Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

from "The Courier", Wednesday, 21st November

Letter reveals Angus Flag cost view

The Deputy Provost of Angus, Peter Murphy, believes the extra costs involved in flying a new Angus flag should be met by the Alliance Councillors it emerged yesterday.

Mr Murphy, Labour councillor for Carnoustie and district, expressed his view in a letter to a campaigner opposing the new flag, David Coull.

Mr Murphy makes it clear in the letter he was forced to compromise to vote with the Alliance for the new flag. He writes: "At heart I'll always be a socialist but at times the need to compromise and follow a pragnatic approach to politics, especially in local government, leads to the sort of situation when myself and my fellow labour councillor Margaret Thomson feel obliged for the sake of unity in the Angus Alliance to bite the bullet and subscribe to the likes of the Angus Flag."

A block vote by the Alliance saw the decision to erect second flagpoles on the main council buildings so a new county flag can fly alongside the Saltire carried by a narrow 15:13 majority.

The new multi-coloured flag is a cut down version of the historic Angus heraldic crest, condemned by one opposition councillor as a bastardisation.

But Mr Murphy denies the decision will mean dispensing with the saltire. "That was never our intention" he states in his letter. "Instead we take the view that the Saltires should remain and over a period of time the Angus flaf could eventually fly alongsidde the Saltire."

"There is of course a cost to be met in doing this and I think personally that the money to provide the additional costs involved should be met by the Alliance councillors out of their own pockets, but that's a personal view."

The cost of erecting a second flagpole on the seven buildings that would need one and various additional roofworks and scaffolding has been estimated at £5000.

When contacted by The Courier yesterday Mr Murphy expressed regret that his split from the ranks has been made public. "This was intended to be a private response to a private letter and I am disappointed it has been put in the public domain" he said.

Though flying the saltire in his garden, retired bricklayer Mr Coull denies an allegience to any political party. He said "In principle I have no objection to an Angus flag, but not the design on offer. It features the emblem of an Anglo-Norman knight who was made Earl of Angus by Edward 1, the Hammer of the Scots who executed William Wallace. How on earth can this be appropriate? How could we explain that to visitors from other countries?"

SLG

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

SLG asked "Did you contact the Courier with the content of this letter Dave?"

Yes. I thought about it for a couple of weeks before deciding to do so. But I decided that, as there was a contradiction between what the Deputy Provost had said in his letter to me, and what he and the other members of the alliance controlling Angus Council were doing, this should be made public.

Although Councillor Murphy described it as a "private letter", the facts are:

(1) I have never met the guy, and wouldn't know him if I passed him in the street. I had no reason to write him a "private" letter.

(2) I wrote to about nine or ten councillors, not just to him.

(3) Every one of these letters began "To Councillor So-and-So"

(4) Every one of these letters made it clear I was writing to the recipients, in their capacity as Councillors, about a matter of public concern.

(5) Since my letters to the councillors were clearly letters to members of Angus Council, about a matter concerning Angus Council, there is no way that any reply could be construed as a "private" letter. He just got cold feet about what he had said.

Aventinian

carol

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Carol wrote "it was hinted here and elsewhere that the contents of a personal letter would be exposed"

Well of course I can't take responsibility for anything that anybody else may have written, only for myself. But so far as I'm concerned, that is definitely not true. It could only be true if we were indeed talking about a "personal letter". I might have hinted that I was thinking of making this public, but of course I would not have used the words "personal letter", because, of course, as far as I was concerned, it was no such thing.

"personally I find this type of behaviour appalling"

Carol, just try for a minute to leave your own personal prejudices aside. Just pretend for a minute that it was yourself, or somebody else, who wrote to nine or ten members of their local council about a matter concerning their local council.

(1) You have never met this councillor, and you wouldn't know him if you passed him on the street. You had no reason at all to write him a "personal" letter - and you did NOT wrote him a personal letter. What you wrote to him was a letter from a member of the public to a member of the Council, about something concerning the council which is well known to be a matter of public concern.

(2) You actually wrote to about nine or ten councillors, not just to this particular one.

(3) Every one of these letters which you wrote to all of these councillors began "To Councillor So-and-So". Not even "dear" councillor so-and-so, just a very plain address to a Member of the Council. Nothing about your letter suggested that it was in any way a "personal" one.

(4) Every one of these letters made it clear you were writing to the recipients, in their capacity as Councillors, about a matter of public concern.

(5) Since your letters to the councillors were clearly letters to members of your local Council, about a matter concerning your local Council, there is no way you would regard any reply received from members of the Council as "private" or "personal".

(6) A councillor says certain things in reply to your letter about a matter of public concern, but then appears to act publicly in a way which contradicts what they had said. After thinking it over, you decide that this is itself a matter of public concern, and make it public.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Aventinian wrote "Didn't tell them you're a dyed in the wool Scots Nat, did you?"

No, of course not, because I would not describe myself as such. You might describe me as such, but I don't. I never have. I am being totally consistent about this. The reporter from the Courier was going to describe me as a "Scottish Nationalist", and I said "no" to that description. She then described me as a "patriot", and I said "no" to that as well. I said I was a firm supporter of independence for Scotland, but, as far as I was concerned, that was not the same thing as a "Nationalist". I said that I really didn't care very much which political party forms the government, so long as we're independent. I said "I'm not a member of any political party, I'm not even a 'supporter' of any political party". All of which is true. I realise of course that this probably doesn't suit you, but it's true.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

The Courier quoted me as saying "In principle I have no objection to an Angus flag, but not the design on offer. It features the emblem of an Anglo-Norman knight who was made Earl of Angus by Edward 1, the Hammer of the Scots who executed William Wallace".

Aventinian says "Didn't we establish that to be rather untrue in a previous thread?"

NO.

You may have thought that you had "established" something, I didn't.

Aventinian · Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Aventinian wrote "this seems to be rather like your 'I'd like to campaign on environmental issues... but I'm not the slightest bit green' (paraphrase) comments".

Like every alleged "quote" in that article, this one bore virtually no relation whatsoever to anything I had actually said.

SLG · Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject:

SLG · Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: