Comment posted Misleading journalism from Dunoon Observer by newsroom.
Point of accuracy – in his quoted letter to Councillor Bruce Marshall, Mr Walsh did not discuss ‘stopping’ the planned joint primary campus for Dunoon but simply, post election, asking for the plan to be suspended pending clarification on funding options not previously known to him.
newsroom also commented
- So, as a previous editor, we can take it that you would also have published this particular piece as it stands and would have been content to support its interpretation and use of the basic text to which it refers.
- It would be interesting to have examples of instances where ‘consultations’ in any quarter operated in the spirit of openness to evidence.
- A straw poll would be interesting.
And in this case, we’re talking about a council where proposals were put forward to close rural schools without any evidence that anyone, however senior, had read the 2010 School’s Act 2010 enough to understand it. And that was primary legislation not minister’s speeches or the Scottish Architecture journal.
It’s not impossible that no one at ABC knew that the Schools for the Future fund also supported refurbishments. While there may accusations of laxity and incompetence in this, Government information on this is clearly opaque and that is not helpful.
- Speaking purely for ourselves – the frontline presence of this fund says new build.
It would not occur to us to ask if a fund that purported to support one thing might actually fund something else. We would expect the targets a fund supports to be upfront or easily discoverable.
We accept that we have a particularly straightforward attitude to most things but we are experienced readers and analysts of information.
It is reasonable to assume that this information is comprehensive.
We are working, as we try to do, to be fair in this and there is no doubt that the available information is not fully lucid. No one should have to play guessing games with government information and this information does not hint at anything that would even prompt a guess.
- On 25 October 2011 the online journal Scottish Architecture carried an article entitled: ‘Scottish Schools for the Future programme expanded’.
It’s opening paragraphs said: ‘An announcement made on Sunday (23 October) by First Minister Alex Salmond outlined plans to build or refurbish 30 schools as part of the next phase of the school buildings programme – 12 more than originally planned.
This will see the total number of projects built under the £1.25 billion ‘Scottish Schools for the Future’ programme, which aims to provide high quality facilities for pupils and their teachers, rise to more than 60.’
However, to be fair to Mr Walsh, anyone who went straight to the horse’s mouth – as practical people would do – to the Scottish Futures Trust webpage for Schools for the Future, would find it hard to distil any sense that this is other than a new build initiative.
Is it reasonable to expect senior officers and council leaders to hear all minister’s speeches to parliament and to be au fait with specialist magazines? Maybe it is.
However, we ourselves would go straight to what we would assume was the authoritative source – and we have been unable to find anything else on the Scottish Government website. One link that seemed germane – ‘Building Better Schools: Investing in Scotland’s Future’ – would not open, recording simply Error 404.
If we ourselves were to go on the basis of the Scottish Futures Trust online material, we would not even ask if the fund covered refurbishments.
So the lack of awareness Mr Walsh claims may have been enabled by poorly managed public communications.
Recent comments by newsroom
- Time to stop to think – as the cult sweeps into Campbeltown
In the spirit of what you say, we have removed the joke which signed off the piece above.
There is a distinction between vigorous political campaigning and a level of proselytising that enters the territory of the formation of a cult.
This article is a genuine warning that that line has been crossed; and that sensible people need to consider whether they stay on the dangerous side of that line, join it or retreat from it – while retaining their wish to vote however they like.
- Time to stop to think – as the cult sweeps into Campbeltown
This is not ‘political involvement’ as such, as it is understood – because it is unilateral political involvement and it is being recruited hard, as these three simultaneous initiatives demonstrate.
- As he moves to Cabinet, former Transport Minister tells McGrigor options for the A83 ‘will be kept under review’
Thee are sections of the A83 at Rest and Be Thankful and at Achnatra, where this looks to be an issue.
- ‘And how much would this have cost an independent Scotland?’
Agreed. It was a very serious mistake to insist in the full face of the evidence that the prospectus was correct.
This produced three negatives:
- distrust in competence – because the logic of what was ging to happen was clear [and was spelled out, for example, in For Argyll's own 8-piece series from independent research of the worldwide oil and refining sectors] and denying that logic looked clueless and ham handed;
- distrust in integrity, where competence was assumed;
- resentment at being takes for idiots.
Had the lies on the possession of legal advice on Scotland’s potential EU membership not been told; had the prospectus not been calibrated on endless oil money to pay the bills for extravagant additional increases in benefits, with no increase in taxation; and had there been a well conceived alternative currency proposition, together those would have been worth at least another 5%.
- Clegg dreams of threesome coalition for Westminster in the face of the Groper’s revenge
Thank you db. Corrected to ‘…take some seats from both Labour and the Lib Dems’.
And re yours and Lowry’s remarks on Alan Reid’s position, he lost nearly 5% of his vote last time but both the Conservatives and Labour candidates were between him and the SNP candidate Mike Mackenzie, in fourth place.
This time, Alan Reid has nothing to thank his Leader for tonight.
Clegg’s declaration that the Lib Dems would happily shack up in a Labour coalition with the separatist SNP may well cause the fairly numerous Argyll pro-union voters [alarmed by the growth of support for the SNP since they failed to win the independence referendum] to find a safer place for their votes than the Lib Dems.
Where this happens, we would see the majority of those votes going to the pro-union Labour candidate rather than to the Conservative one, since that party is fielding a candidate untried at this level, from the islands and not widely known across Argyll and Bute.
The SNP in Argyll have too much to purge from the chaos of their betrayal of their electoral support in the local authority election in 2012. They may improve their vote but here, on evidence, they cannot be trusted to put local before party interests and are unlikely to take the seat.
The best bet is on either Alan Reid or the Labour candidate, Mary Galbraith – and it would be a foolish person who wrote off Alan Reid too early.
He may issue silly self promotional material and have developed in his public speaking a shouty manner than does not suit him – but he has been an intelligent, dedicated, unshowy hard working constituency MP whom people will not want to let down.
We do not see the SNP taking Argyll. We would see the Conservative vote fall after Gary Mulvaney’s impressive candidacy last time; but we cannot call it between Alan Reid and Mary Galbraith.
powered by SEO Super Comments