 |
Scottish Committee Activity Outside Edinburgh: Towards a Mobilized Small Democracy?
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
or the “people at the coalface of rural development” in Alex Fergusson marvellously maladroit phrase?
As table 7 makes clear, approaching two-thirds of the contributions at the informal Rural Development Committee sessions at Fort William, Lochgilphead and Huntly came from representatives of community groups and members of the public. Whilst the proportion of community group witnesses was the same in both formal and informal committee sessions, there were significantly fewer representatives of local businesses and fewer in the ‘others’ category of agency managers and spokespersons of national pressure groups.
Table 7Witnesses at the informal Rural Development Committee sessions in Fort William, Lochgilphead and Huntly, 23.4.2002, 13.5.2002, 7.6.2002 Community Groups Local Businesses Members of Public Others Fort William 2 2 5 3Lochgilphead 5 2 3 0Huntly 4 1 2 4Total 11 5 10 7% 33.3 15.2 30.3 21.2
There was an altogether less scripted ‘feel’ to proceedings, the contributions had a far more personal tone and they were often critical of the various rural development agencies. Several speakers complained about the narrowness of the criteria used in coming to administrative decisions. For example, a local businessman, manufacturing fish farming equipment and recycling fish waste in Fort William, asked the committee to raise with the Scottish Executive the possibility of broadening the funding criteria used by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Another complained about the problems of gaining local planning permission for mussel farming and insisted that shellfish farming should be considered a vital part of the rural economy. A landowner bemoaned the fact that, whilst he was willing to sell land for housing development, planning permission was made contingent on him putting in roads, pavements and streetlights, making the deal uneconomical.
There was lobbying from community groups and individuals seeking to enlist committee support for particular projects or facilities – a local slaughterhouse, hydrotherapy pool or even the inclusion of a particular house in Scottish Water’s sewerage system.
37
There
37
Several of the issues raised were more rightfully the preserve of the local MSP, whilst others the
committee could not be expected to do anything about. Thus, Alan Clayton, a member of the Strachur Community Council, stated that “what devastates the economy of Argyll more than anything else and
19
|
| |
| |
|
|
or the “people at the coalface of rural development” in Alex Fergusson marvellously
maladroit phrase?
As table 7 makes clear, approaching two-thirds of the contributions at the informal Rural
Development Committee sessions at Fort William, Lochgilphead and Huntly came from
representatives of community groups and members of the public. Whilst the proportion of
community group witnesses was the same in both formal and informal committee
sessions, there were significantly fewer representatives of local businesses and fewer in
the ‘others’ category of agency managers and spokespersons of national pressure groups.
Table 7
Witnesses at the informal Rural Development Committee sessions in Fort William,
Lochgilphead and Huntly, 23.4.2002, 13.5.2002, 7.6.2002
Community Groups Local Businesses Members of Public Others
Fort William 2 2 5 3
Lochgilphead 5 2 3 0
Huntly 4 1 2 4
Total 11 5 10 7
% 33.3 15.2 30.3 21.2
There was an altogether less scripted ‘feel’ to proceedings, the contributions had a far
more personal tone and they were often critical of the various rural development
agencies. Several speakers complained about the narrowness of the criteria used in
coming to administrative decisions. For example, a local businessman, manufacturing
fish farming equipment and recycling fish waste in Fort William, asked the committee to
raise with the Scottish Executive the possibility of broadening the funding criteria used
by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Another complained about the problems of gaining
local planning permission for mussel farming and insisted that shellfish farming should
be considered a vital part of the rural economy. A landowner bemoaned the fact that,
whilst he was willing to sell land for housing development, planning permission was
made contingent on him putting in roads, pavements and streetlights, making the deal
uneconomical.
There was lobbying from community groups and individuals seeking to enlist committee
support for particular projects or facilities – a local slaughterhouse, hydrotherapy pool or
even the inclusion of a particular house in Scottish Water’s sewerage system.
37
Several of the issues raised were more rightfully the preserve of the local MSP, whilst others the
committee could not be expected to do anything about. Thus, Alan Clayton, a member of the Strachur
Community Council, stated that “what devastates the economy of Argyll more than anything else and
19
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
