Oct 132011
 

Mike Shepherd, Chairman of the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens, puts the case for keeping Union Terrace Gardens.

Union Terrace Gardens are a vital part of Aberdeen’s heritage.

The city centre park was planned by Alexander Marshall Mackenzie, the architect who also designed the Art Gallery, St Marks and the frontage of Marischal College.

If Union Terrace Gardens feel as if they belong in the city, it is because there is a harmony between the park and the surrounding buildings, several of which were designed by Marshall Mackenzie.

There is a sense of architectural authenticity. This authenticity would be lost if a six-acre modern square is built, which would be surrounded by Victorian granite buildings. The singer Annie Lennox has described this possibility as an act of civic vandalism.

Aberdeen’s heritage matters.

The beautiful granite buildings give us a sense of place and belonging. We identify with our heritage, and Aberdonians are proud of their beautiful city. The replacement of the old with the new, artlessly done, erodes the unique feel of Aberdeen, and starts to make our city look like everywhere else.

The Gardens are beautiful and spectacular.

The Gardens provide shelter below street level under the hustle and bustle of the city centre. The shelter is enhanced by the 78 mature trees in the Gardens, all of which will be chopped down if a modern city square is to be built according to the technical feasibility study.

An Aberdeen Council document states the following:

Union Terrace Gardens has many qualities to be exploited and enhanced including:

– Topography which provides a unique and dramatic setting for the surrounding historic townscape and bridges, and an essential component of the identity of the City Centre

– The character of buildings to the rear of Belmont Street

– The setting for His Majesty’s Theatre, St Mark’s and the Central Library, Denburn Viaduct and Union Bridge

– Green space and mature trees

– One of the last locations where the historic relationship of Union Street to the old city can be appreciated

(Source: Aberdeen City Council,Aberdeen City Centre – Developing a Vision for the Future, May 2010).

The development of Union Terrace Gardens is not a done deal.

There are many obstacles in the way of the so-called City Garden Project, such that it is unlikely to happen.  The project depends on the Council borrowing £70M to fund the project through Tax Incremental Financing. The council, who are £562M in debt, cannot afford to take any more risks on borrowing.

There is no public consensus for the project: indeed a consultation held two years ago rejected the scheme. The politicians are hoping to address these concerns by holding a referendum, which will inevitably support the retention of the existing Gardens.

There is a much better alternative to building a modern and intrusive city square in the middle of the Granite City.

The Friends of Union Terrace Gardens group are committed to the sympathetic restoration of our city centre park. We intend to act in a similar capacity to the Friends of Duthie Park; Duthie park will benefit from the funds attracted by the Friends and will be restored to its former glory. Likewise, the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens intend to return Union Terrace Gardens to a fully-functioning park again.

It wouldn’t take much.

Our park needs some tender loving care, new toilets, a play pen, improved access. We have organised social events in the Gardens and we are instrumental in making Union Terrace Gardens a fun place to visit. It is a park that is a key part of Aberdeen’s heritage, the green heart of the Granite City.

We are a community group dedicated to the future of Union Terrace Gardens.

– Join us, help us in our aims; find out more from our website www.friendsofutg.co.uk

Oct 072011
 

The Annual General Meeting of the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens was held at the Aberdeen Arts Centre on Saturday 1st October with over a hundred members present.  FoUTG Chairman Mike Shepherd reports.

The Friends group was set up last years with the aim of campaigning to save the gardens from development and currently has over 700 members.

Two major decisions were approved by the members present.
The Friends now fully support the idea of the proposed referendum currently being investigated by Aberdeen Council.

The suggested referendum would be a vote between a final design for the City Garden Project and a sympathetically restored Union Terrace Gardens.

The group is totally confident of winning any referendum.

The Friends also reaffirmed the aim of taking over the stewardship of Union Terrace Gardens once the City Garden Project is out of the way. We would act in a similar role as the Friends of Duthie Park, who have been very successful in getting funds to restore the Victorian park. Providing toilets, easier access and a play park were some of the options discussed at the meeting.

This was a very positive meeting, and the members are confident that we will save the park. The design competition is not seen as a serious threat, as we trust our fellow citizens to recognise the stupidity of building a modern city square in the middle of a city full of old and beautiful granite buildings.

When we discussed the referendum, the shout was ‘bring it on, we will win.’ The enthusiasm and determination to win through and to restore of our much-loved gardens as a fully-functioning
park was evident.

