Islay for Ever states that “The SNP have …

Comment posted Argyll First endorse Michael Breslin in Dunoon vote by Councillor George Freeman.

Islay for Ever states that “The SNP have 13 councillors in Argyll and Bute, the opposition have 23″ and complains that Donald Kelly has align himself with the one third of Councillors which is a total distortion.

It should be pointed out that if the opposition had 23 councillors, then they would not be the opposition. They would be the administration. It may be that on Islay they count in a totally different way from the rest of the planet?

The numbers in the Council are:
SNP 13
Tory 3 (excluding Donald Kelly)
Lib Dems 4
A&B Independent Councillors Group 2
Alliance Independents 8
Argyll First 3 (including Donald Kelly)
Individual Independents 3 (Elaine Robertson, Alistair MacDougall and Iain MacDonald)

It is clear from the information above that Donald Kelly, along with the other two Argyll First members, the two members of the A&B Independent Councillors Group and two individual Independent members (Elaine Robertson and Iain MacDonald) have aligned themselves with the largest political group within the Council and the Group that attracted many more votes from the Argyll & Bute electorate than any other political Group.

Islay for Ever would have a justifiable complaint if those now aligning themseves with the SNP Group were to align themselves to any of the previous ConDemAll groups to keep the largest Group (the SNP) out of power.

Recent comments by Councillor George Freeman

  • Castle Toward a gone deal
    Firstly I should say that I agree with much of what John Semple and Integrity say above (but not all). I should also say that some of the comments from individuals above are totally misguided and/or misinformed. As far as yesterday’s Council meeting is concerned, I believe that it is worthwhile clarifying a few issues.

    I have produced many motions and amendments for Council and Committee meetings over the years, both as an opposition councillor and as an administration councillor. Many of these were straight forward and did not require advice from Council officers. Where an issue is even slightly complicated, sensitive or very important such as the Castle Toward issue, I would always take advice from Council officers on the competency of my draft motion/amendment well in advance of the meeting. Officers are always willing to give such advice to any councillor, be they part of the administration or not. I would never take the risk of turning up at a meeting with a motion or amendment that could be ruled incompetent. That would be a waste of everybody’s time and would not help me to achieve the result I was looking for.

    It should be remembered that it is the Provost who rules on the competency of any motion or amendment. Advice will always be provided by the appropriate officers but the final decision is the Provosts. As far as yesterday is concerned, the view of the Legal Manager was provided before officers gave final advice on the competency of Cllr Breslin’s amendment to the Provost. Clear reasons were given as to why officers considered that the amendment was not competent. The Provost is in a no win situation whatever his decision. It would be a brave Provost or Chair of a Committee who would go against the advice of officers as they would have difficulty in justifying their decision.

    I was most surprised to discover that Cllr Breslin had not taken advice from officers on the competency of his proposed amendment long before yesterday’s meeting. That is a massive risk to take, especially on such an important and controversial issue. Personally, I would never have taken that risk and would have obtained advice from officers so that I was confident that my motion / amendment was not going to be ruled as incompetent at the Council meeting. Even if I was to lose the vote, it would ensure that the issue was debated and that I managed to get my views across in public. If Cllr Breslin did consider seeking advice from officers, I can appreciate why he may have decided not to do that.

    As Alan Stewart of SCCDC and many councillors (including Cllr Breslin) and Council officers will be aware, I spent a great deal of time working on Business Plans and valuations in the lead up to yesterday’s meeting and had prepared a wide range of questions/comments that I intended raising at the meeting. Unfortunately, because there was no competent amendment, I did not get the opportunity to raise any of these issues.

