Earlier today Argyll and Bute Council issued an odd press release, entitled ‘Response to allegations made by ARSN‘ (Argyll Rural Schools Network’.
In fact the document concerns itself with a series of evidenced charges from several sources of:
- misleading if not mischievous use of material from inappropriate research reports – laid by the Argyll Rural Schools Network (ARSN) and reported in The Herald and in For Argyll, among others)
- fundamental errors of calculation and understanding in reference to the financial impact of the closures on the Scottish Government’s Grant Aided Expenditure funding to local authorities – laid by the Scottish Rural Schools Network (SRSN) and published in For Argyll)
- fundamental errors in the statistical evidence presented in support of a false projection of rapid and significant decline in Argyll’s rural primary school rolls – laid on the basis of work done by SRSN and For Argyll and published in For Argyll)
Before we go any further, For Argyll and the Scottish Rural Schools Network would wish to make it clear that we stand by the absolute accuracy of every one of our identifications of fundamental flaws in the proposals as described above – and that list is now longer.
Moreover, this does not now rest alone on the acknowledged expertise of the Scottish Rural Schools Network team and on the security of their understanding of the GAE funding mechanism.
SRSN submitted both its own and the council’s calculations – obtained under Freedom of Information – to independent expert scrutiny.
Jim and Margaret Cuthbert, among the top mathematicians, statitisticans and economists in Scotland – agreed to interrogate both sets of calculations. They have recently pronounced, with accompanying algebraic proof, that the Scottish Rural Schools Network calculations are accurate.
For interest, here are brief professional biographies for the Cuthberts.
- ‘Jim Cuthbert was born in Scotland in 1946. He has an M.A. in mathematics and economics from Glasgow University, an M.Sc. in mathematics and statistics from the same university, and a D. Phil. from Sussex University in probability theory. He lectured in statistics at Glasgow University from 1970 to 1974. In that year, he joined the United Kingdom civil service as a statistician, where he worked in the Scottish Office, in the areas of local government finance, housing, education and the environment. From 1978 to 1980, he spent two years in the Treasury, working in the cash limits division. In 1986, he spent a period on secondment at the OECD. He was latterly Scottish Office Chief Statistician, taking early retirement in 1997. Since then he has pursued a number of interests, including research and consultancy. His research interests lie particularly in the areas of Scotland’s public finances and the Scottish economy, and in certain aspects of purchasing power parities. He has worked with the OECD and the Australian Government, and presented papers at the World Bank, and for the Taiwanese Government’.
- ‘Margaret Cuthbert was born in Paisley in Scotland in 1946 and graduated in Economics and Statistics from Glasgow University in 1968. She began her career as an economist in ICI before moving to a lecturer post in econometrics at Glasgow University. In 1975 she began economics and business consultancy work, combining this with periods in Heriot Watt University, Strathclyde University and the OECD. In 1980, she edited and contributed to “Public Expenditure in Scotland”, one of the few texts analysing the Scottish economy written in the period after the first Devolution referendum. She set up her own economics consultancy company in 1989, primarily concentrating on economic issues in Scotland. 1997 saw a change of gear. The Cuthberts set up a new company with both of them doing consultancy and with both devoting more time to research’.
The oxygen of publicity
The first question to be asked of this shrill and rather discombobulated press release is why the Executive Director of Community Services, Cleland Sneddon, who has signed the press release, chose to target ARSN in his title.
It is, of course, publicity that a 24 day-old collaborative forum of parent councils in rural Argyll and the Isles could only dream about. It recognises them as a major player.
This is the first public response the council has made to the criticisms of its discredited school closure proposals. These are already the subject of multiple parliamentary questions and urgent requests by senior and respected MSPs from all parties for ministerial meetings to address what is a fully blown crisis in Argyll and Bute.
That Sneddon has chosen to attack ARSN is tribute to the impact of this doughty and highly effective collaborative body.
By standing together, sharing significant expertise and experience, ARSN is, in this attempted attack, recognised to be exactly what it was set up to be – a threat to the council’s traditionally successful use of divide-and-rule tactics.
Sneddon, of course, did not intend to pay ARSN this tribute. Like any bully, he thought he was launching a killer blow against the easy target of an infant organisation – the newest of the three principal prosecutors of these fundamentally flawed proposals. (Was it Margaret Thatcher who said that an attack by Geoffrey Howe was like being savaged by a dead sheep? No. It was Denis Healey – see Comment.)
How wrong was Sneddon. ARSN has established its credentials as a resourceful and focused organisation whose efforts have already attracted the attention of the national press. The hapless Sneddon has, in one bungled attack attempt, underlined ARSN’s potency and drawn attention to the broad spectrum media interest in its campaign.
ARSN deserves profound respect.
ARSN’s charge and the Sneddon response
Sneddon’s attempt to destroy ARSN by focusing his attentions on it are clear from the volume of space he gives over to ARSNs evidenced accusation that, at the meeting on 25th November 2010, he, Sneddon, had ‘deliberately misled or deceived’ the councillors.
There is no doubt at all that he had indeed done just this – and in other matters as well as those highlighted by ARSN. (He twice told councillors during that meeting that the six week consultation period originally chosen by the council to accelerate the progress of these discredited proposals was ‘the statutory limit’, where in fact it is the statutory minimum.)
ARSN had accused the council of ‘sexing up’ the ‘dodgy dossier’ of the proposals in misapplying sections from two research reports on other matters – one being the Hall Aitken Outer Hebrides Migration Study.
Sneddon had confidently told councillors at that meeting that this report ‘proved’ that rural schools were not of any great significance in supporting inward migration to remote rural communities.
ARSN contacted the authors of the Outer Hebrides Migration Study and were able to report their professional anger at the misuse of their results. These had arisen from research on different target issues. In their expert opinion, the researchers were clear that they would not feel comfortable in applying such material in support of Sneddon’s conclusions.
The point is that the gathering of information from interviewees through the instrument of questionnaires is, when properly done, a very precise science. Questions are framed to direct their audience’s attention to the specific and sometimes underlying issues the researchers are interested to probe. Answers to such questions cannot be farmed for other purposes and divorced from their original focus.
But the precise world of statistics is foreign to Sneddon.
He shocked knowing members of his audience at the council meeting on 2nd November when he announced – with a sort of bithe self-congratulation, that he had never even heard of Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics until For Argyll had evidenced them in our exposure of the fundamental flaws in the proposals’ school roll projections.
The Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics are the datazone used by all Scottish local authorities, and, by his own admission, Sneddon is ‘on his seventh local authority’.
At the end of the press release, the spluttering Sneddon tries to defend his misapplication of the material in the research reports used by saying: ‘The Council accepts that neither of the referenced research reports were written with the intention of them being used as an argument for progressing school mergers nor is it intended that it should enter a debate with the research authors to try to draw them into a pressured argument about their findings’.
You bet they don’t intend to enter into debate with anyone who actually knows what they are talking about.
The council’s modus operandi throughout this disaster has been to go to ground and leave the player on repeat that ‘the proposals are not flawed’ and that ‘the calculations are accurate’. QED? Not.
The Sneddon decoys
In an early whinge in this presumably therapeutic document, Sneddon says: ‘The Council has actually experienced a form of campaign before a consultation commences…’
Yet at the meeting on 25th November Sneddon bizarrely criticised communities for not having come forward with ‘creative alternatives’ to closure. Yet at that time,consultation had not yet begun and did not do so until 13th December 2010 – an ominous date.
Moreover, at the press conference after the earlier meeting on 2nd November (when the proposals were sent back for corrections which were largely never made), For Argyll questioned why the Council had chosen to go for the statutory minimum period of six weeks consultation. We were concerned about the usefulness of so short a time for a programme of, then, 26 closure proposals covering every area of Argyll and four of its islands.
CEO Sally Loudon’s response to this question was to say that the pre-consultation period after the publication of the proposals – which had taken place several days before that meeting – was effectively part of the consultation process.
Neither Loudon nor Sneddon can legitimately have it both ways.
Then, in this press release Sneddon attempts to deflect attention away from the fundamental structural flaws the Scottish Rural Schools Network and For Argyll have identified in the council’s case to close this swathe of rural schools.
He has done this by focusing on a single issue which was of later and minor concern to us although it was, rightly, of immediate and continuing concern to communities fighting to save their schools.
He says: ‘What were described as flaws predominantly related to disagreement over the accuracy of information contained in the document, around 80% of which was pupil transport related.’
This is flatly and demonstrably untrue. In fact, For Argyll, the principal medium for criticism, did not mention transport until after the first council meeting on 2nd November where it was the principal focus of councillors’ criticisms.
Under sustained pressure from members on that occasion, Cleland Sneddon gave an assurance that any school whose pupils could be shown to have to make a journey of over 45 minutes each way to their designated receiving school would automatically be taken off the closure list.
