Gurnmeister opinion.
Given the recentSouth
Nairn decision
from the Inverness based Planning committee one could be
forgiven for wondering for a moment if it makes any difference at all where
central government is situated. Be it Edinburgh , London , Brussels or even Peking , if Inverness is allowed to dictate to Nairn what
goes on then things will more or less stay the same no matter who is in power
and no matter where that seat of power is.
Given the recent
The Gurn
has stated before that with the major debate raging about Scotland ’s governance then surely now is the
time to have a parallel debate about Nairn’s future.
It would be
good to see our two SNP councillors, members of the ruling Glenurquhart Regime,
contribute to this debate themselves and say why an independent Scotland could
be a place where real democracy could be returned to Nairn. In the short term
we are promised a new area committee taking in Badenoch and Strathspey but the
big decisions like large housing development applications will still be decided
in Inverness , won’t they? Will the new committee
have any real power or will it just be another talking shop for doggie jobbie
worries etc? Let us hear our
representatives explain their vision of how Nairn could rule itself again and
just how they envisage a road map to that end destination. What is the point in voting for Independence if communities like Nairn end up still
having their future decided by councilors that were not elected to represent them, in our case mainly those councillors from the city of Inverness .
Step in
then a document published by COSLA this week, the President of that organisation, David O'Neill is
quoted:
“This is an
exciting time for democracy. There is a passionate constitutional debate taking
place about Scotland ’s future and it is widely accepted that
regardless of the outcome of the Referendum in 2014, the status quo will not
prevail.
However,
there has been little consideration of what this should mean for Scotland ’s local services and for local
accountability. In large part this is
because the Referendum focuses on questions of decentralisation to Scotland rather than issues of decentralisation
within Scotland .
Some might
think that odd. Scotland ’s constitutional future is important,
but for people in Scotland the real difference will not be felt in
the internal workings of Holyrood or Westminster . The debate must therefore be about
improving lives in local communities, not simply repositioning governments
nationally.”
Further
into the document it states: “In fact, if the Referendum cannot deliver better
local outcomes
for everyone in Scotland then it is not worth having. Simply
repositioning power nationally will not tackle
the complex multi-layered issues that communities face. The
real task is to put control into the hands of local people, and to make sure
that public services are driven by their priorities.”
Highland
Council is presumably a member of COSLA and one imagines the new SNP led regime
would welcome this document. Some parts of it are obviously at odds with the trend
we have seen in the past 20-30 years though:
“There is often an assumption that
centralisation is the only answer when money is tight. In fact, centralisation
is the enemy of everything we stand for in local government. Any reading of
history tells us it will lead to increased cost, inflexibility and an inability
to respond to local requirements.”
That
paragraph could have been written for the Highland Council (South) planning
committee? Gurnites can find the document here. It is worth a read and there is a lot in there that resonates
with debate you may have already heard locally from the usual suspects on the
Community Councils.
Yes, there
is a debate about Scotland’s future but it is also time to put the debate about
Nairn’s future up there as well as the countdown begins to our individual
appointments with the black boxes next October.
2 comments:
"What is the point in voting for independence"? You said it brother,what a waste of time.
There is more to an Independent Scotland than the possibility of more local democracy
A No vote doesn't even mean we will stay as we are as monies from Westminster will become less
UKOK is what it sounds for No voters (think UKIP when saying it!)
Post a Comment