Referendum Archives - Page 5 of 10

Salmond’s Web: Exclusive Correspondence Revealed

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 3 Responses »

Dec 062012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2011: Alex Salmond to Ian Wood

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

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

Was UTG A Sacrifice To Encourage Independence?

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 15 Responses »

Nov 162012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EU Nationals Will Remain EU Citizens

Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Oct 312012

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

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

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

First, let me clarify the term EU national.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a message to the NO campaign.

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

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

The Way Forward For The Friends Of UTG

Aberdeen City, Articles, Featured, Opinion No Responses »

Oct 182012

By Mike Shepherd.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In her closing message at the AGM Robin said:

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

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

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

Referendum Vote For 16 And 17 Year Olds

Aberdeen City, Opinion 1 Response »

Oct 152012

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

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

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

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

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

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

UTG Referendum: The Real Attacks On Democracy

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 3 Responses »

Sep 132012

By Suzanne Kelly.

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

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

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

TIF Application: Information Wrongfully Withheld

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as the article says,

“That means spending money…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People would have been influenced by hundreds of ads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Newspaper Coverage: Lacking and Slanted

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy: Labouring the Point

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

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

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

SNP Sniping

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

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

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

UTG: The Final Verdict

Aberdeen City, Articles, Featured, Opinion 9 Responses »

Aug 312012

The City Garden Project is dead. It’s difficult to believe after all these years, but despite some horrendous death throws and twitches, the beast has been slain. Mike Shepherd looks back at the good things and the bad things that emerged from this experience.

BAD: Businessmen tried to impose their will over the rest of Aberdeen.
GOOD: The people of Aberdeen fought back and won.

Aberdeen had in recent years drifted politically into a situation where big business interests were exerting too much control for the good of a pluralistic society.

It is shocking that economic policy for the region has been devolved to mainly business interests largely beyond political control (ACSEF).

The UTG decision shows that the people of Aberdeen can still exert a brake on the rampant will of businessmen who think they can do what they want, even to the extent of taking over a public park.

BAD: The local press proved less to be the watchdog of the community and more the poodle of big business.
GOOD: Aberdeen Voice was formed and the internet became a forum for those who disagree with the local newsprint’s version of ‘consensus’.

Freedom of Information releases show how much of our tax money ACSEF have spent on public relations, largely channelled through the local newsprint. However, the days whereby the Aberdeen media creates the message and controls the consensus are slipping away. The ‘editorial column’ has now lost all credibility and the free exchange of opinion and information is passing to community pages on the internet.

BAD: Public consultations and referenda have now proved to be totally worthless.
GOOD: We still have the ballot box.

The first public consultation was effectively run as a marketing exercise and was ignored because it returned the wrong result as far as ACSEF and a section of the business community were concerned. The later public referendum was run with good intentions but business interests left nothing to chance and spent their way to a totally one-sided campaign. Both episodes did nothing to reduce rampant cynicism amongst the disaffected. However, the results of the democratic ballot through council elections could not be ignored or swayed by one-sided campaign spending.

BAD: National politicians sided with power and wealth against the interests of the public.
GOOD: You can still punish them for the abuse of political control through the ballot box.

The involvement of senior Scottish Government politicians in a local dispute over a public park was despicable. Sectional party interests look to have been involved in an attempt to curry favour with wealth, power and influence in the Aberdeen area. The politician’s willingness to get involved in a divisive local issue despite potential fallout from the electorate suggests that over-riding political objectives at a national scale were at stake. That potential fallout from the electorate happened.

BAD: Aberdeen Council turned over wagging paws in the air at the behest of business interests.
GOOD: We are on their case.

Of all the shockers perpetrated by our Council, the worst was to allow the proposed developers of the City Garden Project, a limited company, to influence the business case for Council borrowing of millions of pounds for the project. To show how bad this is: under normal circumstances an “allegation” like this would have provoked outrage and perhaps lawyer’s letters; but this is not an allegation; it is all there in black and white in the council’s report. We are now alert to the knowledge that our council can do these things. They will be watched like a hawk.

BAD: The political powers have stopped bothering with building consensus over big planning issues where conflict could arise.
GOOD: The might is right approach has failed miserably.