We later reported some parent councils’ work in demonstrating that the required journeys for their small children were indeed over 45 mins, The Council was eventually compelled to admit that the journey for children from the Isle of Luing – in an open boat at all times of the year and then by bus to Ellenabeich – was unachievable in 45 minutes. Luing came off the list.
In other equally well documented cases the council has simply insisted against the evidence that their journey time calculations are correct. This assertion includes the risible allowance of a full 30 seconds for small children and their bags to be picked up at the roadside and secured inside the vehicle.
The real focus of criticism
What For Argyll and SRSN did focus on in the pre-consultation period – as we have since – are principally issues of non-compliance with the governing legislation – now confirmed as correct by the grounds for the Government call-in of four Western Isles closure proposals.
Sneddon’s press release makes no mention of this – nor was he likely to do so in the light of the irrefutable evidence from this precedent demonstrating a serious disregard for due diligence in which both he and CEO Sally Loudon have been culpably negligent.
In parallel with this, SRSN focused on serious errors in the calculations of the Grant Aided Expenditure. This later became an awareness of the fact that miscalculations had arisen, in part, from a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the GAE mechanism works.
In passing reference to this matter in his press release – and in a tacit admission of possible error never made explicit, Sneddon says ‘Even if the overstated figure of £2,644 referred to by the Rural Schools Network were used it would only have a limited impact. The total GAE loss would rise from £374,000 to £542,000 an increase of only £168,000 against the estimated saving of £1.9m’.
This sum that Sneddon so casually tosses off as of little significance is a 45% error and amounts to over 8.8% of the projected savings – which are overclaimed in several other respects, as we can show.
Together SRSN and we also identified serious distortions in the statistical ‘evidence’ in the council papers, relating to the projection of school roll numbers.
Under FoI we received the base calculations behind the council’s projections – and these proved the particular error SRSN had suspected must lie behind the mistake. It provided a key argument in the case to close schools which the proposals had wrongly alleged were facing rapid and serious decline.
We did not acknowledge what Sneddon refers to as ‘corrections’ because they were not ‘corrections’, they were confirmations.
We needed only to rest our case on what we had initially said, which remains correct – with the single addition that now we can show exactly how the council made its ‘mistake’.
What we cannot say is whether this was accidental or disingenuous, given that it artificially ramped up the case for closure.
The attempt to prevent the proposals going to consultation
For Argyll and SRSN did indeed attempt, as Sneddon alleges, to have these closure proposals withdrawn before consultation.
We did so because we had done forensic investigative work and discovered the serious flaws at the heart of the proposals.
We wished to protect the threatened schools from being subjected to scrutiny that was neither legally nor evidentially competent.
We wished to prevent the avoidable waste of significant financial commitment to a doomed consultation process.
We wished to try to prevent the reputational damage to a region which has always deserved and needed the best possible local government and is now subject to the worst.
Incompetence, negligence and arrogance
Sneddon says that the issue of school closures is always emotive – and indeed it is.
What he seems unable to do is to look beyond that.
He and the council must understand that what is fiercely emotive in this instance is the level of negligence, incompetence and arrogance which has shaped the production and stubborn defence of these proposals. They are so unable as an instrument to close a school that they are described by the experienced SRSN (whose work has now been independently verified by the Cuthberts) as: ‘the worst we’ve seen’.
What is powerfully emotive is that good schools, good pupils, good parent councils are being put to the rack on the basis of work that is ignorant in the most fundamental sense, flawed beyond redemption yet thought appropriate to inflict a death sentence on 22 or 23 rural communities that, in the nature of the place, are the stuff of Argyll.
Cleland, like his discredited and departed ‘consultant’, Keir Bloomer, is essentially a busker. Rhyme a few old tales. Rattle a can. Head off to the next (eighth?) local authority.
On the evidence of his performance in this process, busking is how Sneddon gets by, but this time he has been found out.
He did not even bother to familiarise himself with the statutory requirements of the law to which his proposals are obliged to conform. Already, if these proposals are not withdrawn, every one of them will have to be called in by the Scottish Government on the grounds of fundamental non-compliance with the 2010 Act. The Western Isles precedent makes this inevitable – and the Argyll proposals are even farther from compliance than those in the Western Isles.
The Argyll papers propose to close 25 rural primary schools.
Two elements are omitted from every one of these closure proposals – a consideration of viable alternatives to closure; and an assessment of the impact on the host community of the closure of its school.
Sneddon and his similarly negligent CEO, Sally Loudon, together misleadingly defended these omissions. Moreover they formally recommended that councillors approve the documents to go out to statutory public consultation.
In doing so they licensed the omission of key obligations of the law as it specifically applies to proposals to close rural schools. The flaws are as legalistic and as fundamental as that.
Anyone attempting to deny that this is culpable negligence of the most serious kind and a disregard for due diligence cannot hope to be taken seriously.
The evidence is there. It is underwritten in the overriding of the fundamental requirements of the 2010 Act. And it is there is the statements both Sneddon and Loudon made on 25th November. These, reported in our coverage of the Western Isles precedent, displayed either their utter ignorance of the law that should have been their first port of call – or an actionable attempt to mislead councillors into putting their names to documents lacking legal competence.
And nineteen noodles did just that on the 25th November..
Call for resignations of CEO, Executive Director for Community Services and Finance Director
The Scottish Government’s judgments in calling in the Western Isles closure proposals on the grounds of non-compliance with the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Cuthberts positive verification of the accuracy of the SRSN’s calculations and statistics vindicate every charge of incompetence that the Scottish Rural Schools Network and For Argyll have brought against these proposals.
We are shocked by the nature and profundity of the original errors of omission, of execution and of judgment.
We are unable to defend in any way the inability of the most senior staff in the council to understand the fundamental legal and mathematical issues that have led to this debacle.
We condemn their corporate irresponsibility in deciding to force into formal being, without serious interrogation of the security of the documents and at unaffordable expense, a consultation process which will now have to be aborted.
Cleland Sneddon has, in this press release, irrevocably associated Finance Director Bruce West with this performance and from our own evidence, it has been clear that West has been unable even to identify a laughably fundamental error underpinning his calculations.
We cannot see that this situation is recoverable, either in terms of the fatally flawed proposals or in terms of these fatally flawed senior managers at the council.
Together, SRSN, ARSN and For Argyll have have shown that:
- they were negligent of due diligence in ignoring the governing legislation
- they offered councillors false security in exhorting them to approve legally unable proposals for consultation
- they conspired with a hired consultant to disguise evidence that did not accord with their wishes to close schools
- they misapplied evidence from inappropriate sources to shore up an indefensible argument
- they were incompetent in understanding the operation of the GAE mechanism that controls the calculation of the council’s entire annual revenue grant
- they were fiscally irresponsible in their willingness to commit the council to avoidable expense in the interests of saving face
- and they have brought Argyll and Bute Council into national disrepute.
In short we have shown unarguably that these proposals and those who have persisted in forcing them into the public domain are incompetent, careless, unreliable and finished.
In For Argyll’s evidenced opinion, the officers responsible, whom we have identified in the heading of this section, must go and they must go now. There is no basis for confidence in their competence or in their probity.
Argyll cannot afford any more of this.
In a sensible world the folowing would happen;
1. Due to the questionable integrity of the proposals, they must be postponed, pending investigation from an acceptable independent source.
2. All parties must sign up to this process.
3. The decision will be binding and we must move on in the knowlege that everyone has had their fair say.
4. Councillors can then re-evaluate the position in the light of the ‘new’ knowlege and having a new feel for their communities balanced needs, reconsider their voting options.
5. Most fair minded people accept that the flaws in the information provided to all councillors contributed to how they voted, and as a result of above they have a clearer picture of the facts. Consultation is not the place to do this as the reasons for going to cosultation are so muddied.
My own feeling is that councillors of all persuausion are far less culpable in this than the officers who clearly tried to ‘fool all of the people most of the time’ on this vital issue.
The refresh button needs to be hit, and then we can move on and support those who have to make difficult, and fair decisions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And yes, Sneddon must go. Not too sure about the others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Phill
If you think Sneddon must go then Loudon has to follow. The buck ends at the top and Loudon has lorded over this process from a dark corner where she hopes the muck won’t stick. She is up to her eyes in this but is content to let Sneddon be the fall guy. Argyll & Bute deserves more competent and more honest leadership.
Whether West needs to go depends very much on where the blame lies for some of the glaring errors in the Financial information. Given that he is the Chief Financial Officer it is hard to look beyond him.
However there is also complicity further down the food chain and my wish would be for a root and branch external review of all Officer involvement in this process.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So, the upshot your OTT/ hyberbolic/personal/offensive attacks on officials councillors and the Counnil response – is that you still don’t agree withthe Council’s account. Well nothing to surprise any of us there as thats what you’ve done all along.
