The boy 'done well'
So what鈥檚 the verdict on Alex Salmond鈥檚 to answer questions re the Donald Trump golf resort plan?
Depends to whom you talk, of course. But the prevailing view here at Holyrood is that the First Minister had a relatively untroubled outing.
Now there鈥檚 more to come. It鈥檚 eminently conceivable that the local government committee might opt to recall Mr Salmond. Their time to question him was cut short because they ran over with earlier witnesses.
Might there even, ultimately, be legal appeals against the Aberdeenshire application: perhaps based, to some extent, on the evidence of the process given to Holyrood?
But, on the day, Mr Salmond did well. He insisted that he had never intervened in the episode as first minister - because he was acting at all times purely as a constituency MSP.
He stressed he had set out that position in the prelude to every conversation and meeting about the Trump application.
His talks with Team Trump - just before the application was called in by the Scottish Government - had been on that basis.
Also giving evidence to the committee, the chief planner Jim Mackinnon offered a robust defence of the Government鈥檚 position.
Mr Mackinnon is plainly not a man with whom one would trifle, even if one were a member of the trifling tendency.
I say again: more, perhaps, another day. But on this day, the first minister seemed more contented with the outcome than his avid (opposition) interrogators.
I'm 
Comments
I saw a little bit of the committee proceedings and was disappointed, though not surprised, at the behaviour of the female Labour member. She seemed more intent on berating Alex Salmond. She also didn't seem to understand that if you ask a question you allow the person to answer. She was clearly not up to the job and very partisan in her approach. All in all, a very poor showing from the opposition parties. Well done Swinney and Salmond.
The real issue has still not been dealt with. We've been told that nothing "irregular" took place. If one was to investigate how many planning applications a year are 'called in' AFTER a decision has been taken by local council, you'd find the number was zero.
It's not irregular, it's just that it's never done like this............
This clearly displays the difference between the wishing and hoping of opposition parties, contrasted as they were with the reality of laws, facts and records on behalf of the First Minister.
Was there any doubt that the First Minister would not be able to defend himself aginat somne very weak arguements , particularly from the liberals. The SNP governemnt acted in the broader national interest. I think the opposition parties should be a bit more choosy in what issues they go on the offensive. How often can the opposition parties afford to be viewed as opportunistic and petty.
Is this a "getting at the truth" or a get Salmond? Labour has no case , and the Liberals are still playing at 'C' list solicitors trying to score brownie points with the Aberdeen nimby's
Not surprised at all that today was a non-event. The problem is that this should be a proper inquiry by some kind of powerful independent body. I mean Brian, be honest, if you had a serious case you wanted tried, something that really mattered to you in your life, would your first phone call be to the backbench Local Government and Communities Committee of the Scottish Parliament??? I think not! So the failiure to pin anything on Salmond today is ultimately the responsibility of.... the Scottish Tories (who helped the SNP defeat the LibDem call for a proper inquiry and so gave it instead to these rather amateur MSPs.
So the "Grand Inquisitors" are so incompetent they can't even run their own witch-trials and keep to a schedule?!! It really does beggar belief. Is this really what they are wasting our hard-earned taxes on? Pointless show trials like this?
We have a First Minister with many enemies and no wonder. The loss of Scotland would deal Westminster a hard blow in global image and plain old cash terms. Has anyone in our modern history ever defended the interests of this country with such determination as Alex Salmond and his team? No. The unionists will do anything to smear him but when you look at how they behave you can't be surprised when they lose elections.
In relation to the first reply- it's not surprising really, unfortunately this is becoming more and more a common occurance from one set of benches particularly, and I have to say, more from the female of the species. "Screetching" is the word that comes to mind first.
To be fair though, "But on this day, the first minister seemed more contented with the outcome than his avid (opposition) interrogators."
With the countries Chief Planning Officer and the Chief Executive of Aberdeenshire Council on side what other result was possible? It's no wonder Alex looked in control as he glided through each question with ease.
Game over let's move on, though if you insist on another drubbing feel free to call him again.
