Who do we Trust?
In this Viewpoint, Tommy Clark of the Save Scalloway Pool group explores a motion set to go before councillors and asks if local trustees can do more
The long-awaited report of the ‘notice of motion of Shetland Recreational Trust sustainability’ has been finalised and is with our councillors and is available for anyone who cares to read it.
The area I am focusing on is, for me, the most important part. It says: ‘The chief executive should seek such information from the trusts to enable her to report back to members on options for a sustainable long-term plan to maintain the operation of the Shetland Recreational Trust and the Scalloway Pool’.
So, does it? The one-word answer is ‘no’ it doesn’t.
It documents the Shetland Recreational Trust’s (SRT) stance on becoming insolvent, as the Shetland Charitable Trust (SCT) didn’t provide enough funding and we don’t have the staff to enable it to operate, so who’s at fault? If we believe what we were initially told, the Shetland Island Council (SIC) and SCT were only informed, as we were, on 16 January that the Scalloway Pool had to close on 31 March, otherwise the SRT could no longer operate as a charitable trust.
So, who’s accountable? The SRT’s stance is clear it would seem – they don’t have the funds to operate for five years, so they can’t operate the eights sites, as they would be breaking the rules set by OSCR the Scottish charities regulator, or is it?
Let’s look at the funds firstly. The 2025 report submitted to OSCR in August/September 2025 is clear, the SRT documented that they were expecting to operate the eight facilities until October 2026 and anticipated a small surplus; so, what changed? Might it be the SIC reduced swimming provision, but surely, they have a contract in place, so funding would be secure? Well think again – my understanding is there is no formal contract, just a service agreement. Don’t worry, the contract is in draft ready to go I believe.
But what about the SCT, they must have known the consequences of not providing the funding requested by the SRT for the next five years? The answer in my words is “nothing to do with us, we are a separate charitable trust and have no say on how the SRT operate”. But the SIC, SCT and SRT were all one big happy family in the beginning so surely, they speak and work together, they must work in a partnership?
The Save Scalloway Pool Action Group and the Scalloway Community Council requested the SRT to ask for lifeline funding to give the community an opportunity to investigate alternative funding streams, did they listen or act on it? It seems not with what the SCT’s chairperson said to a Shetland radio reporter, in fact he clearly stated the SCT had not been asked for lifeline funding.
So, have the SRT been investigating alternative funding options? We don’t know. Did they look to amend the pending SIC contract to provide more funds? It is still in draft so it can still be negotiated. The SCT has made an astonishing £41m since the Scalloway Pool closed, so shouldn’t you ask the SCT for funds again?One outlying question is how much is needed to keep Scalloway Pool operational? The report states how much has been saved with the closure of Scalloway Pool, but the figure to keep it open or reopen still remains a mystery.
So, does the motion report give any answers to the points above? For me no it doesn’t, it justifies the individual organisations stance, is there options documented, no there isn’t. It is clear in the report, if the SIC were the operators of the Scalloway Pool they would have had to do a number of impact assessments prior to closing the pool, ten different ones to be exact.
But what about the SRT, shouldn’t they have to do the same? The SRT and SCT operate within charity law, it is in there to provide guidance to charities and help them to operate, but what does it mean for us in this circumstance?
Let’s look at a couple of simple questions; answers are in my words.
• Can a trust/charity close a facility like our swimming pool without any consultation?
Yes, they can, they can make operational decisions without any consultation.
• Can they withhold the information they used to make their decision from the public?
Yes, charities can keep their minutes and information confidential.
• Can they close the facility without carrying out impact assessments?
It would seem they can, as there in no legal requirement to do assessments and no guidance on to what depth they have to be done.
• What are the legal requirements a trust/charity must follow to take the action they have done?
They must make sure they have followed their core duties as charity trustees, so does the trust deed state they need to work with us the Shetland public.
• Surely a lifeline to actively investigate alternative funding is a valid option?
Trustees should explain why they did not pursue this or why they did not consider it as a viable option, but have they?
• But surely you could make a Freedom of Information (FOI) request?
Sorry, again they do not have to adhere to the FOI requirements.
But let’s not forget, as the motion report states, the SRT don’t have the staffing levels? Why is that and when did this happen? It didn’t have the staffing levels before January, so was that part of the plan?
Let’s be positive for a second, the report states the SIC, SRT and SCT will meet to discuss the situation before 2030 funding allocations for the SRT seven centres – or will it be six or five?
One thing is sure, if it stays as it is, we the Shetland public will have no say, and the next Save…..Action Group, will face the same lack of information or clarity.
The report also insinuates that we have too many swimming pools per head of population compared with the rest of Scotland. Well, what about Faroe they have 20, according to Mr Google! So, the question should maybe be, “who should we be making comparisons with, Mainland Scotland or Faroe?” The fact we are surrounded with water, and a considerable number Shetlanders make their livings predominantly from or on it doesn’t seem to be considered. It is worth remembering why these facilities were built, it was to ensure as many Shetlanders as possible would learn to swim.
The report also clearly states the SIC financial challenges, but what about the SCT? We are continuingly told the fund needs to be managed so we have it for future years, there is a plan which must be adhered to. But the fund has just made £41 million since March 2026, sure we should be investigating how to free up three per cent of those profits to secure the future of our multi-million-pound asset which is ready and waiting to be opened. This would also clearly demonstrate the 5,000 plus petition signatures mean something to the trustees and that we are being listened to?
I suppose the real questions is ‘do we, the Shetland public, think it is right and just that decisions such as the closure of Scalloway Pool can be made without any consultation or without any engagement with us the prime users and should unelected representatives make these decisions for us’?
Maybe we need a new petition to call for changes, but how may signatures will be needed to make a change, 5,000+ doesn’t seem to be enough, would 10,000 work?
I am a trustee for a Shetland charity, and as a trustee I understand my responsibilities to adhere to charity law, but I also understand the need to work with the people who support our charity, so I would ask the SRT and SCT trustees to reconsider what they have done thus far.
