Memory 261008

Now the Inquiry is over there is very little we can do now other than wait for the reporters to issue their recommendations. I have already stated in these pages that it looks to me as though the evidence was clearly on the side of the silent majority and that there can be no justification for supporting this application as it has been submitted. Some will argue that is merely my own 'biased' opinion showing through.


I disagree, firstly I do not consider myself biased, merely objective and even handed along with fair-minded. Three things that I hope also apply to the reporters and most definitely do not apply to several others who have commented on these things. However I think it should be obvious that those who were in support of this application also are now admitting to themselves that their pet scheme was defended with evidence that does not carry the weight necessary to overturn the rule of law and reason. That the voice of t he silent majority who are against this development will be heard over the muted roar from the self obsessed in t he noisy minority who support this for their own ends.


How can I say this? Easily, just take a look at the increasing amount of rather desperate publicity and coverage this development has received, albeit in rather weak, almost pointless, articles since the PLI concluded. They know and accept that the admissions of rescheduling, the level of perceived risk and the amount of borrowing alone would make this so obviously unviable that no one would have the temerity to continue to support it but the question remains, how many of those in the public eye will have the courage of those everyday citizens that approach us and tell us that now they have all the facts they cannot support this development. That their support was based on headlines and bling rather than economic or environmental facts. I hope I am  wrong but I doubt many will be brave enough to say "I was wrong, it is wrong" They are more likely to just go quiet as the SNP have done with regard to their environmental policy so proudly stated at their conference in the MacDonald Aviemore Resort in the autumn of 2006. There they stated the environment was first and nothing would change that (I paraphrase), well something has changed it! After all, a week is a long time in politics, never mind two years. Perhaps they were hoping the electorate had forgotten.