Aug 042016
 

With thanks to Kenneth Hutchison, Parliamentary Assistant to Dr. Eilidh Whiteford.

Eilidh-Whiteford-Parliament2Banff and Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford has backed a Chartered Trading Standards Institute campaign against scammers who prey on vulnerable customers.

Scam Awareness Month has been running over the summer to highlight different techniques used by unscrupulous criminals to part members of the public with their money.

Thousands of people across the UK every year fall victim to scams, with detriment estimated at £5-10 billion annually and growing.

The problem is amplified by the fact that only 5% of victims report such frauds to the authorities. Many suffer in silence, embarrassed at having been scammed.

The theme this year is ‘listening to your gut feeling’. Trading Standards are calling on consumers to act on their initial caution and suspicion that often comes when they get an unexpected phone call, email, mailing or knock at the door.

Dr Whiteford said:

“I am pleased to support what is a hugely important campaign to raise awareness of how these criminals operate. Whether it’s by e-mail, telephone or letter, everyone should be aware that not everyone who contacts you has your best interests at heart.

“The message is a simple one. If it looks too good to be true, it probably is. Never trust anyone who asks for your passwords or PIN. And if you have any doubts whatsoever about who you’re dealing with, don’t hesitate to leave the conversation.

“Scammers utilise email, telephone, and letter and can even turn up on your doorstep. Listen to your gut feeling, and if you have any doubts whatsoever, don’t proceed with the transaction – whatever it may be.”

For more information about Scam Awareness Month, visit http://www.tradingstandards.uk/events/ScamsAwarenessMonth2016.cfm

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Jul 292016
 

SAMSUNG CAMERA PICTURESWith thanks to Kenneth Hutchison,
Parliamentary Assistant to Dr. Eilidh Whiteford.

Banff & Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford has given her wholehearted backing to NFU Scotland and the Press and Journal’s campaign to ensure the ongoing viability of the north-east dairy industry.

Adding her name to the list of supporters, Dr Whiteford stressed the need for a vibrant dairy sector in the north-east, and urged shoppers to buy local milk, and to lobby supermarkets to support local farmers.

Speaking after a meeting with NFUS representatives and farmers at new Deer Show, Dr Whiteford said:

“The closure of the Muller plant has undoubtedly been a blow to our north-east dairy farmers, and it’s difficult to overstate the challenges the industry faces.

“That’s why it’s more important than ever for consumers to support farmers in the north-east. It’s also why supermarkets have to do their bit by ensuring that these same farmers receive a fair payment for the top-quality milk they supply.

“Agriculture is the mainstay of many rural towns and villages in Banff and Buchan, and I am very happy to support this campaign.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]
Jul 082016
 

With thanks to Kenneth Hutchison, Parliamentary Assistant to Dr. Eilidh Whiteford.

EW with other SNP MPs and WASPI campaigners

Banff and Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford joined with SNP MPs to take part in the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament.

They demand the UK government to investigates transitional measures for 1950s-born women negatively impacted by rapid rises in the state pension age.

The SNP has repeatedly called for action from the UK government, and led a backbench business debate on the issue in January which received cross-party support.

The increase in pension age is the second for women born in the 1950s, and will have a stark financial impact on thousands of women in their 60s.

Speaking after the demonstration, Banff & Buchan MP Dr Eilidh Whiteford expressed solidarity with the women, who have now had their retirement age raised twice.

She said:

“I was pleased to see such a good contingent of Women from North-east Scotland at the event in Westminster today. The SNP has given wholehearted backing to the WASPI campaign, and we will keep up the fight for these women at Westminster.

“A large number of local women born in the mid-1950s have been badly affected by the proposed changes, and have been in touch directly with me. They can rest assured that I and my SNP colleagues will continue to press the UK Government for a rethink on how it phases in increases to the state pension age.

“Changing patterns of life expectancy do demand a response from the Government. This, however, was the wrong response, and the Government needs to consider the damage its policy will do.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Mar 032016
 

EW at Home Start Opening Feb 2016, with retiring Co-ordinator Reena ThomSNP MP Dr Eilidh Whiteford has offered her very best wishes to a local Banff charity, after opening its new premises on Saturday.

Home-Start Deveron has now moved to 10 Carmelite Street, Banff. The charity works with local families, providing play opportunities for under 5s, and support for parents. Volunteers, many of whom are parents themselves, offer friendly, informal advice to help ensure that every parent has access to the support and advice necessary to give their children a good upbringing.

The group was established in 1999 and operates throughout the Deveron Valley area, serving Aberchirder, Banff, Huntly, Macduff, Portsoy, Turriff and surrounding areas.

