Yesterday we published a news item on the Lonely Planet travel guide listing Easdale Island’s annual World Stone Skimming Championships along with the London 2012 Olympics as a must-see sporting event – a massive and developmental accolade.
After publications we had some emails and comments questioning our impartiality because our piece was unequivocally positive.
We’re not fence-sitters. We choose strongly to support positive energies where we find them because, without them, communities, cultures and countries die – but we accept that such energies can have their own rough edges, which we also believe should largely be avoidable.
Background
We were told of divisions in this small island community, of between 58 and 71 residents and we have witnessed something of this division ourselves at public meetings there. We put it down to the factionalism you get in any community, powerfully felt in small ones and no one’s business other than those who create and live with it.
We have no wish ever to get drawn into or pay any great attention to the minutiae of hyperlocal schisms. These are the stuff of life and community living as much as are the more positive elements. It is up to those living in such communities to sort out or endure such everyday tensions. For others to interest themselves in them gives them a significance they do not merit and can help to grow them to the proportions of black holes in space – sucking in and destroying living matter. Life’s a lot too short.
However, we work to be fair and where we may have missed something or got it wrong we address it, refocusing and apologising as necessary.
We have been aware of internal scuffles of the usual and probably inevitable parochial nature on the island – statements and counter statements to the media; local boats sabotaged – on an island you don’t let down tyres, you puncture a hull; complaints made by the disaffected to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) about the island’s development charity, Eilean Eisdeal.
We knew that OSCR, while making recommendations for procedural changes had found no serious fault with Eilean Eisdeal and we chose to leave it there.
The reality of small community organisatons, charitable or otherwise, is that they are run by volunteer effort and the priority is operational – to get on with doing what the organisation came into existence to do. Administrative and procedural matters , in these contexts, get lost to some degree and are muddled through well enough but rarely perfectly.
There will always be cause for complaint by anyone seeking to find it; and local fallings-out frequently result in one side taking the nuclear option – reporting the other to some external authority. This happened not so long ago on the island of Bute with the local radio station reported to Ofcom, as Eilean Eisdeal was twice reported to OSCR, in 2005 and this time in 2009. This move is commonplace if almost always misguided. It is born of frustration, vindictiveness or a bit of both.
Last night we took the decision to look into the situation on Easdale Island in order either to redress a wrong or to confirm that our overall stance on the situation had been sound.
Below is a summary of what we found, ending with our own interpretation of the picture this work discovered.
Research
We read:
- OSCR’s report on its inquiry and on the inquiry’s findings, published here online (5th September 2011) as a downloadable pdf;
- an article on the situation, published on 29th November 2011, following the OSCR inquiry report and written by a journalist from the online Third Sector publication who had visited the island and spoken to residents of all views, including leading voices from both sides of the argument;
- and the La Resistance? page, opened on 6th January 2012, on the Easdale People website, described as ‘The democratic voice of Easdale Island’.
The official perspective: the OSCR inquiry
This set its own context saying: ‘We received the first in a new series of complaints about the charity (Ed: Eiliean Eisdeal) in November 2009 and continued to receive complaints throughout the course of the inquiry.’
This gives a picture of a determined local prosecution of complaints.
OSCR found that: ‘Whilst many of the matters referred to OSCR fell outwith our remit as Regulator the following allegations were assessed as requiring further inquiry.’
These matters into which it inquired were:
- ‘that a former director was directly influencing charity trustee decisions and the activities of the charity and that the charity was favouring him to undertake work for the charity
- ‘that by ignoring opposition to its proposals, the charity was not acting in the interests of the island community
- ‘that a conflict of interest was not declared by a director and that the director took part in the discussion and decision making process on a matter they could derive benefit from
- ‘that maximising the visibility of renewable energy sources did not accord with its charitable purposes
- ‘that the charity was considering restricting use of the harbour to certain commercial firms.
The report also says at the outset that some issues of governance came to light during the inquiry which were discussed with the charity;s trustees. These were:
- ‘the process for nomination of directors and notice of general meetings could be confusing
- ‘the charity’s approach to external disputes and complaints could be developed further with the introduction of appropriate policies and procedures to protect the charity’s reputation
- ‘the transparency of the governing document which contained many references to Table A of the Companies Act 1985 could be improved’.
OSCR inquiry findings
On the relationship between a former director and the charity
OSCR found ‘…no evidence to suggest a former director was taking an active part in the decision making and management of the charity’. They also found that while the former director had undertaken untendered work for the charity, it had been at no cost or a reduced cost to the charity and had therefore been of benefit to it.
The inquiry recommended that the charity make the benefit of such arrangements to the charity clearer to the community; and that it should implement a tendering process ‘… for architectural or building related services’ ‘to ensure all decisions made during the tendering process are clearly recorded’.
By ignoring opposition to its proposals, the charity was not acting in the interests of the island community
OSCR found that Eilean Eisdeal had provided evidence of community consultation, feedback, consequent reconsideration and revision of proposals and that therefore there were ‘…no grounds to substantiate this complaint’.
The inquiry suggested that, ‘to increase public confidence’ the trustees ‘… should consider whether it would be in the best interests of the charity to commission an independent organisation to carry out and report back on surveys of the local community’s views’.
A conflict of interest was not declared by a director who took part in the discussion and decision making process
OSCR found that, at a public meeting on 13th September 2009 to receive proposals which included the building on the island of a small hostel without kitchen facilities, a charity director (who would benefit from this through the need for hostel occupants to eat in the only available venue on the island), had not declared that conflict of interest until a meeting of directors on 19th February 2010.
OSCR’s view was that the delay in the formal registering of this conflict of interest ‘was not in the best interests of the charity’. While understanding that in small communities, overlapping roles are inescapable, OSCR felt that the trustees ‘should be alert to the damage to public confidence a conflict of interest may cause’. The report recommended that the charity should take proactive steps to identify potential conflicts of interest and ensure that they are managed and can be seen to be managed appropriately’.
The inquiry noted that while the plans in question did not go ahead, the incident had highlighted ‘… weaknesses in how the charity manages potential conflicts of interest’.
Maximising the visibility of renewable energy sources did not accord with its charitable purposes
This complaint rested upon a report prepared by the Institute for Public Policy Research for the overarching British Gas Green Streets renewable energy project from which Eileam Eisdeal had received funding for renewable energy initiatives on the island. The charity demonstrated to OSCR’s satisfaction that this external report was simply inaccurate in some statements it had made and that what the charity had in fact done was in line with its educational objectives. OSCR therefore concluded that ‘there were no grounds to substantiate this complaint’.
The charity was considering restricting use of the harbour to certain commercial firms
OSCR accepted that the charity had no such intention and that, because of the frailty of the harbour walls for whose repair it was also seeking funding, it had asked commercial users not to unload on the walls but on another particular part of the harbour; and had asked them for information on how they proposed to manage their unloading. The inquiry therefore found that ‘there were no grounds to substantiate this complaint’.
Charitable purposes
During its inquiry OSCR found activities that ‘did not immediately appear to fit the charity’s purposes’. They instanced the proposals to build social housing and business premises.
The trustees’ view was that the need to sustain a viable community was the ‘key issue’ for the charity and underpinned its individual objectives.
OSCR did not see that the need to sustain a viable community was fully reflected in the charity’s objectives. To prevent the familiar ‘mission drift’, it recommended that the trustees examine the relationship between the governing document and the charity’s activities and bring these into line in a revision of the governing document – which would require submission to OSCR for approval. The trustees undertook to do this.
Transparency in the community
Lack of perceived transparency in the management of the charity’s activities was at the heart of many of the complaints OSCR received about Eilean Eisdeal. The inquiry felt that its recommendations on increased transparency in the management of potential conflicts of interest and in the clarification to the community of the benefit to the charity of certain work carried out, would help address concerns in this area.
The report said: ‘Acting in the best interests of the charity means that charities promoted as being community-led should take all reasonable steps to ensure that this is how they are perceived within the community’.
OSCR inquiry conclusions
In the issues, findings and associated recommendations listed above: ‘OSCR has found no evidence of serious misconduct in terms of section 66 of the 2005 Act and we have found no grounds for a number of the complaints made. However, we do consider that there are aspects of the charity’s governance that should be strengthened. We consider it would be in the best interests of the charity and demonstrate care and diligence for the charity trustees to strengthen governance, increase transparency and openness and improve engagement with the community’.
What the OSCR report usefully did in its conclusion was also to distill the lessons to be learned by the wider community of charities. It listed these as follows:
- ‘Charities set up for the benefit of the local community should build strong local links with their local community, including engaging with those whose views are different to their own. By developing and sustaining strong links, charity trustees are acting in the interests of the charity and in line with best practice.
- ‘Charity trustees should be aware of the potential for damage to public confidence of an undeclared conflict of interest and have in place: a code of conduct for managing conflicts of interest; and an up-to-date register of interests for each charity trustee. They should also be aware it is not only the responsibility of individual charity trustees to act only in the interests of the charity and avoid conflicts of interest. All charity trustees must ensure their fellow trustees take reasonable steps to do so and there should be appropriate procedures in place for the removal of any charity trustee who is in serious or persistent breach of their duties under section 66 of the 2005 Act.
