Comment posted Aberdeen votes by narrow majority for video game ‘garden’ at Union Terrace by newsroom.
For Webcraft and Ken MacColl: It’s not an either or situation. We are of course looking into the situation with the Oban CHORD project and we are aware that access to the entire Interim Business Case has been denied.
Anyone from outside the council has to accept that an Interin Business case actually exists and that it has been discussed. Not only is the public denied knowledge of the contents of this business case, it is not allowed to know what the conclusions of the discussion on it were.
Moreover, the meeting was asked: ‘to recommend to the Programme Management Board that £1,840,000.00 be drawn down to allow the 1st phase of the project as detailed in the Interim Business case to be progressed, subject to the adjustments discussed for the traffic interchange proposals.
This is a substantial sum of money to be drawn down with no public account of exactly what it is for – and to be drawn down on the basis of an ‘interim’ and not a final business case.
The Oban CHORD project is a labyrinthine morass of indefensible practice and as such, working to undersitand it is a slow process akin to dissecting a rat.
The Aberdeen division on the retention or radicalisation of Union Terrace Gardens raises issues of perspectives on planning for public spaces which are relevant anywhere.
Helensburgh faces the vandalism of the classical lines of Colquhoun Square and for no good reason.
Anyone who looks at the design approved for Union Terrace Gardens will see nothing organic but simply an overscale version of the short term concrete wows that were enacted in urban gardens back when garden makeovers where all the rage.
This is a question of design for public spaces – and we are all affected by such matters wherever we live.
Recent comments by newsroom
- Perfect fit in new partnership marketing initiative for Cowal’s Creggans Inn
Had a grin at your imagineering of ‘a sobering run to Dunoon by HM finest’.
This sort of occasion is obviously about staying overnight and we had expected that this was central to the marketing strategy – but we will inquire.
- Gigha community ownership on brink of failure
[Updated below] A sentence in the opening section of this article has been removed:
‘Wightman was also allowed personally and unacknowledged, to write a major section of the final report of the Land Reform Review Group [immediately identifiable by its style] – although that was the formal responsibility of others.’
Mr Wightman has simply said to us:
‘This statement is untrue. Please remove it.’
So of course we have removed it.
However, the sentence is actually a multiple statement so, for the record because one issue is important – we have asked Mr Wightman to clarify which of its internal statements is incorrect – or if all of them are:
‘Did you write any section or sections or parts of any section or sections of the final LRRG report?
‘Is it incorrect to suggest that you were ‘allowed’ to write an element or elements of the report, where, for instance, you may have seen this as a right?
‘Is is incorrect to suggest that your authorship of elements of the report was ‘unacknowledged’ where we may have failed to notice such an acknowledgement?
‘Is it incorrect that the writing of the report was ‘the formal responsibility of others?’
For Argyll is aware that sections of the final report of the Land Reform Review Group were indeed written by Advisers to the Review Group rather than, as one is entitled to expect – by the topline membership [albeit a regularly shifting one] of the Review Group itself.
Our analysis of the language style and content analysis of major elements of the report as being both distinctively different from other sections of the report and arguably authored by Mr Wightman, who was an Adviser to the Review Group.
The passage on ‘ Statutory limitation on land ownership’ seemed a particularly attributable; and the passage ‘Inheritance rights changed to break up established landholdings’ scored a possible similar authorship.
These analysis may well have come to the wrong conclusions – and if Mr Wightman assures us that he was not the author of any of the main text of the final LRRG report, we will be glad to accept that without equivocation.
In our article of May 2014 on that report [http://forargyll.com/2014/05/final-land-reform-report-substantial-challenging-provocative-not-final/], we said:
‘The lack of philosophical, conceptual and tonal strategic unity weakens the report. It demonstrates the impact of specific influences pulling aspects of it in different directions – sometimes asymmetrically. There is no evidence of any kind of the necessary final editorship. Responsibility for this must lie with the Group’s chair since its inception, Dr Alison Elliot, former moderator of the Church of Scotland.’
Mr Wightman has refused to clarify his position on any of the questions which, as above, we o]put to him, saying: ‘I have no intention of responding to the range of bizarre and unsubstantiated allegations that you make below.’
- Gigha community ownership on brink of failure
There is no dishonour in an honourable attempt which fails.
The Gigha buy out has always been an honourable attempt, whether it succeeds or fails.
There is also no shame in failure – so much in life is down to the luck of the draw.
One community buy out may succeed where another may fail.
Problems arise, though, where the possibility of failure is not factored in to the thinking and where failure is disguised.
Amongst other aspects of this, where failure is acknowledged lessons may be learned from it that may protect other initiatives from failing.
- Gordon Brown to stand down from Westminster at General Election
This was always a puff. Gordon Brown never had any position from which to act as such a guarantor.
- Hazard warning lights on A83 for Rest and Be Thankful
And, as a hazard warning at the entrance to the Scottish Parliament, it could replicate the warning at the entrance to Dante’s Inferno.
powered by SEO Super Comments