Home
News
September 2014
Architects clash over independence as referendum looms

Architects clash over independence as referendum looms

September 5 2014

A battle for the future of the architectural profession is heating up as figureheads from Architects for Yes lock horns with colleagues opposed to independence ahead of the crunch vote on 18 September.

Within this febrile atmosphere Yes campaigners are mounting a last ditch push to convince architects whose loyalties may be wobbling to join their cause by hosting a public meeting in which they will expound their cause

This will provide an opportunity for audience of the converted and those who are not so sure to pop questions directly to vocal Yes campaigners Fiona Hyslop, Malcolm Fraser, Peter Wilson and Jonathan Charley.

Speaking in advance of the meet-up Architects for Yes organiser and Dualchas director Alasdair Stephen gave the gist of his thinking to Urban Realm, saying: “When you’ve got policies like the bedroom tax [spare room subsidy] which is affecting the end users of our buildings then that is something we should be engaged in, we shouldn’t just leave it to the politicians, we should actually get more involved ourselves like we used to do back in the 50s/60s and 70s.”

Stephen added: “Scotland is a small country, so we can speak to and influence these politicians, an example of that is the Scenic Routes project. That is something architects pushed for and got delivery on and that is now an exciting opportunity for young architects across Scotland.”

Quizzed over the potential uncertainties fellow Yes proponent Fraser told Urban Realm: “In the built environment we should be used to thinking about the long game, the medium term might indeed be difficult after the vote. My daughter is a third year architecture student so I need to think about her future and the future of the built environment in Scotland and I believe in the benefits of government being close to us, where we are listened to.”

The intervention has stirred passions amongst those on the opposite side of the debate however, notably Richard Murphy who has been apoplectic at the Scottish government’s regressive procurement policies.

Others such as Alan Dickson of Rural Design, are also critical of the Architects for Yes movement, telling Urban Realm: “I am a bit annoyed about that, it does come across as architects in general are yes supporters which is far from the truth.”

Dickson believes that local government has been ‘completely destroyed’ as the Scottish government has hoovered up powers and is sceptical of claims of a creative explosion in the wake of independence. He said: “Okay things happened in Barcelona when General Franco died but it’s not like we have a General Franco here, keeping his thumb on top of the creative professions. If anything, in the context of the work we’ve been doing over the past 10 years, not just ourselves but with Alasdair Stephen, it’s been its own enlightenment in terms of design in the landscape.”

Anyone interested in attending the Yes meeting is invited to RIAS headquarters on Monday 8 September at 18:00.

51 Comments

#1 Posted by tcg on 5 Sep 2014 at 12:19 PM

I am sorry but this is a terrible bit of journalism. Its a dangerous thing to talk up 'febrile' atmospheres and clashes, particularly where none seem to exist. I would rather see some more measured reporting than this hysterical tabloid tosh. What this amounts to is some folks on the Yes side getting off their bahookies and doing something and someone from the No side being mildly tetchy about it all and who only seems to be in there to provide 'balance' The Richard Murphy reference is slightly baffling as whatever his views on the referendum might be, we are not actually voting on scottish government procurement policy at this time...

#2 Posted by richard heggie on 5 Sep 2014 at 13:17 PM

Is it really any surprise that architects and urbanists are participating in what has become a national conversation about the kind of country Scotland is and could be? It would be exceptionally disappointing if this wasn't the case.

#3 Posted by Stephen on 5 Sep 2014 at 14:04 PM

I'm with Alan Dickson. I think it's disingenuous to call this Architects for Yes. I will be voting yes and I am an architect but I think it's under-handed, unhelpful and anti-democratic to spin a campaign this way. Jonathan Charley is also not an architect and neither are numerous others on the list, which is another serious problem with this.
I'd compare it to the poisonous anti-democratic PR that was the recent 'business leaders against independence' letter.
Why can't people just accept that we get one vote each and stop preaching at and mis-infroming others and telling us what to think?

