Referendum - Aberdeen Voice

Aberdeen People’s Assembly: Sat 25th May

May 212013

With thanks to Doug Haywood.

The Aberdeen Radical Independence Campaign (RIC) will be holding a People’s Assembly in the Foyer from 1.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on Saturday 25^th May.

This is a chance for people to come together, share ideas, ask questions and discuss the kind of Scotland that we want to build.

The event is free and speakers will include John Finnie MSP, Susan Archibald the Disability Rights Campaigner, Maggie Chapman a Green Party Councillor, Jill from Aberdeen Against Austerity and Euan Benzie from the local RIC group.

Aberdeen RIC was set up following the national Radical Independence Conference in November last year which agreed a Declaration that is explicit about what we need for the citizens of Scotland.

The UK is the 4^th most unequal country in the developed world. Alistair Darling, head of the NO campaign has said that Labour will cut “tougher and deeper” than Thatcher. No matter who is in power in Westminster, a fairer society will not be on their agenda and the worst of the austerity cuts are still to come.

A YES vote in 2014 is the first step towards a fairer Scotland. This is not just a campaign for independence but a campaign for a better Scotland which we believe can only begin with independence.

We are tired of complaining about Britain – it is time to talk about what Scotland can be.

Scotland can be a participative democracy.

Where no-one’s view is worth more because they have money.
Where financial interests don’t drown out the voices of the people.
Where decision-making belongs to the many and not just an elite.
Where communities are not told what they will be given but decide what they need.
Where our institutions are reformed to include the people in their governance.
Where the media is balanced, education creates active citizens and information is free to all.

Scotland can be a society of equality.

Where poverty is not accepted.
Where pay gaps are small and poverty wages are ended.
Where tax redistributes wealth.
Where no human attribute is a justification for discrimination and prejudice. Where human rights are universal.

Scotland can be a just economy.

Where profit never justifies damaging people and the environment.
Where essential industries are owned by all and not exploited by the few.
Where workers have the right to fair treatment and to defend themselves.
Where industrial democracy makes better businesses.
Where investment is for development, not for speculation.

Scotland can be a great welfare state.

Where the social contract is not between the state and the people but between the people themselves.
Where from cradle to grave society cares for all regardless.
Where delivering more and better social services is the national priority, not austerity.
Where the government of the people is never used to create private wealth.

Scotland can be a good neighbour.

Where we seek to work with nations around the world to resolve global inequality, climate change and conflict.
Where we never join international alliances for exploitation and war.
Where we work to reform and democratise multinational institutions.
Where we see our deeds, our national culture and our values as a message of hope.

Scotland can be a moral nation.

Where mutuality, cooperation and fellowship define our relationships.
Where we are good stewards of our country and hand it on to the next generation in a better state than we inherit it.
Where our values are not dominated by greed, selfishness and disregard for others but by patience, generosity, creativity, peacefulness and a determination to be better.

This is a Scotland which British politics has robbed from the Scottish people. We want it back!

Our future is unknown, which is good. Only in uncertainty can hope and possibility prosper.

We choose the chance to fight for a better Scotland; we reject the offer to endure more of the same indefinitely. We are socialists, feminists, trade unionists, greens. We are from the peace movement, from anti-poverty campaigns, from anti-racists groups. We are community activists, civil liberty campaigners, the equalities movement and more.

This is going to be a lively afternoon and we hope that as many people as possible will come to ask questions and contribute to the conversation.

The Aberdeen People’s Assembly is being held in:

The Foyer,
Marywell Centre,
Marywell Street,
Saturday 25^th May.
1.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.

For more information check out our Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/groups/AberdeenRIC/ or telephone 07813 085896.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

High Profile Scientist Launches Better Together Aberdeen

Aberdeen City, News 5 Responses »

Apr 262013

With thanks to Kathryn Russell.

Better Together Aberdeen, part of the pro-UK Better Together campaign, was launched yesterday, Thursday 25 April by Aberdeen’s own world-renowned scientist Professor Hugh Pennington at Aberdeen’s Park Inn Hotel.

This important event in the campaign for Scotland’s future featured North East MSPs and local business and community leaders.

Ahead of the meeting, Professor Pennington said,

“I am delighted to be launching the local Better Together group in Aberdeen. The meeting will be a chance for people to find out how they can get involved in the campaign for a strong Scotland in the UK.

Richard Baker MSP, Better Together Director, said,

“Now that we know the date of the referendum, Better Together are stepping up our campaign. The response we have been getting in Aberdeen has been fantastic; so many local people have expressed their support and wish to remain in the UK. This launch is a chance for local people to get involved in the campaign for a strong Scotland in the UK, regardless of campaigning experience.”

Daniel O’Malley, a youth member of Better Together Aberdeen, added,

“In September 2014 Scots will make the biggest political decision of our lives. Better Together Aberdeen will campaign hard to ensure that local people have the facts to make this decision. We’re looking forward to talking to residents about what separation would mean and signing up more local people to our campaign. Whether you’ve campaigned before or not; if you believe Scotland is stronger as a part of the UK – we need you.”

The event starts at 8pm.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Radical Independence Arrives In Aberdeen

Aberdeen City, News No Responses »

Mar 182013

With thanks to Simon Gall.

A meeting on Wednesday night saw the setting up of the Aberdeen Radical Independence campaigning group.
This group will run a parallel, autonomous campaign, separate from Yes Scotland, but will work together on areas of common interest like Trident when appropriate.