A big lesson from the recent history of political decisions in Aberdeen – Involve everybody and make sure that all opinions are heard and considered seriously. If you don’t do this, expect a political quagmire of horrendous proportions – UTG, the bypass, Loirston, etc, etc. It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, you have to do this properly and thoroughly

GOOD: A public park, Union Terrace Gardens, has been kept as a public amenity.
GOOD: They will think twice before ever trying that again.

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

Union Terrace Gardens: The Debate Rages On.

Aberdeen City, Opinion 13 Responses »

Aug 242012

Divisive an issue as the proposed development of Union Terrace Gardens proved to be, there was always going to be an unfortunately high number of Aberdeen citizens left disappointed – whatever the outcome. One such disappointed citizen shares with Aberdeen Voice readers her view regarding key decisions taken by Aberdeen City Council on Wednesday 22nd August. Amanda-Jaied McCahery writes:

I have never been one to get involved with politics in the uber-sense of the word.

Obviously I know that every aspect of life in this country is shaped by politics, and of course I vote whenever I get the chance, but unlike some friends it has never been a major talking point in my life…until now.

I live in Aberdeen: a beautiful city filled with gorgeous things to see and do, surrounded by the most stunning countryside that Scotland has to offer.

Just yesterday a few friends and I took a beautiful 16k walk along the gorgeous sandy beaches near the city, just because it was such an amazing day and we didn’t want to waste the views.

We have lovely parks and gardens and even when the rain pours, which is much of the time, the city sparkles and makes you feel lucky to live in such an amazing place. Then the council sticks its nose in and you feel slightly ashamed.

In recent years many people have decided to invest millions of pounds in our city, despite the current economic climate. Plans for bypasses, new football stadiums and city centre civic areas that will bring in more money, jobs and tourists have been the source of huge debate.

The Aberdeen Western Peripheral Bypass Route has been all but buried under tons of red tape, caused by appeal after appeal. This article is about Union Terrace Gardens, however, and a little about Calder Park.

For those of you that don’t live in, or have never visited Aberdeen, and I implore you to come and visit as it is truly a great place to be, Union Terrace Gardens is a 123-year-old sunken garden in the heart of the city.

It was originally a small river valley that has taken on the form of an amphitheatre since the addition of a viaduct at its northern end and the development of the covered remains of the old Denburn Terrace. It is a great place to sit and enjoy the sun, when we get it.

Barney Crockett and his peers weren’t so sure the voting public were clever enough to make this decision

The Bon Accord crest depicted in flowers, beneath the latest addition of the official Diamond Jubilee design is still one of my favourite Facebook pictures and the Gardens are still my first choice when the sun comes out, despite the fact that my back garden looks out onto acres of gorgeous green fields.

However, as with any out of eye-line areas, Union Terrace Gardens does have a seedy reputation.

Famous for harbouring many of the city’s undesirables, and not the safest place in the dark, this setting is largely ignored for most of the year and 52 percent of the people that voted for it think that it is about time that the heart of the city started beating again.

Sir Ian Wood, one of Aberdeen’s and in fact Britain’s richest sons, has been at the forefront of the City Garden Project, pledging millions of his own money to the redevelopment, and bringing in investments from some of the area’s biggest businessmen.

Plans for a number of different ideas for the gardens were shown to the public and a winner was chosen.

The Aberdeen voting public said yes and everyone was wondering when the awesome new centre, filled with cafes, bars, art galleries and a concert area, as well as an outdoor winter ice rink, was going to come to fruition…and then Labour took over the council.

Big man in charge Barney Crockett and his peers weren’t so sure the voting public were clever enough to make this decision. Were they good enough to vote them in, but not good enough to make any other important decisions about our home?

They decided that they were going to decide on the project instead…and today they decided: ‘NO we don’t want to inject new life into the city, NO we don’t want to listen to the very people that put us in our position at the top, NO we don’t want to make the once bustling city centre a better place for future generations, we just want our own way and by Jove we are going to get it.’

Mr Crockett then decided that he didn’t think the Calder Park development was a good idea either

This news came today in the same way that every decision so far has come, surrounded by controversy and debate. 22 members of the council voted to disregard years of design, planning, voting and spending, leaving 20 members and a large part of the city’s population seething and confused as to why we were asked in the first place.

And then to add insult to injury Mr Crockett then decided that he didn’t think the Calder Park development was a good idea either, and that Aberdeen Football Club should continue to play in a stadium that they first used in 1903 and was last renovated 19 years ago.

