Will the government say "yes" to Trump?
The Scottish Government has just published a list of ministerial engagements for this coming week.
Fascinating stuff. Busy little beavers, every one. May I wish them happy governing?
However, I suspect you would scan recent lists in vain to find notice of the meeting Alex Salmond had with Team Trump re the luxury golf plan for Aberdeenshire.
That is, of course, because this was a constituency meeting, not a government event. Mr Salmond was there as the locally elected MSP, not as the first minister.
The following day, the entity that is the Scottish Government decided to call in Mr Trump鈥檚 planning application which had been rejected on the casting vote of an Aberdeenshire Council committee convener.
I say 鈥渢he entity鈥 because Mr Salmond has a self-evident conflict of interest which he, rightly, reported to parliament when facing questions at Holyrood last week.
Having properly declared that conflict of interest and having stressed that he could not comment on the application, I seem to recall that he then encouraged backbenchers to pitch in.
Do you think the entity that is the Scottish Government is minded to say yes to Donald Trump?
Here鈥檚 a clue. They called in the application immediately after it was turned down by the council.
I don鈥檛 imagine they did so in order to turn it down twice, in order to ensure that it was firmly consigned to an ecologically-friendly dustbin.
I'm 
Comments
The problem with this application is that despite its importance locally and nationally it was never presented to the whole council for consideration, which I found very strange.
It's been many years since I was on the council, including planning and I can't remember any big projects not going before full council e.g. can you imagine a multi million pound project like Moss Moran not going before full council?
In this case the Government was right to call it in and as a local MSP naturally Salmond would be at least kept up to speed and even more natural that his views/help would be sought from both sides.....they would be stupid not to (in the real world that is).
Personally I think the project would be of immense value to the whole of Scotland in terms of annual golf tournaments attracting the world's best players and more importantly, being shown across the globe.
For that reason alone it should have gone ahead. No country in the world these days can get too much quality publicity.
Alex Salmond is doing his job. This is a big project which is a potential large inward investment for Scotland, so obviously the Scottish Government should be interested in looking at all the facts. This is the right type of inward investment, rather than the Westminster form of inward "investment" in the shape of son of Trident.
The fact that the vote for/against this project was close means that it needs to be looked at in context within the bigger picture of Scotlands future financial independent success, and all sides of the argument need to be taken into consideration.
The SNP looked like they might be offering the electorate something a little bit different from the other political parties but stories like this and the Souter/bus deregulation just leaves you with a feeling of 鈥榤ore of the same鈥.
I understand politicians have to operate in the 鈥榬eal鈥 world but I get sick of hearing about the odious rich getting their own way!
Money talks and politicians listen.
While I understand the environmental issues surrounding this development and the obvious controversy over the 1500 homes, I believe that this is not simply an issue for Aberdeenshire, or the City of Aberdeen, but a National one. I had hoped that the Council would vote in favour so that they could take credit for it. Mr Salmond acted as a constituency MSP, and reported his conflict of interest, therefore acting responsibly, If I was in his shoes I would have wanted some kind of meeting with these people as well. I just hope that the Scottish Government makes the decison which the majority of the North East people want.
Of course they will say yes, why else would they call in the application after a no vote. I believe this undermine's councils everywhere, though most of their decisions - the government would not be interested in.
I think it is outrageous the government (on hindsight)decides they should be involved. I cannot believe after the disgrace of the Scottish election, they can be so hypocritically undemocratic!
"..but i get sick of the odious rich getting their own way..""
Surely thats whats wrong with this entire thing - most the minority that dont want this its no ecological - its because its Trump.
I would call it cutting off your nose to spite your face - if you dont want the rich to get richers your going to have to move into a cave.
Thankfully Salmond has his head screwed on. Our biggest industry is tourism and this will add to it.
A 1 billion investment in a bit of ground we have in abudance and people are complaining....are people ever happy?
I am in an odd position here -
I strongly oppose the Trump development and disagree with the Scottish Government's 'calling-in' of the planning application...
But I firmly believe that Alex Salmond has acted completely properly on this issue, and that the criticism of the way in which he has acted is a complete 'non-story'.
