Jump to content

Self-detemination motion


George.
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

While still being part of the UK, and going down the Isle of Man, Guernsey route could be good for everyone, as it is clear that devolution, and the powers of Holyrood have not worked well for the Shetland Islands.

Nice article below, excellent exposure.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/shetland-islands-bid-independence-scotland-123728954.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2020/09/21/leask-resigns-from-senior-position-over-question-of-self-determination/

Is stating facts and having an opinion not allowed in the council chamber or when talking to us plebs anymore? Do they all have to toe the line and say what they're told to say?

Stephen Leask is my councillor, he got my vote because he was the only candidate willing to put in the legwork and come to my door to try and win it in the run up to the election.

I didn't help vote him in to be a shrinking violet or cajoled into being silent by a council leader I've never even heard of.

Same goes for Ian Scott, I certainly don't agree with everything he says but we need people like him with the balls to speak their mind and ask uncomfortable questions, at the very least it helps spark some healthy debate.

Edited by Capeesh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally agree.  A councillors first responsibility should be to his/her electorate and they are NOT elected to satisfy the whims of the SIC heirachy.

 

However, I am slightly disappointed that both Steven Leask and Ian Scott resigned their positions.  I feel that they would have been better to remain in place and force(?) a few issues into the public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian Scott had to resign because of what he said in a public meeting that was totally unrelated to the self determination debate. He repeatedly accused officers of lying to him which is an actual breach of the code of conduct. If what he was saying was correct that was NOT the proper channels to raise such a complaint, he should have known better. 

Stephen Leasks problem was that one of the (many) points he made was that we get more than enough funding from Holyrood - this is at direct odds with the Councils official position and undermines the argument for fair ferry funding, an untenable position for someone in a leadership role. 

Neither have resigned as Councillors. They are still free to make whatever points they want and represent their constituents views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Leasks problem was that one of the (many) points he made was that we get more than enough funding from Holyrood - this is at direct odds with the Councils official position and undermines the argument for fair ferry funding, an untenable position for someone in a leadership role.

I hope you're not misrepresenting the councillor I helped elect here, according to the article above he...

 

"reminded councillors that Shetland was receiving significantly more in funding per head of population than the average Scottish local authority...these figures are no secret and publicly available."

 

This statement of fact does not equate to him saying Shetland gets "more than enough funding from Holyrood"

 

They're two completely different things.

 

If stating a published fact and having a different opinion to the "supreme leader" of the council is enough to get my councillor black balled from leadership roles then I want to know WTF is going on, sometimes elected officials need to be reminded who they work for!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The feeble excuse the leader used to tell Stephen Leask about his leadership role being untenable doesn't even add up.

How could stating a published fact undermine Holyrood negotiations?

Doesn't he realise Holyrood already knows how much funding Shetland is allocated in relation to the other Scottish local authorities they have responsibility for?

They write the cheques for goodness sake!

If this is a case of punishing the two councillors for not voting the way they were told, whether you agree with them or not, it's a very dangerous precedent, I voted for an "independent" candidate, not one who could be whipped into voting a certain way.

Edited by Capeesh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ability to select a candidate with different stances on contentious issues is necessary for a Democratically elected body to become representative.

If you are arguing for fair funding and you think somebody else is getting an even worse deal than you are would it not be fair to raise that issue for the sake of fairness?

If the local authority has an "official position" on anything should those with a second opinion not have the right to appoint somebody to challenge the official stance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ian Scott had to resign because of what he said in a public meeting that was totally unrelated to the self determination debate. He repeatedly accused officers of lying to him which is an actual breach of the code of conduct. If what he was saying was correct that was NOT the proper channels to raise such a complaint, he should have known better. 

 

Stephen Leasks problem was that one of the (many) points he made was that we get more than enough funding from Holyrood - this is at direct odds with the Councils official position and undermines the argument for fair ferry funding, an untenable position for someone in a leadership role. 

 

Neither have resigned as Councillors. They are still free to make whatever points they want and represent their constituents views.

I would agree that ian Scott went a "bit off the rails" but, no doubt that he felt that he was "correct" to do so.  Do we know if he explored other avenues first ?  An ex senior SIC official once told me that councillors are told what they ask, not what they need to know...

 As for Steven, just WHO decides that his "position" is untenable?  The electorate, or someone in the shadows who decides that he didn't fit the "template" ?  He was 1 voice out of 20 something and he was basically told that he was not allowed to publicly express an opinion as he held a "leadership" role..  

Democracy(?) in action..

 

The late Malcolm Green once said to me of a certain councillor "that he would rather have him inside the tent, p!ss!ng out, than outside the tent, p!ss!ng in".   That said a lot to me of the "culture" among SIC officials in relation to councillors.

 

OK, some of our councillors might be "marmite" to some of the electorate, but I do not think that our councillors are elected to make things "comfortable" for the leadership and officials. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...