Perth and Kinross Council's SNP administration accused of "cutting short democracy"
On Wednesday, June 18 councillors approved a £74 million proposal for Perth's new leisure centre PH20 to be built on Thimblerow car park as part of a £97m investment on leisure facilities across Perth and Kinross .
But the crucial decision was pushed through at a meeting of Perth and Kinross Council on Wednesday, June 18 without open discussion.
Around four and a half hours after the meeting started - and several lengthy recesses - council leader Grant Laing tabled a motion to "move straight to the vote with no further debate". He cited the council's standing order 17.1, a procedural motion which - amongst other things - can be used to propose "no further discussion or questioning take place".
His motion was seconded by deputy leader Eric Drysdale and supported by the majority of councillors who voted by 23 votes to 15 to move straight to the vote on leisure facilities.
Councillors had already had the chance to question several protestors - who made passionate deputations against the Thimblerow proposal and for Bell's Sports Centre to be reinstated as a heated multi-use sports venue - and council officers. But councillors had not yet had the chance to share their own views and/or comment on what they had heard.
The Conservatives tabled an amendment, against the SNP leadership's motion, for there to be a debate - as is standard procedure. Labour councillor Alasdair Bailey, Liberal Democrat councillor Peter Barrett and Independent councillor Colin Stewart supported the Conservative group's amendment. Provost Xander McDade abstained.
Following the meeting, Conservative councillor Chris Ahern accused the SNP of "cutting short democracy".
The Perth City Centre councillor said: "I am extremely unhappy with the decision made today by the leader of the council and the administration in cutting short democracy and preventing debate. I can only assume they were scared to hear the truth and didn't want their excuses to be published for the public to see them for what they are."
Blairgowrie and Glens Conservative councillor Caroline Shiers was "extremely disappointed" and added: "I don't recall many occasions when that standing order has been used before except when debates have been going on for some time and councillors are repeating the same arguments - not to stop all contributions before they even started."
A PKC spokesperson said: "On the procedural point, Cllr Laing moved a motion under section 17 of standing orders, where under 17.1 it says that a procedural motion can be to propose that no further discussion or questioning takes place. 17.2 and 17.3 of standing orders sets out what happens when a procedural motion is made."
Liberal Democrat councillor Peter Barrett took part in proceedings remotely. He supported the decision but described the way the meeting was conducted as a "shambles" and "an unedifying spectacle".
Speaking immediately afterwards, the Perth City Centre councillor said: "The only good thing you can say about today's proceedings was that the right decision was made. The rest was a shambles. Anyone watching today's events of the PH2O and Bell's proposals in the council chamber unfold must have been left confused, disappointed and angry.
"What an unedifying spectacle which dragged on for hours. Ages spent offline with the meeting in apparent suspension, the Provost announcing 'two minute recesses' which went on for more than 20, not a single word of debate exchanged, more points of order than a hedgehog has spines and almost as many totally opaque 'points of clarification'.
"Chairing of the meeting is meant to facilitate the swift and efficient conduct of business, the standing orders of the council are meant to support that objective, you'd never in a million years guess either from the live-cast of today's council proceedings. Something has to change and change urgently."
Gareth Thomas watched the entire day's proceedings from the public gallery and was "stunned" by what he felt was a lack of democracy.
He said: "It's amazing to see democracy not at work. No data or evidence. I'm stunned."
Ahead of the meeting, Perth and Kinross Community Sports Network drew up a business plan for how to run Bell's Sports Centre as a heated venue, with plans and revenue cost proposals.
On Wednesday, councillors voted through a proposal for Bell's Sports Centre to be used as "an unheated, covered sports pitch/events space".
Dr Thomas said: "I struggled to find any data for the proposed unheated G3 use for Bell's.
"I fail to see how it can be sensible to commit to a multi-million pound integrated investment on what appear to be back of the envelope (mis)calculations about Bell's."
Perth and Kinross Community Sports Network (PKCSN) chairman David Munro prepared a presentation, which he was unable to display during the meeting due to it being against council policy.
The council protocol for deputations states: "Deputations are verbal only and any visual or written information should be circulated to members of the committee by obtaining their email address from the council website. It is not permissible for members of the public to display visual information on the day of the committee."
His slides - which he later shared with the Local Democracy Reporting Service - compared the Bell's Sports Centre footprint with the Thimblerow site. It showed the six badminton courts - proposed for PH20 - dwarfed by the Bell's dome space in the main arena, which had 17 badminton courts.
The PKCSN chair said they feel like the protests and deputations were "a worthless exercise" and the council's current system "lacks credibility and accountability".
On Thursday, Cllr Laing said: "The provision under standing orders to move straight to a vote is rarely used, and indeed on the past two occasions I can recall them being used I voted against it because I felt there was still useful discussion to be had on those occasions.