#4 Posted by Architrave on 5 Sep 2014 at 14:21 PM

I find it funny when people bemoan local powers being 'hoovered up' to Holyrood, yet in the next breath they are happy with powers being retained in Westminster.
Doesn't quite add up.

Why doesn't someone start an 'Architects for No' group if they're so affronted by 'Architects for Yes'? Also, the fact is that the declaration for Architects for Yes does also include the phrase stating that you don't need to be a member of ARB to be part of the group...

#5 Posted by RF on 5 Sep 2014 at 14:30 PM

I'm sorry but there are groups from all over the country being formed in support of Yes, which are called 'Group' for Yes. eg. NHS for Yes, Academics for Yes. I don't think you could possibly construe that all Architects are for Yes simply by the name of this group.

#6 Posted by Alasdair Stephen on 8 Sep 2014 at 13:44 PM

This is not the first time I've seen complaints that 'architect' is a protected title so therefore noone who is not an architect can support our group. Our organisation is based on 'Lawers for Yes' and many others and includes in the first sentence of our declaration a definition of who we represent. This can be viewed here:
http://www.architectsforyes.org/our-declaration/

If we had called ourselves 'All Architects are for Yes' or 'Architects are for Yes' then the comments from 'Stephen' and Alan Dickson might make sense. As it stands they don't.

Alan Dickson and Richard Murphy both use criticism of SNP government domestic policy as an argument for independence. They are spectacularly missing the point of the debate.

#7 Posted by Alasdair Stephen on 8 Sep 2014 at 14:53 PM

#8 Posted by Stephen on 8 Sep 2014 at 19:59 PM

Thanks for being so dismissive Alasdair. I was obviously making pronouncements that were above my station!
The whole debate (just like Westminster and Scottish Parliament politics) has been taken over by just this kind of belligerence, and is in danger of coming down to who has the loudest voice. Might the fact that it's now 50/50 suggest that a debate mired in noise has left neither side with a truly convincing argument? Not the mandate for a great future. A little more tolerance from all, of all positions, might be a start, but it's possibly a little late.

#9 Posted by Alan Dickson on 9 Sep 2014 at 10:55 AM

I don’t think it is “spectacularly” missing the point. The presence of an Edinburgh government (of whatever political hue) has created an inevitable gravity that has gradually pulled powers away from the periphery towards a central control.

Whilst the argument that full independence gives us the powers to change these things because the party scotland votes for will be in control - this power already exists. None of the Edinburgh based parties seem to see centralisation as an issue. Control of decisions justifies their existence, and that of the political industry and lobbyists that has grown up around it.

Twenty years ago we had a Skye and Lochalsh council, based 200 yards from my office. Now half of these powers are 150 miles away in Inverness, and the other half are in Edinburgh.

I dont see that as progress.

#10 Posted by tcg on 9 Sep 2014 at 15:11 PM

Alan, i quite agree. I dont however see that removing the current top layer of government would be a negative in that respect. There is little doubt that as a means to shore up its own power base the Scottish Parliament has tended to devolve decisions up to itself from a more local level just as councils have done the same from a local council level. I think it is a fair argument that once the Scottish Parliament needs to spend time thinking about foreign policy and defence it will be less concerned about the Highland Council and power will start to work its way back downwards again. But it should also be noted that the SNP are instinctive centralisers. Good job that in an independent Scotland we wont need to vote for them and some of the more locally democratic notions that Lesley Riddoch, the Commonweal and others have put forward will hopefully come to the fore.

#11 Posted by Alasdair Stephen on 9 Sep 2014 at 16:05 PM

Alan, local government was reformed by the Conservatives and not the Scottish parliament. SNP has removed ring-fencing of council spending so a myth to claim power is being centralised in Edinburgh.

Power, real power, is in London. LibDems won't even devolve crown estates to Scotland. SNP policy to give revenues to local communities.