    After the Provost had ruled Cllr Breslin’s amendment not to be competent, he asked if there were any other amendments. I was surprised that at that stage, none of those councillors (such as Cllr Marshall, Cllr Blair, Cllr Strong, Cllr Dance or Cllr Breslin), some with years of experience, who had clearly expressed support in the past for the sale of Castle Toward to SCCDC at the reduced price, did not bring forward another amendment. There was no need for them to provide a detailed amendment. All they had to do was to move that the matter be continued to another day. Although they may still have lost the vote, that would have allowed the matter to be debated in public and would have given them the opportunity to have a roll call vote which would have recorded the names of every councillor and how they voted. Unfortunately, they did not take that opportunity.

    My understanding is that the record will now show that the decision taken by the Council yesterday on Castle Toward was a unanimous decision of the Council.

    I hope that this helps to clarify a number of issues with regards to yesterday’s Council meeting.

  • Castle Toward: the smoking gun
    Newsroom states in her report that: “It is being said that members of the council’s administration were told by senior officers only last week that they had no option but to sell at the District Valuer’s price”.

    For the avoidance of any doubt, as a current member of the Council’s Administration, I can categorically state that no such statement has ever been made by any Council officer or Member of the Council at any meeting that I have attended.

  • Council Planning Committee meeting on 21st January promises to be lively – as 2 MSPs call for postponement
    Integrity, I agree. When dealing with any planning application, especially those such as wind farms, fish farms and nuclear facilities that tend to attract a large number of representations (often from out with the UK), councillors are reminded that it is up to them to decide how much weight they apply to individual representations.
    I would normally give much more weight to an objection or letter of support from someone who lives next to a proposed development and will see it on a daily basis than one from someone living at the other end of the country or in another country who is unlikely ever to see the development. I can only speak for myself but I am sure that the same applies with most councillors.
    Many of the objections that were received against this planning application were clearly “political comment” and were highlighted as such by Planning Officers in their report to Committee and were certainly not material to the determination of the application. All the objections and the Planning Officer’s report are available on the Council website for anyone to view.
  • Council Planning Committee meeting on 21st January promises to be lively – as 2 MSPs call for postponement
    As a member of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Comittee (PPSLC), I can confirm that what Integrity says is correct. This planning application was approved today.

    Looking at the comments from Michael Russell above, I have to laugh. He said: “I call on Argyll and Bute Council to postpone the meeting to allow objectors to be present, given the strong feelings in my constituency that further nuclear development at Faslane is unacceptable”. What he does not say is that Faslane is NOT in his constituency. It is in Jackie Baillie’s constituency which includes over 30% of the Argyll & Bute population. It is also clear from the report that approximately 90% of those making representations do not live within Michael Russell’s constituency and are therefore not his constituents.

    Michael Russell also says that: “One week is simply not enough time for substantial representations to be made”. He does not appear to realise that this planning application has been available for the public to make representations on since October last year. Over 700 representations were made on this application and all of these representations were submitted last year. It is clear from this that the public had months to make representations on this application and not just one week as Michael Russell puts it.

    If Michael Russell felt so strongly about this issue or shared the concerns he says his constituents have, why did he NOT bother to submit any representations himself?

    Michael Russell called on “Argyll and Bute Council to postpone the meeting to allow objectors to be present”. If Michael Russell believes that the “objectors” felt so strongly about this application, he may wish to say why no “objectors” bothered to turn up? One person was sitting in the public area of the Council Chambers throughout the whole of the PPSLC meeting and, although I may be wrong, they appeared to be a local reporter.

    It is also noted that Stuart McMillan, who is a list MSP and not a constituency MSP, called on the “local authority to postpone the meeting to allow the time for those concerned to play their part in the decision making process”. He also said that he had “been contacted by constituents who are angry and frustrated at this lack of transparency by Argyll and Bute Council”. It should be pointed out that this planning application was treated in exactly the same way as any other planning application. Given that over 700 people made representations, it is clear that all those concerned DID play their part in the decision making process. It is also clear from the level of representations that, as with any other planning application, the Council was fully transparent and that the public had (and took) the opportunity to play their part by making their views known to the Council.

