Lorry fares and RET

To establish the Government's real thinking on this matter, it is instructive to read a motion in Scottish Parliament (rather than just reprinting bland self-serving Press Releases from our MSP).

First the Labour motion:

S4M-01750 David Stewart: Road Equivalent Tariff for Commercial Vehicles—That the Parliament notes with concern the Scottish Government’s current proposals to remove road equivalent tariff from commercial vehicles using ferries that serve the communities of the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree; notes that in some cases the fare increase for small haulage companies from Tiree would more than double the fare and in the Western Isles may be up to 175% of the current fare; considers that in the current economic climate these fare increases are both extremely damaging to the local economy and completely unjustifiable; calls on the Scottish Government to urgently withdraw these plans, and believes that, if the Scottish Government chooses not to do so, this would seriously question its commitment to Scotland’s most fragile island communities.

And now the Government amendment, which - in the spirit of representative democracy - SNP MSPs have to have approved by the Whips (my emphasis).

*S4M-01750.1 John Finnie: Road Equivalent Tariff for Commercial Vehicles—As an amendment to motion S4M-01750 in the name of David Stewart (Road Equivalent Tariff for Commercial Vehicles), leave out from "with concern" to end and insert “the ongoing representations by the haulage industry in the Western Isles to the Scottish Government to ensure the fairest possible system of fares for commercial vehicles on ferries in the islands on a basis that recognises the economic fragility of this part of Scotland; believes that, if a system of discounts is to replace the present road equivalent tariff (RET) fares for larger commercial vehicles, it must be on a fair basis that benefits small as well as larger companies and must operate more equitably than previous discount schemes for commercial vehicles; welcomes the indication in the ferries review that the Scottish Government will look at extending the definition of a small commercial vehicle on Hebridean and Clyde ferries from a maximum of five to six metres; understands that RET fares will continue for all passengers, cars and small commercial vehicles on routes between the mainland and the Western Isles, Coll and Tiree and that the Scottish Government will extend the scheme in the course of the current parliamentary session to cover other islands, starting with Colonsay, Gigha and Islay in 2012, as well as inter-island routes such as those on the Sound of Barra and Sound of Harris, and welcomes what it considers the contrast between these policies and the situation during eight years of a Labour-Liberal Democrat administration, when not one of the longstanding demands for RET in the islands was met."

So, despite the vigorous spin to the contrary, and as anyone who has read the policy sham consultation there is no guarantee of any discounts; that the vehicle lengths might be reviewied at some point; and that RET may continue for all passengers.

On the upside, there is a call to give discounts to all commercials - but that's a bit giving the option of having a kicking from the left foot or the right foot, after you've been clubbed to the ground.

Remember that CalMac are ultimately owned and controlled by by the SNP Government, who seem content to let this change be implemented.

Cpt Pugnatious (A Salmond) announces that RET cuts are all the fault of Westminster, 
watched by the adoring Roger the Cabin Boy (A Allan) 
whilst the evil Blackbeard (Cllr MacSween) tries to spoil their fun.

Read this and weep

Duncan MacKay and Sons Ltd v CnES.

Read the report in Hebrides News and despair.

This is such a spectacular level of incompetence at so many levels, that you have to ask the question if the Council actually fit for purpose.

And, yes, I do fully understand the implications of what I say.

Source: CnES management Team training course

Where are the Councillors asking questions demanding answers and holding officers to account.  This is the fourth serious, serious, failure at the highest level in recent years, and I include the attempt to screw us as one of those failures.

As far as I am aware, not one officer has been disciplined - beyond a slap on the wrist for the sins of others - for the huge losses incurred.  Yet the buck stops in three offices - Chief Executive, Convener and Leader.

I have seen and heard evidence of other incompetencies, fraud, theft and inherent corruption that is being brushed out of sight by senior officers, rather than being dealt with and all that is doing is making the position worse; due entirely to the inability of those at the top.

But Councillors are being mushroomed ("kept in the dark and fed on bs") and accepting the self-serving view from the top that they cannot question issues because  they are sub judice, confidential or subject to disciplinary issues, when the real reason is to protect those giving that advice - the culprits.

Openness and accountability

I'm told that at the last series of Council meetings, a last minute extra item appeared for urgent and pressing discussion.

The item recommended reducing the number of Council Meeting from 6 per annum to 5 for 2102 2012 onwards.  The reason being given was that senior staff were too busy preparing for the next series of meetings to actually do any work.

Stop laughing at the back.

In the spirit of openness and accountability, I though that the public might be interested to see such a document; but I can't find it anywhere on the Council website.  Hmmmm.  Nothing suspicious there then.  Nothing to see, move along.....

Except my informant was in the chamber at that meeting.

Can anyone pass me a copy of the document, please, as it raises all sorts of issues.  How many more decisions will now be taken without democratic scrutiny, and be subject to homologation at later meetings?  How slow will the system move, when urgent financial decisions are around the corner?  And, most importantly, just how much power does this put into a very few hands?

Update: I'm told that the report was in the main agenda, as part of the planned calendar for 2012.  As I am sure you can see, the change was well flagged up, and obviously drawn to the public's attention.

The Council and fuel prices

The fuel price derogation has had little or no comment from the Council.

Why could that be?  Given it is such a hugely important matter for the community.

Let's make it absolutely clear that there is absolutely no suggestion of impropriety or personal gain.  Absolutely not.  No way, Jose.  Let's put it down to incompetence and low ability thresholds.

If the Council buys a generic product from a number of suppliers, then having a preferred supplier could - must! - drive down prices as the various parties bid against each other.

Let's suggest that there are three suppliers of the same product that differs in price each week and by each supplier, meaning that the best deal may be difficult to locate by the customer.  What would you do to maximise value?

Would you: ask the three suppliers to tender and reduce that to two or even one suppliers based on a discount from the average price.

Would you: consider buying the product in bulk and renting storage and delivery at a fixed price, thereby reducing risk?

Or, would you: run a large and politically sensitive item of expenditure through an innocuously named report via a sub-committee; meaning that there was no proper discussion of the matter, as the majority of Councillors will have missed this.

I refer, M'Lord to Item 9 of the ICT, Procurement and Asset Management Committee; at this Committee the 'framework' agreement whereby the Council employees can buy the fuel wherever has the best bacon rolls.  My sources tell me that there is absolutely no prospect of their being a national contract occurring in the Western Isles, as there is no national supplier. 

Did this mean that the Leader and the Cllr N MacLeod did not have to declare an interest when the matter passed through the Policy and Resources Committee a few days later?

I'd love to tell you one way or another, but the Decision report - which was given to members that day, hasn't reached the web yet.

Does no-one - members or officers - have the sense to see how this must look to the public?  Blindingly obviously not; and that is a real worry.

A critical observer might believe that the backbenchers were being kept in the dark and told how and when to vote, whilst other have free reign to merge personal gain and Council business.  Harsh?  Yes, but that is the perception and this does nothing to remove that doubt.

Worse than that, how can the Council criticise the Governments when it so brazenly mismanages it's own fuel costs?

Project Fingal pt 1

Project Fingal may have been hidden in the shadows over the past few years, but it is one I have been tracking - thanks to some well placed moles, and some excellently accurate prophesies - for a few years now.

Today, just some background.

The Chairman of Storas, Angus MacMillan, is well placed to understand the algenate industry, as his father was the manager of the plant at North Boisdale seaweed factory many years ago; before the industry crashed in the 70s.

Coincidentally, Storas seem to have been applying pressure to the current occupant of the factory to give up the lease and the seaweed rights.  Some might say "pressure", some could say "threats", others have said "with menace", but that seems utterly unreasonable.  Doesn't it?

Now, ignoring the inconvenient fact that there probably isn't enough seaweed in the west of Scotland to meet the needs of a factory of the proposed size, just where is the power going to come from?

Coincidentally, Storas have had a huge battle over their inter-connector connection and the ability to develop a windfarm in Uist.  There were very strong suggestions - obviously untrue - that Angus MacMillan had financial interests in windfarm developments that might be in some obscure fashion tied into the Storas connection.

Indeed, a libel action was raised - with great publicity - when it was suggested that there might be some personal benefit, whilst the defendant apparently had evidence of financing being lined up via third parties.  (Anyone know what has happened to this legal action?)

Thankfully, with former MP Brian Wilson of AMEC on the Board of Storas, the opportunity to use the Lewis windfarm to power economic development in Uist makes it all look good,  Conversely, Angus MacMillan sits on the Board of Harris Tweed Hebrides - Chairman? Brian Wilson.

Unfortunately, it looks to me that the maximum power output from any (all?) Lewis windfarms won't be enough to meet the power needs in Uist if the factory goes ahead.  The energy requirements are immense - remember your school lessons about electrolysis?

Thankfully, the AMEC cable was suggested to run to Whitehaven, where AMEC have some business interest, including the renewable energy plant at Sellafield.

And where Brian Wilson chairs the "Energy Coast" forum for West Cumbria, in his role as AMEC representative.

Only the insane would suggest that the interconnector to Windscale IN beautiful West Cumbria could be used to import nuclear power to the islands from an AMEC facility.


Meantime, the two existing seaweed businesses in the Western Isles are about to be undercut by subsidies from CnES and HIE to an incoming business, and see their suppliers and markets potentially destroyed.  Despite years of trying to get assistance to grow.

Still, attracting new grant-migrating incoming businesses is so much better than supporting the useless locals.

More to follow

Pairc - hellos and vigilantes

Pairc Trust refute "accusations and lies"

Actually the truth of the press statement is that "Pairc Trust deny 'accusations and lies'".

If the Pairc Trust need to rebut the allegations by providing the evidence to prove that the claims by Barry Lomas are wrong, by simply producing the evidence that his claims are wrong.

Many of the claims on this blog are scandalous (if they are wrong)  but they need to be addressed and rebutted - rather than denied - by Pairc Trust.  If they don't rebut them now, they the Minister amend the funders will expect them to do so, and community will never, ever, be united and supportive of the bid unless these matters are put to bed.

Of course, they can also actually be refuted, which requires the Trust to demonstrate that the comments are fundamentally wrong, which they have not done.

I carry no flame for the landlord, but if he has made libellous statements about the directors, then sue, and prove them wrong.  It should be easy according to the Trust press release, and I'll be happy to support the Trust by telling their solicitors about what is being said by the community and what needs to be addressed.

As I said before, if this goes wrong then the rest of Scotland will suffer the backlash.  This is very serious high-risk game by both parties who have all to lose and all to gain.  The trouble is, I know which side is smarter and has laid the best ground for their claims.

Principles are going to be set in law, and the entire community want to have the best possible case put forward and not some factually inaccurate case that will be picked apart in court.

I'm butying shares in solicitors....

Secret meetings aren't secret anymore

The Licensing Board decision about refusing the Sunday licence for the Stornoway Golf Club and the subsequent outburst from the Chair have had further ramifications. All at further cost to the taxpayer.

However, it also appears that there has been much needed clarification about how at least one member of the Board came to his decision.

But first, there are some interesting aspects of the relationship between the Board and the Council that seem to be contrary to all I understood to be the case.

The entire Board were summoned - not invited - to a meeting by the Council Leader. Quite what powers he used to do that are unclear, and why the Board acceded to such a demand when they are supposedly a completely separate legal entity appointed from within the Council, is even more unclear. But straight to the Headmasters study it was.

Not to worry either, as it was an 'approved duty' which meant that the taxpayer paid for each and every member to travel to Stornoway and have all the accommodation costs paid for those from the Southern Isles. Plus officer time in dealing with the travel and attending the bollocking party. No change out of £1,000.

The Board were duly shouted at by the Leader for the following sins:

• Ignoring legal advice on the application
• Ignoring legal advice on the decision
• Talking about the process in the press
• Squandering £10,000 of our money on legal fees in a battle that inevitably would be lost

After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and tears before bedtime, the Leader called for the Chair's head, inviting Cllr Taylor to resign. Quite rightly, Cllr Taylor told the Leader to insert his resignation letter into the appropriate orifice.

Then the penny dropped that shooting the messenger might actually make more of a story than the Comhairle was comfortable with, and there was much kissing and making up.

Those of you who were bemused or perturbed by Lord MacKay of Clashfern's encouragement for the judiciary to use the Bible in daily Court proceedings, may not be surprised to find that such a practice has never left the quasi-judicial arses seats of the Western Isles Licencing Board.

I am advised that one member of the Licencing Board who voted against the Sunday licence and against the legal advice admitted that he did so because he was told by 'external third parties' that he must not abstain.

If that is the case, then that member should resign immediately as he is clearly unable to demonstrate objectivity, is influenced by matters that are not related to the application, and is clearly bringing the Board into disrepute by his actions. I can't wait to see him in Court on the stand!

Perhaps now is the time for the Board and the Council to make a clean breast of what has happened, and save us all some money by confirming that the Board will not defend the indefensible in Court.

Councillors: you need to get a grip on the board members. I suggest a double handed grip around the throat would be entirely appropriate in these circumstances, until Board Members who lack objectivity and integrity finally see sense.

Swimming on a Sunday

I was supposed to be at the photo-op outside the Sport Centre yesterday, where all those who think that it should be open 7 days a week were invited to attend and show their support.

But I went swimming instead.

Well, paddling actually, when a pipe burst in the kitchen, flooding the area with the entire contents of the cold water tank until such time as I got the stopcock closed and the system drained.

I count three hotels in Stornoway offering a full Sunday dining opportunity. Five bars that are open to the public. Plus one bar that is (was?) invitation only. Oh yes, and 12 (or is it 13?) Churches. A single ferry and flights in and out to Inverness, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

And as I have discovered, more 24/7 on-call plumbers than you can shake a Catechism at.

Twenty minutes - yes, 20 minutes - to have two of them at my door (from the same firm, which will remain nameless) at the request of a friend in the trade who couldn't do the work himself.

Despite the Sports Centres in Uist and Barra being open 7 days a week, we mere mortals in Lewis (and Harris) and considered unsuitable to be able to cope with a family swimming event on a Sunday.

Probably because the powers that be think we will be too pished from going to all the pubs and hotels they licence as being suitable entertainment for a Sunday.

I'd love to link here to the decisions of the Licencing Board to give a fuller understanding of the logic and lateral thinking, but as the Licencing Board are a separate legal entity, made up exclusively of Councillors, the Comhairle are apparently unable to publish the minutes of meetings, or even the decisions they have taken. The Comhairle do, however, publish the notices of applications and the current agenda; and the current - flawed - policy document; and underwrite all the costs; and provide the legal advice that is frequently ignored by some of the more original thinkers on the Board; and pay for the legal costs of successful appeals.

That's democracy and public accountability for you.

But then I've just submitted an FoI request about that: the result of which will be hosted somewhere suitable in due course.

Lewis: the only place where you can you drink yourself unconscious on a Sunday, but not teach your child to swim.

----

“What do I think of Western Isles civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea.” Mahatma Gandhi Morrison

How Community Planning works in the Western Isles

Following on from my last posting about the Council's growth plans, I was contacted by a very good source and updated on the Council -v- Stornoway Port Authority battle.

You didn't know they were are war?

Nor did the SPA, until they receive a planned missive in the next few weeks.

Given the rejection of the Bayhead Infill by the SPA, the Councillors were told on Monday - in private session - that the Council is looking again at the lease of the old oil depot for car parking, and particularly the contaminated land issue.

You may recall that I highlighted this issue last month, and until the blog was read, no-one in the Council had given it any consideration. This despite having had a Contaminated Land Officer who surveyed the entire islands and reported back to the Environmental Services Committee (prop: A Nicolson) in or around 2004, flagging up that site as being a particular problem.

So the proposal is being looked at again, and the done deal is now considered undone, in light of the 'new' information that the Council knew about 6 years ago.

The SPA are to be told to acquiesce to the Bayhead Infill or the Comhairle will raise the contaminated land issue with the SPA and threaten them with having to undertake immediate and complete restitution work on any piece of contaminated land that they might control.

The carrot being that the Council will overlook what it now claims is its legal obligations over the control of contaminated land. I am sure that there is another, much less polite, name for such an approach.

Is anyone seeing a pattern developing in the Council's dealings with third parties and those who have differing views?

Another good man moves on

A very, very, senior Council officer - for whom I have a lot of time and respect - is shortly to be on the move to pastures new.

So what is driving this person away, and leaving a truly enormous hole in the organisation?

I am told that it is all to do with the atmosphere in the building and the way in which the Comhairle is being run by the senior Councillors and by top management.

All Councillors need to start asking themselves "Just what is happening?" and then taking steps to remedy the situation.

This is no time to try to abrogate your responsibilities, or to rely on others. You are there to run the Council, not be run by it.

Farewell Eric Joyce

When the ultra-loyal rats start deserting the ship, you realise just how big the hole below the waterline really is.

His calls for an exit strategy, time limits on the commitment, and a worry that we are punching above our weight will fall on the deafest ears.

But Eric Joyce is right.

Meanwhile we support a regime and a President who seem to have raised electoral fraud and ballot-box stuffing to a new high, that even Mugabe would be hard pressed to attain.

Oh yes; and one that classes women as third-class citizens.

If the experience of backing 'our' strongmen (and excuse me if I disown that relationship) across the globe is anything to go by, the inevitable fall will push Afghanistan further away and less willing to reason with those who supporter the oppressors.

Witness the aftermath of Papa Doc Duvalier, President Mabuto, Pinochet, the Shah of Iran and even the fall of the pro-Soviet Government of Mohammad Najibullah to our (then) allies in the Taliban (pictured).

It's a mess; a f'ing disastrous mess for everyone concerned, not least the poor citizens of Afghanistan and the only solution offered is more of the same.

But if Eric Joyce can see the light......

How consultation works

A recent consultation from the Scottish Government about the closure of rural schools was circulated to the Councillors for their comment, along with a draft response.

As is usual, comments were due to be in by close of business on a Thursday to allow the letter to be in the post on Friday.

An important topic given the ongoing debate on schools in the islands, and one into which elected member input is vital, given the sensitivities and political/Political nuances surrounding the debate

I am very reliably informed that when one Councillor submitted his comments before the deadline he was told by the Chief Executive that the submission had already gone and his comments were too late.

Surely not true? If so, then perhaps the Audit Committee of the Council should look at this as a matter of urgency before the Audit Commission sink their teeth in.

Mugabe stripped of knighthood

So El Presidente loses his honorary knighthood.

A Good Thing too.

But, er, just why did he get one in the first place in 1994?

Mr Mugabe's was appointed as an honorary Knight Grand Cross in the Order of Bath during his state visit to the UK in 1994. The Foreign Office said conditions in Zimbabwe were then "very different".

That's right. In those days, opponents were killed or exiled before they had the temerity to stand against Mugabe.

The democratic process is only newly affronted by the way he deals with candidates who survive to get their names on the ballot paper.

All of which offends the sensibilities of The Establishment, who prefer their friends not to be so brutal and murderous in public.

Guilty of crimes against fashion

Big Brother

A report in today's Times reveals that the Government plans to store a record of every phone call and email in the UK.

Under RIPA, this information will be available to a variety of public bodies, including, but not limited to the Police, MI5, MI6, The Inland Revenue, The Post Office, The Foods Standards Agency, The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and, of course, the Comhairle.

Suddenly all these bodies, and more, will be entitled to get access to your calls and emails if they suspect a crime or some misfeasance. Suspect being the key word.

You data will be kept entirely safe by the wonderful data managers in the Government, and there will be no prospect of the information being leaked. Ever. At all. My arse.

The 12 month time limit is a red herring, given that some investigations may take much, much, longer. So how long before the first request to extend this time 'due to an ongoing investigation'?