To this end, the group will work with the growing Radical Independence Conference (RIC) movement across Scotland to work for a Yes vote in the independence referendum – but with a distinctly radical perspective, focusing on the 5 principles that sum up their vision for a Scotland that is:

Green and environmentally sustainable,
Internationalist and opposed to Trident and war,
For a social alternative to austerity and privatisation,
A modern republic for real democracy, and
Committed to equality and opposing discrimination on grounds of gender, race or sexuality.

If this sounds like your idea of a future Scotland and would like more information please email ricaberdeen@gmail.com or visit us on facebook.

Grumpy Jacks Corner No.6: Bus Stops And Boxes

Aberdeenshire, History, Opinion No Responses »

Feb 212013

Duncan Harley reflects on Life, the Universe and Everything. A sideways look at the world and its foibles.

What’s in the Box?

For reasons best known to herself the daughter of the Laird of Balquhain made a bet with a stranger that she could bake a batch of bannocks in less time than it took him to build a road to the top of Bennachie.

Of course the stranger was the devil himself and on losing the bet he turned the unfortunate lady to stone as she fled from his advances.

This late Pictish monolith dates back some 1200 years and stands 3.2 metres tall.

There are over 200 known symbol stones in Scotland and many more of them displaced or built into walls and dwellings. The Maiden Stone is probably the finest example of these.

In the last 10 years or so the Maiden Stone has been boxed up during the winter months. It’s not a pretty sight. An upright coffin like box greets the visitor with a sign which reads:

“This temporary shelter will be in place until the spring. It has been fitted to protect the site from the combined effects of rain and frost over the winter months.”

Inside the box is The Maiden Stone, one of the finest Pictish monuments in the north east of Scotland.

Or is it all an illusion?

Royal Mail (Type C) Pillar Box – Painted in Post Office Red

In 1840 Rowland Hill suggested the idea of roadside pillar boxes for use in the UK mainland. Folk at that time seemingly took their letters to the post office for posting and the postal authorities were keen to grow the communication business using modern innovations. These were pre-internet days of course but the railways were about to revolutionise both transport of goods and mass communication.

Letter boxes were already being used in Europe of course. However there were no roadside letter boxes in the British Isles until about 1852, when the first pillar boxes were erected at St Hellier in Jersey at the recommendation of one Anthony Trollope (author of Barchester Towers and Framley Parsonage), who at the time was working as a Surveyors Clerk for the Post Office.

In 1853 the first pillar box on the UK mainland was erected at in Carlisle. A similar box from the same year still stands at Barnes Cross in Dorset and is seemingly the oldest pillar box still in use today on the mainland.

In Scotland there were protests when the first boxes made in the reign of Elizabeth II were produced. These bore the inscription “E II R” but there were objections because Queen Elizabeth is the first Queen of Scotland and of the United Kingdom to bear that name, Elizabeth I having been Queen of England only.

After several “EiiR” pillar boxes were blown up and vandalised by Scottish Nationalists protesting “No Unlimited Sovereignty for Westminster in Scotland” including one in the Scottish capital, the General Post Office (as it was at that time) had the remaining boxes North of the border replaced with ones which only bore the Crown of Scotland with no Royal cipher.

This is one such box and it sits proudly outside the main postal depot in Inverurie.

It is I think a Royal Mail (Type C) Pillar Box of 1950’s circa and is painted in that familiar Post Office Red paint unlike its Irish counterparts which are in Green or those strange metallic pillar boxes from the Greek Games of 2012.

I use it often but wonder who would want to spend their entire working day cooped up inside such a confined environment.

Bus Shelters.

Bus shelters were once boringly functional affairs built by local councils. Some were iron-and-glass edifices covered in peeling municipal green paint. Others were made of brick and some in rural areas even had thatched roofs.

Then in 1969, two advertising billboard companies, “More O’Ferrall” and “London and Provincial”, joined together to form a company called Adshel.

The idea behind the new firm was simple. Adshel would supply bus shelters to local authorities for nothing in return for the right to display advertising on them. In the early 1970s, it began installing its very first shelters in Leeds.

It’s a big market. But quite how big can be hard to find unless you dig into the National Public Transport Data Repository at http://data.gov.uk/dataset/nptg

There you can find out which place in Britain has the least bus stops – and which the most. Seemingly the Shetland Isles have the least at only 168 while Greater London has a massive 24,122!

I think that this inequality is a brilliant argument for Scottish Independence.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Salmond’s Web: Exclusive Correspondence Revealed

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 3 Responses »

Dec 062012

Aberdeen Voice’s Suzanne Kelly today received documents from the First Minister’s office shedding light on ‘Webgate’ – the genesis of the failed bid to build a granite web over Aberdeen’s Union Terrace Gardens. Kelly investigates.

Aberdeen’s Granite Web is history; it will not go ahead, and the city will not be borrowing £90 million towards its construction.

Alex Salmond’s personal interest in the project was well publicised when it emerged his office had intervened in the TiF (Tax incremental Funding) bid appraisal for pilot projects in Scotland.

The appraisals were undertaken by the Scottish Futures Trust, which had placed the Aberdeen proposal 10th in the list of projects to be recommended based on a variety of financial and technical criteria.

Salmond’s intervention, at the expense of projects from Renfrewshire, West Lothian, Ayrshire and Dumbartonshire, propelled the web into position to be one of the potential pilots.

