Jump to content

Mareel - Cinema & Music Venue


madcow
 Share

Recommended Posts

The argument that Shetland has a body of loss making concerns on the go already - so why not lump in another? is patently ridiculous and doesn't deserve any further discussion.

 

Shame, not only for this project but for other future publicly funded 'services'.

 

Also Davey, your earlier argument that expenditure on the CMV can't be directly compared to infrastructure projects such as the Bressay Bridge and that the cost of one shouldn't impact on the building of the other is oversimplistic. At the end of the day, budget hopping and virements notwithstanding - we're talking about a global budget. If the totality of public spending is too high, the possibility that essential projects (infrastructure, economic development, transport, etc) could be cancelled to finance new toys for lerwick is a risk that, quite simply, should not be countanenced.

 

Very much entitled to your own personal opinion but there are many people who consider this much more than a toy.

 

You correctly say that, again in your opinion, the others are essential and so they almost certainly are, and I personally agree - but they are all on the same SIC capital programame - and all have their objectors too.

 

As far as public consultation is concerned - personally I think this project, weighty though it is, isn't significant enough for a full blown referendum. The original consultation though (Ron Inglis' effort circa 99) was a joke. I attended one meeting where I was one of three.

 

Your opinion again. And the original Ron Inglis consultation was in 2001 / 2 for what that's worth).Yes only three at that one perhaps (single instances are hardly indicative of a wider picture I believe), others had many more, and we certainly had no mass objectors at any of them to the best of my memory.

 

 

That was the total consultation for the North Isles (a regatta night as I recall) but it was deemed enough for Ron to return an enthusiastic thumbs up from that quarter.

 

Well you can only go on those that choose to openly speak out for or against. No massive amount of objectors either then or since to the best of my knowledge, and still the desire for local halls in those areas to have support in providing music from a central and publicly funded source - us at present via the Co-Promoters initiative - a situation that this project is seeking to stabilise long into the future for the North Isles, among other things.

 

 

I cna't speak for the other meetings but with the possible exeption of the Lerwick one, I'm led to believe attendance was similarly poor. In terms of demonstrating public support, we're going to have to do better.

 

You could say exactly the same for the anti lobby could you not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Islesburgh is carring on as normal its always realy been the council as is the arts trust - at the end of the day its all council money.

 

the garrison will be looked after by islesburgh as it always has been - its only being programmed by the new arts agency after 1 April - they will have no power over the building - they just put on the programme as an outside agency

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Davey, your earlier argument that expenditure on the CMV can't be directly compared to infrastructure projects such as the Bressay Bridge and that the cost of one shouldn't impact on the building of the other is oversimplistic. At the end of the day, budget hopping and virements notwithstanding - we're talking about a global budget.

 

Possibly true from one perspective but that's just how the system works at present.

 

 

If the totality of public spending is too high, the possibility that essential projects (infrastructure, economic development, transport, etc) could be cancelled to finance new toys for lerwick is a risk that, quite simply, should not be countanenced.

 

There is not even a remote suggestion that any of the projects currently on the capital programme, or even those that have not made it there yet, will have to be cancelled to finance this particular project. Infrastructure, economic development et al is vital for Shetland, nobody is disagreeing with that, but as to a toy!!! Many believe that a high quality infrastructure to impact positively on tourism (still seen as a developing market) and our already high quality culture is far from that, and will have positive economic benefits as well as social ones.

 

Remeber, agree with the findings or not, that music has been valued at being currently worth around £6m to the local economy - hardly an insignificant sum by any stretch of the imagination. Should we not seek positive and high quality ways of developing this further in future?

 

Sure we could go on as is, but many recognise and believe in the quality and yes increased economic potential of our musicians of all kinds, both old(er) and young, and feel they deserve to have good quality and improved support infrastructure to promote and develop their talents. So to call a facility that will clearly help them, and hopefully Shetland as a whole, to achieve that a "toy" is bordering on the insulting to them if no-one else.

 

Did anyone call the new museum a toy?? No we all see the highly positive benefits of that to our local cultural infrastructure. And there were no screams of "no consultation" either. Most just agreed its long overdue.

 

Finally anything that could potentially help retain folk in, and assist with attracting folk to live in Shetland, especially younger age groups, should not be considered a toy either.

 

Thanks for your well constructed thoughts anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
The argument that Shetland has a body of loss making concerns on the go already - so why not lump in another? is patently ridiculous and doesn't deserve any further discussion.

 

Shame, not only for this project but for other future publicly funded 'services'.

 

Fair enough - I withdraw the point. If you feel that there's an argument for adding to loss making concerns, I'd be delighted to hear it.

