Why should they leave

[NaeTechnoHibby]

Why should Donald Trump enact other 'highland clearances' :boo hoo:

I know there is a bit of NIMBY'ism' but these people shouldnae have to lose their homes :agree:

I was oan the AberdeenMad board a wee while back, and most of them suported it then, not been oan recently though.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I don't think it's 'N.I.M.B.Y.-ism' at all, he should be told to shove his golf club squarely up his bloated, over-privileged arse.

A further example of ****bags who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

And he's got really weird hair...

[borders.cabbage]

Wont this development create loads of jobs and boost the local economy ?
I'm sure the people who are moving will be compensated.

[Woody1985]

Wont this development create loads of jobs and boost the local economy ?
I'm sure the people who are moving will be compensated.

My understanding is that it would boost the economy to the tune of hundreds of millions / + a billion.

Providing the houses are just bog standard they should be given market value +10/20% with the opportunity of first choice on any new housing developments, which will no doubt soar in value as the prestige of the course increases.

I could understand if you had a couple of hundred year old house with lots of history but I'm sure a lot of people would be happy to sell up.

[Killiehibbie]

Wont this development create loads of jobs and boost the local economy ?
I'm sure the people who are moving will be compensated.

Why should people be forced to move just so rich ***** can play golf in their living room?

[Betty Boop]

I don't think it's 'N.I.M.B.Y.-ism' at all, he should be told to shove his golf club squarely up his bloated, over-privileged arse.

A further example of ****bags who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

And he's got really weird hair...

:thumbsup:

[borders.cabbage]

Why should people be forced to move just so rich ***** can play golf in their living room?
:agree:
We should just tell Trump to GTF.
It's not as if the Scottish economy needs the extra billion pounds :rolleyes:

[Killiehibbie]

:agree:
We should just tell Trump to GTF.
It's not as if the Scottish economy needs the extra billion pounds :rolleyes:

Edinburgh has a shortage of beds at festival time. Lets force people to move out of their homes for 3 weeks every year and let visitors sleep in their beds. Nobody should be forced out of their homes. Bring in real jobs with decent wages not more minimum wage rubbish that nobody really wants to do.

[marinello59]

Why should Donald Trump enact other 'highland clearances' :boo hoo:

I know there is a bit of NIMBY'ism' but these people shouldnae have to lose their homes :agree:

I was oan the AberdeenMad board a wee while back, and most of them suported it then, not been oan recently though.

The vast majority of people up here support the Trump development. When it was jeopordised by the actions of one of Aberdeenshire's Lib Dem Councillors the show of support locally for Trump's plan was unprecedented. And with good reason. The oil won't last forever, the future has to be taken care of.

[borders.cabbage]

Edinburgh has a shortage of beds at festival time. Lets force people to move out of their homes for 3 weeks every year and let visitors sleep in their beds. Nobody should be forced out of their homes. Bring in real jobs with decent wages not more minimum wage rubbish that nobody really wants to do.
I agree with the bit in bold in principle, but is the creation of hundreds of jobs and millions of pounds for the economy not worth a few people having to relocate ?
The rest of your post is pish though. The comparison with the Edinburgh Festival isn't valid,and I'm sure all those who work in the hotel and hospitality industry will be happy to find out they aren't doing real jobs :confused:

[(((Fergus)))]

I agree with the bit in bold in principle, but is the creation of hundreds of jobs and millions of pounds for the economy not worth a few people having to relocate ?
The rest of your post is pish though. The comparison with the Edinburgh Festival isn't valid,and I'm sure all those who work in the hotel and hospitality industry will be happy to find out they aren't doing real jobs :confused:

It's just more low-paid service industry jobs. The big money (the profits) will be heading straight back out of Scotland again. We need to start using our imagination and start making stuff that other people want, e.g., renewable energy engineering like the Norwegians are doing. We have a huge coastline and a tradition of engineering talent. Surely better than being caddies and chambermaids to people who may or may not consider Scotland fashionable next year.

Rather than just grabbing the first "jobs" that come along, why don't we consider what we're good at, what the world really needs, and focus our energy on that?

[Green Mikey]

It's just more low-paid service industry jobs. The big money (the profits) will be heading straight back out of Scotland again. We need to start using our imagination and start making stuff that other people want, e.g., renewable energy engineering like the Norwegians are doing. We have a huge coastline and a tradition of engineering talent. Surely better than being caddies and chambermaids to people who may or may not consider Scotland fashionable next year.

Rather than just grabbing the first "jobs" that come along, why don't we consider what we're good at, what the world really needs, and focus our energy on that?

You're taking a very simplistic view here Fergus. Local businesses and suppliers will benefit from providng services to the development. Furthermore, the money earned through the new jobs will be spent in the surrounding area and will in turn boost revenues in the local economy.

On the point made in the OP, I don't think it is right to force people from their homes. They should be allowed the opportunity to negotiate the sale of their property with Trump directly if that is their choice. If not, they should be allowed to stay put, why does Trump need the extra land anyway?

[(((Fergus)))]

You're taking a very simplistic view here Fergus. Local businesses and suppliers will benefit from providng services to the development. Furthermore, the money earned through the new jobs will be spent in the surrounding area and will in turn boost revenues in the local economy.

On the point made in the OP, I don't think it is right to force people from their homes. They should be allowed the opportunity to negotiate the sale of their property with Trump directly if that is their choice. If not, they should be allowed to stay put, why does Trump need the extra land anyway?

Local business and suppliers would benefit from whatever industry is established there. The fact remains that the profits will be heading back to the US. It would effectively be Americans paying dollars to Americans, as in a mini-colony.

In the meantime, our people would be waiting tables and carrying bags when they could be developing more vital skills and industries. People are too quick to grab "jobs" without considering the long-term direction those jobs will take the country in.

[khib70]

The vast majority of people up here support the Trump development. When it was jeopordised by the actions of one of Aberdeenshire's Lib Dem Councillors the show of support locally for Trump's plan was unprecedented. And with good reason. The oil won't last forever, the future has to be taken care of.
:agree:Ah, common sense. It'll never catch on on this board. Anti-capitalist ranting is much cooler, you know.

Incomers prepared to sacrifice the long-term economic future of the area to preserve their little Shangri-La. Pathetic.

[Moulin Yarns]

There is also plans to build a 'millionaires playground' in Perthshire.


http://news.scotsman.com/16840/Man-of-mystery--behind.5592124.jp

http://news.scotsman.com/16840/Pine-forest-at-risk-from.5583490.jp

http://news.scotsman.com/16840/Heavyweights-join-battle--.5578602.jp

The estate owns a small (in relative terms) part of the land, the majority is owned by Forest Enterprise Scotland (or us the tax payer).