Correspondence between First Minister Alex Salmond, Sir Ian Wood and ACSEF has been released to Aberdeen Voice today under a Freedom of Information request. These letters shed further light on Salmond’s relationship with Sir Ian, who had promised £50 million of his own money towards the controversial £140m+ project.

Far from allowing local governments sovereignty over their own affairs, Salmond has shown, by intervening in the appraisal process, that central government can and will over-ride expert advice. He and Nicola Sturgeon have since said any TiF application for Aberdeen must involve Union Terrace Gardens – another intervention without precedent.

Although TiF is a pilot here, as a fundraising method it is already losing fans in its country of origin, the USA, where it is proving unsuccessful in several states. How central government can insist that a brand new, untested means of borrowing money cannot be used by Aberdeen unless it sacrifices its common good land park for a project runs contrary to cries of ‘freedom’ and ‘independence’ used by the SNP to encourage a vote for independence.

But what of Salmond’s correspondence on the subject of the web?

From the letters received, it is clear ACSEF and Sir Ian had been lobbying Salmond and his government to support the web – clearly with success. A letter of August 2011 indicates that Nicola Surgeon had been in contact with Sir Ian about the project. Here are some extracts:

August 2011: Alex Salmond to Ian Wood

“Thank you for your letter of 28 July updating me on progress with the Aberdeen City Garden Project. Nicola Sturgeon welcomed the opportunity to discuss these issues with you when she visited Aberdeen at the beginning of August…

“In relation to the TIF funding application, we are in the process of identifying further projects which can be included in the TIF pilot scheme. I understand that Aberdeen City Council will submit an outline proposal to the Scottish Futures Trust this month in accordance with the process that has been agreed. We look forward to considering this further.”
See – http://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/11/salmond-to-wood-aug-2011/

It is clear Salmond has admiration for Wood; could this have coloured his judgement when he saw fit to intervene in the recommended TiF projects?

19 July 2012: Salmond to Wood

“I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Scottish Government to thank you for the considerable contribution you have made to both the oil and gas industry in Scotland and to Scottish public life…”

[note: this contribution had not included paying NI on Wood Group staff for a number of years; the payroll was moved offshore]

“Your involvement in Scottish Enterprise Grampian and your successful previous chairmanship of the Scottish Enterprise Board have set the bar for others to follow… I have enjoyed meeting with you over recent years and very much appreciated the enthusiasm and dedication which you have brought to the Wood Group, the industry and more widely to Scotland…”
See – http://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/11/salmond-to-wood-19-07-12/

[note - initially Scottish Enterprise were supporting Peacock Visual Arts’ own plans for premises in Union Terrace Gardens. It is not precisely clear at the time of writing how the Peacock bid lost SE's support, which quite quickly turned to Sir Ian's favoured City Garden Project instead].

Sir Ian returned the 19 July letter in part as follows:

01 August 2012: Wood to Salmond

“I have been particularly grateful for the support your Government have provided to the Aberdeen City Centre Regeneration Project which, as you know, I believe is vitally important for Aberdeen’s long-term economic future and wellbeing.

“The vote of Aberdeen City Council on 22nd August will be crucial, and if this is positive I will obviously allocate some of my time to support the development phase of this project in any way I can, and I know there will be an important role for Scottish Government to play in facilitating this. If the vote is negative, Wood Family Trust will have no choice but to withdraw their offer of funding.”
See - http://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/11/wood-to-salmond-01-08-12/

The first part of the paragraph above begs the question: why did the government support the City Gardens Project at the expense of others on the table, several of which were given higher ratings by the Scottish Futures Trust? Concerning the potential withdrawal of the £50 million offer, there is some ambiguity.

A statement from Sir Ian indicated this money would be deployed to charitable work in Africa, a most laudable act, indeed. The nature of this charitable work may or may not be the same as a project described on the Wood Family Trust website, in which they seek to improve the business acumen of tea plantation operatives in Rwanda, a country only just recovering from civil war, an aids epidemic, widespread hunger and poverty.

A further letter shows evidence of yet more lobbying; this time by a private trust, signed jointly by Tom Smith (ACSEF and the Trust) and Ian Wood:

28 July 2012: Aberdeen City Gardens Trust, ACSEF and Wood to Salmond

“The concept designs will be available to exhibit to the public late September with the public asked to indicate their views… with the winning concept design presented to Aberdeen City Council to endorse.

“The current plan is that by mid-December the city council will be in a position to approve the TiF business case prior to it being submitted to the Scottish Futures Trust. It goes without saying that the Project will not proceed without TiF funding.

“We’d be very happy to discuss this with you further… We will also be seeking some further discussion with John Swinney…”
See – http://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/11/wood-smith-acgt-acsef-to-salmond-28-07-11/

The striking feature of this letter is that it indicates the city council is not in the driving seat. The council is expected not to debate or vote; it is expected to ‘endorse’ and ‘approve.’

The Aberdeen City Gardens Trust (ACGT) is a private entity set up to run the City Gardens Project that listed Tom Smith (also of ACSEF, and formerly Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce) and Colin Crosby (A&GCoC) as its two directors. It is therefore of further interest to note that in this letter of 28 July 2011, ACGT lobbies Salmond with praise for the scheme and seeks further meetings with both Salmond and Sturgeon.

ACSEF is paid for by the city and by extension the public, and the public were very much split on whether or not this project and its associated, high-level financing were acceptable. Precisely how ethical it was for a publicly funded body like ACSEF to forward a scheme favoured by its private sector members and also to expect the city to endorse its recommendations is unclear.

Sir Ian Wood, signatory on the ACGT letter, apparently had no official connection to ACGT (Companies House lists three directors of this trust). There seems to have been no tendering process for the ACGT to be handed a management role over the garden project uncontested and unelected.

If Ian Wood had influence over the ACGT as the letter indicates, as well as influence over the project via the Wood Family Trust, his influence over the project arguably would have outweighed that of the council.

Remembering that the land in question is common good land, not to be changed in usage per its ancient grant, the thin edge of the web towards privatisation is a worrying precedent.

The contents of these letters raise serious questions about the continued future of ACSEF, and the genesis and advancement of the Aberdeen City Gardens Trust as the proposed management body/special purpose vehicle for the scheme. Aberdeen City Council should reappraise ACSEF’s future, and at least ensure that ACSEF is not dictating policy going forward.

The most concerning issue emerging from these letters, however, is how the First Minister and his cabinet members were lobbied successfully and elevated a scheme from an Aberdeen billionaire above more fiscally credible schemes from other parts of Scotland.

Aberdeen Voice is pleased to offer readers the opportunity to read these letters, giving an important insight into this recent chapter of local history. While the Granite Web is truly consigned to the dustbin, the actions of those in positions of power who tried to foist the scheme on the public are still very much with us.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Was UTG A Sacrifice To Encourage Independence?

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 15 Responses »

Nov 162012

The Union Terrace Gardens controversy is showing no signs of going away. The City Garden Project (CGP) has again appeared on the front pages of the Press and Journal. ‘Why now?’ is the question that has been asked. Mike Shepherd suspects it has something to do with the recent retirement of Sir Ian Wood.

On being asked by the BBC what he was going to do next, Sir Ian said he would spend a lot of time over the next two or three years on his philanthropic activities. Unfortunately, he still sees the City Garden Project as one of these.

Surprisingly quiet on the topic at the moment are local SNP politicians, not normally a reticent bunch.

Perhaps they have a good reason to keep quiet as there is a scandal, already in the public domain, just waiting for the right moment to explode and grab attention on the national stage.

After Trump and the EU legal advice debacle, the last thing Alex Salmond needs at the moment is any further suggestion that his government is becoming less than scrupulous in its affairs.

What is this scandal? Rewind to the time when questions were being asked about how the City Garden Project was to be paid for.

Sir Ian Wood and an anonymous businessman were offering £55m to part-fund a range of city centre projects that would have cost £182m in total. There was a proposal to find £92m of this sum through public borrowing as part of a Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) scheme.

TIF is a mechanism by which a municipal authority borrows money to invest in an infrastructure project and is allowed to retain the business rates from any new businesses starting up as a result of the investment. These sums would then be used to help pay back the initial borrowings. TIF is popular in the US but has never been tried in the UK.

The Scottish Government was keen to give it a go and authorised an initial pilot scheme of six projects to see if TIF would work in Scotland. The responsibility was given to the Scottish Futures Trust, a semi-public body which describes itself on its website as:

“An independent company, established by the Scottish Government in 2008, with a responsibility for delivering value for money across all public sector infrastructure investment. SFT operates at arm’s length from the Government but works closely with the public sector to seek and deliver improved value for taxpayers.”

The Government asked the SFT to develop a means for assessing any applications for TIF funding, stating:

“SFT will need to be convinced, on behalf of Ministers, that the economic case for a particular TIF is clear.”
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Finance/18232/TIF

The SFT Chief Executive announced any submitted proposals would be scored and assessed by two SFT representatives and two from the government. The results would be collated and a score agreed by the four reviewers. The proposals with the highest scores would be recommended for progression to a full TIF business case (letter published on the SFT website, 23 June 2011).

Fifteen Scottish councils, including Aberdeen, submitted sixteen infrastructure proposals to the SFT to apply to be one of six TIF pilot schemes.

A business magazine later leaked details on the top six projects to be recommended for the pilot. Aberdeen was not on the list, yet then Scottish Government Infrastructure Secretary Alex Neil went ahead and invited Aberdeen City Council to further develop its TIF submission anyway. When I queried this with him at the time, he confirmed that Aberdeen was indeed one of the six projects. This looked suspicious.

Sunday Herald Deputy Business Editor Steven Vass began to take an interest in the story and submitted a Freedom of Information request for the SFT’s ranking of the sixteen TIF proposals. The SFT were most reluctant to release these, refusing to provide the listing until they were effectively ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner.

On 12 October this year, The Herald reported the findings. Aberdeen had been ranked only tenth out of the sixteen.

The submission by Renfrewshire Council to develop Glasgow Airport and the surrounding enterprise zone as a major hub for renewable manufacturing had been rejected, despite being ranked fourth. Aberdeen’s application looks to have replaced it.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/snps-business-ties-face-scrutiny.19138461

Renfrewshire Council appealed when the ranking list was revealed, only to be told last week by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon that the Government would not change its mind on the issue.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/fury-as-snp-rejects-airport-enterprise-106198n.19299603

Details of the ranking have been made public by the government. Aberdeen scored a lowly 4/10 in three categories: private investment, economic impact and regeneration impact. In other words, the application was economically dubious.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Finance/18232/FOI/TIFScoring

Despite this damning indictment of the Aberdeen business case, the government has insisted Aberdeen will not receive any TIF funding unless any application includes the City Garden Project.

