Government Archives - Page 4 of 16

Old Susannah No. 136 – How Capitalism Works

Opinion, Satire and Humour 4 Responses »

Nov 012013

Old Susannah, Suzanne Kelly, gets to grips with Grangemouth, Granite Webs and Gardens. The revolution may or may not be televised, but almost everything else is being privatised.

Tally Ho! Well, it’s been a colourful week in the Granite City; plans for the city centre are being drawn up, and that’s something you don’t see every day (unless you get the P&J). Apparently all our problems are solved if we let one Sir Ian Wood give us £50 million, and let him raise (or is that ‘raze’) Union Terrace Gardens.

If only we’d have known that before! All we’ll have to do is hand control of Union Terrace Gardens over to a few committees, stocked with powerful people, Wood’s friends, special friends and relatives, and ignore the fact you and I own this land under common law.

Oh, and we are thinking about trams. No reason to think trams aren’t a good idea; I’m sure the successful tram programme in Edinburgh can be reproduced in the ‘Deen.

I’m sure whatever Ian wants for UTG is just what Robert the Bruce would have wanted when he bequeathed the gardens to you and to me. Bruce famously sat in a cave, feeling defeated when he spied a spider weaving a web. The spider’s perseverance and determination had a profound effect on the heroic Bruce.

He watched that spider, and decided that a web – made of granite – was what we would eventually have the ambition to build over the gardens.

For some reason architects Halliday Fraser Munro continue to make, free of charge, imaginative Escher-esque drawings of the city centre. These can’t actually be built, but they are pretty. Questions like ‘What will happen to the businesses on Belmont Street, which currently have pleasant vistas overlooking the gardens’?, and ‘How will the centre of town suddenly be pedestrianized’? are just minor details we can iron out once we agree to the plans.

Dame Anne Begg opened an exhibition on the history of witchcraft in our city over the centuries at the Tollbooth Museum.

I could have nominated some better candidates for the witchcraft lecture. Aileen Malone (known for sacrificing animals i.e. deer, in the hope of getting £££) and Kate Dean (famous for making vital support services vanish) each seem to have a fair amount of free time on their hands these days, and their undoubted personal knowledge of the dark arts and witchcraft would have been illuminating.

he must be out of touch with the average person, unlike our elected and unelected rulers

Speaking of witches, I saw some graffiti recently which I can’t quite understand. I was in London this past weekend. As my train made its way into the city, very large graffiti on a building caught my eye: “The Witch is Dead, but the Spell Remains”. I wonder who this referred to? No doubt I’ll soon Iron out which Lady the words were about.

People are talking about a recent edition of Newsnight this week.

“[We] shouldn’t destroy the planet, shouldn’t create massive economic disparity, shouldn’t ignore the people” said comedian Russell Brand, “the [political] system .. just administers for large corporations.”

Poor Mr Brand. Clearly he can’t appreciate how lucky we are; he must be out of touch with the average person, unlike our elected and unelected rulers. We’ve never had it so good, or so we’re being told. The Newsnight interview can be found here http://www.treehugger.com/culture/russell-brand-interview-revolution-planet-is-being-destroyed-video.html .

For Brand’s benefit, and to remind us all of our recent economic successes, Old Susannah offers a few timely definitions. So, as you snuggle up in your perfectly heated home, eating your lobster dinner, and lighting your Cuban cigars with 20 Euro notes, directing the maid to clean the second bathroom again, here are this week’s definitions.

Privatisation: (noun) to dispose of a state or publicly-owned institution by sale of shares.

Remember what a huge success the sell-off of British Gas was? Lots of people got to make money on shares when the government sold off British Gas, and that was great. For some reason, we seem to be paying higher prices for gas, but I’m sure there is no connection between this and the privatisation.

The recent sale of the Royal Mail is making us all wealthy beyond our wildest dreams. Result!

So what if the future for postal employees is a bit shaky; they’ve all been given a few shares in the sell-off. I’m sure that in 3 years, when they are allowed to sell their shares, it will more than make up for any job losses or pension devaluations. I’m sure we won’t see any cost increases, layoffs, or change in the quality of service.

