Spinner72 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I have said all along that despite what they claim, the elected members haven't made any "hard" or "tough" decisions, and frankly I hope this lot do see sense and defer this decision until at least a few of the reviews they have before them on thursday are finished! The fact is that easy to see services like roads and housing have been cut year after year, to the extent that they must be pretty close to the bone now in providing statutory services, and even if they were cut altogether would only slightly dent the proposed 33m. One thing I am surprised hasn't been brought up more is where the magic figure of £250m that needs to be sustained came from, and why, given the current Total development and inevitable substantial renewable energy projects, there cant be a drive to bring more cash in to balance the books and slow the cuts to a more sustainable level. Why not make it a ten year project, build new schools fit for purpose when the smaller ones close. Let natural wastage deal with staffing levels and so on. School closures will be much more accepted when they don't just pop up out of the blue every couple of years but are part of a sensible, long term, plan. If after that time the "pot" has dwindled to, say, £100m, then so what? It will be free to grow again with no pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 i think thats an excellent idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delts Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Aren't the Charitable Trusts' funds meant to be used only for a rainy day?....Well I'd say it's raining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 The reserves or pot as you call them are a vital part of raising revenue, and a back up for any unforeseen event. The Council will rely on the income of the reserves, which have been hit by recent events as with the Iceland banks. The result of this means there are limits to how long investments can be made. At the most, 6 months though the recommended is three. The Council will have to have accounts on call. These will pay even less interest. The reserves are also used as a stop gap and also as a fund for Depts of the Council can borrow from without paying interest. Although the report is comprehensive it may not feel right. It will need to be agreed first. This is where the Councillors should earn their money. I know folk are commenting on moneys already spent, but they are spent. The SGov and the ConDemNation have put this in place. These sorts of actions are happening all over the country, more so when there are a large number of pubic employees. I have said many times before, you have elections in May, if you think this needs addressing, get on with it. No doubt, the normal excuses will come why folk cannot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordcapri Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 da toon is whar its at! homeland o da real vikings!,bressa tunnel, new AHS, market cross...and da mighty mareel! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlander Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 Why not make it a ten year project, build new schools fit for purpose when the smaller ones close. Let natural wastage deal with staffing levels and so on. School closures will be much more accepted when they don't just pop up out of the blue every couple of years but are part of a sensible, long term, plan. From a purely economic impact point of view, I agree that a ten year plan would be logical. I just think now is too late and any such plan should have started ten years or more ago when the councillors at that time were first warned by officials about the need to make savings. Instead, largely as a result of public opposition, councillors have faffed, deferred and ultimately failed to support any significant cuts that may have spared them (in part at least) from the financial mire that they now find themselves in. In any case, and from more of a public acceptance perspective, I can't imagine that anyone opposed to the closure of a particular school or the loss of a particular service would find that any more palatable some years down the track as opposed to now (an exception might be if a new AHS is built before Sandwick and Aith are closed, should that happen). I don't want to see anyone or any community lose something that is important to them but in the current economic climate, the financial implications of providing things (much of which are niceties that folk elsewhere have never had the benefit of) has to start taking precedence over the real or perceived social, economic or educational benefits they bring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 if the funds are not ment to be spent on propping up the council why are they going to fund the new AHS from trust funds. its clear that either the managers or the council are unfit for there jobs. why for example would they not have applied for funding to help build the school. if they had got their fingers out a large amount of the costs could have met from scotish funds. now its to late. they can't argue that they don't know how to apply for grants as they have managed to get them for the museum and the mareel. could it be that they were to proud to want to borrow money from central funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humptygrumpty Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 da toon is whar its at! homeland o da real vikings!,bressa tunnel, new AHS, market cross...and da mighty mareel! Best View o all o that is in the rear view mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humptygrumpty Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 A few millions could be saved by doing away wi the Island allowance , we all live on a fecking Island so why is the sic employees the only ones to get it ? Basicly sic employees get their council tax free. There could be much savings gained by abolishing the ridiculous situation in social care where if someone is off sick they get full pay , a relief is then called on do do a shift , agree's to do it and then also calls in sick , they get full pay also , so by the time the shift is covered you could have 3 or 4 wages being paid out in full.....ridiculous situation. most people get nothing for the first 3 days then just get SSP , why does the sic have to be any diffrent ? Is there no one with even a modicum of wit that cant see things like that and do something about it instead of the cuts they are trying to make ? Also , much savings could be made in cutting down on the number of sic employees who have yellow / white vans home every night , most without having a valid reason for doing so , they have free transport to and from work , no fuel costs , insurance etc , unlike the rest of us. I know it wont make the savings they say they require , but as Asda would say , every little helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piddly Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 There could be much savings gained by abolishing the ridiculous situation in social care where if someone is off sick they get full pay , a relief is then called on do do a shift , agree's to do it and then also calls in sick , they get full pay also , so by the time the shift is covered you could have 3 or 4 wages being paid out in full.....ridiculous situation. most people get nothing for the first 3 days then just get SSP , why does the sic have to be any diffrent ? Is there no one with even a modicum of wit that cant see things like that and do something about it instead of the cuts they are trying to make ? quote] I work in social care, I think you're taking the 'sick' thing to the extreme, in 10 years in my service i've only ever seen 1 shift being covered due to sickness then the relief person calling in sick also, not syaing it doesn't happen elsewhere. I couldn't agree more with shifting to statutory sick pay though, it would certainly cut down on the people who abuse the position they're in, and there are many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooney1 Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 A few millions could be saved by doing away wi the Island allowance , we all live on a fecking Island so why is the sic employees the only ones to get it ? Basicly sic employees get their council tax free.Agreed, it also makes it difficult for the private sector to compete when trying to get staff. New AHS - would appear they're pulling out all the stops here - bigger schools are built for much much less. SIC - triple time for staff on public holidays including UHA wednesday? Crazy. Also this culture of spend before April still goes on replacing perfectly good equipment with new so next years budget isn't lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo6 Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 paulbI'm sorry, I was not discriminating against Sandness and Skeld, I tend to think of them as part of the threatened North when of course they are way out west but still in the danger zone. Quarff has already been closed, maybe you're being a bit paranoid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nortaboot2 Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 A few millions could be saved by doing away wi the Island allowance , we all live on a fecking Island so why is the sic employees the only ones to get it ? Basicly sic employees get their council tax free.Agreed, it also makes it difficult for the private sector to compete when trying to get staff. As far as I am aware distant islands allowance is funded from central government, so if the council didn't pay it, they wouldn't get the funding from the government, therefore there would be no actually saving to the sic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humptygrumpty Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 New AHS - would appear they're pulling out all the stops here - bigger schools are built for much much less.quote] AND designed better , simpler and FAR more cost effectively. Why in gods name does this council insist on the most outlandish , difficult to construct monsters like that General purpose shed in browns road after a twister hit it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 the joke is they can look at mid yell high school. they built a modern building quickly in a very difficult area. yet this system is not good enough for lerwick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.