But this is - as I said - party politics. The referendum is about democracy and where power resides. By reducing this historic choice to local arguments over party policy in Holyrood you are missing the point and tacitly voting No to ensure power is retained in London. I suggest you read Blossom by Lesley Riddoch. It describes the sort of local democracy you appear to be hinting at. London will never deliver this.

#12 Posted by Alan Dickson on 9 Sep 2014 at 16:53 PM

Alasdair - you know well that the recent centralisation is nothing to do with the tories, housing, police, fire - to name but a few, all within the last few years. Certainly no myth.

However you are right, this is actually a debate about nationalism, albeit an idealised and rose tinted view of what is an inherently divisive concept.

The UK may have its faults and stress points, however I certainly prefer a political framework that embraces national diversity, rather than one that sets out to divide and exploit it.

#13 Posted by Ian Nairn Jr on 9 Sep 2014 at 19:23 PM

I agree with everything Alan Dickson has said above - all good points. The divisive and aggressive anti-English subtext of the SNP is undoubtedly attractive to many Scots, but it is insular and unfriendly - not values I for one would like to be associated with. We already have a lot to be grateful for, including a quickly recovering construction industry, and all as part of the UK.

Someone asked recently on television, why are things not 'Better Together' already? If you're dissatisfied with your lot then put the question to the SNP - they govern us.

A lot of architectural trade is with our neighbours south of the border (admittedly more for some architects than others) - something I would hate to lose. And as for the centralisation question, don't make me laugh. Does anyone living in one of the many distant outposts of Scotland really think that exchanging one lot of politicians in London for another in Edinburgh will be a magical improvement?

#14 Posted by Alasdair Stephen on 10 Sep 2014 at 10:25 AM

Alan, your last sentence shows that you have little understanding of the Yes movement. It is not dividing and exploiting national diversity.

The civic, left of centre, non ethnic, independence movement is something Scotland can be very proud of.

#15 Posted by Richard Heggie on 10 Sep 2014 at 12:56 PM

I think this anti-English subtext some people mention is confused with what is really an anti-Westminster mood. Today's flying visit by Cameron, Clegg and Milliband exemplifies the issue that many people have. Scotland would surely benefit from its own government tackling its own issues head on, every day, rather than being an outpost which is rarely given serious attention by Westminster.

As for the opportunities for architecture and the built environment, it's looking like meaningful debate will need to take place after 18 September - the big issue is now fully in the spotlight. Let's hope Architects for YES can play a positive role in delivering change beyond the 18th.

#16 Posted by Walt Disney on 10 Sep 2014 at 13:41 PM

Its like a who's who of people who never left university in their minds (JC still hasn't). Hopefully Salmonds bloated public sector will be appointing his lapdogs to build the many ministries that will be created. This might fill the void vacated by the private sector. Looks like JC will see his vision of Moscow on the Clyde after all.

#17 Posted by Alan Dickson on 10 Sep 2014 at 13:45 PM

The Yes campaign has been very good in refocussing attention from the nationalist core to a debate on social justice. Unfortunately the figures don't add up, and ideals of "civic" values will be left far behind when we find out what austerity really means in.

#18 Posted by Derek Miller on 10 Sep 2014 at 14:00 PM

I wonder if 'Architects for Yes' will be quite as enthusiastic for separation when the inevitable capital flight out of Scotland strangles all private funding for the construction sector over the next 5 years, and when the lack of a viable currency makes the cost of borrowing higher than that of Greece? Feel free to be ideological in your pronouncements but please face up to the harsh reality of the situation, and how it will affect your junior colleagues' career prospects.