I’ve posted yonks ago that you’ve tried to stop this process in its tracks – and failed. Since them you have sought to undermine the democratic decision and legitimate process by any means including sustained and personal attacks on officials as well as any councillor who dares to think differently from the way For Argyll wants them to think. You have constantly repeated unsubstatiated rumour and presented it s fact usually accompanied with your trasdemark intro to yet another lie “we understand…..”.
And of course not one serious comment ever on the effect of the swingeing increase in our council’s budget increase by your buddies in the SNP and how that single act has totally and completely undermined your previous positionm that “the Council cuts don’t need to be so deep now that the settlement is better than expected” Complete tosh and utter rubbish. That ‘inconvenoient truth’ of the budget settlement being almost double what you claimed does mean that Council cuts will require to be MORE sever that first anticipated. Your discredited budget argument has of course been quietly buried by For Argyll – a blog very experienced as some of us have noted only yesterday well-experienced with it’s retropective- editing to try to make yourself look good.
This area faces draconian and unprcedented cuts and it is is simply inconceivable that under-occupied, over-expensive, sparsely populated rural schools (some with high percentages of placing reqests (so much for the viable village argument)should remain open whilst services to old people, voluntary organisations, youth serives, roads, libraries and everything else this council provides is slashed to accomodate the SNP governent’s budget settlement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Baffled – is this a real consultation by ABC?
Went to the ABC website to look at
“Response to Allegations made by ARSN”
On right hand side, found
“Do it Online” and
“Get Involved” then
“Consultations”
There are 3 consultations listed (Saturday, 19/12 0925)
Housing Services in the Oban and Lorn area 29/06/2010 30/12/2010
What Women Want 06/12/2010 24/12/2010
New Dunaverty Hall 06/11/2010 01/12/2010
ABC quote themselves in the Herald
“…we have been open about our consultation …”
but not in their own website.
Is this only a consultation if ABC say it is, and want answers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Walter B: We’ve not pulled any article. Please tell us which one’s gone missing and we’ll immediately check on the occasional technical gremlins. Two of us have just had a quick visual check and can see nothing missing – but sleep has been at a premium so …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Integrity, ——–,
Yes an external review would be fair, and we will all accept the findings have been looked at in a democratic and honest manner. That should not be too difficult to instigate, or unnacceptable to all , other than those who dont want fair play done or seen to be done.
What have we got to lose here in an external enquiry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Please make it clear that the call for resignations is from the editorial team of ForArgyll. The piece implies that there has been discussion between SRSN, ARSN and ForArgyll on this – but I’m not sure that is the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Fan of Minard: The piece implies no such thing. This seems a fear-born reading of the text.
However, for the record, ARSN and SRSN are wholly independent of For Argyll.
We have supported the concept of ARSN before its inception, support its work, recognise its achievements with admiration, see it as a vitally important organisation for Argyll now and to come – and will support its future, We have had no formal or informal discussions with its administration on any subject at all.
We and SRSN have worked together – and worked hard – in the interests of the threatened rural schools which can never have the resources the council can bring and have brought to bear upon them. We have done this work diligently, forensically and its results have been externally verified by unchallengeably objective and expert sources.
Speaking for For Argyll, we have found the Scottish Rural School Network team to be one of the very few class acts around and it has been a privilege to work with them. Their skills are high level. their attitude is intellectually open and their approach to evidence is mercilessly objective. If they had found evidence of strength in the council’s case they would have said so and so would we.
Despite our collaboration on research and investigation and our shared inability to accept bad practice – and as in some proven instances here (most powerfully in the case of the school of which you are a fan) – dishonest manipulation of evidence and universally serious incompetence – we are independent organisations and respect each others independence.
Legally, there is a presumption against the closure of rural schools. Such action can only be taken where the educational benefit of closure and new circumstances has been unequivocally demonstrated. While there may be consequential savings in some instances of school closures, this cannot be the grounds for closure – and in the Argyll papers it is all that is left – and all it began with.
For Argyll’s overriding concern has been not to see rural schools, crucial to the sustainability of their communities, forced into closure on false premises, legally incompetent and accompanied by unsound and massaged evidence, arm twisting and political opportunism.
Where a good overall case, compliant with the obligations and concerns of the governing law and competently made emerges, we will not oppose that case. But we will strenuously interrogate every such proposal in order to establish whether or not it is powerfully and appropriately evidenced, as we imagine SRSN would automatically also do.
Proposals with consequences as potentially serious as these must be rigorously examined and those who advance such proposals held to account for the calibre of their work.
No one in any quarter was doing this until SRSN and ourselves took it on – on your behalf. And while you may not have the stomach for the necessary fight – which we respect – it is a fight that must be carried if Argyll is not to go the way of the Western Isles. Yours and everyone’s security is that, like us or not, SRSN and For Argyll are on the side of right, neither of us can be bought or intimidated and neither of us will sell anyone out.
ARSN has nothing at all to do with this call for resignations and nor does SRSN.
This call comes – with every syllable of it evidenced and objectively demonstrable to any level – from For Argyll alone.
We are convinced that the level of impropriety and incompetence has been such that there can be no residual confidence in the officers identified.
They have shaped and driven these fully discredited proposals. They have misled councillors into making fools of themselves and of Argyll. While they claim to be possessed by the need to save money, they have wasted significant amounts of it and are prepared to waste more. Most importantly they have shown no respect for the law, for due diligence and for honest practice.
They must go and Argyll must start again – and do very much better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think For Argyll would not accept any ‘independent review’ – unless of course their chums in SRSN carried it out…
Right now there is no need to stop the exisiting process just because For Argyll has rehashed all of its previous guff including the Western Isles precedent. Strange they NEVER mention the Crossroads in Ayr precedent? Why’s that? And, despite the fact that it was not called in and that Ministers wrote to say “they accepted the consultation was carried out with the legisltation” uniquely, For Argyll STILL insist it was flawed figures and flawed process.
Clearly For Argyll’s judgement and their repeated unsubstantiated assertions are not to be trusted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Phill: I like the idea of an independent review into the Council’s handling of this. The obvious body to conduct this is the Scottish Parliament.
Now that the GAE figures have been confirmed as wrong in the documents then all of the proposals need to be redrafted. Since this needs to happen and there needs to be another vote by Councillors before they can be re-issued I would have thought it sensible to stop the whole process now, thus avoiding yet more unnecessary expenditure, until the Council can at least obtain independent advice as to the legality of their consultation process. As the date for implementation of the closure proposals is now (ludicrously) part way through a school year it would be wise to delay any closures until the start of the 2011-2012 school year in any case. This means that there is no rush to push these proposals through and a revised process could be initiated that actually complies with the Act.
Or is Mr Sneddon just going to bluff his way through this and suggest that a rationale defined by the need for the Council to make cuts in expenditure is unaffected by what are major changes to some of the key pieces of financial data?
I’m as guilty as everyone in talking about “The Council” as if it was a monolithic organisation. It is a organisation composed of a great many individuals, some of whom have given long service to Argyll; who have lived in Argyll for many years and who feel the same pride as the rest of us in our part of Scotland. They must feel very conflicted by this mess. Gagging orders prevent them speaking out publicly but I would ask them to use their influence internally to push for a halt to this process so that the Council can review the wisdom and legality of its conduct. Same goes for the Councillors. Those who voted to put the proposals to consultation did so I’m sure in good faith and re-assured by the statements confirming that the proposals were in order and the only problems were “differences of opinion and minor inaccuracies”. Mr Sneddon seems intent in testing the use of the word “minor” to an extraordinary degree.
Now the truth (or at least some of it) is out. What are the Councillors going to do? This is one of those defining moments in the history of local government in Argyll. What are you going to do?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Simon (@Jim) So tell me which Ward/Department do you represent? No doubt in my mind that you’re the council rearguard in what is rapidly becoming a rout.
That aside, much as you deride ForArgyll.com in your comments I wonder whether you have ever considered why it is that your comments are still published? Could it be that ForArgyll.com is as committed to allowing your views to be expressed as they are to all others? Perhaps you should recognise that more often and respect the conversation this site allows you to have with the other folk in Argyll?
@newsroom Thanks for that … I’d read the entire piece as ForArgyll.com’s view and not ARSN’s anyway, but its good to get a timely disambiguation (as they call it on wikipedia).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A highly defensive article based on emotional hype. Calling for resignations at this difficult time is, in my view, wholly irresponsible. Let’s face it, any cutbacks by A&B Council will be challenged by this blog.
Here is yet more evidence of someone trying to whip up a storm in a teacup. As Simon has pointed out, on more than one occasion, there are far more important topics you could be commenting on but choose not to – presumably because they might reflect badly on the SNP.