Scottish politicians were under no illusions about what had happened. Steven Vass reported Alex Salmond was facing questions about his relationship with ‘leading businessmen’ after ‘his Government overruled officials’ advice to enable Sir Ian Wood’s controversial Aberdeen City Garden Project to go ahead.’

Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald said:

“On the basis of what we have seen with Mr. Trump this week, you have to wonder what Mr Salmond thought he was going to get.”

Scottish Liberal Democrat Leader Willie Rennie was also reported to have said that the decision was unacceptable and could have left Aberdeen tax payers exposed to considerable risk.

The SNP appears to have a hidden agenda for the CGP, but its existence is becoming more and more obvious.

The nobbling of SFT rankings was carried out in spite of a government specification for assessment ‘that the economic case for a particular TIF is clear’. Despite its sub-par score for economic and regeneration impact, the Aberdeen project was moved from tenth to fourth by ministers, ostensibly on a geographical basis but as we have seen, not on an economic basis.

Yet, one other Scottish government body had recognised problems with the Aberdeen TIF application. AuditScotland reported last February that it had concerns,

‘If approved, a key risk will be the affordability of the project and its impact on the council’s finances should TIF funding fail to provide the necessary additional non-domestic rate income for the city.’
http://local.stv.tv/aberdeen/news/local-democracy/29500-long-term-risk-warning-for-city-garden-project/

I believe the SNP is courting Sir Ian Wood for political reasons and that the CGP has been central to this aim. Sir Ian talked about the 2014 Scottish independence referendum in a recent BBC interview.

While endorsing neither the Yes or No camps, he nevertheless has a huge concern that part of the discussion revolves around the question, ‘Do we like England?’

He could potentially act as a spokesman for the oil industry in opposition to Scottish independence

Sir Ian emphasises: ‘I am a British citizen,’ and hopes the referendum debate will focus on the right reasons for making the decision. He is concerned about the impact of the referendum on short term investment in the North Sea, as topics under open discussion could include oil tax regime, decommissioning agreements and the division of reserves between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

On being asked where he stands on the referendum, his answer is:

“If I think I could make a useful contribution to the debate, I will at the right time, but not yet.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-20140345

I suspect Alex Salmond will be hoping Sir Ian will most certainly not make a contribution to the debate. He could potentially act as a spokesman for the oil industry in opposition to Scottish independence. Being an Aberdonian and a Scot could be deemed to lend credibility to any position he may take.

It won’t be easy to keep the billionaire happy, and smoothing the way for the CGP now looks an unlikely proposition. The Aberdeen City Council administration is totally opposed to his project, the business case has been shown to be somewhat dubious and if the Aberdeen TIF is ever resurrected as a possibility, several Scottish councils will be on the warpath, with good cause.

It’s a mess for Alex Salmond and the SNP, and one for which they only have themselves to blame. Aberdeen’s heritage should never have been a sacrificial pawn in their aspiration for Scottish independence.

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note: all comments will be moderated.

EU Nationals Will Remain EU Citizens

Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Oct 312012

With a lively debate taking place on an independent Scotland’s place in the European Union, EU national Christian Allard looks to the future.

What a week that was for EU nationals like me living in Scotland.

It seems some politicians would like to see the back of us.

First, let me clarify the term EU national.

We are all EU nationals: Scots, Welsh, English, Irish (on both sides of the border) and all who chose to come and live in Scotland from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden. (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are also included although they are not members of the EU).

It may come to a shock to some politicians to learn that we have the same rights that they have to live and work in Scotland.

People from both sides of the referendum for Scotland to become an independent country have called for calm and to stop the hysteria around the position of an independent Scotland in Europe.

On Saturday morning I happened to listen to a debate on Radio Scotland when the example of a French national living in Scotland and paying tax was given; a French national who, after voting YES for Scotland to become an independent country, would wake up to find Scotland being out of the EU.

This is me. I am a French national who voted for devolution in 1997 and will vote for Scotland to become an independent country in 2014; an independent country that is fully part of the EU. I cannot believe the claim that somehow you and I would lose our EU citizenship after we vote YES.

This is the incredible proposition that Liberal Democrat MEP George Lyon tried to defend in the same BBC radio programme i.e. that somehow Scotland would have to apply to rejoin the EU after independence. More incredibly, he added that the rest of the UK would stay in the EU but not Scotland.

Mr Lyon should understand that you cannot strip the EU citizenship from EU nationals living in Scotland – including you and me – without our consent. The solution to the problem, if Mr Lyon wants to call it a problem, is that after we vote YES, both Scotland and the rest of the UK will negotiate a new arrangement with the other EU members to reflect the new constitutional setup.

Ian Hudghton, an SNP MEP who participated in the same programme, made it clear the EU was watching and waiting to see the position of the Westminster government. Now that David Cameron and Alex Salmond have signed the Edinburgh agreement, both governments will respect the outcome of the 2014 referendum and, of course, so will the other EU member states.

This is very much about our right of self-determination and how the new constitutional setup will be respected by all – even the likes of George Lyon, who pledged to respect the vote of the people.

I have a message to the NO campaign.

We EU nationals will exercise our right to vote for a better future for our children and grandchildren. If George Lyon MEP, David Cameron and the rest want us to vote NO, they must change their tune and stop spreading fear and doubt. Instead, they should try and tell me why I should keep on paying taxes to a Westminster Government I did not elect.