The selloff must have been a success, because it was oversubscribed.

This of course helps stimulate the economy, as well as rewarding the long-suffering banking sector

The experts in the banking world who arranged the flotation may have made a teeny error in pricing the shares up, but since this hasn’t cost the taxpayer more than about £750 million in lost potential share sale revenues, it’s no big deal. Shockingly, shares were not sold to anyone who wanted more than £10,000 worth.

This sounds like discrimination against the rich to me. Thankfully, the many banks which were part of the consultation process got lots of money (about £17 million according to the Guardian) for arranging the sale. This of course helps stimulate the economy, as well as rewarding the long-suffering banking sector. Also, the many banks which had put in for shares largely seem to have been successful, to the tune of about £29 million.

This is quite a happy outcome for the banking sector, even if it seems like quite a coincidence they managed to get so many shares and so many individual investors were frozen out.

We’ve sold British Gas, we’ve sold our Royal Mail; we’ve sold off most of our water. These have been huge success stories financially.

Operationally, there are one or two minor issues that crop up after privatisations, but I wouldn’t worry about that kind of thing.

Thames Water for instance, had a few minor teething problems after its sell-off. There are pipelines leaking millions of gallons of water which go unrepaired. The new management choose to pay dividends to shareholders rather than worry about fusty, boring water infrastructure. They may have to pay the odd fine for polluting the UK’s streams and lakes, but this is just an operating expense.

Thames Water has only had a few fines for pumping raw sewage into the environment, with one fine coming in at £204,000. Thames water also cut its workforce; but on the bright side, the chairman’s salary went up by several hundred thousand pounds per year, no doubt he was doing extra work, what with fewer workers on the payroll.

The best part? Thames Water doesn’t pay corporation tax, which is great news for shareholders (if not the Treasury). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339282/Thames-Water-pays-corporation-tax-550m-profits

One such successful entrepreneur is the owner of Scotland’s Grangemouth, Jim Ratcliffe

But don’t worry – none of this is gives any reason to think the Royal Mail sell-off will have any negative consequences. A few job losses, a few thousand people out of work and/or with less valuable pensions, a few banks making tens of millions – that’s what keeps this nation great and competitive. There is no reason to fear the new owners of UK Plc. won’t decide to cut the water or gas.

Just keep the candles handy, stock up on fire wood, and get a rain barrel – we’ll be fine.

Union: (noun) A collective of workers organised and empowered to protect workers’ rights, health and benefits from employers who would seek to maximise profit margins at the expense of the workforce.

There is one fly in the ointment for those benefactors who kindly seek to own key British industries and companies – the Unions.

I’m delighted that private companies, often coming down to foreign governments, one family or even just one man, own crucial parts of the country’s essential utilities, resources and infrastructure. To the uneducated, this may just seem like either Imperialism or in the latter case like Feudalism, but remember how much better off we are. One such successful entrepreneur is the owner of Scotland’s Grangemouth, Jim Ratcliffe.

It may not seem like it, but Mr Ratcliffe’s had to make many financial sacrifices to keep Grangemouth and its employees going these past few years. He’s not making as much money as he used to – there are rumours he’s down to only one super yacht, the 257 foot Hampshire II. Ratcliffe was shopping one day, had a spare £9 million to play about with, and bought Grangemouth from BP.

Since then he’s become kind of a father figure to those who work there. Rather than gratitude, these workers want to have pay increases and to keep their final salary pension schemes. Jim can’t afford this. According to the Daily Record, Jim’s not very rich at all anymore, and hardly rates:-

“Manchester-born Ratcliffe owns two-thirds of the company’s shares, giving him a personal fortune of around £3.5billion in 2008, when he was named the 25th richest man in Britain.”

With no choice, Jim announced he’d simply shut the facility, which is fair enough. Putting 800 workers, their families, the area businesses that depend on the custom of those workers in a bit of jeopardy probably just taught them a good lesson.