- ‘Charity trustees should ensure that all of the charity’s activities further its objectives, reviewing the charity’s activities, particularly new ones, against objectives regularly to ensure they are in line with those defined in the governing document to avoid the risk of ‘mission drift’. ‘
The human perspective: opposing local views
There are a lot of revelatory insights in the other two sources of information we consulted and linked to above.
Broadly speaking the opposition focuses on those around the charity, Eilean Eisdeal and those around the Residents and Property Owners Association – which has funded planning applications for initiatives by the charity of which it has approved.
It is clear from the Third Sector article that local objectors to the charity have come to feel excluded from the work of the charity and have specific objections to some of its activities
The article refers to: ‘a small gathering of residents, convened to discuss their objections to the charity’s work with Third Sector’. This ‘small gathering’ described the work as being ‘divisive’; and detailed the following proposals as such: ‘… a wind turbine and the building of affordable housing, small business units and a hostel, although none of these have yet happened. These plans, say the residents, are the focus of their concerns and not the charity’s previous work, which includes building the community centre and running the island’s folk museum.’
A watershed is said to have been reached – and wold appear to have been from both perspectives, when, in 2008, a former director of the charity sent an email to the Residents and Property Owners Association. This has around 50 members in total – an unknown (to us) proportion of whom are non-resident landlords and second home owners. The email said: ‘We (Ed: the charity Eilean Eisdeal) have found your actions to be continually vexatious. We are not, therefore, prepared to waste any more time having a dialogue with your organisation.’
The official complaints to OSCR followed in 2009.
The other side of the issue emerges when the Third Sector journalist goes on a walk around the island with two directors of the charity, Jan Fraser and Keren Cafferty.
In a remark the reporter says: ‘… exemplifies the charity’s approach to its opponents’, Keren Cafferty declares: ‘There is a small minority of people that is vocal in complaining, and they are very difficult to deal with. They don’t take part in our consultations and they continually oppose our work. It is very time-wasting.’
And Jan Fraser either lit the blue touchpaper or offered a handy hostage to fortune. The article records: ‘Asked whether she thinks the charity is operating in line with its stated object of preserving the island’s natural beauty, Fraser says: “I think we are. This island is a pile of waste slate, and it used to be an industrial site, so it’s not a pretty island. I don’t think building on it detracts from its natural beauty”. ‘
This has been made much of in the exchange of comments in La Resistance, the Easdale People website page which was the third source we consulted.
For Argyll’s view
We read this cluster of material last night, slept on it,re-read and analysed it this morning before coming to a view.
We see the axis of conflict carried in the following remarks and issues, two of which are quoted above, two appear in comments in La Resistance and the last is one of the issues dismissed by OSCR:
- the ‘small gathering’ of objectors talking to the Third Sector reporter, describing the charity’s activities as divisive and identifying the divisive activities as the proposals for: ‘… a wind turbine and the building of affordable housing, small business units and a hostel’, while being quote content with: ‘… the charity’s previous work, which includes building the community centre and running the island’s folk museum.’
- Keren Cafferty’s remark to the Third Sector reporter: ‘There is a small minority of people that is vocal in complaining, and they are very difficult to deal with. They don’t take part in our consultations and they continually oppose our work. It is very time-wasting.’ – with the reporter’s reception of this as ‘exemplifying the charity’s approach to its opponents’.
- A remark in a long comment on La Resistance by Tina Jordan, a former resident who, with her husband. has moved off the island: ‘As for Cafferty, well, what can I say? Despite the large number of residents who objected to the recent wind turbine planning application and despite the equally large number who have signed petitions stating that they do not want Eilean Eisdeal to undertake major development on the island, she continues to believe that Eilean Easdeal directors have “overwhelming support from the community”. She blames a ‘small minority’ of folk who simply cannot be pleased. I am greatly amused how this ‘small minority’ seem to have helped prevent major development on the island with backing from islanders, the A&B council planners, planning committees and Scottish Government reporters, for more than a decade!’ (The bold emphasis – but not the italics within it, is ours.)
- A remark in another comment on La resistance, by ‘Bystander’: ‘And how about making all the members of the community feel that their votes count and that they are welcome as members by allowing new members to join (and of course pay their subs) before the vote. I am well aware that there are some residents that would resent giving a penny to the group as they disagree so strongly with its recent actions, so they would have to act as they see fit.’
- OSCR found no grounds for complaint in the allegation that the charity was considering restricting the use of the harbour to certain commercial firms. In the charity’s response to OSCR on this matter, they said that they had ‘… sought information about how users intended to carry out unloading’.
We would accept that, numerically, the opposing groups are broadly equal – with largely absentee landlords and property owners added to disaffected residents; and would also accept that, on a headcount of full time residents, it is likely that there is no more than ‘a small minority’ of objectors to the charity’s activities. It is telling that the Third Sector reporter describes only ‘a small gathering’ of objectors meeting with her on the island to discuss their concerns.
What we are seeing in and between the evidences above is a picture, first of a fundamental opposition of philosophies by the two opposing groups.
On one hand you have a group of what even the objectors admit are generative energies who are agreed to have made improvements to the island in its facilities and in its onsite entertainment programme. No one points to any positive change that has come from any other source.
On the other, you have a group essentially opposed to change – except for cherry-picked developments traditionally supportive of investment; and opposed to those like social housing which investors conventionally oppose. More than this, it would seem, from the section of the Jordan comment on La Resistance which we have emboldened above, that this is a group celebrating a decade of resistance to any development.
This is not a conflict between competing ideas. It is a conflict between something and nothing.
With this success in obstruction and triumphalist championing of stasis it is, at a human level, easy to understand the intemperate email sent in 2008 to the Residents and Property Owners Association by a former director of the charity; and the impatient frustration the Third Sector reporter obviously noted in Keren Cafferty’s remark to her that the ‘small minority’ are ‘vocal in complaining’, ‘difficult to deal with’, ;continually oppose our work’ and create a situation which is ‘time wasting’.
On the other hand, in a small community of 58 – 71, when one group become busily authoritative and start asking local commercial interests to provide information on how they propose to unload their material at the harbour, you must get a growing sense of resentment centred around the perception that some have got above themselves.
The perception, in the second quoted comment, from ‘Bystander’ on La Resistance, that the charity does not see all votes as equal and all potential members as welcome, suggests, by the chosen nom-de-plume, that Bystander’ may not be a full time resident and it is the votes and memberships of such members of the community that the charity is not disposed to regard as equal.
There is a real issue here and it affects development in communities across Scotland – it centres on the respective and comparative roles and rights of permanent and occasional residents; and on the sometimes competing interests of communities of full time residents and occasional members of those communities whose presence is investment centred.
In the end, as we see it, the deciding factor here is the issue where OSCR saw the charity as having departed to some degree from the provisions of its governing document – the focus on community viability. It is in not in the interests either of committed community residents or of investors in property in a community, for that community to become non-viable.
A driving concern of the Eilean Eisdeal charity is clearly – and explicitly in their evidence to OSCR, focused on working to create a sustainable community on Easdale Island.
The issue then becomes one of identifying the actions and provisions that have the best chance of underpinning the sustainability of a community on s small inshore island which Jan Fraser truthfully, if controversially, described as ‘a pile of waste slate’. She said Easdale is ‘not a pretty island’. Nor is it. But one can – and both groups clearly do – profoundly love a pile of waste slate that shapes a potent little island that is not ‘pretty’. And there are plenty of folk who dislike ‘prettiness’. Fraser’s remarks should be understood as factually descriptive rather than as derogatory of a place she cares for enough to work hard to better – in circumstances that must daily be conflictual.
It is, in our view, hard to see that proposals for a wind turbine, social or affordable housing, a hostel (which of course must have a kitchen) and some business units would not contribute to the creation of a viable community. All of these proposals are ‘to scale’ in matching ambition to the nature of the island. This is no Trump-sized atrocity. It is a modest plan for a modest place and designed to help a modest number of additional people to live and work there.
While it is clear that the objectors now feel excluded from the work of the charity – it is arguable that they this situation has, in part, been self-generated – although people being people, it is not credible that they have not, on occasion, been vilified to some degree.
What should and could bond both groups is their common attachment to their joint place. They will need to agree on what actions and activities will support the sustainability that is in all their interests; and they will have to agree who actually does what, takes responsibility for what.
In equality and collectivity, where the charity must learn to embrace opposition and find common ground with those currently objecting to their proposals, the opposing group must become active in generating positive change to help to secure the building of a viable community in this unique and memorable place.
In the end, there is generative energy or there is nothing.
We will continue to support such energies where, as here, we find them – but wise generative energies on both sides of what is, in truth, no more than a local squabble, will work to find agreement, mend fences and learn to work together.
While it is naive in the extreme to imagine any community of individuals as wholly and always of one mind or even always constructive, we believe that Easdale Island is a Division 1 community and can prove it.
The image at the top of this article is looking down on Easdale harbour, with Ellenabeich on Seil in the background and is by copyright holder, Steve Partridge. It is reproduced here under the Creative Commons licence.