The development will affect Ancient woodland, an Environmentally Sensitve Area, a National Scenic Area, a Special Area of Conservation, Some of the last remnants of Scottish Native Caledonian Pine Forest and archaeological remains of settlements. And Tiger Woods won't be allowed membership.

[Woody1985]

It's just more low-paid service industry jobs. The big money (the profits) will be heading straight back out of Scotland again. We need to start using our imagination and start making stuff that other people want, e.g., renewable energy engineering like the Norwegians are doing. We have a huge coastline and a tradition of engineering talent. Surely better than being caddies and chambermaids to people who may or may not consider Scotland fashionable next year.

Rather than just grabbing the first "jobs" that come along, why don't we consider what we're good at, what the world really needs, and focus our energy on that?

What's wrong with doing both major projects?

Surely Trump will be funding it all via one method or another.

Renewable energy would surely be initiated via Government or a giant energy company.

Telling Trump to piss off and then nothing comes through the energy route is similar to the original Sky deal that fell through in football. Everyone hoping we'll get a better offer and then ending up with **** all.

Some of the stuff I've seen states that most proposed developments of renewable energy will only account for a very small proportion of our needs. Therefore, no one is going to spend billions of pounds on it.

We need the technologies that will give us a significant return on investment i.e a large proportion of our energy needs. If a renewable energy is designed that fits in with our landscape and coastline I've no doubt the companies will come. ATM that doesn't appear to be the case.

[Green Mikey]

Local business and suppliers would benefit from whatever industry is established there. The fact remains that the profits will be heading back to the US. It would effectively be Americans paying dollars to Americans, as in a mini-colony.

In the meantime, our people would be waiting tables and carrying bags when they could be developing more vital skills and industries. People are too quick to grab "jobs" without considering the long-term direction those jobs will take the country in.

A mini-colony...what are you talking about!There are plenty of foreign companies that that have operations in the UK. Without foreign business and investment the economy would be in serious trouble (well more that it is now:wink:).

In your world of complete insanity people would not work until they found a job in a 'vital industry'. Basically what you are saying is that the service industry is not worthwhile and people should refrain from working in it until something better comes along.

[Jack]

Scotland is becoming more and more a holiday resort and, like the south of Spain did, we’d better get used to it.

This Trump venture looks to me to be very much like the all inclusive holidays we, the Brits, go on – you jet in, don’t spend much money outside the resort, you jet out a couple of weeks later having seen nothing else and been nowhere else.

Edinburgh Council fall over themselves to pander to the tourists ahead of substantive employers* in the area or the local population. A toy tram is being built (servicing less than 10% of the city population) from the airport to basically where the ocean liner terminal is. I wonder who will get best use of that then?


* By substantive employers I mean all those who were mostly in the city centre and all but forced to relocated to the likes of Edinburgh Park at the Gyle. It was their thousands of employees that kept businesses, like Grays of George Street, alive, diverse and vibrant. A lot of these business locations now hotels.

And now Princess Street and George Street look every bit the same as every other tacky High Street in the UK with the same shop, burger, pub and restaurant chains with the same fronts and the same tacky souvenir shops selling *****e to the tourists.

Smile. Besides all the CCTVs there is also all the Japanese cameras to smile for.

[Killiehibbie]

A mini-colony...what are you talking about!There are plenty of foreign companies that that have operations in the UK. Without foreign business and investment the economy would be in serious trouble (well more that it is now:wink:).

In your world of complete insanity people would not work until they found a job in a 'vital industry'. Basically what you are saying is that the service industry is not worthwhile and people should refrain from working in it until something better comes along.

If we all end up working in service industry minimum wage or less jobs we end up almost being better off not working. How much do people have left at the end of the week from these jobs for a night out, holidays, etc?

[Green Mikey]

If we all end up working in service industry minimum wage or less jobs we end up almost being better off not working. How much do people have left at the end of the week from these jobs for a night out, holidays, etc?

:faf:

There is little chance of us all ending up in the service industry, there are a multitude of other professions that would have to disappear first. Whole industries would have to vanish for this to happen!

People woule be better off if the didn't work:grr: How much would people have at the end of the week if they refused to work? Does the dole provide for holidays and night outs?

If less people are in work then tax revenues will drop, this means that the govt will have less money to spend on the welfare state. If people refuse to work as you have suggested then the whole of the country would suffer because, as you say, people don't have money for a night out.

[Killiehibbie]

:faf:

There is little chance of us all ending up in the service industry, there are a multitude of other professions that would have to disappear first. Whole industries would have to vanish for this to happen!

People woule be better off if the didn't work:grr: How much would people have at the end of the week if they refused to work? Does the dole provide for holidays and night outs?

If less people are in work then tax revenues will drop, this means that the govt will have less money to spend on the welfare state. If people refuse to work as you have suggested then the whole of the country would suffer because, as you say, people don't have money for a night out.

Whole industries have disappeared and more will follow. Some people call it progress or the way it is in reality it's a total disgrace.

[Woody1985]

:faf:

There is little chance of us all ending up in the service industry, there are a multitude of other professions that would have to disappear first. Whole industries would have to vanish for this to happen!

People woule be better off if the didn't work:grr: How much would people have at the end of the week if they refused to work? Does the dole provide for holidays and night outs?

If less people are in work then tax revenues will drop, this means that the govt will have less money to spend on the welfare state. If people refuse to work as you have suggested then the whole of the country would suffer because, as you say, people don't have money for a night out.

I know that women with kids and unemployed people are better off working < 16 hours per week. They get to keep their benefits plus their wages. If they work more than 16 hours then their benefits are reduced accordingly, unless you have a well paid job you acutally end up with less money for the extra hours you work. Joke system, joke country.

[Green Mikey]

Whole industries have disappeared and more will follow. Some people call it progress or the way it is in reality it's a total disgrace.

You haven't answered any of my questions.

Whole industries have disappeared over the course of time but they haven't left us all working in the service sector. Anyway, your logic states that people who had low paid jobs in these defunct industries would be better off not working:greengrin

[Green Mikey]

I know that women with kids and unemployed people are better off working < 16 hours per week. They get to keep their benefits plus their wages. If they work more than 16 hours then their benefits are reduced accordingly, unless you have a well paid job you acutally end up with less money for the extra hours you work. Joke system, joke country.

I refuse to believe that minimum wage work would not be an improvement for some umemployed people. If this was the case, no minimum wage jobs would be filled everyone would be on the dole instead.

[Killiehibbie]

You haven't answered any of my questions.

Whole industries have disappeared over the course of time but they haven't left us all working in the service sector. Anyway, your logic states that people who had low paid jobs in these defunct industries would be better off not working:greengrin

An ever growing proportion of jobs are in the service industry. Take Kilmarnock as an example one major private employer left but not for much longer. Once Walkers shuts if people don't work for the council or in Crosshouse hospital theres not much else. As for falling tax revenues the government just put up other taxes and increase national debt.
Heres an example of a f***** up system. When I'm ready to go back to work later this month, i've been off since May, I can get £40 a week for a year from the social just for going back. First time i've been off in 10 years and they want to pay me to go back to my job.

[Woody1985]

I refuse to believe that minimum wage work would not be an improvement for some umemployed people. If this was the case, no minimum wage jobs would be filled everyone would be on the dole instead.

Not really interested in what you believe. People working in minimum wage jobs for < 16 hours a week receive more money working 15 hours + benefits than they would working full time. I have a friend who does this as we speak.

My ex-girlfriend who had a kid did the exact same thing and that was 3/4 years ago so it's nothing new.

There may be a point where working more hours does become financially viable. I'm not sure what that threshold is but I think it's +30/35 hours or so to start earning more than you would have working <16. For people in low paid jobs working an extra 15/20 hours doing something completely **** for an extra 20/30 quid than they would have got from working 15 simply isn't worth it. To a degree, it's about knowing how the system works.

[goosano]

The vast majority of people up here support the Trump development. When it was jeopordised by the actions of one of Aberdeenshire's Lib Dem Councillors the show of support locally for Trump's plan was unprecedented. And with good reason. The oil won't last forever, the future has to be taken care of.

This has been debated before on this forum

The development will destroy a SSSI- site of special scientific interest-lots of scarce nesting birds etc. The jobs created will largely be in the service and supply industry and low paid.

How attractive will a golf resort be at this site?-Scotland is saturated with great courses-and with many that have that have the history to back it up. Many new developments eg St Andrews Bay have struggled to make profits and that is close to the home of golf

If you want to see how dunesland can be sensitively developed look how a course has been developed at Macrihanish. (http://www.machrihanishdunes.com/dynamic-content/csArticles/uploads/130/TheHerald_FirstNewLingsCourseInACenturyOpens_72209 .pdf). This shows how a modern development can be built with sensitivity to the environment and yet still be a commercial success

Trump in true fashion goes in bulldozer style, take it or leave it, my way or nothing. At the end of the day his development could go ahead with several Scots being moved out of their homes under compulsoray purchase orders. And the profits wil not stay in Scotland. Does this develpoment make you proud to be Scottish?

[marinello59]

This has been debated before on this forum

The development will destroy a SSSI- site of special scientific interest-lots of scarce nesting birds etc. The jobs created will largely be in the service and supply industry and low paid.

How attractive will a golf resort be at this site?-Scotland is saturated with great courses-and with many that have that have the history to back it up. Many new developments eg St Andrews Bay have struggled to make profits and that is close to the home of golf

If you want to see how dunesland can be sensitively developed look how a course has been developed at Macrihanish. (http://www.machrihanishdunes.com/dynamic-content/csArticles/uploads/130/TheHerald_FirstNewLingsCourseInACenturyOpens_72209 .pdf). This shows how a modern development can be built with sensitivity to the environment and yet still be a commercial success

Trump in true fashion goes in bulldozer style, take it or leave it, my way or nothing. At the end of the day his development could go ahead with several Scots being moved out of their homes under compulsoray purchase orders. And the profits wil not stay in Scotland. Does this develpoment make you proud to be Scottish?

Yes.

[marinello59]

If we all end up working in service industry minimum wage or less jobs we end up almost being better off not working. How much do people have left at the end of the week from these jobs for a night out, holidays, etc?

Interesting. :agree:
I have never seen the argument that people are better off on benefits than working put forward as an anti-capitalist argument. It's usually used by the right to attack what they see as our over generous welfare state.

[Green Mikey]

An ever growing proportion of jobs are in the service industry. Take Kilmarnock as an example one major private employer left but not for much longer. Once Walkers shuts if people don't work for the council or in Crosshouse hospital theres not much else. As for falling tax revenues the government just put up other taxes and increase national debt.
Heres an example of a f***** up system. When I'm ready to go back to work later this month, i've been off since May, I can get £40 a week for a year from the social just for going back. First time i've been off in 10 years and they want to pay me to go back to my job.

In the same post you have derided the increase in service industry jobs and complained about job losses. What if there was new service industry jobs for the unemployed in Kilmarnock?

You have no concept of how government debt or taxation works. They are paying you to go back to work because it benefits the economy to have higher employment.

[Killiehibbie]

In the same post you have derided the increase in service industry jobs and complained about job losses. What if there was new service industry jobs for the unemployed in Kilmarnock?

You have no concept of how government debt or taxation works. They are paying you to go back to work because it benefits the economy to have higher employment.

Can the country survive if manufacturing continues to decline the way it has in the last 30 years? It must be better to have jobs that actually produce something worthwhile rather than costing the tax payer more money. If I go back to work 16 hours or less they will continue to pay me the same money as i'm getting now. How does it benefit the economy to have me in employment but still getting benefits paid at full rate?

[RyeSloan]

Can the country survive if manufacturing continues to decline the way it has in the last 30 years? It must be better to have jobs that actually produce something worthwhile rather than costing the tax payer more money. If I go back to work 16 hours or less they will continue to pay me the same money as i'm getting now. How does it benefit the economy to have me in employment but still getting benefits paid at full rate?

Simples. It gets you out into the workforce...once you are there that chances of you progressing onto further work and opportunities are much greater than if you were on benefits alone.

Benefits are paid even when you do work up to 16 hours to help reduce exactly the type of problem you are complaing about, the fact that in certain circumstances staying on benefit is better than working...this arrangement ensures it is not while greatly increasing the chances you will actually move onwards and upwards thus leaving any kind of 'benefit trap' behind.

As for 'producing something worhwhile' are you really saying that someone putting a vacuum cleaner together on an assembly line is better job that should be encouraged rather than say a golf caddy on Trumps new course which should be discouraged? Also I suppose people shortening their lives by going down the mines was much more worthwhile than someone designing a computer game???

Also this nonsense about 'the profit goes outside of Scotland'...Jesus how pathetically parochial and small minded is that....there are vast numbers of jobs in Scotland connected to non UK companies, our economy probably depends on them. To start saying we want no inward investment cause the company is not Scottish owned is truely truely pathetic and sadly shows just how 'small' a country we are sometimes

[Killiehibbie]

Simples. It gets you out into the workforce...once you are there that chances of you progressing onto further work and opportunities are much greater than if you were on benefits alone.