Speaking at the opening. Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP – who serves as SNP Westminster spokesperson on Social Justice and Welfare – said:

“I would like to offer my congratulations to Home-Start Deveron on securing their new premises. Organisations like Home-Start depend on volunteers who enjoy helping kids get a great start in life, and it was an absolute pleasure meeting with some of these remarkable individuals who give their time for such a great local cause.

“The group is always looking for volunteers, and I would encourage anyone who thinks they can help to come forward. It’s difficult to overstate just how valuable the group’s work is.”

Home Start can be contacted on 01261 819964.

 

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Jan 072016
 

With thanks to Kenneth Hutchison, Parliamentary Assistant to Dr. Eilidh Whiteford MP

Eilidh Whiteford, Parliament [2015]feat

Banff and Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford

Banff and Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford has called for the UK Government to reconsider its position on cutting in-work incentives for the low-paid.

In a speech to the House of Commons on Wednesday, Dr Whiteford called on the Government to re-think the proposed cuts scheduled for April. The Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that there will be more losers than winners under the proposed cuts, and the Resolution Foundation estimates that working families with children on Universal Credit will be, on average, £1300 pounds a year worse off by 2020.

The IFS estimate that overall, 2.6 million families across the UK will be worse off by an average of £1600 a year.

Speaking after the debate, Dr Whiteford said:

“While the Government’s U-turn on cutting tax credits was very welcome, it was, as I noted in my speech, a stay of execution given the reductions to the Work Allowance under Universal Credit, scheduled for this April.

“The Government has sold Universal Credit on the basis that work should pay for those in employment. Indeed, Universal Credit was sold as a simplified system which would give families real incentives to find work, and keep work. The reality, however, is that by cutting the Work Allowance, the Government is once again heaping the costs of austerity onto low paid families.

“In a country where the minimum wage remains significantly below what could reasonably be described as a living wage, some form of welfare remains necessary for those undertaking low-paid work. By cutting the Work Allowance the Government is imposing an eye-watering level  of marginal taxation on people in low paid jobs, and making it harder than ever for those in low income households to break out of the poverty trap.

“If the Government was serious about making work pay, if they were serious about boosting the UK’s productivity, if they actually wanted to help people get on, they would be increasing the work allowance – not reducing it.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Nov 262015
 

Eilidh Whiteford, Parliament [2015]featWith thanks to Kenneth Hutchison, Parliamentary Assistant to Dr. Eilidh Whiteford MP

BANFF & Buchan MP Eilidh Whiteford has hit out after it was announced that the UK Government has scrapped a £1 billion scheme for carbon capture, which could have come to Peterhead.

The announcement was made to the London Stock Exchange on Wednesday afternoon while George Osborne was making his Autumn statement.

Dr Whiteford raised the matter in parliament yesterday, questioning Chris Grayling, Leader of the House at Business Questions, and demanding that the Secretary of State make a Statement on the matter.

Mr Grayling responded with an answer related to renewable energy – a different topic altogether.

Speaking in the Commons, Dr Whiteford said:

“…. while the Chancellor was still on his feet, the Government sneaked out an announcement that they intend to renege yet again on their commitment to support carbon capture and storage by withdrawing the billion pound funding they promised in their manifesto just a few months ago.

“This is a disgraceful act of betrayal. It sends an appalling signal to companies looking to invest in our energy sector, and it makes a mockery of the UK’s commitment to decarbonisation, just days before crucial global talks on climate change.

“When will the Secretary of State come to this house and make a statement to explain to my constituents in Peterhead why she’s led them up the garden path?”

The Leader of the House responded:

“We had to take some difficult decisions in the spending review; however, we have made great progress on renewables.”

Commenting afterwards, Dr. Whiteford said:

“Peterhead was always the front-runner in this competition. Just last week the Secretary of State was extolling the benefits of CCS, but now they have pulled the plug without warning. It’s a massive disappointment, and a disgraceful decision which demonstrates that the Tories have no real commitment to the future of the energy sector  and no real plans for tackling climate change.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

 

Aug 292014
 

Eilidh Whiteford

With thanks to Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP.

Nobody likes to go to the dentist – least of all me. But the only thing worse than the dentist is not having an NHS dentist when you need one, which was the situation for thousands of people in Scotland, including the north-east, until just a few years ago.

One of the early steps taken by the Scottish Government in 2007 was to open a new dental school in Aberdeen and significantly increase the numbers of trainee dentists and increase the level of NHS dental provision across the country.

