29 March 2006

Thanks for your help

THANK you to the readers of the Shetland News.

Recently I wrote seeking help from readers of the News to identify Shetlanders who had been successful in the UK business arena.

I received many replies, most not unexpectedly referring me to the same small group of individuals, but in addition to that many readers also took the time to provide me with some valuable additional commentary about these individuals and the commercial and political dimensions of the time.

Although I have personally acknowledged and thanked you I would also like to take a moment to also publicly record my appreciation.

Sincerely
John S Sharp
New Zealand
jss@wccu.org.nz 





28 March 2006

Cats need urgent help

CATS Protection have an emergency situation as, following a recent death inShetland, 16 cats are expected to come into care this week. Currently CPare caring for 16 adult cats with 50 waiting for admission.

The expected cats require veterinary check-ups, neutering and vaccination making it impossible for the local shelter to cope with an influx of this size. Help is being sought in the form of temporary homes for three to four weeks during which time CP will pay all costs incurred. Once the vaccination programme is complete the cats will then be admitted to the shelter and permanent homes sought.

If you can display these details on your website, it would be a great help and deeply appreciated. Contact phone numbers are 01595 840 275, and the Helpline ansaphone 01595 840 517

Yours,
Christine Henry
gottcats@hotmail.com





25 March 2006

Anyone ken my ancestors?

MY GREAT grandfather was Robert Sharp, born 1867, son of William Sharp, born 1821, Ulsta, and Helen Anderson, born 1829, Cuppister.

I believe my ancestors lived at 14 Cuppister, Mid, South YELL.

I am desperately trying to find out as much about my family line as I can. I know they can be traced in the Shetland Islands as far back as the early 1700s to Magnus Sharp.

I was just hoping on the off chance that there may be someone who knew a member of my family or who may even have a photo of them.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Pam Eustace (née Sharp)
pomeus@adam.com.au





24 March 2006

Nuclear waste is always news

THE FACT that nuclear waste from other countries is stored at Dounreay and will have to be transported back to the country of origin either via Sellafield or directly will always be news, not counting the fact that some of this waste cannot now be returned and will have to be a burden to future generations in this country. Whether it is transported by road, rail or sea it will still pass the front door of many local communities to which I am sure it will be of great interest.

We are also currently in the middle of an "open" debate on the future of nuclear power in this country with the storage of nuclear waste one of the main areas of discussion. Surely the questions being asked by our MP Alistair Carmichael are helping to provide the sort of information that the public need in order to establish an informed opinion and therefore by their very nature are newsworthy.

Perhaps UKAEA should concentrate on addressing stakeholder concerns over the decommissioning process at Dounreay rather than telling the public what is or isn't of interest to them.

Regards
John Mouat
KIMO UK
www.kimointernational.org
john.m.mouat@sic.shetland.gov.uk




23 March 2006

Nuclear waste not news

TRANSPORTING European spent fuel to Dounreay for reprocessing certainly was news in the early 1990s. But a revelation in 2006? Not if you read any Scottish newspaper during the 1990s.

Dounreay ceased reprocessing in 1996 and the plants closed for good in 2001 following a Ministerial statement. These plants are now being decommissioned. For customer fuel reprocessed prior to 1996, the site will be ready to return waste to customers within the next two years. For the fuel remaining on site that UKAEA was unable to reprocess, negotiations continue with customers to send back a similar amount of waste and product to what would have been produced if their fuel had been reprocessed.

Discharging these contracts is part of decommissioning the site and cleaning up the legacy of Dounreay's former operations.

Colin Punler
Communications Manager
UKAEA, Dounreay
Tel: 01847 806080
colin.punler@ukaea.org.uk

21 March, 2006

Nowhere to go for music

I LIVED in Shetland many years ago and visited again for a reunion in 2004. I'm coming again in early April, this time with members of my family, including grandchildren, 14 and 10.

We are all anxious to hear some live music. We are not there on a Tuesday to take advantage of the Herrislea night, and upon enquiring, the only other places seem to bein the pubs, where of course, children are not allowed. Enough said.