Such vital services I thought should be run without a thought to making money from them

Ratcliffe showed the unions he was boss. And by the way, we don’t really know how badly off Ratcliffe is, because the owner of arguably Scotland’s most important refinery keeps his businesses largely in Switzerland. If I hear of anyone starting a collection for him, I’ll let you know how to contribute.

Before Old Susannah was old, I naively thought we needed governments to tax us so they could protect our rights, help us when we were too ill to work, and provide services such as schools, hospitals, clean water and energy. Such vital services I thought should be run without a thought to making money from them, and were so vital they should be protected from any form of outside or private control, for the benefit of the taxpayer.

How I laugh now to think on this foolish ideology.

Pay your tax, work hard, and good luck. Where you can afford to live and what you earn will directly impact how your children are schooled, what drugs you’ll be allowed to have if you are seriously ill, and how your granny will be treated in a nursing home. Work for a public sector employer such as Royal Mail or oil refineries at your own risk.

Make sure you buy shares in whatever’s being sold next, and try not to think about the pollution caused by cost-cutting measures designed to improve profits, your spiralling energy costs, and the stealthy privatisation of the NHS.

Forget the train crash victims who died at Hatfield; cutting corners on safety for profit was seen by the privatised management as a ‘cost of doing business’. Forget your library closures, school closures and hospital ER closures. If something starts to nag at you, then Old Susannah suggests getting drunk, getting wasted, or getting some engaging virtual world computer games to while away the hours.

Don’t wonder why you are paying more taxes when you no longer have to support these vital services once privatised, and don’t ask why the uber rich are paying no taxes. I’m sure everything will be just fine.

There we leave it for this week; but if you can suggest any other services that could be sold off, do get in touch. For some reason, I’m thinking of that bit of graffiti I saw again.

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

A Tale Of Two Cities – Part 2

Aberdeen City, Information 2 Responses »

Oct 242013

In the conclusion to his two-part article, Jonathan Russell explores further the growing inequalities in wealth globally, in the UK and in Aberdeen

Both Oxfam and the Jimmy Reid Foundation have fuelled the debate about equality with their ideas around the Common Weal.

Whilst real consumption per head has doubled since 1978, unemployment benefit has remained fixed.

Peter Kenway, in a 2009 Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, posed the question, ‘Should adult benefit for unemployment benefit be raised?’ found that Jobseeker’s Allowance represents

a fifth of the actual, average expenditure of single adults
half of the actual average expenditure of single adults in the poorest households

Yet, at the same time, according to the Tax Justice Network, tax avoidance amounts to £69.9bn a year. Is this OK?

Minimum wage in the UK, per hour (2013)
21 and over	18 to 20	Under 18	Apprentice*
£6.31	£5.03	£3.72	£2.68

The minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation. It is particularly low for younger citizens and needs to be increased significantly. At their recent conferences both Labour and SNP have pledged to improve the minimum wage, but pressure needs to be exerted to give this more impetus.

At the same time, members of richer families can leave up to £325,000 in inheritance without paying tax. So, if your parents are rich you can do absolutely nothing and inherit a substantial sum of money. The internet is full of sites giving advice on avoiding tax and inheritance tax. Imagine the outcry there would be if there were sites giving advice on how to fiddle Jobseeker’s Allowance.

This is a hypocritical double standard. Nor does it make sense economically, as it is those who have least money who are likely to spend and help us move out of recession. We currently suffer from lack of investment in our economy whilst there is much unnecessary wealth.

Total household wealth in the UK increased by 55% in the past decade, to an average of £242,000, largely due to a significant rise in the value of property which has outpaced surging mortgage debt.

According to research by Lloyds TSB Private Banking, that is equivalent to £86,500 per household in the ten-year period, with the value of wealth growing faster than consumer prices or disposable income.

The financial crisis has shaved £6bn off our assets since 2007, yet collective household wealth in the UK was estimated to be £6.6 trillion at the end of 2011, up from £4.3 trillion in 2001.

Wealth has outstripped both inflation and disposable incomes, with the Retail Prices Index (RPI) up by 38% over the past ten years and gross household disposable income up by 44%.

According to the Lloyds research, a decade of booming house prices, especially between 2001 and 2007, has added significant wealth to households.

Property as a percentage of wealth has increased from 36% in 2001 to 40% in 2011. Over the decade, housing wealth has risen 73% and financial wealth is up 44%.

In the same period, the value of the nation’s private housing stock increased from £2.1 trillion to £3.9 trillion.

But as house values have grown, mortgage debts have risen significantly.

The total value of mortgage debt more than doubled from £591bn to £1.25 trillion, meaning that many households, though helped by low interest payments, are struggling or are failing to pay. Home ownership continues to be championed by the UK government. This is unrealistic and what we need is a wealth tax to allow us to build new social housing and help us move out of recession.

The £1.8 trillion increase in the value of housing outstrips the £655bn rise in mortgage debt almost threefold.

The data show that rises in both average house prices, and the number of privately-owned homes, from 20.1m in 2001 to 22.4m in 2011, was behind the surge in the value of housing.

Suren Thiru, Lloyds TSB Private Banking economist, said:

“The substantial growth in household wealth over the past decade is partly the result of the increase in the value of housing stock between 2001 and 2007.

‘Whilst financial assets have played their part, the value of housing stock grew at a significantly faster rate. Rising house wealth has benefited those who own their own homes and those who rent out properties in the private sector.”

However, those at the bottom of the housing market have had to pay dearly.

The majority of household wealth continues to be held as financial, rather than housing, assets.

The total value of financial assets, such as savings, pensions and company shares, held by households has increased to £4.1trillion in 2011 from £2.9trillion in 2001.

The research found that there has been a £718bn rise in equity held by households in life assurance and pension fund reserves.

There has also been a boom in savings, with an increase of £549bn held in deposits with financial institutions and National Savings.

There was a relatively modest boost from stock market performance with the FTSE All Share Index increasing by 13% in the decade to 2011.

Despite the downturn in the economy since 2007, household wealth has declined by just £6bn, mainly down to lower house prices. These are now beginning to rise but this is worrying, since if price houses are high, the debt accrued in paying off new mortgages increases. Rather than building more social housing, the UK government is offering money to help get buyers on to the property ladder.

This is merely repeating the problems of the past in encouraging increased debt, leading to even more people defaulting on mortgage payments, particularly if interest rates increase.

The distribution of wealth in the UK between the haves and the have-nots beggars belief. Yet when it comes to paying the reckoning following a period of greed, from which the top 10% benefited in particular, it is the un-rich, low-waged, property-less, younger people who have suffered most.

Aberdeen for many is cushioned by Oil and Gas but, for the low-waged in service industries, paying high rents or for unemployed or disabled people, life is a struggle.

We have seen the opening of Aberdeen’s first food bank.

Services have been cut for the most vulnerable in our city, yet many people’s riches are far in excess of their needs.

It is time to end the something for nothing culture and start redistributing wealth between rich and poor, and for investment for future generations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/scotland-23962969
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d5FZU64Bnw

Cash machine and paliament photos by Ian Britton via Freefoto.com

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

Bipeds, By-passes And Bye-bye Responsibility – A Response

Aberdeen City, Environment, Opinion No Responses »

Oct 212013

Voice reader Frank Paterson has been moved sufficiently by Fin Hall’s recent article on traffic management, Bipeds, by-passes and bye-bye responsibility, to add his own views. ‘It’s good for Aberdeen Voice to publish an article on such an important and contentious issue’, he says. Thank you, Frank.

With the greatest of respect to the writer, the article is a good reflection of mainstream NE thinking on transport, in grousing about congestion but failing to suggest ways of dealing with it, apart from demanding more road building.
This, as previous Voice articles have explained, will only exacerbate the problem.

This really is vital issue as the growth in road traffic is presenting an enormous threat to the environment and economy of Aberdeen.