Just this week, figures were released showing that there’s been a 30% rise in the number of NHS dentists since the SNP came to power, and that over ninety per cent of children are now registered with an NHS dentist, compared to 67% in 2007,  and 84% of adults compared to just 46%.

One of the big questions being asked in the independence debate over the past few weeks has been the future of our health service following either a Yes or No vote.

While NHS Scotland is entirely devolved, spending decisions made in England determine the amount of money allocated to Scotland to pay for public services.In Scotland we’ve chosen to keep our NHS in public hands. We do not charge patients for prescription medicines, and we’re investing in new and upgraded hospital facilities.

We’ve also honoured the pay agreement made with nurses, and ensure that everyone working for our NHS is paid a living wage. Our NHS is not always perfect, and faces some real pressures as the baby-boomer generation starts requiring more age-related healthcare. Nonetheless, most of us depend on access to NHS care and value the service we receive.

The story in NHS England is very different. As the NHS there has been gradually broken up and the lucrative bits privatised, a number of Health Boards have gone bankrupt, waiting times have soared, and there’s a total post-code lottery of care. The Westminster Health and Social Care Act 2012 has big implications for the funding of NHS services in Scotland because the expected cuts to spending down south will have a knock on impact on the money allocated to the Scottish Government.

In Scotland we contribute more revenue to the UK Treasury per head of population than the rest of the UK – and have done so in every one of the last 33 years. However, Westminster remains in full control of the amount of money we get back.

This ‘block grant’ calculated through the Barnett Formula is dependent on the UK’s spending priorities, so cuts to health and social care services in England reduce Scotland’s allocation. For every £100 cut to England’s NHS expenditure, £10 will be cut from Scotland’s budget. It’s a convoluted system, rather akin to handing your next door neighbour the entirety of your salary, and receiving pocket money back.

With a Yes vote, the power to set our budget in line with our priorities will enable us to continue to provide healthcare free at the point of need.

With a No vote, the situation is far more uncertain. Many respected authorities believe England won’t have an NHS in 5 years time, and if we follow Westminster’s path, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain services here. We also know that we face big cuts in the block grant in the event of a No vote, with all the UK parties promising cuts to the Barnett Formula, and more austerity.

We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to take Scotland’s future into our own hands in September. With powers over our own budgets we can provide security for our NHS, and set ourselves priorities suited to our own needs and circumstances.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

May 262011
 

Voice presents the final part of Alex Mitchell’s worthy and informative account of Robert the Bruce’s life and legacy, outlining how Scotland’s noble families gained or lost as a result of King Robert’s rule.

brucepicBefore the Wars of Independence, there were thirteen earldoms in Scotland. This number remained unchanged at the time of King Robert’s death in 1329.

He recreated the earldom of Moray in 1312, but he destroyed the earldom of Buchan. John Comyn, the last Earl of Buchan and Constable of Scotland, died childless in 1308; his only heirs were his brother’s two daughters.

He had been an irreconcilable enemy of the Bruce.

The ancient earldom of Buchan was chopped to pieces. Half of it went to Margaret Comyn, one of Earl John’s nieces, and therefore to her husband John, the Earl of Ross. The other half escheated to the Crown because Earl John’s other niece, Alice, had married Sir Henry Beaumont and had become irretrievably English. Many of the leading Comyns had been killed at Bannockburn; others fled to England. Those Comyns remaining in Scotland became merely one clan amongst many, often engaged in ferocious and destructive conflict with their neighbours.

The forfeiture to the Crown of this latter half of the former earldom of Buchan, of lands hitherto belonging to John Comyn, Earl of Buchan, and John Comyn, Earl of Badenoch, enabled King Robert to give away large tracts of land in reward to faithful followers, mainly Anglo-Norman and Saxon families from the Borders and Lothians – the Gordons, Keiths, Hays, Leslies, Frasers, Burnetts, Johnstons and Irvines.

The largest share went to the Keiths, Sir Robert Keith the Marischal and his brother (and heir) Edward, in the form of Aden and many other estates in the heart of Buchan, and at Methlick, Monquhitter, New Deer, Ellon, Longside and Foveran.

This had the effect of moving the main centre of that family’s interests from East Lothian to the north-east of Scotland. Sir Gilbert Hay of Erroll was granted the lands and castle of Slains, and was made the Hereditary Great Constable of Scotland. The office of Constable has been held by the Hays of Erroll ever since.

Sir Robert Boyd of Noddsdale in Cunningham received grants of land enabling the Boyds to become major landowners in Kilmarnock and the south-west of Scotland. Archibald Douglas got Crimond and Rattray. None of these men were mere upstarts or adventurers, but they all gained from the Comyns’ losses.