P.S. The Herrislea House Hotel is trying to accommodate us!

PPS: My daughter Heather (ex 'New Faces' ) is too a performer, not of Shetland music, of course.

Doreen Nightingale
13 Mynd View
Craven Arms Shropshire
gnightingale@tiscali.co.uk





17 March, 2006

Meeting was farcical

I ATTENDED the meeting at the Garrison last night and was appalled at the way it was run. I realise it was advertised as looking for objectors but even objectors have the right to speak from a balanced point of view not just to be told by the largest supplier of drink in Shetland their beliefs.

I can understand as previously stated, publicans may have their worries, but please, even if you have formed your own point of view give respect to other members of the community giving them a chance to hear both sides of the coin.

There is much more to living in Shetland than consuming alcohol. After statements from the stage the meeting was opened up to the floor but almost every time people with positive comments for the venue attempted to speak they were either spoken over from the stage or prevented to speak.

Even when one person attending the meeting attempted to get them to see that they were coming across purely as the drinks trade objecting and they should be very careful about how the objections were raised, Mr Johnston spoke over the attempt to help their process until their supporter gave up.

This attempt was made to let them see how they could proceed on a better PR footing. The speaker was silenced as Mr Johnston thought he was against his point of view. It was farcical!

Long before all those that wished to speak were given their chance to air their point of view the meeting was closed down with a decision from the stage that official objections were to be raised and a petition were to be set up.

How can anyone, for or against the venue make a balanced judgment when those that are saying they are concerned about how our money as rate payers is spent, prevent fellow rate payers from having their say? Hardly democracy!

I believe the press attempted to get a much more rounded perspective by interviewing people from both sides of the argument after the meeting and I'd like to praise them in this effort!

Richard Wemyss
School House,
Sandwick
richardwemyss@yahoo.co.uk




17 March, 2006

Setting the record straight

I HAVE no wish or intention to enter into a tit for tat correspondence with Mr Johnston of the Shetland Licensed Trade Association on the issue of the Cinema and Music Centre, but once again I wish to correct several inaccuracies that appear in his letter of yesterday. Some as Music Development Officer and one as simply a member (and indeed ratepayer) of our local community.

I am not sure as to his point regarding local press coverage, but can only fully agree that this has been very balanced and factual in its approach and I sincerely hope I have never insinuated otherwise.

As he quite rightly says everyone is entitled to their opinion. But would it not also be helpful to back up some fairly serious 'observations', regarding the potential closure of local business and associated loss of jobs with some hard facts?

As yet I have not seen or heard these from the SLTA. On the contrary, similar communities to ours have indeed afforded to build and run successful venues without the licensed trade in these areas suffering as a result. Take Skye, Lewis and Orkney for just three instances, not to mention other smaller or medium sized communities throughout Scotland. In these areas a number of businesses, not just public houses and clubs, have benefited from the existence of performance facilities in a number of ways, both social and economic.

He states that the council simply cannot afford to build and run a cinema and music venue.....well, thankfully both they, and the national lottery, would appear to totally disagree.

At the SLTA meeting in the Garrison on Tuesday evening the association members stated that, as an alternative to one purpose built Cinema and Music Centre, we should re-develop several of the existing unused buildings around the town for a variety of cultural functions. Of course this had no capital or revenue figure to back it up, but was presumed to be a "cheaper option".

Refurbishing and then running old buildings rarely is. As a project team we did indeed look at this option but it would still have still been very costly, lower quality and operated in a fractured fashion. Then there would be the added cost of staffing, maintaining and running them all independently - a rather costly and pretty ineffective option.

If we are indeed facing "economic meltdown" as he insinuates, surely this situation is a bigger threat to our pubs, clubs and wider social scene in general than the venue is? Should we, in the public sector, not seek to redress this situation for all concerned who intend to remain in this community? Most would hopefully agree that rather than sit around and wait for someone outside Shetland to deliver the 'next big thing' for us, we should take a more pro-active stance, especially developing something we have autonomous control over, and tourism and our culture would seem to be two elements in this respect. Again other similar areas certainly think so.