It’s a shame that council officials are having to take time to deal with your accusations along with all the other difficulties they are faced with – just remember that we are all having to pay for this extra activity and from budgets that are already under severe pressure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Lowry, maybe this isn’t clear to you.
Yes, consultation and all that is involved with it is costly, something that was pointed out to these council officers BEFORE the meeting on the 25th.
Along with several schools submitting proof or certainly enough cause for concern that there is no saving, even a deficit in closing certain schools out of the 25 that went through.
The law says that the only way to close a school is if there is Educational Benefit, but at that point as this whole situation was brought about by massive budget cuts, the parents of those schools concentrated in trying to HELP the council recognise that not only were there a bunch of schools with wrong figures and that would work out a number of schools were financially viable, but that these fundamentally flawed docs that do not even meet the requirements of the law, were and still are a waste of time.
It is great comfort as a parent of children at a threatened school that the Schools Consultation Act has been violated by the council, however I can completely appreciate the situation of the council needing to make cuts (as do most parents).
IF the council had carried out their duties under the Schools Consultation Act, IF they had produced sound, unbiased and accurate proposals, then no-one would have grounds to demand their withdrawal. The council KNEW (by their own admissions on the 25th) these documents were wrong and still entered into this costly process. They had the opportunity then to take them in, correct them and come back with a realistic list of schools. Then we wouldn’t be having all these conversations about them messing this up.
Is it not the case, if you are going to court, you make sure your case is damn-near bulletproof BEFORE you get there? Not during the case being heard?
The costs incurred by this consultation, is something the council officers themselves decided on. It did not have to be that way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: ARSN says ‘Morton misses messenger, hits foot’ | For Argyll
Exactly, why should unjustly affected people have to accept this poor decision making, when it needs, at the very least to be looked at again. What do we have to fear, and who has anything to fear, by a sensible neutral revisit of the ‘whole’ scenario, other than the bleaters (best ignored) who too easilly accept all put in front of them.
I dont accept that councillors deliberately got into this mess (that is high ranking officers fault), but faced with all the facts and uncertainty in the County, it is more imperative than ever to look again.Theres a lot of new stuff come out of this and public confidence in ABC is low. I cant for the life of me see what is so unfair about some inquiry.
Many of the proposals may well hold water after such a move, but the difference being that it is transparent and takes account of recent happenings, representations, and evidence, not portrayed at the time of the 19/17 vote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
While For Argyll has taken a leading and well-argued stance on what is a very important issue, I agree with Simon in the that the attacks made on councillors and officials are far over the top and totally counter-productive.
Do you seriously expect these people to respond positively to your arguments given the fashion in which you are villifying them?
You are not indulging in constructive criticism, but highly personal character assassination.
It’s the sort of conduct appropriate for a school playground, and does you no credit whatsoever.
You are also in severe danger of choking on your own prose…
….”Sneddon’s attempt to destroy ARSN by focusing the weight of his attentions on it are clear in the fact that greatest volume of word space in this strange document is given over, in topping and mostly tailing, on ARSNs evidenced accusation that, at the meeting on 25th November 2010, he, Sneddon, had ‘deliberately misled or deceived’ the councillors.”
Aye right…
….a wee touch of plain, simple English might help. I’ve read instructions for Chinese DVD players that were easier to understand than this.
And it was Denis Healey who drew comparisons between Geoffrey Howe and a dead sheep. I thought everyone knew that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Bill Jardine: Hands up to choking on prose – written during a long stint into the small hours when writer and remote colleagues were all tired. That sentence is now tidied up a bit- and the Denis Healey correction is added as such. Thank you for both prompts.
We make no apologies for our focus, our style or our targets. This is a dishonest, incapable and arrogant business, utterly uninterested in evidence and good practice, prepared to distort and disguise – and to run over anyone or anything that gets in the way.
Sympathy is misplaced, These are very highly paid senior officers, some of whom are fortunate to be in the positions they occupy and have shown anything but distinction in them.
And before you recoil with smelling salts from what we have done – because we have carried serious weight in this and worked to do so…
Would you defend the maintenance of highly paid incompetents in responsible posts?
Do you feel that it is not a resignation issue that senior managers were acting outwith the governing legislation, conspired to suppress inconvenient evidence, could not get the figures right, misled councillors that the proposals were not flawed and it was safe to vote to send them to consultation… – and for what?
Do you really think, in the state it’s in – and you have chosen by your own admission to live elsewhere – that Argyll can take the death of 22 or 23 communities through lost inward migration – because this is the inevitable result of the loss of a rural primary – as you well know.
In your once part of the world, look what happened to Ardentinny. And if Strone goes as well?
What will the Mull of Kintyre be like if Southend loses its school; Kilberry without Achahoish; mid west Mull without Lochdonhead and Ulva; and Luss – which will be a second homers and coach party stage set?
Sorry Bill. We live here. We’re committed to Argyll. We have no intention of watching what the terminology of the moment calls its ‘life chances’ thrown away by carpetbagging transients with no care to do a decent job for a more than decent public sector salary.
Yes, we have contempt for people who behave like this. It is not an honourable contract. No, we have no intention of disguising that contempt. And they are well padded against a few demonstrably well earned sharp descriptions like ‘busker’. What;’s your word for someone whose contribution is more apparent than real? Charlatan? We would not argue.
We need to give credit where it due (which we unequivocally do) and not shirk from delivering the brickbats when they are also due. Without this, the rip off carries on.
So reach for the laudanum. You will continue to need it.
We put ourselves continually on the line to support the positions of those who are given no voice and who would otherwise be abused without trace or remark. And if the fight is a dirty one which would not be of our making, we know how to deal with that and we do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It seems that those who oppose any school closure have a very loud voice, encouraged by you. However, it is those parents who believe their children might benefit from going to another school and mixing with a larger number of children, or parents who worry that if their school does not receive children from elsewhere, then it too may eventually be under threat, who you are preventing from being heard.
You are doing your utmost to put your own political argument forward and stopping others from having any voice at all.
Thankfully, there is a far greater chance that the consultation by A&B Council will allow all opinions to be heard, and without personal attack and villification .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have found For Argyll a very useful source of interesting information and a forum for discussion of the issues that doesn’t exist elsewhere. It is of course a blog, not a newspaper and authors of blogs are entitled to write anything they like on their blog (providing it is legal). For Argyll has written many great pieces in the blog and then some not so good pieces (“Simon” correctly points to some of the dafter bits such as the advice to Luing to stay on a closure list). On balance though For Argyll is a good thing and, as I’ve said before, it doesn’t cost us anything whereas this consultation process is unnecessarily costing us an arm and a leg (there are FoI requests in to see just how much and I wait with very mixed feelings the result of these).
I also have mixed feelings about this current angle. I have the same problem at times: the temptation to put too much into a single article which results in the important messages being lost. The really important message here is the confirmation of the failure of the Council to get the GAE figures correct. It is unsurprising that they didn’t – the mechanism seems ferociously complicated but SRSN had alerted them to this fact before the meeting on the 25th and the Council did nothing to check this with them. This does seem culpable and it will be instructive to learn what discussions there were between senior Council officers on the subject of GAE ahead of presenting papers to the Councillors.
If I read the article correctly, Mr Sneddon is already downplaying the significance of the additional GAE losses (just for perspective, the “insignificant” ~£160,000 is the equivalent of the purported “savings” from closing three primaries in North Lorn). This is of course a nonsense. The additional GAE losses means that an increasing number of schools are net losses on closure (at least 4 possibly 5). Several of the others become very marginal and when other factors are taken into account they may also become net losses.
Will the Council now remove those schools that are net losses on closure from the list as there is no rationale for their closure? A Yes or No will suffice.
However, the situation is even worse than this: my friend Tim tells me that his analysis of GAE suggests that the Council is risking far higher losses of than the £550K of GAE the proposals are already giving away (remember – this GAE money is money given to Argyll by the Government because we have a high number of schools with less than 70 pupils. It is effectively income for the Council). However, the proposals make a number of assumptions about rolls and their ability to keep some schools below 70 to avoid loss of GAE. This includes the extraordinary proposal that half the children from one school will go to one receiving school and the other half will go to another to avoid the loss of GAE. Of course, what is more likely is that parents will put in placement requests to ensure that ALL of their children go to one school so they can be with their friends (“Simon” won’t like that!). This precipitates another large loss of GAE. Tim will no doubt want to publicise this later so I won’t steal his thunder here but just say that the Council’s proposals should have been subjected to an internal risk assessment before being made public. The law of unintended consequences looks set to bite the council rather hard on the bum. It is quite possible that a proper risk assessment taking all factors into account (redundancy costs; social impact costs; transport cost inflation; on-going maintenance costs for shut buildings; cost of consultation; loss of inward investment etc etc) would show that there was a high risk that these proposals would result in net losses to the Argyll economy rather than achieving even the modest savings intended.