Far more importantly however, it is disastrous to people’s health. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has announced that air pollution is officially a cause of lung and bowel cancer.

The writer urges Aberdeen drivers to be more considerate without taking into account Aberdeen’s transport system’s role in causing poor behaviour. The system is not only a complete embarrassment, but is also completely dysfunctional.

It appears to me that the article was unkind to George Kilbride, who was only attempting to action what transport managers throughout the world know to be the only viable solution to congestion and pollution, that is, modal shift in transport use. With sufficient political will this is achievable, as can be demonstrated by examples from many world cities.

unwillingness to change lifestyles is the root cause of the discontent expressed

However, experience shows that attempting to accommodate the current problems of motor transport by demand management, which has been the case up till now, results merely in the relocation of congestion.

This continues to be the case with the proposed AWPR and Third Don Crossing.

The footprint of cars and goods vehicles is too large, and fuel combustion too great, for individualised motorised travel. An aspiration of many is to drive the largest of vehicles but fundamentally there is not enough room within Aberdeen, and air quality is too poor, to accommodate current traffic comfortably, let alone more and larger vehicles.

Aberdeenshire Council’s Local Transport Strategy 2012 states (Para 8/28):

“The guiding principle of the LTS aims to encourage individuals to change their travel behaviour. If we are to succeed in achieving this, our citizens must feel comfortable and safe whether walking, cycling or using public transport or when choosing to drive”

Transport professionals are clear on what must be done, but politicians are afraid to act, so an unwillingness to change lifestyles is the root cause of the discontent expressed in the previous article. Anger and bewilderment will increase along with congestion until the inevitable restrictions on car use are enforced by necessity of space and clean air.

However, the perennial congestion at Aberdeen’s traffic pinch points demonstrates how much inconvenience car users are willing to endure before shifting to more sensible modes of travel.

Like the public smoking ban, the occupation of public highways by tons of steel and the discharge of combustion waste into the air people breathe, will need to be curtailed eventually. This will be necessary for everyone’s benefit, despite the inevitable outcry.

WHO report: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf
Aberdeenshire Council Local Transport Strategy 2012: http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/transportation/lts/index.asp

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

A Tale Of Two Cities – Part 1

Aberdeen City, Information 1 Response »

Oct 212013

Across the globe, with a few notable exceptions, the disparity in wealth between the poor and the rich is increasing. In the first of two articles, Jonathan Russell looks at the increasing disparities in wealth globally, in the UK, and here in Aberdeen

Globalisation in particular has meant that wealthy elites can invest in, and set up money-making concerns wherever they like, with little regard for either the countries in which they have investments or the populations of their own countries.

The biggest investments are in oil, gas and mineral abstraction and in the clothing industry.

The power of the state has reduced specifically in relation to its role as an income redistributor, and often, state ideology has been to encourage capital investment at the expense of its citizens.

The super-rich, defined as the top 1% of earners, now pocket 10p in every pound of income paid in Britain, whilst members of the poorest half of the population take home only 18p of every pound between them. This is according to a report published this week by the Resolution Foundation think tank, revealing the widening gap between those at the very top and the rest of society.

We have seen over recent decades, an attack on the working class and poorer ends of our society. Under Thatcher and successive governments most of our society’s industrial base was destroyed. This has led to over-dependence on the financial, service and oil and gas industries, and the one industry flourishing, the arms trade.

This leaves the economy in a particularly volatile state at times of economic downturn. Despite what the coalition government says, UK Government debt presently stands at £1.16 trillion, up from £0.76 trillion in 2010. Personal debt stands at £1.436 billion.

Many areas of the UK, including Scotland (4.4 %), have high levels of unemployment and young people in particular have borne the brunt of the present recession. Aberdeen’s unemployment rate is 2.2%. Young people are more likely to be unemployed, in low paid jobs and on short term contracts. They will have to wait longer for retirement and even middle class youngsters will be poorer in the future.