Phew! What a stushie! Surely Mike McKenzie the SNP/MSP is from the island? Surely the SNP should be able to work their magic and resolve community problems on their own doorstep???
C’mon McKenzie – get the finger out – you’re either part of the solution or part of the problem!
PS You are sure Newie that this is not the Council’s fault??
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Ooops. Didn’t think it had gone the 1st time and re-did it. Best get one off before some smart-arse comes on commenting on my ‘double posts…… ‘
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
That would be me then?
I’m intrigued as to how you can delete a complete post and towhich post you decided to keep (also how you managed to get so many dislikes to my innocuous post – must be a lot of separate IP addresses available to you?
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Mmmm. Now that’s bizarre: two only slightly different postings from “Simon” 5 minutes apart from each other. The psychologists will be busy with this one.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
10
Hardly an unbiased article.
a) The latest OSCR report is a most serious and damning report on the conduct and behaviour of Eilean Eisdeal.
Section 1 notes that some of the serious matters in the new complaints also featured in the previous OSCR investigation into the affairs of Eilean Eisdeal. This despite compliance advice given and assurances received from Eilean Eisdeal, now is that a surprise, when do they ever listen to advice especially as they always know best.
Section 4 OSCR instructs Eilean Eisdeal that any future work should be put out to tender, they also instruct Eilean Eisdeal that any future surveys should be carried out by an independent organisation. It also warns Eilean Eisdeal regarding conflict of interests regarding their Trustees and the blatant failure to timely declare such interests. OSCR also notes that Social Housing and Commercial Premises do not fit the Charity’s stated purposes. OSCR also note a lack of transparancy in the management of Eilean Eisdeal activities.
It is interesting to note that on Eilean Eisdeal’s website they claim that they have been given a clean bill of health by OSCR from what they describe as these ‘malicious’ complaints. As usual, it seems that they are obstinately refusing to take good advice once again and are refusing to recognise the basis for these genuine and legitimate complaints.
I wonder how long it will be until the next investigation, OSCR will surely have noted that Eilean Eisdeal failed to address the legitimate complaints from their first investigation and if no action is taken to address these matters this time round then it surely will be a matter of 3 strikes and out.
b) Regarding the director’s incredible statement that the island is ‘no more than a pile of waste slate’, I would expect that the majority of the thousands of visitors to the island each year would dispute this view and would concur that it is indeed an extremely pretty island.
It may have been an industrial environment a century ago but it is no longer such and over the intervening years nature has slowly reclaimed the environment. Visitors are attracted by the peaceful, industry free, traffic free island and by the panormaic sea views together with the multitude of fauna and flora which makes the island a very attractive Conservation Area. Not only is Easdale Island a Conservation Area it is also under active consideration by Historic Scotland to be scheduled as an Ancient Monument.
Long may it continue to remain industry free.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
5
I thought I would do a bit of reserach myself and discovered the following:
1. Full-time islands residents = 46 Adults
2. Less than half of full-time residents are members of Eilean Eisdeal
3. More than half of full-time residents signed the petition stating that major development was not wanted on the island.
4. The ‘small gathering’ to which you refer represents the number of people available to speak to the reporter on the day of her visit and not the total number of residents opposing Eilean Eisdeal activities as you imply (see no. 3 above).
5. In the report from the Local Plan Public Inquiry the Scottish Office Reporter noted that Eilean Easdeal directors did not represent the community. He refused their request for a development area on the island.
6. The Easdale People editorial team are delighted that you are promoting their website as a source of information about the island.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Always good to hear both sides, so well done to Forargyll as always for overseeing that position.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
After having read some of the ‘Easdale People’ material it looks like my suggestion that perhaps local SNP/MSP Mike McKenzie should help resolve this spat might not be the smartest idea I’ve ever had.
That is if this comment (by ‘Easdale’ in an article entitled Harbour Master and appearing in Easdale People 6/12/2011) is anything to go by…
“as I have touched on before, the interview Cafferty gave to third sector was as far from the truth as pluto is from the sun, but then, she has learnt very well from her mentor Mike Mackenzie all about the use of half truths deceit and blatant lies, he’s the master at it.”
Oooooops….
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Glad to see that Simon has revised his view on how the spat on Easdale Island could be helped by Mike Mackenzie. Before his election, Mike Mackenzie lived on the island and I understand he was very much involved with the charity as a director for some time and as a consultant. Some people might say that he caused much of the problem. For example, I understand he promoted and supported the installation of a wind turbine on the island even though the island has conservation area status and is an area of panoramic quality, and many islanders objected to it.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
As a resident of Easdale Island and editor of Easdale People I can offer a more indepth account of what has happened on the island in the last 18 months and what led up to the complaint to the charity’s regulator OSCR.
Long story short. The charity were awarded £130,000 from the Scottish Gas Green Streets project. Mike Mackenzie MSP lead the team which applied for the money but the team also included some of the directors of the charity. It was never made clear to islanders who had actually applied for the money, the charity, or the directors and Mackenzie putting themselves forward simply as island residents.
So the project was launched. The first we got to know about it was through the Oban Times – so much for community consultation. Next there was a series of meeting where the residents were told how the money was going to be spent, we were told NOT asked.
Months went by and planning applications was put in by the charity for a wind turbine and air source heat pump. Eventually the application for the turbine was turned down, first by the planners and then on appeal by the Scottish Government’s reporter. Over half of the full time residents had put in an objection.
The sting in the tail of this story, is that for the last year residents have been emailing the directors of the charity and Scottish Gas, to find out how the money was spent, and especially what companies benefited from the £130,000. To this day we haven’t had a concrete answer.
Having taken a closer look at this I could see that only Mike Mackenzie’s two firms Mike Mackenzie Builders Ltd and Argyll Architecture (of which Mike MacKenzie was the 80% shareholder) at the time had received any money from the project. This was from the limited information that had been made available by Scottish Gas and Eilean Eisdeal.
In December 2010 I made an allegation along these lines in a planning submission to the council. Mackenzie sent me a letter threatening to sue me in Oban Sheriff Court unless I withdrew my allegation. I replied, telling him to go ahead as the truth always comes out in court, and to this day I haven’t received a writ.
Julian Penney
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
2
For Julian Penney: We feel that you and others can take comfort from the thoroughness of OSCR’s investigation of this matter – and their conclusions.
They found that while some of the charity’s procedures were less evolved than they might be (a common enough matter), there was no financial impropriety and that what work that Mr Mackenzie had done was carried at no or low cost and was therefore of benefit to the charity.
It is also unwise to read a refusal to take legal action as an indication of a weak defence. Anyone with any sense would stop short of pouring money into the deep pockets of lawyers.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Wow!! Julian, are you suggesting corruption on the part of Mike McKenzie??
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
I also notice that despite his MSP declaration of interests, Mackenzie continues to trade as a builder, reference http://www.sol.co.uk/c/coalree/builders/
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
For Maurice Brodie: We can assure you authoritatively that you are misinformed.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I beg to differ, the web page reference that I gave is still live and is touting for orders for Mike Mackenzie Builders of Easdale Island. The inference is that Mike Mackenzie continues to trade as a builder.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
For Mauricce Brodie: This may be a branding thing. To the best of our knowledge Mr Mackenzie is no longer a part of that company.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Newsie, did you edit Mike McKenzie’s website?? (see post 10 above).
Normally I wouldn’t ask but this has all of your trademark typos ie “Postal Correspondance”…
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
or is it the other way round ….. has Mackenzie been writing articles on For Argyll?!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I have the evidence to support my position Mackenzie knows this, and that is why he wouldn’t meet me in court.
Julian Penney
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
3
For Julian Penney: Your comment above has been severely edited because it sought to mislead by suggesting that Mr Mackenzie had been involved in a series of cases heard at Oban Sheriff Court.
We have checked this out and it is wrong. There was a single case, the one to which you refer in another comment or two, a business matter involving a friend of yours.
As we have said before, it is misguided to imagine – and damaging to suggest – that because someone will not take you to court for persistent provocation, that they have n no defence against what allegations you might make. Only an idiot goes storming into court and lines the pockets of lawyers.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
Pingback: ForArgyll Article | Easdale People
Does Eilean Eisdeal have elections, and if so why are the apparent vocal majority who are opposed to the committee’s actions not themselves on the committee?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
easier said than done!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
You’ll be the Julian Penney that was going to have someone locked up after the police investigation into the alleged stealing of your kayak. What investigation, what theft and no one locked up. The words pot, kettle and black come to mind.
Kenneth Bryce
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
Mr Bryce, I can’t quite see your point, I think you should stop writing in riddles and address the serious points raised in the article.
As I recall, I don’t remember seeing you in Oban Sheriff court on the 30th March last year on the first full days proceedings hearing evidence in the Walton Electrical V Mike Mackenzie case.
And again I don’t recall seeing you there on the 11th of April.
And once again I don’t recall seeing you there on the 10th of May.