#19 Posted by Andy Whyte on 10 Sep 2014 at 14:30 PM

The SNP tries too hard and hopes to impress us by 'hoovering' up powers and making pointless laws as was said. All this ends after the 18th if we get independence, we will have a great pool of politicians and ideas and the drum banging of independence for its own sake will never need to be heard again. If not we get another 20 years of the SNP trying too hard as they build up to the next referendum and Westminster ignoring our desire for social justice and shoving us to the bottom of the agenda. I support countries working together and moving together but on this occasion we at least need a trial separation. I think this will also help the UK as a whole, where politics overall has gone completely into the doldrums. As far as capital flight and comparisons to Greece are concerned, once the jitters are over and decision made we will be in a stronger position than the UK overall, which suffers the same problems as Greece. Too much borrowing, not enough industry and a net importer of resources. Scotland will, of course, be a net exporter but more importantly there is also an appetite here to invest more in education, training and skilled jobs rather than in short term consumer and banking services. I would buy Scottish government bonds over English ones, you are simply more likely to get paid back over the next 30 years. Too much scaremongering around the debate, so many smaller more unstable countries successfully did this over the last 20 years. Think of your hopes and let that decide rather than being scared of breaking new ground.

#20 Posted by Derek Miller on 10 Sep 2014 at 15:08 PM

There may be an appetite for investment in education, training, social justice, and the like, but there won't be the cash to pay for it. Not having a viable currency and defaulting on our share of UK debt will not cause 'jitters', it will cause meltdown. The level of capital flight will dwarf our GDP and an IMF bail out will inevitably follow. Try asking the average Grecian, Cypriot, Irishman, or Spaniard how independent they have felt in recent years and I think you'll get a wake up call. We may have had an austerity budget, but at least all our public sector workers were paid in full, every month; our benefit claimants are up-to-date; and our young people have not deserted the country in droves. Growth and employment have also recovered far stronger in the UK than elsewhere. When the financial sector moves south, as it inevitably will, we will no longer be a net exporter. When the cost of borrowing rockets skywards, we will not build or make anything; when taxation goes up to pay for the 'social justice' bribes promised by Salmond to society's less fortunate, there will be a brain drain. We are also about to inflict a great deal of pain onto our British neighbours, in an act of supreme selfishness, which will lead to genuine bitterness. Please don't kid yourself that a 'trial separation' will even be on the agenda. It will be a messy divorce, the consequences of which will be felt for a generation. Architects felt the pain of recession more than most, in the very recent past, when capital availability was strangled and projects mothballed for 5 years. Can you really countenance a move back to reduced hours; reduced salaries; and unemployment that will undoubtedly follow the secession of Scotland from the UK? Is it really worth the risk?

#21 Posted by Alasdair Stephen on 10 Sep 2014 at 16:40 PM

It is exactly this sort of scaremongering from Mr Millar which almost guarantees a Yes victory. Chicken Licken has led the No campaign.

#22 Posted by Andy Whyte on 10 Sep 2014 at 17:22 PM

This is exactly the problem with the NO campaign. I actually want to stay together but have been pushed and pushed towards a Yes vote as I realise I have very little in common with the NO voters and their ideology put forward. Reiterating over and over how bad a debt crisis can be for a country and how bad it would be to be made redundant does not add to the debate. I repeat that the UK is more likely to default in the coming years than an independent Scotland. You would need to discuss the reasons why these things happen. The EU bailout countries were not newly independent, they failed because of the corrupt nature of a rapacious financial system based on maximum debt and minimum responsibility. This broken, corrupt and unfair system still continues largely un-amended by Westminster in the UK. Becoming newly independent causes brief instability which soon settles. It certainly does not mean automatic default. While I do not have time for Salmond or the Westminster incumbents I do believe they are intelligent and sensible enough (as are generally the English and Scots people on all sides of the debate) to move on and agree a sensible and safe parting of ways from 19th September. I have seen serious NO advocates suggesting on public fora that an invasion of Scotland is a genuine possibility post independence. This scaremongering nonsense makes me feel sick. I am focusing on nurturing my hopes rather than feeding my fears, this leads me towards a Yes vote.