So Union Terrace Gardens looks set to remain a sunken, largely ignored beauty spot with a bad reputation, and The Dons look set to continue playing atop a 113 year old dung heap.

It seems that Labour aren’t fans of change, but what they need to realise is that the citizens of Aberdeen aren’t fans of being ignored, and I am sure this debate it sure to rage on for years to come.

Unfortunately, for now at least, it seems that the heartbeat of this great metropolis is doomed to plod along with the outdated visions of the men in charge.

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

Old Susannah No. 79 – The A to Z of ABZ

Aberdeen City, Satire and Humour 3 Responses »

May 312012

Voice’s Old Susannah comments on current events and enlightens us with definitions of some tricky terms with a locally topical taste. By Suzanne Kelly.

Result! I am sure we have all been dancing in the streets as our benevolent UK coalition Government has decided NOT to introduce a tax on heated Cornish Pasties! What a relief! I feel much better now about the Government writing off millions of pounds in tax owed by Vodaphone (and others). You can’t say the ConDems didn’t look after us.

And here in Aberdeen, the P&J have launched a fantastic survey proving beyond any doubt that people still want the web at all costs (well, £140 million at a minimum).

We were blitzed by hugely expensive print and radio advertising saying the web will improve our lives, make us rich, and give us thousands of permanent jobs.

We were asked to pity poor Tom Smith (of ACSEF, City Gardens Trust, etc. etc.) who the press said had been the victim of harassment and illegal spying in the run-up to the referendum. We were not allowed to examine the voting records for evidence of potential fraud (even after people joked/boasted about selling votes) – but the referendum should be obeyed at all costs.

We don’t have the actual visuals showing what the web will look like when the ramps’ security features are up – but don’t let that worry you. We don’t have either a business plan, or architectural plans, and we can’t afford it – but let’s just go ahead anyway, as that will make Sir Ian happy.

Of course Labour always said they did not want a referendum and they pointed out it is not legally binding. Labour also said that if elected they would scrap the CGP – and miraculously they got elected.

Old Susannah would like to end any ambiguity regarding issues on which public opinion matters:

Public opinion does not matter on: Loirston Loch, cuts to services for the elderly or specially abled, school closures, policing, street cleaning, community centre management, programmes for young people; Tullos Hill and its deer; common good land; Redmoss green spaces; grounds of Cove Bay FC; Don Crossings and Union Terrace Gardens improvement.

Public opinion matters on: Putting a granite web over Union Terrace Gardens and chopping down its trees

I hope that helps.

Aside from Poor Mr Milne having problems with his fans revolting and Portlethen trash accumulation, the sun shone, and people in their hundreds flocked to the FUN Beach, in order to leave litter, barbeque grilles, paddling pools and rubbish in the sand.

Old Susannah asked a guy to dispose of his empty redbull can the other day; all I can say is at least he didn’t curse me out and just ignored me instead. Here’s to the people who join the organised beach cleans, and to the people who keep places like Torrymelinos clean on their own.

Now that we’re back to our usual weather, it’s time to get on with a look at Aberdeen City Council’s internet pages and its A-Z list of services. Visiting the Aberdeen City Council website and trying to find a service? You can easily look up any information you want alphabetically.

Old Susannah takes a romp through the city’s website listings and brings you highlights :-

A is for ‘3Rs’ – (NB: I make ‘3’ starting with a ‘T’. But let’s not split hairs). This great 3R scheme sees the city doing yet more PPI-type deals in which private companies perform a service or build something (like a school) and lease it back to the City for massive sums of money. It’s as if I sold you my flat for a fraction of its value, paid you to fix it up for me, and then paid you to rent it back to me for 10 times its value. Bargain!

Most of the rest of the UK has moved away from this disastrous concept (invented in part by our dear ex-Treasurer, ex-PM Gordon Brown in order to keep debts off the books and make the financial picture look rosy). But here in the Deen, we’re still embracing it, with our ex-Lord Provost seemingly quite proud of his services to the 3Rs (3Rs stands for Readin’ Ritin’ and ‘Rhithmatic – to use the spelling taught in the new PPI outsourced schools).

B is for Bats – Normally you might expect a city council proud of its environment to tell you that bats are a unique and endangered species it is proud to have within its city limits, and that bats are protected by EU as well as national laws. But the A-Z tells you nothing of the kind. It tells you about pest control, and how much the city wants for getting rid of all sorts of critters:-

Insects £56 + VAT
Rodents [Domestic] £78.50 + VAT per course of treatment
Rodents [Commercial] £56 + VAT per visit
Bed bugs £74.50 + VAT per visit.

