Anxiety at tight time frame for ten-year masterplan
Concern has been raised over the amount of time West Lothian councillors have been given to consider a ten-year planning blueprint for the area.
Councillors may have just over a month before they are asked to agree to a 1,000-plus pages draft of evidence to submit to the Scottish Government for a new Local Development Plan.
The plan is a guide to what happens in the county between 2028 and 2038, and covers housing development, infrastructure, transport, and communities.
But the initial hefty document brought more questions and criticism than answers this week.
Linlithgow' Lib Dem councillor Sally Pattle told a meeting of the Economy Community Empowerment and Wealth Building PDSP that she had 'serious concerns' that councillors would have enough time 'to get this right.'
The document – 1059 pages long – is the combined two years of evidence gathered which has to be presented to the Division of Planning and Environmental Appeals DPEA to be 'gate checked' as the foundation of the next Local Development Plan (LDP).
This broad-brush approach to evidence gathering threw up anomalies and outdated information which the SNP's Andrew Miller highlighted, including one suggestion that three buses served Livingston Village when in fact none do.
Only halfway through the meeting did councillors find out that council officers had based their ward evidence on community council boundaries, which threw up anomalies such as bus services.
Councillors also picked over the lack of details in individual sections of the report demanding more detail be included before a final draft goes to a meeting of the full council and then on to the DPEA.
Councilor Susan Manion stressed on several occasions that this was the first draft of the document and was open to change and improvement.
All councillors moved to praise officers for the amount of work that has gone into the first draft.
Councillor Pattle said: 'I am now seriously concerned as I have sat here for the past ninety minutes, it's been revealed that we are supposed to go to full council to agree this and that its five weeks' time.
'I was under the impression that when it went to full council it would be after recess in September, giving us months to prepare for this.'
Addressing the ranks of planning officers seated in the Livingston chamber, councillor Pattle continued: 'I appreciate your time today and I'm sorry that we have come across as hyper local but that's our job.
'We are here to scrutinise on behalf of our wards to make sure this incredibly important document is right when it goes to the gate check.
'I am now extremely concerned that we are not going to be given adequate opportunities to do that.'
And she warned: 'Developers are going to be watching us like hawks. they are going to be using this as the basis for development for the next ten years. We have to get this right. I would like some reassurance that we are going to be given enough time to do that.'
Fellow Linlithgow Councillor Pauline Orr, SNP, said: 'It's a huge piece of work and we are the face of our communities, so we absolutely have to get it right.' She praised the 'amazing' work of the officers in producing the 1059 pages of evidence.
Director of Planning Craig McCorriston moved to reassure the meeting that he was happy to meet councillors and take additional information from them to correct inaccuracies.
He said that the draft evidence had to be ready to present to the DPEA by May 2028. The process is defined by government legislation, but he conceded that the time frame for the council to prepare the draft was 'tight and we do have to work at speed.'
He added: 'We have opened up to scrutiny today in a way which we hope is helpful to members and will engage further in the coming week to go through matters of concern or errors. Then we will ask the Provost to progress to a special meeting of the full council.'
He stressed: 'If we get this wrong it is going to independent scrutiny and the DPEA Reporter will send it back to us if we have not gathered enough evidence. I'm pretty confident that we are just about there but am happy to take that extra few days to go through things with members.'
Councillor Willie Boyle said: 'I'm looking forward to further opportunities to discuss it when it comes to actually putting the plan together. Power to your elbow I know we are up against a time schedule here and I fully accept that. We are where we are with that. We need to get it done.'
Depute SNP group leader Pauline Stafford said: 'I'd like to acknowledge the work that's gone into this report, and I hope members of the public will take time to read through it as well.'
Councillor Stafford added: 'I sit on the Development Management [Committee] and the reason I do is because I think it has such a vital role to play in all we do in council. This is what builds strong thriving communities. Planning is often, for elected members, misunderstood and for the public is often mistrusted, and as much transparency we can provide and show communities we have actually listened is vital.'
