Argyll's online broadsheet.

You may well be right David regarding the …

Comment posted Argyll First endorse Michael Breslin in Dunoon vote by Integrity? Not in the CondemAll.

You may well be right David regarding the New Schools for the Future Grant. I believe this was matched funding of 50% and therefore the Council had committed 50% of non funded capital expenditure to the project (which could clearly either be used elsewhere or removed from the capital programme).

As I haven’t see any award letter from the SG for this funding it is not possible to comment on what terms, conditions and restrictions were placed upon the SG’s 50% award however that is something that councillor Walsh should have been asking officers to determine.

I am not sure what the timescales are but I notice there was a paper that went to full council on April 19th which discusses the Funding of Schools for Future Projects and the proposed school facilities in Dunoon and Campbeltown. It states in it that the SG ‘have set out the key conditions and guidance for procuring bodies receiving revenue finance and the conditions and guidance have been accepted by the Council’ It would therefore be interesting to see what these conditions and guidance were as we could then be in a better position to judge whether the SG were ringfencing a portion of the funding to the Dunoon project and the Dunoon project only.

Integrity? Not in the CondemAll also commented

  • Good for her. It will be nice to see an independent councillor in an A&B administration actually be allowed to be independent without being thrown out of a party that doesn’t officially exist!
  • Dougie is correct and any argument made by Cllr Walsh along these lines is either demonstrating his ignorance and that of those supposed to be advising him or (and this is what I suspect) is a feeble attempt to score political points.

    As much as A&B’s financial work around the school closure left them open to criticism there is no way they are not fully aware of how revenue support is made up and the very small portion of it that might be subject to ring fencing. It is common knowledge in local government finance.

    Put simply revenue support from central government has three main components.

    1. Ring fenced grants (a very low percentage of overall support) which are awarded with fairly clear instructions about what they are to be used for and often tie in with more national policy. There used to be a lot more ring-fencing than there is now but it was reduced significantly when the Concordat was first introduced.

    2. Non –domestic rates which need little explanation.

    3. The general revenue grant – which is the big pot given to the Council to use as they deem appropriate. Out of that they have to pay for service delivery, servicing of debt etc etc (basically pay to operate)

    Cllr Walsh has been in the game more than long enough to be aware of this and the corporate management team are aware of it too. Any claims that he didn’t know are utter nonsense and suggest he feelt the electorate will just believe him because they don’t know better.

Recent comments by Integrity? Not in the CondemAll

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    Who is stating that it won’t go ahead, all be it in a revised form?
  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    And they would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those pesky kids…

    (I’ll get my coat)

    The extent to which it is defective must be marginal if it got as far as appeals to the Supreme Court.

    Be interesting to see how much any revisions are actually material in terms of what is rolled out but my gut feeling is that they will be marginal and a lot of people happy at today’s ruling are going to be spitting blood.

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    My personal view on this is that we are better without the thumbs up and down. They don’t mean anything and they just clutter the page. I think they are more of a trivial facebook/twitter thing than something for a forum.

    You also get people who simply use them just because they don’t like the poster regardless of what they say. I am pretty sure if Malcolm or NCH posted a story about a lovely old lady being recognised for her lifetime commitment to helping retired guide dogs there would be someone petty enough to give it a thumbs down!

    However I appreciate people might like them.

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    It is probably worth being clear that this will not stop it being implemented – it just means there will be some amendments to it. Amendments which could have been got to without a stack of cash wasted on legal battles if politicians could be a little more grown up and a little less obsessed with never admitting they don’t know everything.
  • What now for Scotland?

    Like indy1 it was a campaign packed with untruths from both sides and it further demonstrated that our politicians will say anything to hoodwink the public to voting their way. We are already seeing the Remain camp back pedalling on two of the claims they pedalled relentlessly in order to get votes.

    I think you’re pessimistic in terms of the number of previous NO voters that this will swing. Hardly scientific I know but I have been very surprised at the number of friends of mine who have already said they will now vote yes, some of them who were staunch No voters before. However I’m not basing this view on what a few of my mates say! There is just an inherent logic that such an issue is bound to cause a degree of swing toward Yes and we know that swing doesn’t need to be substantial.

powered by SEO Super Comments

· · · · · · · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments