Mar 172016
 

With thanks to Kenneth Hutchison, Parliamentary Assistant to Dr. Eilidh Whiteford MP.

AmbulanceEilidh

(L-R) Bryan Milne, Area Service Manager, Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP, Ewan Esslemont, Head of Service Grampian, Robert Buchan, Ambulance Care Assistant.

Banffshire & Buchan Coast MSP Stewart Stevenson, and Banff & Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford, have welcomed the Scottish Government’s announcement of increased emergency ambulance cover for the Peterhead area, which will see an additional full-time ambulance 24/7 based at Peterhead.

The announcement follows a sustained campaign by the MSP and MP for enhanced ambulance provision in the north of Aberdeenshire, and builds on earlier commitments to increased provision and a recruitment drive.

As a result of today’s announcement, the Scottish Ambulance Service stands to benefit from a £5 million injection from the Scottish Government.

The new Peterhead ambulance will be available 24/7, with new crew being trained to get the vehicle on the road as soon as possible.

Speaking following the announcement, Banffshire & Buchan Coast MSP Stewart Stevenson said the news was ‘fantastic’.

He said:

“Eilidh and I have been working closely with the Scottish Ambulance Service in recent months, following concerns from constituents that the service was being too thinly spread in the north-east, and response times were below target.

“I have been contacted by a number of constituents recently regarding the provision of Ambulance services in the North-east. I fully expect the increase in capacity, which has been funded by the Scottish Government, will improve the ability of the service to respond to calls in the town and surrounding area.

“This new ambulance won’t only benefit Peterhead. The surrounding towns and villages will benefit from the knock on effect of the new vehicle, which will take pressure off the neighbouring stations.”

Westminster MP, Eilidh Whiteford, added:

“It is great to hear that the Scottish Ambulance Service has allocated an additional Ambulance to Peterhead. I want to pay tribute to the local crews and members of the public who drew attention to the challenges facing the service, and who worked with us to make the case for additional resources.“

The funding from the Scottish Government will also provide 50 Specialist Paramedics with enhanced clinical skills to allow them to work more autonomously with an extended range of medicines, offering more treatments in communities alongside GPs and other health professionals.

The initiative will also see more than 60 new staff recruited and trained for deployment in Ambulance Control Centres across Scotland.

Health Secretary, Shona Robison said:

“Our ambulance workers provide a first class service, often under challenging circumstance and we value their dedication extremely highly. This recruitment drive will enhance the service on offer, and ensure that staff are equipped with the appropriate skills, training and clinical support to be able to deliver even more care in the community.

“Through the 2016/17 budget we are investing an additional £11.4 million in the Scottish Ambulance Service, which will assist with the recruitment and training of more staff over the next five years. This will allow the ambulance service to be better prepared to meet future needs and demands.”

Pauline Howie, Chief Executive, Scottish Ambulance Service, said:

“The continued investment in more frontline resources is fundamental to delivering our ‘Towards 2020’ strategy which aims to provide the most appropriate care to every patient, whether at home or in the hospital. This year’s recruitment plan is the first phase of a 5 year programme that will enhance the clinical skills mix of our staff and introduce new ways of working to best meet the needs of patients in all of our communities.”

The Service currently employs around 1300 Paramedics, 1100 Ambulance Technicians and 350 control room staff on frontline emergency operations.

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

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

 

Oct 222015
 

Dr Whiteford speaks at ConferenceWith thanks to Kenneth Hutchison, Parliamentary Assistant to Dr. Eilidh Whiteford MP.

SNP Conference has condemned the Tory Government’s Welfare Reform and Work Bill and backed fresh plans to oppose the measures in both Holyrood and Westminster as research shows the cumulative cost of the measures in the bill by the next General Election will be £3.2 billion.

The Tory cuts to welfare benefits will disproportionately impact on the lowest income households with the most severely affected being those at the bottom of the income scale; women and households with children.

Moving the motion, Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP, the SNP’s Westminster spokesperson on social justice said:

“I have research which shows that the cost of the welfare and work bill to Scotland’s low income families will be £3.2 billion by 2020/21. In 2020/21 the annual cut will reach £900 million every year.

“And as the measures in this bill only accounts for 86% of the cuts announced by the Chancellor in his summer budget we can see that by the time of the next general election Scotland will be facing over £1 billion welfare cuts each and every year.

“Over half a million children live in families that rely on tax credits to make ends meet. 350,000 of those children will feel the impact of Tory cuts as they strip away much needed tax credits from over 200,000 low income working families across Scotland.

“Children will be pushed into poverty by the austerity driven Tories who choose ideology over humanity. It’s no wonder that they are changing the definition of child poverty to remove working households from the equation. They know their policies will make child poverty spiral not reduce.”

Speaking in the debate, Alex Neil MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights, attacked David Cameron on imposing cuts to benefits, cuts to tax credits, sanctions, and driving hundreds of thousands in the UK into poverty saying:

“No-one believes the Tories about their so called living wage, and the SNP will continue to fight for a real living wage for all people.

“We should have all the powers over social security, it should not be in the hands of the Tories. With those powers, we will use them to the maximum within the resources available.  We will also give dignity and respect to those who rely on social security to get by.

“The Scottish Government will not sweep poverty under the carpet and we will always protect our values and the vulnerable.”

Social Justice Secretary Alex Neil also confirmed one of the first acts of an SNP Scottish Government would be to scrap the so called ’84 day’ rule.

The rule under the UK Government prevents families with a seriously ill or disabled child from receiving Disability Living Allowance and Carer’s Allowance payments once they have been hospitalised or received medical treatment for same condition for more than 84 days.

Alex Neil said this disgraceful rule would be abolished as a matter of principle as soon as new welfare powers are devolved from Westminster to Holyrood.

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

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Oct 102014
 

SalmondHamletBy Bob Smith.

Wee Eck wull hae time on his haans
Fit wull he noo dee ti wow aa his fans
Foo aboot performin on shows like X-Factor
A singer a duncer or maybe an actor

“I Dreamed a Dream” is a sang he cwid sing
Or in a braw kilt he cwid dunce Heilan Fling
An actor o coorse wid bi richt up his street
Tho’ his latest performances made lots o fowk greet

A lion tamer in a circus wid suit Wee Eck fine
He’s weel used ti wheep crackin ti keep fowk in line
A reader o palms –noo fegs ‘ere’s  a thing
“Gypsy Rose” Salmond aat his a braw ring

On Strictly Come Duncin cwid oor Eck dee a twirl
He micht be mair suited ti an Eichtsome Reel birl
In tails an bow tie he cwid ay dee a Valeta
Or maybe a tango wi a quine ca’ed Conchita

They say auld politeeshuns niver dee they jist fade awa
Auld politeeshuns nivver dee but fae office can fa
Wull Wee Eck fade awa or inti the sunset micht ride
The mannie likes the limelight so aroon he wull bide

©Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie” 2014
Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

Sep 132013
 

By Suzanne Kelly. 

trump106featMenie Estate resident David Milne started a petition to ask for a public inquiry into the past, present and future events and issues arising from Donald Trump’s takeover of the Estate to build ‘the world’s greatest golf course.’

As per previous coverage of the problems faced by residents and visitors to the estate, there are many questions that have remained unanswered as events have unfolded. The Scottish Government called in and approved Trump’s plans – a move which was without precedent.

The actions of the police, local and central government, and Scottish Enterprise as well as the SNH since golf course construction began have included the arrests of two journalists on the charge of ‘breaching the peace’, as shown in Anthony Baxter’s award-winning documentary, You’ve Been Trumped.

Environmental monitoring which was to be robust, was patchy at best, and now seems non-existent. Residents have been stopped by Trump private security. Surely the SNP government, keen to show the benefits of an independent Scotland, would want to honour the request of 19,000 petition signatories, and shed light on its actions if they were above board?

The petitions committee members have decided otherwise.

The brief statement now on their website reads:-

“3 September 2013: The Committee agreed to close the petition, under Rule 15.7, on the basis that all of the organisations that responded state that they have made, and continue to make, details of their involvement with the Menie Development public, and that there is little to demonstrate that another inquiry is necessary or justified.”
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01474

Astonishingly, the method used by the committee when asked to consider investigating these five institutions was to ask them if they thought an investigation was needed. The outcome was inevitable, once the decision was made to rely on the word of the organisations to be investigated.

The committee’s statement refers to ‘another inquiry’. Whilst there was a report on the planning process in 2008, a great deal has happened since then.  The statement refers to ‘another inquiry’ – there has not been any inquiry remotely like what was requested by the thousands who signed Milne’s petition.

David Milne’s letter to the Petitions Committee has been heavily redacted. Future articles will look at why Milne’s final statement was cut in this way.

What did he plan to say that the committee did not want the public to see?

Were any of the people on the committee likely to want to prevent an investigation into how Alex Salmond wined and dined Trump, and then intervened in the live planning application? Why did the police arrest two journalists on the say-so of Trump’s site manager, yet decline to even look at potential evidence caught on video of property damage and theft from the Milne property?

Reactions are still coming in from residents, campaigners and politicians; these will be aired in due course as well. But for the time being it is clear that the wish of the people to have a proper, public examination of what is now a cause celebre does not matter to central government.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Aug 232013
 

By Suzanne Kelly.

The Press & Journal devoted its first five pages on 21 August to august business mogul Sir Ian Wood.

On the following day, while the Scotsman put the Ian Wood ultimatum on Page 23 (with the little matters of Syria and other news taking precedence), our P&J had Alex Salmond on the cover entreating us to take the Wood shillings, and the following three pages were likewise dedicated to the granite web (with one pro-Trump article also up front, undoubtedly for balance).

This ceaseless Aberdeen Journals attempt at blatantly trying to rewrite history ignores reality. The AJL owners must be convinced the public will buy into the brainwashing and forget the past.  From what I’m told, this propaganda  is not appreciated by a web-wearied (and possibly dwindling) readership.

The details which the P&J brazenly try to paper over may be of interest to anti-granite web factions.  Those who had to fight against an onslaught of propaganda during the non-binding referendum need to be able to counter this latest myopic, self-serving pro-web media onslaught; a round up of the issues may help with this.

During the referendum a wave of factually inaccurate, expensive, garish leaflets and newspapers (created by an anonymous, clearly well-off group) bombarded City (and accidentally shire) residents.   Let’s make sure the oversimplified argument ‘Aberdeen must take this generous £50 million gift’ is one gift horse that is looked in the mouth, pronounced diseased, and refused (again).

Here are a few select counter-arguments which the Press & Journal conveniently overlook.

1.  Ian’s promises to go away

Wood was going to abandon the plan if the first consultation for the city garden project indicated the public didn’t want it.  The illustrations which first did the rounds clearly showed a flat, barren, concrete or tile giant square, with one or two plants in a pot.

The public didn’t want this and said so.  Ian Wood however did not go away.  The pro City Garden Project factions then accused the public of not understanding the illustrations, claiming the drawings looked nothing like what was really on offer.  And back they went to the drawing board, rather than backing away as initially promised.

All this time, the taxpayer was paying the bill via invoices submitted to the City via unelected quango, Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (formerly Forum – they created their own manifesto).
See: https://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/02/the-great-city-gardens-project-gravy-train/

I have lost count of the headlines similar to the current ones in which Sir Ian threatens to send his money to Africa, take the offer off the table, etc.etc.  But one thing seems clear to me:  this is not a man of his word, going by these broken promises alone.

1.1  Alex Salmond to the rescue?  Has Salmond learned nothing from his intervention with Trump?

Ian and Alex Salmond shared correspondence, and the web was one of their topics.  Salmond has again come to bat for his friend, and is flexing his muscle in the same city where he recently disregarded the rules and protocol, sauntered into a primary school during a by election and had a press and photo call.

One friend helping another is a heart-warming thing.  Here is an excerpt from Wood to Salmond correspondence:-

“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  – https://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/11/wood-to-salmond-01-08-12/

Let’s not forget Sir Ian’s signature appears on a letter to the First Minister from Aberdeen City Gardens Trust (which is meant to be Smith, Crosby and Massie).  If he had control at ACSEF, over Salmond, and over the ACGT, then he pretty much will be calling all the shots should this web ever be woven.  https://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/12/salmonds-web-exclusive-correspondence-revealed/

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 – https://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.

There is the statement that the project will not proceed without TIF.  Wood is still chasing it.

Despite many past promises (see previous Aberdeen Voice articles) Wood’s not going to go away any time soon.  This being the case, it’s best to recollect some of the history of this saga.

2.  The people were ignored when they rejected the web – twice; then the referendum was called.  Labour rightly said the referendum was not legally binding and that they would not build the web if elected.  They were elected.  Any arguments about ‘people being ignored’ discount the past disregard pro-web forces showed when the public went against them.

Despite people like Rita Stephen visiting companies to talk up the new project, and telling groups that Peacock was not going to happen (before it had been officially killed off it seems to me), people said ‘no’ to the giant square.  For that matter, I deliberately used the word ‘preposterous’ in my feedback during the first consultation. This word and my feedback never showed up on their master list of comments.  I wonder how many other anti-square comments were omitted?

Eventually the Granite Web was selected as the project of choice.  We didn’t get the chance to vote to keep and improve the gardens, even though councillors such as Willie Young were minuted as saying they wanted the public to have this option at an early stage.  Letting us vote not to do any project, but to clean up and improve the gardens could have saved a great deal of time and money.

Gerry Brough, now departed from the Council, was minuted at the time as saying the public were not going to get this chance – by the wish of unelected members of other web-related committees.  So, the web triumphed, and its drawings were put forward.

3.  The web is hideous, makes not spatial or aesthetic sense, and that’s just the concept drawings.  It would look far worse if ever built.

Lurid giant flowerbeds sprouted; children played, a woman sunbathed on top of a potato-chip-shaped wedge overhanging an outdoor theatre.

Giant ramps at steep angles jutted to the sky and back sharply down (for no apparent utilitarian purpose).

This was particularly insulting.

One of the propaganda fallacies which seem to stick is the gardens can’t be accessed.

Yes they can; there is a short, gently sloping ramp next to His Majesty’s Theatre; cars get in; people with prams and wheelchairs get in.  And yet, the web proposes that these ramps will have some form of function.

If the public didn’t understand the drawings of the flat giant square, which seemed rather easy to grasp, why has no one from the pro-web side ever produced drawings showing what precisely the gardens would look like if they got a thumbs up?

Where are the Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning vents that would have to stick up from the garden to serve the underground spaces? Where are the drawings of the required safety features that would stop people jumping or falling from the potato chip wedge?

Click on pic to enlarge.

Click on pic to enlarge.

Where are the drawings showing what the granite-clad ramps would look like when they are made safe from people falling, jumping, or quite likely throwing objects on those below?

Stop and think for a moment what a disaster the real garden, fitted with legally required safety measures would look like.

I’ve put my hand to making one such drawing, and I welcome the architects’ submission of a fully safe, legally compliant drawing.

4.  A gift is not a gift if you are told how to use it – and that you have to stump up £90 Million to get it.

I keep receiving junk mail, saying I’ve won a valuable prize.  All I have to do to get that prize is to spend my own money to claim it.  This type of sham sadly does take in some people.  Sir Ian’s offer is its relative.

He will only give us this gift if we surrender our common good land, the park, to a private company, Aberdeen City Gardens Trust.  There is no other use Wood will accept it seems for his ‘gift’ but to build in the park.  And we have to pay nearly twice as much (by conservative estimate) to get rid of our park for parking, shops and a web.

TIF would have been a risk; this is undeniable. If the thing didn’t make money – and the projections were ridiculously high for its income and jobs creation (see past Aberdeen Voice issues), then the taxpayer would be stuck.  TIF was never risk free, whatever anyone says – a loan of any kind is a risk, let alone on an unprecedented building work.

If it were a gift, it could have been put in the common good fund, for the city to decide how it were best spent.  This is not a gift.

5.  So – what did happen to Peacock?  Who had a role in its demise?

Peacock raised funds, came up with a plan (which did not please everyone, but it was far more architecturally and environmentally sound than the granite web).  It was getting advice from Scottish Enterprise, which initially seemed happy to go along with the Peacock scheme.

Here is an extract from February 2009 from unelected quango, ACSEF’s minutes:

“The small sub-group which will drive the project forward will comprise ACSEF Board/MT members, supported by Zoe Corsi in her communication role.   It will be chaired by Dave Blackwood, with Andrew Murphy, Mike Salter, Tom Smith, Abigail Tierney and David Littlejohn as core members, with others, including Andy Willox and Melfort Campbell, available to support as required.  Dave Blackwood invited any other Board members who wished to be involved to advise him.

“Abigail Tierney will be the main interface with Peacock Visual Arts, supported by Dave Blackwood as required.  Dave Blackwood will be the main contact with Sir Ian Wood and his representative Jennifer Craw.

“The Board will be provided with a summary outlining the facts around public funding to Peacock Visual Arts, key deliverables and timelines expected for the technical appraisal.

“The ACSEF website set up following Sir Ian Wood’s announcement has fulfilled its function and will be closed shortly, with clear communication on next steps.”

And then Peacock was dead, and Sir Ian’s city gardens project rose from the ashes.

Tell us exactly how this transformation came about Sir Ian, for we should be told.

You could have contributed to Peacock’s plan; even using remaining funds from your £50 million donation to embark on other projects, or (perish the thought) helping people in Aberdeen city and shire directly.

Our residential care homes, our schools, our arts education, our people with special needs could have benefitted, and there could have been a project to bring people back from the Union Square Mall into the city centre (should the mall have been approved in the first place, and what were the financial projections for the future of the existing independent retailers?  It certainly has harmed city centre businesses).

Then Ian Wood, former Chair of Scottish Enterprise http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2000/06/f1eb0785-1ad2-4379-8fc1-9dd399024b7b decided, while SE was meant to be helping Peacock,to build a web.  Peacock didn’t stand a chance.

Until we know all of the facts behind this volte face, you have to wonder what kind of ethics were in play.  Speaking of ethics, a few more things to remember.

6.  Spending other people’s money is easy as history shows – would this project turn into a mega cash cow and construction/consultation jobs for the usual suspects?

You could certainly be forgiven for asking this question.  Here is a little piece on Sir Ian’s old Scottish Enterprise, and how while axing jobs, hospitality sucked up budget  http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/193483/Outrage-over-Scottish-enterprise-chiefs-1m-hospitality-bill

Who would be keeping an eye on the spending for the web, the inevitable onslaught of consultants, the construction and likely overruns? Is this a gift horse or a cash cow for the boys?  If ACSEF managed to bill the city for pro-web propaganda including £150 to take a picture showing the park to be ‘inaccessible’ what hope is there that people would act responsibly with £90 million of taxpayer-backed loans?

The original Aberdeen City Gardens Trust companies were private individuals – the usual suspects Tom Smith and Co., with no major project management or architectural skills on this scale.   Would they really be in a position to manage this project keeping a reign on finances?
Arguably, Wood didn’t think so – he felt it necessary to pledge millions more for cost over-runs.

Some firms have done quite nicely so far; see https://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/02/the-great-city-gardens-project-gravy-train/

But as his pledges to back off if the garden project got the thumbs down have been conveniently ignored, and replaced by blackmail threats such as his latest pledge to put a project on the table which he will approve of by Christmas or he’s off to Africa with his £50 million, can you believe the over-run pledge or any pledge for that matter.  And speaking of Africa…

7.  Venture Philanthropy and helping Rwanda’s…Tea Plantation Owners

I invite the Wood Family Trust to explain how much money it has to hand, and how much it is spending on pensions for its members (when I last looked at the Office of the Scottish Charities Register, just under £30 million is sitting around, unused, and pensions were being paid to its members, who are the Wood Family plus Jennifer Craw…)

They can do whatever they want with their money; they can pay generous pensions to their board members.  They may even be able to take this money to Africa.  Will it go on victims of Rwanda’s social and health problems?  Not directly – it will go to producing more tea.  How this can be done without cutting more forest down will be interesting to learn; and I invite them to enlighten me.

