Mareel - Cinema & Music Venue

[DavieG]

I am one of the biggest opponents to this venue because I feel that due to the economic climate we are facing we simply cannot afford to either build or maintain this project. However please stop slandering people for thier points of view if you have something to say be constructive.

But to be honest I do get fed up reading Daveis war and peace!

I can assure everyone on this site that I will try my upmost to get this project stopped And I Will not go away! Our protest might not have the polished approach of the pro venue BUT WE ARE HEAR TO STAY!!!

 

Michael - This is just an observation and question from a personal interest point of view, while still sympathising with your, and others, concerns in this specific context.

 

Can you tell me / us why your group have singled out this particular project to object to, "from a ratepayers point of view", as you have put it, while not at any time mentioning others on the SIC's current capital programme?

 

I select just one instance - The Bressay Bridge (and no I am not trying to start a new argument here) is set to cost around £19m and many have also claimed it is likely to go over budget - hence the fact a ceiling has apparently been placed on the cost.

 

Also I am sure that someone would be able to highlight instances of similar projects that have indeed gone over budget, as you chose to do with just one arts centre in the Western Isles.

 

Equally many have branded that particular project "a 'luxury' that we cannot afford" (their words not mine) i.e. apparently only serving 300+ people, doing people out of work (ferrymen - plus potentially hitting their families hard), threatning existing businesses in the immediate area, the cost of maintaining it in future, additional expenditure on a supporting infrastructure in Bressay (and on the Lerwick side too) as well as other claims of potentially harming harbour operations etc etc. The list of potential expenditures and risks highlighted in this context goes on and on and could be construed as having even wider impact implications than the C&MV project.

 

I'm not trying to draw direct comparisons here, or set project against project and I'm sure we could debate other / similar projects in this respect, but I'm just interested as to why you have only selected one such project for specific focus in this particular respect?

[JustMe]

That's not allowed Mr G. You are the man paid to develop music and as such have a duty (despite what others say) to answer the public's questions on this issue. Keep it up.

 

I object to the above statement. Davie G is certainly the music development officer which is not the same as being "paid to develop music" as a good part of development will come from local musicians and even the commercial music scene so perhaps Davie's role is as a co-ordinator for local music and an instigator for the import of outher music to Shetland and the export of Shetland music to the world. (Well something like that anyway:?: ).

 

As for being paid to answer questions here, on radio, in the paper or anywhere else I accept that part of his role may well involve answering questions at formal meetings or presentations as well as talking to the local media but I am sure that wading through 19 pages on this forum and providing detailed answers is not part of his job description and he has already told us that a lot of his replies came outwith his working hours.

[Wheesht]

That's not allowed Mr G. You are the man paid to develop music and as such have a duty (despite what others say) to answer the public's questions on this issue. Keep it up.

 

I object to the above statement. Davie G is certainly the music development officer which is not the same as being "paid to develop music" as a good part of development will come from local musicians and even the commercial music scene so perhaps Davie's role is as a co-ordinator for local music and an instigator for the import of outher music to Shetland and the export of Shetland music to the world. (Well something like that anyway:?: ).

 

As for being paid to answer questions here, on radio, in the paper or anywhere else I accept that part of his role may well involve answering questions at formal meetings or presentations as well as talking to the local media but I am sure that wading through 19 pages on this forum and providing detailed answers is not part of his job description and he has already told us that a lot of his replies came outwith his working hours.

 

Object away. I stand by what I have written, Davie Gardner is paid to develop the Shetland Music industry and part of that has to be to speak on behalf of that industry and projects relating to that – which this venue most certainly is.

 

And on answering questions it is very, very clear that Mr Gardner is more than happy to do that and I applaud him for that stance.

 

Objection overruled.

[Wheesht]

This question:

 

"Can you tell me / us why your group have singled out this particular project to object to, "from a ratepayers point of view", as you have put it, while not at any time mentioning others on the SIC's current capital programme?"

 

A very good question Davie, I look forward to the answer.