Image Credit: Flickr (Creative Commons)protesilaos.ideasoneurope.eu

The Way Forward For The Friends Of UTG

Aberdeen City, Articles, Featured, Opinion No Responses »

Oct 182012

By Mike Shepherd.

The City Garden Project is effectively dead and although Sir Ian Wood has left his offer of £50 million investment on the table for another year, his project is now unlikely to go ahead.

The final blow came with the publication of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request that showed that politicians in the Scottish government had tampered with the rankings of TIF (Tax Increment Funding) applications made by Scottish councils.

The Aberdeen TIF was ranked a lowly tenth out of sixteen, but was then moved into the top six – a placing that would qualify the project for government sanction.

This furtive move has finally destroyed whatever credibility was left for the City Garden as a TIF project and the FOI documents also reveal the Aberdeen business case as dubious.

So, while it is unlikely that there will be any future attempt to bulldoze through a City Garden Project TIF, if there is, it will be shouted down as foul play.

Additionally, councils elsewhere in Scotland are hacked off with the Scottish government as the TIF ranking process was supposed to be objective – as befits a process allocating multi-million pound infrastructure spending in Scotland – but wasn’t.

The message is clear – Union Terrace Gardens have been saved!

There is an unreal air about this as I’m not sure many people really believe that the park has survived, yet it has. There are several factors that have led to a lack of belief, let alone euphoria, on the issue.

The relentless juggernaut of the City Garden Project has been rolling for almost four years, supported by the rich and powerful, together with local and national governments and the Aberdeen press. So the fact that it appears to have just ‘evaporated’ overnight seems incredible, but that’s exactly what has happened.

The August 22nd council vote rejected the City Garden Project and the current council administration are determined to stick to the decision.

This is the power of participative democracy in action. An interest group tried to boss through the project by all means possible and met up with the checks and balances of a democracy that we should all be extremely thankful for.

We now move forward with a future for Union Terrace Gardens. The status quo is not an option.

The Gardens need tender loving care to restore them to their former glory and to get them back to a fully functioning park. It won’t take much to kick this off, but it does need to be done.

This was the theme at the AGM of the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens held in the Belmont Cinema last Saturday.

The AGM marked a pivotal moment for the Friends group as it signifies the transition from a campaign phase to one where we can adopt a protective and proactive role for Union Terrace Gardens. This role will be similar to that adopted by the Friends of Duthie Park in which the council manage the day to day running of Duthie Park while the Friends act to raise funds – they have raised several million pounds – and make improvements to the park.

In my last speech as chairman I announced that we have been asked by the council administration to make a proposal outlining what we would like to see happen in the park. This would be much more than a wish list. We would intend the programme to advise on the improvements and features that the park needs, together with indicative costs and a strategy for fund raising.

We held a general discussion amongst our membership as to what they thought was needed to improve the park and, unsurprisingly, better toilets and easier access came top of the list with everything else being open to further discussion.

I did not stand for re-election as Chair as I felt that someone with a less divisive reputation needs to take the group forward in its new role. I also need a break, as the past few years have been somewhat hectic, although I will stay on the committee.

We have a new chairwoman, Robin McIntosh, who is the perfect choice as she is an expert on facilitation skills. Skills that she will get the chance to use to best advantage before long.

In her closing message at the AGM Robin said:

“We want to make it clear that the future of the Gardens is in the community’s hands, that the decisions we are going to make will be to please the people. These are exciting times for Friends of UTG and I am looking forward to a year of progress; big and small. The city centre’s green heart deserves to be loved and used, and we are going to help to do this.”

The people of Aberdeen have saved Union Terrace Gardens. This is only the beginning. We can now go forward and restore our park to its full glory. A park that is the pride of Aberdeen!

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Referendum Vote For 16 And 17 Year Olds

Aberdeen City, Opinion 1 Response »

Oct 152012

A Local Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament praises the decision to extend the franchise to vote in the independence referendum to 16 and 17 year olds. With thanks to Kenneth Watt.

Barry Black, chair of the Aberdeen City Youth Council and member of the Scottish Youth Parliament for Aberdeen Central, today praised the decision by the UK and Scottish governments to extend the voting franchise in the 2014 independence referendum to 16 and 17 year olds.
The Scottish Youth Parliament has spent a number of years focussing on campaigning for extending voting rights to younger ages and Barry, who has been on the SYP for three years, has been a key figure in this campaign and witnessed the growing recognition of reasons why those under 18 should be ‘trusted’ with the vote.

Making it clear that the focus now is to engage the city’s youth Barry said:

“Today’s news is fantastic for young people across Scotland and represents a successful campaign from the youth parliament. I am delighted at the decision by both governments to extend the franchise and am confident that the decision made is for the better. Across the nation, young people will be instrumental in deciding the future of our membership of the UK.

“This is a great opportunity to engage young people in politics, especially those who have previously lost interest in politicians or have felt left down by the system. Independence will dominate the news over the next couple of years and the ACYC will be focussing on involving Aberdeen’s youth so that they can make an informed choice when it comes to the referendum in 2014.”

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

UTG Referendum: The Real Attacks On Democracy

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 3 Responses »

Sep 132012

By Suzanne Kelly.

‘Undemocratic!’ is the cry coming from various people in Government and some Aberdeen residents concerning the death of the granite web scheme.

The truth is that democracy took a beating in the way the referendum campaign was waged, in the secrecy over the TIF ranking the scheme received, and in the statements made by ministers who should know they were overstepping their bounds.