As far as I can see, Salmond has done everything by the book. If anyone can tell me differently, fair enough, but until then, can we not talk about more substantive matters such as the merits of the planning application itself?
Brian
Can any government anyplace in the world afford to turn down over 拢1billion of inward investment? I think not. Was Ian Paisley right to try to get it for Northern Ireland? Yes.
How is it democratic that one man, with two votes can turn this down?
Salmond and the Scottish government were correct to intervene.
One wonders which parts of the 'entity' were involved in the calling in? Obviously Alex Salmond can't have had any part to play in it as that would have compromised his position.
So the rest of the 'entity' made the decision without reference to its heid bummer?
And Salmond's talks with the Trump team were about what precisely? Given that the application had been rejected, there was going to be no appeal and as Salmond obviously couldn't discuss the possibility of calling in the application there appears to have been precious little to talk about.
What a marvellous coincidence that the headless entity made the decision to call in the application less than 24 hours after Alex Salmond met with Trump's team and didn't discuss such a possible outcome.
It's a good job Alex Salmond's already owned lock stock and barrel by Brian Souter. Otherwise some people might think he was in Donald Trump's back pocket.
It is rather odd that this "Consituency" meeting would take place OUTSIDE Alex Salmond's own constituency and instead took place in the constituency of Lib Dem Leader Nicol Stephen.
If it was a genuine constituency meeting why was it necessary to hold a meeting several miles from the Alex's own constituency and several miles from the site of the Planning Application. Surely one of the many fine hotels in Gordon would have sufficed.
It does seem odd he would choose to hold it in the constituency of a opposition leader instead, quite an overturning of regular protocol.
Martin Macky
I've got no problem with the rich getting richer only when they're odious (Bus deregulation, anyone?)and I'd like nothing better than to live in a cave but I'll bet that I couldn't afford to buy one!
Balmedie sounds like a beautiful place. Make the most of it before the bulldozers arrive!
The SNP complained over many years about decisions affecting Scotland alone being taken in London; with devolution, this should now be the exception rather than the rule. Yet now it seems that the SNP administration in Edinburgh is determined to interfere with the entirely local interests of Aberdeenshire Council.
With local responsibility comes local accountability. If the electorate in that area is unhappy (and this is far from proved), their opportunity will come at the next council elections.
As for those Councillors claiming that (not being members of the 'planning' committee), their views were not taken into account, it was always open to them to bring a motion before the Council to have the application removed from the scope of the committee and placed before the entire Council; that they chose not to exercise that option, says much about their suitability to represent their constituents. The power of 'aye or nay' is devolved to the planning committee at the pleasure of the Council.
The committee chairman has been castigated for voting against the project, when the committee was deadlocked. It is normal and best practice for a casting vote to be cast so as to maintain the status quo, regardless of how the voter has cast his/her substantive vote; this would invariably mean planning applications being rejected in circumstances where less than a majority are in favour.
IF it is now the view of the Scottish Government that the Trump project was too important to be decided locally - largely because local determination did not produce their hoped-for outcome (acquiescence to power of the mighty dollar) - then there should be published definitive guidelines as to the criteria to be applied in any future similar disputes.
Brian
You will know that this is an issue which divides Scotland--it would be interesting to see an Opinion Poll on the subject, but who will organise one?
However,BEFORE Scottish Ministers make the decision you could do the country a favour by asking the following people whether they support or oppose the Trump proposal:-
Wendy Alexander,
Annabel Goldie,
Nicol Stephen,
(don't bother with the Greens)
Simple question isn't it?
I would also like to ask the Editors of The Scotsman, Scottish Daily Mail, The Record etc to indicate NOW their support/opposition, but I know that would be to much to expect. They will already have their 2 stories written:-
1."....disgraceful sell-out to big business, destruction of Scotland's countryside, jobs not going to locals but to foreign workers, terrible decision..."
2."...turning Scotland's back on much needed investment,only a small piece of land, giving wrong signals to business people, job opportunities for local people lost, terrible decision...."