We are a group that cares deeply about Aberdeen’s wonderful heritage and a community-led force for the greater good of our beautiful city.

Sep 062011
 

By Mike Shepherd.

Aberdeen Council have recently noted an interest in applying for Tax Incremental Funding (TIF) from Scottish Government funds. The idea is that the Council would underwrite a loan of possibly £80M or more, £70M of which would be used to help pay for the City Square Project. The final application for funding will not be made until December, by which time a business case for TIF will have been completed.

Earlier this year, the then Council leader John Stewart, extended the remit of TIF to include city centre projects other than the city square. These are:

The City Circle Project: A walkway connecting Union Square and the railway station in a circuit from Guild Street, along Market Street through the St Nicholas Centre, down Schoolhill through the City Garden down Bridge Street and rejoining Guild Street to complete the circuit. Basically, it’s a walkway whereby shoppers in Union Square will be heavily prompted to visit the rest of the city by signs and possibly colour coding.

St Nicholas House Redevelopment: A recent council document stated this:

“In the current property market, however, the Council is concerned that developers will be unwilling to take the risk of demolishing redundant parts of the site, delaying any sale and redevelopment and resulting in a vacant city centre eyesore for a number of years. The council therefore wishes to pre-clear the site, to prepare it for sale, and bring forward development.

“The aspiration is that the tower, if not demolished, would be stripped back to its’ skeleton ready for redevelopment, and recladding and put to new uses either as a hotel, apartments or offices, and a new public square would be created to improve the setting of Marischal College and establish a focal point for a new ‘civic quarter’.”

Of interest in this statement is that the possibility of building a public square next to St. Nicholas House has been resurrected. This otherwise hasn’t been mentioned recently in council papers.

The document mentioned is the Aberdeen City Centre Redevelopment Economic Impact Assessment Information, August 2011. This provides information for a questionnaire to be answered by some 500 organisations and individuals which would provide feedback to assess the economic impact of TIF.

Denburn Valley Health Centre Development: From the same document:

“The health centre on the roof is reaching the end of its design life and NHS Grampian is looking to vacate the building. Planning guidance issued by Aberdeen City Council has called for “imaginative” development of the site using the “highest standard of design and materials to complement the surrounding urban form, listed buildings and conservation area”. Redevelopment must continue to provide for substantial public car parking on the site and is expected to comprise largely commercial space for small and medium businesses and some residential development.”

Aberdeen Art Gallery:

“Infrastructure and development required to link the Art Gallery and Cultural Quarter to the City Gardens including partial redevelopment of the gallery and creation of additional gallery space.”

The Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) are seeking six ‘pathfinder’ projects to help establish the feasibility of TIF in Scotland. Three projects have been approved (Edinburgh Waterfront Development, Ravenscraig, and the  Buchanan Quarter in Glasgow) and three more are being sought.

There is strong interest as Barry White, Chief Executive of the SFT  told me in an email last week:

“I can confirm that we have received a submission from Aberdeen City Council and will be considering it along with the submissions received from many other local authorities over the coming days.”

The Case for TIF in Aberdeen.

Tax Incremental Funding is well established in the United States and has recently been introduced to the UK. The idea is that a local authority borrows a sum of money for a development project from Government funds and that the extra business rates generated by the development is captured to pay off the loan over 25 years for instance.
It works best where a brownfield site is used to develop a large scale business operation, the revenue from which is to some extent predictable. In this instance, the risk on a council borrowing a large sum of money is mitigated by a sound business model.

The Aberdeen TIF case is largely predicated on the City Square rejuvenating business in the city centre. There would only be a small amount of revenue generated on site and this would be insufficient in itself to provide business rates to pay back a large loan. Instead, it would be hoped to capture business rates from the surrounding city centre both from rates generated by extra business and new developments.

Trying to predict how much extra business will result from a new city square will be to a major extent speculative with a large uncertainty involved.  In other words, if Aberdeen Council borrowed £80M through TIF this would be based on hope rather than certainty that the money could be paid back.

Aberdeen Council is £562M in debt according to an Evening Express report earlier this year. The interest on the debt is paid from the revenue budget and soaks up cash that could otherwise be used for service and amenities. The Council cannot afford to take a risk on being left with more debt to service, the budget is under severe strain as it is. On the other hand, I have been told that the city is so short of capital for spending that it is unlikely that there would be any investment in the city centre without TIF.

