Sometimes you despair.
Thursday was the first formal Council outing of Argyll First, the new cross-party political group in Argyll and Bute Council, arguably the most interesting developments in the summer’s fallow politics.
Argyll First is, for the time being, three Councillors: Dougie Philand, Donald Kelly and John McAlpine and the group is dedicated to ‘doing what is says on the tin’- putting first the interests of Argyll as a whole.
The group, making it mark as a serious initiative, had three motions on the agenda:
- that Councillors should, in the present financial circumstances, take a voluntary 10% salary cut;
- that the undemocratic Executive Committee of the Council should be closed down and decisions revert to being taken by the full council in plenary session;
- that the Council’s constitution should be amended to allow the formation and operation of non-aligned groups.
So what happened?
The entirely predictable happened.
The bully-boys moved in – on cue.
This was a not-unexpected tactic to try to snuff out a new attempt to strengthen democracy in the overheated log cabin of small town politics which, in most local authorities including our own in Argyll, sees democracy as getting in the way of the plans of the few and powerful.
Appointments to working groups
The Planning and Licensing Board
There were a number of places in this group to be filled at Thursday’s meeting. A key issue in Argyll First’s aims and objectives is its opposition to so large a central planning committee and its commitment to campaigning for a return to the area planning committees. Argyll First believes that local people want local councillors to make decisions in their local area.
It is obvious that, with this major plank in their manifesto – to overturn the centralised planning committee – the members of Argyll First could not accept appointment to that committee.
When they did so, they were subjected to howls of how little they do for the Council.
The Social affairs Policy and Performance group
Then there was a position on this group to be filled. Councillor Philand has worked in the health sector and closely with the local authority for the last 31 years. He has a Masters Degree from the University of Glasgow in Community Care. This experience and expertise makes him a natural member of such a group.
His two colleagues from Argyll First proposed and seconded him – but regardless of qualification and reason, the other Councillors ganged up to vote against his inclusion. In this distasteful action the ruling coalition of the Independent councillors and the SNP were joined by the Liberals and the Conservatives.
These behaviours highlight two issues:
- the lack of a concern for good governance in Argyll which should always see the most qualified councillors serving in specific roles and business groups;
- the bullying purpose – because the two behaviours noted above are contradictory. ON the one hand the Argyll First members were subjected to the insult brigade for lack of work for the Council when they were clear on wy they could not join the Planning and Licensing Board. On the other hand, when one of them was prepared and interested to serve on a working group he is eminently qualified to do, he was voted down.
If anything provided evidence of the need for an Argyll first approach, it is here.
The Argyll First proposal that Councillors take a 10% salary cut
Argyll First’s perspective in making this proposal is driven by their view of Councilors as community leaders. It was also putting before the Council the wisdom of being proactive in making it clear to the voters that councillors and electorate are on the same side and in the same position in the swingeing cut thats here and coming in the public sector.
Many Councillors not avoided the protest outside the meeting by parents whose primary school children are being forced to walk to school on clearly dangerous routes suddenly declared ‘safe’ in order to justify the withdrawal of the free bus service. Had they been outside, they would have heard for themselves the contempt in which they are held – with megaphone catcalls of: ‘Have a good lunch at our expense’ and ‘Don’t forget to put in your expenses’.
But in the sheltered confines of the last chance saloon, the Argyll First motion was dismissed as a publicity stunt and not a principled stance – yet these councillors are very significantly respected as principled people by the electorate.
With individual councillors demonstrating nothing but self-interest in successively wittering on only about how a 10% cut would affect them personally (How about the many who will lose their pub;ic sector jobs?), the motion was unsurprisingly defeated by a mass vote against, excepting only the principled abstentions of Councillors Vivien Dance and James Robb.
The ‘Executive Committee’ cabal
There is already considerable public disquiet at the establishment of an appointed 16-man Executive Committee which makes the actual decisions.
These are put to meetings of the full Council with, where necessary, the leading coalition whipping the vote and the nodding donkeys passing whatever they’re told.
The trouble is we don’t knowingly elect nodding donkeys. We elect people to stand up for our local interests and for Argyll.
When we cast our votes in local government elections, some wards will be casting their vote for one of the powerful inner clique where others will be electing a nodding donkey or a constitutional cypher.