Sadly predictable, but you COULD nail the politicians NOW. (Please)
May I add to the first comment in reference to 'annual golf tournaments'. Not very likely with the Harr! Just another reason why it is the wrong place.
I think Alex Salmond has made a critical error of judgement that will come back to haunt him. Why did he not allow his deputy to meet with the Trump delegation? Or is it because there is no one who is effective enough in his Government?
So much for the socialist.....Alex is the same as the rest of the political bunch. had it been jack McConnell in a similar situation, Alex would have been in full voice.
While I have nothing against bringing investment into the country, I do believe that we have a duty to try and ensure that we choose carefully where that investment comes from. I do not support the Trump proposal for two reasons. Firstly the environment, if Trump was only wishing to build the golf courses and hotel that might be acceptable, but 1500 houses as well in such a beautiful area is wrong. Secondly there is the man himself, and all I can say is that he is a DODGY character. Anyone who doubts this should do an internet search on "Dealscape Donald Trump" to get the low-down on some of the litigation he is already involved in in the U.S. on similar deals to this. He seems to like to build the houses (profitable) and then fail to deliver on the "sweetners" (not so profitable). While we should encourage investment, we also have a duty to make sure the investment is sound. It strikes me that "The Donald" is not the kind of businessman we want to have any involvement with. I hope the Scottish Executive will do some homework before allowing this project to go ahead. I personally prefer the dunes the way they are!
Its clear that some sections of the Scottish press are very keen to move on from the whole Wendy Alexander affair and have now rounded on Salmond over his "secret" meeting with Trump. So secret infact that a press release about it was featured in the Evening express last week.
And of course the unionist gang of 3 will jump at any oppurtunity to try and score points against the SNP. If Salmond didnt meet with Trump Im sure we'd here calls that hes negletcing his constituancy.
At least Brian can see the meeting for what it was.
Scotland would be daft to turn down this opportunity. Salmond was right to get involved.
Gone are the days of ship building and steel works, Scotland capitalise on its assists to encourage tourism. Trump's project seems an ideal fit.
That it has been rejected by such a narrow margin by Councillors is of importance, but the national benefit must be put first. It's not a nuclear power station or missile site that is being proposed.
If necessary Mr Trump should be asked to trim his proposal in line with local concerns, but Scotland is not in position to reject this proposal.
I hope all parties can help accept this proposal, taking into consideration local opinion.
J Mc
To all the city dwellers who probably never set eyes on the area concerned, I have and what an eyesore the whole lot is.If the people of Aberdeen want this then let this new Government know it.Alex Is working for his people and the people Scotland.Had he met Trump in Falkirk it would still not be in his patch.MONEY BREEDS MONEY!!!!
I fully agree with #5. The people of the north-east, and rural Scotland generally, know that if they choose to live in the sticks then they should take what comes with it. For generations we have had to keep some part of our fine country pristine so that city dwellers could have somewhere quaint to retire to. The Liberals are to be rightly praised for their determination to keep the countryside uncluttered with industry, or indeed jobs of any nature whatsoever. If this goes through then heaven alone knows where it might end. We could be faced with demands for direct train lines, dual carriaged roads or local airports linking these yokels with the outside world. The real shame is that Salmonnd and his jobs-creating, wealth-creating crazed team 'won' the last election. I think there should have been a fresh election in order to ensure that the Lib-Lab coalition got back in. That way there would have been none of this nonsense about giving the north of Scotland wthe same economic opportunities as the rest of us
scotleag - there is no government in Europe that would let this type of investment slip through its fingers, without at least trying to save it.
We are talking about a relatively clean form of development - Why don't we get this kind of childish objectionism, when developments happen in Cities? Glasgow and London's games "villages" will have a much greater enviromental impact. As for SSSI what a pile of crud, most of them are man made landscapes anyway (Please note most of Scotland was covered in trees before sheep and deer destroyed our real natural heritage), reverting them to there natural state would lead to objections fron RSPB who only seem intrested in keeping things as they are not how they were origionaly or what potential they may have for the greater good.
Ah. Scotleag, another negative rant, why am I not surprised.
You forget to mention that it was Jack McConnel who started wooing Trump for this investment and if he was still in office (God forbid) you would have of course been trumpeting (no pun intended) this as a major coup for the liebour party.
It's negative infantile posturing like this that give Scotland, and the unionist parties, a bad name.
A few sand dunes preserved to be smashed later by the North Sea; although tree huggers is not an one hundred percent accurate categorisation it nevertheless conveys the lunacy I feel that is being brought to bear by some narrow minded NIMBYs; you could well be right that much of this is driven by old green eyes.
Investment of this kind will defend the coastline better than those who want to leave everything to Mother Nature.
Hi brian
I have to say that I think the fuss being made of Mr salmond meeting developers is very much a trumped up charge if you will pardon the pun.
Okay so he met Mr trumps representatives and a couple of days later the planning application was called in. Are the media now trying to suggest that MSPs shouldnt meet anyone. Mr salmond also met protestors. Mr salmond has also declared in parliament any conflict of interest. As for people saying he should declare what was said. WHY?
Should all MSPs now be declaring what was said at every single meeting attend. I realise that this controversy has occured because it is the first time a plan has ever been "called in" this way. However its also the first time we have had an snp goverment and perhaps they like to do things differently? This government seems to act quicker to sort things out unlike the old encumbents way of waiting until it goes belly up and then trying to salvage things. Like hospital closures for instance. As for the development i think there should be some kind of public consultation. If people want it they will come out in support. Tricky one for the government to sort I think especially seeing as Mr Trump seems a bit pedantic and he was very rude about the protestor who wouldnt sell his land. Have to say it wont bother me one way or the other but then again i dont live in the area.
The Government has to pass this. This is a 1 billion pound investment. How can the country refuse this. And on the plus side it isnt in the central belt it is regeneration that is needed.
Obviously , the development should be doen sympathetically to the environment but Scotland has to look to the future.
Alex Salmond would not compromise his position by not acting correctly with Trump.
Thats for Labour politicians.
Taking into account how heavily we rely on tourism,was the correct call made by the council in the first place?
Constituency MP Alex Salmond has every right to ask relevant questions.
First Minister Alex Salmond would be failing in his duties if he did not intervene.
Whats never been explained is why Trump refuses to play by the normal rules - usually when permission is refused the developer appeals (& in this case there is a simple solution available which would overcome the objections raised by Scottish Natural Heritage, just keep the course out of the SSSI). But Trump, for whatever reason, decided if he couldn't have his own way he'd take his ball home. It all seems very childish.
Does anyone know if Alex Salmond used a Ministerial car or other Executive expenses to get to this meeting? If so his defence that he was acting as a constituency MSP is blown out the water. Either way, it still looks like a pretty big conflict of interests or poor judgement from the First Minister at the very least. If it was possible that this planning application would be called in by the Scottish Government he should have steered well clear of it.
I'd say it was almost a cast-iron certainty that the Scottish government are going to overturn the decision of Aberdeenshire Council. They wouldn't have called in the application otherwise. They undoubtedly expected the council to approve the plans. I find it distinctly odd that the plans only became of "national importance" when they were turned down. Why weren't they called in the minute the application was lodged? Why weren't they called in after the initial yes? There was precedent for that. There is no precedent for what they are doing now. And I believe that they are on very dodgy legal ground. The minute that the infrastructure committee rejected the plans, there ceased to be a live application. What planning application has been called in? There isn't one to be called in. It was rejected. And it has neither been appealed nor re-submitted. Very, very odd. Still, it opens the door to the inevitable legal challenges that will hopefully delay the adventure long enough for Trump to give up.
What is it with the scottish Labour party, The tories and the greens that they are willing to risk a one BILLION inward investment with thousands of jobs. Putting this at risk to simply score political points. If I remember corectly the chairman who had the casting vote Had previously stated that he was against the plans. So whats the difference with Alex Salmond.
This is simply Scotland cutting its own throat for party politics
The Evening Express were told of the meeting last week,it would seem that the only thing fishy about this is the way 大象传媒 Scotland has reported on it.Hardly the biggest news in terms of politics today,is it??
What with certain factions having to admit funds being sent to the labour party.
