Jump to content

More council buget cuts next year....


gafynandrew
 Share

Recommended Posts

JAS is quite correct.

 

On another note, The Mareel is not just an entertainment venue but a learning resource. If you read the minutes of the meetings you will see this.

 

Spinner was saying that 4 times more cash was allocated for a waste of time he believes, as you do.

 

The skate/bmx/blade parks here are increasing in popularity, as well as the agile activities I see posted on Youtube with folk on foot completing acts that once could only be seen at a circus with their agility and skill it is truly a spectacle.

 

However, these things need proper planning and risk assessments so as to make them safe, and also a management committee.

 

You may be able to get folk to muck in but it would be a building site and there are rules and regulations.

 

Why are folk hell bent on depriving the youth an avenue to explore. You cannot hold children back from exploring possibilities or you could be accused of retarding their development both academically and socially.

 

I believe that children will still be educated or at least have the education there to take.

There are also many reports of the idle youth, personally, I think it is the idle adults who are to blame.

The money has been raised by the community. A good job.

 

Applaud folk for forward community based thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

we have loads of sporting venues. with their 50k they should be able to make a decent track. they claim to have loads of members so lend them the diggers etc and let them build it. it would do the youth good creating something and it would prove that you don't need to spend loads for a good venue. expecting cash to solve there problem has delayed there idea. with a few thousand they could have bought a few acres of land outside lerwick and have had it built by now.

 

 

You're not an authority on construction are you. Or the value of land either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have known my hopes for common sense following the approval, at last, of the skatepark funding. Yet again the council shows it's inability to show any sort of sensible consistency by refusing the annual subsidy to the Dale golf club.

 

Now, before anyone starts about "they should pay their own way", how is this any different to the money approved only a short time ago to the Whalsay Golf club or, for that matter, any other recreational facility.

 

Yet again, it is effective penny pinching, given the vast amounts wasted elsewhere, and is glaringly inconsistent, just as the school closure decisions etc proved to be.

 

Each case should be approved or rejected according to set rules, or a set percentage across the board, not a the virtual lottery it is now where it is all down to who happens to be at what meeting at what time and what mood they happen to be in.

 

 

To clarify - I think there should be strict criteria as to whether a recreational facility is entitled to assistance.

 

Any decision on funding cuts should be to decide a percentage of reduction in funding to apply equally across all of those who qualify, irrespective of what they are or where they are.

 

 

Likewise the schools closure issue could be much fairer and effective if the details of individual schools were kept confidential from those making the decision.

 

This would make it a simple decision to close x number of schools to save y amount of money, with the details of which schools are to be affected only made known to councilors and the public after the decision.

 

Likewise when the inevitable time comes for job cuts. Let the decision be totally impersonal to ensure fairness..

 

Well, one can dream I guess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it does seem odd that the council are funding one but don't want to fund the other. Silly question how many council members play at the golf courses. Again why is the council funding these golf courses. if they are private then they are private. now if they were council owned that would be different. if a company needs a 30% support to survive they then need to review how they operate.

 

johan it does not need me to be a expert to know that it would not cost 50 thousand for a few acres. only if your planning to build in the centre of lerwick would you need to spend loads on land. after all the council owns a massive area of land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

johan it does not need me to be a expert to know that it would not cost 50 thousand for a few acres. only if your planning to build in the centre of lerwick would you need to spend loads on land. after all the council owns a massive area of land.

 

we have loads of sporting venues. with their 50k they should be able to make a decent track.

 

You said they could make a track with £50k didn't seem to me that you were talking exclusively about land purchase, even if the land was free they still couldn't build a skate park for £50k. I know I've built two of them and as a contractor in our tenders to a local authority we don't have to factor in land purchase, design fees, planning costs etc so purely for building cost I can tell you now on an untouched site you can't build it for £50k alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh i agree if you were hiring workers to build it your right. however we have loads of folks who know how to use digging equipment and others that know how to lay concrete/tarmac. with the help of the council building experts donating there skills why could it not be done. I know it would be a lot harder doing it via volunteers but it would be more rewarding. plus cheaper. anyway I have had my say whichever way they go good luck to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just get rid of the councillors that will save £500.000.

And if there is enough room for all the Scalloway kids in the old AHS then, why build a new one. :?:

So cancel that as well and save a few million there.

After all it's all about saving money so pointless things like the Mareel was a waste of a few bob as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually wonder if these cuts will be a good thing for Shetland.

 

What I mean is, after living off the SIC for the past 15-20 years we've become a brain-dead vegetable of a community so what this shake-up might do is make us start thinking again and create more entrepreneurship.

 

It might also make us wake up and start thinking about, and valueing, our traditional industies like fishing which, admittedly, is living with an ever tightening EC noose around it's neck.

 

The idea of Home Rule with control of our land and seas might not be such of a joke in the next year or two.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if there is enough room for all the Scalloway kids in the old AHS then, why build a new one. :?:

The answer to that is perfectly simple and obvious. The AHS buildings can accomodate the pupils now, but will need to be replaced soon. The need for a replacement is due to the increasingly flaky fabric of the buildings and infrastructure. Having more pupils does not affect the plumbing in the slightest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extra Paper and water usage will go up. I sure I read earlier that there were quite a few more pupils than now there, but I will stand corrected if wrong.

 

Independence and no councillors. I like to see that work.

 

Anyone done sums???

 

Where would the central funding be covered?

 

Private health would be needed, to pay for the helicopter flights.

 

You will not be entitled to subsidised ferries south or flights.

 

So, perhaps Bergen may become the new Aberdeen shopping centre.

 

Let us hope that folk don't become Norwiegenfied, Fareoefied, Danefied or German/Dutchified. Or would that be OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well yes it does really 200 more kids equals a lot of bog visits.

And? Just how exactly does that affect the plumbing? Are you really arguing that the pipework wear is going to increase significantly due to such a trivial flow increase. I would posit the disintegration is due to the fundamental presence in the pipes of our acidic water, something which is unrelated to flow rate. Of course you may be a plumber and can educate me further, but if so I will be most surprised.

 

And concerning the heating pipes, again, increased pupil numbers does not affect the disintegration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well yes it does really 200 more kids equals a lot of bog visits.

And? Just how exactly does that affect the plumbing? Are you really arguing that the pipework wear is going to increase significantly due to such a trivial flow increase. I would posit the disintegration is due to the fundamental presence in the pipes of our acidic water, something which is unrelated to flow rate. Of course you may be a plumber and can educate me further, but if so I will be most surprised.

 

And concerning the heating pipes, again, increased pupil numbers does not affect the disintegration.

 

200 more pupils = more hot air = less heating needed! Simples. :lol:

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...