Venture Philanthropy seems to be a newish phenomenon where the ‘donors’ sometimes expect some form of return for their ‘donation.’

8.  Democracy out the window if the web comes in

There are planning laws; there are procedures for those who want to build.  We have common good land; it is Union Terrace Gardens.  If we give control of our land to Tom Smith and Co. in an unaccountable, arm’s-length company to build Wood’s web, where does that leave the right of the common man?

10.  If you wanted to put something back into the community  Sir Ian – why did you take £22K from a struggling local authority to pay for an ‘educational’ pilot promoting the idea of entrepreneurship?

Not only are people good at spending taxpayer money; they are also good at clawing money back from the taxpayer.

The city also paid the WFT £22,000 for an educational pilot scheme

The Wood Family Trust invoiced Aberdeen City Council for a pilot programme based on entrepreneurial philosophy.  A billionaire taking money from the local council to carry out his programme, and wanting us to consider his generosity at the same time.

Wood Family Trust

The Wood Family Trust (WFT) is listed as having paid £160,000 towards the CGP referendum. The taxpayer chipped in £40,000.

The city also paid the WFT £22,000 for an educational pilot scheme involving Kincorth Academy ‘per contract’. What contract ACC and the WFT have entered into will make interesting reading. Perhaps other charitable trusts have contracted with ACC – but why a charity should be engaged by contract on an educational scheme is at present unclear.

https://aberdeenvoice.com/wp-content/gallery/images2/wood-family-trust-get-22-k-from-acc-nov-11.jpg

10.  The granite web won’t cost the taxpayer anything.  Rubbish.  It’s cost us plenty already which could have gone on people – or just plain improving the gardens

Here is a small extract from the ‘Gravy Train’ article (link above).

Item Description Date Amount
1 Technical Feasibility Study to undertake an engineering, cost and design appraisal of the development options for UTG, each incorporating an arts centre. Jun 2009 £162k
2 Architect, Design & Project management fees for a Contemporary Arts Centre project Feb 09/May 10 £226k
3 Consultation Report – City Square Project.. Mar 2010 £113,915
4 Union Terrace Gardens (TIF)-Tax Increment Financing Mar 10
Oct 10
Nov 10
£71,959.65
5 Scottish Enterprise holds 22 copies of invoices relating to ACSEF approved spend for activities relating to stakeholder engagement, events management, and communications. [sic] 2009-10
2010-11
£51,766.60
£22,712.72

(source – Scottish Enterprise email exchange with Suzanne Kelly May 2011)

11.  Speaking of morals – how about just paying the full amount of tax you should Sir Ian, without using offshore schemes?

12.  Maybe if we had the benefit of his wealth via his fair share of taxes, we could see some real economic, social benefit. 

Sir Ian, are you using any tax devices which allow money to avoid taxation, such as offshore payroll arrangements for you or WGPSN employees?

If so, do you think the public’s interests might be better served by your paying your fair share in tax for it to be deployed as government sees fit (not that I have a great deal of faith in government, but there is some democratic hope money will be spent as needed) rather on what is an overblown, badly-designed monstrous vanity project?  Just asking.

Uncharacteristically, the P&J carried this on the subject:  http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2198187

13.  We still need some fresh air.  Ridiculous claims of ‘doubling’ the green space by building a web are a thin veneer easily scratched away – as would any turf planted on the raised garden floor would be as well.

This city has very few trees in its city centre.  It also has two of Scotland’s most polluted roads according to Friends of the Earth.

Back off our garden; back off our trees.

What if?

If I had a tenth of his money, I would enhance the gardens (let people put in a small play area, let there be a café to encourage social use of the gardens; the parties that have been held are great for bringing people together).  The gardens are not the problem.

