Is OSCR working?

The Development Trusts Association explains that Development Trusts are supposed to be community organisations which are owned and managed by the local community, aim to achieve the sustainable regeneration of a community or address a range of economic, social, environmental and cultural issues within a community, are independent but seek to work in partnership with other private, public and third sector organisations and aim to reduce dependency on grant support by generating income through enterprise and the ownership of assets.

Crucially, it also tells us that all trading surpluses are principally reinvested in the organisation or the community.

I will be writing to OSCR, the Scottish Charities Commission, to ask what monitoring they have in place watching these Trusts.

A Wind Farm Developer is reputedly behind the setting up of what has been styled a Community Development Trust, including a handful of community activists, at least one Community Councillor, and a representative of a land owner, to dispense a mere 10%, not all of trading profits, of a proposed wind energy development in North East Fife. This group has registered with Companies House but it is not at all clear who selected these people to "own and manage" the Trust on behalf of the community and I have yet to hear of any proper community wide call for them to be established as the whole community's represenatives. I hope I am wrong, but it seems that these people are more or less self-selecting, most with vested interest, and that they may be out of step with the real community. There ought to be a proper process to determine any such mandate. How can they use the term "community" without such a process?

I believe it is up to the Charities Commission to know and to explain what is going on, and to say if it is all being done properly. The big question is this: Who has the right to claim they are a community trust, and by what criteria? Or are trusts now a free for all area, which any vested interest group or wind developer can establish?

The Courier - June 28: A serious conflict of interest in some community councils over turbines

MSPs and Councillors should pursue this: The Courier - June 28: A serious conflict of interest in some community councils over turbines

Are the Media blind?

Are the media blind or simply arrogant?  Do they report or manipulate and engineer?

In this age of Leveson, you would think that UKIP Scotland press releases would get better coverage - it'd be to follow processes known in some places as democracy and the right to a free press.

Business has to be wary of meeting quotas in defene of any charges of discrimination: the media should be obliged to be equally balanced.  

Is anyone there?

WIND DEVELOPER'S INSULT

What atrocious behaviour by certain wind developers in Fife!

A group which claims, in the media, that it seeks to benefit the community with handouts,  creamed from the Governments' (yes, plural - the axis of the Coalition at Westminster and the SNP crowd at Holyrood) green ROC based bribery fund - purports to be representative, balanced and a fair forum. Yet they avoid any reference to the downside of any deals - the most unwelcomed of turbines they intend to erect in others' backyards.


This has to stop.

Who do these people represent? Who elected them?

Salt is rubbed into the wound by the Community Develpment Trust usurping the role of elected community councils - some of whom have taken polls which have shown that the turbines are not wanted - and indeed, even gulling some naive community councillors who should be even-handed, into wearing two hats - that of community councillor and that of community trustee - I have yet to hear of any of these people declaring an interest when contributing to assessing a "balanced" community view!

Who is watching them?

Why are MSPs and MPs, not gagged by the Planning Authority, silent on these matters, with few honourable exceptions?



You know what? I think it stinks.

EU insults Britain

Even as we celebrate the Jubilee, we have insults piled upon us by the EU.  We must get out, and have real Independence - free of the EU


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1317286/Union-Flag-banned-on-car-number-plates.html

Wind Farm Access

There are many community penalties involved in the construction of wind farms, in addition to onging landscape damage.  Take a look: camster wind turbine,access road.

forum.caithness.org

The EU alienates us

We, the Britsh electorate, need to engage the attention of our MPs on this. Start by reading UKIP policies, and join us. That will grab their attention.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9233096/Europe-alienates-us-all-as-foretold-40-years-ago.html#sections

Thar' she blows...

Cameron is as changeable as the wind - variable, backing three or four etc.  Or maybe it depends on which side of the bed Clegg gets up in the morning........

Landowners beware

Land owners beware:

http://www.petroliatopic.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3543854

Good turnout to support CATS at Holyrood today - The Scottish Executive, and indeed, Cameron and Clegg, are making a msitake: they MUST abolish FITS on turbines without delay.
Good to see some Tories making the gesture - but where is their meat? Or do they not know that their Coalition enables the FITS, and takes its direction and targets from Brussel?  Strong words from Tories who nonethelss toe the line amount to little more than spin. Follow Roger Helmer MEP.