Benefits are paid even when you do work up to 16 hours to help reduce exactly the type of problem you are complaing about, the fact that in certain circumstances staying on benefit is better than working...this arrangement ensures it is not while greatly increasing the chances you will actually move onwards and upwards thus leaving any kind of 'benefit trap' behind.

But I have a job that I will be going back to full time as soon as i'm fit to do so. When I explained this to them I was told well then it's £40 a week in your pocket it will make up for what you didn't earn get when you were on crutches.

[--------]

This has been debated before on this forum

The development will destroy a SSSI- site of special scientific interest-lots of scarce nesting birds etc. The jobs created will largely be in the service and supply industry and low paid.

How attractive will a golf resort be at this site?-Scotland is saturated with great courses-and with many that have that have the history to back it up. Many new developments eg St Andrews Bay have struggled to make profits and that is close to the home of golf

If you want to see how dunesland can be sensitively developed look how a course has been developed at Macrihanish. (http://www.machrihanishdunes.com/dynamic-content/csArticles/uploads/130/TheHerald_FirstNewLingsCourseInACenturyOpens_72209 .pdf). This shows how a modern development can be built with sensitivity to the environment and yet still be a commercial success

Trump in true fashion goes in bulldozer style, take it or leave it, my way or nothing. At the end of the day his development could go ahead with several Scots being moved out of their homes under compulsoray purchase orders. And the profits wil not stay in Scotland. Does this develpoment make you proud to be Scottish?


:agree:

It gets very depressing watching my country which in the past produced any number of inventuions and discoveries beneficial to humanity being turned into a whisky/tartan/golf/nessie/brigadoon theme park for Yanquis and Japanese tourists to visit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_inventions_and_discoveries

[RyeSloan]

But I have a job that I will be going back to full time as soon as i'm fit to do so. When I explained this to them I was told well then it's £40 a week in your pocket it will make up for what you didn't earn get when you were on crutches.

So let me get this right you complaining that the Government IS helping you during a period of lower income?

Also the scheme you talk about is designed to assist people back into work and off benefits by supplementing their income in what can often be low paid jobs are you also saying this idea is actually a bad one and that no assitance should be given?

[Killiehibbie]

So let me get this right you complaining that the Government IS helping you during a period of lower income?

Also the scheme you talk about is designed to assist people back into work and off benefits by supplementing their income in what can often be low paid jobs are you also saying this idea is actually a bad one and that no assitance should be given?

I'll be quite happy to get back to work and hopefully never be in their offices again for another 10 years. As for their £40 a week i'll buy the wife an extra christmas present with it if I don't give it to charity.

[hibsdaft]

not read this thread properly but it annoys me that Trump has hoodwinked people into thinking this is about a golf course. its about a massive housing development that will constitute a new town in an area that would never be considered appropriate for such development without his spin, pressure and threats.

he has bolted a couple of golf courses on to lift the value of the housing development and spin what he's doing.

it may be that people think this thing can be, on balance, a good thing for Scotland. fair play but beware who you are dealing with.

if you think for one second that Trump gives a **** about Scotland, our countryside or out interests then you're a mug.

the guy's all about profit and self-interest and he pretty much says so himself, i am hardly saying anything new.

[hibsdaft]

It's just more low-paid service industry jobs. The big money (the profits) will be heading straight back out of Scotland again.

...

Rather than just grabbing the first "jobs" that come along, why don't we consider what we're good at, what the world really needs, and focus our energy on that?

:agree::agree:

[marinello59]

:agree:

It gets very depressing watching my country which in the past produced any number of inventuions and discoveries beneficial to humanity being turned into a whisky/tartan/golf/nessie/brigadoon theme park for Yanquis and Japanese tourists to visit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_inventions_and_discoveries

Damned tourists, coming over here spending their money. To hell with them and the local economy. We can all become Wardens on a giant nature reserve.

[marinello59]

There is also plans to build a 'millionaires playground' in Perthshire.


http://news.scotsman.com/16840/Man-of-mystery--behind.5592124.jp

http://news.scotsman.com/16840/Pine-forest-at-risk-from.5583490.jp

http://news.scotsman.com/16840/Heavyweights-join-battle--.5578602.jp

The estate owns a small (in relative terms) part of the land, the majority is owned by Forest Enterprise Scotland (or us the tax payer).

The development will affect Ancient woodland, an Environmentally Sensitve Area, a National Scenic Area, a Special Area of Conservation, Some of the last remnants of Scottish Native Caledonian Pine Forest and archaeological remains of settlements. And Tiger Woods won't be allowed membership.
Why not?

[Woody1985]

Damned tourists, coming over here spending their money. To hell with them and the local economy. We can all become Wardens on a giant nature reserve.

:faf:

[Moulin Yarns]

Why not?

because he hasn't liquid assets of more than £100 million that is required to become member. This development is a members only club with joining fees of £250k and annual membership of £6k.

But then no Americans will want to join as they boycott the country that set Megrahi free.

[RyeSloan]

I'll be quite happy to get back to work and hopefully never be in their offices again for another 10 years. As for their £40 a week i'll buy the wife an extra christmas present with it if I don't give it to charity.

OK so you are complaining about receiving Goverment help,.

I'm pleased you don't need it but for someone coming off benefits and entering a job paying £7 an hour or so this could be a substantial percentage of their income, although you conveniently seem to avoid discussing the benefits of such a scheme, prefering simply to moan about the governement GIVING you money....not something I have ever heard of people saying there is too much of to be hoenst and you sure as hell wouldn't hear me complaining if I was better off to the tune of £160 a month!

But I get your point, you don't need it so why are they doing it....maybe just maybe it's worth thinking that no system is perfect but that some sort of Governement assistance to help unemployed people back into work and off benefits might be a good idea!!! And no I am not talking about our SNP government throwing money at a multinational :bitchy:

[lyonhibs]

because he hasn't liquid assets of more than £100 million that is required to become member. This development is a members only club with joining fees of £250k and annual membership of £6k.

But then no Americans will want to join as they boycott the country that set Megrahi free.

Please tell me that was sarcastic??

Some people are just willing to be curmudgeonly gits that are dragged into the future kicking and screaming. I would suggest the - relatively - few people who wish to put a relatively minor personal inconvenience (I make that statement assuming they would be well reimbursed by the Trump Corp for their property/land) for a longer term gain to the local and indeed national economy.

Donald Trump is probably a odious, egotistical character with bizarre, teflon hair, but money is money and I wasn't aware the fair folk of Aberdeenshire (or Sutherland, or whichever administrative region this development falls into) were in a budgetary postion to say no to it.

[Woody1985]

OK so you are complaining about receiving Goverment help,.