 

Also Davey, your earlier argument that expenditure on the CMV can't be directly compared to infrastructure projects such as the Bressay Bridge and that the cost of one shouldn't impact on the building of the other is oversimplistic. At the end of the day, budget hopping and virements notwithstanding - we're talking about a global budget. If the totality of public spending is too high, the possibility that essential projects (infrastructure, economic development, transport, etc) could be cancelled to finance new toys for lerwick is a risk that, quite simply, should not be countanenced.

 

Very much entitled to your own personal opinion but there are many people who consider this much more than a toy.

 

Neither the considerations of the pro's or anti's are worth much at this stage - I contend that its a 'toy' as I've yet to see a convincing case that it will return a profit. On balance I feel the anti's have the edge, being able to point at comparable outfits being bailed out by public funds.

 

You correctly say that, again in your opinion, the others are essential and so they almost certainly are, and I personally agree - but they are all on the same SIC capital programame - and all have their objectors too.

 

No, they're not all on the capital programme. The North Iseles fixed links for example, is still languising on a desk in the deveopment dept. Also, you're comparing night and day - the bulk of the capital programmes are roads, ferries airports, etc. All essential for maintaining economic activity. The CMV isn't.

 

As far as public consultation is concerned - personally I think this project, weighty though it is, isn't significant enough for a full blown referendum. The original consultation though (Ron Inglis' effort circa 99) was a joke. I attended one meeting where I was one of three.

 

Your opinion again. And the original Ron Inglis consultation was in 2001 / 2 for what that's worth).Yes only three at that one perhaps (single instances are hardly indicative of a wider picture I believe), others had many more, and we certainly had no mass objectors at any of them to the best of my memory.

 

No, you wouldn't have had objectors at any of the meetings. At the time it was only a remote possibility, no figures were put on the cost of the thing. It's not the concept that's the problem, its the cost.

 

 

That was the total consultation for the North Isles (a regatta night as I recall) but it was deemed enough for Ron to return an enthusiastic thumbs up from that quarter.

 

Well you can only go on those that choose to openly speak out for or against. No massive amount of objectors either then or since to the best of my knowledge, and still the desire for local halls in those areas to have support in providing music from a central and publicly funded source - us at present via the Co-Promoters initiative - a situation that this project is seeking to stabilise long into the future for the North Isles, among other things.

 

No massive amount of objectors then or since? You been reading this forum? You certainly don't need a gilded chanty like this to run Co Promoters.

 

 

I cna't speak for the other meetings but with the possible exeption of the Lerwick one, I'm led to believe attendance was similarly poor. In terms of demonstrating public support, we're going to have to do better.

 

You could say exactly the same for the anti lobby could you not

 

No you couldn't. The onusis entirely on those who wish to build the CMV to demonstrate public support and economic viability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that elected members are there to make decisions on our behalf and that referendums should be used infrequently but I do think it would have been appropriate in this case given the amount of public feeling there is.

 

Just another thought on this. There was / is a lot of public feeling, both positive and negative ("whit £19m pound for three hundred folk"??? went the cry), with regard to the Bressay bridge (and no I am not opening a new line of arguement here) which is of course a massive project also on the SIC capital programme - currently costed at £19m, although again some insinuate it will be much higher.

 

If a referendum were to be held Shetland wide on that issue, most people would probably say "nothing to do with me" etc etc and vote against it - especially if you were to add "or would you prefer the money spent on something else"? - or "should we go for a cheaper option"? I imagine it would most certainly be voted out in that respect

 

Sorry I just see local referendums as a potentially flawed way forward as I said before

 

At some point we have to trust our elected members, who are hopefully fully informed regarding both sides of the arguement, have evidence of the wider picture before them, have details of current SIC and Charitable Trust finances to make such decisions and, perhaps most importantly, have the best interests of the community as a whole at heart (God knows why else they would want to do the job) to make an informed decision for us.

 

Its unlikely any of us mere mortals in the general public would have such a full range of information at our fingertips - let alone be able to fathom it all out if we did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Surely you can see that if Alan Mac takes up a DJ and pays for it himself. It is wrong for the council to take up someone the same week (or whenever) and use public monies to do so. This is unacceptlabe and this is the big problem with this venue it will battle head to head with the private sector. Ok the North Star is a dump, but I have had some of the best nights of my life in the place. This kind of competition can do nothing for the the music scene(except sour it).

 

Too much emphasis has been put on Phillip etc. and not on the issues. Johnston said it all when he mentioned the closure of the Star. I can't see for the life of me how it will survive against another competitor. Its can be hardly making any contribution as it is.

 

Nobody knows (except Davie) what the final plans for the venue are. I heard it is going to have a session bar. Is this right? and if so is this fair?......A council run pub?