The £70M loan for a city square would be a loan too far; particularly given how unpopular the project is in the city. There is tacit recognition in the questionnaire document that the City Square Project may never happen.

“This option considers the outcome where the City Garden Project is not realisable, but the other projects are. In this scenario, economic benefit and new business rates would be generated primarily by the North Denburn Valley and St Nicholas House developments. Although likely to be less than would be the case if the City Gardens were to be realised, these two projects would nevertheless likely provide the basis for a smaller TIF.”

In this instance, Aberdeen would get a public square at St  Nicholas, which is where most people wanted it in the first place.

Sep 012011
 

A year and a half ago, Steve Bothwell wrote to express some, shall we say, ‘reservations’ about ACSEF’s master plan and where Aberdeen is heading.  It looks as if he had a point or two. 

February 25, 2010 – ACSEF’s plan belies anything that can be comprehended as ‘essential to the future of Aberdeen and the North East of Scotland’. As Jonathon Meades put it, ‘Aberdeen is good at being bad’ – Polite prose indeed.

The former glory of George St, with high quality retail and high quality architecture/replaced with the now John Lewis building (formerly the Co-Op) – St Nicholas Centre and The Bon Accord Centre, whilst severing the bloodline to the rest of George St, which resembles a down market version of the down-trodden Argyle St in Glasgow.

The old Co-op Building in Loch St/Gallowgate, which with little imagination could have been a gem of high quality boutique-scale retail, instead of Architecturally impotent office/residential blocks.  St Nicholas house dwarfs Provost Skene’s house, one of the oldest and most architecturally significant buildings in the area.

Union Terrace Gardens is not to blame

The Trinity Centre/Trinity Hall, which subsequently moved to an equally, but on a smaller scale, architectural abortion.

The Old Market building (Market Street and the Green) replaced with the New Market building, sporadically raising pointing questions from the public (locals and visitors alike).  Amadeus nightclub on the beach front which offers nothing but bemused and disturbed confusion.

And last but not least, Union Square, which is a glorified retail park with parking. This Architectural abomination will need replaced sooner than we think.

Union Street comes up in conversation with great frequency. For the past 30 years planning and control has become so lax that we are adorned with gratingly luminous patchwork of irregular symmetry. Absentee landlords are never held to task, nor are the lease holders.

Union Terrace Gardens is not to blame.

Most City Councils have made errors, and some cities have corrected them. 

Aberdeen City Council still strive forth to allow the most banal picture painting of a living hell, by destroying everything in its path.
Either they are missing the clues which sit firmly on their own created door step or are suffering a serious bout of doldrumitis. The Civic Square planning and design details do not excite but only represent the pointlessness of it.

The City Council, along with ACSEF and Central Government wholeheartedly supported the Peacock scheme, providing local planning guidance was adhered to. This was to make it blend into the historic park. Peacock’s did that.

We now have a scheme, which in its vagueness, is impossible to get to grips with. From that I mean, it is quite obvious that this charade is nothing to do with enhancing our city for future energy companies to get comfy with, because as we know, energy companies care about nothing but energy riches and not about Urban realm Strategies, and especially about retail connectivity.

ACSEF’s approach to retail connectivity is fed through a brainwashing exercise in which the retail ‘Pillars’ unease at motions of failure result in the bandwagon bursting at the seams with the ‘I’m on board brigade’ ensuring their retail offerings, bland as they be, will not suffer the ever-changing movement or trends of public spending.

Union Terrace Gardens is not to blame.

It is poignant that public money has been frittered away on asking Joe Blogs about ‘an idea’, an idea which still reveals no real detail of the final outcome, whereas Peacocks had it sorted and without the need for car parking. Their enhancing project upset no one, and has not created the furore that the Civic square has.

Union Terrace Gardens are not frequented often. Perhaps the reason for that is, the general public are more interested in other things. Society has gone through radical changes and people have become armchair deficits. They rage vengeance on slopes and stairs, grass and beauty, nature and health.

Union Terrace Gardens is not to blame.

However, Courtesy of Grampian Police, the facts are this: – There is negligible crime in Union Terrace Gardens. The Freedom of Information Act has provided much-needed defence, where Union Terrace Gardens is the safest area in the City Centre.

It’s plain to see that ACSEF have not used Europe as an example of quality city centres but used America and Australia as examples. America and Australia are fairly recent countries but wholeheartedly celebrate their Green Spaces.

