Campaign deadlock: 'Talks without compromise are not talks at all'

THOSE who chose to fight attempts to close six creches at city leisure centres are to be congratulated in saving half of them from the axe.

At a time in Edinburgh when only outright victory is acceptable to some pressure groups, it is to be welcomed that they regard securing the future of three as a positive result. If only the same could be said for other groups engaged in battles with the council and developers.

Sadly that is not the case and, like terriers with a bone, a growing number of campaigners just refuse to let go even when they have succeeded in achieving much of what they set out to do. Meadowbank is the perfect example. Under much pressure from local activists fighting for the stadium's retention, the council sought to compromise by demolishing the ageing arena and suggesting building a smaller ground and enhanced sports facilities on the same site.

On the surface the proposal appeared to satisfy the needs of both as it also freed up adjacent land to be sold off to release the necessary funding for the project. Yet the Save Meadowbank campaigners still wish to object to homes being built on the land and have now refused to enter into any further consultation with the council on the matter. Throwing their teddies out of their pram in this manner does them no credit whatsoever.

Those who have fought tooth and nail against the Caltongate scheme for the New Street bus garage site find themselves caught up in a similar situation. Having won their key battle over the retention of tenements on the Royal Mile, they are now insisting that both the unremarkable Sailors Ark and the old school be retained as well. It would appear that they, too, hold the view that total victory is the only satisfactory outcome.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with aiming high but, ultimately, negotiations without compromise are not negotiations at all and the failure to accept any kind of settlement is a mark of immaturity.

In a city such as Edinburgh there is a delicate balance to be struck between protecting heritage and the stifling of development. Replacing a derelict bus station or a crumbling 60s stadium cannot be seen in the same context as the demolition of St James Square or George Square.

It is right that all views should be taken into consideration when major plans are moving forward, but listening is not the same as agreeing. And doing nothing until one side has won all its arguments is a recipe for stagnation.