On thread,this would be a project beneficial for the North East and I cannot understand why only 14 members of the Aberdeenshire council were involved in this decision.
7 for 7 against, casting vote to a man with the greenest credentials,albeit he's a liberal.
I love the comfort,smug zone these people live in,Aberdeen GET RECYCLING!You cannot afford to reject inward investment of this kind.
And it should have been a whole council decision.
I await tales of horses heads in beds over this one!
To date I have tried to keep an open mind on this issue but a couple of things lately have got me wondering,so last night I fired off these questions to John Swinney who seems to be the man with the final say.I,m hoping he replies but would be interested to hear If anybody out there could also help.
.John Mckinnon held talks with the trump team"to explain the role of Scottish ministers in planning applications and appeals".What I would like to know is.
1.Has a precedent been set by this Gov in calling in this application.
2.Why is John Mckinnon explaining the appeals procedure to the Trump team,they must already have known about it ,as they were quick enough of the mark to reject it locally.
3.Did the Gov have plans afoot to call in this application if the local council rejected it,if so who is the person responsible for initiating the calling in.
It seems to be getting pretty murky on this issue and nobody I think will come out clean.I think the Trump Org is squarely to blame for this all they needed to do was re apply.
John Leven - there are plenty of people in Scotland who don't want the inward investment that Trident brings (which incidentally will be far in excess of 拢1bn over its life cycle) - but that doesn't make it a good thing to do.
And how sad the response of Martin Macky - "a bit of ground we have in abundance" - have you ever been to Balmedie beach or the Ythan estuary? Spectacular, dramatic, breathtaking don't even come close to describing the landscape that is at sake here.
I find it sad that the SNP government are prepared to take a principled stance over Trident, but won't allow Aberdeenshire Council to do the same.
Doesn't anyone recognise "inward investment"?
It's our old friend, Colonialism, except this time we're on the other end. Serves us right! Welcome to the Third World!
Slainte!
ed
The government did exactly the right thing calling this proposal in and I hope they give it full support. As a resident of Aberdeenshire I can assure you the majority back this scheme and I have yet to meet anyone against it.Mr Ford and his Lib Dem colleagues voted according to their own narrow minded opinions about how Scotland should be. A poster on a previous discussion complained that Alex Salmond was standing by and letting this slip away from Scotland now he is being criticised for intervening. The SNP are promoting Scotland and that is alright by me.
Can I just say, before the inevitable deluge of SNP spinbots swamps the blog, that I think we'll look back on this as Shr-eck's 'pretty straight guy' moment.
What's with the sarcasm?: "I wish them happy governing?" It can't be a joke, at least I don't think so because it's certainly not funny. It just sounds like what it is: a snide carping from the sidelines. I am really getting so fed up with your politically-biased reporting I am seriously considering not reading your reports at all. I'm sure there are many other people thinking the same thing. I now constantly find myself having to reference news sources other than the 大象传媒 to find out what the real political stories are at any given moment. If that's not proof of bias I don't know what is.
Brian, the brain, is unusually free in his observations. Perhaps Brian can illuminate us as to what Salmond's choices, as an MSP, were.
I'm not suggesting that it is easier, in Brian's position, to attack Salmond than Wendy Alexander but our wilder inferences owe much to conjecture with our FM yet much restraint is exercised even with the advantage of facts in connection to our establishment figure.
What side's yer bread buttered Brain?
Even with the intervention and even if the project gets the go-ahead, isn't there the likelihood that the plans could be stuck in a public inquiry for several months? In that case, does Trump really have the patience to wait that long? Trump has a lot of great qualities as a businessman, but I somehow doubt that patience is one of his virtues. My hunch is that a drawn-out inquiry would make him pull out, especially when Ian Paisley is also courting him to spend his 拢1bn elsewhere.
I find it interesting that this development is always referred to a 'golf course' development when 1500 exclusive villas will be built. That is a small town.
All the investment talked about would appear to be to build Donald Trump's consortium's property. I cannot see how much will filter to the local community who are unlikely to be able to use the facilities.
I don't think Mr Trump would invest in the Scotland that he now conveniently loves unless he makes shed loads of money from it.
