Letters: Food Security

Dear Orkney News,

Shetland (and Orkney) cannot afford to sacrifice their food security. The idea that the Lerwick abattoir should be threatened by the possibility of houses being built so close that its operations become unsustainable is a nonsense. If the SIC pursues this policy, it reveals that, as an organ of the Scottish Government, its priority is to blindly follow policies handed down by the EU or the Scottish Government rather than look after the long term needs of the Shetland public. Those imposed policies are designed to remove any possibility of independence by ensuring we cannot feed ourselves from our own resources.

The SIC should be mindful of the fact that its very existence is open to question and that it should put the future needs of the people first. I refer to the fact that, having challenged the legality of the election, no authority has been able to respond with any proof that it was legal. The police were given irrefutable proof of illegal activity by individuals and organisations, but have declined to investigate. By doing so, they simply demonstrate that UK and Scottish power is exerted here arbitrarily, not by any legal authority. There is no proof that Orkney and Shetland are part of Scotland and result of the election in Orkney and Shetland was void.

It is no longer a matter of discussing the merits of old foosty documents. The courts are the final arbiters and they are prepared to accept the Crown’s ludicrous assertion that it has authority because of a magazine article. To put it bluntly, we live in a police state under a foreign occupying power.

I congratulate the 245 who had the courage to forget about tactical voting and back the candidate who would ensure, by NOT taking the seat, that power would stay in the islands – that we would have woken up the day after the election owning the land, the seas and seabed out to 200 miles and be masters of our own destiny. Those numbers will grow as more people wake up to what is going on, but meanwhile the SIC should remember that it must put the people of Shetland first.

Stuart Hill, Shetland

Categories: Letters

Tagged as: , , , ,

1 reply »

  1. I didn’t know that the Lerwick abattoir was threatened? If this is so, my first concern is with the animals. Though I don’t eat meat, I do accept that if an animal has a good life and a clean death – fair enough if other folk want to eat it. It’s long been established that, the nearer the animal is to the place of slaughter, the better it is for the animal. It means less stress, fear, and possibility of injury while travelling. And, for the meat-eaters, it does mean a better taste and quality to the meat, as the animal produces less fear-induced chemicals, which go into it’s flesh. I do know something of what I’m talking about as, strangely enough, at one time I worked for Welsh Lamb Enterprise, and actually thought that organization was a good thing, as the whole purpose of WLE was to ensure quality meat, which meant that, to be accredited by WLE, the animals had to have a good life, from the fields where they grazed, to, and including, the place of slaughter.
    I risk going off the point – the point I very strongly want to make is – the nearer the abattoir, the better for the animal welfare, and, for that matter, the quality of the meat. This isn’t an opinion, it’s been proven to be so.
    If the abattoir is threatened because of development, where would the animals be shipped to? Then, would the meat have to be shipped back again? Doesn’t make sense.
    It took long enough for The Powers That Be to recognize that it was better all round for the animals to be slaughtered as near to source as possible. If this abattoir’s existence is threatened, that’s another step back wards.
    How a vegetarian came to be working for WLE, is another story.

Leave a Reply