#23 Posted by Frank Lloyd Wrong on 10 Sep 2014 at 19:14 PM

SNP? Nationalist? AntiEnglish? I am none of these.
I'm half English, my partner and most of my close friends are English, I used to be a Labour voter, and the No campaign are really out of touch with the Scottish public & missing the point of this campaign if they think that's your average Yes voter. This is now so much bigger than politicians or political parties. This is a new engagement of our nation in politics which would not have been possible 15 years ago. Social media is now letting us see through the hapless lies that we are force fed by mainstream media on a daily basis and have been for decades. It turns out we're not too wee, too poor and too stupid after all. It's been proven that those who are better informed are swinging quickly to Yes. Do your homework!
And if it's a No this time, Yes voters are not just going to rescind & forget about it. Scotland will be back in this situation within a couple of years when the progressively further right wing parties take us out of the EU and we're left out on a limb on the edge of Europe. Best ride out the financial blip of a new government now, let the financial markets settle and get on with making the most of the country before it's bled dry. This is a chance to let the Scottish people make the best choices for Scotland, not just line the pockets of the rich.
If the debate can invigorate the country this much - just think what independence could do.

#24 Posted by Sturgeon's Hairdoo on 11 Sep 2014 at 14:21 PM

Stop press: 18 damp, day dreaming architects in search of utopian…
Quote: “Scotland is a small country, so we can speak to and influence these politicians, an example of that is the Scenic Routes project. That is something architects pushed for and got delivery on and that is now an exciting opportunity for young architects across Scotland.”
This is hardly a worthwhile example of the influence of architects or the how receptive the Scottish Government could be or is for major future decision making! Ok, it’s a great wee project but let’s face it, it was nicked from the Norwegians and it aint gonna pay the bills……
Crikey, I can hardly get in touch with my local planning officer to push along major redevopment projects that will provide jobs, repair major degenerated urban fabric, offer essential public realm and community facilities, all funded enthusiastically from London incidentally.
Good luck to all those ‘nurturing your hopes’….

#25 Posted by Neil C on 11 Sep 2014 at 16:08 PM

Only a blinkered optimist would deny how many commercial construction and development contracts are dependent on a No vote next week. From the Buchanan Galleries expansion to the banking HQs of Edinburgh, many forthcoming projects will be quietly shelved and numerous jobs will be lost (or relocated elsewhere) if we vote for independence.

The nationalists might argue that anything is worth enduring to decouple us from the rest of the UK, but we're effectively being asked to walk off a cliff on the promise that the stairs will materialise beneath our feet. Having seen first-hand what's recently happened to small peripheral European countries tied to the unyielding currency of a foreign bank, the sensible money must be on a No vote. Or relocation to the market with ten times as many customers and Europe's fastest-growing economy, an hour down the road.

#26 Posted by tcg on 11 Sep 2014 at 16:38 PM

It is clear that No would like this to be about the markets. Big business is conservative with a small 'c' if not actually with a large 'c' too. They naturally dont like uncertainty and we see this around elections as well as referenda. Stuff slows down or stops as the money men get twitchy. Once things settle down they get on with things as before. I dont particularly blame anyone for putting projects on hold at the moment. The UK government has engineered uncertainty with its stance on currency. The costs associated with development are not entirely predictable at the moment but even after a Yes vote that wont always be the case. The position on currency will become clear soon enough and a good development opportunity will be a good development opportunity regardless of whether it is in Scotland, the UK or anywhere else, much the same as it is now.Businesses will not refuse to invest in Scotland on a matter of principle, they will continue to do so if there are good opportunities and a tax regime that encourages them to do so.

All this talk of leaving just sounds like the inevitable stories around a general election of the likes of Noel Edmonds threatening to leave the country if Labour get elected. Mostly it is a hollow and hysterical threat.

#27 Posted by Robert Jones on 12 Sep 2014 at 17:31 PM

As a project manager i have a number of Clients who are holding off developments in Scotland just in case there is a yes vote.