I think the Scottish Government should leave it alone or was the Council's democratic decision just a sham?
If John Swinnety give this the go ahead it will signal that if you have money to build your own towns for you private profit then environmental or democratic processes can be trampled on.
Why did the 大象传媒 sit on this for nearly a week. The Aberdeenshire press reported this last week. If it was such a big deal why did the 大象传媒 sit on it. To make Salmond look devious I'll bet. Thankfully, Salmond is just doing his job.
Even with the intervention and even if the project gets the go-ahead, isn't there the likelihood that the plans could be stuck in a public inquiry for several months? In that case, does Trump really have the patience to wait that long? Trump has a lot of great qualities as a businessman, but I somehow doubt that patience is one of his virtues. My hunch is that a drawn-out inquiry would make him pull out, especially when Ian Paisley is also courting him to spend his 拢1bn elsewhere.
Dave "boy"
You are right, I am one of the many that do not want Trident in Scotland.
I would however like you to explain to me how you equate Trident in Scotland to a couple of golf courses?
I cannot see the hotels etc on the Clyde packed with visitors coming to see Trident. They could leave Scotland with a warm glow if they did.
There is no inward investment from Trident, Trident would be dumped in Scotland by Westminster, with no benefit up here.
The windfarm scheduled for the Soway Firth has a budget of 200 million and none of that is British money except the 18 million of taxpayers' money given to the project as a grant to encourage such "inward investment".
It is to be built in Scotland with American (and Japanese) money, operated by an off-the-shelf American company and will sell its electricity to English consumers through a German company (powergen). No profit will remain in this country.
I wonder how much taxpayers' money might eventually be paid into Mr Trump's project.
Check my namelink for some background
Slainte
ed
This as I have said before is beginning to smell a bit orrff! Who runs this Country of ours? A smelly adderk' is brewing, let's just hope there are some brave investigative journalists out there. I know if one digs deep enough the truth will out. For or against this so called golf clubz - housing development (how many will be affordable) and loads of well paid jobs on the way, you can sit back and see the reality come home. This happens today and what about tomorrow, Mugabe getting his own theme park just outside Lanark! I cannot wait to take a ride on the greased palm express.
This is the first time I have voted SNP in an election and have been impressed with the new government-till now. If Mr Salmond wants the people of Scotland to trust him in future and to persuade them to vote for independence should a referendum take place,he has to demonstrate respect for the democratic process.What is the bigger prize, Mr Salmond? Investment in golf courses and other high prestige projects or maintaining the trust of voters in order to secure independence?
Brian can you tell me why 大象传媒 Scotland journalists are smearing Alex Salmond and excusing the criminal behaviour of Wendy Alexander?
I'm sure other licence fee payers would be interested to know!
If Salmond the MSP had concerns he should have done what any other MSP would do and write to the minister responsible for planning, who would in turn have his civil servants investigate if there were grounds for calling in the decision.
I don't know the detail of the proposals, the exact environmental impact, the economic benefit to LOCAL people (I have no doubts about the benefit to big business but, though trickle down works over all, it doesn't happen in every case and local people will certainly loose some amenities from this).
The planning process exists for a reason and Mr Salmond -with his historic concordat - claims to trust local people to make decisions about the issues that affect them. As long as they agree with him.
Inward investment?
"The Government has announced a total of 拢89 million available in the form of capital grants for demonstration projects including offshore wind." -- Peter Hain, Energy Minister, 20 March, 2001
Our Great leaders just LOVE Inward Investment! I suspect they will treat mr Trump's project just like the foreign-funded windfarms springing up all over. The one in the Solway Firth is getting 18 million quid, and that's the only British funding involved. ALL PROFITS WILL GO OVERSEAS, and for that we're prepared to bribe them. How much will Trump get?
If you are a giant foreign corporation, our government will pay you to disfigure the landscape....(a portion of all profits received will go to defray the costs of maintaining major US & UK political parties.)