However, I thought these very good and very important facts were lost in the article because of For Argyll succumbing to the temptation to attack the Council on several different matters at the same time.
First off, I think it is too early to be calling for resignations. We are still not in possession of the full facts as to the genesis of the proposals, nor to the degree of responsibility of different officers. That the process has been cack-handed is without doubt. That it is hugely wasteful of public money is probably true. That there seems to have been a deliberate attempt to fool Councillors and the people of Argyll has been alleged. There is certainly a suspicion that Council officers have either been incompetent or have strayed from their responsibilities as public servants. However, one needs more than a suspicion to convict someone (For Argyll should remember the old bit about innocent until proven guilty). This is one of the reasons we need a independent review of this process to determine if the Council has indeed acted irresponsibly. I (and a few others) think they have. The Council (and “Simon”) think they have not. It needs a third party to sort this out and sort it out soon or relationships will deteriorate very rapidly (the Council’s press release suggests that this has already happened).
As I’ve said before, For Argyll is a blog and they can write whatever they like on it. We are free to read it or not, to comment or not. What I would say is that the occasional over-extended use of hyperbole or ill-judged comment can greatly detract from the otherwise excellent service they are providing for us here in Argyll. Think before you type. Have a good read of it afterwards and then hit “send”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You sign yourself ‘newsroom’, but you are not writing news – what your are producing is clearly opinion thinly cloaked as news.
Those who read For Argyll are not sheep. It is clear that they are perfectly capable of making up their own minds on matters that affect them without your ‘guidance’.
You say “You have chosen by your own admission to live elsewhere.”
By my own admission?
What’s that supposed to imply – that I’ve confessed to living abroad?
You are in serious danger of losing your credibility by getting carried away with your own self-importance.
Do yourself a favour, and take the advice contained in the last paragraph of Doctor McKenzie’s excellent posting.
You would also do well to study the benefits of brevity and the overuse of words – evidenced waffle, no matter how well-evidenced, is still waffle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh jeez. I am feeling responsible for this so will reply.
Vilify definition – To make vicious and defamatory statements about. I’ve seen them here and there about Simon and Jim, but not you Lowry and if my reply to you was in anyway vicious or defamatory, I apologise. I only mentioned your name in my reply so everyone would know I was addressing the comments you made, how you get a personal attack from that I am not sure.
As far as it goes. I felt your comment was blaming parents who are fighting to save their schools for stretching the budgets of the council even further by having the audicity to actually disagree with the proposals. I disagree with that, of course we are going to question it, we are going what we feel is in the best interests of our children. And as I said, all 25 did not need to go through, only those with cases to answer could have, saving time and money. This was the council’s choice, not ours.
If they had produced sound, unbiased and accurate documents, they it would be less expensive too. If they put the info from these information requests up on their website like they said they would, the number of information requests would plummet, again saving money. Badly organised doesn’t cover it, but then again no-one else would try and shut 25 schools in one go.
If you are in the position that you feel amalgamation would be best for your child, then I completely respect that. I am absolutely sure, there is no-one else who knows more than you about what is best for your own child or children. But everyone has different circumstances. In my case, it is definitely not what is best for my children. Please do not criticise me or the other parents as this is at the heart of what we are doing.
Its not about politics, its not about getting people fired, its about our kids. And its not our fault A&BC have not done it right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wasn’t going to bother replying to Mr Sneddon’s attempt to explain himself in his attack on ARSN. It really shouldn’t be necessary to debate with a man who thinks it is admissable to use academic research on migration to close rural schools when there are many more relevant studies available. For now, let me just quote two of the latter;
“Some might argue that because it costs more to educate children in small rural schools, we should simply encourage consolidation in order to become more cost efficient. This approach, however, would clearly result in state government incurring much higher costs over the long term. When schools close, their communities close with them. For communities without schools, it becomes nearly impossible to attract young families to the area. As a result, there tends to be a general migration out of those communities. Businesses in the area will have difficulty surviving. Home prices will drop. As businesses close it will become more difficult for communities to sustain themselves.”
(“Making Difficult Times Worse.” – Prof. Gregory R. Thorson & Prof. Jacqueline Edmondson, University of Minnesota, 2000, p15)
“Maintaining good rural schools and communities means recognizing that being small can be a virtue and needs to be cultivated as such. Closing a school is like removing an essential organ from a community.”
(“Sustainable Small Schools.” – Craig B. Howley & John M. Eckman, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington DC, 1997, pp12&14)
The discerning reader will note that these quotes are fully referenced, unlike the unattributed assertions which litter Argyll & Bute’s Proposal Documents, and that they come from academic research on RURAL EDUCATION, which is rather more relevant than migration.
One last word on Mr Sneddon’s attempted self-justification. It was not ARSN that called his report “highly misleading” or “wholly unjustified”, it was the authors of the documents he was quoting. One of them added, “The inference they (Argyll & Bute) draw about schools is not one that the vast majority of those reading the report (or even that section) would draw.” In other words, Mr Sneddon either entirely misunderstood the report, or he was misrepresenting its conclusions. I’ll leave him the choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well said she-bat – I find it bizarre that A&BC are blaming the parents for asking for information that by rights should be theirs to have.
Either they severely underestimated the parents or as shown in the substandard papers – they expect you don’t need many facts to close a school.
It is not too late for the council to sit down work out what info we might need and publish it on the website – this way we could also have many independent opinions.
As it is we are being given spreadsheets converted to pdf just in case we work out the formulas – and we are of course left feeling there are many other facts A&BC are being secretive about – but why?
As has been pointed out some parents and schools do welcome the closures – although they are in the minority – surely even these parents require re-assurance that there is indeed educational benefit to be had from this process.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for newsroom’s comment 11:11
The article referred to was
“Time to go: call for resignations of CEO and two senior managers at Argyll and Bute Council”
The article was there at 0830, not there at about 0925, and is now back.
The text changes are minor tidying up, I think. Maybe an editor tweaking the text of a night shift reporter. Article pulled, minor correction(s), replaced.
>>>08:25 version
Sneddon’s attempt to destroy ARSN by focusing the weight of his attentions on it are clear in the fact that greatest volume of word space in this strange document is given over, in topping and mostly tailing, on ARSNs evidenced accusation that, at the meeting on 25th November 2010, he, Sneddon, had ‘deliberately misled or deceived’ the councillors.
…
The officers responsible, whom we have identified in the heading of this section, must go and they must go now. There is no basis for confidence in their competence or in their probity.
>>>Current (19:23 version)
Sneddon’s attempt to destroy ARSN by focusing his attentions on it are clear from the volume of space he gives over to ARSNs evidenced accusation that, at the meeting on 25th November 2010, he, Sneddon, had ‘deliberately misled or deceived’ the councillors.
…
In For Argyll’s evidenced opinion, the officers responsible, whom we have identified in the heading of this section, must go and they must go now. There is no basis for confidence in their competence or in their probity.
(( Possibly in response to Fan of Minard Says: December 18th, 2010 at 9:55 am ))
————-
I don’t normally take page copies, although maybe someone could. I just grabbed the old version while it still existed.
It does mean that previously entered comments do refer to marginally (trivially, hopefuly) different documents. There have been comments to these pages about For Argyll’s editorial probity; I don’t think that applies here. On balance I do feel that For Argyll’s work is worth while, and should continue to be taken as such.
A situation like this could generate comments ranging from
“Eh, What’s this about?” through
Pinch of salt
Pot, kettle
I think I prefer the 0925 / 0955? text of the page.
Colours to the wall, I could live with either version.
The “Schools” argument is more important: any “locking of texts” argument is, in my opinion, much less relevant. Newspapers update articles throughout editions during the day.
Walter Burton
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Spelling error
For
It does mean that previously entered comments do refer to marginally (trivially, hopefuly) different documents.
Please replace with
It does mean that previously entered comments do refer to marginally (trivially, hopefully) different documents.
(hopefully double-l)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“You are doing your utmost to put your own political argument forward and stopping others from having any voice at all.”
Lowry: This is an extraordinary statement. As I have evidenced above, I’m not always a fan of For Argyll’s commentary which I feel can be self-defeating. However, to claim that they are stopping others from having a voice is just such a self-obviously silly thing to say. They are providing a blog upon which we can all freely comment for good or bad, with praise or criticism. It costs us nothing and yet gives us a forum for debate that cannot be found elsewhere. Where is the Council Forum where we can freely debate the issues? Where indeed is the Council’s web page that shows us all the FoI requests and the answers? Where is the Council web site that allows all of the relevant documents to be found and downloaded from a single page?