King Robert did not pursue any kind of murderous vendetta against the kinsfolk of the Red Comyn and the Earl of Buchan. Families of this name occupied a respectable, but never again dominant place in the north of Scotland of the later Middle Ages. A considerable body of those Comyns who remained in Scotland changed their name to Farquharson; elsewhere, the name became Cumming, or Buchan.

King Robert rewarded only a few men with really large grants of land and power, and they were almost all his own close relatives

In the same manner, the Strathbogie estates of Earl David of Atholl were granted to the prominent Berwickshire magnate Sir Adam Gordon, commencing the dynasty of the Gordons of Huntly. In 1449, Sir Alexander Gordon was created 1st Earl of Huntly by King James II. In 1452, King James similarly elevated Sir William Hay to the rank of 1st Earl of Erroll; then, in 1457, King James raised Sir William Keith to the rank of 1st Earl Marischal.

These three families – the Gordons, the Hays and the Keiths, with their respective strongholds at Huntly, Slains and Dunnottar – dominated the subsequent history of Buchan and Aberdeenshire, the Garioch and the Mearns. In 1599, George Gordon, the 6th Earl of Huntly, was created Marquis of Huntly by King James VI. The 4th Marquis was made Duke of Gordon in 1684, but the 5th Duke died without issue in 1836, and the title of Duke of Gordon became extinct.

King Robert I’s sole innovation in terms of earldoms was his creation, in 1312, of an earldom of Moray in favour of Thomas Randolph. The earldom of Moray consisted of lands the Crown had held in Moray since the time of King David I (1084-1153), including the Red Comyn’s lordships of Badenoch and Lochaber.

This was more or less equivalent to the lands and rights of the old mormaers – the Celtic earls – of Moray, the last of whom was MacBeth, born 1005 and who, in 1040, killed and succeeded King Duncan I. MacBeth was a powerful and effective king, the last Celtic king of Scotland, until his defeat by Malcolm III (Canmore) at Dunsinane in 1054, and his subsequent death at Lumphanan in 1057.

King Robert rewarded only a few men with really large grants of land and power, and they were almost all his own close relatives. The most favoured were the Stewarts, to whose heir, Walter, King Robert gave in marriage his daughter Marjorie, his only legitimate child, in 1315.

The royal house of Stewart (or Stuart) was thus the creation of Robert Bruce. The Stewarts, long-standing close friends and supporters of the Bruces, became the greatest landowners in Scotland in the 14th century, much as the Comyns had been in the 13th century.

Robert Bruce’s first marriage, to Isabel, the daughter of Donald, the Earl of Mar, is thought to have lasted about six years. Marjorie was their only child, and was 21 or 22 when she died in childbirth in 1317, following a fall from her horse.

Edward Balliol was crowned at Scone in 1333 before being chased back to England.

The infant survived and was named Robert Stewart. Bruce’s second marriage, to Elizabeth de Burgh in 1302, was marred by eight years of enforced separation when she was a prisoner of the English, but they had four children, of whom David, born 5 March 1324, became Bruce’s sole surviving male heir.

Robert Bruce died at his house in Cardross, just across the Firth of Clyde from Dumbarton, on 5 June 1329. He was still only 55, but had been seriously ill for at least two years, almost certainly a victim of leprosy.

King Robert was succeeded by his young son David. The effect of this was that, by the 1330s, the giant figures of Robert Bruce, James Douglas and Thomas Randolph had all departed the scene, and the Throne of Scotland was now occupied by a child of five. This was of obvious advantage to King Edward III of England, and to enemies of the Bruce dynasty – those disinherited of offices and lands by King Robert I, among them Edward Balliol, son of King John.

Edward Balliol regarded himself, with some reason, as the rightful King of Scotland, and was a more assertive individual than his father. An invasion was staged in 1332 and a puppet regime was set up under the support of Edward III of England. Edward Balliol was crowned at Scone in 1333 before being chased back to England.

Bruce’s son, David, returned to claim his kingdom in 1341, aged seventeen. As King David II, he staged a series of raids into England, and was captured at the Battle of Neville’s Cross, near Durham. He remained a prisoner until 1357, when the Scots agreed to pay an enormous ransom for him.

David II has traditionally been regarded as a worthless and incompetent ruler. He died suddenly in 1371, leaving no direct heir.

The Scottish throne passed to David II’s nephew Robert, the son of Robert Bruce’s daughter Marjorie, who became the first Stewart king of Scotland, as King Robert II. He was already aged 56 and in poor health, and showed little flair for kingship. He had fathered 21 children of varying legitimacy, including Alexander Stewart, the infamous “Wolf of Badenoch”.