An enlightened corporate partnership proposing to move into an area might offer to set up a community trust with a significant financial stake in any profits. This would be a recognition that without the physical place (which just happens to come with people and other creatures and their centuries of history) there would be no project. The trust would use the dividends from its stake to support village schools and extend other dying rural services. An enlightened partnership would not need to be asked or blackmailed.
1. Can we expect any such enlightened "PARTNERSHIP"Approach from the Trumps of this world?
2. Will Mr Trump's grand scheme receive grant aid from public funds?
3. If so, HOW MUCH PUBLIC MONEY will be involved in destroying the SSSI?
Slainte
ed
A secure, gated development of 1500 houses allowing access to residents only? Does this not conflict with the Land Reform Act? Also, I believe that LRA permits Joe Public to walk on golf courses, with execptions of the greens. Does Trump know this?
Brian,
The posts above confirm my point @ 8 that "Scotland" is split on this issue.
Will you please agree to my request that you ask the leaders of the opposition parties NOW whether they support the Trump proposal or not.
Wouldn't you find this an interesting exercise?
Thanks
Sorry I am coming to this a bit belatedly, but I had hoped that by 'calling this in' the Government would stand back and take a good all rounded view of what this REALLY means. Means in terms of housing in an unsuitable area and the type of house; means in the terms of jobs created in what type and who is likely to benefit - Scots with their skills or immigrants. The Effect on the services required for this not just in water, sewage, drainage, roads, schools etc as well as accessibility. The possibility of these big competitions which to me seem to rotate on 7 0r 8 years as well as the type of hotel and how it would be serviced and how much local produce would get there.etc
Trump seems very good at shouting about ecological, super duper stuff, but I've yet to see him working with the local authorities to best forward this plan and his knowledge of the natural worlds seems, well somewhat 'artificial'. Its time for everyone to stand back and really access this whole idea without getting 'het' up about it. Aberdeenshire(not Aberdeen) followed procedure to the letter and Trump does not appear to have done so. I f he cannot work with local people BEFORE development how do you think it will fare later?
As for this meeting with 'constituents', when did Trump move to Aberdeenshire? Have I missed something? This seems somewhat odd.
Deja vu all over again? or Should the Labour and SNP supporters be careful what they say about each other on this issue? Here are some observations from the Green Party site:
"If the Scottish Executive is serious about its proposals to reform the planning system - to restore fairness and trust in the rules of the game - Mr McConnell and his fellow ministers will need to learn better judgement in the future. We have to take both McConnell's and Trump's word in relation to discussions on the specific development plan, but the code also warns of creating the perception that a Minister backs a particular project. Courting media attention for high profile friendships with multi-millionaire developers might be the First Minister's idea of fun, but it leaves many ordinary Scots wondering where his priorities are."
"First Minister Jack McConnell is being urged to clarify the exact content of his meeting with Mr Donald Trump, as new evidence has emerged that he may well have breached the ministerial code on prejudicing the planning process."
But finally, with respect to the most recent moves in this game, involving not McConnell but Salmond:
"The government appears to be arguing that this application has 'national significance'. This means it should be discussed through the forthcoming National Planning Framework. 聽Having scrutinised the legislation which put the NPF into law, I find it difficult to accept that a golf development would fall within the terms of the Planning Act as a national development."
Sorry I am coming to this a bit belatedly, but I had hoped that by 'calling this in' the Government would stand back and take a good all rounded view of what this REALLY means. Means in terms of housing in an unsuitable area and the type of house; means in the terms of jobs created in what type and who is likely to benefit - Scots with their skills or immigrants as has been recently highlighted. The effect on the services required for this not just in water, sewage, drainage, roads, schools etc as well as accessibility. The possibility of these big competitions which to me seem to rotate on 7 or 8 years as well as the type of hotel and how it would be serviced and how much local produce would get there.etc
Trump seems very good at shouting about ecological, super duper stuff, but I've yet to see him working with the local authorities to best forward this plan and his knowledge of the natural worlds seems, well somewhat 'artificial'. Its time for everyone to stand back and really access this whole idea without getting 'het' up about it. Aberdeenshire(not Aberdeen) followed procedure to the letter and Trump does not appear to have done so. If he cannot work with local people BEFORE development how do you think it will fare later?