"However, yesterday's council meeting had already included several hours where elected members had been able to listen to information and ask questions of both deputees and officers to allow everyone in the chamber to form a decision on how they wanted to vote. It was clear to me from the framing of the questions that everyone in the room had already made up their minds and further discussion would only have taken up more time rather than usefully informing the final decision.
"The people of Perth and Kinross have already waited long enough for a decision to be made. I stand by asking to move straight to that decision, and I am pleased that we can now get on with the job of developing the future of sport and leisure facilities in Perth and Kinross."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
9 minutes ago
- The National
Nicola Sturgeon tells of fresh abuse after publishing memoir Frankly
While the former first minister said she does not 'spend a lot of time looking at the bowels of social media', she is aware some people online have 'laughed' about her miscarriage, and said they want her to be 'raped in a toilet'. Sturgeon spoke about the miscarriage she had in 2010 as part of events and interviews in recent days to publicise her memoir, Frankly. She says in the book that she 'should have hit the pause button' on controversial legislation to allow transgender people to self-identify and gain legal recognition in their preferred gender without a lengthy medical process. READ MORE: SNP demand UK Government act amid Israeli E1 plan in West Bank Despite fierce opposition from some campaigners who claimed this would give biological males access to female spaces, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by Holyrood – though it has never been enacted after being blocked by Westminster. Speaking at the Edinburgh International Book Festival on Thursday, Sturgeon said the debate was 'toxic on both sides'. Highlighting comments made on social media this week, she said: 'There are people who call themselves feminists, standing up for women's rights, saying things about me such as when I described my miscarriage experience the other day 'I haven't laughed as much in years', accusing me of making it up, people saying they hope I am raped in a toilet.' She accepted that 'in all of the tone and tenor of this I am not saying I was blameless at all', saying she 'desperately' wished she had been able to 'find a more collegiate way forward' on the controversial issue. She described transphobia as 'the soft underbelly of other prejudice'. Sturgeon insisted not all opponents of gender reform are either transphobic or homophobic, but the issue of trans rights 'has been hijacked and weaponised by people that are transphobic and homophobic'. She said she was 'worried' that if she paused the gender reforms at Holyrood, this would have seen her 'give in to that'. (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) However, she added: 'I might have been wrong, and I probably was wrong about that.' Sturgeon also made clear her support for transgender rights, saying: 'To my dying day… I will just never accept that there is an irreconcilable tension between women's rights and trans rights. 'I don't believe you have to choose between being a feminist and standing up for one of the most stigmatised minorities in our society. 'Who has threatened women for all the years I have been alive – abusive men have threatened women. READ MORE: Leaked document 'leaves Government's Palestine Action case in tatters' 'You get bad people in every group in society but you don't tar the whole group with the bad people, and that, I really regret, appears to be what some are trying to do with trans people, to take some people and say that is representative of the whole trans community. 'My life might be easier if I just gave in on this issue and said 'yeah, I got it wrong' and we should never try to make life better for the trans community. 'But I will never, to make my own life easier, betray a stigmatized minority, because that is not why I came into politics and it is never what I will do in politics.' Sturgeon later told journalists she had not reported the abuse to police. It comes after Sturgeon told the launch event the monarchy should "end quite soon".
Daily Mirror
9 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
First Farage, now Jenrick, the BBC pandering to the extremists does nothing to dial down the temperature
What message does it send when the man maligning millions of people, about whom he knows nothing, comes out as the good guy? Robert Jenrick has some brass neck contending with the widely-held belief that the latest of his poisonous remarks, consistently demonising migrants, is xenophobic. The BBC this week issued an apology after the Shadow Justice Secretary complained that a critic had been handed airtime to push back. And when the state broadcaster caves in to men like Jenrick, we are all in trouble. It was theologian and author Dr Krish Kandiah, speaking on the BBC's Thought for the Day who spoke for many - including the ordinary people across the country at risk from the increasingly inflammatory language and people platformed by broadcasters who should know better. Kandian used the word 'xenophobia' in relation to an article in which Jenrick said: "I certainly don't want my children to share a neighbourhood with men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally and about whom we know next to nothing.' Kandian said: "These words echo a fear many have absorbed – fear of the stranger. The technical name for this is xenophobia. All phobias are, by definition, irrational. Nevertheless, they have a huge impact.' Jenrick posted online in response: "On BBC Radio 4 