On his death in 1390 the throne passed to his eldest son, John, who adopted the name King Robert III. Despite being the great-grandson of Robert Bruce, he was neither intellectually nor physically equipped to rule an increasingly lawless and disordered country like Scotland.

By 1399, most of his authority had  transferred to his younger brother, the Duke of Albany, and his eldest son, the Duke of Rothesay – the former an ambitious schemer, the latter a licentious profligate. In 1402, Rothesay starved to death whilst held prisoner in Falkland Palace by his uncle Albany.

Early in 1406, King Robert III sent his younger son James, aged twelve, to safety in France. Prince James was captured by pirates and handed over to King Henry IV of England, who kept him prisoner in the Tower of London for 18 years. King Robert III, describing himself as “the worst of kings and the most miserable of men”, died, possibly of a broken heart, in April 1406.

The Duke of Albany became Regent until his death, aged 83, in 1420. He had been effectively in charge of Scotland for some fifty years, on and off. Albany was succeeded as Regent by his incompetent son, Murdoch, until 1424, when, by popular demand – and on payment of a huge ransom of £40,000 – the now thirty year-old Prince James was allowed by King Henry V of England to return to Scotland to be crowned as King James I.

He was the first of the Stewart kings, descendants of the legendary Robert Bruce, really to amount to anything.

 

May 202011
 

To coincide with the unveiling of the Robert The Bruce statue at Marischal College, Voice’s Alex Mitchell presents the second of a three part account of King Robert’s life, his impact on historical events, and the role of powerful rival family the Comyns.

Given that England was a larger, richer, more technologically-advanced and much more populous nation than Scotland, it was inevitable that continued warfare between England and Scotland would, in the long term, result in victory for England, if only by a process of attrition – loss of fighting men.

The Scots might win the occasional battle, as at Stirling Bridge, but the English – even under a king less ruthless and determined than Edward I – would eventually win the war. Scotland could survive as an independent nation-state only by arriving at a modus vivendi with England.

Wallace’s famous victory at Stirling Bridge was followed, less than a year later, by utter defeat at the Battle of Falkirk on 22 July 1298. After a further period of unsuccessful guerrilla warfare, Wallace resigned the Guardianship. He was never again in command of a large body of troops.

John (the Red) Comyn of Badenoch and Robert Bruce were made joint Guardians. They were also the leading Competitors for the Scottish throne. John Comyn’s mother was Marjory, sister of King John Balliol; the Comyn had an immediate claim to the Scottish throne should anything happen to Balliol’s sons, Edward and Henry, who were both minors and captives of the English. John Comyn’s claim to the throne was, in fact, slightly stronger than that of Bruce. There was a violent altercation between Comyn and Bruce in Selkirk Forest in 1299, during which Comyn came close to killing Bruce.

King Edward invaded Scotland again in 1300, 1301 and 1303; he entered Aberdeen in late August 1303. He captured Stirling Castle, the last fortress to hold out against him, in the summer of 1304. But Edward was by political and economic necessity a compromiser, preoccupied by his campaigns in France. He could not afford the huge expense in terms of manpower, money and materials required to subjugate Scotland as he had crushed Wales. So Edward had little choice but to enter into bonds and alliances with his former enemies in Scotland, the Bruces and the Comyns.

Robert Bruce had resigned the post of joint Guardian, and made his peace with King Edward.   In 1302, he married Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of the Earl of Ulster, one of Edward’s closest allies. Other Scottish nobles, including allies of the Comyns, and eventually, by 1304, the Comyns themselves, decided to accept the reality of the situation and similarly elected to make their peace with King Edward.

William Wallace was captured by the English, and was hung, drawn and quartered at Smithfield in London in 1305. The same traitor’s death had been inflicted a few years earlier on the Welsh leader, Dafydd ap Gruffudd. Neither he nor Wallace were traitors in any meaningful sense, never having sworn allegiance to King Edward.

Bruce was now an outlaw. He and his supporters seized as many English-held castles as they could.

The issue as to who should be King of Scotland remained unresolved. Robert Bruce offered the Comyns all the Bruce estates if they would support his claim to the throne. Bruce and the Red Comyn met at the Greyfriars Kirk in Dumfries on 10 February 1306.

In the course of an argument – Comyn seems to have neither approved nor supported Bruce’s plan – Bruce drew his dagger and stabbed Comyn in the throat. Bruce’s two brothers attacked Comyn with their swords and then killed his elderly uncle, Sir Robert Comyn. Bruce had not merely murdered the head of the Comyn family, but had done so in a consecrated place – an act of sacrilege, which might, at least, suggest that the crime was not pre-meditated.