For those who really care about ‘Democracy’ and how it has been chipped at by those insistent that the web goes ahead, here is an overview of some newly emerged issues.

TIF Application: Information Wrongfully Withheld

Last Sunday 9 September, the Sunday Herald carried two articles pertinent to how undemocratically the granite web has been pushed. The first piece by Steven Vass was entitled ‘FOI Victory Over Aberdeen Project’. Vass explains that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust have been criticised by the Information Commissioner. These two organisations are refusing to release information on Aberdeen’s TIF bid, in particular how it was ranked against other projects.

TIF is meant to be used for deprived areas. Our city centre needs improvement, and a good place to start would be practical assistance to local businesses which now must compete with multinationals in our shopping malls (which have far more financial power than the little guy does).

We are not, however, a deprived area; businesses are continuing to set up shop here, our housing prices are good, and our standard of living has on the whole been found to rank highly in the UK.

So why can’t we find out more about the TIF application? Is it possible that our TIF application was one of the lower-scoring ones? (It was ,after all, soundly criticised by an independent accountant.) If it was not a high-scorer, then was it given priority unfairly over other projects?

In the interests of democracy, whatever side of the debate you are on, you have to agree that withholding critical information which could help evaluate the facts is undoubtedly undemocratic. The information Commissioner has concluded as much , and hopefully on 22 October the truth of the situation will be revealed. Either that, or the Government and the SFT will appeal to the Court of Session.

It will be interesting to find out who was involved in this non-compliance with the democratic principle of Freedom of Information, and to find out what they have to hide. It will be interesting as well to see if the Government refuses the Information Commissioner’s decision and lodges a Court of Session appeal.

There is legislation saying this information should be supplied, and yet it is being withheld against the Information Commissioner’s decision. Verdict: Undemocratic

Above the Law? How BiG Partnership and an Anonymous Group of Businessmen Seized the Airwaves with Propaganda

The other article in the Sunday Herald brings us to an even more serious issue. This article, entitled ‘How to get ahead in the race to the White House…by advertising’ explains how voters are bombarded with election propaganda and how important it is to spend on adverts. It also brings us to the decision just released by OFCOM against the radio advertising that took place during the referendum.

The Herald article explains the vast sums spent on TV and radio ads to try to secure election victories in the US. The article quotes Erika Fowler, the associate professor running the Wesleyan Media Project:

“ Campaigns are not going for efficiency, they are going for moderate voters in the centre who have not made up their minds. There are going to be many, many people tuning out the messages, but in a competitive election cycle, you really are going for that last one or two percentage points. So the parties and the interest groups… are going to do whatever it takes to get a competitive advantage.”

And as the article says,

“That means spending money…”

The American spin doctors and PR firms know, as do their UK counterparts, that advertising works. And OFCOM, the communications regulator, knows it as well. It exists to prevent the public being misled, and it has come down hard against the aggressive saturation campaign and adverts placed by The BiG Partnership on behalf of the anonymous VFTCGP members- what do they have to hide?

As a referendum campaigner who had to obey stringent rules and spending limits, I was astounded that an unelected and anonymous group, ‘Vote for the City Gardens Project’ were allowed to place a huge volume of radio and print advertising. Not only did they have a degree of media saturation which I couldn’t have hoped for – but the contents of their ads were misleading. Why do I say that? Here are two direct quotes from the ads and my comments on each:-

1. Quote: “I’m voting yes because of the £182 million of investment to the city centre – and it’s all coming from grants and private donations so it won’t cost the taxpayer a penny.”

“The City Garden Project won’t cost you a penny, it will be paid for through private donations and business rates.”

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb213/obb213.pdf – see Pages 6 and 7

Comment: As demonstrated by invoices paid by the City Council, taxpayer money has ALREADY been spent on this project for advertising, PR and ‘stakeholder engagement’ in the region of at least £200,000. What is galling is that the BiG Partnership, working closely with ACSEF would have known this. In fact, it is still a mystery what agency or agencies carried out the PR, advertising and photography: was BiG a recipient of taxpayer money? If so, how democratic or ethical was this agency acting when it submitted these ads for broadcast?

2. Quote: “It will create twice as much green space in the City Centre.” (reference as above)

Comment: We have a green park – when I say green, there is a deep, rich fertile layer of soil supporting wildlife and ancient trees. (Democracy fans note – there are trees and species in this park which are protected by UK and EU law, even though the past administration allowed fireworks displays in the gardens).

If you build underground structures and have a layer of topsoil over them, you won’t have the same environmental quality as we do now.

If you chop the trees down, and build a 5,000 seat outdoor theatre on formerly rich soil, then there is absolutely no way that you are going to double the amount of green space.

Layers of turf over the concrete theatre’s roof and making similar turf-clad structures does not mean you can claim you are doubling genuine green space.

By the way, the idea of building an outdoor theatre in Aberdeen makes very little sense indeed weather-wise. Building a theatre in front of where a theatre already exists raises questions about the ‘non-displacement’ concept – rules are supposed to prohibit using public resources to build something that will compete with or take away from an existing business – but this is being conveniently overlooked.

Aside from my opinions on the accuracy of these ads – Aberdonian citizens were bombarded with over 200 ads on Northsound 1 and 2, and Original 106 played ads over 100 times between 16 and 29 February. ( In contrast, Mike Shepherd had one ad played a total of 26 times).

