Councillor Mike Barnacle

Working hard for your community.

  • Home
  • Planning & Environment
  • Budget
  • Referendum
  • Roads and Transport
  • Boundary Commission
Site by Kinross Website Design

Final Reflections on Referendum Result of 18 September 2014

November 23, 2014 By Mike Barnacle

Submitted on 16 October 2014 for publication in the November 2014 Kinross Newsletter

Dear Editor

Final Reflections on Referendum Result of 18 September 2014

I have noted the view expressed in some quarters that local councillors should not get involved in nationalissues, like the recent referendum, and write to refute that. I was at the launch of the Better TogetherCampaign in Kinross-shire on 27 May and spoke in support of it.

My fellow opposition councillors Cuthbert and Robertson, along with myself, campaigned hard recentlyin support of a “NO” vote and our opposition to the break up of Britain. My constituents know that Ihave been opposed to the SNP’s separatist agenda all my political life and this will continue. Whathappens nationally in government has a direct effect on local authorities and I think people expect theircouncillors to have a view on such matters and to show leadership, where necessary. The fact remains thatby the end of its current term, the SNP Government will have frozen Council Tax for an unprecedentednine-year period, with consequential effect on public services locally, cuts that they of course blameWestminster Government for, as with most things.

I was heartened and relieved by the outcome of the referendum in Scotland in delivering a clear majorityin support of us remaining part of the UK. In PKC, the NO vote at 62,714 far exceeded the YES vote at41,475 on a very healthy 87% turnout. The highest ward turnout was Kinross-shire at 90% and I alsounderstand that our ward had the highest percentage NO vote and lowest percentage YES vote in ourcouncil area, a fitting tribute to the many folk who campaigned locally.

I voted NO because I don’t believe it is necessary to break up Britain in order to tackle Scotland’sproblems. I still had unanswered questions on citizenship/nationality, currency/financial services, theeconomy, land ownership reform and pensions/welfare after a seemingly interminable referendum debatebordering on a national self-obsession with little regards for the rest of the UK watching from thesidelines. I was completely against the division of Britain’s armed forces in a very uncertain world,opposed to the SNP’s proposed open borders for significant immigration and wanted a say in a promisedreferendum in the UK on reform of the EU.

The NO campaign won despite the flawed Edinburgh agreement negotiated by Cameron since thequestion put invited negativity from the unionist side. If the questions had been: Should Scotland remainpart of the UK? Do you support a Devo Max/Federal solution for Scotland within the UK?, positivedebate could have ensued. There should have been a threshold percentage for such an important voterather than a simple majority. Whilst I support the lowering of the voting age, it should be for allelections.

The referendum bitterly divided communities, families and organisations; the campaign being full ofenmity and intimidation, all caused by nationalism.

I have always supported the Liberal Federal Model for Britain with home rule parliaments for England(preferably outwith London), Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with full tax raising powers to fundtheir domestic programmes whilst a reformed Westminster retains control over currency matters, financialservices, foreign affairs and macro-economic policy. I very much hope that the Smith Commissioncharged with agreeing more powers for Scotland can keep to its tight timescale and get an agreementfrom the parties involved that takes us closer to this model. I do not think that this timetable should belinked to answering the “West Lothian” question on English votes for English laws that Cameron suggested.

It is now time for the SNP Government under Sturgeon to get on with their mandate by using theextensive powers they already possess to make a difference in running Scotland, rather than continuallyadvocating and campaigning that only independence (rejected by the majority of Scots) is a cure-all.

For my part, I continue to work behind the scenes up at Perth on a number of local environmental,planning and road issues of concern to my constituents for future reporting.

Kind regards

Councillor Mike Barnacle

Independent Councillor for Kinross-shire

Filed Under: Referendum

Reflections on Referendum Debate

November 23, 2014 By Mike Barnacle

The following letter was published on the Kinross Newsletter prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum.

Dear Editor,

REFLECTIONS ON REFERENDUM DEBATE AND PROCESS BEFORE HISTORIC VOTE 18TH SEPTEMBER

Edinburgh Agreement

A flawed document. The question being put invites negativity from the unionist side. If the questions had been: Should Scotland remain part of the UK? Do you support a Devo Max/Federal solution for Scotland within the UK?; positive debate could have ensued.

There should have been a threshold percentage for the vote rather than a simple majority. Whilst I support the lowering of the voting age, it should be for all elections.

Historic mistakes by Westminster politicians.

The lessons of history are not learned. The loss of Ireland and its arbitrary division was the first casualty of the failure to introduce the home rule concept, following party disagreements. The failure to agree a ‘home rule package’ for Scotland that should be on the table if a ‘No’ vote is secured is a mistake that could lead to the loss of Scotland.

The SNP often refer to the period of independence before 1707 but are silent on the benefits of being part of the UK, from the enlightenment to the present.

Liberal Federal Model

I support this for Britain. There should be home rule parliaments for England (outwith London), Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales with full tax raising powers to fund their domestic programmes whilst a reformed Westminster retains control of currency matters and financial services, foreign affairs and macro-economic policy. The current constitutional shambles results from the Labour Party’s piecemeal approach to necessary change that is long overdue.

SNP Rhetoric

I have never known a time when an issue (Referendum) has so divided communities families and organisations. The debate has been divisive, full of enmity & intimidating and I think Salmond’s legacy will be the politician who divided Scotland more than any other. The SNP suggest that if you don’t share their vision of ‘a land of milk & honey’ following ‘a seamless transition from the union’ you are somehow unpatriotic towards Scotland. The debate has been an interminable national self-obsession with little regard for the rest of the UK watching from the sidelines; to be followed by another 18 months of difficult negotiations if there is a ‘YES’ vote, that is irreversible.

Government in Scotland on hold

Rather than use the extensive powers they already posses to make a difference, the SNP have spent money from the public purse advocating that only independence is a cure for all ills. Their track record on several issues invites scrutiny.

Unanswered Questions

I do not believe it is necessary to break up Britain in order to tackle Scotland’s problems. Both sides in the debate produce experts to support their viewpoint so it is not surprising there are many undecided voters. I still have questions on citizenship/nationality, currency/financial services and the effects on the markets we’ve already seen, economy (why create a competitor of our largest market?), land ownership reform and pensions/welfare.

I don’t believe that separatism is in the best interests of our islands; it is surely crazy to divide our armed forces in a very uncertain world. Why would you do this unless wanting a different foreign policy? (I suggest if Scotland had been in the Republic of Ireland’s position in 1939, we would have lost the war). I don’t want vast sums spent on a nuclear deterrent either, but I would keep the minimum and negotiate it away on the world stage. Salmond wants open borders and significant immigration, England has had too much so border controls are inevitable; also if you want reform of the EU a ‘No’ vote will mean you have a say in that promised referendum, as opposed to a negotiation on Scotland’s membership that may not secure anything.

For all these reasons I’m casting a ‘No’ vote on Thursday.

Michael A. Barnacle (Independent Councillor for Kinross-shire)

‘Moorend’, Waulkmill, CROOK OF DEVON, Kinross-shire KY13 0UZ.

Tel: 01577 840516

Filed Under: Referendum

Landscape Designation – The Kinross-shire Experience

July 29, 2014 By Mike Barnacle

This article appeared in the May 2014 edition of the Kinross Newsletter and was written by Mike Barnacle, member of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland Council and an Independent Councillor for Kinross-shire.

In 2000 the Draft Local Plan produced by Perth & Kinross Council (PKC) omitted any reference to Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLVs) and was much criticised in that respect. As a result of repres entations, the original area of the AGLV (covering the hills to the east and south of Loch Leven to the Fife boundary) was extended to cover the Cleish and Ochil Hills up to the Fife and Perthshire boundaries in the Final Draft Local Plan 2001. At the Public Inquiry in 2003, representations that the whole of Kinross -shire should be an AGLV were rejected by the Reporter because areas within the shire had varying quality in landscape terms.

However, the River Devon and its gorge were regarded by him as of outstanding quality and merited inclusion in the designation; this contrasted with PKC’s position that they did “ not know what to do with the Devon Gorge area”.