    Like Michael Russell MSP, Stuart McMillan MSP obviously did not feel strongly enough about this application to bother making any representations.

    Michael Russell states that this is “further nuclear development” at Faslane as if this was an escalation of the local nuclear facilities. Although not a planning consideration, this proposal is to provide one modern facility to replace the current two aging facilities that deal with waste materials and is a welcome modernisation.

  • Save Castle Toward campaign brings it on home to Walsh and MacQueen
    Isla, from your comments, it certainly appears that you are on the inside and probably a councillor. I can assure you that there is no fight between Cllr McCuish and me to take over the position held by Cllr Dance. As far as I am aware, there certainly has been no suggestion that Cllr Dance will be removed from her position and, as far as I am concerned, such a change has never been mentioned or considered.
    Why should such a change be considered? Councillors within the Administration are free to vote as they wish but would be expected to give warning to the Group / Administration if they were going to vote against the Group / Administration. I have repeated on a number of occasions that I would not be part of any political Group / Administration where a whip was applied.
    If you can find one person who has said that I want to take on the position held by Cllr Dance then you should name them as, to put it bluntly, they are a liar.
    It should be clear to anyone who knows my history that I, as an Independent councillor, do not “do as I am told by Morton, Mulvaney, Walsh, or Kelly” as you put it or any of the other 31 councillors. I try to work with all councillors and seek consencus but, if there is an issue that I feel strongly about, I will not toe anyone’s line as was clear 4 years ago during the schools closure debate. At that time I stuck to my guns and was thrown out of the Administration that was in place at that time for doing so and lost the extra responsibility allowance that went with my position. My reputation is more important to me than money.

powered by SEO Super Comments

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

57 Responses to Islay for Ever states that “The SNP have …

  1. This is what Argyll and Bute needs Councillors supported on merit and ability and not held back by dogma. This indicates the wind of change blowing through the council and augers well, that we will have a broad based administration in Kilmory which will look to the needs of the people they represent and not the narrow minded, self interest and totally undemocratic regime that ended on the third of May 2012

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • Well he might be making an impact if it were not for the FACT that the writer of the article you refer to is a member of the snp.

      Hardly impartial journalism !

      1

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  2. As the entertaining sage Oliver brown once pointed out “The value of a man of straw is that he shows which way the wind is blowing”
    Fot the last couple of decades this has obviously been the watchword of the LibDems who, unburdened by any principles or evident policies, unashamedly always followed the latest trend to court popularity.
    When in Argyll and Bute will they wake up to the fact that their recent self-serving association with Dick Walsh was disastrous to them?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Patsy… Mr Breslin’s impact came from Mr Russell conducting himself in an inappropriate manner.
    At the same husting when Mr Breslin made his announcement the Council Leader Dick Walsh said he had not been informed that the Council could use the SNP Government funding in other ways.
    SNP Mr Russell tells SNP Mr Breslin and keeps the Council Leader in the dark.
    If this the way the SNP operates then things for the people of Argyll and Bute may not be as rosy as first seems with an SNP led Council.
    Mr Russell’s quote “that the Council could still receive support for a new primary school of its choice” is unclear. Does Mr Russell mean one new school,three refurbished primary schools or whatever.
    Remember the SNP’s promise on the Ferries!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Mr Graham seems to think that a candidate’s person is based on the remarks at a hustings. Dick Walsh has had more than plenty time to examine situations that would benefit Argyll and Bute but has consistently acted in a manner to suit his and his groups best interests not that of Argyll. As far as secrecy is concerned Mr Walsh is a leading exponent of the omertà prevalent over the last years of his administration. Contact with the Scottish Government would have revealed what and what could not be done with funding received from Edinburgh, but lack of openness as highlighted by both Argyll First and the SNP group led by Roddy Mccuish, through the inner sanctum of the Executive Committee, that ensured no actions were discussed in an open and frank manner are hopefully a thing of the past.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Mr Russell’s politics are, in many ways, as ‘old school’ as Mr Walsh’s, both are of the ‘whatever does the business’ view.