I'm pleased you don't need it but for someone coming off benefits and entering a job paying £7 an hour or so this could be a substantial percentage of their income, although you conveniently seem to avoid discussing the benefits of such a scheme, prefering simply to moan about the governement GIVING you money....not something I have ever heard of people saying there is too much of to be hoenst and you sure as hell wouldn't hear me complaining if I was better off to the tune of £160 a month!

But I get your point, you don't need it so why are they doing it....maybe just maybe it's worth thinking that no system is perfect but that some sort of Governement assistance to help unemployed people back into work and off benefits might be a good idea!!! And no I am not talking about our SNP government throwing money at a multinational :bitchy:

I don't think they're complaining. It's simply highlighting that people are receiving money they do not need.

Why not offer 50% benefits? People are being given full benefits (including housing etc) and working 15 hours per week and it does not encourage them into full time employment.

My mate who does it averages £9/£10 an hour because of the ridiculous system.

It pisses me off because I work 35 hours a week, single guy, living with parent who receives ****all. If I want to go and get a council house tomorrow I'd be paying £200 quid a month rent for a high rise flat full of junkies, £100 a month CT, bills etc and I'd get no assistance.

If I want to stay somewhere decent I'd be paying £400/£500 a month rent for a council house. I'm not in a position where I can get a mortgage, well unless house prices start averaging 60k or I meet a rich woman. On top of that, I need to wait on a ****ty EdIndex housing list for about 7 years unless I declare myself homeless so that I become a "priority", I'd then be chucked into a high rise anyway as temporary accomodation and then some other ****hole after that, for which I'd have to pay for the privilege.

If I never had a job with good career prospects and decent earnings I can tell you right now I would be delighted to get out of bed 3 days a week for 5 hours doing some mundane job for £9/£10 an hour plus housing etc.

[--------]

Damned tourists, coming over here spending their money. To hell with them and the local economy. We can all become Wardens on a giant nature reserve.


That's not what I said. :tsk tsk:

Surely we could provide a welcome for visitors and income to local economies without presenting the nation and people as a cross between Brigadoon, the '45 Rebellion, and the crew of the Vital Spark.


That's all.


And why SHOULD someone be forced to sell his/her home just to advance this project? I'm not particularly bothered about the SSSI - as I understand it, the 'wildlife' at risk is some sort of low-lying vegetation which only happens to be rare in Scotland. I was told that the stuff's considered a weed in Scandinavia.

(All right - I'm exaggerating, but the plant concerned isn't going to go extinct any time soon, and I'm not going to favour plant-life over homo sapiens.)

I don't subscribe to the doctrine that it's OK for one or two men or women to suffer for the good of the people. Even losing their homes.

[Moulin Yarns]

That's not what I said. :tsk tsk:

Surely we could provide a welcome for visitors and income to local economies without presenting the nation and people as a cross between Brigadoon, the '45 Rebellion, and the crew of the Vital Spark.


That's all.


And why SHOULD someone be forced to sell his/her home just to advance this project? I'm not particularly bothered about the SSSI - as I understand it, the 'wildlife' at risk is some sort of low-lying vegetation which only happens to be rare in Scotland. I was told that the stuff's considered a weed in Scandinavia.

(All right - I'm exaggerating, but the plant concerned isn't going to go extinct any time soon, and I'm not going to favour plant-life over homo sapiens.)

I don't subscribe to the doctrine that it's OK for one or two men or women to suffer for the good of the people. Even losing their homes.


Sorry Doddie, but under http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2004/pdf/asp_20040006_en.pdf

every local authority has a duty to conserve biodiversity, which is every living thing, and as such should have refused the application or included robust mitigation in the approval. As I understand it Aberdeenshire did neither. Hopefully Perth and Kinross will see sense with the Dall Estate application.

As for the original topic, nobody should be forced to leave their homes for the benefit of a single person or corporation, CPO are there to be used only when there is no alternative and there is a 'public' need and benefit.

I'm sorry if I'm sitting on the fence.

And to LyonHibs, yes it was sarcastic, with the boycott Scotland website telling Americans to not buy any Scottish Goods.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Having worked in the "service industry" all my life (along with a few others on this board) I can assure people that I am not living on the minimum wage. Of course there are people on it and I am probably being too flippant however anyone who is happy to come into Scotland and build something that will attract more people here whilst they spend money and actively increase employment is welcome in my book. If tourism becomes Scotland's biggest industry, then so be it. I personally would welcome the days back when we had a manufacturing economy unfortunately times move on. Our minimum wage is still more than what workers in other countries are prepared to manufacture for so no time in the near future are we going to return to it. Most of the locals want it. Let him get on with it I say.

[marinello59]

That's not what I said. :tsk tsk:
Surely we could provide a welcome for visitors and income to local economies without presenting the nation and people as a cross between Brigadoon, the '45 Rebellion, and the crew of the Vital Spark.


That's all.

.

No, you didn't. I was being a bit naughty there.:greengrin

I agree with you about the Brigadoon thing but what's the alternative? There have been concerns up here for a long time that Aberdeen and the Shire don't get the share of the tourist market that it should. (A large number of tourists "do" Scotland by visiting Edinburgh and that's it.) It's not as if Trump is going to concrete over the area and erect a mini Las Vegas. It's a golf complex. I don't play the game myself, (a good walk ruined etc:greengrin) but golf courses do appear to be relatively pleasant environments.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

No, you didn't. I was being a bit naughty there.:greengrin

I agree with you about the Brigadoon thing but what's the alternative? There have been concerns up here for a long time that Aberdeen and the Shire don't get the share of the tourist market that it should. (A large number of tourists "do" Scotland by visiting Edinburgh and that's it.) It's not as if Trump is going to concrete over the area and erect a mini Las Vegas. It's a golf complex. I don't play the game myself, (a good walk ruined etc:greengrin) but golf courses do appear to be relatively pleasant environments.

M59, it's not just a golf complex, it has plans for 950 holiday homes :bitchy:

They are not going to be affordable to anyone but the seriously wealthy who will fly in and fly back out again, no doubt :rolleyes:

I am totally against Compulsory Purchase Orders being used in this instance :agree:

[marinello59]

M59, it's not just a golf complex, it has plans for 950 holiday homes :bitchy:

They are not going to be affordable to anyone but the seriously wealthy who will fly in and fly back out again, no doubt :rolleyes:

I am totally against Compulsory Purchase Orders being used in this instance :agree:

950 seriously wealthy people who will spend money locally? Is that a bad thing then? There is no evidence to suggest that these people will fly straight in and straight out. It just seems to be something that is constantly repeated by those who oppose the development.