This whole process has little to do with the merits of the Trump application (I don,t support it) but about getting Alec Salmond. What has Salmond actually done wrong? Nothing as far as I can see, other than to attempt to protect a major investment in his constituency.
Salmond, by his actions, has probably secured investment worth one thousand million pounds for NE Scotland. ANY other country would honour him for doing so! But NOT Scotland-all we can do is put him on trial!
It beggars belief but-hey-this is only one of the reasons why we Scots are regarded as numpties the world over!
Go on Brian-I dare you to publish this! Sorry, your masters wont let you??
Have to agree with post 12 I'm proud to be Scottish however on the world stage 'Scotland'????? LOL.
Can you imagine Bertie Ahern in Ireland having to face scrutiny for securing an investment the size of this for his country he'd be seen as a hero,certainly he'd keep his seat for many a year.
As with FMQs every week, it was men against boys and another embarrassing outing for the Lab-Lib 'B' team.
It never ceases to amaze me how lame their opposition is. Absolutely pitiful.
What a waste of time and money. Even if Alex was in the wrong who cares he has the interests of Scotland giving him at least a moral duty. The fair answer to a hung jury on the original planning application was to pass it on to a wider audience for a fair review. This didnt happen and the incompitent Mr Ford got the boot. Quite right.... he abused his power to pursue an agenda of his own. (why does 成人论坛 Scotland still let him have airtime?)
This investigation wont expose any sleaze but with a bit of luck it will get rid of that idiot Nicol Stephen who not content with making an idiot of himself and 'duckin his heid doon' as he should have done he carries on flogging a dead horse.
Lets forget all about this and look forward the country is not improving when ministers are waffling through mute points.
This whole process is a total waste of time.
Also, why has Jack McConnell not been questioned for his contacts with Mr Trump?
Likewise, the NI First Minister flew to NY the day after the bungled council decision and openly invited Mr Trump to buy a piece of land in the province. 'Come to Ulster' he declared to Trump. He was widely praised in in the NI assembly for this pro-active approach to gain vital investment to his country.
Get over it Labour! You lost the election. This is all sour grapes and an attempt to get at Salmond. However, there is not one Labour MSP, including their leader, who has the intellect to take on any of the SNP leadership head on in an argument.
Can you imagine their reaction if he didn't take an interest in it?
Ever stopped to think about what would have happened to the Trump golf development had the Lab/Lib-Dem incompetents been in control of the planning application - shudder to think?
Well done Alex Salmond and keep up the good work of the Scottish Parliament.
I'm afraid Dave P simply does not know the planning system. Firstly, call-ins are rare, because there is a presumption in favour of allowing local Councils to make the decisions. Secondly, when a call-in happens [as was justified in this case], the government normally allows the Council to take a view on the application before calling it in. Any decision by Aberdeenshire was always subject to the Government having the option of call-in anyway; that is the law. Thus, what happened here is entirely normal and proper. As a qualified Planner, I have no doubt as to the professionalism and absolute integrity of Jim McKinnon. If the Cttee are fair-minded, they should now bring proceedings to a halt.
The Chief Planner in his evidence said he did not think there would be an appeal or that Aberdeenshire Council could revisit the application. He went on to justify the call-in as the only means of keeping the application live.
The question then arises: why did the application have to be kept live? Was the Chief Planner instructed by a Minister (or perhaps encouraged by the MSP for Gordon) to find a way to keep the application live?
This need to keep the application live suggests a positive judgement on the merits of the application (a matter for elected politicians not civil servants). But when the Chief Planner was asked how long it would take him to draft a formal rejection of the application, He claimed he could do it in ten minutes and listed four good and valid reasons for the rejection of the application.
Why was he so keen to keep this application live?
I could criticise Salmond for 100 things, but not for trying as best he could to overturn a criminally incompetent council decion on Trump. Why is he on trial for this? Is it to deflect attention from Donorgate? Why is Wendy hiding? Why isn't there a probe going back 20 years or more into previous donations, gifts, freebies and, yes bribes, in relation to past planning and licensing decisions? We all know the "humble socialists" who can barely read and write now living in mansions.