This way of taking key decisions in a cabal means that all of the relevant issues cannot be aired.
At the meeting, the Argyll First motion wa dismissed as irrelevant on the grounds that there was no external concern has been expressed at the Council’s system of governance – and it was also heavily defeated with Councillor James Robb the only member outside the Argyll First group to speak in its favour.
Make no mistake. This will be an issue at the next local government elections and perhaps then an external concern will be expressed at what is, in these circumstances, a clear democratic deficit.
The recognition of non-aligned political groups in the Council
This was the third and final motion put forward by Argyll First. It was not even given the courtesy of a full hearing on the grounds that people had better things to do.
A member of the ruling coalition used the standing orders – simply to put the question. This meant that only Councillor Donald Kelly and Council Leader Dick Walsh could speak at all, as they were respectively the proposers of the motion and of an amendment to it. There was then no opportunity to debate the issue which again was heavily defeated.
The calibre of debate and the level of mutual respect in this process was characterised by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat group referring to Argyll First as ‘a toilet company’.
It is generally accepted that the level of civilisation of any society is determined by how it treats ‘otherness’. On this showing, the society that is Argyll and Bute Council is back there keeping company with the Neanderthals.
The disease
We use the word ‘disease’ here in both of its usages: ‘poison’ and ‘unease’.
The enduring hope is that our Council will grow into statesmanship and altruism, abandoning self-interest, vested interest and petty parochialism.
If this was the case there would be fewer concerns over the role and operation of the Executive Committee – which might, in any case, hear evidence on agenda issues from fellow councillors left outside the group
But in Argyll and Bute, as elsewhere, what we hope for is not the case.
The Council is not seen to be even handed – as in its indefensible discrimination of its unequal support of the Mid Argyll Swimming Pool – ironically the behaviour that led to Councillor Philand’s principled resignation from the ruling coalition.
Neither is the Council believed to operate objectively and put the public interest first.
We are regularly told of the long-time operations of groups of councillors, usually representing a couple of specific major mainland towns and identified by the name of the town followed by the word ‘Mafia’.
While such perceptions of local piranhas in the living room’s goldfish bowl of parish politics are not unusual, some of the stories we are told are of real concern.
In the end what matters more is that this is how the voters see the conduct of some elected representatives. The degree of ultimate substance in this view is less important. The fact is that this Council, like others, does not have the trust and confidence of its electorate. This is the major democratic deficit.
In this context, to redeem politics in operation and in public esteem, every member and every group in the Council must set aside vested interest of all kinds and work with even-handedness and – yes – altruism.
And in this context the existence and operation of an appointed inner cabal – the Executive Committee – can only cause a serious democratic deficit and further confirm the suspicions of the voting public.
Argyll First deserves genuine credit for its emerging political philosophy and for its members’ courage under fire.It is unpleasant – in the manner of schoolyard bullying- to be the few who are made the butt of the many.
In the 21st century we should not be witnessing corporate bullying anywhere – and never among peer councillors, individually elected.
We still hope for better. And Argyll First are unlikely to be going away.
The photograph above, which we understand is the first taken of Argyll First on their first formal outing, shows, from the left, Councillors John McAlpine, Donald Kelly and Douglas Philand arriving at the full council meeting at Kilmory on Thursday 19th August 2010.
I am very disappointed in this report on Thursday’s meeting of the Council. As the only member of the Council who has NEVER been a member of any of the various political groups which represent the folk of Argyll and Bute, neither resigning from nor being thrown out nor “whipped in” by ANYONE, I myself am uncomfortable at some of the statements in your article. I have no wish to start with ad hominem attacks on any of my colleagues of whatever persuasion, but had no choice but to applaud Cllr MacCuish on his honesty in opposing the proposal to cut remuneration by 10%, and the bizarre proposal to allow only Ward 2 and 4 members to claim subsistence (albeit I wouldn’t be affected personally). Those of us who actually took a pay CUT to do this “job” in the first place have (of our own volition admittedly) should not be further disadvantaged by further cuts in our income. We have families too! And we can be voted out of our job by the public, a fact we are all very much aware of.
