Campbeltown likely to miss out on waterfront investment

[Mary G]

Should have added: The feedback and early update is much appreciated, John. Prompt and fulsome communication is the best antidote to rumour … and the sometimes-wayward reports of the media

[John S]

Well mary if you listen to Argyll FM you'd get it.

[Mary G]

John S - what about my previous queries? Is the Council as officer-led as you describe?

And as you well know, not everyone in Argyll & Bute can listen to Argyll FM ... and that includes Southend!

[John S]

They don't log in here either. When did you become resident in Argyll & Bute?

How the council works is a matter of public record, if people are interested the can find out. I have constituents to deal with so if you'll excuse me I'll leave the last word to yourself.

[general jack o'niell]

play nice you two or i'll take that ball away, its been bouncing back and forward and nothing is coming of it except party lines.

after watching the report on the BBC Scotland news last night, i'm still puzzled, will the £2 million they said campbeltown is getting be for actual investment and improvements or is that the same £2 million that has previously been mentioned for a feasibility study, if its for the study where can i get the job of carrying this out, so far it seems like an overpaid underworked scheme. i suspect that the officers previously mentioned have all got beautiful gardens, an old campbeltown chestnut aimed and council employees of various departments for many years. why should they have well cultivated gardens? simple, they do bugger all work during the day and need some form of exercise to tire them out so that they can sleep at night.

now that this fiasco has made national news can we expect the money to be doled out to the most needy towns in Argyll, £40 million for Helensburgh seems to make a mockery of previous statements and doesn't induce a lot of faith in how Campbeltown is being represented, thats means all of you, i'm sure the voters of Tarbert, Ardrishaig, Inverary, Rothesay and Oban will be feeling the same after watching last nights report. i watched it three times to make sure i understood what the story was but it didn't enlighten me anymore than the platitudes i've just read.

personally i'm sick of being the poor relation in Argyll, and no, the new pool doesn't placate me, that white elephant, apart from being built the wrong bloody way round (why put a whole wall of windows in facing north? when you have the view out the loch to look at?) was needed purely and simply because of the negligence of the council and other parties, in that i include the original archetects and builders and those responsible for the surrounding works that were taking place during the last years of the old pools exsistance.

not relevant you might think but wait till you hear the pool being used as a sign of the councils commitment to regeneration within the town, it'll come, don't you worry.

if the whole pot is in the region of £50 million, then it should be divided up equally with the lions share if any going to the places with the most need, not to a town thats within half an hour of every facility you could imagine. in campbeltown you need to drive half an hour before you hit a decent stretch of road!!!!!!

[Bobbie En Tejas]

... if people are interested the can find out.

That just reminded me of the first episode of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Mary G]

In my post at the top of this page I was paying John a compliment for coming on here and explaining how things work … explanations that work for all people, including residents. He maybe didn't didn’t notice, when he wrote, “They don't log in here either” (by which I assume he means Southend people – those who cannot receive Argyll FM) that at least two of the people who have posted on this thread live in Southend.

Anyway, I do not doubt for a minute that John is working hard, and doing his best for Kintyre, and the rest of Argyll & Bute. Being a councillor is a major commitment, and I admire anyone – from any party or from none - who takes on this significant responsibility.

For the record – and I said this publicly a couple of months ago on Argyll FM – I prefer a Council of any political hue, to an independent one. I know that there have been, over the years, many worthy and hard-working independent councillors whose interests were in the good of the community. However, that goodwill does not compensate for a lack of policy, and the consequent difficulty faced by voters in holding them accountable for performance.

So, in general, I would prefer a Labour, SNP, Tory, Liberal or Green council to an independent one, because you know what they believe in and what they stand for, what their policies are plans are, and voters can return a verdict on them at the following election on that basis. In my experience, independent councils are the political equivalent of a lucky dip. You just never know what you will get. You don’t have a firm basis for scrutiny, nor the ability to hold councillors to account in an independent council that you do in a party-led council – any party.

Then, there is always – across the country - a tendency for independent councils to be officer-led. I believe this to be fundamentally undemocratic. We elect councillors to deliver for us – not the officers. I was, therefore, genuinely surprised to read John’s comment:

“council officers make recommendations to the council, the council can choose to adopt or amend the recommendations”

This sounds like the officers are the ruling group, and the councillors the official opposition! I had thought that the Independent-SNP coalition would have meant that there would be much greater political direction; that the coalition group would put forward proposals on which the whole council would vote. Otherwise you have the potential to be highly inefficient. In this example, officers have done a lot of work on a certain premise, made recommendations that a particular town-by-town competition was the way to go, prepared evaluations on this basis, only for much of that work to be over-turned by the councillors voting to do things differently.