I am utterly opposed to the SNP, but fair-minded. And the plain truth is that Salmond is making mincemeat of the opposition, who have been telling us what to do for so long they don't know how to ask a question without tumbling into his cunning traps.
Sadly Salmond's minions are as bad as Labour's and just as useless. Imagine if these people were really in charge of the country!
When I first heard that the government had called in a planning application after it had been decided by a council I was curious. This was indeed a first; not only unprecedented but possibly also open to legal challenge. The full council had apparently disagreed with its committee which had made the decision but found itself powerless to intervene (another first?) while, curiouser and curiouser, the applicant had not appealed and had let it be known that he was not about to do so. The local MSP (and First Minister) had met the developer and the application was called in as being of national interest.
I could not believe that the government would call in an application that had already been decided and subsequently came to the view that the application could not have been decided or, rather, in legal terms, determined. Oh, yes it had; we have the committee minutes showing it was refused. Oh, no, it had not; show me the notice of refusal. The opera as we all know is not over until the fat lady sings and so with planning applications; they are not legally determined until a signed and dated official notice of consent or refusal has been issued.
Thus it was that the applicant could not appeal against refusal of his application; he had received no notification of refusal. (He might have chosen to appeal against the council鈥檚 failure to determine his application within the specified time, but that is a story for another day, while the government鈥檚 action in calling in the application has now closed off that option).
Thus it was that the government had a window of opportunity to call in the application 鈥 after it had been decided by a committee acting under delegated powers from the full council but before a notice was typed up, signed, dated and issued.
Why did it do so? Because it believes the application raises issues of importance that require consideration at a national level. Why did it not do so earlier? I have never come across an application being called in so late in its processing but offer the following speculation.
Some months before the last elections to the Scottish Parliament, a council received a planning application for a large development. The Executive, now Government, is content to leave it with the council as it was clearly going to involve a lot of work and it might be better to let things take their normal course for a while. Fast forward to last month and imagine the local MSP (and First Minister) having a conversation with the council leader who advises that the council鈥檚 head of development management and building control has written a report recommending that the council approve the development, indicating perhaps how in his opinion the economic benefits of the proposal outweigh the environmental costs. Simultaneously, perhaps, a senior officer in the council similarly briefs a senior planner in the Scottish government. The local area committee concurs with the professional officer鈥檚 report and things are going smoothly until, out of the blue, the infrastructure services committee decides to refuse it.
Even now, all should not be lost, if we remember that the council has still not legally determined the application and the full council, given sufficient members wishing to reverse the committee鈥檚 decision, might have suspended their standing orders and put the application back on track, so to speak. (Given that they would not be overturning an approval they would have little to worry about in terms of possible litigation by the applicant). Why the council could not do that in this instance I do not know, but after that, perhaps having been advised by the council leader that the roof had fallen in, or having been told of the situation by a ministerial colleague or his senior planner, would it really be so surprising if the local MSP (and First Minister) then pulls out all the stops to get his local council out of the hole they had dug for themselves? (Well, not all Parliamentarians would do that, but perhaps this is a hopeful sign of better days ahead).
Or perhaps, after pacifying an aggrieved applicant who felt he had been misled by the false dawns of the professional report and the area committee approval, he was advised that the stops had already been pulled out by his appropriate minister and that the fat lady was getting back on her feet, looking decidedly determined to finish the opera this time round.
In response to post 19:
I'm afraid Dave P simply does not know the planning system. Firstly, call-ins are rare, because there is a presumption in favour of allowing local Councils to make the decisions. Secondly, when a call-in happens [as was justified in this case], the government normally allows the Council to take a view on the application before calling it in. Any decision by Aberdeenshire was always subject to the Government having the option of call-in anyway; that is the law. Thus, what happened here is entirely normal and proper. As a qualified Planner, I have no doubt as to the professionalism and absolute integrity of Jim McKinnon. If the Cttee are fair-minded, they should now bring proceedings to a halt.