Bruce was now an outlaw. He and his supporters seized as many English-held castles as they could. John Balliol’s kinsmen and supporters fled south. King Edward persuaded the Pope to excommunicate Bruce from the Church.

Bruce was enthroned at Scone the following month, on 25 March 1306 – the tenth anniversary of the outbreak of war between King Edward I and the Scots. The new King Robert I was crowned by Isabel, the young Countess of Buchan, who stood in for her 16-year old nephew Duncan, Earl of Fife, who held the hereditary right to crown the Kings of Scotland, but who was completely in the power of King Edward of England.

Isabel’s participation in this makeshift ceremony contradicted the interests of her husband, John Comyn, Earl of Buchan.   She was captured by the English not long afterwards, and was imprisoned in a wooden cage fixed high up on Berwick Castle. She was moved to a less harsh confinement after four years, but there is no evidence that she was ever set free.

With their enemy Robert Bruce now crowned King, the Comyns and their allies – men whose patriotic credentials and record of public service were far more impressive than those of Bruce himself – took the view that they had little choice but to side with King Edward of England. This was to be the downfall of the Comyns.

Atrocities were committed, not by the English, but by Scots against their fellow Scots

Even leaving aside Bruce’s obvious skills as a soldier and political strategist, most ordinary folk were bound to identify themselves with a new and successful King of Scots rather than a discredited Balliol/Comyn faction, inevitably tainted by the perceived failures of the exiled King John and, moreover, aligned with the hated Edward of England.

Scotland was plunged into a civil war between the Balliol/Comyn faction and the Bruces and their supporters. Robert Bruce himself was a hunted man, on the run for over a year, during which two of his brothers were killed. But the once-terrifying Edward I was now 68 years old and mortally ill; he died on his way to Scotland on 7 July 1307. His son and heir, Edward II, was not, to put it mildly, the man his father had been.

Bruce came out of hiding. Aided by his chief lieutenant, Sir James (the Black) Douglas, Bruce won a series of victories against the Balliol/Comyn elements of the Scottish nobility. The clans rallied to his side. He defeated the Comyns, under the leadership of John Comyn, the Earl of Buchan, at Old Meldrum (Inverurie) in May 1308. John Comyn fled to England, whilst Bruce, who was seriously ill, holed up in Aberdeen.

His brother, Sir Edward Bruce, chased the remnant of Comyn’s men into deepest Buchan, where they were again defeated at Aikey Brae, near Old Deer. There followed the Herschip (Harrying) of Buchan, undertaken with the sole objective of the destruction of the Comyn power base in the north-east of Scotland.   Atrocities were committed, not by the English, but by Scots against their fellow Scots. Bruce had his men burn the Comyn earldom of Buchan from end to end, until the whole of the north-east swore allegiance to him.

In 1310, Bruce commenced a series of devastating raids into northern England. In 1311,  his troops drove the English garrisons out of all their remaining Scottish strongholds and castles, except Stirling, and he invaded northern England.

King Robert certainly showed considerable gratitude and affection towards Aberdeen and its people

King Edward II finally led a huge army into Scotland in 1314.

Bruce achieved a decisive defeat of the English at the Battle of Bannockburn, near Stirling, on 23-24 June 1314, during which the murdered Red Comyn’s only son and heir was himself killed whilst fighting on the English side.

In 1315, Bruce’s brother Edward invaded the English colony in Ireland and threatened Wales. But it was not until 1328, after the horrific murder of Edward II, that the regents of the young King Edward III finally offered the terms of peace resulting in the Treaty of Northampton-Edinburgh, which recognised Scotland as an independent kingdom and Robert Bruce as its king. By this time, Bruce himself was worn-out and ill. He died in 1329, aged 55 years.

History tends to be written by the victors. John Balliol’s “weakness” was exaggerated by the Bruces and their supporters, so as to justify their own actions. The Comyns were reviled as traitors, for having fought with the English at Bannockburn, but both the Comyns and the Bruces fought on different sides at different times. Both families put their own interests first, and acted accordingly.

Legend has it that the citizens of Aberdeen, who seem to have supported Bruce from the start, attacked the English garrison in the Castle in 1309, and put them to the sword. There is no particular evidence of this – in particular, the historian John Barbour (1320-95) makes no mention of it in his epic poem de Brus of 1375 – but King Robert certainly showed considerable gratitude and affection towards Aberdeen and its people, and spent a disproportionate amount of his time in Aberdeen.