If there are some parents who genuinely welcome the closures let them express those opinions here. They will not be vilified for it and I would welcome the opportunity to have a debate here on the benefits of small school education. I would point out though that parents have the right to choose where to send their children through placing requests. If they were concerned about their children being in too small schools then they would already have had the opportunity to move their children. They don’t need to wait for the Council to shut the school down to exercise their rights. Threaten to close a school where the parents are delighted with its performance and expect those parents to be vocal in its defence.
For Argyll is a long way from perfect but it is a wonderful resource for the people of Argyll and should be recognised as that by all sides of the debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Forargylls heart is undoubtedly in the right place, and are not above admitting if they get anything not 100%. They have brought lots to this debate, and more power to them. they dont mince their words and hope they never do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think those of us who are for the consultation process just have to accept that For Argyll is the ‘pin-up blog’ for those who would keep rural schools open at any cost. People Like Doc Douglas Mackenzie who proudly stated on another as a reason for keeping Bardcaldine open (Barcaldine – according to the Doc has 50% placing requests)
“Because North Lorn is a relatively prosperous and successful part of Argyll with a rising population our schools are still relatively close to each other. This means that parents can choose to send their children to a choice of primary schools within the area”.
Can you all just re-read that again please?
I don’t know about anyone else but I just cannot accept that all of us taxpayers and our council should be paying for under-occupied and expensive schools just so that ‘prosperous parents’ can pick and choose the school they want their children to attend.
Why we should we all be expected to incurr additional costs at this particular time when every other service is under severe threat? Close libraries, swimming pools, community centres and don’t repair roads – but give placing requests for ‘prosperous parents’ picking their primary ??
Sorry: not in my world.
But For Argyll has been so obsessed with its campaign to prevent the school consultation in the ifrst place and now to try stop school closures that has concentrated almost solely on the school consutlation to the detriment of everything else of imortancxe tha tis happening in Argyll and Bute. I have sadi before that there has been no real comment from For Argyll about the draconian cuts our council and our area now faces. But they find the time for plenty of underhand, snide, sustained, deliberate, personal and offensive attacks on officials doing their job or councillors struggling to set a legal budget – against cuts almost twice the 2.6% For Argyll was claiming only last week.
But councillors and For Argyll should be aware that not everyone wants to keep all these schools open or think the Council is doing the wrong thing!
And, just to set the record straight I am tad fed up with posters on here claiming that I either a council employeee or a councillor -so for the last time – I’m neither. I’m merely a tax-payer concerned about the level of cuts heading our way. But, to be honest, I’ll be dammned if I’ll sit quietly back and watch old folks close because ‘properous parents want to pick their primary’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ummm Simon, not all people that live rurally are prosperous. Thats quite a silly generalisation.
I’m a lot more skint than the council LOL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon
Our council does little for the Older folks as it is. Most of the provision is privately run.
Most of us do not want to see Education going the same way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon – what do you know that we don’t? According to the Council website they’re planning to pass on the running of ‘old folks homes’ to either the private sector or social enterprises. Nothing on there about homes closing. I hope your not trying to intentionally frighten some of the most vulnerable people in our communities
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have resisted the opportunity to retaliate to comments by Simon, but this last one has merited just that. How dare you, how very dare you suggest that parents struggling through this process are ‘prosperous….etc…’.
Clearly you have NO understanding of this subject, I suggest you go and take up knitting and leave us alone.
We are spending every waking minute (and quite a few more) searching for a sensible way to have the ‘closure process’ forced upon us halted and for a chance to play our part in working with the council – oh yes we would, as indeed we always should have – to play our part in providing solutions to the impending budget cuts.
Parents take up placing requests for all sorts of reasons, but I can assure you that once a child has begun school the decision to move them is a last resort – not for ‘prosperous parents’, placing requests are more likely made for unresolved issues in a previous school, bullying or other social problem affecting the child/children. Also of course the move can be made because parents work further from their home and it is easier to drop off the kids nearer to work ie in Oban or on the way, or because it is difficult/impossible to find wrap around care for their child/children close to home. Every parent in every authority has this right, and if a school is successful and attracts a large number of placing requests then surely it is doing something right??? Surely since we are talking about the educational benefits to our children we should look to the successful schools and find out what makes them tick? I am a tax payer too, like most parents, and I will be damned if I will sit quietly and watch the incompetence of this closure proposal ruin my child’s life, as indeed being moved from my first primary school ruined mine for many years, and I’m sorry but as a parent I have a responsiblity to my children to ensure their schooling is a positive experience – which it is, absolutely, right where they are now. The happiness and joy of walking with my children to school through the changing seasons, and having their pals knock on the door to come out and play is for me what childhood is about. Move them to a distant school and that is lost, forever.
And I couldn’t care less what you do, if you are so unhappy with the posts and the subject either switch off your computer or open your eyes, read through the proposals and – LIKE THE REST OF US, come up with some intelligent alternatives to keep rural communities alive and look after the children of Argyll – our future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well said Mugglemum! Let’s hear from more like you!!!
Sadly we WON’T hear from that other group of interested bystanders…headteachers…..since as local council employees they have been GAGGED!
For Argyll is doing an excellent job in generating discussion and offering a place to comment. They may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but they have successfully invited those who would wield power to think again and consider their positions in the future as they act in the present.
There is noise in Argyll, an awakening that is long overdue. Long may it continue!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In his ‘Response to Allegations made by ARSN’ Sneddon writes ‘The allegations that officers deliberately misled or deceived elected members at the Council Meeting of the 25th November are directly REFUTED in the strongest terms’ (my caps).
Hmm. On p. 1042 of my Concise Oxford Dictionary I find: ‘refute v.t. Prove falsity or error of (statement, opinion, argument, person advancing it), rebut or repel by argument.’
Notice that to REFUTE something you have to PROVE it to be wrong ‘BY ARGUMENT’. It isn’t enough simply to ASSERT that you refute something. That kind of speech act just won’t do the bizz here. He can DENY it (which I think he is trying to do, the poor dear) but he needs to SUPPORT a refutation with PROOF – which he hasn’t done. By contrast, it’s beginning to look as though For Argyll actually CAN prove their assertions….
Poor old Sneddon splits his infinitives too. But then what do you expect from a compulsive school-closer? He writes in his Council statement: ‘It is good TO FINALLY ARRIVE at Argyll and Bute and to join Community Services at what is both a very exciting and a very challenging time for the Council’ . You said it chum!
It reminds me of that twin set & pearls librarian in Occupied Jersey who was being sweet-talked by the Nazi Commandant, ‘Oh yes’ she replied, ‘You burn books, don’t you….’
Grrrrr
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Simon” is up to his old tricks of posting the same comments in more than one thread. I answered these in a previous thread but his attack is so odious that I’ll copy my response here again (apologies to those who have already read it). Before I do, Barcaldine is now a loss to the Council on closure . Is he advocating that Barcaldine should close yes or no?
(From previous post)
I did swear not to respond to any more of “Simon”s rather crude taunts and both Phill and Linnhe haver made excellent defences of parental choice. However, I think his comments are so out of line with reality that I have to respond to them unless anyone else reading this happens to think there is any truth in them.
“Indeed I’m not even sure that placing request pupils can be counted in the true roll of the school and am surprised that incoming familes are being turned away because of so many polacing requests – an even more expensive consequence of placing requests.”
Placing requests work both ways. I know of one school where there have been an extraordinary number of placing requests AWAY from the school. The roll is being used as an argument to close the school. You cannot have it both ways. Imperfect or not the roll is the measure of a school’s occupancy and all the other factors that derive from this.
As I have said, a popular school receiving a lot of placement requests can incur peculiar problems. The same school that I mentioned in the last paragraph was, just six years ago, over-capacity because of the school’s popularity and the number of placements coming to it. However, where you get the idea from that this produces expensive consequences I just don’t know. Would you like to evidence that statement?
“And I’m certainly not convinced that “Because North Lorn is a relatively prosperous and successful part of Argyll with a rising population our schools are still relatively close to each other. This means that parents can choose to send their children to a choice of primary schools within the area” that taxpayers and our council should be paying for expensive schools just so that ‘prosperous parents’ can pick and choose the school they want their children to attend.
My wife picked me up on this. My defence was the qualifier of “relatively”. My point was that North Lorn has advantages that areas such as (say the lower Kintyre peninsula) do not share. Population here is at a quite high density and employment is high. I wasn’t trying to suggest that we are all Ferrari driving well-to-do’s! Virtually all of the villages and settlements around Oban have been expanding, with evident new housing (Taynuilt, Connel, North Connel, Benderloch, Barcaldine, Kilmore and Kilninver. This is not to forget Oban itself. Oban has very restricted capacity for further residential development but Dunbeg is a target for considerable expansion of housing (and not forgetting the high tech industrial expansion at Dunstaffnage).