I DID take the time to speak to the Arrochar group and forargyll as you know. My 4 year-old started school on the day in question and walks down a road with no pavements, a difficult busy junction considered a constraint on development in Upper Tobermory. It’s not far, but it IS a concern and I share the concerns of the Arrochar families impacted by a POLICY decision (taken by me and fellow councillors) which seems in its execution by our officers (OPERATIONAL Decision) may be flawed. Cllr MacIntyre from the SNP group likewise took time to speak to the demonstrators.
In the round, I could not see the Argyll First motion as other than a way to distance themselves from decisions taken by them as well as me and my colleagues. Fair play, I was and have been uncomfortable with some operational decisions, but have deliberately chosen not to distance myself for personal benefit from these decisions when they were made using policy I and these three councillors did not speak against in March.
On a more pedantic note, I am sure there is no mechanism for us to reclaim the tax paid on the proposed 10% sacrifice, thus making it a bit more- maths is not my strong point but I think this equates to 12.5%- an EIGHTH of my income. Who seriously would vote for that? Come on! I choose like many of my colleagues to support voluntary and charitable organisations financially and have no wish to use this fact to advantage but resent bitterly the suggestion there is something mean and petty about my (or anyone else’s) position re salary.
And one final point in defence of the ruling coalition’s political arrangements . It is very clear when a whip has been put in place as this is declared before discussion of issues before council. These have not been commonplace and I am not aware of the Alliance of Independent Councillors using it at all since I was elected.
Thank you for allowing me to make this reply to your article,
Gordon Chalmers
Cllr Ward 4
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Gordon Chalmers: As we said in our article on the Arrochar and Sandbank parents protest and as is very evident in what you say above, your sense of personal responsibility and your acceptance of that – in the consequences of policy decisions taken, is both rare and admirable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with the well stated comments of Councillor Gordon Chalmers on this issue. It is clear to me that as with a number of the reports published on the Forargyll blog, they only appear to take the views of one side and by doing so, fail to provide a balanced report. They make statements that are clearly wrong which indicates that they either do not know their subject matter or are just going out of their way to try and sensationalise some of their reports. Either way, I belive that this produces a very poor standard of reporting which is unacceptable and where it is difficult to submit any critical comments given that all comments are censored prior to publication.
They clearly indicate that a number of councillors went out of their way to avoid the demonstration by parents on the free school transport issue that took place at Kilmory on Thursday. The charge against me on Thursday was that I arrived early so as to avoid the demonstration. If anyone wishes to check the record, it will show that when I have a morning meeting at Kilmory, I always arrive at the same time (approximately 9.00 am). I certainly have not avoided parents on this issue. I have had regular ongoing communications with them over the past couple of months and have met with them at my surgeries at Arrochar. I do not believe that any councillor went out of their way to avoid the demonstration. Given that councillors had no advance notice that there was going to be a demonstration, then this would have been nigh on impossible to go out of our way to avoid it.
Forargyll accuses the “leading Coalition” of “whipping the vote”. This goes to demonstrate just how little they know. A whip has never been used within the coalition (or within the Alliance of Independent Councillors). As far as I can recall, no political group within the Council has used a whip on any vote. There is a legal requirement that if a whip is being applied, it has to be declared at the appropriate Council meeting. The records will speak for themselves. I for one have made it clean on numerous occasions that I would not be a member of a political group that applies a whip. I for one certainly take exception to such “misleading” statements being made which indicate that councillors, including myself, are failing to comply with legal requirements. This is a serious charge and I would ask that an apology is issued for making such a serious unfounded accusation?
As the blog states, Argyll First is dedicated to putting “Argyll” first. Is it any wonder then that those councillors who represent areas of Argyll & Bute Council that are out with Argyll such as the Helensburgh & Lomond area and Bute, are totally opposed to a political group that appears to have an aim of discriminating against their area?
At least one positive thing did come of Thursday’s Council meeting in that all 3 Argyll First councillors did actually turned up to represent their areas. Let’s hope that this is a sign of things to come given that of the 30 Council meetings that have been held over the past three years, there was only seven occasions when all 3 Argyll First councillors were in attendance.
I certainly believe that democracy is alive and well in Argyll & Bute. We have a very inclusive Council for those who wish to work constructively and to put the best interests of all the residents of the Argyll & Bute Council area first. It is clear that the Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors in the Council work very constructively with the Coalition, always putting the best interests of all of Argyll & Bute first. I would hope that the 3 members of Argyll First will come to do the same when they set aside their parochial aims and treat all the residents of Argyll & Bute with equal importance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Gordon
I may be mistaken but I thought you were still a member of the Coalition administration. My amendment to abolish senior councillor payments and investigate other expenses and perks as you know found no support. The reason Wards 2 & 4 were excluded from it is that they have a statutory right to certain expenses and my amendment concerned itself only with that which the council could control. I had hoped it would be the basis for serious discussion of payments, perks and distributing the workload but contrary to the Council Leader’s claims of openness and inclusivity it was ignored by him. There may have been no whips declared but no-one in the Establishment broke ranks over Argyll First motions so there are obviously many ways to skin a cat.
I found it simply incredible that 16 of the 20 disenfranchised councillors thought it acceptable on three quarters of Council decisions not to have the right to vote, put forward amendments or have their views and those of their constituents recorded. I can’t justify a two tier democracy to those who I represent at Council. I would be interested to know how others do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
James Robb is entirely correct in his assertion that I am a member of the ruling coalition. As a genuinely independent councillor I regard it as a good thing that I can work from within a group that does not need me but still includes me and listens to my input and can attempt to drive policy and performance forward in a difficult political and economic climate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good comments, and responses gentlemen. Enlightening reading. Would either of you care to share, even just a ball park figure, of what your respective annual salaries are and how many hours, actualy work, per week you carry out for the local area to receive that?
It would also show great openess and honesty if you included your annual expenses claims too, just for a comparrison???
I’d completely understand if you decline and I know it probably can be obtained from records already in the public domain. It’s just that seen as how you are being so admirable, I though it would be a real breath of fresh air in local politics to see it come ‘straight from the horses mouth’ so to speak?
Best,
Colin
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Regardless of how I feel about the issues proposed by Argyll First at last Thursday’s meeting, once again I find myself reading your site and wondering whether you took the time to check your facts? Isn’t that an essential for a site claiming to report news?
Was a For Argyll representative in attendance at Thursday’s meeting? I was – and I can assure you that the three motions submitted by Argyll First were debated for some considerable time. No whip was employed, as Councillor Freeman points out. If For Argyll could not manage to send a reporter to cover the meeting properly, then a couple of phone calls could very easily have clarified these issues and enabled an accurate report to be published.
There’s a Biblical saying which paraphrases as “if you can be trusted with the small things, you can be trusted with the big things.” A news website is great if readers can rely on the facts being accurate. Yet again, though, when it comes to the “small things” you’ve not bothered to check your facts. How do we know you’ve got the bigger issues right?
There is also a complete lack of balance – lots of accusations of bully tactics and machinations, but I see no comment, confirmation or clarification was sought from the other side of this debate.
There are plenty of other blogs and websites out there reporting unsubstantiated rubbish. For Argyll purports to be a ‘broadsheet news service’. Is it doing what it says on the tin? Really?
I see that there are other articles on your site where comments have been submitted questioning the accuracy of your reporting. Invariably they do not receive a reply from your writer/s or editor/s. I do not expect that this one will, either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The only time that I can recall a member of the Coalition putting forward an amendment to a Coalition motion at the Council was over a senior appointment. I resigned from the Coalition at the first available opportunity becoming the only independent councillor, not part of any group. I am happy to work with any group or support its proposals if I believe it is in the best interests of residents, particularly those I represent. Sure you could say your piece and even be allowed to abstain or vote against if the Coalition had the numbers to secure the vote without you. That is a political group in anyone’s book, as successfully argued by the Establishment on Thursday in response to the Argyll First motion. So most council decisions are taken in the Leader’s office, endorsed at the Coalition meeting on the Monday prior to being rubber stamped on the Thursday at Executive/Council.
Salaries and expenses are a public record: Leader £32,470, Provost and Spokespersons £24,353, Area Chairs and Leader of Largest ‘Opposition’ Group £19,962, Basic Councillor £16,234. Expenses are on Council website.
Interesting point about hours: there seemed to be a bidding war at one point in the council chamber as Senior Members sought to justify their extra money. It is a fact that ‘basis salary’ councillors can put in just as many if not more hours. The question that was never asked was how much of that time was necessary or effective. For, example on the basis I have had a reasonable education and can read I choose sometimes not to waste council funds on expenses by travelling 1.5 hours to Kilmory to have something read to me in a 30 minute presentation.
