Sean,
With all due respect- You're wrong. And just a little condescending as well.
As I have suggested to you and others with an interest in this several times before- please read the very detailed and informative Report to Scottish Ministers. Granted, it's 295 pages but unlike most of what you and several others have consistently and erroneously put out as fact- it actually provides all the background information, references, supporting detail and all the varying points of view from all the involved parties.
I'm not really a Trump-lover. I agree with Adam that there's a whole host of valid reasons why some folks are less than enamored with the man, myth and legend that is DT.
I just don't like propaganda and mis-information. Read the Report- if you're going to be so opinionated on the subject you should at least base your opinions on something factual. It's something you should make some time for.
Chris
I have been wrong many times in my life. Care to suggest exactly where I am wrong in my last statement?
Ciao
Sean,
Please read the report. It will hopefully then be clear to you where you and many others have been mistaken. We can then discuss what's in the actual report if you'd like.
Chris
I have perused the report at an earlier date. I cannot see where you are making your point. I am not terribly interested in the report as an entire document. While I was very much against this development, at the end of the day, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me. As I have said all along, I am far more interested in the process. It is quite clear what took place. It is a different matter if you choose to acknowledge the short-comings of the decision-making process.
It is tough to not be sarcastic with a guy who states someone is wrong, refuses to cite why and instead insists a report be read.
1. The Infrastructure Comm rejected outline planning for the Trump project. That Comm legally represented Aberdeenshire Co Council and that decision could not be overturned by same said Council. The fact that the ACC later reversed their decision has no bearing in law on the matter and no bearing on the final recommendations made by the Planning Inspectorate - and rightfully so.
2. The application was called in by the Scottish Government in the nick of time.
3. The Scottish Gov't who were always in favour of the development and publicly stated as much of course followed the recommendations of its Planning Directorate.
4. It is my belief that if the Scottish Gov't wanted this project to be approved it should have taken control of it from step 1. A lot of grief for local cllrs could have been avoided. I understand that the gov't wanted this to be seen as local decision-making, but in the end it wasn't anything of the kind. Its a great pity the planning process and environmental protections were not supported, but that is how big business works.
Only time will tell if the over-riding national, regional and local economic impact will justify the decision.
Ciao