Aberdeen City Council’s budget is tight and perhaps tight-lipped. And the Scottish Government should be representing Scotland and its history, which it’s not.

Union Terrace Gardens is not to blame.

Jun 102011
 

By Mike Shepherd.

On Saturday 11th June, the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens are organising a Big Picnic in our beloved park  from 1 – 5pm.

You are cordially invited, nay encouraged to come along to the gardens and join in the festivities. A fun day is guaranteed for all.

It’s going to be great with lots of music, busking, stalls, art and  surprises. If you support the retention and improvement of our beautiful city centre park, please come along, tell your friends, family and neighbours.

The gardens are a public amenity to be used by all and we want to celebrate this unique green space in the heart of our granite city. We want to show the world that this is our park; a valued part of our heritage and most definitely not a development opportunity for an exclusive clique of businessmen and politicians.

This is Big Picnic number two and follows on from a similar event last year, an event that marked the formation of the Friends campaign group; a year which has seen our campaign on the up and up with constant pressure against those that control the levers of power and the media. The cracks are showing with talk of a public referendum and including keeping the Gardens as an option in the design competition.

They know that Sir Ian Wood’s scheme is vastly unpopular with the public and the politicians are desperately looking for wriggle room in the face of this.

We shall not relent.  These are our gardens and we are keeping them.

Come along on Saturday and make merry.

May 262011
 

What’s happening with the City Square Project? Mike Shepherd continues to keep Aberdeen Voice readers up to date.

TIMING: The design competition for the City Square was launched on the 19th April. Companies are being asked to express an interest by the 13th of June. A shortlist of 5 to 7 companies will be identified and these companies will be asked to tender designs for the city square by the 16th September. Once these come back, the plans will go on public display. The winning design will then be picked by the city square board with the advice of a jury.

The winning team will be announced in mid December following approval of the design by the Council at their meeting on the 6th December. Planning permission will be sought in 2012.  There is also a possibility it could be passed to the Scottish Government for approval.

Meanwhile the Aberdeen Local Plan has been handed over by the Council to independent reporters for review.  Union Terrace Gardens is an unresolved issue in the plan and it is possible that the reporters could call for a hearing or more likely work with the written submissions to resolve this. They will have their work cut out as there were over 370 submissions against the inclusion of the Gardens as an opportunity site (and only two in support). The plan will probably not be finalised until early next year.

WHO IS DOING WHAT: This is complicated and rather murky.

The Council set up a project management board to look after the City Square Project. The board in turn have assigned some of their responsibilities to an independent trust (limited company) formed by local businessmen in January this year. The Aberdeen City Gardens Trust has been funded both by Sir Ian Wood and the Scottish Government (Scottish Enterprise). The Council have been asked to nominate a council representative for the trust.

The trust then formed a subsidiary called ACGT Enterprises.

I understand that the trust is seeking charitable status and would not be able to charge, or reclaim VAT as a result.

ACGT Enterprises Ltd has been set up to be the commercial arm of the project, which would be responsible for taking rent, and providing services for the proposed development, but will be non-profit and would pass all the monies back to the charitable trust.

ACGT Enterprises have subcontracted to a company called Malcolm Reading Associates to manage the design competition.

Although councillors John Stewart and Kevin Stewart are on the Project Management Board, the council largely seem to have lost control of the project. The original intent was to have a council controlled trust (Special Purposes Vehicle) to manage the city square, but this doesn’t look as if it is going to happen, even though it was what the councillors voted for.

THE DESIGN BRIEF: The five to seven companies that are selected to come up with designs for the city square will need to be given a design brief.

This will have to be reasonably detailed as to what is required for the city square. For instance, if a new bus station is to be built under the square, there will have to be some means of getting the buses in and out. The design brief will have to be submitted to the full council for approval and it will most likely come up at the meeting on the 29th June.

I’m getting the distinct impression that the design brief is one major headache for the project management board. The problem isn’t so much the square but what goes underneath it. The accommodation space under the city square is about 5/6ths the size of Union Square according to the technical feasibility study. How do you fill such an enormous space? We are told it is not going to be a shopping centre or the site of a big multi-storey car park. Various suggestions to date have included an arts centre, a heritage museum, a transport hub, a cafe quarter, a conference centre and even an alternative energy research centre.

LAND OWNERSHIP: The question of who owns Union Terrace Gardens has arisen.