However, I always try to answer the question and the answer is it varies: 30 – 60 hours with occasional extremes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Who is cailleach – how did she (old woman?) vote? Any validity in the criticism is diminished from coming behind the veil of annnonymity. Obviously one of the Establishment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Mr Robb: I didn’t vote, as I am not an elected member, nor am I “one of the establishment” – on that note, I must thank you for giving me a good laugh! I am not too old, but can frequently be grumpy – hence ‘cailleach’.
I attended the meeting in my professional capacity – and no, I don’t work for Argyll and Bute Council! When I’m working, I don’t hide behind an anonymous byline – I have to be prepared to take criticism when it’s due and to answer for any mistakes or errors that I make. However, when I comment on a public website in my own time and as a private individual, I reserve the right to use a pseudonym, as many other internet users do, to protect their privacy. (That said, if anyone really wants to know who I am, they only have to ask and I’ll tell them).
There is a difference between doing that and doing what For Argyll’s newsroom does. It purports to be a news service – a broadsheet one at that. It claims to be doing a professional job. When challenged, as it often is, on points of accuracy, there is rarely a response and the author does not reveal him or herself. (This is also true when the site publishes opinion pieces – often written in the first person but with no clues as to the identity of the author).
Compare this practice with a professional broadsheet online news service such as Herald Scotland or Caledonian Mercury, where bylines and authors are identified, queries are investigated and if a correction is needed then this is acted upon – openly and publicly.
I make no apology for querying inaccuracy and a lack of balance when it comes to news reporting.
If For Argyll wants to be an anonymous blog, fine. If it wants to be a professional broadsheet online news service – which is what it claims to be – then there are times when it should improve its game. Just in my humble opinion, of course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To the young lady!
Intrigued now. My gaelic is a very limited having forotten all that was learnt at my grannie’s but you can email on james.robb@argyll-bute.gov.uk with a promise to preserve your wider annonymity. I think you can also find out who newsroom is by simply asking as well (if you didn’t already know).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Councillor George Freeman: a point of fact – we do not ‘censor all comments before publication’. In the lifetime to date of this service, we have blocked – not censored – four comments. One was racist, one libellous, one a smear and one simply turned the air blue in pointless rage at a third party.
Beyond these, we have on two occasions removed a sentence from each of two comments before approving them for publication. In each case these made a third party, a private person, identifiable in the context of personal abuse offered on the grounds of being an incomer – a matter we consider to be racist.
None of the above comments were in any way about For Argyll itself or about anything we had written.
Every single comment submitted which has been critical at whatever level of anything we have written, has been published verbatim and in full.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do not consider to go into a tit for tat e-mail battle with councillor freeman but I will illustrate precisely how things do get mis represented. If councillor freeman had taken the time to examine all councillors attendances since 2007 at all formally recorded meetings which is publically available on the council website, he would have seen that from the top 15 poor attendees the majority have come from the coalition group however we at least recognise personal issues such as bereavements and illness do affect attendances. Had he considered the name of the current council which is called Argyll and Bute, there is no mention of helensburgh and Lomond because it is taken as a given that these areas are included in the council area. So to suggest that Argyll first has an aim to discriminate against the Helensburgh and Lomond area has no foundation. Cllr freeman states that since the 30 council meetings have commenced only on 7 occasions have we all been in the chamber at the one time. Given that we as a group have only formed up in the summer of this year and been at the one and only council meeting as a group last Thursday we actually have a 100% attendance. Had Councillor Freeman taken the time to read our Aims and objectives which were sent to him it clearly states in quote “To represent the views of the constituents of Argyll and Bute”. If this is parochial as he suggests then he too is guilty of the same.I do hope this clarifies the points that councillor freeman has made about our group
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where an article attracts negative comments it is our general policy to publish these verbatim and not to respond unless there is any factual inaccuracy in what we have said.
Where we have got something wrong – or not right enough – we are quick to see, admit and correct, as Councillor Freeman is well aware.
But we do not simply roll over when faced with negative criticisms per se.
