Flamingoland: we have a system which itself is corrupt

An architect with 45 years of experience working in England cannot understand what he has seen in the Flamingoland decision. Perhaps it is time for direct democracy…

As an architect of some forty five years’ experience, a great deal of which involved working with planning authorities in England, I simply do not understand the planning system in Scotland.

Among the many expert bodies which rejected the Flamingo Land application last year, perhaps the most relevant is the National Parks Board. Their remit is to protect the land under their authority and for the casual onlooker their unanimous rejection of Flamingo Land’s plans should have brought this sorry business to an end.

But no.

Flamingo Land lodged an appeal at the end of last year and this is where it all gets weird. Rather than the appeal being heard in a public inquiry with all information being shared and evaluated as we would find in the English system, we have a government 'reporter'. This strange person makes decisions with little or no reference to preceding events and, in particular without any respect for local democracy. Public opinion doesn’t matter. Furthermore, this reporter seems to sometimes be part of the government and sometimes not.

This from the Daily Record:

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “An independent reporter has issued a decision intimating that he is minded to grant planning permission in principle for the proposal subject to 49 planning conditions subject to a legal agreement being reached between the national park authority and developer to secure the employment and environment issues that are set out in the Lomond Promise”.

So the reporter is independent. But, hold on, he’s making a decision on behalf of the government. If he’s independent does this mean the Scottish government has given up governing? And where do the views of the Parks authority, SEPA, the transport authorities, the local council and the general public – currently 178,000 of them – come in to the assessment? As for the 49 planning conditions subject to a legal agreement being reached, it seems that Flamingo Land have been a little vague so far.

This from Parkwatch:

The application is for Planning Permission in Principle (PPiP) and Flamingo Land has used this to avoid providing information that shows whether or not they will be able to meet the Scottish Government’s new policy requirements. Many of the responses contain the words “Whilst the proposal is not at the detailed design stage” – i.e Flamingo Land either don’t yet know or are unwilling to provide the answer – and are then followed by vague commitment to meet policy requirements. This is not good enough.

This is not the first time that something like this has happened. Remember Trump’s golf course? Or the nine fish farm refusals which were overturned? Just a couple of incidents where local democracy was ditched in favour of powerful interests.

“The system removes all controls inhibiting corruption and allows decisions to be made outwith public or even parliamentary scrutiny.”

While it could be argued that the events surrounding Flamingo Land reek of corruption, I cannot identify a smoking gun here, I leave it to readers to decide for themselves. But what is much more important is that we have a system which itself is corrupt. That is, it removes all controls inhibiting corruption and allows decisions to be made outwith public or even parliamentary scrutiny. It’s an open door for unscrupulous gold-diggers.

Green MSP Ross Greer is urging us to write to the Planning Minister, Ivan McKee, demanding that the Scottish Government calls in Flamingo Land’s application, presumably subject to a full inquiry, certainly the minimum we should expect in a functioning democracy. But to do so does not address the matter of local democracy and the right of self-determination which has been hung out to dry by the process as it has taken place so far. Nor does it prevent something like Flamingo Land happening again.

So, Ross, I have a suggestion for you. In 2020 the Scottish government passed the Referendum Act. This allows for a vote to take place in the matter of any controversial content. Admittedly the Act is intended to be applied to any act that the government itself passes but, given that this is now government business I believe that it is arguable that the Act can be deemed to apply in this case. Voting can be restricted to the postal codes most affected if you like although publicity so far suggests that a national vote would work just as well. We could wait until the 49 conditions have been dealt with and issue the full details before the vote is held.

If the government decline the opportunity to actually consult the people, Scotland Decides can do it for them. Seriously. We have the facilities for verifiable online voting and the capability to disseminate the relevant information and collate the votes when they come in. We can produce a vote which accords with national and international standards and all we need is for those with an interest or concern with Flamingo Land to register.

All that being said, there is a serious concern about the way that the Scottish Government is behaving. For those with independence on their minds I ask, do you feel happy about independence given the direction of travel of the current government? Or do you believe that we need to fully explore what sort of country we want to live in first? I believe we need a national convention in place and sooner rather than later and we need some grown-ups in Holyrood and in the general community. But mostly we need respect for local democracy and that is clearly missing in the political establishment today.

Respect Scottish Sovereignty have submitted a petition in respect of implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This underlines our right to self-determination in international law. So far, our minister for the constitution, Angus Robertson, is not responding and is now doing everything he can to avoid attending the petitions committee as he has been requested to do. That kind of says it all about the seriousness of our administration when it comes to protecting our rights.

The time has come when we must understand that we have to do it for ourselves.