I would have remembered, you see I was there along with Henry Tarbett taking notes for Easdale people.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Point of order, Newsroom (and given the conclusions of your article I could accuse you of “creative editing”, but of course I won’t!). What the ThirdSector reporter actually said was: “On a walk around the island with two of Eilean Eisdeal’s directors, Keren Cafferty and Jan Fraser, it becomes clear that THE EMAIL [to the island's Residents' Association] EXEMPLIFIES THE CHARITY’S APPROACH TO ITS OPPONENTS”. Not, as you said, Keren Cafferty’s remark about a “small minority” exemplifying the charity’s attitude.
And a translation of that email to the Residents’ Assocation would be: “If you ask us any questions at all we’re going to get annoyed, and not talk to you any more”.
So that would be Eilean Eisdeal’s idea of “community engagement”?
I also fail to see what bit of “community led” (as indicated by OSCR) the Eilean Eisdeal directors don’t understand. How about: led by the community; acting on behalf of the community for what it actually wants; bottom up (as Eilean Eisdeal claimed to be on its GreenStreets bid).
Contrast this with Donald Melville’s statement to the ThirdSector reporter: “… we are convinced that our work is for the benefit of the community and WE ARE DETERMINED TO CONTINUE”.
Whether “the community” wants them to or not, presumably.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
For Clootie Dumpling: No creative editing, we promise.
We understood – and having read the Third Sector article again after this comment of yours, still see it the same way – that the reporter was saying that Keren Cafferty’s impatience with the objectors obstructiveness echoed the sense of exasperated frustration she had already heard in the former director’;s email to the R&POA – and that therefore the email turned out to exmplify the charity’s attitude to its sometime opponents.
We worked on and wrote this article from a genuine objectivity, in a wish to see and transmit a straight picture, to be fair to all concerned and to offer an analysis which we feel has constructive things to say – in the context of identifying the apparently single source of progress and improvement on the island as Eilean Eisdeal.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Hello Newsroom. I can see that you’re being kept very busy, but hope that you’re not too busy to correct what is elarly a misinterpretation on your part of what the Third Sector reporter Kaye Wiggins said in her report on Easdale Island.
The email that she referred to, addressed to the Residents’ Assocation, was sent by the then Chairperson of Eilean Eisdeal, Sandra Melville, and clearly states the following:
“We have found your actions to be continually vexatious. We are not, therefore, prepared to waste any more time having a dialogue with your organisation.”
This email was in reply to a polite enquiry about the use of a tractor which had been donated to the island for the benefit of all.
A surprising response, was it not?
ClootieDumpling has already pointed this out to you, but you seem to prefer your own interpretation – or misinterpretation.
I wonder. Do you have a “close assocation” with Eilean Eisdeal?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
For Coffin Nail: We didn’t misrepresent anything, We made no comment on what had led to the email or on its contents except to point to the Third Sector reporter’s picking up on its exasperation.
We are also not blind to the syndrome captured in the advice the Duchess gives in Alice in Wonderland:
‘Speak roughly to your little boy
and beat him when he sneezes
he only does it to annoy
because he knows it teases.’
This may well sum up both parties to the stand off. It also identifies the fact that actions appearing innocent may sometimes be less so in their intent to provoke – and this is the way such games get played.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
‘Progress’ and ‘Improvement’ are very much in the eye of the beholder . . .
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
For Webcraft: They are. And so is stasis, if one is given to watching paint dry.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
A very good question, William Douglas. I have contacted a few islanders and this is was I have been told:
1. Eilean Eisdeal claim to have approx. 90 members
2. The number of members who are full-time residents = approx 22 (less than 1/3)
3. Therefore 2/3 = people who do not live on the island.
4. This proves that it is not a group that represents the resident islanders.
5. It results in non-residents supporting proposed developments without having to think about or live with the consequences.
6. Many residents have been members in the past and tried to encourage changes and/or become directors but have been blocked because, in their opinion, their views were different to those of the Eilean Eisdeal clique.
7. As mentioned in the article above, the majority of residents now wait to find out what Eilean Eisdeal are doing by reading the Oban Times or waiting to see planning applications. They find no point in trying to engage in any meaningful way with the directors because the directors have already made decisions before any ‘consultation’, as stated by Melville above, and supported by the recent wind turbine debarle.
8. The directors have made a rod for their own backs because no only do they waste a lot of the charity’s money by submitting planning applications which fail, but also waste a lot of their own time. No-one now wishes to help out – this is supported by the fact that no new directors were forth coming at the last AGM even tho’ at least one of them should have stood down.
An interesting situation and no doubt one which OSCR will be monitoring. There’s quite a good suggestion at what the problem might be on the Easdale People website entitled ‘Groupthink’.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
For Lowry; There is a flatly incorrect statement in your comment above. Point 7 is wholly false. ‘The article above’ makes no mention of any of statements you claim. If you mean something other than our article – which is the only ‘article above’, then you should make that clear.
It is also unacceptable to quote supposedly factual statistics obtained from a chat with an unspecified ‘few’ islanders. The only source of accurate information on the location and number of the members of Eilean Eisdeal is Eilean Eisdeal. We will ask the charity for an authoritative statement on that.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
I hope that you have more success than others have had. The usual Eilean Eisdeal reply to this type of query is that the information is confidential. Anybody with access to the web can become a member of Eilean Eisdeal by signing up on their website and by paying their subscription. This is why the Eilean Eisdeal membership is apparantly greater than the number of adult residents on Easdale Island and is the reason why it has always been futile to attempt to remove any of the current Eilean Eisdeal directors. Any attempt to propose a replacement director is always defeated by unseen postal votes from these phantom non-residents.
Residency on Easdale, whether full or part time is not a pre-requisite to becoming a member of Eilean Eisdeal. It would appear that the majority of their members are not residents and this is a group who falsely claim to represent the Easdale community.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
It does appear that this may have changed recently and new members have to be property owners or residents which is a step in the right direction … however I very much doubt that the existing membership list will have been updated to ensure that existing members who had since moved away are changed from having voting rights to becoming ‘friends’ of the trust who do not have the right to vote.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
From the Eilean Easdale website:
Get Involved : join Eilean Eisdeal
Eilean Eisdeal is entirely run by volunteers and we would be very grateful for your support. Both full and part time residents of Easdale are most welcome as members.
Nothing there to suggest that non-residents can join.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
In that case it would be interesting for newsroom to satisfactorily resolve the discrepancy in the numbers since no one else has been able to.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
For Maurice Brodie: We’re far from expert in charity law, but would have thought that the facts of membership – not names but numbers and distribution – should be in the public domain.
Even if they are not legally required to be, it would be transparent to make such information known. Numbers and distribution are also not sensitive facts in terms of confidentiality.
The trouble at the moment is a conflictual situation in which straightforward information become weaponry – so folk keep it in store.
What you say also raises a very interesting set of issues.
It’s easy to understand how those who feel an affinity with the island would wish to be affiliated to and support an organisation dedicated to its sustainability.
This wider ‘community’ is a real and positive resource for the island – provided that it is used responsibly and behaves responsibly, which includes occasions where it is constructive not to vote.
This then raises the continuingly difficult definition of ‘community – important for a ‘community charity’.
Is ‘the community’:
the full time residents?
the residents and often absentee property owners?
the membership of the community charity?
all of the above?
There needs to be an agreed definition of this’community’as part of sorting this situation out. And perhaps whatever definition is agreed locally might then be added to the revisions of the governing document the charity is to put to OSCR?
Our tuppenceworth is that that the least contentious definition would be that the ‘community’ in this case is the full time residents.
Why?
Because otherwise you get into arguing over the competing rights of absentee property owners versus equally absentee members of the charity who have paid their subscriptions to it.
Everyone would have their own view and vested interests in this, agreement would not be reached and recruiting membership to the charitable community could be seen as manipulative.
The alternative manipulation – of more folk becoming full time residents – is a productive but less likely move and one limited by physical capacity.
The total pain is that you only ever need rules when mutual trust has broken down – and that’s the real issue to sort out.
Both sides need to become trustworthy.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Eligibilty for membership of Eilean Eisdeal is another can of worms which has to be laid firmly at the door of the founder of this organization, namely Mike Mackenzie SNP MSP and builder. He seems incapable of thinking things through and messes like this appear to be symptomatic of anything that he is involved with.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
I take it we are still waiting for an authoritative statement from Eilean Eisdeal then!
While you are asking them pertinent questions, maybe you could also find out how much of the money has been spent of the £130,000 of Green Streets money and how it has been spent, as residents have repeatedly asked the but the group has refused to provide this information.
As you yourself stated, information like this should be in the public domain.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
According to the Eilean Easdale website any full or part time residents of the island are eligible to join and all have equal voting rights. There is a membership form on the site.
Why doesn’t everyone simply join and vote on issues, thus ensuring that the charity IS representative of the islanders?
Or am I being naive?
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
well, one property owner on the island who had objected to the work of the group was turned down as a member ….. and had to push to be accepted!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
For Webcraft: Absolutely.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
For Webcraft: And why doesn’t everyone join the Residents and Property Owners Association for the same reason.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
While the venting of ills is inevitable and has its therapeutic element, we had hoped and still hope to see a move toward leaving that behind and moving towards positivity
Particularly in small communities, the most destructive situation is ‘them and us’. Tiny communities like this have little human resource as it is. To divide that and then see a conflict destructive of the philosophy of sustainability is self mutilating.