 

Come on. Give these poeple a break

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
Just had a phone call as well on the subject of possible school closures v's the proposed cinema and music venue project, and although the issues are by no means related perhaps I SHOULD attempt to make the position clear.

 

I am disappointed that once again an association is being made in this context, as indeed it was at the SLTA meeting in the Garrison on Wednesday night It's almost a "how can you smile when someone is dying" allegation. Its also uphelpful to both parites to set a project v's issues arguement going when the two do not formally relate and can only cloud the real issues and arguements.

 

As I have said before they do not relate. although some have the persception that Shetland should not continue with projects such as these when belief exists that certain other unrelated amenities and serivces are threatened. I see no other public project being singled out in this particular fashion of course, but so be it.

 

Personally speaking I am not in favour of any school closures where their continued existence can be justified, although I would have personally thought the argement should be about access and quality of education not the actual number of schools it takes to provide it - but that is for someone else to decide not me and just a personal thought.

 

I have served on school boards in a voluntary capacity so have had direct experience of both ends of the arguement. Additionally, through the music development project, I do a great deal of work in direct partnership with the education sector throughout Shetland so I would like to think I know where my own thoughts and priorities lie in this respect.

 

Good education provision is vital for music development too, and we can all see the results via the number of terrific young musicians coming through the system - thats the only instance where this argument can be related and they do not conflict. To the best of my knowledge we also have widespread support for the Cinema and Music Centre plan from this particular sector

 

If I though for one moment that even one school, or any other vital amenity for that matter, that had full justification for staying open, were threatened or worst still required to close to fund even a percentage of a project like this I would not be supporting it - in fact personal morals dictate that I would be the first to pull out from supporting it

 

The fact of the matter is the two are not related whatever some happen to believe. Even if this money, especially the capital expenditure element, were saved tomorrow, it would or could not be used to fund schools to stay open - that would have to come from a very different budget, believe it or not. This is true in both a national and local funding context.

 

I am sure if the time comes any schools involved will make a very good business case for thier continued survival and good luck to them too. If however the opposite happens, and we all have emotions and sympathies in this direction, then lets hope it is for sound and demonstrable reasons and most importantly any young folk involved are not adversely affected by any changes within the educational system.

 

Things do move on and things change, good and bad alike, but as a community we cannot afford to stand still or argue that the status quo be maintained at all costs and at all times whatever the subject

 

Finally I also have direct assurance than any revenue deficit the venue may run at (and remember the business plan still shows a potential profit may be made in best case scenario) will NOT be funded from our local education budget.

 

Hope this makes things a bit clearer at least

 

 

 

Then who is going to FOOT THE BILL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has been unlocked

 

Earlier in this thread, we asked users to refrain from using different pseudonyms in order to bolster their case. A certain individual, who has a personal vested interest in the outcome of this debate, has continued to post anonymously

 

While we would like the forums to remain open to guest postings, we feel that the tone of the posts in question (which sometimes amount to no more than personal attacks and criticism) are not in the spirit of open and transparent debate and add nothing constructive to these emotive deliberations

 

Again, we urge the individual to declare their interests or refrain from such postings, as we would not like to be forced into taking further action

 

Thank you for your co-operation, the Shetlink team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

maby you should just remove the message then? mind that if you can trace whare messages come from it might not be who you think it real is. i for one use sever computers to put my posts in.

 

i would however ask people not to sout in posts either by going bold or in capitails

 

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has been unlocked

 

Earlier in this thread, we asked users to refrain from using different pseudonyms in order to bolster their case. A certain individual, who has a personal vested interest in the outcome of this debate, has continued to post anonymously

 

This is, to say the least very disappointing, and really just makes a mockery of the whole debate to some extent, especially if the person concerned has a vested interest. Indeed I was warned about this very issue late last week, but chose to keep the correspondance going as there were some very valid questions that I felt deserved anwering, semi-anonymous or not as they may be.

 

I have taken time, much of it my own I would add, to try and set the record straight in some cases, put counter views, provide information, stick my head above the parapet, represent the significant pro lobby and at least keep the open minded among you informed, while equally recognising that there are some who will never change their minds and even then I respect their right to take that position. As I have said before I have the fullest sympathies for their arguements, and their rights to have them, even if I dont agree with them.

 

Its sad when folk not only dont have the strength of their own convictions to openly put their case, let alone display basic honesty. It also damages and seeks to obstruct, confuse and even unfairly 'load' what could otherwise be a very valid arguement.

 

You will hopefully note that I am keeping an open mind on this particular issue as I am assuming it could be someone from the pro lobby as equally from the anti.

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...