As someone who was utterly against this I did feel that the public meeting added a little credibility, but I'm afraid that's completely disappeared now and I am really concerned that the group are misrepresenting things.
Firstly, the group said at their public meeting that all contamination would be cleared up by the MOD. When this was queried at the meeting, they said no, it hadn't actually confirmed anything, discussions are on-going and it was 50:50 chance of success. Yet the flier with the ballot paper still states this like it is a committment from the MOD. Bit of a stretch by the sound of things.
I'm also concerned re MACC's post above
we are doing the count on the evening of Tuesday 25th
Surely the group themselves should not be doing the count? Where is the independant scrutiny? Who is the returning officer? Are they associated with the group?
John S and others have said they have comfort from the fact that the group have said they will ballot the community again following the development of the business plan. What was actually said at the meeting was that they "might consider balloting the community" If the ballot is in favour of the group they have 13 weeks to produce the business plan - a plan they don't yet have funding for, nevermind a consultant. Are they really going to be able to notify the community of the plan and ballot again (which obviously is expensive) before the August deadline? I personally doubt it, and they have no committment or obligation to do this.
On another note - the full register is available to anyone to view, if not to take away. This could have been cross checked agains the published register months ago - takes time, but surely worth it?!
I won't be voting - either yes or no. Seems the most powerful thing those against it can do is bin the paper as every return, regardless of where the X is, helps to progress this.