April column

Published on Wed 11th Apr 2007

Malcolm Bruce has led calls for a 50 metre Olympic pool in Aberdeen

*****************************************************************************************

Time for a review of sports and leisure

*****************************************************************************************

It is three years since I was first approached by Garioch swimmers to see the good work they were doing and hear of the challenges of trying to achieve international standards without a 50 metre pool within 100 miles and with overcrowded community pools.

Since then I have lobbied our local councils and the Scottish Executive to address this issue. I am pleased that after initial resistance Aberdeen City Council have adopted the commitment to a 50 metre pool.

Messages from Government have been mixed with Jack McConnell first backing the idea then not finding the money. The Sports Minister said it needed to be scaled down while the UK Minister said she thought it was a great idea.

Yet money is being spent in the central belt where Stirling University has a pool, Glasgow is to have two and the Meadowbank pool in Edinburgh is to be revamped. I see no reason therefore why the North East with a number of Olympic class swimmers should have to do with anything less.

When I started out as a candidate more than thirty years ago I supported campaigns for community pools - particularly at Bucksburn and Westhill.

I think it is time for a new campaign for investment in up-to-date sports facilities.

The Inverurie pool, for example was built to serve a town of 5000 people. Now there are 15,000.

I am also being lobbied by gymnasts who don't require such expensive facilities but really need at least one dedicated centre where special equipment such as high bars, asymmetric bars, safety pits and mats etc can stay up all the time.

Once the newly elected councils and the new Scottish Executive are in place I believe we should have a thorough review of sports and recreational facilities in the North East to ensure we have provision comparable with local needs and other parts of the country.

*****************************************************************************************

Local elections change the rules in N E favour

*****************************************************************************************

I know that many people feel that the North East does not get a fair share of the resources distributed in Scotland and I agree. Some criticise local politicians for failing to fight hard enough, which I don't think is fair.

We haven't turned things round but some changes have been achieved and more are on the way.

However, the new voting system for local elections could open up new opportunities to redress the imbalance.

By voting your preferences 1,2,3 and allocating seats accordingly, control of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA) will be wrested from the Labour dominated central belt.

This matters because CoSLA is not just the voice of local government. The Executive relies on it to set the formulae for distributing Government grants to individual authorities.

To date this has been done in a way that has favoured Labour led councils in the central belt. After May 3 most councils in Scotland will no longer be under the control of a single party but will see power shared across parties.

That will enable rural councils outside the central belt to have more influence in the way the money is distributed.

Of course there is more unemployment and deprivation in big urban centres but there is deprivation in the North East which needs to be addressed. In addition, the North East contributes positively to the revenues and is in need of services to sustain our economy and quality of life - and recognition that, in spite of having more efficient councils, costs of providing service can be higher.

So the local elections this year will usher in big changes.

Nurses south of the border face a squeeze on their income following Gordon Brown's latest pay deal

*****************************************************************************************

Unfair treatment of public sector workers

*****************************************************************************************

Am I the only one who sees Gordon Brown making his first few months as Prime Minister (which presumably he will be by the summer) into a "winter of discontent"?

He has antagonised the nurses by phasing in their cost of living allowance - effectively turning it into a pay cut. I am glad the Scottish Executive has agreed to pay in full (and so avoided angry demonstrations during the current elections).

Scotland may also be exempt from the conflict brewing as the English teaching unions react angrily to being told they will be restricted to pay increases of 2.5 per cent for the next three years.

I do not believe that public sector workers should be made to pay for the mismanagement of public services by Government and its agencies. Nurses, teachers and a whole variety of caring services are as entitled to share in the overall performance of the economy as people in the private sector.

Of course, public sector costs need to be kept under control and matched to the resources available - wherever possible from a stable and not increasing tax burden.

Of course, there is scope for productivity improvements in some areas of the public sector. That enables staff numbers to be kept at manageable levels and gives a fair share to those who are employed.

But public services contribute to the overall wellbeing of the economy and public sector employees should be treated accordingly.

I agree that wealth is generated by the private sector which must not be treated as a milch cow and should be rewarded for risk. That means that in a buoyant economy pay will rise faster in the private sector.

Public sector employees know that and generally accept it. What they find hard to take is having effective pay cuts imposed on them at a time when their jobs are less secure.

*****************************************************************************************

Time to welcome politicians

*****************************************************************************************

I can understand that public agencies do not want to be disrupted by election campaigning or to be compromised by any political party. However, I am disappointed that some of them react by banning candidates or visiting party spokespeople.

After all, most of the parties have commitments to support the police and education and visiting local schools and police stations, by arrangement and under agreed rules, presents more constructive images than ambushing innocent bystanders in the High Street - even if some of them are happy to join in the fun.

It reinforces the impression that politicians are some kind of low life, which I know is a widely held view, but perhaps seeing them exchanging serious views in real situations might relieve this a little.

I have been personally annoyed in the past to be told I cannot visit schools during an election only to find visiting Prime Ministers campaigning for my opponent given VIP access to schools in my patch.

OK, maybe it's just sour grapes - but I think I have a point.

So thanks to those places that do welcome visits from politicians during elections.

*****************************************************************************************

SNP puzzle

*****************************************************************************************

One puzzling aspect of the SNP campaign; is it about independence or not? The SNP were formed and exists, or so I thought, to campaign for a separate Scottish State - with its own armed services, embassies, border controls, seat at the United Nations (but not NATO) etc.

Now we are told it is just about sharing in the administration of the Scottish Parliament. But what will the SNP be trying to prove if they share in the administration? Presumably that devolution doesn't work and Scotland should leave the UK. Or have I missed something?