The Council have farmed out the question of land ownership to the solicitors Brodies who are currently investigating the issue.  However, I’ve been told by the Council that the park is thought to lie entirely on Common Good land. As a result, it is likely that a court order would be required for any change in status for the property.

I’m told by the council that they are considering retaining the ownership of the land but with the intent of providing a long-term lease.

If the city square project goes ahead, the civic square and the large building underneath it will belong to the private company / trust that has leased out the underlying land.

There had been a plan to get the council to approve leasing out the land this April, but it looks as if the council had second thoughts on that one.

FUNDING: The funding is the major problem with the city square and the one most likely to scupper it.

The oft quoted costing for the city square is £140M although in reality an accurate estimate will not be available until the designs have been scoped out. One architect told me that £140M is an unrealistic figure. Union Square cost £250M to build and was located on a flat, reasonably accessible site. If you consider the city square as an upside down Union Square on a difficult site with limited access, then you are perhaps on the way to a more realistic idea of the cost.

So far, only £55M of private money is on the table including the £50M allocated from Sir Ian Wood. The plan is for the council to borrow an additional £70M through Tax Incremental Financing (TIF). John Stewart complicated the issue by adding three extra projects (St Nicholas House demolition, the art gallery extension and signposted walkways in the city centre). As a result, the feasibility of TIF funding is not likely to be decided until the end of the year.

The TIF funding mechanism for the city square is somewhat risky as it depends on the idea that the city square will cause a rise in business rates in the wider city centre to pay off the loan. If this doesn’t happen the council will be left with large unpaid borrowings.

The Scottish Government may not have available funds to provide money to the Council for the city square. Just after the Scottish parliamentary election Alex Salmond was quoted in the Evening Express as wanting to show his gratitude to NE voters for their support. He would do this by supporting funding of the bypass and upgrading the Tipperty to Ellon road. The city square was not mentioned.

WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN: I often hear comments that the city square will never happen, lack of funding being the main reason for this.

I’m not so sure. The project has developed a momentum and has the support of the majority of councillors, business interests and is getting favourable press by Aberdeen Journals.

no images were found

Funding is of course an issue. However, in spite of statements to the contrary, I don’t detect universal enthusiasm for the city square amongst the councillors who support the scheme.

They are well aware of the strength of public opinion against the city square.

One factor is the recent resurgence of the SNP, gaining all 7 NE constituency seats in the Scottish parliamentary elections.

The SNP have become the dominant party in the Aberdeen Council with Callum McCaig likely to become council leader before long. Although the council administration is a coalition between the Lib Dems and the SNP, it will be Callum that will be the public face of the council.  Will he want to have the smoking gun of leading an administration that voted for the city square when the council elections are due next May?

Perhaps even worse for the SNP is that the city square could be in the construction phase, come the next Scottish parliamentary elections. By then, the trees will have come down. The SNP would have to defend their three city seats in the face of a very angry public.

As reported two weeks ago, Alex Salmond has suggested a referendum for the city square with keeping the existing park as a voting option. This may be the way forward to defuse the controversy and perhaps even restore public faith in local democracy.

Join the Friends of Union terrace Gardens who are campaigning to keep and improve the city centre park.  www.friendsofutg.org

May 122011
 

By Dave Watt.

Having looked at the election results from all over Scotland, May the 5th was an SNP landslide only moderated by list system which prevented them from getting even more seats.
New Labour were beaten out of sight, the treacherous Nick Clegg’s Lib-Dems were flung into a deserved oblivion and their Tory bedmates got their usual seeing to from the Scottish electorate and only the list system got them into double figures.

Huge constituency swings ranging from a national average of 12.5 % to peaks of around 20% paved the way for a long awaited referendum on Scottish independence and brought a ubiquitous bright new glow to the Scottish political scene.

Well, almost everywhere. In one particular constituency the swing was much, much smaller. Which constituency? Why, Aberdeen Central.

Aberdeen Central was a key marginal in the election – particularly as the constituency borders had been changed leaving Lewis McDonald (Labour) with a notional 300 or so majority over the SNP’s Kevin Stewart  – his main challenger in the constituency. The final vote was pretty close with Kevin Stewart running out the winner with 10,058 votes to Lewis MacDonald’s 9441. This majority of 617 represented a miniscule swing of 0.5% from Labour to the SNP. Easily the smallest SNP constituency swing of the night over the whole of Scotland and one in which the Labour vote actually went UP by 8.6% which didn’t happen in many constituencies.