We can all pretend this is not happening but i can tell its very much a fact.

There is a good reason that the banks are moving their registered offices south of the border.

Its to escape the fantasy economics of Alex Salmond.

#28 Posted by Boab on 12 Sep 2014 at 19:49 PM

i cant see why anyone is thinking of voting yes.

That will put up mortgage costs, as Scotland will be a "foreign" country to lenders. That will have the knock on effect of making houses less affordable, and thus will depress house values.

The proposed rise in the minimum wage will impact on places such as call centres. Call centre operators will simply move their operations South of the border, with the resultant huge loss of jobs in Scotland. Any that remain here will be uncompetitive and go under.

As the supermarket and other retailers have said, their costs of operating in Scotland will rise. We will all pay for that in higher prices.

But then again with all that oil, the Scottish Government will be able to reduce the duty on fuel to reduce petrol costs ( for those who have a car). Wait a minute, Jim Sillars has been saying that to punish BP for speaking out against the yes campaign, the new Scottish Government will nationalise BP. Apart from wondering where he will find the money to do that, a nationalised company is unlikely to be efficient so there goes the saving in fuel costs.

Smirking Alex will have succeeded at our cost.

#29 Posted by Wee Nichola Loves Boaby on 14 Sep 2014 at 12:31 PM

Ita a simple choice.
YES means less investment in Scotland from abroad.
YES means tougher times ahead for the economy as we fall back into a recession / depression.
Please sit up and take notice of the German bankers who saved the Euro and most notably Greece, Portugal, Italy and Ireland.
NO means we avoid all this and can stop looking back, stop blaming Westminster and look forward to a future where Scotland's destiny is more in its peoples hands than ever before. Salmond is in a win - win situation whatever the outcome but he is a chancer who decided to go for the proverbial 'jugular' because he thinks the opportunity will never present itself again.
Wise up before half of us end up poor and unemployed.!!

#30 Posted by Concerned but optimistic on 14 Sep 2014 at 16:28 PM

I own a Glasgow flat and am concerned about going into negative equity (the very real threat of a serious drop in its value) in the event of a Yes vote. I would like to vote yes though for other reasons (a fairer society), but suppose I'd count as one of the crucial 'undecideds'. Can someone from the Yes side put a good case as to why this won't be an issue (I've well understood the Better Together side of it)? Perhaps I just have to suck it up and take one for the greater good.

#31 Posted by Dryburgh on 15 Sep 2014 at 07:29 AM

I was undecided but have decided to vote No on Thursday.

It is well documented that the Architecture profession has suffered badly over the past 5 years.

I place a lot if the blame on the Scottish Governments "Hub" programme which has eroded fees, delivered fewer jobs and produced some very poor architecture.

Will a yes vote change this ? Not a chance.

It will lead to less investment in Scotland, more of the same Hub rubbish, less jobs for Architect and further erosion of the profession in Scotland.

Please feel free to make up your own mind but I shall be Voting No.

#32 Posted by Hey Porter on 15 Sep 2014 at 13:24 PM

Creating a fairer society which is an admirable motivation for parts of the yes campaign, has little to do with this vote and politicians visions... People are more powerful at creating change than the powers that be, and have the most potential if they can put the levels of engagement we have seen in this debate into action and doing... whatever the outcome of the referendum maybe. A fairer society across the UK is more achievable by staying together, than being an inward looking nation, and giving more powers to the UK tories who have far more chance of remaining in government south of the border if Scotland splits from the rest of UK.

#33 Posted by Dawn on 16 Sep 2014 at 07:33 AM

We still haven't had an answer to what currency we will be using. Alex Salmond wants to keep the pound and have the Bank of England as Scotland's lender of last resort. That's not going to work.

The only other option is the Euro which I don't want.

