Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

Charitable Trust, independent of Council

sic charitable trust

  • Please log in to reply
377 replies to this topic

#61 icepick239

icepick239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 748 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 10:02 PM

Its YOUR money guys, and it should be handed by YOUR cooncillars, who YOU can vote out ift they are not up to the job (quite a few of the currant ones may be booted oot next election). YOU should not have YOUR money handled by unelected nonentitys who YOU cannot control.

If it's OUR money, why are YOU so interested in it?
Count the Millions that have been lost through bad judgement, bad business and just plain diddling-around and you want to continue?
But it's not YOUR money eh? :mrgreen:

#62 peeriebryan

peeriebryan

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 5886 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 10:35 PM

Count the Millions that have been lost through bad judgement, bad business and just plain diddling-around and you want to continue?

For the sake of balance, count the many millions more that have been wisely invested in infrastructure and services that afford Shetland one of the best collective qualities of life in the world

Perpetual and generalised SIC bashing makes for tedious reading

#63 jimmy parks

jimmy parks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 10:38 PM

If it's OUR money, why are YOU so interested in it?
Count the Millions that have been lost through bad judgement, bad business and just plain diddling-around and you want to continue?
But it's not YOUR money eh?


What I mean its folk in shetland's money, not us down in Edinburgh. Get it?

#64 jimmy parks

jimmy parks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 10:41 PM

For the sake of balance, count the many millions more that have been wisely invested in infrastructure and services that afford Shetland one of the best collective qualities of life in the world.


Well said boy. I doot if that balance would have been achieved if a bunch of unelected rogue/wannabee businessmen had been in charge.

#65 islandhopper

islandhopper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 10:44 PM

Its YOUR money guys, and it should be handed by YOUR cooncillars, ...

It's money of the Shetlanders, right, but why should it be handled by the coocillars, only ??? There is enough economic and political knowledge outwith da cooncil and among the Shetland public to handle that problem ...

Well, that was at least my impression over the years and looking from outside ... :wink:

#66 hoosn

hoosn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 10:54 PM

For the sake of balance, count the many millions more that have been wisely invested in infrastructure and services that afford Shetland one of the best collective qualities of life in the world.


Well said boy. I doot if that balance would have been achieved if a bunch of unelected rogue/wannabee businessmen had been in charge.

precisely, its business/capitalism the money is bein gambled on , bit like dragons den, theres successes too which some perpetual posters are no so willing to boast about, rather harp on about some poor beggers business goin up the spout

#67 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 07:53 AM

Well said boy. I doot if that balance would have been achieved if a bunch of unelected rogue/wannabee businessmen had been in charge.


Who has suggested that the trustees be unelected?

Other than the current bunch who, in their proposals fior reform, suggest that :-
a) the councillors maintain a voting majority
B) the councillors hand-pick the remaining members of the Charitable Trust

Quite frankly both conditions are, in my opinion, untenable.

Direct elections to the Charitable Trust are the way forward.
Remember you've got until Friday to put your comments on the reform proposals to them.

#68 Infiltrator

Infiltrator

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 09:16 AM

For the sake of balance, count the many millions more that have been wisely invested in infrastructure and services that afford Shetland one of the best collective qualities of life in the world

Perpetual and generalised SIC bashing makes for tedious reading


And these infrastructure and services would include the swimming pools/leisure facilities that are closing over the hols and also reducing services next year to save money.

Bit like spending all your money on a flash car and having none left to insure it or run it.

The Councils long term strategy must have assumed that -

a) decent income from Sullom would continue
B) charitable trust would remain healthy (succesful investment + no write offs)
c) population would remain/poss increase

I personally think the pool closing down over the hols is the tip of the iceberg. The wind farm may slow the economic downturn but it wont create the spin off jobs that Shetland has had from oil since the early 70's.

#69 icepick239

icepick239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 748 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 02:57 PM

Count the Millions that have been lost through bad judgement, bad business and just plain diddling-around and you want to continue?

For the sake of balance, count the many millions more that have been wisely invested in infrastructure and services that afford Shetland one of the best collective qualities of life in the world

Perpetual and generalised SIC bashing makes for tedious reading

A somewhat sweeping statement methinks Bryan.
If I wanted to write a report, it would of course hopefully be a balanced work.
I acknowledge the tremendous achievements made and of all the people responsible, for the year on year successes.

20+ million down the drain is an absolute disgrace and is partly (if not fully) why the Accounts Commission are now determined to root out what went wrong, why and also to hopefully make sure it can never happen again.
This Council heirarchy have ignored the 'Qualification' placed on it by Audit Scotland on yet another years Financial Statements, the fourth year in a row.
Our Council and our Islands are in the headlines, but for all the wrong reasons.
This crap denigrates all the good that is done by many people, day out and day in.

