Hello,
I see there is a bit of a minor rumpus over Donald Trump and his sodding golf course in the Scottish Parliament. Am I alone in not actually giving a fuck one way or the other? I did try and weigh up the pros and cons;
PROS
It keeps the golfers well away from me.
Jobs, investment, blah.
Golf courses look nice.
CONS
Donald Trump has shit hair
It annoys that fellow who won't sell his land to make way for the golf course.
As you'll note there are three pros and two cons so I am reluctantly for it.
However Alex Salmond is being accused of sleaze over the whole thing. I suspect he probably did break some rule or another but I'm afraid I'm not all that bothered. If I were the top boy in Scotland I'd be desperate to get any sort of high profile investment in to look useful. As long as we're not talking about dollar stuffed brown envelopes then I say bend the rules and get it built.
Cheerio
3 comments:
My problem with Trump and his gang is probably their approach to the whole thing. It's a kind of 'pearls before swine' thing. They genuinely can't understand why people might oppose it. Golf courses are fine,but I think it's a bit more than that. It seems he wants to construct a huge accomodation village around it and this seems to be getting up the noses of the conservationists and some people who live close to the proposed site. Some may conclude that this is a good thing I suppose........
I also have to confess to more than a little admiration for the old crank who won't sell his bit of land. They're going to have to do a fair amount of landscaping to hide his tatty farm house.........I'm sure he annoys Trump as much as the golf course annoys him.
Oh I love the fellow that won't sell his farm. He's a bloody minded old git which I rather admire.
Trump is an arsehole but at the same time his money is as good as anyone elses. That said had he shown a willingness to sit down and negotiate I think a lot of the opposition would have melted away.
Still I don't blame the government for being halfway up his arse they've got to be seen to be effective -jobs, money, blah.
Directed here via the Scottish round-up. The problem with breaking the rules or bending the rules is that in planning decisions things need to be done properly and need to be seen to be done properly, otherwise the decision can be challenged. The actions taken by the administration both in the unprecedented calling in after rejection by the council (but prior to the issue of the decision letter) - when ordinarily a developer would be expected to resubmit or to appeal (the latter of which would end up with ministers anyway!), and in the appearance of bias - risk opening up challenges to the process. They could, potentially, jeopardise a development the ministers seem keen to promote. I have made these points in more detail in a comment at http://almax.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/the-ace-the-king-the-joker-and-the-trump/ (my original post referred to in this piece, is locked for professional reasons).
Post a Comment