It has to be recognised that there is no evidence of initiatives for community sustainability emerging from the objectors. If there was a different plan and set of initiatives that were simply being overset by a local clique, the stance of the objectors would have a very different weight.
It also has to be recognised that inclusivity is a sine qua non and that, even on the national scale, with civil disobedience the fall back position, no one can do anything without consent. The charity’s stance would have more weight if there was evidence of sustained pro-active inclusivity.
Both sides need to get a grip-of the reality.
Easdale Island clearly matters to everyone concerned in this and it is easy to see why – but its cosmic significance is miniscule.
If this tiny island community willfully tears itself apart, the island will die. The impact of that will not be widely felt, even in Argyll. But it will be hard felt by those involved – on either side. And a living place will be lost.
If the island and life on the island – now and in the future, is worth fighting for, it has to be worth compromising for.
Someone has to make the first move.
Most communities have their wise ones, accepted as such by everyone.
Is there any mileage in having the wise ones take this in charge? They would talk to both sides – on the basis of finding out:
the nature of their major complaints,
where they would compromise,
where they would like to see compromise offered to them
and what positive action they would be prepared to bring to the table in moving forwards?
The wise ones would devise a proposition from what they then knew and put it openly to all sides, making whatever amendments they thought were reasonable, necessary and acceptable. And the wise ones would preside over the early stages of implementation, with their rulings requiring to be accepted without dispute by all concerned.
Where is the point in choosing to live by contributing to a situation that sees everyone in a tiny settlement get out of bed to tensions and hostilities every single morning?
This is madness and the power to change it is in the hands of every invdividual involved.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
In reply to Newsie (comment 21) I do wonder what they see as making a sustainable community. My wish is for Easdale to go back to being a pleasant place to live, where the local ‘charity’ is concerned with supporting the residents rather than becoming a development company and riding rough shod over their views.
Take the Green Streets project. This was applied for on behalf of the island without asking anyones opinion. They were successful, and received £130,000. There were various meetings at which the trust was mentioning insulating homes, installing boilers, and generally making sure that the residents benefitted from the money.
According to your article on the project dated 9th November 2009 “All residents in the village will have access to energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy installations.” You also write that” Projects were judged on: potential for energy efficiency savings across the entire community; local renewable power generation; ability to engage their entire community; ability to mobilise the support of other local residents.”
However, eventually Eilean Eisdeal chose to ignore the needs and views of the rest of the community and push ahead with the planned wind turbine. The main aim of this was to provide the power to run an air source heat pump to heat the islands hall. This would have been more admirable if they had decided to insulate the hall first, but they refused to do this!
There was very obvious local opposition to the project, and when the planning application was refused, rather than looking closely at the situation and listening to what was being said by the residents, the group then decided to take it to appeal. If you choose to look at the planning documents for the application you will see that there was huge opposition to the turbine from locals and the tiny smattering of letters of support were from either directors of Eilean Eisdeal or their associates.
To date the only positive thing to come to the island from the project is a wood pellet boiler that was installed in the home of a local family. Good news for them, and the owner of the property, who happens to be Mike Mackenzie MSP’s wife!
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
This is madness and the power to change it is in the hands of every invdividual involved.
Well, you’re half right at least . . .
Re. inclusivity – see my post above. If everyone joins Eilean Easdale and exercises their voting rights then surely the problem is solved?
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
I totally agree with the sentiments of Webcraft, but this only works if the organisation runs elections in a fair way!
The membership list is the first bone of contention: last time it was made available it included members who had long since left the island or were dead. Presumably they still have a right to vote.
At the 2010 AGM a member stood for election and as he was one of the objectors was not voted on. This is not surprising, but what is surprising is that for once the election had a huge response from members, especially in postal votes. That smells for a start.
This latest AGM was held in December 2011, but there was very little to announce it on the island. Members presumably received their notification, but it was not being trumpeted as a chance for non-members on the island to come along and join, or get involved.
I also do not trust an organisation that does not make its constitution available on its website, nor any minutes of meetings. I would be very interested to know when the last minutes were made public … and I am sure that legally the group will be able to cover its back on this issue but morally this appears very dubious.
The same few faces have now been directors for a number of years, and appear to keep shuffling round. Surely time for some new blood, but you would have to be a brave soul to stand up to them!
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
For Webcraft: And, as above, if everybody also joins the Residents and Property Owners Association.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Webcraft has missed the point. The charity membership is also open to non-resident property owners, and anyone with a ‘close association’ with the island (property ownership not necessary). All with a vote. So even if all full time residents became members, there is still the potential to be outvoted. Perhaps this can be confirmed if and when newsroom gets the ‘authoritative’ data from the charity.
So far, it seems that ‘initiatives’ from the charity can only be realistically challenged by local residents by objecting to planning applications if and when they emerge.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
For Spock: We will be talking to the charity shortly but in the meantime, as we understand it, the membership eligibility rules are those asked for by OSCR.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Spock,
The implication on the website is that at least part-time residence is required. If however things are as you say then it is a very different situation.
If no residence (even part time) is required for voting membership of Eilean Easdale and they are then voting through major changes and taking major decisions that affect all inhabitants then there is no way that the organisation can be considered to be representative of the residents.
That would not necessarily be an insurmountable problem if it were not for the fact that Eilean Easdale has a slick publicity machine and is all too ready to represent itself as the ‘Voice of Easdale’ – whereas in fact it is only one voice of Easdale.
What about a community buyout? That seems to have stimulated community spirit in other island communities, would involve a new body and constitution and would (presumably) limit decision making to full-time residents.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
As I said earlier, but you may have missed, I think the restrictions on new members being property owners or residents is in place, but I’m not aware whether this rule has been applied to existing members of the group …. which would mean that there are still people with voting rights who do not live on or own property on the island …. making it very hard for genuine residents to have their voice heard.
It would be interesting to see how many residents and property owners there are altogether on Easdale …. and then compare this with the membership list of the group to see if it ties up, especially as there are a lot of residents who are not members as they do not want to be supporting a group financially that they feel does not represent them.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
For Spock: Who owns the island?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For newsroom under post 24:
Easdale Island is owned by Easdale Island Company Ltd., sole director Jonathan Feigenbaum. Easdale Island Company Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Stampdile Ltd.
Jonathan feigenbaum is also sole director of Stampdile Ltd.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
According to the Eilean Eisdeal document entitled “Bye-Laws governing Rules of Membership to Eilean Eisdeal” one of the conditions of membership is :- A person must live on Easdale Island or own or rent property on Easdale Island, or have a close association with Easdale Island.
Whatever “a close association” means, this term is not defined in these Bye-Laws.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
For Mike Jones: The island would want close associations to be maintained in every way possible as this is a massive resource, culturally and economically.
The common sense interpretation of ‘close associations’ would be family who have moved away, former residents who have moved away and maybe regular visitors who stay on the island. Folk who come most years to the Stone Throwing Championship and connections of that kind, might enjoy being members of an Friends of Easdale association, outside the charity. But ‘a close association’ would be a weak fit in these cases.
It’s important not to read too much into what is not defined in Rules of Membership.
When folk fall out they imagine the other side to be macchiavellian and planning for all sorts of devious moves from the outset. This is mostly daft. Virtually all community organisations are run by folk who really care about the place and about keeping it alive, lively, well resourced and forward looking. And they’re almost always volunteers. And in all sorts of ways they personally cover some of the costs of operation. And they have other loves to lead. When they form an association, a community company, or a charitable trust, they want to get the paperwork right but they really want just to start doing what it is they want to do. It is 99.9% unlikely that any community charity or company ever builds into the founding documents room for smart dodges in the future. They just don’t think that way. They’re focused on the job they want to do.
It’s impossible to imagine that one single person who has ever been involved in such an enterprise imagines that their genuine altruism might end up with them being vilified and demonised. So they don’t ever see founding documents as needing to protect their individual and collective interests down the road. It’s just not like that.
As they say, it’s cock-up theory rather than conspiracy theory.
Stuff happens. People get up each others noses. Generative energies are crucial but any energy causes displacement (probably our dodgy physics again but you know what we mean) and that itself causes tensions.
Then people start separating into opposing cliques, stop communicating, translate ‘the other’ into monstrous shapes and away goes the runaway train.These things can’t be stopped but they should stop as soon as they start. Who would choose to live like this, to take this road?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Newsroom, I really can’t believe some of what I’m reading here! The contradictions are amazing.
You’ve just said:
“It’s important not to read too much into what is not defined in Rules of Membership.”
Eilean Eisdeal’s Rules of Membership are bye-laws, not part of their Mems & Arts and, as such (as with any other charity or company) can be changed by the directors at will – without consulting their membership or anyone else. Indeed, without telling ANYONE that they’ve been changed. So never mind your “cock-up versus conspiracy theory”! Those Rules of Membership DO define who can or cannot become a voting “member”. It is therefore VERY important what those Rules say, surely?
As stated in one of your previous posts:
“This then raises the continuingly difficult definition of ‘community – important for a ‘community charity’.
Is ‘the community’:
the full time residents?
the residents and often absentee property owners?
the membership of the community charity?
all of the above?
