Ship called Dignity wrote:Mary G wrote:The methodology is poor in my view because so much money has been wasted on detailed engineers’, surveyors’ and consultants’ reports for towns that are not going any funding. Abortive work costs. It is not a good use of tax-payers money, I would suggest. Nor is the process properly strategic, and it has taken far too long. I would challenge the Council to show any precedent for such a methodology anywhere else in Scotland. Our councillors could sensibly ask such questions: How much has this abortive work cost? Where else has this process been used, for different areas to produce outline business cases that are then scored? When other authorities – including SNP ones- want to make this sort of investment they first decide where they want to focus it. Then they commission the technical reports for that one place. That makes sense. Instead we have got five sets of reports, and only one (or two) will be taken forward.
Reading that you would think you don't want Campbeltown to succeed!? Isn't fair to have towns going against each other but at this point and time I'm only interested in Campbeltown!
Never one to be confrontational or beligerent, and not just sticking up for my cuz, but I dont see how you can POSSIBLY read that into what MaryG wrote.







