War declared over St Kilda

I never cease to be impressed by how easily and quickly what seems to be a fairly simple and straightforward decision can descend into a declaration of war – and I’m sorely tempted to add especially when councils and other self-interested groups are involved (but I won’t). Even appointing outside consultants doesn’t seem to help.

A couple of months ago, back at the start of September, it was announced that three possible sites for a visitor centre dedicated to St Kilda had been selected. It looked as if this was going to proceed sensibly, as Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles Council) had declared that Hirta, the main island of the St Kilda archipelago, was not a possibility, because it is often inaccessible. Even though it is only about 40 miles west of the nearest islands, conditions are so severe that travellers can set out for St Kilda in fine weather, only to find that it is impossible to land on Hirta by the time they have sailed to the island.

Three potential locations were identified, all on the Western Isles, about 40 miles over the sea to the east of St Kilda: Cleitreval in North Uist, Leverburgh in Harris and Mangersta in Uig.

A few weeks later, by the End of October, a preferred site had been selected, and the consultants’ recommendation was Mangersta in Uig. The recommendation is far from final, and the plan still has to make its way through the local council’s decision making process, be considered by the sustainable development committee, and be considered by other public bodies before the visitor centre proposal is finalised.

But is looked as if the initial phases was over.

Not so…

A war now looks likely as the groups representing the Harris and North Uist bids are claiming that the rules were changed part way through the selection process, and the criteria were changed – Harris is seeking to resubmit it plans, and South Uist is considering similar action.

The media reports so far are short of detail, and those not involved in the process are not privy to the details and criteria the consultants worked to, so it’s not possible or fair to judge. However, this story seems to follow many similar complaints, where the parties involved are happy to conform to the criteria – until the decision fails to favour them, whereby they suddenly reveal to the world that the “rules changed and were cheated”.

Even if the claims are substantiated, this procedure still significantly weakens the complainant’s case, since it implies they would have kept quiet about the changes, and happily accepted the ruling had been in their favour.

If there is a problem, the time to speak up about it is before any final decision is made, not to wait for the outcome, and then jump up and down if it doesn’t suit you.