Seil Chat

.
According to today's Oban Times the survey was sent to 377 voters to assess local opinion on the proposed Clachan Windfarm.

Of 208 returns, 60 expressed support, 138 objected and 10 stated no view. Of course, the 169 who didn't bother to return the questionnaire also expressed no view, so the results can be summarised thus:



So depending on your view you can see this as a victory for PACT or a victory for apathy . . . . but what is interesting is what (if any) representation the Community Council is going to make (or has already made) on the community's behalf on the basis of these figures.

FYI, the Seal and Easdale Community Council's submission appeared on the A&B planning website on the 17th April as document number 20605934.

.
Interesting.

(LINK - click 'associated documents and look for the CC's representation on April 17th)

We conclude . . . that the local community is strongly against its progression.

That is not to my mind a wholly honest representation of what the numbers say - what do other people think?

NickB wrote:.
That is not to my mind a wholly honest representation of what the numbers say - what do other people think?

If similar figures were to be published tomorrow for the results of today's elections, say 37% for SNP and 16% for Labour, with 47% abstaining (we can assume that the figures for ConLibDem will be negligilbe in any case) would it be wholly honest to see it as a strong 2:1 endorsement of the SNP, or as a massive 3:1 rejection?

The way our "democracy" works, if you don't vote, you are ignored. With the single exception of the 1979 referendum, abstentions do not contribute to the overall result. If you don't vote, you do not exist as an opinion-forming organism.

So I think it is wholly honest representation of what the numbers say. It might not be a wholly honest representation of what the people think, but this is the only method we have or trying to determine that.

The questionaire was NOT about the whether folk were for or against the wind farm per se, but whether the SECC should express an opinion about it.

Herby Dice wrote:.
but this is the only method we have or trying to determine that.

The method that has a true bearing on the planning application are those representations that are submitted to Argyle & Bute Planning with regard to the planning application.

I would dispute the fact that a large number of the recipients who did not register a vote suggests apathy. Those who hold strong views either way are almost bound to register their feelings. I would suggest that the "No View" contingent were mixed in their approach to the pro's and con's, but that the majority 47% who did not bother to return their ballot paper had no burning desire to express their opinion- one way or the other, and for the sake of this argument should be lumped in with the "No view" contingent.
It would be a sad day if voting became compulsory as happens in other parts of the world ( we had a Greek friend who could not visit us here because she had omitted to vote in one of their elections). If voting was compulsory but not identifiable by person, one could still spoil one's return by various methods to register one's disapproval of the process, but if it came to the bit where voting was compulsory and one's vote was registered in one's own name ( with prison sentences for infringement) then I for one would like to opt out of the human race.
Apathy (or probably more strictly - a lack of strong views) has it's place in the democratic process and should have a message for those posing their ballots.

Methinks NickB is slightly prejudiced in his original post and that the normal criteria underlying the democratic process fully justify the conclusion that the community as a whole opposes this proposal. Those who didn't reply in a relatively (ridiculously?) short time-period are absentees, 2nd home owners, ditherers, clowns or neutrals but overplaying their role, as Nick does, demonstrates prior bias on his part

So, absentees, 2nd home owners, ditherers, clowns and anyone else who didn't take the trouble to return their ballot paper are beyond the pale and as a proportion of the population should be ignored. If they cannot be bothered to make a cross in the appropriate box and hand it in to Balvicar stores, then probably, rightfully their opinion cannot be registered. But, to include them (as the majority of the recipients who did not respond) in any of the other 3 categories would be a dangerous precedent.
But this whole subject raises the question of just what power or function the Community Council has to perform in these matters. OK they may be invited to reflect the local opinion to Argyll & Bute, and I think they did try to assess local feelings in this case (at probably some considerable expense) but I would suggest that in any contentious issue they would have a hard job in coming up with a clear cut position.
And given the amount of credence accorded to Community Councils in the higher echelons at Kilmory (particularly in the Planning Dept.) just how much difference will all this effort make?