Mareel - Cinema & Music Venue

[tlady]

What happens if this action goes against the project?

 

Quote...

Councillor Gussie Angus warned that the local licensed trade had sent a state aid complaint about the council investment to the European Commission and the Office of Fair Trading.

[Colin]

Great shame on the Convener when you consider that 3 of the 4 councillors missing from the meeting were opposed to the scheme.

 

Using his casting vote against the majority shows a lack of scruples.

[marlin13]

That is an interesting idea if they had all been there and voted as colin suggests then the projected 12 - 10 against vote almost mirrors this shetlink poll view in percentage terms. One way or another this will rumble on. I sincerely hope my fears are not recognised and there is no requirement for major bailouts of this project in years to come.

[Malachy]

Great shame on the Convener when you consider that 3 of the 4 councillors missing from the meeting were opposed to the scheme.

 

Using his casting vote against the majority shows a lack of scruples.

 

By definition the convenor could not use a 'casting vote' against a majority. The fact is that the vote took place when it was supposed to, with six weeks notice. If those councillors did not turn up, their views cannot be expected to be taken into account. It is rather like having a general election and then declaring the result void because not everybody came out to vote. That's democracy and that's the rules.

Those councillors who are now desperately seeking other means to get their way are showing contempt for the democratic process. This project has now been approved by the council twice. At some point they will have to get over the fact that they have not won the argument or the vote.

[JustMe]

Great shame on the Convener when you consider that 3 of the 4 councillors missing from the meeting were opposed to the scheme.

 

Using his casting vote against the majority shows a lack of scruples.

 

Well the people absent from the meeting could have been there. They get good "wages" for being councillors and if they do not attend on a day when a controversial issue is decided then neither they nor anyone else can complain about the decision.

 

What happens if this action goes against the project?

 

Quote...

Councillor Gussie Angus warned that the local licensed trade had sent a state aid complaint about the council investment to the European Commission and the Office of Fair Trading.

 

Ok let me tell this as I see it.........everywhere in Shetland that has had any form of public funding and a drink licence surrenders that licence. Starting with the Clickimin and moving through most if not all country shops onto the Halls........again most if not all.......and perhaps even going as far as some Hotels. And we must not forget the ferries......and the trains once we get to the mainland. And the bars in Holyrood and the Houses of Parliament........and ever onwards.

[Fifi]

What happens if this action goes against the project?

 

Quote...

Councillor Gussie Angus warned that the local licensed trade had sent a state aid complaint about the council investment to the European Commission and the Office of Fair Trading.

 

Ok let me tell this as I see it.........everywhere in Shetland that has had any form of public funding and a drink licence surrenders that licence. Starting with the Clickimin and moving through most if not all country shops onto the Halls........again most if not all.......and perhaps even going as far as some Hotels. And we must not forget the ferries......and the trains once we get to the mainland. And the bars in Holyrood and the Houses of Parliament........and ever onwards.

Quite. Ridiculous and smacks of biased protectionism.

[Fatal Paper Cut]

Great shame on the Convener when you consider that 3 of the 4 councillors missing from the meeting were opposed to the scheme.

 

Using his casting vote against the majority shows a lack of scruples.

 

No, pretending that spending 5 million on a building that is ready to be built now will somehow inhibit the building of a new school and care homes for the elderly in four or five years time show a lack of scruples.

 

They naysayers have lost. Twice. Everything else is just sour grapes now.

[tlady]

^^

 

That may well be the case JustMe, but will the European Commission or the Office of Fair Trading look at it like that?

[Carlos]

If I build a private care home, can I sue the council for unfair competition..........

[Fatal Paper Cut]

^^

 

That may well be the case JustMe, but will the European Commission or the Office of Fair Trading look at it like that?

 

What's unfair about it? Lots of independent cinemas make money from bar sales. I watched Indiana Jones in an independent a couple of months ago. Plenty of adult patrons bought a pint to sip as they watched the film. And I've never yet seen a cinema where they didn't sell popcorn, etc. Mareel is hardly breaking new ground there.

 

The whole 'damage to the licensed trade' issue is a nonsense put about by interested parties. Mareel isn't going to mean the closure of the Lerwick pubs any more than the bar in the Clickamin did.

[Para Handy]

4 councillors not there then it can hardly be called a full council meeting and if Sandy Cluness can't even figure that out then it is time the bank manager took his credit card of him, and if the so called marell can't pay for it self then all the fools who voted yes should have to pay for any loss from there own expenses. And were the 4 missing councillors shipped out just to get the result that they wanted

[Colin]

By definition the convenor could not use a 'casting vote' against a majority. The fact is that the vote took place when it was supposed to, with six weeks notice. If those councillors did not turn up, their views cannot be expected to be taken into account.

 

A rubbish argument that does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

There had been requests for a special meeting that would include ALL councillors. Blocked or refused by the convener.

 

Some of the missing councillors (3, I think) were away on official council business and their views (opposed) on the CMV were known to the Convener.

 

An honourable person would have taken this into account when using a casting vote.

 

Those councillors who are now desperately seeking other means to get their way are showing contempt for the democratic process. This project has now been approved by the council twice. At some point they will have to get over the fact that they have not won the argument or the vote.

 

You and I seem to be at odds deciding just who has shown 'contempt' for the democratic process.

 

The MAJORITY of our councillors seem to be against the CMV

The MAJORITY of the people I know seem to be against the CMV

It is likely (but not proven) the the majority of Shetland's population would also be against it.

 

As an aside, does the phrase "as far as I'm concerned it can go ahead" actually count as a vote in favour or was there a more formal "Yes"?

[Twerto]

With a topic as important as this they should of rescheduled and been there to vote when it was originally agreed to 6 weeks ago

[Malachy]

By definition the convenor could not use a 'casting vote' against a majority. The fact is that the vote took place when it was supposed to, with six weeks notice. If those councillors did not turn up, their views cannot be expected to be taken into account.

 

A rubbish argument that does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

There had been requests for a special meeting that would include ALL councillors. Blocked or refused by the convener.

 

I can only assume that there is a protocol for this type of situation, which would have been followed. You cannot just have a special meeting because the Flea says there must be one. This went through the correct process, it came to the meeting and this decision was taken. Sandy Cluness did not plan it all and then send away those councillors deliberately. The opponents seem to assume they have a moral right to block this project. Mareel had already been agreed by council previously. Flea and the gang asked to have it put back in front of the council. Correct procedure was followed and they lost the vote. Democracy works that way.

[Malachy]

With a topic as important as this they should of rescheduled and been there to vote when it was originally agreed to 6 weeks ago

 

Yes, exactly. I think perhaps their absence is best seen as an abstention.