Yes a country can afford to turn down billions in'investment'. if that investment does not clang the right bells FOR THAT COUNTRY. What is more, that country will earn respect and get the right kind of investors.
As for this meeting with 'constituents', when did Trump move to Aberdeenshire? Have I missed something? This seems somewhat odd.
And now Aberdeenshire appear to have been 'bought'! A really wide ranging assessment of what is on the table is required from neutral bodies and what it means for taxpayers in Aberdeenshire,in the NE and in Scotland
You can argue about when the oil will run out, but it will, sooner or later. The whole ecomnomy around this area is based on oil and we desperately need some diversification. Just look at the ghost towns in the US where the oil has run out. Or the mining towns in England with no coal industry left. This is a major development which will result in huge economic benefits for the area and the country as a whole. And if you can't see that, then go and live in Cuba and try generating wealth your way.
Boy do you not get sick of all this 'Salmond is just doing his job' malarky...! If Alec Salmond met with Trump's people the day before the rejected planning application was 'called in', what on earth were they talking about if not the application??? Gies a break...
Also, now Councillor Martin Ford, who did what he was legally obliged to do, i.e. vote as per his conscience, has been sacked.
So once again the mighty buck talks... I wanted Trump to re-submit and follow the procedures WE all have to follow if we want to make a change to our environment!
Scotland .....supposedly new and uber-confident bends the knee once more!!!!
Is it my imagination or are all the objectors the same nationality
It is absurd that M Ford has been sacked. What now for local democracy? From a procedural point of view, irrespective of the outcome of the vote, the decision lay with the council. This is not a development of national importance, it is a golf course. Do we, in Scotland, need another one?. I have worked at the heart of Government and I have never known the head of planning to scurry to see a developer who has been refused to inform them of their rights. Isn't that what Donals Trump's advisors are for? And, in any event, a letter would have sufficed. There is political interference here that is going to destroy the planning system. Why would any ordinary Joe involve themselves with any consultation procedure now when the buck speaks louder that national and local policies?
You have just witnessed the end of local democracy and the iintegrity of the planning system as we know it.
He turned up for a meeting in another MSP's constituency, driven in a Ministerial car. And I have no doubt that his puppets (who he passes off as the rest of the SNP administration) will do what he wants on this decision.
Sack him!
It does make you wonder?
If the application is of National importance why did the Government not call it in immediately? Or did they only recognise its importance after it had been refused by Aberdeenshire Council?
Why did the First Minister meet the applicants when the Standards Commission for Scotland would have advised any Local Councillor involved in Planning to avoid such a meeting?
Why was the Chief Planner placed in the awkward position of meeting the applicants when his office were organising a call in?
Working for the Yankee Dollar
The Skids
Fore!
I'm still waiting to hear an answer to the question: do those who think Aberdeenshire council were wrong to reject Trump鈥檚 demands think it would be wrong to reject ANY development if it created employment? Any developer working in a democratic country expects that they will have to alter their plans to meet the reasonable concerns of democratically-elected local representatives; and possibly alter them quite radically. A development as socially-useful as an oil terminal or a factory has to go through this process. But Trump made it clear from the start that he would countenance no alterations to address the infrastructural or environmental problems that his plan raised: the council could take it or leave it as it stood. In rejecting a plan presented in this way, Aberdeenshire council were simply doing their job.
Let鈥檚 be clear about this: Trump鈥檚 contempt for the planning process is a contempt for democracy. In an undemocratic, third-world state, you don鈥檛 need to bother with all this 鈥渦nnecessary bureaucracy鈥; you go straight to the king or the general in charge and he fixes it for you. The Scottish Government (and I speak as one who voted for the SNP in the Holyrood elections) is in danger of putting us in this quasi-colonial position. For Trump鈥檚 contempt for democracy is not just contempt for councillors but for all of us. In his eyes, we are 鈥渓ittle people鈥: natives who come in two varieties, either fawning, grateful natives or obstructive, troublesome ones. Capitulation to his demands, just as much as rejection of them, will merely confirm him in this attitude; but at least in the latter case we hang on to our self-respect as citizens of a democratic country.