By Stuart Sommerville Local Democracy Reporter
Like this:
Like
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
42 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
All change after Hamilton – but not perhaps in the way you expect
To elect is, literally, to choose. And people in this by-election have chosen, narrowly, to put their faith in Labour's Davy Russell, who fought a doorstep campaign, remote from media concerns. This was the change contest. Understandably pleased, the Prime Minister hailed a 'fantastic victory' for Labour – before adding that 'people in Scotland had once again voted for change.' Read more Brian Taylor I think that is true but I suspect it may not be quite the change advanced by Sir Keir Starmer. I understand his perspective. He is seeking to fit Hamilton into the wider Starmer narrative. You will recall that, at the July UK General Election, Sir Keir repeatedly offered 'change'. His aim was to gain from the discontent – no, the loathing – which had attached itself to the Conservatives. To posit Labour as the remedy, without being all that specific about details. So, with these comments on Hamilton, he is seeking to suggest that Davy Russell's victory is, in some way, continuity: an endorsement of the approach pursued by his government. To repeat, I understand his motivation in so doing. But I am certain that this is awry. You have only to listen to senior figures from Scottish Labour to grasp that Hamilton disquiet was aimed at incumbency. The SNP at Holyrood, yes. But also Labour at Westminster. Broadcasting to an astonished nation on the wireless, I was most struck by Labour MSP Paul Sweeney who disclosed candidly that he had experienced 'pretty grim conversations' with voters. Despite those doorstep difficulties, Labour contrived to oust the defending SNP. Incidentally, only the third time the incumbents have lost in the twelve Holyrood by-elections which have taken place since devolution. But Labour's Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, knows this fell far short of an enthusiastic vote of confidence. He knows people want much more from Team Starmer. He knows they are upset over the economy and benefit curbs. Still, that Labour victory does represent change. The ousting of the SNP. Which itself demands a further change. John Swinney acknowledged as much at his news conference. His party, he said, had made some progress – but not enough. The aim now must be to address the priorities of the people, specifically the cost of living and NHS waiting times. He was accused by Labour's Anas Sarwar of seeking to drive voters towards Reform UK. Again an understandable point, but not entirely valid. Certainly, Mr Swinney suggested that the by-election was a two-horse race between the SNP and Nigel Farage's party. In so doing, he was seeking to polarise the contest, to pitch his party as the ones to stop the seemingly resurgent Reform, aware that Labour had comfortably outpolled the SNP at the UK election last year. Sir Keir Starmer is keen to tie the by-election into a wider story about Labour (Image: free) It was, in short, a strategy rather than a forecast. Nevertheless, the SNP came up short – and a degree of humility can now be expected from the First Minister. So he too must change the SNP formula. To a substantial degree, he already has, concentrating upon popular priorities such as the NHS, while sidelining issues such as gender. Some within the SNP may question Mr Swinney's own judgement. I suspect, however, that the majority will back his determination to focus firmly upon the economy and public service delivery. If there was even a fragment of complacency in the SNP leadership, it has been utterly expunged by Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Might this result also sideline the issue of independence, as the campaign group Scotland in Union suggest? Not in those terms. John Swinney will continue to pitch independence as a solution to persistent problems. But I expect he will primarily concentrate upon the problems themselves. Listening, in short, to voters. That emphasis may further disadvantage the Tories who tend to do well at Holyrood when they can depict themselves as the stalwart defenders of a threatened union. However, there are other changes to consider. Labour's vote is well down on the UK General Election in this area and on their by-election showing in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Folk are scunnered with the SNP. But they are also unhappy with the PM and the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. If she doubts that, perhaps she could have a word with her Commons aide, Imogen Walker. The MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley. So Anas Sarwar will pursue a twin strategy. Gently, diplomatically urging his Westminster colleagues to pursue policies which palpably help voters. While at the same time offering to change the government at Holyrood. Pitching himself as the sole contender to oust Mr Swinney. Seeking to marginalise rivals. Another change is the emergence of Reform. They came a creditable third, consigning the Tories to a whimpering fourth. Indeed, they got a higher percentage in this area than the Tories have historically managed. A sign perhaps that Reform can appeal to a wider range of voters, also eating into Labour and SNP support. Read more But will that endure? Or will Reform fall back again, perhaps beset by the internal divisions which emerged sharply on polling day itself when their chairman, Scots-born Zia Yousuf, resigned? On quitting, he said that he no longer wished to devote his time to installing Nigel Farage in Downing Street. He was also less than delighted with the new Reform MP Sarah Pochin who said in the Commons that the burka should be banned. However, the Tories are not exactly exempt from internal division, at Westminster and Holyrood. They must simply strive to recover from this by-election nadir – and hope that Reform will subside. Does this by-election change expectations of the Holyrood outcome next year? In itself, no. It tells us that voters are scunnered. But then you already knew that. It tells us that folk want and expect change. They want an easing of this age of anxiety. But then you knew that too. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
So now you know, SNP: indy is not what people care about
There may have been little talk of independence in the campaign but Katy Loudon, the SNP candidate, put out a Facebook video on the morning of the by-election which made clear it's all about separating us from the rest of the UK. The unionist parties' share of the vote at the by-election was just short of 66%. If that doesn't send a clear message to the SNP and the Greens that independence is not what is important at the moment, I don't know what will. Maybe if the SNP improved our NHS, our education system, housing, our infrastructure, managed to build ferries and dual our roads on time and improve our economy, it might get more support. That would be novel, would it not? Jane Lax, Aberlour. Nothing short of humiliation It wasn't only the kitchen sink that the SNP flung at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. It threw the washing machine, tumble drier and dishwasher as well. Anyone who saw on social media the gangs of SNP enthusiasts roaming the constituency, saturating it with MSPs including ministers, as well as foot soldiers, with a massive intensity, for weeks and especially in the last two weeks, must have imagined that it was a seat they could not lose. I wondered, in the last days, whether the SNP was not engaging in overkill, that the good folk of the constituency might be saturated with SNP propaganda to the point of apathy. The turnout, at 44 per cent, suggested that as a partial possibility. In this by-election, it was possible to utilise all the party's resources, and it did. That would not be remotely a possibility in any one constituency in a General Election. The result was nothing short of humiliation for the SNP. It is also a personal humiliation for John Swinney, who spent much time in the last week campaigning in the constituency rather than attending to First Minister's business. Nothing much will change at Holyrood, of course, but Mr Swinney's insistence that Scotland does not welcome Reform UK looks a bit hollow after it scooped up 26 per cent of the vote. Perhaps we can have a break from his preaching about Scotland being allegedly more moral than England. Ah well, one can but hope. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. Read more letters For many, politics is not working It is alarming that, in Thursday's by-election, Reform UK came third with 7,088 votes, a mere 1,471 behind Labour. The victorious Labour candidate, Davy Russell, is quoted as saying that 'this community has [also] sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight. The poison of Reform isn't us – it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here.' I suspect Mr Russell was speaking from within the excitement of winning and did not realise the significance of Reform UK winning so many votes. The party of Nigel Farage, that enthusiastic Trump supporter, was understood to hold little attraction for the Scottish voter compared with his standing with the English electorate. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse voters have demonstrated otherwise. The UK political establishment, Labour in particular, has one important lesson to learn, that being that politics in our country is not working for a significant element of our population. The vote for a disastrous Brexit was the first warning sign of a significant discontent with the inequalities and injustices in our society and economy. Uncontrolled neoliberalism has done untold damage to our social contract with our politicians accepting unquestionably the words of Mrs Thatcher, 'there is no alternative'. John Milne, Uddingston. Reform will be a Holyrood force The most interesting thing about the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for Holyrood is not who won, Labour, nor the fact that the voting was a three-way split between it, the SNP and Reform UK, but where Reform's votes came from. Compared to its vote share in the constituency in the last Holyrood election four years ago, the SNP vote dropped by almost 17% of the votes cast and the Tory vote by 11.5%. Labour's vote share actually went down by 2% as well. This means that Reform UK's 26% of the vote came more from parties of the left than the Tories. Clearly Reform is not just a threat to the Conservatives. In the climate of dissatisfaction with the established parties, Reform is on track to be a force at Holyrood next year. Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife. • After all the ballyhoo, the result is in and the real winner is Reform UK. John Swinney talked Reform up too effectively. Labour's candidate was nearly invisible. The result speaks volumes. The SNP lost. Labour just limped home despite being helped a huge amount by the SNP's travails. Reform UK came from a near-zero base to gain over 7,000 votes and run both other parties close. This by-election was a real test of public opinion for the shape of Holyrood in 2026. Reform could still founder given frequent party in-fighting. Equally the Tories could re-assert their desired position as defenders of the Union. John Swinney has made another major SNP blunder and released the genie from the bottle. Is he going to be the architect of the SNP's downfall? Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Labour far from home and hosed While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar, I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat that Labour needs to win if Anas Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting that the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh. Now flesh out the policies All the pundits initially claimed the Hamilton by-election would go to Labour, given local circumstances. Now a Labour win is described as a 'shock' after even some in Labour were describing their own candidate as not up to the job. But Labour needs to up its game for the next election. Criticism is easy, but Labour needs more fleshed-out policies for government, beyond centralising health in Scotland. The SNP needs to drop all the 'student politics' stuff; it was embarrassing to see a squabble over £2 million when it should be asking why Scotland does so poorly on defence procurement and jobs. Formulate a proper industrial policy for Scotland, and back any project that would enhance jobs and prosperity for Scotland. Refuse nothing and put the onus on unionists to explain their plans in detail. Trident: are the unionist plans for keeping Trident in Scotland similar to those for Diego Garcia? Nuclear power: why do they think Scotland should have it, given its high-cost electricity and the extensive lags on construction? What of waste disposal and site security? The SNP should be in favour of local pricing for electricity as a draw to attract jobs, and for North Sea oil/gas production (until Scots are empowered to decide its future). A Labour/SNP coalition? It looks like the only feasible outcome. GR Weir, Ochiltree. • For all the fuss about the Hamilton by-election, it should be noted that almost 56% of the electorate really don't care who represents them in the Scottish Parliament. Malcolm Parkin, Kinross. Russia claim is baseless Brian Wilson ("Yes, we should stand firm over Putin, but let's not make Russia our implacable foe", The Herald, June 5) tells us today that the rights of the former Soviet republics to seek security (membership of Nato) should have been balanced against Russian fears of encirclement. This raises two issues. Firstly, the Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics: the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russia itself) and 14 others. Of these, only three (the Baltic states,which were independent between the wars) have joined Nato. I am unclear as to how this constitutes encirclement. Does Mr Wilson envisage the Central Asian former republics (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan etc) expressing a wish to join the alliance at some point, thus making encirclement a reality rather than a baseless claim? Secondly, does Mr Wilson not wonder why these small countries wished to be under the umbrella of the Nato alliance? To avoid the current fate of Ukraine perhaps? Alan Jenkins, Glasgow. • Brian Wilson expresses the hope that we should not categorise the Russian people as being inevitably in the enemy camp. He concluded his article by observing that narratives about Russia should have "due regard to past history and also future potential for peaceful co-existence". Such narratives should certainly not fail to take account of the contribution made by Russian armed forces and the civilian population during the Second World War, which is estimated to have resulted in some 25 million Soviet deaths. It is clear that the Russian effort during that war was profoundly influential in assisting toward the eventual defeat of Germany. The Russian people at the time called upon impressive levels of love of country and perseverance in the fight toward victory over a formidable enemy. Once we were allies. While Russia remains in the firm grip of the dictatorial, ambitious and ruthless Vladimir Putin, it is difficult to see to what extent meaningful steps can be taken to pursue the "potential for peaceful co-existence". Ian W Thomson, Lenzie. A Pride rally in Glasgow (Image: PA) Pride needed now as much as ever Gregor McKenzie (Letters, June 6) suggests that LGBT Pride has had its day. In fact, since the end of the pandemic restrictions, more people have been going to more Pride events across Scotland than ever before. Why? I think it's in part because people see how, after several positive changes in the law for LGBT people in the past 25 years, things are now starting to get worse again. Mr McKenzie asks why we can't all just let people be, and I wish we could. But the increased restrictions being introduced on trans people in the UK are quite the opposite of that. Trans people just want to get on with their lives, but the new rules make that much more difficult. And trans people are constantly maligned currently by some parts of the media. So Pride events are needed as much now as ever. They are a celebration of how far we have come in the 30 years since the first Pride Scotland, and they are a protest against the regression we're seeing now. One day perhaps Pride will be solely a celebration, but that day still seems some way off. Meanwhile people join together in the streets to say "Not going back". Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
The 6-point plan Scottish Labour must seize on to ram home the advantage against 'confused' SNP
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Against, the odds, depressing poll numbers and barely believable claims of Nigel Farage's invincibility, this was a significant victory for Labour and a boost for the leadership of Anas Sarwar. The phrase often attributed to Mark Twain seems appropriate - 'reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Anas Sarwar, leader of the Scottish Labour party, celebrates with deputy leader Jackie Baillie. | Lisa Ferguson This by-election is also a timely reminder that after 18 years in government, the SNP look weary, divided and lacking momentum. The reality for most Scots is a governing party that has become less concerned with fighting Westminster, but is still not tackling with conviction the many policy areas impacting the everyday lives of the electors. Farage and Reform remain a threat. They are eating into the Scottish Tory vote and act primarily as a party of protest with a populist, ultranationalist (English) and isolationist agenda. The achievement to date, in the form of Ukip, was Brexit, an act of national insanity, more recently their barely concealed racist attack on the Scottish Labour Leader on social media and yesterday the offer of a referendum to ban the burka. The Reform party has no pedigree, or political creed, or positive policies and is Trumpian in it's behaviour and political outlook. Its appeal reflects protest, opportunism, cheap patriotism and a claim to be on the side of working people and a dislike of elites. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is a poisonous fraud, a vulture party exposing predatory behaviour, and an amateur version of populist parties elsewhere in Europe. But because they represent the 'anti-politics' lurking in the minds of many in the UK, they are dangerous, especially under the first-past-the-post electoral system. Their sickening addiction to barely concealed racism, hatred of immigrants and contempt for the European Union are unfortunately helping to divide and possibly destroy a once respected Conservative Party. For the SNP, the picture is more confused. Scotland is stalled as a nation. Scotland is bitterly divided on its constitutional future, where many Scots see campaigning on Independence as a major distraction from the effective governance of the nation. John Swinney in Hamilton ahead of the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election (Photo by Jeff) | Getty Images For the SNP, the drive to independence has lost momentum. This has led to much soul searching over the party's immediate tactics and to what extent there should be a more enthusiastic push towards their primary purpose as a party. It is a curious irony of politics that Scottish Labour now faces two nationalist parties that represent protest as a political weapon against the UK government. This provides an opportunity for Scottish Labour to project a more unified approach to our politics and hammer home the point that, as happened between 1999 and 2007, that rebuilding a critical harmony between Holyrood and Westminster and building on devolution is long overdue. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is 'Unfinished Business', representing a journey, not a destination - opening up a new era of devolved government that makes more of Scotland's potential and places our priorities much higher up the Westminster agenda and the public agenda. This, of course, requires the UK government to waken up to the wisdom of four-nation governance and make much more significant concessions, opening up the possibility of a more Federated form of Union in the future as even England opens up to the benefits of decentralisation, which may then evolve into something more significant. This would help allay the fears of many Labour politicians and supporters that being more Scottish would be equated with support for independence. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The remark from President Roosevelt seems appropriate. 'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,' he said. But for all the new opportunities facing Labour in Scotland, the fact the SNP has been in government for 18 years is hugely significant. Being in government is hard work and the pressures and never-ending challenges of office can be draining. But for the SNP, the constant turmoil of competing priorities is clearly taking its toll. Despite John Swinney steadying the ship after the Sturgeon era, the conflict between governing and campaigning is taking its toll as are the divisions within the SNP about priorities. This affords Labour the opportunity to become once again the party of choice for an ambitious Scotland. For the labour Party in Scotland, there is, of course, more work to be done after a period of stress in the first year of the new Labour government at Westminster. Policy missteps, the impression that Scotland was slipping down the Westminster agenda, and proposed changes in welfare and cuts in benefits have concerned traditional Labour voters and supporters, and Mr Sarwar. These darker days are easing and a more progressive agenda looks likely. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scottish Labour Deputy leader Jackie Ballie, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and Davy Russell, newly elected Scottish Labour MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse yesterday (Picture: Jeff) First Scottish Labour should continue to value distinctive Scottish perspectives on UK issues and be confident in emphasising differences with Westminster, when appropriate. Second, the Labour Leader should follow the example of the Welsh Senedd Leader who does contest unpopular Westminster policies publicly in her role of defending Wales. Third, Labour should intensify their assault on SNP policy failures in areas such as, education, health, prisons, industrial strategy and poverty - the peoples agenda. Fourth, there is a pressing need to break the tribalism in the Scottish Parliament and accept that 'coalitions of the willing' could achieve more consensus as happened with a real coalition in the period 1999 to 2007. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Five, assert a greater degree of willingness for dialogue and action with the other nations and the UK where issues and differences are resolved between governments, not in the Supreme Court. Warfare provides good copy but poor policy. Six, there is a need for the Parliament to be freed from the tyranny of the Scottish Government who are suffocating innovation. The boundaries have become blurred. The legislature should represent all parties. As 2026 approaches, Labour can offer a new deal for Scots and realise the potential of a remarkable idea, devolution, which is still in its infancy. Sir Keir Starmer must work to better understand that devolution can't stand still and accept that further change is essential not just because it makes sense, but because it is the only way for Scotland to be content within a changing Union and knowing there are attractive alternatives to independence. Scotland is a remarkable nation; it is also unfinished business. The next phase of devolution is long overdue and is required to set out a vision for the next quarter of a century. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad More Britishness will not answer the 'Scottish Question', but Gordon Brown's idea of a 'Union of the Nations' could work if Westminster accepted the fact the debate about Scotland has a long way to go. This article started with my description of Labour's victory in Hamilton being significant, but it is more than that. Spectacular would be more appropriate in relation to the victory in difficult circumstances, but mainly because of the potential it provides for Scottish Labour to once again be at the heart of how Scotland is governed. Sarwar's rallying call should be, 'the chance to serve our country – that is all we ask', which were the late John Smith's last words.