      It will be part of the challenge for the new coalition administration and for the SNP group within it, to stand on their own values and to find their own way.

      Just as they should not be officer-led, they should not be MSP-led either.

      If they are to win the trust and the respect of the general electorate and unite Argyll, there must be no smart tricks, just intelligent hard work and fairness for all above all things. Argyll is hungry for that.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • David: It is the job of the Council’s unelected officials to inform the Council leader what can and cannot be done with funding, not the MSP. You are just highlighting the ineptitude of ABC when it comes to public finance and was well illustrated during the schools debacle over GAE and during the block grant crisis.

      For the now former Council Leader to be pleading ignorance on the basis that he was not informed by Mr Russell either as the MSP or Minister is frankly humiliating but it does remind me of Mr Walsh’s similar whining over the block grant, where he blamed the SG for the mess he had himself voted for.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Absolutely. Of course it is the core responsibility of officers to understand such situations and to ensure that the Council administration is aware of the detail and the implications.

        It is also not unreasonable to expect an alert Council Leader to work this out or to ask questions that produce the right answers.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • 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.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. I think the funding was under the New Schools for the Future grants.
    The grants from the SNP government were made on the basis, again I think, of 60% SNP Govt-40% Council.
    Bids had to be made (some time ago) to the SNP Govt and the decisions on who got a grant and how much was made by the SNP Govt.
    Do not believe the grant was part of ring-fenced..non domestice rates….or the general revenue grant.
    Likely there were strings attached to each award from the SNP Government.
    Who decided them or what the conditions were are the questions that need answered!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • So, David, I’m intrigued by the way that you obviously feel duty bound to prefix ‘government’ with ‘SNP’. Why? did the previous government not provide grant funding for schools? What prefix should go before your name?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • 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.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • David: I think you can take it as read that other posters on this site know which party is in government.
      I have long held you in high regard as a principled individual, but by prefacing ‘government’ with ‘SNP’ on every occasion your views begin to read like the inane utterances of Alan Reid….and I am sure that’s a comparison you would find less than flattering.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. I totally agree with D Grahams point.

    Mike Russell relayed information to SNP candidate Breslin, without having the courtesy of also informing the leader of the councillor.
    His words were however that he pursue and support the retention of the money, not any promise that it would actually happen.
    I cannot see how, if SNP councillors are asked to vote on ANY matter that could be beneficial to Argyll & Bute, but opposes central Gov policy, can they vote without follwing SNP policy.
    They let down Dunoon and Cowal over their promises of the ferry service, what chance of anything beneficial for this area?
    Elaine Robertson has stated she will vote on a case-by- case basis, hardly an endorsement of joining an aliance with SNP.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • It is the norm for Independent Councillors to vote on a case by case basis. Don’t confuse past practice of Argyll and Bute Council as normal.
      Only better governace will be the result of consensus decisions and subsequent unwhipped majority Councillor support.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Such is life when national party politics percolate down to local council level, and people seem to jump to conclusions about whether local councillors with party affiliations will or won’t slavishly follow the national party line in matters of local, not national relevance. And one councillor had the temerity to identify with a national party but join a non-aligned group on the council. To the gallows! I wonder how many people won’t be satisfied until local community councillors declare their national party sympathies, and won’t be satisfied unless the community councillors ensure that they follow the national party line?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. The funding has nothing to do with block grants, revenue grant or the normal capital program. It is Schools for the Future money allocated to Argyll & Bute Council back in November 2009 when Fiona Hyslop was Cabinet Secretary for Education. Argyll & Bute Council will receive £6.745million (at 2009 prices) towards 50% of the cost of upgrading Dunoon, Kirn and St Muns primary schools. This funding is scheduled to be made available in the 2013/14 financial year.
    The funding will be administered by the Scottish Futures Trust which is a company set up by Scottish Ministers to handle major investment in capital projects. The criteria for entering this scheme was that the schools should be in poor condition/suitability (C or D grade) and that the investment should bring the school environment up to good standard. Exactly how that is achieved is down to negotiations between the Scottish Futures Trust and Argyll & Bute Council. It is hard to envisage a situation whereby a cost effective alternative to the shared campus which met the required building standards and had the support of A&BC would be rejected by the Scottish Futures Trust. I am somewhat mystified that a leader of any Council in Scotland would not be aware of this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • From the information given above (especially from John) it sounds as if Mr Russell was merely saying that IF there was a problem with transferring funding from a new campus project to a refurbishment programme then he, as MSP, would do his utmost to sort it out.