I would take over brownfield site and regenerate; we could use social meeting places; places for older citizens to gather, places for people with mobility issues to socialize; places for children to safely play, to learn arts, to have fun.

I’d build Peacock or build an arts/social centre on brownfield. I’d give money to the bodies cruelly axed by Kate Dean.

I would not build parking in a garden; I would not chop trees down.

I would not continue to divide a city I had damaged while pursuing my egotistical, self-centered fantasy.

We do not need more shops.

If I had the time, money and energy of the P&J team, I could spin out another 10 pages of reasons why the web has to stay in the dustbin, and why its genesis should be fully investigated.  For now I suggest averting your eyes from the P&J, remembering what actually took place, and thanking your stars it hasn’t been built yet.

Better still, tell your elected rep you want the whole thing investigated, the project denounced, and stop buying AJL papers until they start reporting news, not what they want to make happen.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Jun 032013
 

With thanks to Kenneth Watt.

Two senior youth councillors took part in a Donside tour, handing out leaflets to every secondary school, community centre and library in the constituency ahead of the group’s hustings on Thursday 6th June.

Struan King (Vice-chair, pictured) and Kenneth Watt (Press Officer) visited over 25 venues distributing 1500 leaflets.

On Saturday and Sunday afternoons the youth council will be leafleting young people outside Marks and Spencers, with a further 1000 leaflets ready to be handed out.

The hustings on Thursday 6th June is the only one to feature all five candidates from parties with representation at Holyrood which is open to the public. A free ticket is required and can be downloaded from http://donside.eventbrite.com. People of all ages are invited, with half of all tickets guaranteed for young Donside electors.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
May 302013
 

With thanks to Kenneth Watt.

The Aberdeen City Youth Council has announced that it will be hosting a hustings event for candidates in the Donside by-election in the Belmont Cinema at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday 6th June, 2013.

The event is open to people of all ages, but a significant number of tickets have been reserved for young people living in the constituency.

The event is free to attend but, due to the limited capacity of the venue, audience members are required to register at http://donside.eventbrite.co.uk/ in order to obtain a ticket.

Youth council Chair Barry Black ( pictured ) said:

“This should turn out to be a great event.  The significance of the Donside seat is huge in Scottish Politics and is one that is being watched more and more closely every day.

“A number of issues regarding young people in Aberdeen will turn out to be major factors for voters in the by-election.  

Cuts to college funding, a review of the school estate, and controversial changes to tuition fees in England are news stories which are discussed frequently, all of which I am sure will resonate strongly with young people and families in the constituency. 

“On top of that, some communities in Donside unfortunately have incredibly high levels of child poverty and increasing crime rates.  

“These are all subjects on which I’m sure that the candidates will be quizzed.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
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 – https://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 – https://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  – https://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 – https://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.
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.
May 032012
 

By Bob Smith.

“The Donald” wis doon at Holyrood
Agin winfairms he did rail
Stop biggin aa thae turbines
Or yer tourism it’ll fail

Ye’ll spile the bonnie coastline
An wi me ye noo wull clash
Nae wird o connachin shiftin dunes
Fin an SSSI the chiel did trash

Trump says the warld’s aa laachin
At fit he sees as Scaatland’s folly
Fowk winna cum ti ma gowf course
An a’ve spint aa iss bliddy lolly

Royal Aiberdeen spoots oor Donald
Wull lose oot on gowf events
A win’ turbine it’ll spile the view
Fae the course an sponsors’ tents

The pledge a wis gien’s bin bruiken
“Nae winfairms wid be near Menie”
A’m dumfoonert an fair scunnered
An winna spen anither penny

Oor Eck cries “stuff an nonsense”
The mannie’s spikkin crap
His “The Donald’s” bluff an bluster
Geen a bittie ower the tap?

Wi aa the rigmarole at Holyrood
Donald playin his “Trump” cardie
It’s mair akin to yon Hollywood
Wi Donald an Eck as Laurel an Hardy
.
.
.
.
©Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie” 2012

Image credit:© Mark Rasmussen | Dreamstime.com …. 3 windmills