In this case, we see no essential inaccuracy in anything we have said and we stand by our concerns with corporate behaviour no different from schoolyard bullying. This may be the traditional mode but it is unacceptable.
This does not mean that we see Argyll First as perfect but, on evidence, we believe them to be honourable and that, as such, the points they make merit attention and informed debate.
In the matter of whipping, there is formal whipping and there is subliminal whipping by attitudinal habit.
In the matter of the unanimous rejection of Councillor Philand for a place on the Social Affairs Policy and Performance group, it is hard to believe that, with his eminently appropriate qualifications for the place, every single Councillor outside the gang of three considered that his grounds for appointment had relatively insufficient merit.
On the issue of a voluntary reduction in councillors’ salary, while we understand Argyll First’s anxiety about councillors becoming alienated from constituents about to be hard hit by coming cuts, we are editorially on the record as saying that we believe – for given reasons – that councillors should be paid substantially more than they are at present. This argument was published – appropriately – in our article on Argyll First’s submission of its motion on the matter.
As far as ‘balanced’ coverage is concerned, we consider much of what passes for this in the media at all levels to be no more than fence sitting, resulting in an undeserved elevation of cases of small merit to a level equal to those of far greater merit.
Our procedure is to identify the greater case as we see it – giving reasons for such a perspective – taking account of contrary points of genuine merit in the issue but not elevating essentially minor points to that status where nothing of substance exists.
We are working to offer something that does not largely exist elsewhere – clear statements of value and imperative that are fair but not ‘balanced’ in the outdated and misleading manner described above.
We offer a comment facility open to anyone and everyone on every story we publish in a commitment to free speech and offering a means for any individual to add what ‘balance’ they see as lacking in what we have said – and to offer new perspectives and information.
On the evidence, this procedure leads to rich collective dialogue which we are proud to enable and which arises from our own clear position statements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I note that Forargyll states above that: “Every single comment submitted which has been critical at whatever level of anything we have written, has been published verbatim and in full”. Lynda Henderson of Forargyll will be aware that I sent her an email on 9 August 2010 that highlighted a number of major “inaccuracies” in the report on the Arrochar Free School Transport issue and and in which I was critical of the standard of reporting on this issue. At the end of my email, I specifically asked for my comments be published on the Forargyll blog. AS I EXPECTED, MY COMMENTS WERE NOT PUBLISHED EVEN ALTHOUGH I RECEIVED AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO MY EMAIL FROM MS HENDERSON???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Councillor George Freeman: point of fact – the comment facility on all our stories is open to anyone to submit what they like. We are a small and extremely busy team and cannot reasonably be expected to publish comments emailed instead of posted.
We responded promptly to your email – and not, as you imply, with a simple acknowledgment of receipt. We made corrections, we acknowledged both this and you as the prompt for the correction.
In the process of this we exchanged emails with you and emailed you to let you know that corrections had been made and acknowledged. This is our procedure in all such instances.
We therefore find your comment here inaccurate, ungenerous and misleading.
In the actions we took on this occasion we were – and remain – comfortable that we had responded properly and fully to your direct communication with us.
Moreover, from memory, we suggested that you should publish your comment yourself, which you did not do.
As an equally busy person, you may quite reasonably have felt that, since we had taken your point, acted on it and acknowledged it, you had no need to take time to post the contents of your email as a comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
George
I recall this because I wrote to thank you for your support of the Scottish Government’s housing policy and the efforts of Jim Mather MSP to secure agood deal forl Argyll & Bute.
I recall you saying you had posted your comment but obviously you hadn’t and For Argyll offering to publish them on your behalf if you were too busy and so indicated.
Newsroom
Factual correction: I also supported Dougie’s appointment to Social Affairs PPG
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quote newsroom” As far as ‘balanced’ coverage is concerned, we consider much of what passes for this in the media at all levels to be no more than fence sitting, resulting in an undeserved elevation of cases of small merit to a level equal to those of far greater merit.
Our procedure is to identify the greater case as we see it – giving reasons for such a perspective – taking account of contrary points of genuine merit in the issue but not elevating essentially minor points to that status where nothing of substance exists.
We are working to offer something that does not largely exist elsewhere – clear statements of value and imperative that are fair but not ‘balanced’ in the outdated and misleading manner described above.”