      I think Integrity put his finger on this earlier: this was a cheap attempt by Mr Walsh to score a political point over Mr Breslin by suggesting some form of dirty tricks by the SNP with the MSP favouring candidates from the SNP over the Council Leader who is not a member of the SNP but somehow implying that this information was deliberatively withheld from Mr Walsh for political purposes.

      I repeat, Mr Walsh should have been entirely conversant as to what could and could not be done with the grants, not just because it is in his ward, not just because he was the leader of the Council but because his officials should have made sure he was aware of the limitations and opportunities that the grant from the SG posed for the Council in terms of its freedom of action.

      I wonder if someone suggested to Mr Walsh that the funding could not be vired within the project area as they did not want the possibility of refurbishment to be even considered?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Thanks Sandy. Clear and precise.
    Robert… when posting I put SNP Govt or Coalition Govt as sometimes individuals can be unclear which Govt is being written about.
    Sometimes I put Tory/Lib Govt.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. So, Dr McKenzie agrees that Mike Russell only said he would do his utmost to sort it out, but this is completely different from the response given by Mr.Breslin at the hustings. He said that Mike Russsell had said there would not be a problem.

    A problem not existing, and one which needs attention and sorting out, are two completely different things.
    Of course so are promises to provide vehicular/passenger carrying ferries and then not supplying them

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I was only giving what sounded like a possible interpretation of what was said: I was not at the meeting and haven’t talked to anyone involved (indeed was basing that interpretation largely on what you yourself wrote).
      I don’t think there really is anything in this.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. News that Conservative and Unionist Councillor Donald Kelly is endorsing a SNP candidate , having earlier in the week propelled the SNP into administration in Argyll and Bute will result in his long overdue expulsion from the Party .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. “News that Conservative and Unionist Councillor Donald Kelly is endorsing a SNP candidate , having earlier in the week propelled the SNP into administration in Argyll and Bute will result in his long overdue expulsion from the Party ”

    It would be akin to being expelled from the gas chamber or death row

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. this is a unique opportunity to get a new style council for argyll and people should avoid narrow minded parochial attitudes and let the new administration form prior to making any judgements. these quite rightly were made on Thursday 3 May and the electorate indicated that change is both necessary and desirable.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. All the comment on here just reinforces my view that Party Politics has no place in Local Government nor I believe in Central Government. Its time we had proper democracy where elected members actually represent the wishes of all their electorate by actively seeking it out.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Kaybee, though I’m a member of a political party I have to agree that reducing the issues to a game of tennis is unworthy. The problem arises when you get one party who tries to twist the truth to their advantage. How do you respond to that? If you don’t comment, people will perhaps believe it. If you do, the average reader may have no clue as to which aggressor is right. In the end all they see is people bickering and it puts them off both.