Tie this in with a possible National ID card, number plate recognition software and mobile phone records and the Government can track you everywhere at the press of a button; or more likely, fully automatically.

This actually gives the Government more power over it's citizens than those anti-democratic dictators in China; or that nasty, nasty, regime of Robert Mugabe. But don't worry, Gordon Brown wouldn't dream of allowing this information to be used for trivial purposes, or for imprisoning people without trial.

The sooner this lot of power-mad idiots are ousted the better.

(Declaration of interest: this might affect the information I am sent by email by various Council employees)

Welcome to reality

MPs will have to submit receipts for expenses claims over £25 from 1 April, the Commons Members Estimate Committee has announced.

So they can no longer just claim £400 per month for 'food' tax-free, as if their dietary requirements were something special.

Hopefully this is not an attempt to prevent a full disclosure of all the payments every MP has received to date, by pretending that everything is now in order, so why re-open the past.

But I fear that Machiavellian manoeuvring to cover their tracks is exactly what this pit of rattlesnakes intend.

How to avoid arrest...

Remember the arrest of General Pinochet in 1998 for human rights abuses, murder and torture?

That set a nice precedent didn't it? No longer can you flit from country to country free of any pangs of guilt and enjoy the high life, despite arrest warrants out for you.

Er, except in London it seems. Even where there is a current arrest warrant out for you. And when the Police know where you are. And have you cornered.

The BBC are reporting that an Israeli General escaped capture in those very circumstances in 2005 by the simple expedient of refusing to come of the El-Al plane on the runway at Heathrow.

Due to the concern that the Police might not be able to legally board the plane (!) and due to the possibility that there may be some (illegal!) guns on the plane with his security men, the Police let the plane take-off with the General inside.

No thought of blocking the plane's taxiway until the toilets backed up and the drinks cabinet was empty and the General obeyed the law like everyone else.

Instead, as a wanted criminal, there was a subsequent apology from the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, for the disruption that the whole unpleasant business caused the General.

So know you know the drill, when the Constabulary are in hot pursuit. Just refuse to come out and claim you have illegal guns and you're home and dry.

A known criminal not wanted by the Police

Qinetiq

When the MOD first set up in Uist in the late 1950's there was a concern that we would become overly dependent on the rocket range and that the impact of all the 'immigrants' would cause irreparable damage to the community.

Hindsight shows that the Rocket Range was a wonderful employment opportunity for the local residents, who gained high-tech skills that were transferable to other sectors. The influx of 'immigrants' - mostly young soldiers - led to many of them marrying into the community and bringing new ideas and new life blood to the islands.

The number of business that have been set-up on the back of the MOD involvement in the islands is huge, and it stemmed and reversed the serious decline in population.

(I will let other compare the MOD in Uist to what could have been with windfarms in Lewis)

It all went a lot wrong in 2001, when Qinetiq became the proud owners of the range, under a quasi-privatisation move by the Labour Government. Following blindly in the footsteps of Thatcher, Qinetiq was sold at a knock-down price to private equity group the Carlyle Group (directors include George Bush Snr & Jnr and John Major).

Now the range is under threat with cost-cutting and rationalisation, and the likelihood of the good prospects for work drying up, the Uists will be facing uncertainty. All of which can be traced back to the dogmatic approach of Tony Blair, in trying to emulate his heroine - Thatcher.

Will the jobs and future of the islands be sacrificed to make George Bush richer? Probably. Will they care? Not a jot. Can the British Government stop them? Almost certainly not.

Globalisation: isn't it such fun?

It is if you are Tony Blair, advising both Zurich and JP Morgan on the topic at a mere £5m per annum.

42-day detention limit

Thank goodness for people in power who have integrity, foresight and independence and as a consequence can say what they see.

Sir Ken MacDonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said on the World at One:-

"The basic point is whether you want to legislate on the basis of hypotheticals or whether you want to legislate on the basis of the evidence that we have acquired through practice.

"It seems to me that if you are legislating in an area which is going to curtail civil liberties to a significant extent, it is better to proceed by way of the evidence and the evidence of experience."