Simply my opinion, of course, but I don’t see this evident in your original article. I see no summary or even brief mention of the other side of the extensive debate that took place on the Argyll First motions. I see no mention of the detail of the amendments which were put forward by the administration. I see no indication whatsoever that For Argyll was present at the meeting and considered all the circumstances, all the facts, all the discussion, all the points made, before deciding on its angle.
What I do see is a one-sided article – and I say that regardless of whether I agree with the Argyll First motions; that’s beside the point. I can only judge by my own reading of your published article, and it seems, to me, that you’ve received information from one side of the debate and have simply run with it – admittedly with your own analysis but without any further investigation of other aspects. There was no For Argyll representative covering the meeting, so the information you publish may be third hand or, if straight from the mouth of one of the horses at the meeting, it will inevitably be biased to some degree (and I say that without prejudice or offence meant to your source). There are no direct, attributed quotes, so it’s hard to say.
Lazy journalism. Anyone can pontificate about ‘offering something that does not exist elsewhere’. Anyone can hear one side of a story and make something out of it – let’s face it, tabloids do it all the time! Of course seeking balance carries the danger of sitting on the fence. But that’s no excuse for lazy journalism – especially when its proponents respond to query or criticism by expounding on how they do it better than everyone else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Cailleach “Lazy journalism”? Hmm … I wonder, have you read the local newspapers recently? I think what we see with ForArgyll is a willingness to confront issues no-other news outlet in Argyll is really prepared to. I don’t see that as lazy. What i do see is an organisation doing something on a shoe-string and doing it well enough to provoke both the politicians and people like yourself. I have never seen such forthrightness in ‘print’ in the 20 years I have lived here, and I admire it. I’ve been following this site’s articles on this for some time because the ‘democratic deficit’ in council needed to be addressed, and thank God forargyll has. O and more power to your elbows Argyll First!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here here John McKeown, well said!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cailleach
Well I asked who you were and waited and waited but you didn’t reveal your identity. There is an old saying pot call the kettle black when it comes to doing what it says on the tin (running out of metaphors) so your identity remains a mystery ……but perhaps you have set an interesting wee whodunnit
1. Not a councillor
2. Not employed by the council
3. There in a professional capacity
- short list of 4 as I recall
Clues – cailleach implies female but may be deliberately misleading
– some biblical knowledge
- media aware
What about it newsroom a wee prize for this competition.
PS If cailleach actually replies to me I will of course honour my previous promise and not participate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Councilor James Robb: We love the idea of a competition and a prize but, without wishing to be a party pooper, we have two problems:
we guarantee anonymity to anyone who clearly wishes it in the comments they make – so we could not properly be part of a flushing out exercise, even in the grouse season;
and we’d win – which would be equally improper. Your own forensic investigation provoked our curiosity. We’ve read the runes you excavated and have arrived at what is, we feel, infallibly, the only possible answer – which we don’t intend to test and which we would never share.
And we have hugely enjoyed the graceful and teasing gavotte you and Cailleach have danced in this exchange.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The dance ends, the caillaech’s mask drops to reveal a strikingly handsome young……… A secret to be shared by only those who dance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For John McKeown: I’ve said in previous comments (not on this thread) that For Argyll’s newsroom writer displays the skills and attributes of a quality journalist. There is much here that’s interesting and informative and I’ve often admired (admittedly not in public comment, simply by reading) the quality of the writing. But *sometimes* those skills are not employed – the balance isn’t there, the clarification…and that’s what prompts me to challenge it.
For Argyll has not been slow to publicly criticise local printed media in the past. I’m not going to enter into the wider newspaper versus online media debate here, but basically, as my granny always said, if you dish it out, you need to be able to take it back.
I wouldn’t, and don’t, criticise if I don’t feel moved to – my comments are not meant as an attack on For Argyll. It promotes itself as a broadsheet online news services. Sometimes it doesn’t look like one – *sometimes*. And sometimes local newspapers deserve criticism too – of course they do.