For those whose parents have few or no savings, the future is increasingly bleak. At the same time many older people have benefited from the property boom and have high-value pensions and savings.

Many people have moved from more highly-paid industrial jobs to low-paid service sector jobs in retail, call centres and care. Workers in these sectors are often on short-term contracts. In 2009, the average wage was £20081. In 2008/09, income in the top and bottom fifth of households was £73800 and £5000 respectively, before taxes and benefits.

After tax and benefits, household income disparities are significantly reduced, to £53900 and £13600 respectively

The lives of many in Aberdeen have been cushioned by working in the oil and gas sector. Many in the trades are well paid too, due to local market conditions, but others have suffered the double whammy of low pay and increasing housing costs, in particular in the private sector.

The policy of selling council housing has had a devastating effect on people wanting to get into the housing market. It created divisions between working class people who were poor and those who were better off and who could afford to buy their council property at a reduced cost. This policy has finally been dropped in Scotland, but to turn around the devastation caused will take decades.

The young, unless they have rich parents who can help them on to the property ladder or with rent payments, have been particularly affected, with many more young people living in the parental home.

Housing Associations have, in part, helped to provide accommodation but in a market like Aberdeen’s, where private rents are high, the effect on people’s standard of living is devastating. Those renting out flats have made a killing. Many people have moved to Aberdeenshire to access cheaper housing, creating ever-increasing chaos on the roads leading into Aberdeen.

Although Aberdeen is relatively affluent, there are a number of localities with significant social and economic challenges. In the 2012 Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 22 areas in the city are among the 15% most deprived areas in Scotland. The figures in relation to health are more striking, 48 areas of the city fall into the 155 most deprived areas in the country.

http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/global-wealth-inequality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGdRM3C_wjc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGdRM3C_wjc&feature=player_embedded

Jonathan Russell continues exploration of the growing inequalities in wealth globally, in the UK and here in Aberdeen in the next issue of Aberdeen Voice.

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

Old Susannah No. 135 – Garden Salad

Opinion, Satire and Humour 1 Response »

Oct 182013

Old Susannah, aka Suzanne Kelly, gets to grips with her greens this week, with the never-ending Union Terrace Gardens saga, GM crops and various vegetables – including Eric Pickles – all vying for news coverage this past week.

Another vibrant and dynamic, connectivity-laden, smart, successful Scottish week passes in Aberdeen.

The weather is taking a turn for the cooler at night, and I’m starting to throw old unread copies of the Evening Express (is there any other kind?) onto the fire at night (living without central heating has its charms).

Alas, I’ve been down in London and missed many events here, including Thrashist Regime, who I’m told were so lively the staid Lemon Tree staff were freaking out at all the rule infractions the band committed.

London was wonderful, but the Londoners seem to think they can manage without one central square smack in the geographical centre of town. Somehow they carry on, in a city which is more like a series of different villages, each with its own ‘green/living/vibrant/dynamic’ heart, as our Evening Express reporters would put it.

Why, they haven’t even drawn up a map to show what is the Civic Zone or the Merchant Quarter, like we’ve done. London clearly needs a transformational project – if only one man with a horrific – sorry terrific vision would come along, put money on London’s table (well theoretical money anyway) and tell Boris Johnson what to build and where to build it, London would start to thrive.

Thankfully, we have Sir Ian Wood.

Looking at aerial maps of London, huge great green open spaces abound. Some call these parks/wildlife reserves/wetland centres/leisure spaces. Some people hold that these green spaces help give London a decent air quality, encourage wildlife, provide leisure space – even decrease stress levels and improve fitness.

Such spaces are, at least to the more sophisticated billionaire and ACSEF member, development opportunities. Oddly, London chooses to build in its disused brownfield rather than ‘transforming’ its green areas. Thankfully, we’re not falling for that stuff here. (I did hear a rumour that Hampstead Heath was going to be lowered to ground level for greater accessibility and connectivity. Watch this space).

Trafalgar Square remains a focal point, but it is far too small.

That will make London and Moscow take note.