So, while you’re asking the Eilean Eisdeal directors for their “authoritative statement” about the numbers and distribution of their membership (presumably between full-time and part-time residents?), perhaps you’d also ask them for a copy of their current bye-laws on eligibility for membership? I’m sure island residents would be very interested to know. As you said earlier, this information is not sensitive, and should be in the public domain.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
For Clootie Dumpling: It is easy to get overheated in matters like this, The fact is that OSCR set the rules for what they want to see in membership eligibility and they are generously inclusive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Unfortunately I think that you may be wrong here, Newsroom. OSCR cannot dictate the membership criteria of an organisation. OSCR states that it’s down to the members.
So, in the case of Eilean Eisdeal, apparently when some of the members tried to change the criteria they were shouted down in a meeting, laughed at and then ignored. Those members left the organisation not only because they felt it was obvious that some manipulation was taking place but also because of the way they were treated.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
For Lowry: You’re right in they don’t dictate but they advise and they make their preferences clear.
We don’t pretend to be expert in this, but we do have some knowledge and a little experience of it. As we’ve understood it – and possibly imperfectly – the issue is one of inclusivity. As a general rule – and it applies to CICs as well as charitable trusts – with a community company of any kind, the regulatory authorities like to see inclusive access to membership.
One can understand the philososophy while seeing that the result can be less rather than more democratic.
We’re not actually huge OSCR fans. We understand that they have a difficult job to do and that following the major frauds we’ve all seen in the national press, the bar has had to be significantly raised on compliance issues. However, there are procedures and systems that would merit from rethinking and much finer tuning. Its like most of our physical and organisational infrastructure really – in need of a brush up and refocus.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t think that OSCR is in the business of setting rules for charities. As I understand it, Eilean Eisdeal set the rule and probably got OSCR to endorse it.
Like they got OSCR to endorse changing the Articles & Memorandum of Association to drop the word ‘cooperate’ with other organisations.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Newsroom: You are correct, the article which I meant to refer to was the one printed by the Third Sector, not yours. Apologies. I have also noticed my misspelling of debacle.
Webcraft: Most constituted groups who claim to represent communities have a cap on the number of members who are non resident. This means that the number of non-resident members is never higher than that of full-time residents. The number of non-residents will be set annually according to the number of full-time resident members, always less than the latter. This means that any vote should allow the full time residents to have a majority say.
Unfortunately this is not the case with Eilean Eisdeal. Even if all full time residents joined (46) the greater number of non-resident members, which is almost double(approx. 70), means that the full-timers cannot possibly get a majority result.
A solution would be to have different categories of membership and weighting of votes. It really is an impossible situation when those that don’t live there can approve devlopments over those who don’t want them and have to live with the consequences. The wind turbine proposal is the most recent example.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
For Lowry: With our typo rate, we’re never going to be in a position to worry about spelling mistakes. And thank you for the clarification.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
As I understand it, in reply to Stooshie, there are no restrictions on new members of the charity for non-island property owners except that they have to have a close association with the island. What does this mean, and who decides what is close?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Webcraft and Newsroom: Do you think it fair that the opinion of someone who may visit a property one or twice per year carries the same weight as someone who lives in the community full-time? In the case of the Eilean Eisdeal membership who does the ‘community’ group really represent?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I think you are getting into a difficult area here, one that affects all small communities in the area.
Who’s opinion should matter more: someone who inherited a cottage from their granny and visits once a year; a full time resident who has rented a property for years but doesn’t own one; someone that has recently bought a holiday home and visits regularly; someone that rents a property for a short period of time; someone that owns their property and lives there full time ….
I certainly don’t know the answers …. just thought I would raise the question!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I think that permanent residents should have the major say, but I can see an argument for property owners to also have a vote as they are stakeholders in the community to some degree. Maybe there should be, as someone else has suggested, a weighting, say two votes for residents, one vote for absentee property owners.
I do not see any reason for any other category of people (eg holidaymakers or the ‘interested’ or the ‘friendly’) to have a vote on any matters affecting residents, particularly if membership in this category is ‘by approval’.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
For Lowry: This is a hypothetical question and it’s getting a personal answer. No I don’t.
Lynda
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
It is my view that folk who live permenantly and full-time in a community (not seasonal workers) should have a greater say, whether they own their property or not. If you don’t live there you’re not affected by any development on a daily basis.
I have no objection to anyone supporting Eilean Eisdeal, only the fact that as it currently stands, full-time residents are unable to have the majority say in Eilean Eisdeal activities.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
For Lowry: We have no accurate knowledge of the situation you refer to in your second paragraph.
But we would agree wholly with what you say in your first paragraph.
The interests of full time, permanent resident must take precedence.
Investment is about risk taking and that means sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
Buying a property as an investment is buying something that is likely to be affected by change in its surrounding circumstances.
While some commercial judgment may be better than others, it’s essentially the luck of the draw as to whether or how much such an investment increases in value.
We can see no valid case of special pleading to protect the value of something which is risk based. Risk has to mean risk.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
not quite sure why you are going on about investment ….. we are talking about peoples lives!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I’ve been away from here for a few days and, although the regulars will know that I am certainly not a SNP supporter, I have to say that I find some of the comments on here directed against Mike MacKenzie to be completely outrageous and potentially libellous.
These comments are so direct, so pointed and so personal that they go way beyond what is could be considered a reasonable or even a robust exchanges of view.
Given Newsie and FA’s bloody nose (as well as the subsequent lawyers letter they received) for their Dunoon Observer ‘exclusive’ – I am astounded that they allow such comments – made against a public figure – to remain here on this public news-website.
Have a Nice Evening
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
For Simon: You will find that we have made some editions.
I have now read this complete chain of comments myself, not all of which I had personally seen.
I found amongst them a series of contributions from you that I can only describe as mischievous – which makes your concern above pretty hypocritical.
Mr Penney does not disguise his identity.
However aggressive or obsessive he may be in his pursuit of Mr Mackenzie, he does not deserve to be stalked by a predator attempting to lure him into indiscretions for the sake of private mischief.
We would appreciate your restraint in not inflaming a situation which seriously requires to be put behind every member of the community concerned.
Lynda
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Simon, it’s only libel when the allegation you’re making is not true. As I have already said in my second comment, Mackenzie has threatened to sue me before and backed down, he knew he would lose in court.
In your last comment you say it’s so personal. In January 2008 Lorne Walton took it very personally when Mackenzie wouldn’t pay the £4,087 he owed him, it was very nearly the end of his business. It took three years for Lorne to recover the debt plus some, not all of his legal expenses. When the case finally came to court Lorne had to represent himself as he couldn’t afford to pay his solicitor anymore, I’ve never seen a man so determined.
Mackenzie finally payed the money he owed but via a third party.
Simon, as I’ve said, I stand by everything I’ve written, so if John Campbell QC wants to come after me, he know where I live.
Julian Penney
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
For Julian Penney: We have substantially edited this post because of misrepresentations.
We understand now where your emotional pursuit of Mr Mackenzie is coming from – and most of us would feel as protective of our friends as you do. However we also understand the matter to have been a more complex one than you suggest.
You have now made public what you would wish to make public and we would appreciate it if you left it there. There is a liberation in leaving something like this behind you.
Like or Dislike:
1 
6
Think some quarters in the SNP hierarchy probably wish Mackenzie handnt got the list place as a result of the (deserved)landslide. definately a weak link.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
For phill: Our ongoing research demonstrates clearly that the fears you have been led to develop are unfounded.
The work we are doing on this progressively shows that the situation on Easdale has been bordering not only on the bizarre but on the virtually murderous.
Directors of the charity have been subject to prolonged acts of serious vandalism of their property, which in one case has cost tens of thousands of pounds over a very few years.
Yachts in the harbour had holes drilled in their hulls. One director of the charity had her canoe punctured in several places and only discovered this when she was out paddling in the sea.
Others had substantial amounts of water added to the fuel tanks of the engines on their boats – which, with an early stop to the little island ferry, folk use to get themselves back from Ellenabeich at night, in the dark, on a difficult stretch of water.
It was nothing but good fortune that prevented a tragic outcome to such indefensible acts of clinical madness. No sane person could condone this sort of action resulting from something that should never have been more than a storm in a teacup.
Our researches show that the police have been involved in these incidents.
This parochial stooshie has a very dark side to it and it appears that the members of the charity – the one source of efforts to create a sustainable community – have been the targets.
But the positive side – and that is the genuine majority – is that the charity is organising the second annual RIB Rendezvous at Easdale, in association with the fabulous Seafari – in early May.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
To Newsie: pity you don’t also mention the intimidation, damage to vehicles, threats , and many other actions that have been suffered by and reported to the police by residents that dare to oppose Eilean Eisdeal.
All your comments show that you are biased and are being fed information directly from either Mike Mackenzie MSP or Eilean Eisdeal. At least the Third Sector journalist made the point of listening to both sides of the story!
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
For Stooshie: Sorry. We have been aware of these incidents for some time and had deliberated on whether or not to mention them.
It seemed necessary to do so because we have received additional information about them – but not from any islander, from a concerned and non-partisan friend of the island.