[JAStewart]

I am one of the biggest opponents to this venue because I feel that due to the economic climate we are facing we simply cannot afford to either build or maintain this project. However please stop slandering people for thier points of view if you have something to say be constructive.

But to be honest I do get fed up reading Daveis war and peace!

I can assure everyone on this site that I will try my upmost to get this project stopped And I Will not go away! Our protest might not have the polished approach of the pro venue BUT WE ARE HEAR TO STAY!!!

 

 

I understand that it is an economic venture, but Shetland Islands Council is the richest british council (next to the fat cats in West minster). But I would, for example, consider the Cinema/Music Venue a reason to return to Shetland, so it would bring more people to Shetland, certainly from my perspective.

[JustMe]

bject away. I stand by what I have written, Davie Gardner is paid to develop the Shetland Music industry and part of that has to be to speak on behalf of that industry and projects relating to that – which this venue most certainly is.

 

It is true that Davie has spent a lot of his own time responding to questions on this forum which I believe is over and above what is required by his job. I also believe that he does a good job helping part of the Shetland Music industry develop although he surely cannot be regarded as the only spokesperson for that industry. The "anti venue" people are also part of the industry.

 

As for the venue I do wish we could hear more about the positive aspects of the project including cinema and theatrical plans.

[NewMagnie]

Can you tell me / us why your group have singled out this particular project to object to, "from a ratepayers point of view", as you have put it, while not at any time mentioning others on the SIC's current capital programme?

 

I'm not trying to draw direct comparisons here, or set project against project and I'm sure we could debate other / similar projects in this respect, but I'm just interested as to why you have only selected one such project for specific focus in this particular respect?

 

I'll not presume to answer on anyone's behalf here, but this is indeed a good question.

 

For myself, its not simply a subjective issue. My personal feeling - for what its worth - is that comparing luxuries like this to essential spending on transport infrastructure is unreasonable. All that they have in common is that they appear on the same capital programme but it's like saying that penicillin and ice cream are equally important because they appear on the same shopping list.

 

The importance of the quality and quantity of transport links to peripheral areas is well established nationally - I'd refer you to the Scottish Executive's Rural Poverty and Inclusion Working Group report "Poverty and Social Inclusion in Rural scotland" (2001) which identifies several issues hindering rural development. The principle issue is Access, in the sense of transport and transport infrastructure. Shetland's own structure plan and Local transport strategy recognises transport provision as one of the most crucial factors affecting development within and throughout the isles.

 

It's not a kneejerk reaction to say that Access issues (roads, ferries, fixed links, subsidised transport, etc) and development projects should be sorted out before embarking on projects like the CMV for which there is no national or local priority framework or even an adequately researched business case or consultation/engagement robust enough to bear examination.

 

Furthermore, its still unacceptable to say that its not preventing anything else on the capital programme from going forward. You know perfectly well that capital projects can only be addressed consecutively because of budgetary restraints and building capacity within the islands. Also, its perhaps, more important to look at whats being kept off the capital programme because of the CMV's inclusion. North Isles fixed links for example.

 

The case for this is weak - and that's not merely a personal observation, there is no basis in policy for building the CMV while projects which have the backing of national strategic imperatives languish on the back burner.

[madcow]

There are NO theatrical plans. Apparently the Garrison will still hold the live drama and the new venue will do music and films.

 

So there will be two buildings to operate, programme, staff and maintain.

 

By the way, the report and minutes of the Services Committee on 16 March is on the council's website now but it doesn't have the full business plan attached.

 

http://www.shetland.gov.uk/coins/commhtml/sub/4640.htm

[Ally]

 

Ally stay in edinburgh!

Try living i a council house with 3 bairns

council tax up rent up electric up WAGES down

We cant afford this If you are so concerned come back and live here on crap pay and no prospects. Its Ok for you lot to blab on buts its us lot that has to pay for it!!!!!

 

A vaild and insightful point. After days of soul-searching, I have decided to follow your advice. I shall stay in Edinburgh, whilst at the same time move back to shetland, get a job with crap pay and no prospects, get knocked up 3 times and live in a council house.