    To be fair though, in Argyll & Bute some of the most twisted truths have come from independents so it’s not specifically a party thing, just a political thing. I think it disgraces us all. People dislike it and it’s really time the instigators looked at the damage they do to our democracy with this kind of nonsense. In the grand Argyll & Bute scheme of things the Labour party and the SNP should both be firmly aimed at the registered political party that is the Alliance of Independents which has so discredited this region.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. I’m afraid the record of independent run councils would suggest that no sensible person could support them.
    The are usually aimless, lack strategy and direction, have no overall ambition or targets and are incapable of delivering any disciplined course of action.
    They also operate in a vacuum without proper scrutiny and, unlike in a political run council, take no individual responsibily for anything when things go tits up.
    You can vote out a political party en masse if their policies are wrong. How do you vote out a group of gormless independents?
    They almost always find themseves controlled by a couple of strong willed characters and find themselves pushed about by the hired officials most of the time.
    Just like Argyll and Bute in recent times!
    In short independent run councils are a nightmare.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Wasn’t there a time, not so long ago, when councillors were predominantly independents (at least, as far as the council agenda was concerned) and party politics at local council level in an area like Argyll was almost unheard of? Were councils then as bad as you suggest?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. with your ref: They each took a voluntary personal pay cut of 10% as a gesture to those in Argyll who would suffer hard times in the recession following the banking collapse – and they distributed the proceeds of this to three charities for young people.Mr Breslin has done very well from the public purse on his job. He created a job for himself and a payscale. By taking a 10% paycut this wasnt done to help the general public it was done to help thier charities they wanted. I wouldnt vote for him if he was the last person on the earth as he is lies , more lies and more dam lies

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Bob – as Private Eye say ‘Shurely shome mishtake’.

      It was the three Argyll First councillors who took a voluntary pay cut of 10% – Donald Kelly, John McAlpine and Dougie Philand – saved the money and donated it to three charities focused on young people.

      Michael Breslin is the SNP candidate standing in the election today for the Dunoon ward of Argyll and Bute – who has been endorsed by the Argyll First group.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • I wonder how may jobs have been created by Bob?
      One only needs to look at the success story that Argyll College is to realise the number of full and part time positions created by MB and the board of directors.
      If MB puts in 10% of his usual work ethic into A&B duties we will be 100% better served than before.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • you no that is total sh t but now he has been elected we all know who we can blame. Good luck MB but I will be on your back 24 hours a day

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Malicious, inaccurate, ignorant and (of course) anonymous.

    This posting from “Bob” ticks all the boxes. The forces of darkness are never far away.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Ruth Davidson claiming Argyll and Bute as a Tory victory in council elections as Tories in coalition with SNP and Independents. Start of the Tory come-back in Scotland!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • A good illustration of the limitations of national party politics when it comes to local council policies. Aren’t a lot of other party politicians at local level really a disparate collection of independents by other names? The criticism of the alliance of independent councillors for behaving like a party after being elected as individuals – with no coherent shared aims other than to act in solidarity with their cronies (sharing the perks of government) and freeze out a substantial proportion of our elected representatives – was right, but aren’t there clear conflicts in trying to govern an area like this while standing on a national party ticket?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Donald Kelly makes his personal voting preference public – unlike many others. He also makes it clear that his affinity within the council is with the Argyll First group which he co-founded and which, as a non-political group, constitutionally accepts individuals of any political persuasion.

      Unlike even more others he puts the interests of Argyll before those of the party he personally supports.

      Voters clearly did not share the confected expressions of confusion amongst the comments above.

      Had they not done so, they would have voted differently.

      As a councillor respected for his integrity, Donald Kelly got the most powerful personal vote in Argyll. That is what tells the story that matters to real people.