#34 Posted by CAD Monkey on 16 Sep 2014 at 11:58 AM

Setting the so called "bedroom tax" aside, which Labour say they will abolish, what does "creating a fairer society actually mean?".

#35 Posted by AD Crawford on 16 Sep 2014 at 12:46 PM

Wee Nichola Loves Boaby: "Please sit up and take notice of the German bankers who saved the Euro"

Yes, No, Aye, Naw? - not really the topic of this post. Just a wee bit of factual correction for your post.

It was the German bankers recklessly lending to Irish, Greek and Spanish banks without regulation, due diligence or even basic common sense that caused the Euro crisis - this is not opinion, its not referendum propaganda its just a fairly uncontested fact. Its a debt crisis caused by private banks. The bail-outs of Ireland and Greece were specifically targeted at protecting their respective banking sector's private bond holders who were - in the majority - German banks. This is easily re-searchable data, in the public domain and it really irritates to see people post such nonsense...almost as much as it irritates me to note that 3 weeks ago the banking sector was held in the contempt that it thoroughly deserved through utter reckless, regulation free speculation. Not one of these august financial institutions saw the financial crash coming despite a) repeated warnings from some economists and b) basic mathematics of asset versus liability.

No matter how you are going to vote on Thursday please reflect on my incomprehension that these rightly-vilified myopic institutions that specialize in reckless short-termism have suddenly become unquestionable economic soothsayers?

#36 Posted by charles on 16 Sep 2014 at 14:20 PM

Concerned, i too own a flat in glasgow, and am not really concerned about the hyped supposed value drop. If i could reclaw the money i'd spent in my lifetime on beurocracy and admin of the government process, i'd probably have enough to own another one! there have always and will always be costs to running a country, we are already paying them. Leading economic experts, for the No campaign, have publicly said, that ultimately the outcome of the referendum will not make anyone more than 500£ a year richer, nor poorer, whether we stay or not. Coming up with risks will sway people, but some of them are just ridiculous, and quite unbelievable. For instance the post above, drawing comparisons to greece, ireland, spain etc. How are they relevant? at what point did they leave a union? if we're randomly picking out names of struggling countries out of a hat, i hear malawi are not doing great just now, maybe an independent scotland could be compared to them? a far more appropriate comparison would be to estonia, latvia, lithuania, who have prospered since breaking free of the soviet union, or slovenia croatia and montenegro who have blossomed since their wealth stopped getting cyphoned off by their union. the economic arguement will always bring uncertainty, and that will be the case regardless, it's a global beast. EU memership similarly will always be a question, heck we could vote no, and ukip could pull us all out of the EU. why base your vote on an imaginary risk assessment, rather than an overriding belief or a principle.

#37 Posted by Frank Lloyd Wrong on 16 Sep 2014 at 16:29 PM

@34 - Open your eyes CAD Monkey;
A good start at a a fairer society may include 80% of Scotland's land not being owned by 0.0007% of it's population.
Or the UK not being the 4th most unequal country in the developed world.
Or the poorer half of the UK owning just 9.5% of the wealth.
Or 29% of the population of Scotland living in fuel poverty - IN A FUEL RICH COUNTRY!!!
@31 - I agree that the Hub has been a disaster for smaller practices, however I am not voting for the SNP on Thursday. I am voting for change.

#38 Posted by Fairer Society on 16 Sep 2014 at 17:18 PM

Some good background reading to what 'fairer society' would include.
http://nationalcollective.com/blog/

#39 Posted by Ian Nairn Jr on 16 Sep 2014 at 19:55 PM

#30 Frank Lloyd Wrong - so are the SNP going to confiscate land and redistribute it to the have-nots? I don't think so. And as we heard today, they are secretly making plans to cut NHS spending in Scotland already. The UK is doing the best it can, and Scotland is not going to be able to do any better with lower taxes and less money. By voting yes you will certainly be voting for change, but perhaps not in the direction we would all hope for. It dismays me that people feel so discontent they would vote for change in the belief that they can only be better off. The grass is not always greener.