In this he was following the example of previous Kings of Scotland, pre-occupied by the threat from the Vikings in the north. Their power was broken by King Alexander III at the Battle of Largs in 1263 but, even after that, the lowland towns remained under constant threat of incursion and pillage by the Celtic Highlanders. In response, the Scottish kings had built up a defensive framework of castles centred on the great fortress of Kildrummy Castle.

For the first time since the 11th century, the nobility had to decide whether they were to be Scottish or English – they could no longer be both

King Robert lavished gifts and privileges on Aberdeen. The Aberdonians had been amongst the first to rise in defence of the freedom of Scotland; they had been almost his only friends in time of dire trouble.

The Burgh had offered him a refuge when he was ill. He and his son David and their whole family regarded Aberdeen as their own town.

King Robert’s grants and favours to Aberdeen far exceeded in both number and value those he made to other, notionally more important towns, like Edinburgh and Perth. He granted Aberdeen the first of six Royal Charters in 1314, which established the city as a Royal Burgh.

The Burgh was granted the office of Keeper of the Royal Forest of Stocket, which became the basis of the Common Good Fund. In 1319, King Robert amplified his grant into a Great Charter. He bestowed on the burgesses and community of Aberdeen the ownership of the Burgh itself and of the Stocket Forest, in return for an annual payment of £213 6s 8d (Scots).

The lands, mills, river fishings, small customs, tolls, courts and weights and measures were theirs. They could build and develop within the boundaries of the forest – the Freedom Lands, as they came to be known; only the game, the growing of timber and the right of hunting were reserved for the King.

The revenues arising from this bequest gave the Burgh an assured annual income, the basis for real progress and improvement. In 1320, the Brig o’ Balgownie was built across the River Don, funded either at the King’s instigation, or by the King himself.   The Brig may have been built to ease the movement of armies northwards, but it greatly facilitated trade with the country north of the River Don, with Buchan, Formartine and the Garioch.

Throughout his reign, King Robert I adhered to the principle that there should be no disinheritance of men (and women) claiming property by hereditary right, provided they were prepared to swear allegiance to him. They could no longer own land in England as well as in Scotland. For the first time since the 11th century, the nobility had to decide whether they were to be Scottish or English – they could no longer be both.

The “disinherited” whom King Robert chose to exclude from the peace terms in 1328 were those who wanted to have it both ways – to enjoy their Scottish lands and yet be subjects of the English king, or vice-versa. To generalise, King Robert imposed forfeiture of Scottish land and estates only on non-Scots who declined to become his subjects, and on those Scotsmen, like the Comyns, who remained to be his irreconcilable enemies.

Alex’s account will conclude in next week’s Voice

 

Oct 082010
 

By Alex Mitchell.

The following was written some years ago around the theme of a ghost story in which the ghost does not appear.   “Forsythe House” is modeled on two grand houses in the North-East, one well-known, the other less so.   Those of a literary bent may also be able to identify the real-life model for “Emily”.

For some unknown reason, my sister and I used as children to spend a fortnight each summer with our decayed-gentry relations at Forsythe House, out in the back of beyond.   Like children everywhere, we took our surroundings for granted and thought nothing of the peculiar mixture of grandeur and squalor at Forsythe House.

Much the same was no doubt true for the various generations of Forsythes still living there.

The house itself was of a flamboyant baroque design, more appropriate to the sunny, smiling climate of Italy.   It was certainly not robust enough to stand up to the unrelenting wind and rain and alternating frost and thaw of the Buchan coast.   The surrounding estate and farmland had never been sufficiently productive to support such a grand household, certainly not after the advent of Death Duties and the agricultural depression of the 1920s and ’30s.   Domestic staff had to be ‘let go’, or were simply unobtainable.   In consequence, basic household repairs and maintenance had been neglected for years, even decades, on end.

Certain parts of the house were only in use during the summer months because of the deteriorating condition of the roof and the consequent spread of various kinds of rot and decay down through the structure and fabric, not least on the great central staircase and first-floor landings.   Door and window-frames had become warped and distorted, some now past being opened, but nonetheless allowing freezing draughts to penetrate.   The once-elegant reception rooms on the first floor, with their high, ornately-decorated ceilings and their tall sash windows rattling in the wind, were unbearably cold for much of the year; their matching pairs of fireplaces made little impact on the enveloping chill and damp, even back in the old days when servants were on call to drag logs, peat and coal up the back stairs and to attend to the warming flames.