If we are to attract increasing visitors to Shetland, and support this via the Shetland 'brand', we need a suitable, high quality infrastructure to do so, and inward investment will be crucial to this. Some of this is, of course, already in place, but we believe significant gaps remain. Less than two years ago, music was measured as being worth £6 million to our local economy, as it currently stands. If we were to be able to develop this further, surely this would be a substantial benefit to our community from
every perspective?

Again surely a positive approach to community development would play a very important role in terms of population attraction and retention, especially among younger age groups. If we continually paint a black picture who will want to stay or come to live here?

Of course I realise that the licensed trade is privately funded and they will continue to play a crucial role in our social and tourism scene. But, as has been suggested, this facility will NOT be delivering subsidised food and drink at lower prices than exist in the current marketplace or in direct competition with existing local suppliers.

Again it is his right to complain and I very much respect that, but let's look at this in a true light. Other public funded centres such as Clickimin Centre, Islesburgh Community Centre (for some events at least) and almost all our public halls (who do sell their drinks cheaper than local bars) already offer this 'service' - so where are the complaints in these instances? Has anyone we know of lost their jobs in the private sector because of these facilities?

By and large he is quite right when he says that the licensed trade does not rely on council hand outs. However Shetland Arts Trust directly funded traditional music sessions in a number of local public houses, and other commercial premises, for a period of two years until these became self sustaining in their own right. There is clear evidence that the bars directly benefited from such public support as did their customers - localand visitor alike. So public and private business does already work successfully hand in hand in instances such as these.

As regards the Folk Festival and Accordion and Fiddle Festival where Mr Johnston "rests his case" as he puts it. Let me clearly state the already agreed intentions in this respect, a point he seems to have misunderstood. It has already been agreed with both festivals that their respective 'clubs' should remain in Islesburgh, as they have always been, with the bars run by the private sector - namely Lerwick Boating Club or whoever.This is most certainly the best location and solution for this element of the festivals for all concerned. What WILL be held in any new venue would be further Lerwick-based concerts during both festivals, so both facilities will be active in this respect to meet existing and indeed growing demand.

Of course festival concerts in country halls will continue as normal as well. I hope this point is now clear and also the fact that the proposed venue has the support of both these highly important local events, who have direct representation on our Cinema and Music Venue steering committee.

Finally simply as a 'private' member of the community, not as Music Development Officer, I wish to substantiate my statement re 'scaremongering'. I personally found it somewhat disturbing when Mr Johnston stated they WOULD be closing both the North Star and Moonies Wake with the associated loss of 17 jobs when the venue opened.

This was for two reasons:

(A) Any future development of the venue is at least 3 - 4 years away - and who knows what may happen in this interim period. However it does seem to me a bit premature to be making such a clear and serious statement.

(B) Would it not have been more prudent and moral, as a very important local employer and service provider, to actually wait and see what the true impact of a development like this would have on his business before worrying staff as to their future employment?

David Gardner
david.gardner@shetland-arts-trust.co.uk





16 March, 2006

Why shouldn't we complain?

I FEEL I must reply to Mr Gardner's letter of 15th March 2006. Firstly I must say that as far as I am concerned the local press have not been in any way biased in their comments in recent weeks. They have tried to give a balanced view on both sides of the argument. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and as far as his claim of unsubstantiated scare mongering is concerned I would totally disagree.

Shetland is facing an economic meltdown, people are losing their jobs, firms are going bust, and we are looking at the biggest council cutbacks in living memory. THAT is the most important issue in this whole debate. The point he does not seem to understand is that we simply cannot afford to look at this venue in the current economic climate. People are quite rightly concerned regarding the set-up and running costs of this project.

The other point he must remember is that the licensed trade is privately funded and run by private individuals who pay their rates and do not rely on council handouts to operate. They employ hundreds of people and why should they not complain when the council is funding an establishment that will at times run in direct competition to their business? What is he going to say to the people who lose their jobs? If he knew anything about the current financial plight of many of these establishments he would see that this was
a real and serious threat.

