For Argyll had this email yesterday morning (1st February 2011) from Martin Stephen:
‘I am a partner in the legal firm, Wright, Johnston and Mackenzie LLP, 302 St Vincent Street, Glasgow G1 2RZ. I am instructed by Councillor Alison Hay to write to you in connection with comments posted on your website which suggest that Councillor Hay supported the reduction of Scottish Council funding for Argyll and Bute. Whilst Councillor Hay is pleased that on 25th January you posted an article making it clear that Councillor Hay had no entitlement to speak or vote on the issue, you are continuing to post material from members of the public which suggests otherwise (see coracle Says: January 26th at 9:16 and coracle Says: January 26th, 2011 at 11:59).
‘Having made the position clear in your correction, I would be grateful if you would make sure that nothing is posted which contradicts or appears to contradict that stated position’.
Our response
‘We are glad that Councillor Hay recognises that we have put the record straight on her position at COSLA – and in fact we had posted a comment to the same effect in another place in addition to publicising the accurate situation in the article to which you refer.
‘However, as a matter of policy, we could not, as you suggest we should, prevent our readers from contradicting us. (We are rather more robust.)
‘We have added a correcting comment to the 9.16am coracle comment on 26th January but can find no reference at all to Councillor Hay in the 11.59 one on the same day so are a a loss as to what the Councillor’s problem is with this one.
‘Our policy towards articles and comments is described on the following page: http://forargyll.com/editorial-policy.
‘While our audience is markedly astute, some are better informed than others, some labour under misapprehensions – and politicians routinely cause misapprehensions amongst the public for political advantage.
‘There is a level of discourse between politicians and the electorate, particularly during election campaigns, which is marked by inadequate information and light mischief on both sides. This is the normal texture of political life for those who choose it.
‘Councilor Hay is a public figure running for election and it is a life in which she engages vigorously and capably under its own rules, including – in common with her peers, the issue of impressionistic press releases.
‘Councillor Hay is always welcome, as is anyone, to post any comment she wishes on any of our articles – and to use the platform we provide to engage with our interested audience.
‘Some of her competitors do just that – and indeed attempt to distort perspectives on some material we have published. We take this in good part and simply post a corrrecting comment.
‘Please feel free to cpntact us on anything you consider outwith these rules of normal engagement and be assured that we will always be concerned to respond.
‘We will bring Councillor Hay’s concerns to the attention of our audience and will also remind them again of the facts of Councillor Hay’s position in this matter.’
And to remind you about the issue
Councillor Hay is Environment Spokesperson for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA).
In that capacity, she represents all 32 Scottish local authorities and in that capacity she was present at the COSLA Leaders meeting on 19th November, where Council Leader Walsh agreed the budget for Argyll and Bute.
This budget resulted from the changes to the annual revenue grant calculations which civil servants have confirmed that COSA requested and which, at an earlier meeting on 25th September, the Council Leader had also approved.
Councillor Hay was not representing Argyll and Bute at the meeting on 19th November and therefore, whether or not, as a former Council Leader herself, she might, at a personal level, have advised the Council Leader to be cautious, she had no duty to do so.
We assume that, as a COSLA Spokesperson and not as a representative for Argyll and Bute, COSLA is responsible for Councillor Hay’s expenses on such occasions.