View Full Version : Hurrah! Aberdeen chairman sacked
Loch not Lock
12-Dec-07, 23:26
I was absolutely delighted when I heard the Aberdeen Council sacked their chairman after the public outcry about turning down the billion pound golf course scheme.
Why the hell did the Caithness Council not chuck out their chairman after the Asda debacle.
The public feeling was just as strong but our shambles of a council did nothing - typical.
If it was not for that chairman having 2 votes (how democratic) Asda would have been open by now.
Congratulations to Aberdeen for taking positive action and thumbs down to our pathetic Council.
Camel Spider
12-Dec-07, 23:49
Had to laugh at that on the News as well.
Im in Aberdeenshire and the majority of local people are all for it, the amount of jobs it will create in construction alone !!, and then of course the place will have to be staffed and run. The land is just sitting there and it isnt a particularly scenic spot. A real chance to put the place on the map.
Did anyone else notice that the campaigners against it who were interviewed didnt have one local accent between them ??
Had to laugh at that on the News as well.
Im in Aberdeenshire and the majority of local people are all for it, the amount of jobs it will create in construction alone !!, and then of course the place will have to be staffed and run. The land is just sitting there and it isnt a particularly scenic spot. A real chance to put the place on the map.
Did anyone else notice that the campaigners against it who were interviewed didnt have one local accent between them ??
I agree think this whole thing with Trump should go ahead maybe a few less houses / holiday homes but the Golf Course very welcome although I dont suppose we could afford the subscription fees but a great Xmas present a round at Trump Course not in Line with a round a Skibo or Royal Dornoch of course
Ax
Anything that brings work to an area should be encouraged. The oil wont be in aberdeen forever.
Maybe Trump should bring his course to Bower, that way the locals could still have a big green field outside of their houses!!! lol :)
(see bower thread)
peter macdonald
13-Dec-07, 09:20
Rodders i wish he had come here .. I noticed on TV that the Northern Irish government were waiting in the wings with THEIR proposals to help Donald Trump as much as possible to relocate to Ulster if this falls through in Scotland
PM
Loch not Lock
13-Dec-07, 10:25
Our Council should have thrown out our chairman because he went against the vast majority of Caithnesians when rejecting Asda. Why should he have 2 votes. It was done to favour Wick over Thurso.
Dirty Weeker![evil]
northener
13-Dec-07, 10:38
I was absolutely delighted when I heard the Aberdeen Council sacked their chairman after the public outcry about turning down the billion pound golf course scheme.
Why the hell did the Caithness Council not chuck out their chairman after the Asda debacle.
The public feeling was just as strong but our shambles of a council did nothing - typical.
If it was not for that chairman having 2 votes (how democratic) Asda would have been open by now.
Congratulations to Aberdeen for taking positive action and thumbs down to our pathetic Council.
Whatever decision Aberdeen Council make is up to them. Good luck with the 1500-house development and golf courses.
What makes me sick is they appoint a Chairman to a group, the Chairman excercises his lawful duty to give a casting vote and is sacked for daring to have his own legitimate opinion.
Democracy? No.
Turncoat lackeys rounding on their own elected representatives as soon as they smell big money? Definitely yes. They didn't have the guts to back up thier own representatives' decision.
So all we need to do to get Aberdeen Council to nod their heads vigorously is wave a pile of money in their direction. Lawful process will go straight out of the window.
And you, Brutus?
.
I can see both sides of the argument in Aberdeen but have to agree with Northerner over the Chairman. This was a democratic decision by elected representatives and if people don't like the way the system works, e.g. giving a chairman a casting vote (and I don't think that's fair - every member should have one vote) then the answer is to change the system, not sack the Chairman. Councillors are frequently in the firing line for thing or another and that's what they set themselves up for but sacking is different.
Did all those people who were unhappy with the decision make representations to the hearing beforehand I wonder? It frequently happens that planning hearings decide against declared public opinion so maybe that needs looking into.
Isin't it a democratic right to have a vote of 'no confidence'?
Yes I suppose it is but it must have been a fairly close vote if one casting vote decided it. If he had somehow overruled a majority decision I would agree, but presumably he didn't. Did the other councillors change their minds later in the face of public opposition? If so, maybe they should resign.
The Pepsi Challenge
13-Dec-07, 12:12
So much for the Power of the People.
I agree think this whole thing with Trump should go ahead maybe a few less houses / holiday homes
But then Donald Trump refused to negotiate on any aspect of the proposed development.
Obviously too used to the power of the almighty dollar.
Judging by the local situation here (in St Andrews) with new hotels and golf courses I'll bet that the number of LOCAL jobs created would be minute.
Having said that - I remember the furore created when the St Andrews Bay Hotel (now the Fairmont) was proposed. Everyone up in arms about the blot on the landscape, etc, etc. Standing at the St Andrews harbour you can JUST see it if you look past the caravan site spread over the hill to the south of the harbour. So, there's always two sides to these arguments.
Personally, I think his decision took a lot of guts and should be applauded.
JimBews
I'm in two minds about this. :confused
I can understand that a development like this could be extremely beneficial to the area in terms of jobs and tourism. However, if the plans were in fact unacceptable on environmental grounds, then why couldn't Donald Trump submit a revised proposal, like anybody else?
I don't think it right that because he's a very rich powerful man, Donald Trump should be able to assume he can ride roughshod over the system that was in place. Martin Ford may well have rued the day he had to give the casting vote on this proposal, and if he voted according to his beliefs, I admire him for that.
I see in today's paper that the majority of the council did not vote for his removal - 26 did, but 10 voted against and 29 abstained.
That's interesting - 29 councillors who can't come to a decision. At least the chairman had the courage of his convictions.
northener
13-Dec-07, 20:15
I see in today's paper that the majority of the council did not vote for his removal - 26 did, but 10 voted against and 29 abstained.
29 without the conviction to give an opinion, just what you need in a democratic organisation. If they worked in the private sector, they'd be sacked for incompetence.
Gutless parasites.
.
orkneylass
13-Dec-07, 21:54
Northener has twice referred to the Chairman exercising his opinion as a shining example of democracy - says it all about local government politics as far as I can see. Instead of people who are elected consulting their constituents and representing their opinions, they get the idea that by being elected, they are entitled to express their own opinions (and frequently their own vested interests). When local councillors represent their constituencies by sounding out and representing their consituents views on things, even if it goes against their personal opinions, then we will have real democracy
Just a few points.
1) Chairmens casting votes are traditionally for the status quo. i.e. NO change.
2) Silent majorities are just that - silent until things dont go the way they wanted. Then they whine.
3) Councillor Fox (appropriate name?) should have been the subject of a " no integrity" vote if such a thing existed. So also should the wimps who abstained.
4)Trump's scheme may well be good for Aberdeenshire but he will get it at the expense of allowing money to dictate planning proceedures - nothing new of course but is it desirable?
5) If changing the rules and sacking people when a properly made decision isnt to everones taste becomes the norm then where does the democratic process go? My goodness!! it could lead to Gordon Brown being given the elbow and then where would the world be!!!
6) Do aberdeen folk need a gigantic "Skibo Castle" golf course to look at but never play on because "riff-raff" are excluded by cost and snobbery?
northener
13-Dec-07, 23:31
Northener has twice referred to the Chairman exercising his opinion as a shining example of democracy - says it all about local government politics as far as I can see. Instead of people who are elected consulting their constituents and representing their opinions, they get the idea that by being elected, they are entitled to express their own opinions (and frequently their own vested interests). When local councillors represent their constituencies by sounding out and representing their consituents views on things, even if it goes against their personal opinions, then we will have real democracy
We appoint people to reach decisions for us.
That's what he did and he was sacked for daring to go against the flow.
We don't normally 'sack' councillors or government representatives every time we disagree with their decisions.
Period.
.
1) Chairmens casting votes are traditionally for the status quo. i.e. NO change.
Just wanted to back you up on that badcall.
Whatever reservations people may have about Trump not coming to the table to negotiate, the chairman should not be using a casting vote to allow change. If there is no mandate for change through the vote then change should not take place.
orkneylass
14-Dec-07, 18:31
I completely disagree with you. We should be electing people to represent us, not to run riot with their own views. This is what is all wrong with local democracy.
We appoint people to reach decisions for us.
That's what he did and he was sacked for daring to go against the flow.