 

Then and only then will my "blabing" be valid, despite being born in shetland and living there for almost my entire life.

 

You're so wise.

[DavieG]

 

It is true that Davie has spent a lot of his own time responding to questions on this forum which I believe is over and above what is required by his job. I also believe that he does a good job helping part of the Shetland Music industry develop although he surely cannot be regarded as the only spokesperson for that industry. The "anti venue" people are also part of the industry.

 

As for the venue I do wish we could hear more about the positive aspects of the project including cinema and theatrical plans.

 

Thanks for this and much appreciated. And you are right I am but one fairly small cog in a very large wheel. Without existing, and hopefully increasing, excellent local ingredients (including musicians etc) I would not have a job helping complete the dish so to speak.

 

I am more than happy to stay involved as time allows - believe it or not no day is a quiet day here - hence me using a fair bit of my spare time too. The project is a wide, time consuming and demanding one and so I must look to that too.

 

I just feel that we are now going round in circles to some extent and dealing with relatively small, if still important details, which are still three to four years away in reality and will inevitably change to some extent in that time. This will be especially true if they are further 'informed during the lead in time, by whoever has somethng relevant to add, and as local circumstances change, which they inevitably will in that time. You are right I see this as part of my duties in public life

 

And as I have said the ongoing process will again take a more 'formal' public communication direction in the very near future as things once more develop and if it goes through council this week.

 

Keep the debate going though and I will still join in where necessary.[/i]

[DavieG]

 

I object to the above statement. Davie G is certainly the music development officer which is not the same as being "paid to develop music" as a good part of development will come from local musicians and even the commercial music scene so perhaps Davie's role is as a co-ordinator for local music and an instigator for the import of outher music to Shetland and the export of Shetland music to the world. (Well something like that anyway:?: ).

 

As for being paid to answer questions here, on radio, in the paper or anywhere else I accept that part of his role may well involve answering questions at formal meetings or presentations as well as talking to the local media but I am sure that wading through 19 pages on this forum and providing detailed answers is not part of his job description and he has already told us that a lot of his replies came outwith his working hours.

Pretty much spot on. And thanks for all this. I may well ask Bryan to post our music develoment plans for this year (and beyond hopefully) so anyone interested can see what else I / we actually do.

[DavieG]

Can you tell me / us why your group have singled out this particular project to object to, "from a ratepayers point of view", as you have put it, while not at any time mentioning others on the SIC's current capital programme?

 

 

 

I'm not trying to draw direct comparisons here, or set project against project and I'm sure we could debate other / similar projects in this respect, but I'm just interested as to why you have only selected one such project for specific focus in this particular respect?

 

I'll not presume to answer on anyone's behalf here, but this is indeed a good question.

 

For myself, its not simply a subjective issue. My personal feeling - for what its worth - is that comparing luxuries like this to essential spending on transport infrastructure is unreasonable. All that they have in common is that they appear on the same capital programme but it's like saying that penicillin and ice cream are equally important because they appear on the same shopping list.

 

The importance of the quality and quantity of transport links to peripheral areas is well established nationally - I'd refer you to the Scottish Executive's Rural Poverty and Inclusion Working Group report "Poverty and Social Inclusion in Rural scotland" (2001) which identifies several issues hindering rural development. The principle issue is Access, in the sense of transport and transport infrastructure. Shetland's own structure plan and Local transport strategy recognises transport provision as one of the most crucial factors affecting development within and throughout the isles.

 

It's not a kneejerk reaction to say that Access issues (roads, ferries, fixed links, subsidised transport, etc) and development projects should be sorted out before embarking on projects like the CMV for which there is no national or local priority framework or even an adequately researched business case or consultation/engagement robust enough to bear examination.

 

Furthermore, its still unacceptable to say that its not preventing anything else on the capital programme from going forward. You know perfectly well that capital projects can only be addressed consecutively because of budgetary restraints and building capacity within the islands. Also, its perhaps, more important to look at whats being kept off the capital programme because of the CMV's inclusion. North Isles fixed links for example.