Again, this is not about scoring political points. It is about democratic principles, delivery and efficiency.

I agree with General Jack on the matter of substance – this sort of investment should be needs driven (a point I made in an earlier post). Such a policy has a better chance of seeing the light of day in a party political environment in my view. And I would be the first to commend John and the rest of the SNP group if they were able to deliver this in allocating waterfront investment. Go for it, John!

[Beachcomber]

... if people are interested the can find out.

That just reminded me of the first episode of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Bobbie, I know just what you mean and, as any of the folk here that have been in my house will know, there's a sign on my office door that reads "Beware of the Leopard."

[John S]

maybe didn't didn’t notice, when he wrote, “They don't log in here either” (by which I assume he means Southend people – those who cannot receive Argyll FM) that at least two of the people who have posted on this thread live in Southend.

"everyone in Argyll & Bute" is what I meant, as you well know, anyone would think you were trying to assassinate my character Mary.

[sooze]

well I did wonder about the comment on logging in here and it was only when reading the rest of the messages that I managed to calm down.

RE using Aqualibrium as a commitment to regeneration - that already has been used as has the work on the pier.

Sooze

[Mary G]

Hey John, it was not clear to me (nor sooze, it appears) that that was what you meant. Thanks for clearing up that point.

And as for your character, people will judge you by your actions, what you say, and how you say it. All of which are in your gift, not mine. My comments will have no bearing on your reputation – nothing at all that I have said here has been directed at you personally, other than to say – sincerely: ”I do not doubt for a minute that John is working hard, and doing his best for Kintyre, and the rest of Argyll & Bute.... and I admire anyone – from any party or from none - who takes on this significant responsibility.”

If you re-read that last post I hope you see that my concern is with the democratic processes. And I certainly don’t hold you personally responsible for them. In fact, I think you have been very helpful in shining a light on this part of the Council’s operations.

[4th gen Suthen']

I must be missing something what has Argyll FM got to do with all this?

[general jack o'niell]

i've promised to be good so i'll pretend that i never even saw that last post, obviously something we both missed. i have to agreewith mary on her point about a party led council, i'm quite sure that none of the indies have backup of any sort, nevermind the weight of a party machine to bolster them, and a majority on indies can only be a bad thing in any scenario as during campaign season they for the most part stand on a populist ticket, and i dare say theres a few that promise the voters the moon on a stick just to get elected.

once in office of course you wouldn't need to look far to see the amount of manouvering for positions that go on, this has led in the past to local representation keeping quiet on certain issues in order to maintain their position on some committee or other, nothing but glory hunters, there are so many parties in exsistance nowadays that to me its suspicious that anyone who seeks office cannot find a party to align themselves to? i know of one who took this route as it meant having the backup of a recognised party to boost his campaign and supply the literature etc needed to mount a serious challenge.

mary's point about an indie council being officer led is probably pretty close to the truth, how else could they come to an agreement across the board when they had all stood for office on a plethora of different policies, each one highlighting an issue that was local to their ward but had no significance to argyll as a whole. it amazes me that they can agree on anything.

a good example of this in the last election was certain individuals in their campaign literature claiming credit for things that they had nothing to do with other than making representation to certain sections of the council on behalf of others who had already spent years in some cases trying to get certain things done, to read the pamphlets you'd think they had thought it up themselves.

i still haven't heard an answer to my original question, is the £2 million that the BBC reported as being earmarked for campbeltown the same £2 million that has been mentioned as the cost of a feasability study or not?

i've just reconsidered my comments regarding the reason some stand as an independant, putting myself in the same position i couldn't tow the party line either, toe it maybe, so i expect theres a view that hold the same beliefs, they may vote for a certain party in national elections but locally they prefer the freedom to disagree with policy as they see fit, not an option open to party candidates, not twice anyway, afterall we all know that theres no party thats right about everything, scratch that, right about anything, not when it comes to whats happening on your front doorstep.