So why did Aberdeen Central buck such a huge national trend?

The short answer to this is the ongoing UTG controversy and Kevin Stewart’s role in the controversy which is seen by many people as little more than a cheerleader for Sir Ian Wood’s vanity project.

Last week I  spoke to several people I knew who were undergoing a crisis of conscience whereby they although were very much in favour of an independent Scotland but were struggling to bring themselves to vote for what one of them obligingly referred to as ‘Woody’s f**king sock puppet’.

Obviously, bearing in mind the result, some of them did vote for the ‘f**king sock puppet’ whereas others didn’t vote or voted for Lewis MacDonald. Either way, the vote for Aberdeen Central was extremely close and, if it had been repeated nationally I think the SNP would have definitely struggled for an outright majority in the Parliament. Realistically, it was only the huge SNP national vote which got the rather unpopular* Mr Stewart down to Edinburgh.

So what does this say about the UTG controversy?

Basically, any councillor still hawking the Garden Square Project round Aberdeen over the next twelve months can expect to get his/her well-worn backside seriously kicked when the Council Elections roll round next May when the national question won’t come into play and it will all just be down to local politics.

* Mr Stewart showed his strange notion of winning hearts and minds a couple of Saturdays before the election when he was outside Marks and Spencer jabbing his finger forcefully and snarling into the face of an elderly lady who had declared her support for UTG. A long term friend of mine (of Italian origin) who intimated, on seeing this, that he had rather more than half a mind to ‘deck the b*stard’ was fortunately persuaded to desist.

May 122011
 

 By Mike Shepherd.

Alex Salmond has suggested that the way forward for the City Square Project would be to hold a public referendum on the issue. The First Minister gave a question and answer session at Pittodrie Stadium the week of the Scottish parliamentary election.

He was asked why the result of the public consultation on the city square had been ignored given that it had been funded by Scottish Enterprise, part of the Scottish Government.

He replied that once the final design for the city square had been picked, then a public referendum by ballot could be held. Keeping Union Terrace Gardens as they are would be one of the voting options. He stressed that this was his opinion only and he wouldn’t guarantee that it would become policy.

There was surprisingly little publicity on this statement. A Press and Journal reporter was present at the meeting yet the comment was not written up for the newspaper. A few days later it was mentioned in a small paragraph in the Evening Express.

Would a referendum on the city square be a good thing or a bad thing? My opinion is that it would certainly be an advance on what is currently proposed; that is, the public scrutinise and comment on 5-7 designs for a modern city square, the city square board pick the final design and keeping the Gardens would not be an option at this stage.

A referendum would go some way to salving the poisonous feelings in Aberdeen over the ignored consultation and the manner by which the city square has been forced through by local businessmen and politicians in the face of hostile public opposition.

However (and it is a big however), can anyone be trusted to run a referendum after what happened with the public consultation on the city square? This was so badly handled that the use of the word ‘consultation’ now has connotations of a total breakdown in public confidence with local government.

If a referendum were to be run on the City Square / Union Terrace Gardens issue it would have to be credible and worthy of public trust.  It would also have to avoid the mistakes of the public consultation. These are the issues:

  • The result would have to be binding: The public were told that our support was needed for the City Square Project to go ahead. A majority of 1,270 said no and this was then ignored.
  • The ballot would have to be unbiased: The City Square poll was embedded in marketing material promoting the project. The header for the page containing the poll prompted the public with these words:

“Have Your Say: We believe Aberdeen needs a large, vibrant, cultural and civic space and gardens in the heart of the city for today and for future generations.”

  • The ballot would have to be run independently: The public consultation was funded  by the organisation promoting the city square and run by the PR group Weber Shandwick on their behalf. The brief for the consultation make it clear that the PR company was monitoring the consultation on a daily basis and providing regular reports to a working group which included Sir Ian Wood’s representative. Weber Shandwick were obliged to provide these reports to the working group;

“acting on and incorporating their feedback where appropriate”.

The organisers also  screened and analysed the final results of the consultation.

  • The ballot would have to be restricted to Aberdeen citizens: The public consultation was open to anyone who wanted to vote in it, with the organisers keen to get the shire involved too. The Gardens are a public amenity for Aberdonians and the upkeep is paid for by our council tax. Someone in Aberdeen is likely to be much more concerned about their public amenity value than say someone in Fraserburgh. On the other hand, someone in Fraserburgh could be more easily persuaded that the project has implications for regional economic regeneration than somebody who uses the park in Aberdeen.