He added: "We have found that a period of 28 days does work for us as prosecutors. "We can charge on the basis of a 'reasonable suspicion' within that period so long as we anticipate that sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction will be forthcoming within a reasonable period."

Sir Ken said if it had not been possible to get enough evidence to provide reasonable suspicion in 28 days, then it would be hard to convince a judge that it could be achieved in 35 or 42 days.

Who do you trust more, the prosecutor or the politicians shouting "Trust us!"?

Nicol Stephen might have something...

Like many people, I felt that Nicol Stephen may have doing the political thing in his attacks on the Trump decision, and his calls for an investigation into apparent improper behaviour.

Despite the obvious incompetence of Alex Salmond, Aberdeenshire Council, the LibDems on that Council, Chief Planner Jim MacKinnon and the Scottish Government in handling this matter, I was happy to let it run and see where it ended up.

It is obvious that this application as been clutched warmly to the bosom of many of those concerned, instead of being given the due deference one should give to an angry skunk.

Until I read the words of the The Donald's representatives on earth on the BBC website:-

The Trump Organisation said: "The Trump Organisation is dismayed at the political attacks. These attacks are more than misguided, they are malicious, inaccurate and potentially destructive and they threaten to once again endanger a £1bn project which has the overwhelming backing of the north east of Scotland. The politician responsible should cease and desist before real and permanent damage is done."

If you don't now know that Nicol is on to something, you cannot read through the bombastic, bullying, and offensive attitude that oozes from beneath His Self-righteous Wigness.

Go for it Nicol, and find out what he is trying to cover up.

Let's start with the numbers, and some wild guesses:
950 holiday homes @ £100k each = £95m
36 golf villas @ £200k each = £7.2m
2 golf courses @ £2m each = £4m
Infrastructure, say = £5m

All of which equals a mere 11% of the proclaimed £1bn investment, which either means that the staff are on fantastic wages, or there is a lot of bullshit being swallowed by the gullible speculative double-counting.

Trumpted in Trumpton

I have the greatest sympathy with Councillor Martin Ford of Aberdeenshire Council, who was until today the Chair of the Infrastructure Services Committee.

Having had to deal with more than a few contentious planning applications in my time, I know that some decisions are more difficult than others and that there has to be respect between the applicants, the officials and the councillors to allow applications to be properly dealt with.

In this instance, Cllr Ford was faced with an intransigent developer who was trying to force through the plans without (as far as I can see) any concern about discussing and trying to resolve the matters that were causing concern.

And then attempting "take it or leave it" blackmail, instead of using the normal appeals process should they be unsuccessful.

However, Aberdeenshire should have removed the delegation from this matter, given the contentious nature of the matter, and referred the decision of the committee to the full Council for them to come to a view.

That's all immaterial now, as the Government have called it in - in great haste and under mysterious circumstances - leaving an unpleasant taste in the mouth for how this has been handled at every level.

The Committee that I Chaired refused tricky applications in the past, and allowed applicants to resubmit revised applications with no fee, which resulted in better plans being presented, and focused the minds of developers (and officials!) on resolving the problems. Some applications were deferred or withdrawn more than once before the majority gave approval.

However, it is with incredulity that I read the comments from my an old friend:
Leader of the SNP group on Aberdeenshire Council, Joanna Strathdee, said: "Aberdeenshire Council needs to restore the confidence of the business and wider community in the planning process and show the world that North East Scotland really is open for business and serious about inward investment."

What this is telling rich developers is that they can make unreasonable demands from the system - if they can meet with leading politicians - and then the Council will descend into an orgy of self-destruction and recrimination over their own inept mishandling of the situation.

Demonstrating spectacular ambivalence over the seriousness of the matter, the votes were:

• 26 for removal
• 10 against removal
• 29 abstentions
• 3 absent

Cynics like me will be barely able to wait to see the political make-up of the votes.

If anything, I would say that today's decision demonstrates the inability of Aberdeenshire Council to manage it's own affairs.