We don't normally 'sack' councillors or government representatives every time we disagree with their decisions.
Period.
.
I completely disagree with you. We should be electing people to represent us, not to run riot with their own views. This is what is all wrong with local democracy.
There comes a point where you have to vote for a candidate and accept what they do on your behalf. If it were to operate on the basis of always meeting the requirements of your constituency, the elected person would have to run a poll every single time s/he had to make a decision. Most of those who vote someone into a position of power, do so because we don't have a scooby about how the system works and would rather leave it in the hands of someone who has at least some idea. To then turn around and gurn about someone YOU voted for, smacks of passing the buck. Better to look at WHY you voted for them in the first place. Those who didn't vote should shut their teeth, as they couldn't be bothered and have no right to any say now.
Like everyone else in the world, we are easily brought/bought onside when big companies start waving their cheque books. We tug our forelocks and bend before the money men. We would build Disneyland style resorts on top of our best natural resources, so long as a pound was turned over. It would lead to places where the average person would not be welcome in any other role than that of a lackie to some rich businessman. I would rather leave a coastline, however barren, for all Scots to enjoy FREELY. Instead of that we will get Trumptown.
northener
14-Dec-07, 21:19
I completely disagree with you. We should be electing people to represent us, not to run riot with their own views. This is what is all wrong with local democracy.
" Run riot with their own views"?
Just because someone goes against the majority (which he hadn't in this case - otherwise they wouldn't have needed his vote), it doesn't mean that they are 'running riot'.
I think you are confusing democracy with everyone thinking the same.
And possibly agreeing with your line of thought, maybe?.......
northener
14-Dec-07, 21:21
[quote=scorrie;310684]There comes a point where you have to vote for a candidate and accept what they do on your behalf. If it were to operate on the basis of always meeting the requirements of your constituency, the elected person would have to run a poll every single time s/he had to make a decision. Most of those who vote someone into a position of power, do so because we don't have a scooby about how the system works and would rather leave it in the hands of someone who has at least some idea. To then turn around and gurn about someone YOU voted for, smacks of passing the buck. Better to look at WHY you voted for them in the first place. Those who didn't vote should shut their teeth, as they couldn't be bothered and have no right to any say now.
quote]
Well said.
.
gardenergirl
15-Dec-07, 23:59
The land is just sitting there and it isnt a particularly scenic spot. A real chance to put the place on the map.
Did anyone else notice that the campaigners against it who were interviewed didnt have one local accent between them ??
So a piece of land has to be scenic to make it of any value? The place is already on the map, as one of the top 5 dune habitats in Britain. It is not 'just sitting there', it is an environmentally sensitive ecosystem, which supports a diverse range of wildlife. 40% of the development would be on an SSSI, which is protected by law. If this can be disregarded so easily what then for other environmentally important sites across the country and in Europe when the next billionaire tycoon comes along?
The damage to the SSSI could be avoided, if Trump were willing to negotiate. As he is not, he should take his development elsewhere.
As to the campaigners not being local, if local people have no appreciation for their own natural heritage, then it's important that someone steps in to protect it. Even if they are (god forbid) English people! :eek:
There comes a point where you have to vote for a candidate and accept what they do on your behalf. If it were to operate on the basis of always meeting the requirements of your constituency, the elected person would have to run a poll every single time s/he had to make a decision.Yes, but there also has to be a mechanism whereby an elected representative can be halted if he or she is running amok.
I haven't been following this case in detail and as far as I can see the elected rep hasn't been running amok here but I just wanted to make a point because I like discussing these things with scorrie. ;)
Moi x
as far as I can see the elected rep hasn't been running amok
True, a casting vote in favour of the status quo could not be seen as running a
amok.
orkneylass
16-Dec-07, 11:40
Is voting for the status quo a good idea when it concerns a massive future-proofing project offering thousands of jobs against a waning oil industry and has massive public support? It sounds more like a negligent cop-out to me.
Camel Spider
16-Dec-07, 12:20
So a piece of land has to be scenic to make it of any value? The place is already on the map, as one of the top 5 dune habitats in Britain. It is not 'just sitting there', it is an environmentally sensitive ecosystem, which supports a diverse range of wildlife. 40% of the development would be on an SSSI, which is protected by law. If this can be disregarded so easily what then for other environmentally important sites across the country and in Europe when the next billionaire tycoon comes along?