A relative of mine was a senior planning official for most of his career. According to him, any planning application which contravenes the local plan (like this one did) should be brought to the attention of central government. BEFORE A DECISION IS TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL. Applications of interest to central government are 'called in' (it's great how this term has been absorbed into our lexicon without anyone questioning the rights and wrongs of it.....) BEFORE they go before the local council. If an application is 'called in', yes, the council is allowed to 'take a view' on it (this would be in the form of a letter, not by letting the application run it's course as happened in this case). BUT the application was not called in at the correct time, and the local council followed all due process in dealing with it. It contravened the local plan and, shock horror, it was turned down. But our glorious leaders at Hollyrood like hobnobbing with the rich annd famous, so they've overruled a correct and democratic decision by the local council. The order events took place in is totally irregular.
The whole thing reeks......
I totally agree with post number 23. And what seems to be ignored by all is that the local area committee were voting on whether the application would benefit the area; they concluded that it would. The infrastructure committee were voting on whether it contravened planning regulations that had ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED by the full council, to be applied to all such applications. Their remit was to determine whether it contravened the planning regulations, which it indisputably did. I remain baffled that the vote to reject the application was not unanimous.
Forget about planning don鈥檛 you really think you can safely say this is ALL about politics, individual and party!
However politics should be about polititians dealing with local, regional, and national levels of policy and procedure in support of the electorates best interests, both planning restrictions and growth.
What we are seeing is the worst of politics, questionable, childish, and not what we should stand for from the people who we elect.
No one has mentioned the WPR and the damage this proposal may cause to the local environment. Where are the politicians?
Let's hope we can move forward with a sensible view from politicians, officials, and all of us to be more enlightened in the future and allow common sense to prevail.
Don't you really think we can safely say this is ALL about politics, individual and party, rather than planning concerns?
Politics should be about polititians dealing with local, regional, and national levels of policy and procedure - in support of the electorates best interests, both planning restrictions and growth.
What we are seeing is in my view the worst of politics, questionable, almost childish, all to common, and not what we should stand for from the people who we elect.
No one has mentioned the WPR and the damage this proposal may cause to the local environment. Where are the politicians and the questions?
Let's hope we can apply consistent approach, move forward with a sensible view from politicians, all be more enlightened in the future, and allow common sense to prevail.
GLOBALSCOT or SECRET SOCIETY?
Way back in January 2007, Scottish Enterprise sponsored my application for membership of Globalscot. After repeated enquiries about the status of my application I was finally advised in October 2007 that my application had been rejected. My reaction to that news was disbelief, so I pressed for more information. So far, this is what I have discovered:
1. Three different reasons have been given for the rejection of my application. Disconnect ?
2. No minutes are kept about meetings of Globalscot executives concerning membership strategies or policy matters. Unusual for a publicly funded organization?
3. No membership list is available to the public. Admission criteria are purely subjective and seem to change with the wind or particular circumstance or one executive鈥檚 opinion. Hardly an accountable use of taxpayers money?
4. There is no appeal of the executive decisions. Communications to the office of the First Minister about this matter have been ignored. Stone wall approach?
5. Globalscot paid for the accommodation of attendees to the Globalsscot Americas conference held last December in New York State, USA. No information will be provided by Globalscot about whose accommodation was paid for and by whom. Why was public money used to pay for private individuals accommodation ?
6. There is a brick wall in place preventing the obtaining of information about Globascot. Standard Operating Procedure?
7. Donald Trump was 鈥渋nvited鈥 to become a member, presumably as a 鈥渇riend鈥漮f Scotland. Cherry picking?
So my question is : Is Globalscot a Secret Society used by the prevailing government as it sees fit or truly an organization that embraces Scots who have global expertise and who have proved their allegiance to the homeland.
I am sure that the bureaucrats involved in the tortuous path I have trodden in an effort to discover more information are delighted that I am truly flummoxed and frustrated, not to mention mad as hell.
Sincerely,
Ron Clarke