theres a mission for you john, get this whole scheme scrapped, its been flawed from the very beginning, start afresh with an open an transparent study of the individual requirements of the communities in question, then aportion the funds accordingly, what use is a £2 million study of campbeltown that will only end up with a bottom line telling us that all the money has been spent in helensburgh, we know your deserving but sorry, we just haven't got any money left, much like the new school issue, once we let it be known that we did not want a primary and grammar school combined it was cheerio, see you later, you'll have to stick with what you've got, even though we've been running the buildings down for years spending next to hee haw on the upkeep as we had earmarked the land for housing once we'd shunted your kids out into a new primary/secondary campus built on land that would swallow up the ground floor within ten years.

with the exception of Mr. Semple who i know to be of sound mind, some of the stupidest, vainest, self obsessed people i've ever met have been Argyll & Bute councillors, bettered only in their utter uselessness by the officers previously mentioned, in the real world half of them wouldn't get a job stacking shelves, no offence to shelf stackers, it's not PC to use ditch diggers, sh!t shovellers or road sweepers as examples.

had to edit this as i've just read another thread, pity i didn't see it earlier, that would have been one event worthy of heckling, talk about creating positions thats main aim is to seek continued funding to justify their own exsistance with no worthwhile output or benefit to the community, a suggestion box in the main st would have a better chance of coming up with something pertinant.

[LO]

theres a mission for you john, get this whole scheme scrapped, its been flawed from the very beginning, start afresh with an open an transparent study of the individual requirements of the communities in question,

General, from what I've heard, that is exactly what he was instrumental in doing at Wednesday's meeting, and as a result of this intervention, all the named communities now have a final opportunity to have a fair kick at the ball. However, my reading of the situation is that what they are actually bidding for bears no resemblance to what was reported in the Herald or on the BBC.

From scrutiny of the papers for the meeting on the Council's website it would appear that there is a maximum of £4m available as pump prime funding for up to two towns to go forward with proposals for waterfront developments. As a result, the case for each town has to be very carefully evaluated and awarded a score against predetermined criteria. The share of the £4m awarded to the winning proposals will be the Council's share of the total funding package with the balance being found from external sources. So if for example Helensburgh is successful, the Council will put up say £2m and they will then have to find £38m from other sources (an extremely unlikely scenario unless they can persuade the private sector to come in). If on the other hand, Campbeltown has a more modes proposal for a £2m development then even if the Council puts forward £500K there is a better likelihood of sourcing the additional £1.5m from external sources.

Anyway, contrary to what the Herald says, there is not £90 million available to overhaul Argyll's coastal towns. Instead there is a maximum of £4m which will benefit a maximum of two towns and bidding for this money is competitive. Similarly, there is nothing that indicates that Campbeltown will be having £2m spent on another feasibility study.The figure of £2m appears to be a speculative estimate of the initial investment required to regenerate part of Kinloch Road and develop the marina. However it would appear that the outline business cases for Campbeltown, Oban and Rothesay are very sketchy indeed compared to the cases for Dunoon and Helensburgh, and this seems to be reflected in the way that the projects were initially scored. However, it appears that the case for Helensburgh at least was much enhanced because they had access to all the facts and figures from a recent "consultant's report" which someone happened to dust down and add to the initial business case making it look in the first instance as if it had a more robust case.

It seems to me now that given all the other towns are to have the opportunity to flesh out their initial business case that Helensburgh rapidly slips to the bottom of the pile which will be a welcome and deserved fall from grace, particularly as it appears that the Herald was briefed from that part of the world in anticipation of a done deal (as my Granny used to say "They didn't get that as news!"). The Herald should not escape criticism either for their sloppy journalism which was later taken up by BBC Scotland creating the chain of hysteria that has been engulfing the shopkeepers of Campbeltown for the past three days!

In the meantime, while I'm sure we all welcome the breathing space that Campbeltown now has, we have just one shot at glory left and every effort must be made to ensure that the detailed business case for Campbeltown is so robust that it forces us to the top of the pile.

[general jack o'niell]

at last a clear answer, that makes things a lot easier to understand, something that the local press could have done in todays issue, but then they'd first need to employ journalists who can find and report a story instead of just rehashing council press releases.

it was never made clear on here that there was only ever £4 million in the pot, its not a sum that will go very far. i wonder why the towns case was so poorly set out, i've seen mention of two different set ups that aim to re-generate the town, exactly what if any involvement do they have in making a stronger case for the town? it seems to me that this is their goal so why have we not seen more evidence of their work in this matter?