These articles were first published in March 2014 in the Kinross Newsletter.

Budget farce continues
Last year I rais ed the signifi cant concerns I had for the way
the minority separatist SNP Administration (surprisingly
aided and abetted by the so-called opposition Tory Group)
are running PKC. (See p.17, March 2013 Kinross
Newsletter.)
The Budget debate [13 February] followed a familiar
depressing pattern. The Group of Independent Councillors
decided to continue their approach of not pres enting a
budget, given the political arithmetic in the chamber and the
fact that our repeated request for earlier di alogue with the
other groups had again met with such a disappointing and
mixed reaction. Subsequent events were to again prove the
wisdom of that decision.
Given that Scottish Local Authorities under the Nationalist
Government have little choice but to accept the continuing
council tax freeze (by 2015/16 it will have been static for
nine years, during which time the rate of inflation has
consistently been above government targets, leading to a
real terms reduction in funding) and act as mere agents of
government policy, it remained imperative that PKC’s
decision on use of its limited resources, in a continuing
diffi cult climate, be given careful decision on use of its
scrutiny. All four political groups put forward their budget
proposals for the years 2014/16, meaning examination of
eight papers in under one hour (it would have been ten
papers i f we had presented our proposals and up to last year
I have never known such complexity in previous budget
examinations). In our view this is not a good way to set up
£325,000,000 budget.
Our Independent Group had spent considerable time on the
budget process and we had a balanced budget amendment in
place for possible use, having circulated our thoughts in
advance to all the other Councillors on areas where we
believed more money needed to be spent. These mainly
concerned the Environment Service, featuring new
footpaths, extra road gulley cleaning, more bus shelters,
increas es in grounds and roads maintenance, roadside verge
cutting at junctions, additional brown bin collections and an
increas e in the community waste fund. As I had said in an
earlier debate on the budget situation, we would support
whichever group incorporated most of our suggestions in
their proposals. It was interesting the number of areas where
additional expenditure or reject ed savings found common
ground amongst all four political groups.
There followed a highly political debate on the various
proposals which culminated yet again in the Tory Group’s
amendment, that was to be set against the SNP motion,
being withdrawn; hence for the second year running no vote
took place and the Administration’s budget, with minor
changes, was effectively passed. In reality, I again did not
have the opportunity to vote on it and asked, amongst other
opposition members, to be disassociated from this process.
In fact, our Group had decided, in the short time allowed to
digest the various papers, that ‘on balance’ we could
support the Administration’s proposals.
I maintain, along with Councillor Robertson, that the whole
procedure is a ‘farce’ and there must surely be a way to
allow more time to examine the relative merits of each
budget proposal in order to reach a better consensus and
proposal to take forward on behalf of the people of Perth
and Kinross we seek to represent; especi ally since all groups
accept the terms of the Local Government settlement and
council tax remains frozen. This year’s debate again
highlighted more than ever the iniquitous position of the
largest so-called opposition Tory Group that do not engage
with the rest of the opposition and openly attack them,
whilst happy to take the paid convenorships of audit and
scrutiny (I have resigned from this latter committee because
it is so ineffective) traditionally reserved for the leading
opposition. (The phrase taking money under false pretences
again springs to mind.) In effect, the actions of the Tory
Group mean that there is no effective way in which the SNP
minority administration is held to account. It would be
interesting to know if the Tory leader at Holyrood is aware
that her party in giving such succour to the Nationalists in
PKC in this referendum year? (I shall not bother writing to
her since she remains the only party leader who did not
respond to my request letter on the Referendum issue.)
Turning now finally to the Council’s Capital Budget for
2020/21 presented on 13 February 2014, our Group’s
amendment last year to allocate an extra £2 million from
uncommitted reserves was dismissed by the administration
when they chose to accept a Tory amendment relating to the
A9 improvements only (part of our amendment which had
also included money for major mitigation measures needed
on the A977 and core paths). I was dismayed when the
preparation of an outline business case for the A977
measures was put on hold last November and our Group had
proposed again an increase in the Capital Budget by £3
million by using recurring loan charges of £180,000 per
annum from revenue; it is disappointing that this suggestion
was not taken up by an Group’s proposals.
Given that we are in an unprecedent ed era of low minimal
interest rates, not expected to increase signi ficantly before
2017, it is surely wise in the medium term to identify
options (from the Capital Fund Reserves or Revenue) for
creating an increase in the loan charges budget (I suggested
an extra £200,000 per annum) from 2015/16 to restart the
Capital Programme. I sincerely hope that the administration
will look at this in the coming year and that my fellow local
members in Kinross-shire will support the request I made
during the debate.
Councillor Mike Barnacle
Independent Member for Kinross-shire

Council “laissez-faire” over gypsy
sites, says Councillor
Cllr Barnacle has written to members of the Council’s
Strategic Policy and Resources (SP&R) Committee on the
subject of Gypsy/Traveller sites.
The SP&R Committee was due to discuss a report
recommending the approval of a Perth and Kinross Gypsy/
Traveller Strategy at its meeting on 12 February.
Cllr Barnacle, who does not sit on the SP&R Committee,
wanted to warn the committee members of the dangers of
what he regards as PKC’s “ laissez-faire” approach to gypsy/
traveller planning applications.
He wrote: “ It is my view .… that we are faced with a
proliferation of sites capable of expansion and inadequate
planning control. Local communities view all this activity
with anger, concern and dismay. They want a level playing
fi eld and not positive discrimination on behalf of gypsy/
travellers in the planning system, as currently clearly
apparently operated by PKC.”