Talks to be held over flying football club's flag in Johnstone
This was because the local authority had learned it effectively does not have the power to display that particular emblem at this time.
As a result, the provost proposed to fly the flag of Johnstone Burgh FC until April 2026 instead, following their Scottish Junior Cup win in June, but this has also hit an obstacle.
In an update to elected members on Thursday, she said: 'I write to inform you that following on from my email to you last week I have received correspondence from three councillors who do not agree with the Johnstone Burgh FC flag flying from the flagpole as I suggested.
READ MORE: Major step forward in bid to transform old Paisley church hall
'Therefore, I will refrain from making arrangements to fly the flag until after discussion at the next full council meeting.'
In her initial email, the provost explained why the council couldn't fly the old burgh flag in Houstoun Square – despite a recent decision from elected members to do so.
She said: 'Following the council meeting, [the head of corporate governance] contacted the Lord Lyon's office to confirm what was the correct coat of arms for Johnstone Burgh and to confirm who had permission to fly it.
'The response received from the Lord Lyon's office was that under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, the status of 'Burgh' was abolished in 1975.
'They have stated that this makes the 1955 Grant of Arms to the Burgh of Johnstone redundant and therefore they may not be displayed.'
READ MORE: A-listed Glasgow church to be transformed - here's the new plan
There were no such issues in the case of Renfrew, however, because the community council petitioned to matriculate its arms to the group in 1987.
The flag was subsequently raised at the town hall in Hairst Street on Thursday, July 31.
Councillor Andy Doig, an independent representative for Johnstone North, previously said he was 'hopeful' one of the town's community groups would pick up the mantle and petition the Lord Lyon for approval.
'That would be great if they wanted to do that,' he added. 'But I feel that it sticks in my throat that we're hidebound by these sort of medieval rules.
'I agree with the provost's suggestion, however, and I think it's wise under the circumstances. Johnstone Burgh Football Club did so well and everyone wants to recognise that.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Remember when having women in power was supposed to change everything?
Nicola Sturgeon was always afraid of failure. But it was a very particular kind of failure she feared; one that follows a very particular kind of success. Living up to the fact of being Scotland's first female first minister became, she writes in her new memoir, 'almost an obsession', which is arguably unhealthy but not unreasonable. To be the first woman (or indeed the first minority) in any field is to be uncomfortably aware of being on probation: the test case that sceptics will use to decide whether women in general can really hack it, but also the yardstick by which other women will judge whether representation actually makes a difference. You daren't betray anything that looks like a sign of weakness, yet at the same time you're endlessly under pressure to spill your guts on all the intimate stuff – miscarriage and menopause in Sturgeon's case, pregnancy in high office for New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern, also the author of a recent memoir – lest other women feel you're either holding out on useful information, making it all look too infuriatingly easy, or failing to do your bit to break some taboo. (Even Sturgeon, in an interview this week with the midlife women's podcast The Shift, expressed surprise that, when she was figuring out how to manage menopausal symptoms in office, she couldn't find anything to read about how other senior politicians had coped.) Suddenly, you're not just a woman but an everywoman, supposed to magically embody every female voter who ever existed, even on issues where women in real life are impossibly divided – as they were over trans rights, the issue that ultimately holed Sturgeon's premiership below the waterline. Representation can be a blessing and curse, even for a politician as gifted as Sturgeon undoubtedly has been. But is it also ultimately a distraction? Her book completes a trio of recent memoirs, alongside those of Ardern and Germany's Angela Merkel, which feel like a final full stop on the end of an era in which putting a woman in power was expected somehow to change everything. All three at their peak were somewhat romantically held aloft as examples of a kinder, more emotionally literate politics: Merkel for opening her arms to Syrian refugees; Ardern for the unifying way she led her country through the immediate and potentially divisive aftermath of the Christchurch terrorist massacre; and Sturgeon for being the remain voter's feminist yin to Boris Johnson's laddish Brexiter yang. All three functioned at times as queens across the water for English leftwingers, wondering wistfully why they couldn't have a leader like that. During the 2015 televised election debates in which Sturgeon took part, viewers furiously Googled whether it was possible to vote SNP south of the border. Merkel's principled pushback against Donald Trump in his first presidency – remember that iconic image of her looming commandingly over a seated Trump at a G7 summit? – was as much admired and envied in parts of the UK as Ardern's 'zero Covid strategy' of sealing borders, at least until the latter was overwhelmed by new variants. Yet all three became bitterly polarising figures in time, as Sturgeon herself acknowledged to The Shift's Sam Baker. The nature of the tribe in charge might have changed, but not the angry tribalism endemic in politics: so much for the patronising Barbieworld fantasy that if women ran the world, peace and love would rule the day. With hindsight, though, what all three of those pioneer female leaders really represented was a longing for someone to break the mould, and that hasn't gone away. If anything, the impatience and frustration with mainstream politics building up in younger women suggests it is intensifying. The Scottish journalist Alex Massie wrote this week of the English tendency to idolise Sturgeon from a distance, even as Scots who experienced her government's failings up close were losing patience with it. As an English journalist, I have to concede some truth in that. From a distance, it's too easy to get hung up on the performance of leadership, at which she genuinely did excel, and forget about what it actually feels like to be governed by someone day in and day out. During the pandemic, I remember envying the way Scottish lockdown restrictions took into account children's need for play, but more broadly the thought and seriousness that seemed to be going into Sturgeon's policymaking when Johnson was still making jokes about squashing sombreros or turning a blind eye to drunken parties. Yet death rates in Scotland weren't noticeably better than in England, for reasons the Covid inquiry is still exploring. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, Ardern was failing to hit her much-vaunted targets on child poverty, a reminder that personal values don't necessarily trump the realities of a post-lockdown economy. The obvious moral to be drawn from all of this is that putting women on a pedestal simply because they're women makes no more sense than taking lumps out of them for the same reason: that in a mature democracy, they would be judged simply on results. Since the least interesting thing about Kemi Badenoch's increasingly erratic leadership of the Conservative party is her gender, perhaps it's not too much to hope that we're moving in that direction: that the joy of being the third or fourth or fifth woman through the door is that eventually people simply cease to care. But, if so, it will be the Sturgeons and the Arderns and the Merkels, with all their flaws, who paved the way. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. Frankly by Nicola Sturgeon (Pan Macmillan, £28). A Different Kind of Power by Jacinda Ardern (Pan Macmillan, £25). Freedom by Angela Merkel (Pan Macmillan, £35). To support the Guardian, order your copy at Delivery charges may apply.