Big Tee

See the Express
Golf club gets the wind up over giant turbine.
express.co.uk

If I told this at a dinner party, you would swear I made it up!

"Officials at the Royal Aberdeen, the sixth oldest club in the world, were horrified to see the 218ft mast go up just 40ft from the 14th tee.

"They claim they were not consulted and now fear it will affect the club’s status as one of the top 100 courses in the world.

“The turbine towers above the 14th tee, causing considerable disturbance to golfers when teeing off on one of the strongest holes on this ancient, classic, natural links.

“Easter brought out the first visitors of 2012. Their comments were ‘a great golf course in magnificent condition, but how did that turbine get there?’

“It is naive to think that the unsympathetic placement of wind turbines, onshore and offshore, will not impact considerably on organisations such as Royal Aberdeen Golf Club, which has quietly contributed much to the local community since 1780.”

Council Elections

Mike Scott-Hayward’s Councillor’s Manifesto

CONSTITUENTS FIRST

FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WILL PUT THE INTERESTS OF CONSTITUENTS FIRST.

And because UKIP’s pledge is “constituents first”, UKIP will not operate a party whip system though UKIP councillors will work together as a GROUP.

No other Party makes that promise – they must all toe the party line.

UKIP will cooperate with like minded independent councillors.

UKIP expects councillors of all parties to put CONSTITUENTS ahead of party dogma.


UKIP WILL FIGHT TO IMPROVE

LOCAL DEMOCRACY


I am standing in the East Neuk and Landward Ward of Fife whre I have served as an outspoken and independent minded councillor, following on from my army career in the Royal Artillery.

I am also serving the public as a full time member in Her Majesty’s Coastguard Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre at Fifeness, a role that will cease ere long when the station is closed by the Coalition Government.

I am not one of those councillors who likes to cosy up to officers and bureaucrats on first name terms. I prefer to hold the unelected to account and I do not seek to defend “the cooncil” come what may.
They must serve us.

I will continue to fight for democrat rule. I resent the rules imposed by the Scottish Parliament which prevent councillors from speaking out on many issues, especially planning matters, as that stops us from playing a leading role in matters of importance to individuals and communities.

I would be honoured to serve again.

HOW UKIP COUNCILLORS WILL FIGHT TO IMPROVE LOCAL DEMOCRACY

• UKIP will enable local communities or groups to assert their democratic views when dissatisfied with Council actions or decisions, by encouraging them to petition their Council to hold a referendum on the issue. When such a petition is signed by 10% or more of the people affected by the issue, UKIP councillors will put forward motions in the Council demanding that the Council hold the referendum and:
o Where legally permitted, such motions would call for a change in the council decision in line with the referenda result.
o Where a change in a council decision is not permitted in law (as may be the case in quasi- judicial matters i.e. planning), UKIP would subsequently propose a motion of public censure of the Council.
• Call for local opinion to be evaluated by local referenda on major planning schemes like supermarkets: these would inform the legal decision makers in addition to existing rights of representation.
• Enable Community Councils to hold simple local community surveys to establish community views before expressing them.
• Oppose increased central government control and interference in local government.


UKIP WANTS TO

• KEEP POLICE ON THE BEAT TO PROTECT YOU

• STAMP ON UNSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

• IMPROVE CARE FOR THE ELDERLY – CUT CHARGES

• DEVELOP YOUTH SERVICES – ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBILITY

• MAINTAIN THE ROADS AND PAVEMENTS PROPERLY

• INCREASE PROVISION OF FREE PARKING

• DEVOLVE BUDGETS, NOT BURDENS, IN ALL SERVICES

• END ASPIRATIONAL WAFFLE

• SLASH FAT-CAT PAY DEALS FOR SENIOR COUNCIL STAFF

• LIMIT THE NUMBER OF HIGH-PAID COUNCIL EMPLOYEES

• RESTRICT COUNCIL ADVERTISING AND SELF-PROMOTION

• SELL SURPLUS COUNCIL LAND

• ABOLISH NON-ESSENTIAL "POLITICALLY-CORRECT" SERVICES

• BE A GOOD LANDLORD

• ENCOURAGE ACCESS TO PRIVATE HOUSING

• PROMOTE SMALL BUSINESS AND REAL LOCAL JOBS

• CUT BUREAUCRATIC PROCEDURES ACROSS THE BOARD

• IMPOSE A PLANNING MOROTORIUM ON WINDFARMS

MAKE UKIP YOUR FIRST CHOICE

PS I would welcome any support towards my campaign. If you can offer me any help, please call me (01334655040 or email mikescotthayward@msn.com - remember, election law applies).


Promoted and published on his own behalf by MIKE SCOTT-HAYWARD, SAWMILL HOUSE, KEMBACK BIRDGE, FIFE KY15 5TP.

A waste of a By Election

Bradford West will have shocked them a bit but it is a shame that the voters didn't send a real message by electing UKIP - that would signal real intent for the people to have a say across the whole of the UK. Gorgeous George is an eccentric nuisance, effective maybe, but not a nation wide movement. The Coalition can survive George.

OPEN LETTER TO ROD CAMPBELL MSP

OPEN LETTER

Rod Campbell MSP
Scottish Parliament
EDINBURGH

Dear Rod,
I write to seek your immediate active assistance on a matter of concern which is affecting communities across Scotland, but not least in my ward, East Neuk and Landward, in your constituency of North East Fife.

The concern is about the divisive impact which the Feed in Tariff and Community Benefit, provided to support the erection and operation of wind turbines, is having within communities.

The position is simple and easily understood.

We are witnessing a deluge of planning applications for wind turbines and wind farms in East Neuk and Landward, and across your constituency of North East Fife. The driver clearly is the financial benefit which accrues from the various forms of subsidy. I, and many others, consider that without those subsidies, the systems would be wholly uneconomic. A false market is being created and that is leading to considerable potential and actual change to our landscapes.

I would be content to deal with applications on their planning merits alone but I consider that the subsidies are bribes which distort reality. I consider that Scottish Executive's planned resultant pressure must even Have an undue influence on the objectivity of Planning Authority officials. They are human.

Communities are being offered wealth, based on those handouts. In East Neuk and Landward, we have witnessed the loss of a Community Council at Largoward, solely due to the division caused by just such a subsidised application.

Other Community Councils are also facing internal divisions and it may in fact be the case that the conflict of interests they now face is making fair representation by them of their communities impossible.

Further conflicts will arise through the very nature of these small rural communities. Moreover, it is often the case that many of the people who become members of Community Counils also step forward to run Trusts, of various sorts, set up to facilitate, or to gain access to, the subsidised funding packages. The conflicts are obvious.

I understand you were present for a short time at the beginning of a debate in Holytrood on this matter on Thursday 1st December. I hope you will now turn your full attention to this issue, follow the difficulties and debate within your communities and assess the impact which this SNP and Scotttish Executive policy is having.

I suggest you will be well advised to attend a few community council meetings in the East Neuk, the public meeting on the 1st March in St Andrews arranged by Cameron Community Council, and, yes, some sessions of the East Area planning committee.

I will be happy to meet you to elaborate on my concerns about the communities in my ward and in North East Fife in general.

This is, as you will know from the vast correspondence in our local and indeed, increasingly, in national papers, is a growing matter of public interest. I am therefore releasing this as an open letter.

Yours aye

Mike Scott-Hayward
Councillor
East Neuk and Landward

Chairman UKIP Scotland

It started with Blair

We are approaching a period of potentially huge change for the United Kingdom – its possible destruction. Not good news on which to begin 2012. The build up to a referendum which will decide the fate of the United Kingdom has now begun in earnest and the battleground is here, in Scotland. UKIP Scotland is unlikely to be a major player; the media will focus on the establishment and parties with elected parliamentarians – but we can and must be more than observers.

The battle over separatism will be waged over as much as two years and set against the background of the potential, probably pending, collapse of the Euro Zone. Both battles are vital to us and UKIP big guns must deploy here often. The major parties will do so in strength, and we should welcome a strong Unionist fight. Facts and figures and numerous scenarios will be postulated; whilst I believe that ultimately most people will vote based on their emotive roots rather than on sophistry, we must battle to win over the undecided.