I do have concerns about the compulsory purchase orders and hope that things can be resolved without resorting to their use. Just as I would have preferred that nobody had to vacate their homes to build the much delayed city by-pass up here. Nothing in life is 100% fair to everybody is it?

[Moulin Yarns]

950 seriously wealthy people who will spend money locally? Is that a bad thing then? There is no evidence to suggest that these people will fly straight in and straight out. It just seems to be something that is constantly repeated by those who oppose the development.

I do have concerns about the compulsory purchase orders and hope that things can be resolved without resorting to their use. Just as I would have preferred that nobody had to vacate their homes to build the much delayed city by-pass up here. Nothing in life is 100% fair to everybody is it?


The Perthshire development will be self contained with the 'members' not needing to leave for anything other than sightseeing. arrive and depart by helicopter.

http://193.63.61.24/WAM133/showCaseFile.do?appType=DC&appNumber=09/01273/IPM

[marinello59]

The Perthshire development will be self contained with the 'members' not needing to leave for anything other than sightseeing. arrive and depart by helicopter.

http://193.63.61.24/WAM133/showCaseFile.do?appType=DC&appNumber=09/01273/IPM

I wasn't talking about the Perthshire development but surely if they go sightseeing they will spend money locally?:confused:
Does anybody here visit another country and just stay in their hotel for the whole time..........all inclusive or not?

[Betty Boop]

I wasn't talking about the Perthshire development but surely if they go sightseeing they will spend money locally?:confused:
Does anybody here visit another country and just stay in their hotel for the whole time..........all inclusive or not?

I personally don't, however there were quite a lot of people in my hotel who never saw any of Egypt apart from the airport! :greengrin

[NaeTechnoHibby]

950 seriously wealthy people who will spend money locally? Is that a bad thing then? There is no evidence to suggest that these people will fly straight in and straight out. It just seems to be something that is constantly repeated by those who oppose the development.

I do have concerns about the compulsory purchase orders and hope that things can be resolved without resorting to their use. Just as I would have preferred that nobody had to vacate their homes to build the much delayed city by-pass up here. Nothing in life is 100% fair to everybody is it?

Who's to say they will spend their money locally?

TBH, I don't know anything about your by-pass but surely that benefitted the local community more than this development will?

This is for leisure purposes and the way DT has gone about it has been tawdry IMO, he went for 'extra' land after initially saying he had all the land he needed, did he not??

[marinello59]

Who's to say they will spend their money locally?TBH, I don't know anything about your by-pass but surely that benefitted the local community more than this development will?

This is for leisure purposes and the way DT has gone about it has been tawdry IMO, he went for 'extra' land after initially saying he had all the land he needed, did he not??

Who's to say that they won't.:greengrin

I am no Trump fan by the way, he is what he is, a hard nosed capitalist. They all tend to have a similar modus operandi.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

Who's to say that they won't.:greengrin

I am no Trump fan by the way, he is what he is, a hard nosed capitalist. They all tend to have a similar modus operandi.

Aye, but that doesnae mean that he can trample all over peoples rights :bitchy:

If some don't wan't to sell them their homes, then tough, let him work round it and not bulldoze through it, when does enough land become not enough??

[marinello59]

Aye, but that doesnae mean that he can trample all over peoples rights :bitchy:

If some don't wan't to sell them their homes, then tough, let him work round it and not bulldoze through it, when does enough land become not enough??

A question I often ponder when thinking about those champions of conservation at the RSPB.

Trump can't trample over these peoples rights. It's up to the council to consider whether the compulsory purchases would be justified.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

A question I often ponder when thinking about those champions of conservation at the RSPB.

Trump can't trample over these peoples rights. It's up to the council to consider whether the compulsory purchases would be justified.

What's wrong with birds, like :greengrin
C'moan the birdies :thumbsup:

He may not be able to do this personally but he seems to have managed to put the pressure on the council very well, so far, to do his bidding :agree:

[Moulin Yarns]

I wasn't talking about the Perthshire development but surely if they go sightseeing they will spend money locally?:confused:
Does anybody here visit another country and just stay in their hotel for the whole time..........all inclusive or not?

I know, but there are direct parallels between the two developments, they are both aimed at the super rich and as such those people will not be shopping in Aldi and Lidl, or indeed many local shops. If they are coming to play golf they will spend money in the golf resort, they might go and vist the castles and/or whisky trails and spend in those shops, but there is unlikely to be any substantial spend at locally owned shops (even the House of Bruar, where they might buy a Barbour jacket, isn't a local shop!)

[goosano]

A question I often ponder when thinking about those champions of conservation at the RSPB.

Trump can't trample over these peoples rights. It's up to the council to consider whether the compulsory purchases would be justified.

'Trump can't trample over these peoples rights'-well that's exactly what he is doing. Either you back the projext and all of it's implications or you don't. There is no justification for booting people out of their homes for this type of project

This project has little to do with golf. This is what it is about

8 - 12 storey tower block 450 bedroom hotel
400 unit staff accommodation tower block
36 luxury golf villas
950 luxury holiday appartments in tower blocks
500 exclusive £700,000.00 houses

You also make some fatuous remarks about the RSPB and land. Can you expand on what you mean by your comment.Clearly you don't care much for the natural world. Biodiversity and the protection of species is important for all of us. Do you understand why this is important?

[marinello59]

'Trump can't trample over these peoples rights'-well that's exactly what he is doing. Either you back the projext and all of it's implications or you don't. There is no justification for booting people out of their homes for this type of project

This project has little to do with golf. This is what it is about

8 - 12 storey tower block 450 bedroom hotel
400 unit staff accommodation tower block
36 luxury golf villas
950 luxury holiday appartments in tower blocks
500 exclusive £700,000.00 houses

You also make some fatuous remarks about the RSPB and land. Can you expand on what you mean by your comment.Clearly you don't care much for the natural world. Biodiversity and the protection of species is important for all of us. Do you understand why this is important?

Fatuous? They aren't a major landowner on the Scottish islands and elsewhere then? Land that they then restrict access too? Working farms bought up at prices the local farmers could not afford then closed off? So the people who would traditionally work the land are pushed out. Areas where sheep have grazed for generations are closed off. (Lack of grazing has been blamed for the inability of some wild flowers to flourish. Not much bio-diversity there, birds over flowers.)
The RSPB has fine aims. I just wonder if they do actually make the best use of their vast resources though.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

Fatuous? They aren't a major landowner on the Scottish islands and elsewhere then? Land that they then restrict access too? Working farms bought up at prices the local farmers could not afford then closed off? So the people who would traditionally work the land are pushed out. Areas where sheep have grazed for generations are closed off. (Lack of grazing has been blamed for the inability of some wild flowers to flourish. Not much bio-diversity there, birds over flowers.)
The RSPB has fine aims. I just wonder if they do actually make the best use of their vast resources though.