A public referendum would not be a level playing field. One side would have the major levers of money, power and influence in conjunction with a favourable local press and a big public relations campaign; the other side would be operating mainly at a grass roots level with limited finance and media coverage by comparison.

However, there is one more lesson from the public consultation. Despite all the public relations puffery, the people of Aberdeen were smart enough to see through all this and think for themselves. My opinion is that if they do hold a public referendum, the city square would be thrown out.

Feb 042011
 

By  Rhonda Reekie.

The Aberdeen launch of the “Yes to Fairer Votes” campaign took place on Monday 31st January. This is the Yes campaign in favour of the Alternative Vote Referendum on the 5th May.

The launch meeting was held in the Kings Street Art Centre.  It started at six and typically I was late after heading straight from work in Dyce and sitting for three quarters of an hour in the usual rush hour traffic.

Still, it was a decent turnout given that it was a dark, rainy, Monday night in January in Aberdeen!

I found my seat and picked up the bright purple speech bubble with their ‘YES’ campaign slogan.
In attendance was roughly twelve to fifteen people, comprising of students, a couple of well known independent Aberdeenshire councillors and a mix of assorted interested others – myself included.

The Alternative Vote (AV) is very much like First Past The Post (FPTP). It is used to elect representatives for single-member constituencies, except that rather than simply marking your choice on the ballot paper with a single ‘X’ , you, the voter will have the chance to rank the candidates on offer.

The voter marks a ‘1’  beside their first-preference candidate, and continue onward, should they so wish, to put a ‘2’ by their second-preference, and so on, until there are no more candidates or they do not want to rank any more candidates. A candidate is elected if they receive a majority of first-preference votes i.e. more people put them as number one than all the rest combined. If no candidate has a majority on first votes, then the second-preference votes of the candidate who finished last on the first count are redistributed. This process is repeated until one candidate gets over 50 per cent to win the seat.

The two presenters; Neil and Kristian were sitting at the front with an overhead display and proceeded to inform us what it was all about, how the campaign had progressed so far and their campaign plans for Aberdeen and Shire. They told us they now have an office at 35 Union Street as their Aberdeen headquarters from which they will execute their campaign, including the use of volunteer telephone canvassers to generate votes.

Their main reason for the meeting seems to have been in order to gather ideas from the audience on new ways of getting the message across and recruiting willing volunteers between now and the referendum to man the phones and spread the word. We were advised about various events ranging from University hustings, book and jumble sales to street stalls and press articles.

So it seems that perhaps ‘AV’ is the first step in a natural progression to a fairer system

They also took the opportunity to advise us of the NO campaign headed by Margaret Beckett MP, whose slogan they summarised as nothing more than “If You Don’t Know say NO ” This appeared to me to exploit people’s ignorance.

They informed us that the “No” camp  had been challenged to present an argument as to why ‘FPTP’ is a better system, but all they appear to have offered is why not to vote ‘AV’.

Personally, I am all for proportional representation and I had already joined up to the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign on Facebook without looking at it too closely. I knew, vaguely, it was about replacing the traditional Westminster voting system with ‘AV’, but frankly I was not entirely impressed with ‘AV’ initially. It just did not seem very proportional to me. Perhaps we can’t change things too quickly in the rest of Britain.

So it seems that perhaps ‘AV’ is the first step in a natural progression to a fairer system. At least with ‘AV’ each elected representative has the majority of the votes and everybody who voted has had a chance to rate them. This means the MPs need to work harder for us to get these rated votes and can’t just rest on their laurels or in some cases do just enough for what we pay them.

This is just the start of the campaign here in the Northeast but it is surprising how many of my friends, family and work colleagues have no idea that there is to be a referendum, nor what ‘FPTP’ or ‘AV’ actually stands for. It is often difficult to persuade people it is their right and duty to vote in a general election, which at the very least gives them a mechanism to deselect poorly performing representatives. In any event, I offered to help with the campaign, offered some ideas, agreed to put up a poster on the side of my house and will cross my fingers that the populace will take an active and positive role in the referendum.

For further info on Yes to Fairer Votes and to find out what is happening near you – Click Here.

The next event is a Street Stall 5th Feb, at midday St Nicholas Square, Aberdeen