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Former Angus provost's outburst did not breach standards
A watchdog has concluded the former Angus provost did not breach behavioural standards when his outburst left a colleague in tears during a Standards Commission also ruled Brian Boyd's conduct towards fellow councillor Lois Speed was not Boyd resigned as provost following the incident during a full council meeting in June last year, but continued as independent councillor for the Carnoustie and District said if he could "turn back time" he would have dealt with the incident differently, but denied losing his temper. Cllr Boyd said he was "dramatic in nature, not disrespectful."He said: "I feel justice has been served and so relieved that after a year, my name has been cleared."The incident came during a discussion regarding the removal of early years practitioner posts from primary one the video, Ms Speed is seen attempting to ask a question, first saying there had been "key themes today in terms of local democracy".Mr Boyd then interrupted, stood and read out the council's policy on standing orders before asking a shaken Ms Speed: "Have I made myself clear?"He said: "Councillor Speed, when I stand up, everyone here sits down."When the convener starts to speak, any member who is standing will resume his or her seat."No other member will stand and the convener will be heard without interruption. Have I made myself clear?" 'Courtesy and respect' A report from the Standards Commission panel said that "on the face of it" Mr Boyd breached section 3.1 of the Councillors Code of dictates that elected members should treat everyone with "courtesy and respect".However, the report added that having taken into account Mr Boyd's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, a formal finding of breach could not be panel also concluded that Mr Boyd's outburst was not sexist in report said: "The panel considered that in, essentially, reprimanding her so publicly in circumstances where such action was not warranted, the respondent was disrespectful and discourteous towards Cllr Speed."The panel nevertheless wished to make it clear that it accepted the respondent's position that his conduct towards Cllr Speed had nothing whatsoever to do with her sex."
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Watchdog: 'Inaccurate' use of Supreme Court sex ruling risks rights
The court ruled in April that the definition of 'woman' under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex as opposed to gender, in a case brought against Scottish Ministers by gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland. Four months after the judgement, the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has issued a statement, warning that implementations of the ruling could put the rights of both transgender and non-transgender individuals at risk. READ MORE: Scottish Government slaps down Tory MSP over Nicola Sturgeon memoir claims 'The Scottish Human Rights Commission has taken time to consider the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case 'For Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers' in the context of the human rights framework', the statement reads. 'While we do not believe that the judgment itself directly violates human rights, inaccurate interpretation and implementation of the ruling could put rights at risk.' It continues to acknowledge fears over how individuals' rights will be 'protected and upheld' following the judgement. 'We are concerned that basic rights to dignity and respect for all may be undermined. It is our view that the judgment itself does not directly violate any human rights', the SHRC said. 'However, the interpretation of this judgment and the resulting changes in policy, public discourse and the behaviour of duty-bearers are highly likely to have an impact on the rights of people in Scotland.' The SHRC has powers to recommend changes to law, policy and practice and primarily deals with raising 'awareness, understanding and respect for all human rights in Scotland'. It has advised the Scottish Government to 'immediately conduct an audit' of all policies relating to the Supreme Court judgement and to do so with a 'human rights-based approach' to avoid regressing on the protection of rights. The watchdog flagged concerns over the impact of the ruling on policies covered by the Equality Act, including police search powers, access to domestic violence shelters and single-sex accommodation in both prisons and healthcare facilities. It also noted that the Equality Act does not 'exist in isolation', referring to the fact that any policies formed under the Act must also fall in line with the Human Rights Act 1998. 'Taking a narrow lens to compliance with only one piece of legislation may risk non-compliance with human rights standards', the statement says. Following discussions between the SHRC, legal experts and academics, the watchdog says 'practical' and 'context-based' policies should be put in place to protect the rights of both trans and non-trans individuals. The statement continues: 'Without clear policies, decisions about, for example, how and when to accommodate individuals in services cannot be made consistently or with sufficient consideration of the issues and legal obligations at play. 'Nor can rights-holders expect to have a clear understanding of how their rights should be protected, or how complaints arising from practice should be addressed. This is a risk both to rights and to the ability of individuals to seek appropriate redress.' The SCHR also expressed the need for the human rights of different groups to not be seen as 'mutually exclusive or a zero-sum game'. 'Human rights are about more than the letter of the law; they should uphold dignity and humanity', it said. (Image: PA)Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman (above) reaffirmed her support for the trans community, saying: 'The Supreme Court ruling has raised many more questions than answers and it has put trans people and others in an intolerable position. READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon defends Kate Forbes amid Fringe venue banning row "Trans people are effectively being removed from spaces and services that they have used for decades. Their rights to access such places and go about their daily lives with dignity are being breached. 'Some of the most right-wing, reactionary and bigoted forces in our country have celebrated while trans people have found their worlds becoming smaller and more hostile. 'Trans people have always been with us. They are our friends and neighbours, our children and partners. They know their own minds. They cannot be erased and nor can their experiences. I will always stand in solidarity with trans people.'
