My constituents affected by the grant of these permissions told me that they have felt intimidated by the Trump Organisation before this. The grant of these permissions ratches up the pressure on the families.

And now that permission has been granted and Masterplanning will now proceed on the new basis, then the next predictable cry is that these families are holding up the development of a resort of national importance.

They are not.

The resort can be planning round Hermit Point and Leyton Cottage quite easily. And the only difficulty with Mill of Menie and Menie Fishing Station happens when or if the second course is built. And that will be years away.

Given that Coastguard Cottages are not included in the resort even yet, I can only conclude that the whole things is about forcing people out of their homes.

I’m already disgusted enough that a democratic vote was overturned in the niave assumption that this foreigner would improve Scottish wealth but the prospect of people losing their homes so the American can have a better view of his purchase makes me seeth.

I expect the authorities,under the employ of the residents of Scotland, to uphold the same moral and legal standards that would be applied to any individual.

Incidently, shouldn’t Trump be paying for the suitable upgrading of the A90 and the route to Aberdeen Airport to handle all the traffic one would expect from such a massive boost to Scottish tourism? An additional 1500 houses in Trumptown alone should warrant an upgrade to dual carriageway and slip-road junctions.

Martin Glegg

Graeme Kendall

I should say as well that the reason for confidentiality is said to be the anonymity of the complainant to be respected as if public it would be difficult for people to ever make complaints against Councillors.

What concerns me is that even to release the papers to other Councillors is taken as a breach. Or to allow them to go the Ombudsman is a problem. It throws up questions that highlight the problem of the original process.

This Thursday’s full Council meeting may illuminate things further.

I cannot comment on allegations of internal machinations and political rivalries within Aberdeenshire Council, but agree the desire to hold the proceedings in camera suggests either skulduggerous deeds or a general contempt for the public. On the latter point, I would refer to Westminister’s intransience when asked for expenses details of 50 random MPs which was borne less out of a desire to hide dirty secrets (I don’t think anyone knew what was about to hit) than a lofty belief that they should not have to answer to the hoi polloi.

I am prepared to believe things which they wouldn’t believe in Salt Lake City *if* *shown* *the* *evidence*. As far as I can see, Cllr. Tait does not dispute that he made the comments; only the interpretation. I would have thought that if they were serious enough to be with-held for the reputation of the Council, then either they suggest illegality or were sufficient to merit a dismissal rather than temporary suspension. Furthermore, I gather than the complaint was not made until seven months after the fact.

On my blog I equated this decision with Mr. Justice Eady’s ruling that Dc Richard Horton (a.k.a. Night Jack) had no right to privacy in respect of his blogging activities. Through gritted teeth, I now have to agree with this – and only this – decision of Eady. Although I have no formal training in local government legislation, specifically, and legal process generally, I am at a bit of a loss why the release minutes don’t fall under the same principle of their being based on public acts.

No Councillor on Aberdeenshire other than the
Political Group leaders and a substitute for the Independent Group Leader, have seen any papers. Ian Tait is trying to get the papers released to all Councillors as this, he assures us will explain a lot.

The way our Council does its business is being brought into question again and the Council’s reputation is at stake.

I have personal experience of the poor regard for proper process from some of my Council colleagues. Without judging the case of Ian Tait (I don’t have the information to do so anyway), it is important that a fair
and open process is taken on conduct issues.

The Standards Commission could have been used, but was not. The Conduct Committee is made of Group leaders and his political opponents and his
right of appeal is to a Council controlled by the groups of those same political opponents who also judge his appeal. Not right.

I am sure we could do better.

Regards

=paul=
Cllr Paul Johnston