The biggest surprise in his argument is that he states that the folk festival and accordion festival are to remain in their current locations. So he is saying that the two biggest musical events in the whole Shetland calendar will not be held in the music venue?.

I rest my case.

Iain Johnston
Rate Payer
johnstoniain@btconnect.com  





15 March, 2006

Bars will benefit from venue

I FEEL I have to write in response to the very vocal negative comments raised in the press regarding the Music and Cinema Venue.

I will place my cards on the table, I work with the music development programme on a part time basis, but I am not writing this officially from the Arts Trust and I am not on the management team for the "Venue". I am however writing this as someone who has a great interest in Shetland music as it was one of the main things that helped me choose to relocate here six years ago, and keeps me here as a resident.

I feel the biggest mistake those have made working towards the facility is letting it always be referred to as a "Venue". This title conjures up an image of a licensed building that has a purpose designed purely for performance.

I can understand those that run the North Star or even the Lounge having worries about trade. Surely though, even if it were run purely as a performance venue it would create trade for the other venues not decrease it. With a possibility of 600 of an audience in the town, there will be a percentage of those who would want to meet in the town before the gig and then continue their night out after the gig and visit either the night club or the late night opening bars.

This facility would be run like any Concert Hall or Theatre, where the main trade for the bar would be the time immediately before the gig, at the interval and sometimes briefly at the end.

If folk choose to go to live performances, with the exception of club type music, DJs etc, bars do not get their trade during the performance anyway, so there is no lost trade to other bars.

The Venue will never recreate the atmosphere of a session in the Noost or the Lounge, it exists there naturally. If you took that argument to a final conclusion, the licensed trade should prevent each other putting on live music in case they have something that may attract one drinker over another, it is a ridiculous argument.

For the town bars the more folk drawn into the town for an evening, they will benefit. There are economic arguments for the country halls too with the facilities outreach programme.

I must emphasise though that performances are only part of what the facility would provide. In a letter to the paper there is not space to cover the many facets that would be provided. I'm sure Davie Gardner would be happy to inform folk of the breadth of things that would be available

I would however like to highlight one other facet that would be provided - education.

The SIC Education Department, Shetland College and the University of Highlands and Islands, and the Arts Trust are working towards creating further education courses in Music Performance and Sound Engineering. Part of this would be teaching about the music industry, and promoting as well as well as performance.

This would give Shetlanders who did not wish to leave the islands to study, a music option. The facilities for these courses would be included in the "Venue" and as we work towards this we are looking at quality teaching that should also attract students from outside Shetland.

I'm sure no one would disagree a higher student population in Shetland would be of value to the licensed trade. As part of their training it should include creating and teaching how to run mini tours, including performance, engineering, promoting, marketing, health and safety etc.

We have the ideal facilities in Shetland with the country halls network, so regular visits round Shetland would benefit not only the students but rural communities. Creating lecturers jobs and keeping students in Shetland will have a positive effect on the local economy and keep the quality profile of Shetland music on a national stage, and help prepare our young musicians for the wider music world.

There are many positive things with the facility that will impact on the quality of life, tourism and economy here and I hope that those who have organised their opposition to it do not sit with their fingers in their ears, but listen to the wider arguments for the "Facility". If they have worries about it, why not get involved in a position of knowledge and work towards making this profitable (culturally and financially) for everyone inShetland.

If they want a public meeting why have they organised a negative one without anyone from the other side presenting facts about the facility? Why have they not organised open debate so that their members could get a balanced point of view?

Richard Wemyss
richardwemyss@yahoo.co.uk


 

15 March, 2006
 

Show some vision, SIC

FEW people would question that Shetland's first-class sports facilities have helped raise the bar for sport in this community, although when Clickimin Centre was proposed there were objections for a host of reasons.

Not only do we have Clickimin, but we have many local sport and leisure centres as well, all having contributed to Shetland's growth as a sporting community, now with an international reputation.

It took a particular sense of vision to enable that sort of growth to take place over 25 years. We should certainly be glad that our then Director of Leisure and Recreation, John Nicolson, had such vision and pursued it determinedly until it could be achieved.