#40 Posted by CADMonkey on 16 Sep 2014 at 21:02 PM

What does "UK being the 4th most unequal country in the developed world" mean? Is this stat not just a product of entrepreneurial spirit?

Are you guys just trying to introduce communism via the nationalist back door?

I also don't see why the Scottish Government can't already do much in that blog.....plus loads of what is in the white paper.

#41 Posted by Boab on 17 Sep 2014 at 11:03 AM

#30 Frank Lloyd Wrong .......after independance Scotlands Land will still be owned by the same people.

....duh !

#42 Posted by Frank Lloyd Wrong on 17 Sep 2014 at 15:40 PM

Duh, well done Boab - but with the implementation of land reform bills, it will be less profitable for them to be kept strictly for aristocratic hunting parties

#43 Posted by Boab on 17 Sep 2014 at 16:49 PM

so its about making things in Scotland less profitable .....ah i see

#44 Posted by Peter Wilson on 17 Sep 2014 at 17:42 PM

I've only just tuned into this thread and am both perplexed and dispirited by much of the comment on it. What is it with architects that they feel the need to whinge about everything (eg HUB) and blame everyone else (Scottish Government, clients etc) for the deficiencies of a profession that simply hasn't had the cojones to stand up for itself? This is miserabilism gone mad.
Let's keep our eye on the ball here - do we want to create the circumstances in which the architectural profession can genuinely prosper and create decent buildings? It's hardly a secret that this is not going to happen by continuing with the current scheme of things - just more boom and bust: Groundhog Day over and over again.
Whatever the result tomorrow, plans are now afoot for 'Architects for Yes' to metamorphose thereafter into 'Architects for Change' and become a forum for discussion and action on what is needed not only to make the profession in Scotland fit for the 21st century but also on what it can do to impact upon the many deficiencies that currently exist in our construction and property sectors.
Whether you plan to vote no or yes is now incidental - the profession needs to change, and fast, if it is not to become completely redundant. All positive ideas are welcome, but please, no more of the Daily Mail style economic mitherings - it's a tediously elliptical discussion and not what any of us spent all those years training to do.

#45 Posted by CADMonkey on 18 Sep 2014 at 01:07 AM

Peter
That is the first good thing I have read during these "Architects for Yes" thread. The title "Architects for Yes" was what got lots of peoples backs up, for obvious reasons. I'll sign up to "Architects for Change" on only one condition, that it is actually professional architects involved. So the "architectural designers" and technologists within the current group are asked to leave as they are part of the current problem. I have no problem with students being part. We have worked (and paid) hard for our education and its rewards should not be diluted.

#46 Posted by Ian Nairn Jr on 18 Sep 2014 at 19:14 PM

#45 CadMonkey To be fair, architects would be nothing without Chartered Architectural Technologists. How about letting them share some of the rewards for their hard work?!

#47 Posted by This Bairn Is NO For Turning on 19 Sep 2014 at 09:55 AM

YES you lost...hahaha...stop moaning and get back to designing shoe boxes

#48 Posted by Cadmonkeys on 20 Sep 2014 at 14:19 PM

#46
I disagree with your sweeping statement that "architects would be nothing without chartered architectural technologists."
It's this kind of rubbish rhetoric which backfires terribly against technologists!
However I see no reason why a joint effort can be made. Just don't call it "Architects for Change".
Pretty obvious isn't it???

#49 Posted by Fergus on 22 Sep 2014 at 12:30 PM

what worries me more is todays comments by Alex Salmond saying they don’t need a referendum for independence

I don’t want to live in a county that ignores democracy

Im utterly appalled by these comments

#50 Posted by cat flap on 22 Sep 2014 at 14:32 PM

@49 - Fergus
Just out of interest, did you read that in the Daily Mail / Express or the Daily Telegraph?
BBC perhaps?