp, had the correct address and
full post code and that took 11 days to travel about 2 1/2 miles!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan Potter
Wansbeck Green
Taunton
Somerset
Alan.Potter@avonandsomerset.police.uk
3 January 2006
In search of trawlers
I WAS brought up in Shetland, lived in Brae during my childhood and went to
the Anderson High School in later years. I was one of the first students of
a new fishing course that was started just as I left school, during which I
spent a very short time on the Scalloway boat Sunshine II, skippered
by Scottie Ward.
Many years have passed since then, and although I no longer work in a
sea-related industry I remember well the experience. I have now turned my
attention to building model fishing boats, of which there are very few good
examples in the model boat community.
I have recently started a website dedicated to the art of building scale
model trawlers and fishing boats. Sadly, as the fishing fleet declines
further each year, more and more boats are lost to the EU decommissioning
process. Whilst it's true that many photos remain of these vessels, there is
nothing quite like the magic of seeing a large-scale model ploughing through
the water.
One side-issue of the demise of the fishing fleet is the loss of UK
boatyards. Traditionally these boatyards built vessels to their own designs,
and as such, they held the plans. With the closure of so many boatyards,
these plans have been lost, making it very difficult to
accurately produce working models.
The world of model boats is quite dominated by tugs and lifeboats, and
whilst they are quite deserving of their attraction it's about time that
fishing boats and trawlers were given more of a push!
A key part of creating a good model is reference material from which to work
accurately, and I wondered if I might appeal to your readers to email photos
and/or information? I am looking for any subject matter to do with
commercial fishing, including the normally overlooked items such as nets,
floats and buoys.
There are some great examples of commercial fishing boats in Shetland (the
Altaire, for example) and I'm sure the modeling community would take
great interest in the challenge of building something different.
If you are interested in more information then may I ask you to view the
website at the address below?
Many thanks for your time,
Regards
Dave Leishman
www.trawlermodels.co.uk