this morning listeners were told that if you're concerned about the threat of illegal migrants to your kids, you're racist. Wrong. You're a good parent.' The BBC's position was that it was apologising to Jenrick for the inclusion of an opinion in a place where it was inappropriate, not passing judgement on the rights or wrongs of the opinion. But when is pushing back against hate ever inappropriate? What message does it send when the man maligning millions of people about whom he knows nothing, comes out as the good guy? And what world are we living in when we cannot use the words (Kandian let him off lightly in my opinion) that accurately sum up yet another of Jenrick's attempts to stir up division. Here's a glimpse at his recent body of work. There was the time in January he used the sexual exploitation of young girls to blanket-condemn 'hundreds of thousands of people from alien cultures who possess medieval attitudes towards women'. Describe one of your colleagues' countries at work as medieval with an alien culture and see how far you get before you are disciplined. Twelve months ago Jenrick was vilified for saying police should 'immediately arrest' any protesters shouting 'Allahu Akbar', the Arabic phrase meaning God is great. In response, Conservative party chair Baroness Sayeeda Warsi said: "This language from Jenrick is more of his usual nasty divisive rhetoric.' Labour MPs Naz Shah, the MP for Bradford West, called Mr Jenrick's comments "textbook Islamophobia'. His comments "literally equate every Muslim in the world with extremism" she argued. In a social media post she said: 'Imagine in this climate, either being that ignorant or deliberately trying to stigmatise all Muslims. He should apologise and speak to Muslim communities and learn more about our faith.' Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: 'People like Robert Jenrick have been stirring up some of the problems that we've seen in our communities.' Then there was the time last October the Shadow Chancellor insisted Britain's former colonies should be thankful for the legacy of the empire. Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, lawyer and activist posted on X: 'The ingratitude of this political illiterate @RobertJenrick. Britain would be nothing without colonised African & Asian nations. Its Industrial Revolution & Capitalist Wealth were built on the blood, sweat, forced labour & lives of our forebears. 'The 'inheritance' it left were the resources it stole, lands it pillaged, genocides committed, division of nations, systemic rape & collective punishment committed in the name of its racist British empire – a genocidal & thieving empire that still profits off former colonies to date.' Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on African reparations, said: 'Enslavement and colonialism were not 'gifts' but imposed systems that brutally exploited people, extracted wealth, and dismantled societies, all for the benefit of Britain.' So for the BBC to apologise to Jenrick, even on a technicality, sums up how detached from reality the broadcaster finds itself. In any case, what does Jenrick have to be upset about? Firstly the context. As we know there is precedent for politicians using language like him to insult, vilify entire groups of people and stir up hatred. In 1964, former Tory MP Peter Griffiths was elected to Smethwick, north west Birmingham, on the slogan 'If you want a n***** for a neighbour, vote Labour.' Griffiths refused to disown it, claiming he regarded it as 'a manifestation of popular feeling.' Second, the framing. Jenrick's Tory party closed off all the legal routes into this country in order to deliberately frame those arriving as illegals. To suggest everyone arriving - including families - as a threat is a throwback to the days of Griffiths. Third, the BBC is the channel that ordered one of its non-white presenters to, humiliatingly, apologise for stating that Nigel Farage had been using, in a Reform UK speech, his 'customary inflammatory language' - even though he actually had been using his customary inflammatory language. The Beeb is also the channel which had its own staff publicly rebel after Breakfast show presenter Naga Munchetty was found to have breached the corporation's editorial guidelines in criticising US President Donald Trump for telling black politicians to 'go home'. Munchetty was ruled to have overstepped by accusing the US president of racism. Angry colleagues at the time pointed out that the complaints unit is dominated by older white men with no real grasp of the way in which Trump's words impact ordinary people. It looks very much as though that unit is still crammed to bursting with privileged middle-class high earners with their heads in the sand. Because if Jenrick's remarks don't qualify as xenophobic then what does? The Beeb needs to pick a side, because if you are non-white there have been a number of decisions from the broadcasters which do not help the fight against those who wish to divide us. Remember the time when it broadcast live, in its entirety, that repugnant, 2022 party conference speech by then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman, packed with lies and 'hurricane of migrants' rhetoric. The criticism of the Beeb's decision to hand a season ticket to Farage for its flagship political debate show Question Time, long before he was ever elected to Clacton, is well documented. And there remains a feeling that the broadcaster is happier to chase controversy than play its part in calming tensions. It needs to answer that charge urgently. Because to pander to extremists is simply not good enough. Ends
The National
19 minutes ago
- The National
Is Wellbeing Economics the only way to generate economic growth?