The SNP have the upper hand now, the initiative is theirs. It is vital that we all resist any temptation unwittingly to aide and abet separation; the mistake of creating a wholly separate devolved parliament in Scotland, distinct from Britain’s Parliament, must not be replicated elsewhere in Great Britain. Our UKIP policy of abolishing MSPs and replacing them within the Scotland Act with MPs proper is, I believe, right. Indeed, I think an England Act should create devolved parliament on those same lines – existing English MPs sitting for England, with all MPs still together in the House of Commons. We have messed enough with our constitution, an horrendous mistake started by Blair and leading by Coalition complicity towards the unravelling of all thet we have ever been.

English Parliament et al

It is my view that the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly, should be made up of those Members of Parliament sitting respectively for Scotland and Wales.

English MPs sitting as such would conducted English business but it may well be that there is a need for an England Act, to formalise English MPs sitting as such, with power to elect a First Minister and to create an English Executive. That English Parliament then would have powers similar to Scotland.

There would, of course, be a need for Acts of Parliament to remove MSPs and Assembly Members, to be replaced by MPs, and possibly also to amend and enhance the Welsh Assembly's powers and status to that of a Welsh Parliament, fully equivalent to the Scottish and English Parliaments.

MPs would continue to serve as they do now at Westminster, working together for the UK, and with their feet on the ground within the devolved Parliaments.

Battle for British Unity

It is time that people realise that the Battle for British unity will be fought in Scotland.

The future of the United Kingdom will be decided right here, in Scotland. This is the political battleground. The attack on the UK began when a Labour Government and Donald Dewar created the Scottish Parliament. That was the equivalent of offering the SNP a beachhead and Alex Salmond has long since secured it.

The SNP have carried out political guerrilla raids, creating as many divides as possible, giving away freebies here to cause disgruntlement in England. The Scottish Parliament has been the battlefield tank forcing divides over student fees, prescription charges, and so called free home care. Even Tories in Holyrood have succumbed to the momentum, believing somehow that more autonomous power will mend the widening gap.

The shockwaves are now rippling to the surface, discombobulating the English, many of whom are now reacting exactly as Salmond wishes. We now see the predictable reaction which Salmond wanted as formerly sober minds in England call for an English Parliament.

They would rue it - we all will.

Already, in Scotland, MPs and the proper Parliament are being alienated from the electorate.

Very few people ever go to see an MP about a reserved powers issue - people need to see their highest elected representatives about more domestic concerns: housing, hospitals, pharmacies or schools threatened with closure, vandalism, crime rates and police numbers, yes, even dog dirt. In Scotland, this means that MSPs have the better interface with the electorate while our Scottish MPs become aloof, are channelled towards weighty national and international issues.

These are vital issues but the interaction of Westminster MPs and British subjects in Scotland, and Wales, is waning; the domestic issues that keep MPs in touch, which keep their feet on the ground, are no longer there in Scotland.

The same happening in England as well, will make the UK government increasingly remote from the people. The "assemblies" will become the focus and the Union will erode; that is why I say we must not replicate the error of the devolved bodies as constituted.

UKIP has a firm and sensible policy on this: the electorate should elect one MP for their constituency and that MP should be in Westminster most of the time and in the devolved more local parliament for the remainder.

The devolved body, the Scottish Parliament here, would continue as it is, but devoid of MSPs. In England, when Welsh and Scottish MPs are at work in their devolved home, English MPs would deal with England’s devolved issues. That means both UK national and domestic roles remained linked, through MPs who will keep a direct interface with the electorate and, exactly what is needed, excessive government is cut with fewer politicians overall with time on their hands to think of ways to rule us.

UK party leaders must not be tempted to balance the books by adding more overloaded assemblies to the mix - trim out instead - and engage the UK's number 1 enemy, Salmond, here, in the beachhead which he has established in Scotland

Vote UK Out of EU

I welcome the increasing mood across the country to challenge the government over membership of the EU.