Whether or not this sort of action is even more widespread on the island, it is unbelievable that in the face of behaviour so abnormal and so dangerous, some folk remain more concerned with scoring points and damaging the other side.
The evidence from the collection of comments to this article tells a story of its own. There are none from the charity side, slagging off their opponents.
That would indicate where the weight of responsibility for hostilities lies.
We’re now learning how this insane game is played – so even pointing out this pattern of commenting may well produce a flood of anti-Residents & Property Owners Association comments from pseudonyms and made up names in an effort to make the charity look every bit as rabid.
With acts of sabotage of the degree of gravity we have referenced, let alone if others have been equally substantiated – this situation could not be more dangerous. It really is time to take a step back.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
newsroom, my ref was re Mike Mackenzie msp, not allegedly Director of a sued business or member of a charity (EE). I would however concur with your thoughts re mindless vandalism/intimidation from whatever quarters, as there are clearly issues on both sides.
Perhaps a referendum is needed!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
For phill: Nice idea and a helpfully light touch.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
For Julian Penney: We have removed some actionable misrepresentation from this comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
Newsroom, having read your analysis of the Third Sector reporter’s article, OSCR’s findings, and the Easdale People post and comments, I believe that I might recognise a certain writing style.
It couldn’t be that you’ve employed the services of a ghost writer?
And it couldn’t be that that ghost writer is a certain Michael William Frederick MacKenzie, the surprise MSP that nobody actually voted for?
Just asking.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Newsie: as ma Grannie would’ve said “Hell mend you”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Newsie – “I found amongst them a series of contributions from you that I can only describe as mischievous” –
Utter nonsense!
What you ‘found’ was a 4/5 posts of a fairly innocuous nature. However, in order to underline the seriousness of the situation I asked one serious question at post 9.
Personally I couldn’t believe that anyone would be so crass as to put his name to such a potenially libellous allegations about a MSP – but he did. I suggested you remove it – you decided to leave it there.
So, not much more to be said really…
Have a nice night…..
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
For Simon: There is actually quite a lot more to be said now.
Did I say mischief? That didn’t come close.
You sent the following email to Mike Mackenzie MSP timed at 9.33pm tonight. (We have given you the unearned protection of removing your email address.)
‘From: Simon (name and email address removed)
Sent: 12 January 2012 21:33
To: MacKenzie M (Mike), MSP
Subject: Mike MacKenzie Accused of
‘Mr McKenzie,
‘Are you aware you are being accused publicly on the ‘For Argyll’ web-site of amongst other things – corruption, deception and fraud??’
To this email you attached a chain of four comments above – Nos 9-12.
However, you mischievously edited these to cover your own provocative role and you deliberately used an earlier version of Mr Penney’s Comment No 12 – which had contained the libels you instance but which had been edited out since 7.58pm – an hour and a half before your email to Mr Mackenzie.
Here are the facts of the trail of your actions.
Our major edit of the libellous material in Mr Penney’s comment No 12 is timed, as it was done,at 7.58pm
My remonstration to you on your conduct (attached to your comment No 30 above) is timed at 8.32pm.
At 9.31 you posted comment No 33 in response to me, saying ‘Newsie: as ma Grannie would’ve said “Hell mend you”.
At 9.33 you obviously decided to give Hell a helping hand and emailed Mr Mackenzie the email reproduced above.
In using the much earlier version of Mr Penney’s comment No 12, which you must have saved, you were attempting mischievously to maximise the anxiety which you were trying to inflict on Mr Mackenzie.
We also notice that the first of the chain of comments you sent Mr Mackenzie was your own mischief-making Comment 9 above – with the name of the contributor (yourself) removed.
There was a second comment from you in this chain of comments (9-12 inc) which you copied to Mr Mackenzie.
This one (No 11) is not engaged in the mischief-making against Mr Mackenzie that characterises Comment No 9 (and several others) from which you have removed your own contributor’s name. You have left your own name on No 11.
This too is manipulative, seeking to disguise from Mr Mackenzie that the person who was sending him this ‘warning’ was the one who had been doing his level best to stir things up and had successfully encouraged Mr Penney to more overt acts of libel.
This is utterly unacceptable behaviour in a responsible community of readers. It is fully malevolent.
We have always given you space to attack and attempt to undermine us at every opportunity and to distort situations in your obvious interests.
But this behaviour is something else altogether. It is diseased.
Your access to commenting on this site is now barred.
Moreover, should comments come in attempting to defend you, they will be spammed as they would probably be from you. You have always sought the cloak of disguise which has been open to you and which few abuse.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
If Mr. Penney’s accusations are potentially libellous then I am sure that either Newsroom will remove them or Mr Mackenzie will be in touch.
Either of these parties is far more likely to be able to judge if the content of the posts is libellous than the entity describing itself as Simon. I have refrained from commenting on the Simon entity before, but this posting in particular confirms it as a troll and nothing else.
Apropos of nothing , Newsroom, why can I see your rather inane ‘stasis’ comment as the last comment in this thread no matter how many other posts are made?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Ummmm, just so I am understanding this correctly…
Simon has now been barred from this site?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
For Crazy She-Bat: Yes. Sorry to remove the resident entertainment but this was way beyond…
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
No problem Newsroom.
I must admit, I have reading the comments on this article every day and every single time the words “ten foot barge pole” would come into my head.
Hence my silence on it up until now.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
I nominate this thread for can of worms of the year.
We now have a commenter permanently barred, and we also appear to have the owners of this site still taking sides and supporting Eilean Easdale against the rest of the residents – which is not, IMO, responsible journalism.
Consisder this from Newsroom down near the bottom of post 31 & associated replies:
The evidence from the collection of comments to this article tells a story of its own. There are none from the charity side, slagging off their opponents.
That would indicate where the weight of responsibility for hostilities lies.
We’re now learning how this insane game is played – so even pointing out this pattern of commenting may well produce a flood of anti-Residents & Property Owners Association comments from pseudonyms and made up names in an effort to make the charity look every bit as rabid.
Now I may be wrong, but I interpret this as:
a) We have decided that anyone complaining about the activities of Eilean Easdale is ‘rabid’
b) By taking the 5th and remaining silent Eilean Easdale have proved they are not culpable.
c) Even if they break their silence and respond we will choose to believe that any negative comments are not posted by them but by malicious trolls from the other side.
ForArgyll came into this with the attitude that Easdale Island was some kind of thriving green entrepreneurial paradise. When it was pointed out to them that there was more going on beneath the surface they put in the appearance of doing a bit of investigation, but within two days are back with a clean bill of health for EE, who are apparently mere victims in all this.
It is not just Eilean Easdale. There is something unhealthy in ForArgyll’s readiness to pounce on individuals, businesses and organisations that they know very little about and load them up with purple prose and saccharine superlatives. This isn’t journalism, this is making things up without finding out the facts or talking to ordinary people. Although I wouldn’t necessarily go that far there are some who might even see it as toadying or sooking up.
ForArgyll made a lot of friends with its Support Our Schools campaign, but unless it ups its journalistic game it risks losing much of its support. Let’s have some more real stuff and less poorly researched puff.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
2
Not just a can of worms, Webcraft. What has happened is that ForArgyll’s elephant-in-the-room has finally materialised. And that elephant is, having been left far too long unattended, now on musth.
The question is: will ForArgyll deal with it even-handedly, or simply have it shot?
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
I have to agree with Webcraft’s comment. I would also add the comments :
a) How do we know that Eilean Easdale has remained quiet in this matter, Simon seems to have been quite vocal in their cause and so has newsroom,
b) The Eilean Easdale directors were quite vocal and denigrating in their comments on the Easdale community in the Third Sector article and showed no apparent desire to work with the Easdale Island community.
c) Perhaps Eilean Easdale are silent because they are not in a position to be able to refute any criticisms.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
The more this topic is explored the more Eilean Eisdeal dierctors seem to fit into the psychological phenomenon of ‘Groupthink’ as suggested on the Easdale People website. This is a serious situation and unless it is recognised no changes will be made.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Newsroom – Re your comment quoted above by Webcraft: “… pointing out this pattern of commenting may well produce a flood of anti-Residents & Property Owners Association comments from pseudonyms and made up names in an effort to make the charity look every bit as rabid.”
We’d like to make it clear that the Easdale Island Residents’ & Property Owners’ Association is not a charity but a constituted group. Its constitution and minutes of its meetings can be seen on the Seil Island Online website.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
EIRPOA,
I don’t think Newsroom was accusing you of being a charity – my interpretation was that they were worried EIRPOA members would post pretending to be representatives of Eilean Easdale in an attempt to discredit that charity.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
For Newsroom.
I have to agree with Webcraft, where are your journalistic qualities? You’ve obviously spoken to Mackenzie and taken for gospel his lie that there was only one court case, failing miserably to do some real journalism and find the truth.
By the close of play today I will do my best to post the court documents on Easdale people relating to the other cases.
Julian Penney
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
As promised, the relevant documents are available to be viewed on the Easdale People website.
Julian Penney
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Had a look on the Easdale People website. No sign of any documents, just a couple of photocopied pages which don’t say much.