And I have to say I’m both hugely amused and utterly embarrassed at the idea of a contest to find out who I am! The shy wee lassie inside cringes at the thought. (Sometimes that’s the reason for anonymity – it’s not always a sly cowardice, sometimes it’s just about being a wee feart lassie).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Cailleach: You’re absolutely right and we could not agree with you more. Anyone who dishes it out, should expect it and take it. We dish it out, we expect it, we need it, so we take it – without any offence. This way we all help each other to stay awake, work to get it right and not get above ourselves. So keep it coming as and when – and in your case you’ve here demonstrated the balance that matters to you, which we appreciate.
On our attitude to Argyll’s local press, we unequivocally admire and support them. We have dished it out on a couple of specific, well deserved and article-focused occasions, but that’s a different matter.
Where we’ve been consistently critical has been on their performance in an area where, if we were remotely driven by self-interest, we would not have uttered a cheep – their slowness to get moving with an energetic online delivery.
The better we all perform in the information zone the majority now inhabit, the better for Argyll and the more we’ll challenge each other to keep our sights high.
We read each of Argyll’s local papers weekly and are rewarded by the experience. Each has the distinctive individual character all good local papers should have and the variety is a pleasure. Since our arrival on the scene we’ve been paying professional attention and it has been energising – prideful even – to see first class journalism emerge across the board.
The same is true of our community radio stations and of several new and first class local news websites and forums well distributed across Argyll and the isles.
These are exciting times we’re proud to be a part of and whatever your personal preference for news media is, it/they’ll be good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am not s politician and do not claim to hold vast knowledge into council procedures but when i read the above statements i was outraged that as a voter our voices are not truly heard! i very niavley believed that when elected our councillors had the ablity to express our views and i believed in democracy, but this cannot be when only a select few of the councilors are included in important descision making processess, of course the select few will no doubt argue this point but as a voter i now know differently. Argyll is a very complex place, both for geography and for the varying needs of its residents,so how can a central committee understand and argue for what is best for my own back yard?
Councillor Philands punishment for daring to challenge the establishment was to be excluded from a group in which he could without doubt make a valuable and positive contribution to, again the ‘people’ suffer, ridiculing Argyll firsts members with the ‘toilet’ comment would not have been acceptable in priamry school never mind in this forum, it is down right insulting. The prime minister, i believe, has said that we must all share the burden of the recession as a nation, hard times lie ahead, job cuts, service cuts even the nhs pay has been frozen, what is your sacrifices?
I urge you to look at what brought you all to politics in the first place and hope that it was to make the diference to challenge and change undemocratic processess and to protect and enhace where we live, however some of you seem to have been disconnected from your wards and have become lost in power battles, change and challenge is a good thing and truly hope Argyll First continues to fight and challenge the estalishement before we have nothing left.
Argyll First we are behind you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For cailleach
Perhaps we could arrange to meet !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Reading further on this story in the local press this week, I note that Councillor Bruce Marshall refers to the three Argyll First Councillors as “the Scarlet Pimpernels of local politics”.
Fascinated, if somewhat puzzled by this impressive literary reference, I discover that the Scarlet Pimpernel is described as “ …… an unsurpassed swordsman, and superlatively quick-witted strategist, masterminding the rescuing of countless condemned prisoners before they could lose their heads to the guillotine” – a definition which surely raises the question as to the identity of the “countless condemned prisoners” currently being rescued.
Or perhaps Councillor Marshall is referring to the Hollywood version of the Pimpernel , portrayed as an 18th century superhero, precursor to the modern Superman and Batman, whose power of disguise made him virtually invisible to his enemies.
If the latter, then I would suggest that Councillors Philand, Kelly and McAlpine consider adopting this image along with the Pimpernel costume of tights and frilly shirts next time they hit the campaign trail.
Superheroes as Councillors? A surefire vote winner!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Zira: Fun and pertinent – teaches everyone the importance of the full context of a casual metaphor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ok correct me if i have misunderstood any of this
i voted for my choice of councilors and he/she was elected though not to the Executive Committee
an issue arises in my ward that i feel very strongly against
i seek out my councilor and lobby them ( while I’m out i go and pay my council tax)
the 16 members of the Executive Committee vote (my and the other 19 elected councilors don’t )
the motion is carried and my cash (tax) is spent for me
No taxation without representation
remember this
hmmmmm could the snp councilors be that cunning
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seems on the face of it a disgraceful decision to exclude the entirely decent and honourable Councillor Philland, for the social committee.
Can ant other councillor enlighten me on why this took place?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0