I suppose the difference between domestic and commercial rodents are whether or not they have ACSEF membership.

Of all the city’s money-making, nickel-and dime schemes, this one seems to be both expensive and extensively recommended, as you will see.

Aberdeen seems happy enough to scare and scatter bats in Union Terrace Gardens by allowing HMT to throw massive fireworks displays at Hogmanay. (What was wrong with the beach as a venue one wonders?) Doubtless the rangers were consulted and saw nothing wrong with lighting fireworks over UTG.

Then again they are happy to plunk a 21,000 seat stadium in an SAC at Loirston, and happily arranged for the eradication of our pesky deer. So what if bats, the peregrines,now ‘discouraged’ from their usual roost at Triple Kirks by Mr Milne, and other animals living in the park were exposed to fireworks?

We might be about the only town centre with this mix of animals anywhere in Europe, but we’ve got webs and offices to build, so let’s use subtle tactics like fireworks to get rid of our annoying wildlife. Again, using any of the tons of empty offices buildings isn’t nearly as important as ensuring construction companies can make lots of dosh. So – mind the bedbugs.

Sadly, the council omitted to say how much it charges to kill your deer.

C is for Civic Receptions – like the one we just held for the outgoing Provost. I never did get my invitation to this £4,000 tradition, which could not possibly have been cut back on. Then again, me and another independent candidate never got our passes for the vote count.

C is also for Cat – the link on the City’s website will for some strange reason take you back to the page where you can get pest control to get rid of your rodents. Hopefully our more bloodthirstier council personnel haven’t started exterminating cats just yet. (I can’t wait to get to ‘R’ to see if there is a ‘rats’ listing – but it looks so far like it is politically correct to say ‘rodent’, not ‘rat’). Note ‘C’ is also for ‘complaint’ – but doubtless no one needs to complain to the city about anything.

D is for Debt Counselling – Old Susannah is not sure she’d take financial advice from a city which hadn’t known it was over £50,000,000 in debt some years back, which had written off £11 million in bad debts in the recent past, and was cutting back on essentials but buying portraits and sending Lord Provosts off to Japan.

However, if you are a football club owner and builder who needs to know how to stop losing money when your team plays or needs help shifting ‘luxury’ flats – do feel free to use this service. D is also for ‘dog’ and ‘dog fouling’ – at least the ‘dog’ link didn’t take me to the pest control site again. As to dog fouling – as I stay in Torry, I really have no idea what this means.

E is for Earwig – yes you guessed it – which takes you back to the vermin control pricelist. Quite frankly, I would probably look in the yellow pages before I went to the City’s site for info on earwigs. Speaking of earwigging, Old Susannah is hearing some very interesting stories emerging from LibDem HQ. Can the Liberals lose any more members? Maybe it can.

E is also for Environment – Were you expecting info on air pollution, the polluted burn at East Tullos (more on that next week), EU environmental projects and protection placed on animals? Well, the link for ‘environment’ takes you to:

And what does it say about conservation areas? “Conservation areas are designated by the planning authority as being areas of special architectural or historical interest.” – so it’s only the build environment we seem to be concerned with at the council. That would explain quite a lot.

F is for Freedom of Information – yes, the council are proud to explain what your rights are, and what the law says. I cannot tell you how swiftly, accurately, completely and transparently all of my FOI requests have been answered. But do watch this space. I am expecting some more info soon – hopefully sooner than my request about property sold to Milne-related companies and contracts these companies also won from the city.

That only took a year and the Information Commissioner’s involvement. Sadly, the FOI team at the city were found to be in the wrong on five different counts on that one. Yes, F is also for five. F is also for ‘feral cats’. Yes, you have guessed correctly – the council’s website for ‘feral cats’ takes you back to the pest & vermin control site.

There must be an awful lot of killing planned for this town. Yes, F is also for fleas, flies and foxes – all of course linking to the vermin control page.

G is for ‘Green Space Audit – believe it or not, green spaces are open, usually green (! really!) spaces in and around city centres. We have a strategy. One which is supposed to …

“… provide attractive and appealing places throughout the city, particularly in those areas identified by the open space audit as low in quality. However within a context of serious financial constraint, it promotes innovative and radical ways of maintaining and managing these open spaces.”