The damage to the SSSI could be avoided, if Trump were willing to negotiate. As he is not, he should take his development elsewhere.
As to the campaigners not being local, if local people have no appreciation for their own natural heritage, then it's important that someone steps in to protect it. Even if they are (god forbid) English people! :eek:
I live just along the road from Balmedie, I have a friend who lives there and I have been there many times.
I have yet to see any wildlife in the dunes, it is hardly scenic .. trust me.
And what right do you have to tell local people they should or should not care for their natural heritage ??, I can take you to a dozen pieces of land around here that are ten time more "scenic" than the land in question. The locals hardly consider it an area of outstanding beauty. But what do they know eh ?? .. they just live here. And this area will need jobs in the future as Oil wont last forever. This complex will employ thousands directly and in support services, are you going to pay peoples bills so the dunes can stay undisturbed ??
I heard the same argument from a duffle coat wearing Greenpeace "activist" who went on and on at anyone who would listen in a local pub. I only managed to shut her up by asking "So this Greenpeace Boat that you sail all around the world protesting about drilling and keeping the enviroment clean ??" .. "just how much Diesel (a by product of Drilling) does that use ??" .. cue stammering and a really bad storm off.
And I never mentioned English people once in my post, thats an assumption on your part. I would guess you have a chip on your shoulder on that issue, please keep it to yourself. The people I was referring to were those desperate to get themselves on the News at night, people who never knew were Balmedie was until recently but seem to think they know whats best for the people who live here.
Yes, but there also has to be a mechanism whereby an elected representative can be halted if he or she is running amok.
I haven't been following this case in detail and as far as I can see the elected rep hasn't been running amok here but I just wanted to make a point because I like discussing these things with scorrie. ;)
Moi x
Of course there has to be a way of preventing obvious abuse of a position. It would seem, however, that the first time someone makes an unpopular decision, they are deemed to be running amok.
ps Who gave you the info that I was one of the "Org Two"? ;)
gardenergirl
16-Dec-07, 17:03
I live just along the road from Balmedie, I have a friend who lives there and I have been there many times.
I have yet to see any wildlife in the dunes, it is hardly scenic .. trust me.
And what right do you have to tell local people they should or should not care for their natural heritage ??, I can take you to a dozen pieces of land around here that are ten time more "scenic" than the land in question. The locals hardly consider it an area of outstanding beauty. But what do they know eh ?? .. they just live here. And this area will need jobs in the future as Oil wont last forever. This complex will employ thousands directly and in support services, are you going to pay peoples bills so the dunes can stay undisturbed ??
I heard the same argument from a duffle coat wearing Greenpeace "activist" who went on and on at anyone who would listen in a local pub. I only managed to shut her up by asking "So this Greenpeace Boat that you sail all around the world protesting about drilling and keeping the enviroment clean ??" .. "just how much Diesel (a by product of Drilling) does that use ??" .. cue stammering and a really bad storm off.
And I never mentioned English people once in my post, thats an assumption on your part. I would guess you have a chip on your shoulder on that issue, please keep it to yourself. The people I was referring to were those desperate to get themselves on the News at night, people who never knew were Balmedie was until recently but seem to think they know whats best for the people who live here.
Look, I’m not some activist out to pick a fight. I don’t doubt you’ve heard these arguments before, because they’re valid (and acknowledged by ‘team Trump’ in their environmental impact assessment), and must be considered. I never claimed the area was scenic (although it depends on your interpretation of scenic. I think Caithness is scenic, whereas I’ve heard others call it bleak). It’s an SSSI, not an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. And just because you’ve never seen the wildlife, doesn’t mean it’s non existent. If Trump would just negotiate then the golf resort could go ahead without damaging the SSSI, but it’s his stubbornness and absolute determination to do this his way or not at all that I find galling. If he loves Scotland as he claims to, then he should respect our designated protected sites. They are there for a reason. I’m not interested in a debate with you, I don’t think it’s possible to change your mind. I just thought that the environmental issues here were worth mentioning alongside the possible economic benefits. They are, after all, just as important (to some).
