Peatstack

This morning's news that the company running Arnish Yard have been selected by Lewis Wind Farms as a preferred tender, is surely a dangerous development for all those, like the Peatstack, opposed to the wind factory development. What is also shocking is the relatively small and short-term nature of the employment opportunities supposedly on offer.
The recent history of Arnish is evidence itself that local authorities, business enterprise and others in government, will blindly accept and support any scheme that offers the prospect of jobs, no matter how ill-conceived they might be.
In the islands we suffer from an addiction to old-fashioned notions of economic development. That is, proper jobs = manual work.
This is of course rubbish. We are ruinning our future tourism development for the sake of a few short term opportunities. We are best placed in the islands to develop high-tech / high earning employment, based on offering the best people globally a unique quality of life option. To do that we must not ruin our greatest natural asset, which isn't the chance to blunder the forces of nature, but the unspoilt nature of our natural environment.
To this I add the options for self-employment, home working etc. I think HIE and the Comhairle should set a target of creating and supporting at least 250 new, incomer self-employments over the next few years. To do that we should provide a unique system of business support (finance/ tech, marketing) to self-employed people. This could be done for a fraction of the cost of constantly propping up heavy industry at Arnish.
Self-employment is more likely to mean long-term settled habitation, families, economic growth etc., than the constant relance on the unholy grail of heavy industry.
In conclusion of the first part of this missive - we must oppose the wind factory in order to secure the future economy of the islands.

Now, part two. Cal Mac & RET.
The Peatstack is firmly of the belief that Cal Mac has lost sight of its mission. That is, it has gone from being a public service ferry company rooted in the Highlands and Islands with a mission to genuinely serve and support our fragile communities and economies, to being an agency dominated by narrow-minded commercial policies that have serious implications for those on low or no incomes. Two examples - First, the need to pay for a ticket when you book it on the phone. Second, the ridiculous and cumbersome refunds policy.
Cal Mac used to accept bookings over the phone thsat you could pay for when you arrived at the terminal. This facility ended we are told because of the quantity of no-shows and multiple bookings. For those with no or low incomes this creates a real financial hardship, stopping the ability to book ahead and then save for the ticket. Cal Mac could stop the no-shows by simply keeping a database of vehicle registrations. Persistant offenders could then be identified and have the booking facility withdrawn. But no, Cal Mac insists on a blanket policy that discriminates against those on lower incomes.
My second example is that of Cal Mac's refunds policy. To get a refund for a ticket not used - even if the reason is because of a cancelled sailing - you can't go back to the ticket office with the tickets and claim a refund there and then. No. It's company policy that you must post them to an office in Gourock and wait for the money to be returned to your account. Why?
This means that those with low incomes might have to wait days and days for their money and all because of a totally bureaucratic policy. Not because of technology but policy. Cal Mac is of course in the meantime sitting on your £120 fare making interest no doubt.
That brings me to the conclusion. I think we need competition on key routes and the introduction of RET would be a very good time to offer that possibility. Cal Mac should have to share its public subsidy with any suitable competition on main routes and let the market place decide, especially as the market grows through RET.