Shetland was an active sporting community before these developments, of course, but a catalyst was needed to lift them to higher levels. Now we are there and still rising, few people would question the sense of creating a sports and recreation infrastructure to allow that to happen. The vision is proven and no-one is campaigning for closure of these centres as an unacceptable drain on this community.

We have to invest in our future or we stagnate and this applies in the cultural arena as clearly as in sport. The apparently controversial facility that has been proposed is awkwardly named "a cinema and music venue" but its purpose goes well beyond a place to play music and watch films. These arts have embraced new and exciting digital technologies that are transforming the way we can work with them in future.

The new facility is intended as a hub for these activities in Shetland, developing new outreach education programmes that can benefit every part of this community.

It is not intended as a replacement for films at the Garrison, or for a few tunes in the Lounge, but as a dynamic workplace, with facilities and equipment that can raise Shetland's game in music and in moving image culture.

Imagine a facility with an acoustic and sightlines that could allow a live concert with a stellar cast of performers to be heard at their very best, recorded digitally in CD quality and in high definition video, simulcast via broadband and internet protocol television to Shetland music enthusiasts in Glasgow, Vancouver and Tasmania.

Imagine a place where Shetland's young folk can come to discover how to use digital technology to create exciting audio visual experiences, to tell stories and create visualliterature.

Yes, it is that dynamic. It's not a cinema and it's not a concert hall, though it does contain both. There's a lot more to it than that. It does not need new capital to build it, the SIC are holding money ready for it. The fact that the Scottish Arts Council has offered £2.2m in support of the project - one of the largest single capital grant offers they have ever made - is not only a huge endorsement of the planning that has gone into this centre, but an indication of its status as a cultural asset on a national scale.

SAC do not throw public money at projects like this. It is guaranteed to have come under the most careful and thorough scrutiny, both as a facility and as a viable business with a fully researched and soundly constructed business plan.

All that we now need to see this project properly realised are elected representatives with a sense of vision to enable this facility to be created for this community to enjoy and for many others to enjoy with us and appreciate the cultural assets it will help create, now and for years to come.

Yours Sincerely,

Leslie Lowes
Kirkidale, Walls
 

15 March, 2006

Inaccurate scaremongering over venue

I HAVE chosen to stay relatively quiet up to now regarding the objections raised against the Cinema and Music Centre project - which largely seem to focus on bar related issues rather than wider community or cultural benefits.

However I must take some exception with Mr Johnstone of Shetland Licensed Trade Associations comments in your pages of yesterday which at best seem to be based purely on personal opinion, border on unsubstantiated scaremongering and, as far as I can see, lack any real evidence.

This issue has never been about "just another pub". Sure there will desirably be a café/bar in the venue, to offer our potential customers the kind of service they would expect of such a facility, and a larger bar during major events (as presently happens in the Clickimin Centre to name but one venue).

But it has never been planned to be designed as a 'pub' or to regularly attract the local trade currently enjoyed by such establishments or to directly compete with them.

Nor will it be subsidised to offer cheaper services than those in the private sector. Careful design, as has always been the plan, will deliver a service to purely compliment the facility and existing businesses, not to turn out more of the same that exists already.

As to closing pubs and associated job losses......well the evidence across the country seems to suggest the contrary. Take Kirkwall for instance. When Fusion opened its doors, sure Matchmakers closed their doors, but they are now open again and both venues co-exist due to both offering an alternative service.

More importantly other local pubs, restaurants, hotels and wholesalers in Kirkwall experienced business growth as increased numbers of people - locals, visitors and those coming to Orkney especially to use the venue (including many Shetlanders), visited not only Fusion but also the other facilities around it - especially the pubs.

Other areas throughout Scotland have had similar experiences. Kirkwall also experienced increased local activity as those who had hitherto chosen to stay home of an eveningnow came out again, having established a valid reason to do so.

As to the accusation of "no consultation". SLTA, informally at least, attended both public meetings that were held in Lerwick on this issue - leaving without comment to the best of my memory. They, in turn, have not tried to solicit a subsequent meeting with anyone involved in this project at any time, again to the best of my knowledge. Had they done so we would have been more than happy to meet with them and discuss these issues andtheir concerns at length.