Presumably within our serious financial constraint to manage our green heritage there is a fair amount of room for turning meadows into barren rocky hills,but no doubt Tullos will be tree-covered soon, even if it is a few months since the gorse was largely destroyed, shooting deer (and lots of other things too by the sounds of it), and especially borrowing 90 million pounds to put a granite web over a valley, and turn its earth into a stadium, with seating from the destruction of ancient trees. Yes, that’s quite a strategy.

Well, that’s enough alphabet for now. I’m going to go celebrate with a Cornish pasty, heated as hot as I can make it. Oh, and a new BrewDog prototype beer: American Saison. This delicious offering is made from leaves and berries (like the Cair No Mohr wines I adore).

Next week: more of the city’s website alphabet – and some head-scratching over the city’s wiping £26 million of debt off for the AECC. Hmmm.

Feel free to add any comments below. Note – these will be moderated.

City Sky Project – Pie In The Sky?

Creative Writing, Featured, Satire and Humour 11 Responses »

May 172012

There was jubilation in Aberdeen today after the SNP and Lib Dems were sensationally returned to power. Samuel Clemens writes.

The March referendum result having trumped the local elections that followed it in May, the first act of the reinstated council will be to overwhelmingly approve the City Sky Project.
This ambitious plan by international tycoon Donald Duck and Axsef will raise the entire city to the roof level of St Nicholas House.

Keith Stuart, former councillor and now European ambassador to China said:

“Only 25,004 people voted for Labour in the elections, whereas 50.001% of voters voted for the City Sky Project in the referendum.

“Since Labour campaigned on a pro UTG ticket, it’s only democratic that they should be removed from power, made to empty their desks, have their phones confiscated, and be escorted from the city by Union Square Security Guards.”

Of the City Sky Project, Deputy Council Leader John Fletcher explained :

“Labour had intended to demolish St Nicholas House and replace it with a garden. That scheme would have cost millions of pounds and only had 99% of its funding in place.

“Then Donald Duck came along and suggested raising the entire city to the roof level of St Nicholas House, as an elegant alternative to demolition. He even offered to fund the first £5m himself. A scam like this only comes along once in a lifetime, and we all felt it was a visionary concept that could really revitalise the city centre.

“As soon as this is imposed on the people of Aberdeen I’ll be relocating to Brighton, where I can lead an alternative lifestyle.”

International Tycoon Donald Duck has strong ties with the city because his German grandmother once owned a Scottish Terrier named Jock.

Well respected accountants Price-Whatnohouse-Kline-Beecham have eliminated the need to consult specialist construction surveyors by guesstimating the project at an affordable £500m. A spokesperson said:

“We are merely acting on the instructions of our client, Donald Duck. He calls the shots.”

The balance of the funding will be raised under the tested system of CIF, or Crony Increment Funding. Council protégé Callum McChild deftly explained the workings of this complex funding mechanism,

“Under this scheme the entire city will be leased to an unregistered charity vehicle named Axsef World Domination Fund Limited for a period of not less than 525 years.

“The cost of the development will be recouped by increased business rates in the two new towns that will be constructed within the CIF zone to the North of Aberdeen. These are to be named Peterhead and Fraserburgh.

“The increased business rates will be in effect for a period of 25 years. Although it is a certainty that this will repay the loan, any remaining debt will then in theory be recouped by confiscating and auctioning the homes of everyone living in the city or its suburbs. But that part will never happen; never in all my six years as a teenager has something like that occurred.”

Lord Provost Humptress Dumptress, who represents the ward of Steven Wiggy Construction Limited, claimed that all her constituents were in favour of the project.

“Aberdeen would have been the laughing stock of the entire Universe had it rejected The City Sky Project. The alternative is that St Nicholas House is painted bright orange with F*CK YOU stencilled down the side of it and left to stand forever, and the Art Gallery will almost certainly fall down of its own accord.”

Mike Sheepdog, Spokesman for the annoying tree-hugging luddite NIMBY Occupy movement spin-off, Friends of Aberdeen, thumped his chest and shouted

“THE CITY SKY PROJECT IS UGLY. WHY REPLACE A CITY WITH A CITY?”