You surely can't level criticism at the RSPB and then laud the Trump organisation for doing much the same thing?? :bitchy:

Were these farms subject to compulsory purchase orders?

[marinello59]

You surely can't level criticism at the RSPB and then laud the Trump organisation for doing much the same thing?? :bitchy:

Were these farms subject to compulsory purchase orders?

I was asked to explain my fatuous remark. :greengrin
I am not lauding the Trump organisation for trying to remove people from their homes. I am just pointing out that nothing is as simple as it seems. If the argument is that people come first then I am merely pointing out that some of the conservation groups should perhaps take that on board as well.

No the farms were not subject to compulsory purchase orders. The RSPB adopted an aggressive buying policy where they would pay massively over the odds.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

I was asked to explain my fatuous remark. :greengrin
I am not lauding the Trump organisation for trying to remove people from their homes. I am just pointing out that nothing is as simple as it seems. If the argument is that people come first then I am merely pointing out that some of the conservation groups should perhaps take that on board as well.

No the farms were not subject to compulsory purchase orders. The RSPB adopted an aggressive buying policy where they would pay massively over the odds.

It seems simple tae me :greengrin

Surely the owners of these farms were laughing all the way to the bank then :agree:

It's a good deal different from a farmer willingly selling at over-inflated prices than Trump actively encouraging the council to use CPO's against people who have no wish to sell :agree:

[goosano]

Fatuous? They aren't a major landowner on the Scottish islands and elsewhere then? Land that they then restrict access too? Working farms bought up at prices the local farmers could not afford then closed off? So the people who would traditionally work the land are pushed out. Areas where sheep have grazed for generations are closed off. (Lack of grazing has been blamed for the inability of some wild flowers to flourish. Not much bio-diversity there, birds over flowers.)
The RSPB has fine aims. I just wonder if they do actually make the best use of their vast resources though.

Could you expand on your claims by being more specific about areas where this has actually happened?

Your claims are completely bonkers.

[marinello59]

Could you expand on your claims by being more specific about areas where this has actually happened?

Your claims are completely bonkers.


A quick response then, Friday night, I have other things to be doing.

Coll. Land for sale at offers over £70 000. Local farmer offers £120 000. A fair price for a Farmer looking to get a decent return on his investment.
RSPB offered over twice the asking price. Result? Loss off local industry and income for the Island

The Oa in Islay. Despite already having a large reserve on the Island a large parcel of land purchased and fenced off. There's quite a large number of wild goats roam that area...............although the area they can roam is a bit more restricted now. Bio-diversity? Or only for the birds?

I could go on about their massively expensive attempts to revive the Corn Crake population. Given the poor results, if they were a publically funded organisation heads would roll.
Like I said, a well meaning organisation but perhaps unable to see the bigger picture.

Completely bonkers? :faf:

[NaeTechnoHibby]

A quick response then, Friday night, I have other things to be doing.

Coll. Land for sale at offers over £70 000. Local farmer offers £120 000. A fair price for a Farmer looking to get a decent return on his investment.
RSPB offered over twice the asking price. Result? Loss off local industry and income for the Island

The Oa in Islay. Despite already having a large reserve on the Island a large parcel of land purchased and fenced off. There's quite a large number of wild goats roam that area...............although the area they can roam is a bit more restricted now. Bio-diversity? Or only for the birds?

I could go on about their massively expensive attempts to revive the Corn Crake population. Given the poor results, if they were a publically funded organisation heads would roll.
Like I said, a well meaning organisation but perhaps unable to see the bigger picture.

Completely bonkers? :faf:

Sorry M59, but using examples from other areas is poor, I didnae start this about any other development/place :bitchy:

This thread is about Donald Trump's developement :agree:

Oan yer birds theme, I support the puffin :thumbsup:

[goosano]

A quick response then, Friday night, I have other things to be doing.

Coll. Land for sale at offers over £70 000. Local farmer offers £120 000. A fair price for a Farmer looking to get a decent return on his investment.
RSPB offered over twice the asking price. Result? Loss off local industry and income for the Island

The Oa in Islay. Despite already having a large reserve on the Island a large parcel of land purchased and fenced off. There's quite a large number of wild goats roam that area...............although the area they can roam is a bit more restricted now. Bio-diversity? Or only for the birds?

I could go on about their massively expensive attempts to revive the Corn Crake population. Given the poor results, if they were a publically funded organisation heads would roll.
Like I said, a well meaning organisation but perhaps unable to see the bigger picture.

Completely bonkers? :faf:

Goats roam the RSPB reserve at Oa-they certainly did when I was there last year-can't see what your point is

Coll-Not sure about how true you info is but the RSPB reserve is a big tourist attraction-brings a lot more money to the island than one farmer would

Corncrake population is a complex story. The bottom line however is that there are almost 3 times the number of singing males in Scotland that there were 15 years agowhen the RSPB started their projects

[Beefster]

So just to simplify things:

The majority of the folk that live in the area and will be affected by it are supporting it whilst folk who it won't affect and won't need the money it brings to the economy are against it.

Fair?

[Moulin Yarns]

So just to simplify things:

The majority of the folk that live in the area and will be affected by it are supporting it whilst folk who it won't affect and won't need the money it brings to the economy are against it.

Fair?

I take your point, but if you were living there quite happily and were being threatened by an American Corporation to give up your home to make way for millionaires who want to play golf in your back garden, wouldn't you be a wee bit annoyed at the thought that the said American Corporation was using underhand methods to 'persuade' you to sell, or threatened you with Compulsory Purchase to get you out? That's what the original post is about.

I raised the similar development in Perthshire as it is just at the Planning Application stage. The two are similar in that they will exlude the public from land they can presently roam freely on. They both threaten rare, protected and fragile habitats that support species which are protected by scottish, UK, and European legislation, yet the proposition that, because someone has money, and is wanting to build something that may, or may not be financially beneficial to the local economy, it is OK.

I don't think so.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

So just to simplify things:

The majority of the folk that live in the area and will be affected by it are supporting it whilst folk who it won't affect and won't need the money it brings to the economy are against it.

Fair?

I never once said any other thing, I know the vast majority in the region support this :agree:

Well, the initial agreement anyway, but the Trump organisation wanted 'more' and this has now become a major issue, which I take issue with :agree:

He said 'he had enough land' and then changed his mind and said he didnae :bitchy:

How far do we let him go, and change his mind again :bitchy:

[marinello59]

Goats roam the RSPB reserve at Oa-they certainly did when I was there last year-can't see what your point is

They used to roam freely over a much larger area than they do now. I am only judging that on personal observation gained by my several visits to the island each year over the past twenty years though.........so I may be wrong.