Vote UK Out of EU has been set up by a businessman and the Electoral Reform Society will oversee a referendum in the constituencies of the Coalition leaders. The message has to be heard at some point - and the clarity of though displayed by Vote UK Out of EU is a lesson to the SNP, Cameron and others dithering over a vote on Scottish separation from the UK.

UKIP policy is that there should be a referendum on Scottish separation - it is Scotland's right to choice. UKIP, however, will campaign to keep the United Kingdom intact."

EU rules prevented checks for faulty implants

EU rules prevented checks for faulty implants

Britain's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), in some circumstances, is prevented by legislation from carrying out full checks on medical products, including PIP breast implants. UKIP's Chairman in Scotland, Mike Scott-Hayward, is quoting work done by UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall.

"Paul has found that under EU law, national regulatory authorities can grant their own companies and products a CE (European Conformity) mark, which provides a guarantee of quality. EU law then forbids other national regulatory authorities, from conducting further checks.

"Apparently, in the case of the PIP implants, the French authorities granted the appropriate status. MHRA was obliged to permit the import and marketing of the implants as they bore the CE mark, and could not carry out their own checks.

"French Authorities did finally shut down PIP, but not before 40,000 British women had been fitted with these faulty implants. The MHRA is forced, under EU law, to permit the import and marketing of any device which bears a CE mark, even though it has no direct jurisdiction over the manufacturer.

Mr Nuttall said: "The blame is not with the clinics, nor is it with the British regulators - the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The real responsibility lies in a combination of regulatory failure in France, and then EU laws that prevent British authorities from protecting British consumers."

Mr Nuttall added: "I am writing to the European Commission to demand that in the future British authorities be allowed to make quality control border and spot checks on imported CE marked products, in order that they can in future do their job and protect the interests of British consumers." He is also calling on the Government to require the French authorities to provide compensation that will allow private clinics to remove and replace implants without being driven to bankruptcy through no fault of their own.

Fife Council - Pick a School - but only the one we allow....

Mike Scott-Hayward, UKIP councillor, has declared that Fife Council is now seen BY MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC as being guilty of using guesswork to determine public opinion, and technological flannel to circumvent consultation.

"The councillors on the Education Committee should avoid the mistakes made by the Policy Finance and Asset Management Committee (PFAM) when deciding the future of secondary education in North East Fife. PFAM rejected a proposal to have a referendum of parents and locals to assess whether or not full reliance should fall on a single new, and therefore large, secondary on a site in St Andrews, or two smaller schools - one for St Andrews and the other for the Tay Bridgehead.

"The view in support of two schools has been quoted in local newspapers, but mention of that is ruled out, almost forbidden, by the parties in power; one of which was elected on the promise of two schools. Labour opposition also stands against a Bridgehead school.

"The rejection of asking the people, whom we trust to elect governments, means we are now either in the hands of the unelected wielding complex matrixes, the tick box approach, or in the hands of ad hoc groups pushing single views. I applaud the effort of those who have raised a petition of over 2000 names but note that sadly, those signing were offered only one choice to support.

"Others have raised the very valid point that one option, South Street, is ruled out simply because the size of school serving the whole area won't fit there, and on transportation grounds, too many busses: a two school option would allow that choice to be on the table and also cut bussing - now a seemingly also banned topic.

"No one now knows what level of support there is in reality for two schools; nor does anyone really know the level of support for each possible site in St Andrews. We would do, though, had PFAM not chucked out the idea of a referendum, which the Conservatives and I had proposed. This way, the Council's way, means we will all still be in the dark. The lid will not go back on this can of worms by these means. Do the public even know that they could have had a referendum?"

Cllr Scott-Hayward was also critical of the consultation with parents. "The first meeting of the so called working group, decided that the impact of public opinion had to be a criteria in the magic matrix, the table to be used to assess options. I asked if the assessing group would include parents or public and was soundly told that the assessment was a matter for the experts! At the meeting of Fife Council, I asked how officers would determine 'public opinion' and the Leader of the Administration told me that there are officers who are well versed in assessing public reactions. Yet at the meeting informing parents of the result of the deliberations, the first point made by officers was that they had decided to merge that criteria with others as they found it too difficult to assess and so public views will only be able to made as part of the planning application process. That, of course, is post decision.

"It's a mess"