Bohmenian cafe owner Steve Bakewell disagrees with Mike Sheepdog,

“There is an alternative. I have plans drawn up to reopen St Nicholas House as a macrobiotic cafe. As you can see from these drawings we’ve incorporated a giant spiral staircase around the exterior which we also plan to reupholster in tasteful crushed velvet. There will be outdoor balconies every third floor with canopies to protect patrons from all the seagull shit.”

Esteemed International Architects Diddly Squat Rankturd, who designed the world revered tourist attraction An Overgrown Field are to head up the project. Donald Duck explained,

“Yeah, this is a great deal for you limeys, these guys turned a bunch of grass into some wild flowers and folks flocked to see it from all over the world.

“It was inspirational. Charles Rankturd is jetting in to have brunch with some students at Gray’s, because Zooey thought that would be a good photo op.”

Aberdeen Voice got a sneak peak at the plans and can confirm that everything, with the exception of St Nicholas House, will be demolished in order to prep the area. We then asked 100 people in the vicinity of Cornhill Hospital how they felt about seeing the entire city being reduced to rubble.

White Heather Wifie felt that the city was old, dirty, covered in chewing gum, and should be replaced with something new.
Gilcomston Tramp said he never used the city and didn’t see the point in it.
The Guitar Wifie from St Nicholas Centre complained that the city was only used by drunks and junkies, and wasn’t safe to visit anymore.
Aye Aye Wifie fae King Street said she had a problem getting her stolen shopping trolley up and down stairs especially when it was full of Yorkshire Terriers.
A man with seagull feathers in his hair felt that the city was an eyesore and clearly past its sell by date.

A representative of the Federation of Small Nutcases said,

“Our members are in favour of the project, and so is everyone else.”

“It is heartening to hear that not only will St Nicholas House be preserved, but that it will be reinforced to act as a symbolic supporting pillar for the revitalised city.”

Herr Flick, spokesman for Axsef, revealed how police had to be called in after annoying tree-hugging luddite NIMBY Occupy movement spin-off, Friends of Aberdeen kidnapped his family, stole his plasma television, barbecued his dog, scrawled the world “PIG” on his wall in blood, called him a w**ker online, and hurt his feelings.

Although clearly shaken he bravely explained, “The entire inside of the structure will be one enormous arts centre, capable of holding over one million people, designed in the theme of a shopping mall. Art and shopping are integral to one another.

“Our PR company conducted research that revealed art and shopping are two sides of the same coin. This vibrant fusion of them will create a cafe culture and determine our entire weather system for thousands of years to come. The city will benefit from hosting prestigious events like Fame Academy and The World Dwarf Throwing Championships.”

The Office for Spoilt Brat Future Prime Minister said in a statement that Spoilt Brat felt that Aberdeen was lacking in connectivity.

“To get from one side to the other you have to pass through the middle or go around. Once the City Sky Project is completed it will also be possible to bungee jump over the side then ride an elevator back up.

“People will start to move around more exploring these sorts of tactile possibilities. It’s all about connectivity, that’s why vibrant cities like Disneyland and Alton Towers are such a commercial success.”

Councillor Josh Corblimey thought that this had the potential to be just like Space 1999,

“We could have robots and stuff, and everyone could eat that mashed potato stuff that you mix in the packet and microwave. In fact everyone would have access to microwaves, and we could communicate with each other using them.

“Microwaves would be like phones, and we could all wear suits of tinfoil, fly around in jet-packs and make popcorn. Imagine if someone farted whilst flying their jet pack? It would be ace. But I see the need to make education our priority. Happy days!”

We dug up Ex-Aberdeen Manager Ally McGab who came close to winning the World Cup with Scotland in 1978. He commented:

“The people of Aberdeen need to think big, but remember it’s a game of two halves Archie.”

Celebrity Scottish President John West Salmon was craned into Aberdeen for five minutes where he gave the project his endorsement 110% while presiding over the public execution of unpopular crazed renegade Mike Sheepdog.

Aberdeen Voice comments:

The people of Aberdeen have no choice but to welcome this ambitious scheme. The fact that the referendum was rigged is irrelevant, that’s all in the past, now we must move on with our lives and embrace the future. And the sky is the limit!

( Add your own view on this exciting venture in the comments box below )

Older Entries Newer Entries

TIF Application: Information Wrongfully Withheld

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

Local Newspaper Coverage: Lacking and Slanted

Democracy: Labouring the Point

SNP Sniping