This is from a newsletter from Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, called Reinventing Scotland. It explores the wellbeing economy. Sign up here to receive it every Tuesday at 7pm. I WANT to dispel a huge myth about the Wellbeing Economic Approach and that is that it requires de-growth, that is the policy of reducing levels of production and consumption within an economy in order to improve social wellbeing and minimize environmental damage. Frankly, that sort of thinking is for academics with no idea how the real world economy works or what could be achieved with a wellbeing reset in our socioeconomic thinking. The thing is, there is no such thing as 'an economy' nor 'a society' in isolation. They're so deeply interconnected that you can't fix one without shaping the other. This is where traditional 'left vs. right' politics falls short, each side hyper-focused on only half the equation, treating society and the economy as a rivalry rather than a partnership. READ MORE: SNP demand UK Government act amid new Israeli plan to 'bury' Palestinian state This approach can offer shorter term wins but long term pain as society and economy fail to operate in balance. Real progress happens when we stop seeing them as opposites. A thriving economy needs a healthy society, just as a thriving society needs a healthy economy. Wellbeing fuels economic participation; strengthens economic security, enables social and environmental stability and reduces inequality and poverty - the building blocks of socioeconomic success. When people have opportunities, they contribute more. When businesses operate responsibly, they create lasting value, not just short-term profits. This is the path to good-growth, that is growth that lifts people up instead of leaving them behind, that strengthens communities without exploiting them, and that funds public services without bankrupting the future. It's not left or right. It's a higher purpose for economy and politics. So yes, I am saying that socialism and capitalism are dying belief systems, the battle of left versus right is last century's economic paradigm. The world has moved on but the economic debate has not. Governments and economists seem to be focused on simply mitigating socioeconomic decline in the face of climate change, robotisation and AI, as if there were no alternative to the broken neoclassical capitalist system. In UK politics, Reform and 'Your Party' (Corbyn/Sultana) are making waves but it's just more extreme versions of the old broken left v right disconnect fuelled by society's desperate need for change - any change. The Wellbeing Economic Approach is the key to future prosperity, economic security. The first political party to realise this will be able to command majorities in both Holyrood and Westminster. This is a huge opportunity for the SNP, by linking wellbeing to independence, they will be able to demonstrate that independence is the real and radical change that the people are clamouring for. That would undermine both Reform's negative change agenda and Corbyn's outdated socialist approach. Fail to do that and Holyrood 2026 will punish the SNP. People instinctively understand that real wealth doesn't trickle-down from big corporations, investment funds and wealthy individuals. That real wealth is created when society offers equal access to opportunity and wellbeing to all. Insecurity is the emotion dominating in politics right now and no political party seems to have the answer, so extremes get a hearing. The Wellbeing Economic Approach is the answer. By providing security to all in society it will also increase trust in the party/government that can deliver that positive change narrative. The Wellbeing economy delivers good-growth not bad-growth , its certainly not a de-growth approach. Here are five reasons why the Wellbeing Economic Approach beats GDP Growth First strategies and creates more growth: 1. Wellbeing Prioritises Long-Term Socioeconomic Resilience GDP Growth-first: Chasing GDP at all costs leads to boom-bust cycles, inequality, and climate degradation. Wellbeing Economic Approach: Invests in a wellbeing (prevention not emergency treatment) focused healthcare and green infrastructure, boosting productivity and sustainability. Nordic nations combine high GDP with low inequality via strong social safety nets to keep a higher percentage of the population economically active. 2. Reduces Costly Negative Consequences GDP Growth-first: Ignore hidden costs like pollution, employee burnout, or corporate welfare (taxpayers foot the bill later), wages are kept low to allow profits to be generated but the population is impoverished and are now rebelling (Trump/Reform etc). Wellbeing Economic Approach: Taxes carbon, regulates monopolies, and values unpaid care work, preventing future crises (e.g., New Zealand's "Wellbeing Budget" targets mental health and child poverty which were being exacerbated by GDP Growth-first thinking). 3. Unlocks Innovation GDP Growth-first: Rewards short-term profiteering and price gouging share buybacks, rent exploitation. Wellbeing Economic Approach: Public-private initiatives which create markets and solve problems. (e.g., clean energy from Scotland's renewable wealth, vaccines, and close to market Research & Development tax credits investing for the future). Germany's renewable transition "Energiewende," created 300K plus jobs when Scotland's renewable energy potential is far greater per head than Germany's. 4. Strengthens Social Trust GDP Growth-first: Inequality, destroys trust in society, slows social mobility and weakens consumer demand (e.g., wage stagnation, despite GDP growth and a new class called the working poor). Wellbeing Economic Approach: Wellbeing wages and pensions and affordable housing increase consumer spending, fueling consumer demand and reducing crime. 5. Aligns with Planetary Boundaries GDP Growth-first: Depletes resources. 1.5 Earths are needed for current consumption according to the Global Footprint Network. Wellbeing Economic Approach: Circular economies and regenerative agriculture (e.g., Costa Rica's reforestation doubled its rainforests and through eco-tourism boosted the nation's GDP since 1990 whilst dramatically cutting emissions). Imagine what the world will look like when our politicians finally realise that you can't generate economic growth anymore without first focusing on the wellbeing of the people, planet and economy as one? Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp is an economist, the CEO of Business for Scotland, the founder of the Believe in Scotland campaign consisting of 143 local and national Yes Groups, and the author of Scotland the Brief.