Coll-Not sure about how true you info is but the RSPB reserve is a big tourist attraction-brings a lot more money to the island than one farmer would

I have no figures available here but would dispute that. Do you have figures? (Maybe they just fly in, go straight to the reserve and leave the island without spending anything locally. Or is it just golfers who behave like that?

Corncrake population is a complex story. The bottom line however is that there are almost 3 times the number of singing males in Scotland that there were 15 years agowhen the RSPB started their projects

Go on then , put figures on just how many singing male Corncrakes that constitutes and give me a rough idea of how much each one cost. I did have figures somewhere and will try and dig them out if you can't get your hands on them.

Anyway........I thought we were going to concentrate on the Trump project alone?:agree:
(Although this argument is kinda fun.:greengrin)

[Moulin Yarns]

Can I add, the golf course architect has said he will improve the SSSI habitat of the sand dunes on the golf course by stabilising them.

For those that don't know, the reason they are important enough to be given SSSI status....

















Because they are constantly shifting, and to stabilise them will actually destroy their importance. That shows that they haven't got a clue what they are talking about. (and before anybody asks, yes I do, it's my job :wink:)

[NaeTechnoHibby]

Go on then , put figures on just how many singing male Corncrakes that constitutes and give me a rough idea of how much each one cost. I did have figures somewhere and will try and dig them out if you can't get your hands on them.

Anyway........I thought we were going to concentrate on the Trump project alone?:agree:
(Although this argument is kinda fun.:greengrin)

I am oaf on holiday, at hameillldaeme, and it's been raining so I'm bored and arguementitive :bitchy: :greengrin

I have never seen a puffin in the wild, but I know where they nest and if ANYONE wanted to build a "GOLF" thingy that would jepordise their demise would have to do it over my body :greengrin:take that:take that

Back on the original topic though why would you give up your home of 40 years for a golf course and not be allowed to stay within 50,000 acres of it :bitchy: I wouldnae :agree:

[NaeTechnoHibby]

Can I add, the golf course architect has said he will improve the SSSI habitat of the sand dunes on the golf course by stabilising them.

For those that don't know, the reason they are important enough to be given SSSI status....



Because they are constantly shifting, and to stabilise them will actually destroy their importance. That shows that they haven't got a clue what they are talking about. (and before anybody asks, yes I do, it's my job :wink:)

Building oan that kidnae site will destroy it IMO and we'll end up with no 'natrual' coastline :agree:

[NaeTechnoHibby]

Mr Marinello59, I am probably oan the list of UK subvervists(sp) because I said if they ever put a neuclear dump at Caithness, they woukd have to kill me first :agree:

I have 'previous' in letters to the Westminster government :greengrin

[marinello59]

Mr Marinello59, I am probably oan the list of UK subvervists(sp) because I said if they ever put a neuclear dump at Caithness, they woukd have to kill me first :agree:

I have 'previous' in letters to the Westminster government :greengrin

Me too probably. Golf courses are one thing. Nuclear waste dumps are another.

[NaeTechnoHibby]

Me too probably. Golf courses are one thing. Nuclear waste dumps are another.

We have more than Hibs in common then :thumbsup:

Yer no getting oaf in yer RSPB malarky :greengrin

[goosano]

Go on then , put figures on just how many singing male Corncrakes that constitutes and give me a rough idea of how much each one cost. I did have figures somewhere and will try and dig them out if you can't get your hands on them.

Anyway........I thought we were going to concentrate on the Trump project alone?:agree:
(Although this argument is kinda fun.:greengrin)

The corncrake population has risen for a number of reasons-from simple things such as giving information to and working with crofters to more complex projects. The numbers are from 450 to around 1300

I don't pretend that everything the RSPB does is right and yes they've sometimes spent a lot of money for little gain

And yes maybe it is time to get back to disagreeing on 'the Donald's' project

[marinello59]

The corncrake population has risen for a number of reasons-from simple things such as giving information to and working with crofters to more complex projects. The numbers are from 450 to around 1300

I don't pretend that everything the RSPB does is right and yes they've sometimes spent a lot of money for little gain

And yes maybe it is time to get back to disagreeing on 'the Donald's' project

And I don't think that everything the RSPB do is wrong.
That was quite a detour.:hnet:

[NaeTechnoHibby]

The corncrake population has risen for a number of reasons-from simple things such as giving information to and working with crofters to more complex projects. The numbers are from 450 to around 1300

I don't pretend that everything the RSPB does is right and yes they've sometimes spent a lot of money for little gain

And yes maybe it is time to get back to disagreeing on 'the Donald's' project

I never said I disagreed with it,just cannae supporrt CPO's for it :agree:

Build around them :agree:

[Moulin Yarns]

I thought I'd bounce this back into play. there is a deadline approaching where the Council will probably be asked to vote on whether to use CPOs to evict the residents.

Thanks for helping build the pressure on Aberdeenshire Council. The more of us that sign the petition before October 1st, the more chance we have of stopping the council forcing people from their homes.

Please could you help by asking people you know in North East Scotland to sign too? You could forward the email below.

Thanks for getting involved,

The 38 Degrees Team and the Tripping up Trump team

---

Hi,

I've just signed a petition against Aberdeenshire Council helping Donald Trump build a golf course by forcing local people from their homes:

http://38degrees.org.uk/donaldtrump

Aberdeenshire Council is voting on October 1st, so we need all the support we can before then. Please could you take a minute to sign today?

Thanks

[Betty Boop]

I thought I'd bounce this back into play. there is a deadline approaching where the Council will probably be asked to vote on whether to use CPOs to evict the residents.

Thanks for helping build the pressure on Aberdeenshire Council. The more of us that sign the petition before October 1st, the more chance we have of stopping the council forcing people from their homes.

Please could you help by asking people you know in North East Scotland to sign too? You could forward the email below.

Thanks for getting involved,

The 38 Degrees Team and the Tripping up Trump team

---

Hi,

I've just signed a petition against Aberdeenshire Council helping Donald Trump build a golf course by forcing local people from their homes:

http://38degrees.org.uk/donaldtrump

Aberdeenshire Council is voting on October 1st, so we need all the support we can before then. Please could you take a minute to sign today?

Thanks

Signed! :agree:

[greenlex]

Have not read all the thread but if I was Trump I would just say ok. I would plan and build round the folks that want to keep their homes and get on with it.

Some of the homes dont look too great in any case. Who would paint slogans on the side of their homes just to get a point across? I think in time the folks would look really stupid but if thats what they want then let them have it.