North Lorn has not suffered the demographic declines that have hit other parts of Argyll. While there has been rationalisation of the primary schools in Oban itself, the surrounding settlements have tended to keep their village schools. This means that the Oban area has a relatively high density of primaries, serving the educational needs of villages that are typically 3-5 miles apart from each other. This geographic proximity means that parents have the good fortune of being able to choose from a variety of different sized schools, with different ethos and focus without having to commit their children to unacceptably long journeys. And just to remind “Simon”: this is a good thing. It is what we should aspire to throughout Argyll. Again “Simon” makes unfounded and un-evidenced statements about these schools being expensive. I have repeatedly pointed to the fact that Barcaldine is one of the most cost-effective schools in Argyll (by the Council’s own figures) and yet he continues to peddle his anti-rural bias evidenced by this failure to acknowledge that most rural schools are comparable in cost-effectiveness to urban primaries – not in a small way because of the GAE support for small schools. A number of these schools will cost MORE to close than keep open. He acknowledged that it doesn’t make sense to close a school where the Council end up losing money and yet he continues to attack and call for the closure of perfectly viable schools.
“Why we should we all be expected to incurr additional costs at this particular time when every other service is under severe threat? Close old folks homes and don’t repair roads but give placing requests for ‘prosperous parents’ priority ??”
There are no additional costs. In the case of my own school, placement requests from Lochnell to Barcaldine actually generates money for the Council (at £2600 per pupil). Placement requests from Appin to Barcaldine (and vice versa) have no impact either way. Also, your insinuation that placements are in some way a sinister attempt to rob old folk of their retirement homes is risible. As I said before (and you ignored) in my own village school we have 4 placements out of our catchment area (1 to Lochnell and 3 to Oban schools) and 11 in (six from the Appin catchment and five from Lochnell – the latter generating an additional £13,000 for the Argyll economy from the Scottish Government (though this is mostly negated by the out-going placements, something I should have noted in the earlier version of this). However, catchment areas are just a bureaucratic convenience. In between settlements there is frequent housing (just drive between North Connel and Appin and see how true this is). For people in between settlements the choice of which school to send their children to is largely a matter of convenience. In our case, four of the Appin placements come from one family who live between Strath of Appin and Barcaldine. They might not live actually in the village but I can assure you they are just as much a part of the Barcaldine community as those families who live within our catchment area but to the South of Barcaldine and who could just as easily send their children to Lochnell as the schools are about equidistant. They not only participate in school events but they share parental child moving duties for activities such as Brownies and AYT with the rest of the Barcaldine parents.
I’m not authorised to comment on the other parents and why they choose to either place children outwith or into Barcaldine but in any case none of this justifies “Simon”s blatant and crude attempts to try to divide our communities by pitting school children against OAPs in a bogus battle for resources that is going on in his mind.
You end by saying “Sorry, not in my world”. I’m glad I don’t live in that world because it is obviously narrow-minded and unconcerned with truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This council if they had enough savvy could have been encouraging placing requests out of the overcrowded big schools and into the small “underoccupied ” ones – at no cost to them since no transport is paid for a placing request – and for each child they would get GAE – mugglemum is absolutely right that some schools are not the best place for some kids – not all teachers are perfect neither are all kids and sometimes the combinations just don’t work – add a bit of overcrowding in there and its misery for all.
What Simon hasn’t worked out is that we are proving that there is very little saving to be had – that is a fact – the council are barking up the wrong tree and they are scared we can prove it so hiding the info we need to provide them with “viable alternatives”. In many cases the current position is the most viable!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon doesnt get it and never will. He enjoys winding good fairminded people up. Sadly!
If the decision to go to consultation had been arrived at based on sound evidence delivered without prejudice or manipulation, then that would have been accepted. Subsequently when the consultation went ahead and decided there were to be closures, that would have also been accepted, albeit with understandable disappointment in affected communities.
That is where ‘forargyll’ are coming from and I and many others thank them so much for that.
Keep up the good work. For a small team it is anadmirable service you provide.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Has anyone else tried to ‘rate’ Clellend Sneddon’s recent response on the Council website? It’s a little bit odd. It appears to be stuck at an average of 4 stars with two people voted. When I voted it came up as 12 people voted with an average rating of 1.4 yet when you refresh the screen it reverts back to 4 stars and 2 people voted!! Hmmm I’m sure it is just another ‘minor’ little flaw.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Alasdair: We’d noticed the same phenomenon, Alasdair. Spin has long arms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Newsie – I just LOVE the way you’re not even embarrassed about typing this – “Spin has long arms”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon – And I just LOVE they way you’re not even embarrassed about typing this – ‘I’ll be dammned if I’ll sit quietly back and watch old folks close because ‘properous parents want to pick their primary’.
You clearly do not understand anything about educational need and provision. You have simply jumped on your on little bandwagon and spout out the same phrases over and over again without any plausible research or information behind your ‘mantras’. ‘Prosperous parents’, you arrogant so and so.
You are now clearly trying to frighten some of the most vulnerable people in our community by stating that ‘old folks’ homes are going to close. Where exactly have you got this information from, certainly not the Council website, unless of course you have some inside information. The Council plan to hand them over to Social Enterprises or private companies
You are constantly accusing For Argyll of stating inaccurate facts yet you are more than happy to do it yourself.
If you have proof that residential care homes are going to close then produce it, otherwise can you desist from intentionally misleading and frightening people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
At the risk of boring everyone with more stats about Barcaldine, I have just had a quick look at Memory Map.
Barcaldine’s current roll is 23 (out of a capacity of 24)
10 pupils (43.5%) live within a 2 km radius (1.25 miles) of the school (and mostly walk or cycle to school)
14 pupils (61%) live within a 3 km radius ( 1.9 miles) of the school
16 pupils (70%) live within a 5 km radius (3.125 miles) of the school
23 pupils (100%) live within a 7 km (4.5 miles) radius of the school.
Barcaldine is thus drawing its pupils from a quite tight radius, even though not all of them are within the designated catchment of Barcaldine School. Just for information, 3 out of the 4 placements outwith the school live within 2 km of the school. I would be interested to see if any of the other schools in Argyll actually draw their total roll from a tighter radius. The large secondaries in Oban certainly do not as they have placements into them from the satellite villages of Oban. And that is not in any way a criticism. It is just the nature of schooling in Argyll. Who can claim the prize for tightest roll radius and who can take the prize as the widest? (No bottle of whisky for this one – it’s just for fun).
Like so much of what “Simon” writes, his line about placements is a bogus and un-evidenced argument (bit like the closure proposals themselves!).
I always feel the need to answer “Simon”s postings in case there is anyone reading them who actually might believe them. However, I don’t want to waste my time doing so if no-one is interested in what “Simon” is saying anyway. So, I’m going to suggest that if anyone actually wants to see a response to anything that “Simon” has written, then please just stick a brief post on saying something like “Paging the Doctor” (or some other more witty request) for myself to answer or (mostly) refute “Simon”s post. Please don’t do this just for sport. I’m sure there are some of you who enjoy seeing myself, Tim, Phill, Crazy She Bat etc sticking it to “Simon” but let’s not indulge that simple pleasure. Let’s keep focused on debating the real issues.
I trust that For Argyll will let me know if “Simon” starts using pseudonyms to get me to respond. If “Simon” actually makes a valid point then I’ll respond myself without prompting but this tends to be rare.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Douglas
I don’t have the exact mileage but, with the exception of one placement request in Kilcreggan, I very much doubt if any child in either Rosneath or Kilcreggan is further away than 4.5 miles. Out of a combined school roll of 155 as far as I am aware only maybe three or four qualify for a bus (i.e. outwith 2 miles) and one of those is actually within the 2 mile criteria but the road is too dangerous as there is no pavement. His parents successfully appealed when his rights to a bus were removed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That puts Kilcreggan in joint equal spot!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
(oops, Rosneath as well).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you wanted me to try and confirm that Douglas I could look into it. As I say I don’t have the exact details to hand – just basing it on general knowledge of the two schools and the geographical area.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s just for fun – but it will give people a better minds eye view of our areas. With schools being threatened all over Argyll it is difficult to mentally picture all of them (I don’t think I have ever been to Kilcreggan myself). What I think we will find is that rural schools from densely populated areas take their pupils from limited catchments but that placements from adjacent areas are quite common whereas those from remote rural have very wide catchments with few placements (not exactly rocket science). I suspect (if anyone was really being nerdy about the figures and wanted to check) that urban primaries have higher numbers of placements than rural schools (though obviously lower percentages).