During the severe winters and fuel shortages of the post-war years the Forsythes had tended to retreat to the gloomy basement kitchens, where huge cast-iron stoves and ranges consumed sawn-up branches from decayed or fallen trees scavenged from the surrounding forest and were kept burning night and day and all year round.   This was the only reliably warm area of the great house.

This was also where the cook and the few remaining servants had their television set – the only one in the house, naturally – with the result that the Forsythe ladies fell into the habit of slipping down the back stairs after dinner to sit with the domestic staff and watch Coronation Street and Opportunity Knocks, these odd little gatherings being illuminated only by the cosy orange-red glow from the stoves and range, reflected here and there in the greasy, smoke-blackened patina of the kitchen walls and ceilings.

we were both extremely conscious, even the first time we went there, of an oppressive sense of literally unbearable sadness

By the early 1960s, when my sister and I were making our regular summer visits, the Forsythes had virtually stopped using the first-floor accommodation and upstairs bedrooms altogether.

This was not simply because of the decayed and dangerous condition of the staircases, landings and upstairs corridors.

The sanitary arrangements for the bedrooms on the upper floor and attics had depended on commodes and chamber-pots, emptied each morning by the maids and domestics.   It was no longer possible to find young women from the village willing to do this kind of work, while the older family servants were not physically up to the fetching and carrying, upstairs and downstairs.   In consequence, the upstairs receptacles went unemptied for days, sometimes weeks, on end.

There was a similar problem with the various old gun-dogs which flopped and slobbered around the ground floor of the house, and which were either unable or unwilling to go outside in the cold of winter.   Carpets were fouled, and the mess was often left unattended to – and largely unnoticed – for weeks, even months.   In the old days, of course, the dogs would never have been allowed into the house in the first place.   As young children, we found all this hilariously funny, but, as we entered our teens, we became more prim and suburban in our attitudes towards personal and domestic hygiene, and came to resent the absence of proper bathrooms with showers and other modern conveniences.

We were left to roam about the house unchecked, risking our necks on the rotten staircases and landings.   My sister was a natural athlete and explorer; where she led, I followed.   But we preferred to avoid one of the bedrooms, always referred to by the Forsythe family as ‘Emily’s Room’, on the top floor of the west wing.   In itself, it was a pleasant enough room, of a sunny aspect, its attractive feminine décor still more-or-less intact.

the Forsythes were becoming so obviously weird and peculiar, their style of living so decayed and regressive, that our parents no longer felt able to entrust us to their care

The fact of the matter was that we were both extremely conscious, even the first time we went there, of an oppressive sense of literally unbearable sadness, of the deepest, most overwhelming sorrow and despair, which pervaded not only the room itself but also that end of the long back corridor, and the effect was that we tended thereafter to avoid the west wing altogether.

But we did find, inside a rickety old writing-table, a school exercise book, the property of one Emily Jane Forsythe, which contained various poems, draft versions of letters to a young man and assorted brief reflections, one of which has lodged in my mind ever since: “Perhaps it would be lonelier without the loneliness”.

We asked our Great-Aunt about Emily, as children would.   We were shown a faded, yellowed photograph of a radiant young girl – a distant cousin of ours – aged about eighteen.   We were led to believe that she had died not long afterwards, that Emily had suddenly been taken from us, like so many young people in those days, by one of the various killer diseases then extant; scarlet fever, consumption, diphtheria, whatever.

We did not find out the truth about Emily for some years, until what turned out to be our last summer at Forsythe House, the fact of the matter being that the Forsythes were becoming so obviously weird and peculiar, their style of living so decayed and regressive, that our parents no longer felt able to entrust us to their care.   Whilst wandering aimlessly in the mixed woods which year by year steadily encroached on the house and its grounds, we came across the old Forsythe family burial ground, apparently unused since the 1880s but for one quite recent interment, that of Emily Jane Forsythe, 1897-1959.   She had evidently died not long before we started our summer visits to Forsythe House.

Only then did our Great-Aunt tell us what had really happened to Emily.   She had been engaged to be married to a young man from one of the best local families, people of real standing and substance; the marriage would have transformed the declining fortunes of the Forsythes.   But it was the time of the Great War.   The young man had to go off to fight with his regiment in France, and, a few weeks later, was one of the sixty thousand killed on 1st July 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme.

The day the official telegram arrived at Forsythe House, Emily went up to her room in the west wing and shut herself away from the rest of the household.   And she never came out again, other than to roam the top corridor at night-times, howling at the moon like some kind of deranged animal.   As she had written in her exercise book, “Perhaps it would be lonelier without the loneliness”. And now, at last, we knew what our cousin Emily had meant.