Argyll's online broadsheet.

Thanks for that PBP. I had a …

Comment posted Helensburgh retailers full of positivity – for town centre Waitrose by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll.

Thanks for that PBP. I had a quick look on the the Community COuncil website. I notice in the summary it says (in relation to their survey):

‘The headlines figures show 40% (487) want a supermarket on the pier head and 50% (609) do not, the remaining 10% (120) being uncertain’

So whilst a majority for it is far from overwhelming and suggests the opinion is not as clear as you have suggested.

Looking at the questions in the survey I noticed Q5 If a supermarket was built on the pier head would you use local shops more, less, the same?

Was a similar question asked about whether local shops would be used more, less, the same if a supermarket was built in COlgrain? I couldn’t see that question and would have thought that was also a very important opinion to survey as it gets to the heart of the retailers concerns.

Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll also commented

  • I also note that Ko Samui gets over 1.5 million tourists a year without having a supermarket on a pier. So based on that it would appear all we need to do in Helensburgh is buy in white sandy beaches, coral reefs, coconut trees and an average temprature that never drops below 24 centigrade all year round and is regularly in the 30s!
  • It is worth highlighting that the complainant has the right to take his/her complaint to the Standards Commission regardless of the decision taken by the CEO. The Commission will generally look to ensure the complainant has gone to the LA first and only come to them if not satisfied with the response received.

    If the CEO determines there is no requirement for the Commission to get involved and the complainant feels this is not a satisfactory answer then they should make clear the grounds for their dissatisfaction with the CEO’s reasoning in that secondary complaint (which is really just reiterating your grounds for complaint in the first place).

  • I don’t think it is really a question about accidents to date and more a question of how significant is the increased risk due to increased traffic levels. Having a new supermarket situated there is clearly going to increase traffic levels both from the Helensburgh direction and Cardross direction.

    Traffic management and road design are obviously vital in terms of reducing this risk.

    I also agree that there are traffic problems in and around the pierhead as it is and putting a supermarker there will also require careful consideration of traffic management.

  • I don’t think turning this into some sort of class battle is all that productive. Based on the numbers in the surveys that have been referenced I very much doubt it is just Lomond School parents who want the supermarket based opposite the Academy. There are many people who don’t have kids in either school and it just as likely that they make up a chunk of the votes.

    I don’t have kids in either school but were they to be then they would be in the Academy – that doesn’t mean I don’t care about the safety of kids in Lomond and I think it is a bit sweeping to insinuate that Lomond parents as a an entire group don’t care about the safety of Academy kids.

  • Also does anyone have a link to the Sainsbury survey results as I am concerned by this article in the Advertiser

    which suggests 60% of those surveyed supported plans for a Pierhead supermarket.

    Very much conscious of the ability foe newspaper headlines to not accurately portray a survey which is why I would be interested in seeing the actual survey, including the questions asked.

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