However, main point is that placements are another red herring.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well – I actually AM an OAP – and I tell you now I’d rather die in a ditch than lose our Primary School. It would be a life well lost. SO THERE SIMON! The chances are of course that if the school was still there, then the local kids and their folks would pick me out of it – it’s called COMMUNITY – but that’s somethingt hat Simon (and no doubt Sneddon et al ) would simply fail to understand.
Grrrr Grrrr Grrrr
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We seem to have lost the real governance issue
IF the letter from Bloomer was not shown to Walsh AND Isobel Strong, but they still hired him on the basis of his view that the Councillors should be kept out of it till later – which seems to have happened – then whoever saw that letter and still agreed to hire him is for the chop – either by the electors or by the Council. The facts can be discovered very easily.
Then to the tumbril with any justice!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Gerry Fisher: Gerry, colleagues have been doing the moderating on Comments today as I’ve been on investigative work so I’m not up to speed with what comments have been coming in.
For speed, would you tell me which Bloomer paper you’re referring to?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Governance in Argyll, pink elephants will be sighted before governance.
Anyone travelled Arrochar to Tarbet lately, the tinnies need ice-boots to walk to school on the untreated pathway, this was on Friday 17th.
This was imposed on the kids by the Administration and our esteemed councilors.
By the way, the road acces into Ms Louden’s residence, on a B road, is gritted, so anyone can view the “Children Beware” sign, think she should remove it as it is very apt discription of attitude in Kilmory
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Muggle Mum – that was a great piece of writing full of both passion and common sense. I had somehow missed it earlier.
To everyone, my apologies for the use of the word “prosperous”. As I said, I did qualify it with “relatively” and prosperous doesn’t mean the same as “affluent”. What I meant was that North Lorn is prospering (which it is) and certainly not that we are all affluent. So apologies to anyone who might have thought that I was suggesting we are all rich. I can assure I’m not and if I don’t stop posting things and get on with some real work I suspect the McKenzie household’s prosperity index will be taking a dive!
Also apologies for allowing “Simon” to drag us off topic.
I know that a number of councillors are very concerned with the balance of power between the elected and appointed officials. Mr Sneddon has set himself up as the pantomime villain of the piece (something I know a little about myself!) but it will be necessary to also examine the role of the Chief Executive in all of this (something else I know a little about). As the old saying goes “The buck stops here” and the Chief Executive cannot abrogate responsibility for policy, procedure and its implementation merely by having someone else do all the talking.
This issue has politicised hundreds (if not thousands) of parents and other community members across Argyll. They have looked first at the proposals with growing incredulity at the sheer level of errors, misinformation and omissions in the proposals. The Bloomergate e-mails raised the degree of anxiety up not a few more notches. People who never before gave the Council a moment’s thought have started to take an interest in governance within Argyll and they don’t like what they are seeing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lynda
The letter he sent when touting for business as a consultant -sent , I think, 21/10/10
Councillor McDonald had a copy, much later, and emailed it widely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Doc, I’m not siure I was the one that dragged you off topic – you don’t normally need my help for that. So, to ge tback onto topic and the article by ;Newsroom’aboe – I noitced that the Council statement “‘Even if the overstated figure of £2,644 referred to by the Rural Schools Network were used it would only have a limited impact. The total GAE loss would rise from £374,000 to £542,000 an increase of only £168,000 against the estimated saving of £1.9m” – remains virutally unchallenged.
So, in terms of GAE the Council whilst not concedeing the point are saying the difference is £168,00 against a saving of £1.9million. Now, I don’t see anyone arguing that point. Given the numerouse comments we have had on here re GAE I would be most interested to hear the reaction from ‘For Argyll’, ‘SRSN’, and ‘ARSN’ to this. Is what the Council has said here correct? If they accepted the SRSN figures – is the maximum difference £168k?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simon, I’m really disappointed that you could write:
‘old folks close because properous parents want to pick their primary’
And my disappointment is not for any grammar or spelling errors, we all can be guilty of that.
My disappointment is that it shows how far removed you are from the reality of what rural life is actually like. Whilst there are prosperous people in rural locations the majority of people are certainly not prosperous and this is particularly so for those in dispersed communities. By definition most of the second home/holiday home owners are not sending their children to these schools. It is also correct to say that most dispersed rural communities tend to have a higher proportion of older residents, frequently people who had worked on the land or on large estates. These are very far from prosperous people.
However, very few of these elderly people will have support from the Council simply because the younger members of the community look after them. This includes getting them shopping, taking them to doctor’s appointments, taking their refuse/recycling bins to a collection point (because there is no outside house kerbside collection) and even chopping wood for their fires.
The school closures threaten to remove these few younger people from those communities. If this happens the elderly people in them will have two choices: to move away (if they can find some other rented housing) or to call on help from Social Services which will increase council expenditure. Thus the closure programme is likely to lead to dying communities and/or increased Social Services expenditure.
I care massively about the treatment of elderly people (and not just because I am not far off joining them) and I can assure you that the school closure programme will not help them in the least.
What would protect all vulnerable people and communities would be councillors who ran the Council efficiently, for the good of their communities and ensured that large amounts of money were not wasted by squandering our taxes on badly flawed and inaccurate proposals. I notice that the response by some councils to even harsher cuts elsewhere has included removing over half the senior management and cutting the pay of those who remained. Many councils have cut members allowances and expenses.
Unless we are careful A&B will continue to be, in my opinion, poorly run and will announce more and more cuts to their frontline services whilst the centralised spending will suffer only modest reductions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BFO&C = sorry I didn’t mean to disappoint you. To give you a context my comment was in response to a comment from another poster who said.
“Because North Lorn is a relatively prosperous and successful part of Argyll with a rising population our schools are still relatively close to each other. This means that parents can choose to send their children to a choice of primary schools within the area.”
That these parents should expect the luxury of choosing their primary whilst other services face £15 million of cuts – cuts will affect every service – seemed to me at any rate to be nonsense.
I don’t agree that closing a school removes younger people from their communites. It doesn’t with our secodnary schools so why should it with primaries?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You don’t agree that parents of children from the age of 5 will be put off by them having journeys of up to 2 hrs a day over twisting, winding roads? You don’t agree that parents might be put off when a child will miss many days of school because the roads are impassable/dangerous? Many of these communities already have difficulty attracting young families – removing the school will make this worse.
If you can’t appreciate that what is just about acceptable for a 12/13 year old might not be for 5/6/7 year old then I don’t really know what to say.
You have obviously been influenced by the councils ‘inferences’. Actual research on the issue shows that, and I quote,: ” in the smallest villages which have fewer resources and fewer civic places, schools are especially critical to the social and economic well-being of the community”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BFOandC, No I don’t personally think that every village needs a school in order to survive or be viable. Times have changed and whereas there was a time that every sizeable village had it own shop, church, post office that is patently not the case today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To “Simon”: You are again carrying on your trick of posting the same arguments on different threads; you are carrying on the same trick of going on about points that have already been answered in different threads and you are continuing your trick of deliberately misrepresenting what others have said.
As I have already posted, I was talking about AREAS being relatively prosperous, not parents and my point was that in North Lorn we are fortunate in having a relatively high population density and a network of villages surrounding Oban that, rightly, have their own schools. This means that parents have the good fortune to be able to choose from a variety of schools (large school, small school, gaelic school; catholic school,urban school, rural school etc). If they do place their child at a school other than the one that is their catchment school then they take responsibility for transport. This is a good thing and it certainly isn’t a drain on the Council’s coffers.
However, you know all this “Simon”. It has all been covered before and everyone else here knows that too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thankfully Simon, the law requires something more than just personal thoughts on the issue of rural school closures. I do hope that peer-reviewed published research will carry more weight that personal thoughts or extrapolated inferences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BFOand C – you’re being somewhat perverse are you not?
- You ask me ‘Don’t you agree?’
- In response I treat you your question with repsect and I tell you my thoughts
- You then come back with “Thankfully Simon, the law requires something more than just personal thoughts “.
If all you want to hear is the Law – really, why you asking me in the first place??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well Simon it is interesting that you call me ‘somewhat perverse’.
I asked you a number of questions about the practical impact of closing schools in dispersed rural areas, after you used an ‘example’ of secondary schools to support your contention that closing a local school wouldn’t have an adverse impact on such communities. As you must know it is a legal requirement that councils consider such impacts before starting the closure process.
If you look you didn’t actually reply to those questions – you stated your view on the matter. I was just emphasising that the law requires more than a personal view.
However, I am sorry if you felt I didn’t respect what you said – I may not agree with much that you write but I always try to be respectful even with those I disagree with.
Anyway I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Christmas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
BFOandC – I’ve no doubt that we will exchange our views on here another time. But as this is the season of goodwill it’s probably best we leave things where they are – for now at least.
But I too would want to wish everyone a Happy Christmas as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0