Generalised perpetual SIC bashing?
Boring?
So be it, that's your opinion and seemingly a minority one. :mrgreen:

#70 EM

EM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1751 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 04:19 PM

Perpetual and generalised SIC bashing makes for tedious reading

... So be it, that's your opinion and seemingly a minority one.

Well, minority or not, it is mine too. Most of the SIC related postings merely revoice generic outrage and provide nothing new. Hence tedious.

I am quite a fan of a procedure followed by Martin Bell. I think he might have termed it the "Not Test" or something similar. When hearing politicians pour out their turgid manifesto messages, test each statement by seeing how it sounds with "not" inserted. If the resulting negated statement is so obvious that nobody could conceivably state it, then the original is totally pointless hot air. Nobody would ever argue "Our party is NOT against crime" or "Our party does NOT believe in good education."

So for example, when people say something like "The SIC should stop wasting money," the inverted statement would be "The SIC should not stop wasting money." Now, as nobody is ever likely to say something so stupid, the original statement's inane emptiness is highlighted.

Of course they shouldn't waste money, suggestions for strategy or tactics are interesting, stating the obvious is tedious.

#71 trout

trout

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 6439 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 04:26 PM

^^ Well put EM! Especially the part where you put forward "suggestions for strategy or tactics are interesting".

Indeed. Empty pleepsin being regurgitated and regurgitated ad nauseum has really no interest for many! People using this medium to engender dialogue and debate of ideas etc. does make far better use of the opportunity.

#72 paulb

paulb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4805 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 05:22 PM

so failing to get the accounts approved for 4 years is old and boring.

being inspected by audit Scotland, and the other bunch. is it normal practice.
OSCR being ignored at the risk of losing charity status millions down the pan.
the counsellors not willing to allow the trust funds to be controlled independent of there overall control is worrying.

having the trusts fund the councils excessive spending is concerning. an example being the anderson school. it may make sense for the council to borrow it from the development trust but it was rubber stamped.

all these being run by a bunch that are planning a over spend of 16 million. with the senior managers warning about not being able to pay for the care of our older folks.

so yes there is lots to talk about.

#73 Skunnered

Skunnered

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 536 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 06:53 PM

There's an opportunity for anyone (and everyone) to have their say on the proposed changes to the structure of the Charitable Trust, i.e. number of Trustees, whether they should be independently elected, what proportion should be Councillors, and so on.
The details are on the CT web page, here:
http://www.shetlandc...-public-comment
Go for it! :D
Deadline is Friday 18th December.

#74 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 07:31 PM

People using this medium NOT to engender dialogue and debate of ideas etc. does NOT make far better use of the opportunity.

Hmmm, somewhat empty rhetoric, o fishy one ;)

#75 trout

trout

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 6439 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 07:39 PM

:) ho ho ho. Oh, am I Santa? Oh, no just me. Shame for you, seeing your attempt still gives the denonative meaning of what I was putting across. :P :roll:

#76 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 08:31 PM

No shame at all - I was simply demonstrating EM's assertion that 'the original statement's inane emptiness is highlighted'. :roll:

But enough of this off-topic tomfoolery - what think you of the Charitable Trust's proposals for reform?

As I've already stated I think it's too little. Way too little.

Additionally I'd encourage folk to click on the link below and state their opinion - Dr Black was quoted sometime last week as stating that she'd only had 10 or so responses. Something as important as this needs debate.

#77 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 12 December 2009 - 08:35 PM

Here's the link mentioned above.

http://www.shetlandc...-public-comment

#78 EM

EM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1751 posts

Posted 16 December 2009 - 10:07 AM

scottish ombudsman by jees, well i never , spouting conditions about our charitable trust, soon to become some "scottish charitable trust" methinks

mark my words , hollyrood has set its sights on the trust millions n they are after it too

I will mark your words, and I would suggest others do too.

I think that you are entirely correct in this view. I hope it does not transpire, but it is my expectation that over the coming year there will indeed be moves to wrest control of the funds from here. For now they are sitting quiet allowing the current shambles to get worse.

#79 Skunnered

Skunnered

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 536 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 08:29 PM

^^If they keep digging in their heels and don't separate the CT from the SIC, then they will certainly lose a large chunk of it through tax.
Another thought:
The total "oil fund" is split roughly 50/50 between the Charitable Trust and the SIC's Reserve Fund or Development Trust, or whatever. So if they completely reform the CT so that it is controlled independently by separately elected Trustees, the SIC will still have total control over about £200 million of the oil fund, which they can continue to draw on every year to make up their budget deficit, and squander it all in a few years.
If they are going to make the CT independent, they should put all of the oil fund into the CT, and then take steps to control their budget expenditure properly.
(IMHO!)

#80 swc123

swc123

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 131 posts

Posted 22 December 2009 - 09:58 PM

So how many here provided feedback on the proposals, I for one cerainly did, and I will be interested to hear about the results of the process.

Are SCT meetings open to the general public?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: sic, charitable trust