There have been other "no consultation" claims, which given the length of time and number of studies, all based on community consultation, seems incredible to us that have been involved in them. For instance it was recently publicly suggested that Shetland Folk Festival and the Accordion and Fiddle Festival had "not been consulted on this issue".

Surprising.....you can say that again!!! Given that the Folk Festival have direct representation on our Cinema and Music Centre steering group and the A&FF turned down the opportunity to do so, saying that they supported our approach and we were to simply proceed with it, this accusation came as a surprise to us all.

These are not isolated instances either. There are a number of inaccuracies being levied at this project, which I sincerely hope we will get the opportunity to constructively debate with them, either at this evening's meeting, or as soon as possible.

However let me address just one....the statement that Lerwick Boating Club would have to close due to the venue opening and the associated loss of trade from the Folk Festival and Accordion and Fiddle Festival bars.

At NO time has the moving of these festivals 'clubs' from Islesburgh to any new venue been an option. In fact the project steering group agreed that these should remain in their current location (with the bar run by Lerwick Boating Club or whoever) and that the
venue could simply act as another performance option for both festivals - in fact potentially increasing local trade.

I fully appreciate and sympathise with the pubs view on this even if, given the evidence presented, I cannot agree with it. Nobody wants to see existing businesses or jobs threatened (remember we ALL have to live in this community) and I don't believe any of us involved with this project would have gone ahead with it believing this to be the case, more so if our existing facilities could fully address current needs in this respect.

Lerwick's pubs and clubs most certainly have a crucial role to play, economically, socially and yes musically. They do this very well indeed and I hope they will continue to do so for a very long time to come.

But please let's look beyond this, and the associated bar issue, and look at the other elements they cannot hope to fully address or the other groups they do not currently fully cater for. I mean issues such as population retention and attraction (especially among younger age groups), youth issues, larger concerts (to make them MORE commercially viable believe it or not), events for senior citizens, tourism related concerts, educationaland training needs, recording facilities, provision of musical services to support rural halls (especially in the outlying islands - as happens at present via the Arts Trust 'Co-Promoters programme) and the whole raft of other issues that the pubs and clubs in the town cannot possible hope to offer this community, especially as these elements may not be commercially viable in their own right.

Of course we may well have to pay something towards this, although nothing near the revenue figures currently being bandied around, if our existing business plans are to be believed. Given the other investments in 'services' in our community i.e. leisure centres, swimming pools, museums and libraries - why can't music, and other creative arts and culture be looked on as a 'service' to our community too, partially at least?

Finally let's not forget that this project came about, not through the Arts Trust or councils' singular motivation, but by public demand for us to act in this capacity - as far back as the early 1990s.
 

Davie Gardner
david.gardner@shetland-arts-trust.co.uk




15 March, 2006

Pub/venue - no comparison

I WOULD like to point out that the proposed theatre and concert venue really isn't much competition for the existing pubs and clubs.

A concert in a theatre is quite different to one in a less formal setting. The seating arrangements put a certain restraint on the audience, in return for better sight lines and better sound. It is ideal for some forms of entertainment, and terrible for others. For
instance, it takes an extraordinary performance to get the audience dancing in the aisles in a theatre; a pub or club is far better suited to "danceable" music, whether dancing is planned as part of the entertainment, or just happens spontaneously. On the other had, who would want to hear a chamber quartet in a pub? Different kinds of entertainment need different kinds of performance spaces.

As far as the complaint of the pub owners about the bar attached to the new venue, again, it is no competition. A pub is beer with entertainment on the side, a theatre is entertainment with beer as a "side dish". The emphasis should be completely different.

I can't speak to the economic viability of the planned venue, but I will say that in my small town of 20,000, there is no way we could get 2500 users a week to such a facility. Mind you, our culture here is quite different to that of Shetland. You might just be able to pull it off.

Rob MacDonald
Terrace, B.C.
RMacDonald@udl.com