• Welcome for crop trials July 26, 2010
    Aberdeenshire Councillor for Udny, Paul Johnston has welcomed the news of crop trials for maize destined for energy use through AD (anaerobic digester) by local Farmer Alistair Sinclair. “I would be interested to know if, provided we maintain biodiversity, we are able to add to local sustainable crops that can feed an AD electricity generator . […]
------News-------

Support for the WPR should never mean a blank cheque

An Aberdeenshire Councillor said that it was common sense that there should not be a blank cheque for building the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (WPR). Cllr Paul Johnston, a Democratic Independent Councillor posed challenging questions to officials at the Policy and Resources Committee of Aberdeenshire Council today (Thursday 4th March) where the costs and impact on other budgets were examined.

Cllr Johnston said: ” I was surprised that the report clearly indicated that even the previous, now outdated estimates for spending on the WPR were not affordable. Officials were reluctant to admit that the report suggested expenditure was both unaffordable already AND was only going to get worse. If known increasing costs were anything to go by, the extra costs to Aberdeenshire Council were very considerable. All this extra spending by Aberdeenshire would have to be paid for by cuts in Schools and other vital services.”

Cllr Johnston expressed concern at the comments made by Councillors defending the need to spend on the WPR. “The suggestion that this was vital and worth it at any price, was indicating that the more than trebling of previous csts and still possible more than doubling again, will be acceptable even though vital services in Aberdeenshire will be reduced. That was admitted by officials”

” I made it clear that I supported a Western Peripheral Route as part of a proper transport strategy. But nothing should be at ANY price. The axing of Crossrail (new commuter rail services) and reductions in other transport elements other than just roads mean that we are in serious danger of building a Western Peripheral Car Park. A white elephant.” Said Cllr Johnston.

The issue he explained was not that the north east needed a road, but that the North east needed a solution to both traffic congestion and environmental damage in the city. The issue he explained was nthat any scheme had to work and the WPR was now, he claimed, in severe danger of not delivering for the money.

“At some point, the pain of cuts in services will not be worth it for just an ineffective road. It will be ineffective as it will mean that thousand of houses will be planned and built because of a WPR in places which will only add congestion and the problems will actually get no better – just bigger.

“The Council are in effect giving a blank cheque for this scheme – no known limit to the increased costs, little conception of if it will work, and no thought to the cuts in services needed to fund it.”

I disagreed that Aberdeenshire Council should welcome a scheme which brings with it service cuts and may well be a white elephant still leaving Aberdeen City and Shire with the congestion and crippling debt”

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Paul's Blog

  • Common fish business
    July 20, 2010 | 11:35 am

    There has always been a debate about what is ‘common’ in a fisheries policy.  I remember being quoted the legalese english of the common fisheries policy and Common Market treaties and it always bore out this idea that Scotland and Britain more widely had to ‘give away’ fisheries – as it was now a common policy.

    This persists today.  Reform of the CFP is predicated by anti EU arguments that reform cannot alter the common element – its always going to ‘given to the Europeans’ when it was ours before and that was not going to change.

    The idea of common fisheries policy is so sullied from all of this semantic argument that it is hard to see how it can ever be explained in terms of fisheries management.  perhaps its not worth trying and one should use a new language, new words and concepts explained without reference to the ‘Common market’

    It was with all this in mind I read the news and have been following progress on the unilateral quota ‘allocation’ by Iceland and Faeroe Islands.  Now Iceland is already one third through its self awarded stock quota.  http://xrl.in/5vya

    Iceland.  That country held up as a model of fisheries management by nationalists – British or Scottish was indulging in a bit of uncommon behaviour.  But surely they have a right as its in their waters say some? Well, its the same population that at different times are in different waters and have for generations been fished by others.  They take more because -or we do and someone takes less?  There is the core of the problem – as stocks are not capable of being managed solely by national governments without recourse to COMMON FISHERIES agreements or (wait for it…) POLICIES.

    Pelagic species such as Mackerel are, I believe, the stocks that are most easily managed.  The lessons of the past in herring management weigh heavy on the collective memory of fisherfolk.  There has long been a desire by all North Sea nations for agreement and that might have come regardless of a CFP.  But the current Iceland issue illustrates how, even after all these years that consensus can break down.

    What the CFP has been about is management within protocols and systems, that prevent free-for all fisheries however, imperfectly.

    What we should question now, is the circumstances and nationalistic claptrap that overlay fisheries that has allowed the Iceland and Faeroe quota grab and may allow our politicians ‘standing up’ for our fishermen.  We still have to find a way even under a CFP of allowing the management of fisheries in a sustainable way – and this grab is not it.

  • RSSArchive for Paul's Blog »