      If politicians paid attention to this story, things might be positively different.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • At least Donald Kelly is one of the very few upfront Consevatives left in Scotland.
        One has only to look at the debacle of Labour and Tory coalitions elsewhere, Stirling for example, how betrayed the Conservative voters there will feel, dose not say much for Lamont’s Labour Party either getting into bed with their cut, slash and burn arch rivals?
        Only good thing to come out of this will be “Islay for ever” aka Kintyre1 calling from the rooftops for them all to be keel-hauled before dismissal from the Conservative Party

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • I don’t know how you can seriously suggest Donald Kelly was “upfront” . Many of those who voted for Councillor Kelly did so because he was the Conservative and Unionist Candidate . The last thing Conservative and Unionist voters expect is for their candidate to cut deals with the separatist SNP , especially 2 years before a referendum on the future of the 305 year old union , and when there exists an (increasing in number) Conservative and Unionist group within Argyll & Bute Council .
          Councillor Kelly would do well to remember that no individual is bigger than the party , presumably he was afraid to stand without the Conservative and Unionist ticket. I am willing to wager that if Donald Kelly has to face a Conservative and Unionist candidate at the next election , his vote will reduce significantly , perhaps to an extent where he fails to be elected .
          The SNP have 13 councillors in Argyll and Bute , the opposition have 23 . For Donald Kelly to align himself with the one third of Councillors who are in politics to break up the United Kingdom and for him to urge voters in Dunoon to support the SNP candidate , suggests to me that he sees the Conservative and Unionist badge as merely one of convenience and he should be forced to choose , Money First or the Conservative Group .

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Ife – the proof of the pudding is in the eating; You insult the voters for Donald Kelly by assuming they didn’t know what they were voting for, when he’s an existing councillor with a proven track record and has changed neither party nor affiliations this time around. You seem to be in a right old muddle if you think that the SNP local councillors are in politics to break up the united kingdom – this notion makes the old cold war ‘reds under the bed’ paranoia look positively sane. You need to be let into the secret that local councillors are there to deal with local council matters – some might have ambitions to eventually levitate into national politics, but that’s hardly the point, is it?, they wouldn’t get a free transfer as there’s a small matter of getting elected, at which point you’d be free to scream blue murder as loud as you liked.

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Robert , members of the SNP are in it for one reason – they want to break up the United Kingdom .
    Potholes and dog’s dirt , nuclear submarines and RAF bases etc etc are only issues to be used to attain a separate Scotland .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Looks like kintyre1 has moved to Islay.
      So if that is the case, why are Labour, Libs and Tories contesting Council elections? Are you suggesting the SNP should be barred from doing it? As things stand at the moment, ANY person or organisation can stand for any reason they want. It is up to the electorate to decide whether to vote for them or not. This is called democracy. Do you want me to spell that for you?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Islay for Ever states that “The SNP have 13 councillors in Argyll and Bute, the opposition have 23″ and complains that Donald Kelly has align himself with the one third of Councillors which is a total distortion.

    It should be pointed out that if the opposition had 23 councillors, then they would not be the opposition. They would be the administration. It may be that on Islay they count in a totally different way from the rest of the planet?

    The numbers in the Council are:
    SNP 13
    Tory 3 (excluding Donald Kelly)
    Lib Dems 4
    A&B Independent Councillors Group 2
    Alliance Independents 8
    Argyll First 3 (including Donald Kelly)
    Individual Independents 3 (Elaine Robertson, Alistair MacDougall and Iain MacDonald)

    It is clear from the information above that Donald Kelly, along with the other two Argyll First members, the two members of the A&B Independent Councillors Group and two individual Independent members (Elaine Robertson and Iain MacDonald) have aligned themselves with the largest political group within the Council and the Group that attracted many more votes from the Argyll & Bute electorate than any other political Group.

    Islay for Ever would have a justifiable complaint if those now aligning themseves with the SNP Group were to align themselves to any of the previous ConDemAll groups to keep the largest Group (the SNP) out of power.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Trying to justify your putting the SNP in power Councilor Freeman ? The fact is any grouping of Councillors could have formed a coalition . My complaint is that Donald Kelly , who stood as a Conservative and Unionist candidate has chosen to put the SNP in control , and urged electors in Dunoon to vote SNP . Take a look at what has happened in Aberdeenshire council as an example of a better outcome from a Unionist perspective .

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.