Urabug Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 In a small community like Shetland it will be impossible to get anyone on any panel who can or will have no personal connection either directly or indirectly through friends or family. Probably a more transparent election system would be better, but the outcome will just be the same. Impossible to keep everyone happy, lets wish the new recruits luck and may they apply their better judgement for the benefit of us "ALL" in Shetland and not to a select few.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windwalker Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 In a small community like Shetland it will be impossible to get anyone on any panel who can or will have no personal connection either directly or indirectly through friends or family. Probably a more transparent election system would be better, but the outcome will just be the same. Impossible to keep everyone happy, lets wish the new recruits luck and may they apply their better judgement for the benefit of us "ALL" in Shetland and not to a select few..Your likely right Urabug, but the outcome would be different, they would be selected by the people and could be unselected at the next election. I'm concerned why so many have resigned in such a short period. Having served on committees where I have seen one small group sicken those who don't agree with their views, resulting in most level headed people giving it up, just to see the group recruiting more of their buddies and taking over, I'm not sure the current selection process with the SCT is the most suitable, considering its dealing with huge amounts of "Shetlands" money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Unelected = Undemocratic Read it any way you want to but, to me, it means that the "people" of Shetland have absolutely no control of OUR "nest egg".. Windwalker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urabug Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 Yes Colin that is right, but I cannot remember ever being asked my point of view on anything that the Charitable Trust has ever done,Has anyone else! By the time most things come up for public consultation a decision has already been made by the powers that be and it's all just a joke. This is money and few will ever agree how it will or should be spent. Ghostrider 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 28, 2015 Report Share Posted March 28, 2015 The only good thing to come out of the changes enforced by OSCR is that the SIC no longer have a free hand to dip into the pot as they see fit. Everything else about it is a shambles... What is needed now is some kind of concerted campign to force the SCT into fully democratic "public" ownership and fully democratic decision making... Apponting Trustees from within just does not "cut it" with me and, despite trying to present the opposite view, there is a great danger that control of OUR cash has fallen to a minority of people who are just not representative of general public opinion (and that goes for some of our councillors as well). Can't see that happening before the money runs out... Windwalker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) Yes Colin that is right, but I cannot remember ever being asked my point of view on anything that the Charitable Trust has ever done,Has anyone else! By the time most things come up for public consultation a decision has already been made by the powers that be and it's all just a joke. This is money and few will ever agree how it will or should be spent. All very true, which IMHO is more than adequate good reason for the public to take control and ensure they are asked, and that they have at least some little influence on whatever decisions are taken. It is allegedly "our" money they're monkeying with after all, and we never gave the SIC a mandate to what they've done with it. We've just let them do it, this far at least, and they'll continue as is until we do something to stop them. Getting folk to agree on what the SCT or any other public body does will never happen, but at least elected trustees would give folk the illusion at least, that they have some control over who makes the decisions they don't like, and an element of influence and input with those people. Something the SCT has never ever had from Day 1, and has less still under the current regime than the former one. Edited March 29, 2015 by Ghostrider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 The big problem at the moment is that we only have 8 effective SCT Trustees because "legal advice" has determined a "conflict of interest" against the 7 Trustee/Councillors that prevents them voting on certain issues.. OK, it stops Councillor/Trustees from "dipping" to fund their pet projects but, the downside is that far to much "power" has been handed to far to few people and, no doubt, "horse trading" has become the order of the day.. How can that be an effective way to administer OUR money? The other big issue is just "who" are the appointees and, what support do they enjoy in the wider community? Are they "ordinary" people or are they "professionals"? My preference is for well balanced "ordinary people" chosen by public vote. Trouble is that I just can't see the current bunch of "turkeys voting for Christmas". I'm all for "people power" but, "power people" bother me quite a bit. Not least because they become arrogant and quickly lose site of the "reason" they were appointed in the first place. concerned shetlander 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 Are they "ordinary" people or are they "professionals"? Lord Lieutenant, Hotelier, Ex-SIC Department Head, NAFC Adviser, Chartered Engineer/Ex-Councillor, Journalist, Ex-SIC Department Head/Ex-Councillor & Retired GP. I'd struggle to put any of them in the former category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 Guessed you would... Ghostrider 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly-on-the-Wall Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 Looks to me like all the SCT Trustees have their own agenda for being on the Board.Like it or not they probably get their views across to the other members when they can't partake in a meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted March 29, 2015 Report Share Posted March 29, 2015 ....when they can't partake in a meeting. That seems to be a bit of an issue too, and I'm not talking about when they're excluded on the "conflict of interest" grounds either. Maybe its just me, but there seems to be a worryingly high incidence of "apologies for absence" in some meeting minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urabug Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 There is a lot of moaning and groaning going on at the moment about all the cut backs from the charitable trust,but surely this is common sense to reduce spending,so as to leave enough money in the fund to re-invest with the hope of building up and keeping enough in the fund for generations to come. I'm sure we have all gained from the trusts generosity in one way or another,but for this generosity to continue the way it was,is crazy and simply could not be allowed to continue . Thankfully those running the trust are now makeing very difficult decisions which will upset many off us but will ensure (if investments grow) that there is still something left. We cannot have our cake and eat it! We will all have to learn to live on less, and probably more work less play. Davie P 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffererof1crankymofo Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 That depends, Urabug, on whether or not you deem VE to be re-investing in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Yeah, you can't have windmills and the pensioners xmas bonus... just doesn't add up.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urabug Posted June 21, 2015 Report Share Posted June 21, 2015 The Burradale windfarm appears to me to be alright,so why would the VE ,not also be a success. The wind is free and unlike oil,gas,fish ect is unlikly to run out so it makes sense to me that this energy source should be captured and converted into something that we can use to power & heat our homes / offices thus, preserving oil and gas for the generations that come after us. Fortunes have been made and lost from all the free assets that have been put on this earth,many to there detriment by the greed and selfishment of us all, but we will be hard pushed to destroy the wind. So lets use it and safe as much of the worlds resourses as we can. The alternative is of course to turn the clock back and we all live without electricity! I am aware there are other equally as good sources of energy - tidal,wave ,nuclear, solar ect . There is absolutely no reason why the VE project could not benifit us all . George. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now