I did however notice that the Editor, a Mr Julian Penney, had been asked by a correspondent why a post he had made to the website, congratulating Mike MacKenzie on being elected to the Scots parliament, had disappeared. Mr Penney claimed it had been caught in a SpamNet and he didn’t want to get involved in national politics anyway. The next entry allowed another contributor to get involved in national politics by making allegations against Mr MacKenzie along the same lines as Mr Penney has already outlined on this website. The words pot, kettle and black, in that order, spring immediately to mind.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
For Julian Penney: We have followed the link to the information you have posted on Easdlae People and have seen the foundation for the information in your previous comment which we openly edited.
In the preface to your proofs in your Easdale People piece, you say: For Argyll said that they had been told, and I believe by Mackenzie, that that was untrue and there was “only one court case”.
In fairness to you, we would wish to confirm that your assumption is correct.
We did ask Mr Mackenzie, by phone, about the several other cases to which you referred and he said: ‘There was only one case’.
There do appear to have been other cases and, while we have no idea what these were about, the response we were given was misleading.
We asked the question of him because one goes first to the source and we accepted the response in good faith and without hesitation – hence the editing of your comments.
We are profoundly disappointed to have been misdirected in this way by someone whom we have always regarded as straightforward.
We unreservedly apologise to you for the implication in our editing of your comment in question – and you may realise that some of our other editions were about removing overheated material.
We hope that you and others will understand that while everyone of any persuasion in this situation will disagree with some or all of what we see and say, we are honestly working to be open, to understand and represent this complex and long standing situation.
Lynda
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
0
Does this mean Simon gets re-instated? In a weird way, I’m kinda missing him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
For Newsroom:
Now that you can believe what Mr Penney has stated about Mr Mackenzie’s court cases, when will you start believing what he and others have posted concerning the behaviour of Eilean Eisdeal directors and, I believe, the unacceptable way in which they run the charity?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Lynda, I would just like to to say publicly, many thanks for being so honest in your apology.
Kind regards
Julian
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
And I would like to say that I very much regret that circumstances led us to cast doubt on the integrity of your evidence. We intend to do right but of course we get things wrong from time to time and we don’t believe in pretending we haven’t. Offering a genuine apology cannot put the wrong right but it does clarify.
We should also know better than most that crusading spirits are not assimilable and that itself leads to misinterpretations.
With best wishes, Lynda
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
Newsroom: Thank you for giving your considered comment on the make-up of membership for a community group. I believe most people would agree that permenant residents of any community should have a majority say in developments whether proposed by a local group, local authority or national government.
For information, I have been told that many residents have made suggestions of alternative projects, all of which have been dismissed or ignored by Eilean Eisdeal directors. For example, one suggested improvements to the ugly bin area included recycling bins and screening. This proposal had the support of A&B council who offered to supply the bins and help with screening, similar to those sites on Luing and Seil. Eilean Eisdeal prevented progress on this idea because it went against their idea for major building development.
As for vandalism, you have not reported the vandalism to others who have objected to Eielean Eisdeal’s plans. If memory serves me correctly, there were at least 2 main articles on different occasions, in the Press and Journal, reporting on damage to property caused by the island’s local building company whilst they were working for the chair of Eilean Eisdeal. The owners of the neighbouring property concerned had objected to Eilean Eisdeal proposals. Similarly, the case of the vanishing canoe, mentioned above, can probably be seen as the harassment dished out to those who also objected.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Newsroom: Apologies for targeting you again with my comments but you make very sensible suggestions that I understand have been tried on Easdale Island to no avail. The Community Council held a meeting with all parties at which an agreement was made for the Residents’ Association and Eilean Eisdeal to work together, however the agreement failed miserably when Eielan Eisdeal directors refused to meet with representatives from the Residents’ Association afterwards.
You say in Item 21 above “Most communities have their wise ones, accepted as such by everyone”. I think most islanders would agree that both Mary Withall (author) and Alice Clayton are very well respected ‘wise ones’ who live on the island, yet they too make some very damning remarks about Eilean Eisdeal in the article produced by The Third Sector.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
P.S. Any update on the details of the membership numbers and distribution as requested by you to Eilean Eisdeal yet? As you state, this should be public information.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Looks like this would be a “no” then, Lowry!
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Newsroom, having read through all the comments on here yet another time, I’ve gone back to your original article where I found this again:
“It is, in our view, hard to see that proposals for a wind turbine, social or affordable housing, a hostel (which of course must have a kitchen) and some business units would not contribute to the creation of a viable community. All of these proposals are ‘to scale’ in matching ambition to the nature of the island.”
Somewhere, you say that you have visited Easdale. Clearly, then, you didn’t see the plans for what was proposed, otherwise there’s no way that you could say these were ‘to scale’ with this tiny island.
I would have posted a link here to the Argyle Architecture website, where these were displayed, but this doesn’t seem to exist any more.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
The signal to noise ratio is a bit grim on this thread, with replies to replies appearing all over the place and not chonologically.
If you missed it, Julian Penney has now published documents on the Easdale People site to show that MMK was indeed involved in more than one court case – albeit only one more.
Perhaps Newsroom owes JP an apology?
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Replying to my own post now – not entirely sure that threaded mode is ideal.
Newsroom has in fact apologised to JP back up the way and now feels that they may have been misled by MMK.
Still baffled by the fact that Newsroom’s ‘stasis’ response to a post I made way back at the dawn of this thread is the last post in the thread no matter what else happens.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Have to say that I feel you are right Webcraft and returning to a strict chronological order might be more effective. Encouraging people to state what post number they are replying to would help clarify things when all the posts are chronological.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
For Dr Douglas Mackenzie and Webcraft:
We’ll pass this idea on to the Techroom. we used to run chronologically and then tried the current chained system.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
This whole article in particular has me lost. People replying all over the place.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Webcraft, if you check on Easdale people you will see that there were in fact two other court cases, one of which was due to be heard the day before the Walton Electrical case was due to start.
Julian Penney
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I am still waiting for the information about the Eilean Eisdeal membership numbers and make-up. Newsroom: Do you think it will be forthcoming?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Well?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I assume we can call take it that Eilean Eisdeal are refusing to provide any information about its membership. It is disappointing that, in the interest of openness and accountability, the ForArgyll team aren’t publishing the result of their enquiry.
I guess the same may also be said about the requests for information concerning the Green Streets funding.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
We are all still waiting for newsroom to publish (as promised) the following information which should be in the public domain.
Who are the Eilean Eisdeal membership?
What happened to the Green Streets funding?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
A month has gone by and we are still waiting for the newsroom to publish the answers to our questions or are Eilean Eisdeal refusing to make the information public, I wonder what it is that they are desperately trying to hide from public view.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Congratulations to Mr Penney for his persistence in getting to the truth and exposing a politician who appeared to try to mislead For Argyll journalists.
Disappointingly, there is also evidence that appears to show that Mike Mackenzie has made inaccurate statements on several other occasions.
Firstly, whilst he was a director of Eilean Eisdeal, there was Mackenzie’s statement about the community land buyout and how the community contribution was paid. Following an HIE investigation it was revealed that rules had been broken and that no community contribution had been made. Instead Mackenzie had benefitted from an ‘option to purchase agreement’ on a piece of land in the middle of the area bought by the community and, as a result, less land came into community ownership.
Secondly, there are at least three instances of inaccurate statements that he made to the Health and Safety Executive during an investigation from a formal complaint made about the practices of his building company, Mike Mackenzie Builders, in 2008. Evidence held by islanders shows his statements to be untrue.
Thirdly, I am aware of documents that suggest Mike Mackenzie presented questionable evidence to the court during the recent court case Walton Electricals V Mike Mackenzie Builders.
Lastly, and perhaps more worryingly, I understand Mike Mackenzie MSP recently stated to the Scottish Parliament that he gained no personal benefit from the charity’s Greenstreets Project, on Easdale Island. This is hard to believe for a number of reasons:-
a) Mike Mackenzie was heavily involved in the project even before the community became aware of it and acted as a consultant giving presentations at meetings, as shown in the For Argyll article Greenstreets on Easdale dated 2 February 2010. It was stated that £20,000 had been earmarked to pay for such services.
b) He was a major shareholder in the architect company used to draw up plans and submit planning applications on behalf of the charity.
c) In the recommendations made from the investigation into Eilean Eisdeal, OSCR criticised the lack of a tendering process for work undertaken by the charity, which seemed to favour Mackenzie. This was highlighted by the fact that companies associated with Mackenzie were involved in many other elements of the Greenstreets project.
d) It has been suggested that as part of the Greenstreets project a wood pellet stove was installed in the extension to the property where Mike Mckenzie resides.
The fact that Eilean Eisdeal and Scottish Gas have, to date, refused to give information on exactly how the £130,000 has been spent, following requests from island residents, can only serve to re-enforce the suspicion that Mike Mackenzie gained financially from the project. If this is the case then he seems to have at the very least misled the Scottish Parliament.
If all the above is correct, is this the type of behaviour that the Scottish people expect from any Member of the Scottish Parliament?
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
0
This is amazing.A tiny island and with a tiny pop` and all this correspondance.
To be honest as far as our msp`s concerned there is a lot of people for which him being foond oot is a long time coming.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0