As for the English thing, I only said that because many of the environmentalists on the news had English accents, and I assumed it was them you were referring to. I don’t have a chip on my shoulder, I’m as Scottish as you are!
Camel Spider
16-Dec-07, 18:10
Look, I’m not some activist out to pick a fight. I don’t doubt you’ve heard these arguments before, because they’re valid (and acknowledged by ‘team Trump’ in their environmental impact assessment), and must be considered. I never claimed the area was scenic (although it depends on your interpretation of scenic. I think Caithness is scenic, whereas I’ve heard others call it bleak). It’s an SSSI, not an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. And just because you’ve never seen the wildlife, doesn’t mean it’s non existent. If Trump would just negotiate then the golf resort could go ahead without damaging the SSSI, but it’s his stubbornness and absolute determination to do this his way or not at all that I find galling. If he loves Scotland as he claims to, then he should respect our designated protected sites. They are there for a reason. I’m not interested in a debate with you, I don’t think it’s possible to change your mind. I just thought that the environmental issues here were worth mentioning alongside the possible economic benefits. They are, after all, just as important (to some).
As for the English thing, I only said that because many of the environmentalists on the news had English accents, and I assumed it was them you were referring to. I don’t have a chip on my shoulder, I’m as Scottish as you are!
Fair enough.
The economic benefits are not "possible" they are definite. The well being of the area that is my home is more important to me than the views of those who only seem to care because of the proposed development. I'll take the advice of people who have known the area all their lives. I doubt most of the people clambering onto their soap boxes had even heard of Balmedie before now.
Never mind .. they will be off on their new crusade shortly.
northener
16-Dec-07, 18:24
Is voting for the status quo a good idea when it concerns a massive future-proofing project offering thousands of jobs against a waning oil industry and has massive public support? It sounds more like a negligent cop-out to me.
My posts are nothing to do with the reasons for or against this project.
If you take the time to re-read my original post, this will become obvious to you.
You obviously believe that only one viewpoint counts on the matter being voted on and that anyone who dares to differ from that view should be hounded out of office.
I couldn't give monkeys what happens in Aberdeen regarding development, that's up to the people in Aberdeen who are paid to reach those decisions - not people who will seek to eradicate anyone who disagrees with them.
What you seem to want is a committee made up of nodding dogs, who haven't got the courage to say and vote as they see fit, only to agree with whatever pressure group happens to be inconveniencing them the most at that time.
As I said, abstainers = gutless parasites.
Some one who is prepared to stick their neck out in what is a difficult and highly-charged debate? - dedicated and professional.
Those who would remove all those who won't agree with them? - backstabbing lackeys who are not fit to be in positions of responsibility.
Discuss.
.
orkneylass
16-Dec-07, 18:53
Northener - have I upset you by disagreeing with your views? Oh dear dear!
northener
16-Dec-07, 18:58
Northener - have I upset you by disagreeing with your views? Oh dear dear!
No??????????
Of course there has to be a way of preventing obvious abuse of a position. It would seem, however, that the first time someone makes an unpopular decision, they are deemed to be running amok.I'm not sure what was going on here. The BBC reported
Aberdeenshire councillors voted 26 to 10 to unseat Councillor Martin Ford as chairman of the infrastructure services committee at an emergency meeting.
A total of 29 councillors abstained from voting on Mr Ford's position as chairman. Why did 29 councillors abstain? Is something fishy going on or do they not know their Dons from their Dees? :confused:
ps Who gave you the info that I was one of the "Org Two"? I could tell you but I'd have to kill you and I'd prefer not to do that. ;)
I could tell you but I'd have to kill you and I'd prefer not to do that. ;)
Blimey!!
I only wanted to know in order that I could send them a lovely, clear MIRROR for Christmas.
Friends of mine returned recently from a holiday in Canada. Among their photos was one of a large empty undeveloped space in downtown Toronto. It has not been touched for some time and nothing is planned there in the near future. Yes, you've guessed it. It belongs to Trump.
If they had planned a couple of golf courses at Balmedie with a hotel in between, that would be one thing, but hundreds of houses. Come on!
Now if he would bring forward plans to develop the old Pavilion in Wick High Street, or that borg in Sir Johns Square in Thurso, he would get my vote.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.