 

The case for this is weak - and that's not merely a personal observation, there is no basis in policy for building the CMV while projects which have the backing of national strategic imperatives languish on the back burner.

 

Not disagreeing at all and I obviously have no idea, more than anyone else in the public what, if anything, is being kept of the capital programme by this or any other project currently on there.

 

Just interested to know - are plans for fixed links to the N Isles as far developed as being ready to go on there yet?

 

All I would add is that to have a successful community (especially a smalll and fragile one) there needs to be a suitable and appropriate range and balance of provisions and services.

 

Although individual projects such as this may not have priority focus in a national sense, social provsion, inclusion and economic diversity do and it could equally be argued that this would have impact in that area. Nothing is simply black and white

 

All we (the music and cultural sector in Shetland - which is closely allied to tourism of course) can do is represent and make our case in the bigger scheme of things and then let our elected representatives, or whoever, make those decisions on our behalf.

 

As has been said before money comes from different quarters for different purposes and cant always be crossed over.

 

Had this initiative been purely my, SAT's or the Council's 'pet project' as some seem to think, I suspect it would not have got as far as it has.

[DavieG]

[

quote="madcow]There are NO theatrical plans. Apparently the Garrison will still hold the live drama and the new venue will do music and films.

 

So there will be two buildings to operate, programme, staff and maintain.

 

By the way, the report and minutes of the Services Committee on 16 March is on the council's website now but it doesn't have the full business plan attached.

 

http://www.shetland.gov.uk/coins/commhtml/sub/4640.htm

 

Not totally accurate I'm afraid. The proposed new facility can, and almost certainly will, suitably cater for all kinds of creative performance and related development initiatives (drama, comtemporary dance whatever), including ones that cant happen at present due to either financial or production restrictions

 

The Garrison will still have a vital role to play (remember any venue can only offer so much at one time and there will always be a range of demands and audiences at one time)

 

As a public building it may well be managed and staffed from the same source as the proposed new facility so not really adding to the cost as you allude.

 

Also the Garrison is tied up for extensive periods each year i.e. drama festival and pantomime (both during these extended events and in the lead up to them) when, if we relied on that facility totally, nothing else could be promoted.

 

It may sound like overprovision to some but not really the case. It will again be a case of complementary programming.

[Guest Anonymous]

weel da y i see it .... go fur it blow da funds on a big new venue, its aboot time we really started to enjoy da money in da cooncils reserves!! christ der might be a global killin meteor impact da morn!! whit good will it dae aa da tight ersed pub owners n wholesalers n da rest a wis dan??da generation afore wis had nae multi million fund sittin gaderin stoor n if you ask dem dee hed some right good funs. wir generation haes it n half da folk ir goig aroond we faces lik ruptured turds worryin aboot it. lets blow it all in an orgy of hedonistic madness so da next generation can once again truely enjoy da simpler pleasures in life .?nivir mind biggin wan lets raise da bismark n moor it in da harbour as a 24hr rave palace we n s&m dungeon in da focsle.

[shetlander]

I have to agree with NewMagnie on the difference in terms of the importance of transport links and other essential infrastructure (which is also important in keeping young folk in particularly the more remote parts of the isles) to this venue. My main concern with this though isn’t so much the capital costs – leaving aside the issue about the different budgets the fact is that we’re actually creating something new here which will have higher year-on-year additional revenue demands than is the case with other capital projects on the Council's books which will generally replace pre-existing facilities or infrastructure.

 

For example, I assume that in the long run the Bressay Bridge will cost less to run than the ferry and that projects like the new Anderson High School (presuming savings made on maintenance, heating, repairs and so on would be balanced by a more modern and better equipped building) will – or certainly should be made to - cost much the same to run as the existing facility.

 

In any case, the public recognise that bairns need to be educated in buildings fit for the purpose and folk need to get to and from Bressay and that is probably why there has been relatively less public opposition to those spends compared to this venue.