The point is that if so much as one person heard these hundreds of ads, assumed they were true (after all, the trusted radio stations continued to run them) and voted for the web based on these spurious claims (no cost to the taxpayer, double (??) the green space magically created), then the commercials and the big money behind them unduly influenced the referendum result.

What really beggars belief is the behaviour of the BiG Partnership.

They were involved with ACSEF to push the web scheme. They know that invoices were paid by the taxpayer for consultation, PR, ‘stakeholder engagement’, photos and the like (even including a photo for about £150 meant to show how ‘inaccessible’ the gardens are).

They knew that the web was already costing the taxpayer money, yet they were involved with creating and placing advertisements on radio saying the taxpayer wouldn’t pay a penny. Whatever your position on the web is, don’t you agree this is unethical?

People would have been influenced by hundreds of ads

BiG also appear to have placed these ads apparently without getting full advice and clearance. Reading OFCOM’s decision, it is easy to conclude the ads would not have been deemed acceptable had clearance been asked for in advance.

How does an organisation as big and experienced as BiG explain itself to the regulator? This is what they said:-

“Northsound told us that this organisation was set up by a group of private individuals who supported the re-development project. They were not a formally constituted organisation, the Licensee said, and had “no legal status”. This advertiser appointed The BIG Partnership, a public relations consultancy, to run and manage its campaign.

“The BIG Partnership made the following comments through the Licensee:

“This campaign was set up a by a group of private individuals who wanted to see the project go ahead. They were not a formally constituted organisation. They have no legal status. They got together and appointed The BIG Partnership to run and manage the campaign and they provided funds for that campaign. The City Garden Project, as part of the wider city centre regeneration scheme, will be funded by private donations and a TIF scheme whereby Aberdeen City Council borrows money to pay for the regeneration and uses the new business rates generated by new business across the city as a result of the regeneration to pay back the loan. It will not be financed by Aberdeen City Council’s annual revenue budget and therefore not have an impact on local council tax payers or on the delivery of public services. The group behind the campaign is not political. The campaign aimed to influence the outcome of the referendum by communicating the facts and the benefits of the project to the public. The objectors to the project also ran similar advertisements.”

If there is even a single person who voted for the project based on these radio ads, which should never have been aired, or has a friend or relative who was taken in by these ads, then they should come forward now and say so. (Write to me if you wish; I can keep your details anonymous if you prefer - sgvk27@aol.com)

An anonymous group of people, via an experienced agency, placed ads which should never have been aired . The ads contain spurious claims, but at the time the regulatory bodies were unable to intervene. The regulator has found the ads in breach of code.

We need to know who the VFTCGP members were to see whether there were any conflicts of interest. People would have been influenced by hundreds of ads, the contents of which could not be contested at the time.

Whatever side of the issue you are on, if you care about law, democracy and fairness, you must admit these ads should not have aired and would have influenced the voters who heard them. Verdict: Extraordinarily Undemocratic

( Note - BiG has not answered questions on this issue at the time of going to press. )

Local Newspaper Coverage: Lacking and Slanted

Unfortunately our local hard copy tabloids, the Press & Journal and its sister, the Evening Express, are clearly in favour of the web going ahead.

Their coverage in the past has seemed one-sided. However, they have chosen to exclude the news item about the information Commissioner’s verdict re. the TIF details. They have covered other Information Commission decisions in the past, and this one certainly has local importance.

More importantly, at the time of writing, no local tabloid has mentioned the OFCOM decision, and instead have run pieces critical of the Labour administration. The BBC and the Herald have decided these two stories were newsworthy enough to be published. The local press did not find room for them, but do have articles on a new chocolate shop opening in the mall, and a photo of a black swan.

Note - The local press has not answered questions on this issue at the time of going to press.

Is it possible that our papers are slanting coverage to please their advertisers? It just might be possible. Verdict: Newspapers can take any side of an issue they want; that is democracy. However, do you want a paper that gives you one side of an issue, or one that covers all ground?

Democracy: Labouring the Point

This is a good time to discuss Labour and Democracy. When the referendum was announced, Labour said at the outset it did not agree with holding it, and explained they were already legally representing their constituents. They also pointed out that the referendum was not a legal vote that had to be adhered to; it was in law always just a consultation (like the one we had before which rejected the city square).

Labour told the people that if elected, they would scrap the City Gardens Project, which by the way was still in its infancy. Some people seem to feel the web was a done deal. It had not had TIF approval yet – it lacks details (we don’t have anything other than fanciful artist drawings which ignore necessary architectural and safety features which would make the thing look far different from the concept art), and it had to go through planning.

Labour explained what was wrong with the referendum before it started, and vociferously objected to all the abuses that went on during the campaign. They asked to be elected with scrapping the CGP as a main campaign plank: they did what they were elected to do Verdict: Democratic

SNP Sniping

It is very interesting to see in today’s Press and Journal our Scottish Government minister for planning, Derek MacKay, speaking out against Labour over the web – which is a planning issue. There are guidelines which direct him not to make such statements, but he seems to be ignoring them.

Is a minister involved with planning overstepping his remit and going contrary to Scottish Ministerial Code? Seems like it. Verdict: Out of Order
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/12/01141452/9

Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Older Entries

TIF Application: Information Wrongfully Withheld

Above the Law? How BiG Partnership and an Anonymous Group of Businessmen Seized the Airwaves with Propaganda

Local Newspaper Coverage: Lacking and Slanted

Democracy: Labouring the Point

SNP Sniping