The Local Plan 2004 included these extensions of the AGLV to the shire’s hill and river borders aft er a hardfought campaign by Community Councils, pressure groups and local elected members. The designation offered some degree of protection against inappropriate development; in particular it assisted opposition to wind farm development in the Ochil Hills, most notably at Mellock and Tillyrie Hills (the latter the subject of a current appeal to the Scottish Government).

During consultation on the Main Issues Report for PKC’s Local Development Plan (LDP) between 2009 and 2011, calls for the retention and ext ension of the AGLVs were made by the community and elected members, who were dismayed that the designation was due to be lost from the Proposed Plan due to a change in Scottish Planning Policy. In a speech to our Full Council in September 2010, I expressed concern at this loss and the essential need to replace AGLVs with robust Local Landscape Areas (LLAs). I then followed this in February 2011 requesting involvement in further discussions on including LLAs for safeguarding against inappropriate development. PKC’s Proposed LDP 2012 contained Policy ER6 to protect landscape, but only referred to National Scenic Areas (NSAs), with the Tayside Landscape Character Assessment to be used for assessing development proposals until supplementary guidance on LLAs is produced.

During 2012, the community and elected members lobbied PKC reinforcing the view that Kinross – shire’s AGLVs should become LLAs, remaining in place until supplementary guidance is produced and expressing concern at the delay in the process. At Full Council in January 2013 a Report on Representations to the Proposed LDP covering landscape change suggested PKC make no modification to the Plan, and left to the Reporter the option to retain existing AGLVs in the short period before supplementary guidance is available (2013/14), this having been delayed because of insuffi cient resources. An amendment by local members in Kinross-shire to retain the AGLVs meantime was withdrawn upon assurances from PKC offi cers that landscape guidance would be prioritised.

At Full Council in December 2013 a Report on Plan Modifications and recommendation to adopt the LDP by accepting the Reporter’s Examination changes was approved reluctantly, but it was noted that the Reporter thought “ it was unfortunate the supplementary guidance on landscape protection was not available”; he also “ considered that Policy ER6 provides a better framework for managing the landscape in the former AGLV areas”.

At a meeting in November 2013 of local Councillors and Kinross -shire Community Councils it was decided not to pursue a NSA for the shire following advice from Scottish Natural Heritage, but continuing scepticism remained over the Reporter’s view that current policy is a satisfactory defence against inappropriate development. I subsequently made a formal request for local elect ed members to be involved at the outset in shaping the supplementary guidance needed. At PKC Committee in April 2014 the Action Programme for our LDP (adopted by Scottish Ministers in February 2014) contained the need to prepare, consult and adopt Supplementary Guidance during 2014 on landscape protection and wind farm strategy amongst 15 items of policy guidance still outstanding for 2014 and later consultation within our new LDP.

A Review of Local Landscape Designations at PKC is now to be undertaken and I have sought participation.

In summary, it has taken PKC five years to address this matter and I suggest currently there is a widening gap and policy vacuum from the loss of AGLVs and what is to replace them. I would be interested to hear what other members of APRS know regarding their local authority’s current policy on landscape protection; I do know for example that Fife Council has LLAs in place and has used them to recommend refusal of a wind farm on the border with Kinross-shire at Outh Muir.

This article first appeared in the Spring 2014 issue of Rural Scotland, published by the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland.

Filed Under: Planning and Environment

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • …
  • 33
  • Next Page »

Councillor Mike Barnacle’s Contribution to the June 2021 Edition of the Kinross Newsletter

… [Read More...]

Letter to Residents Following My Re-election

… [Read More...]

Looking for something?

About Me

My Name is Mike Barnacle, Local Councillor for the Kinross-shire Ward in Perth & Kinross.
If you need to contact me, please get in touch via telephone or email.
01577 840 516
michaelabarnacle@gmail.com
Read more

Recent Posts

  • Flood Risk Management Plan – Forth Estuary Local Plan District Consultation
  • Correspondence between Mike and PKC Regarding Roads and Transport – August 2021
  • Councillor Mike Barnacle’s Contribution to the June 2021 Edition of the Kinross Newsletter