At some 12,000 square metres for a population that’s around 8 million, it’s clear they are out of step with our Aberdonian city square project, otherwise known as the thing that wouldn’t die. Our much needed outdoor square will, if Sir Ian gets his way, be larger than Moscow’s Red Square.

Perhaps Aberdeen’s quangos, committees and elite have more in common with Moscow than London, come to think on it.

The City Square/Granite Web/Garden Project is proof that reincarnation is real; the thing just keeps coming back under new names, with increasingly beautiful, workable, desirable details. Our broken heart (aka Union Terrace Gardens) could have had a new beating heart (copyright Evening Express), dwarfing both Trafalgar and Red Squares, for our population which is around, er, a quarter of a million people.

That will make London and Moscow take note.

You have to hand it to Sir Ian Wood (or so he thinks); he is persistent. If half the goings-on I hear of were true for his retinue, finding time for any granite web project flogging would be nigh on impossible.

Aside from London’s museums, I saw the amazing Deborah Bonham and band at the Half Moon in Putney; I hope that someone is working on getting them an Aberdeen date…

Returning from London to the Deen, I eagerly bought the first P&J I could find, and started to catch up on the news; learning that former top cop Ian Paterson has just been found guilty of sexually harassing and assaulting several women over time. Looking back over old news stories, council records and so on, I find he was involved not only with the AVCO but also with groups working with young and vulnerable people. How wonderful.

Old Susannah remembers first moving to the Deen, and reading stories about old people being neglected, abused and mistreated in residential homes. There was even a home that had a broken lift for weeks – leaving people stranded and unable to get outside (I’ll bet it was a jolly adventure and fun for them, rather than a hardship).

Some might find his behaviour sleazy, contemptible, inexcusable, predatory and degrading

Naively I wanted to do my part, and I called my nearest residential home, asking how I could volunteer / help. ‘Oh, no, you have to get all kinds of clearance and be security checked’ was the response I got; I was definitely discouraged from taking it further. Fair enough – leave the volunteer work to the professionals, I thought.

All the while, some people were allowed access to vulnerable, young and old people because they were important – like Paterson.

Kindly, Patting Paterson would ‘comfort’ women – whether they wanted him to or not – by touching them where he had no business touching them. Sounds very comforting indeed. Then again, he only did this for a few years to a score of women. If those around him knew about this, they were quite right to leave it be, so he could continue ‘comforting’ others.

Some might find his behaviour sleazy, contemptible, inexcusable, predatory and degrading, but you can’t argue with a policeman, or indeed an ex-policeman, can you?

Old Susannah wonders now just who his friends/colleagues were (kerb crawling ex-councillors perhaps like Gordon Leslie?). Who knew what of his activities? What work was he presiding over as Chief Superintendent, or as chief executive of Aberdeen Council of Voluntary Organisations?

Could his actions and decision-making have been compromised at any time? Could he have been coerced or influenced by people who knew what he was doing? Was he around when the police were tasked by Audit Scotland to look into the dodgy property dealings uncovered in 2008?

Thankfully, we don’t need to bother with any such questions, because it’s all in the past. The police could find no wrong-doing on the former council’s part, for instance when we sold land for peanuts, ripping off the taxpayer, and keeping very shoddy records. Who knows what could be unravelled, but I’ll certainly not be pulling at that loose piece of yarn on the jumper, will I?

Time for some definitions (and a shot of BrewDog’s Watt Dickie) after thinking over this week’s news. Note to self – I must try some ‘Hello my name is Sonja’, a new addition to the ‘Hello’ BrewDog collection. And to Messrs Dickie & Watt, and all at the BrewDog Aberdeen Bar, a Happy Third Birthday.

Garden Salad: (modern English compound noun) – A dish comprising leafy and other vegetables, or a recipe for same.

Take one small, perfectly formed natural hollow, fill with trees, greens and flowers. Add greed, a pinch of desperation for immortality, and lashings of ego. Add in various vegetables (Tom Smith, Ian Wood, Stewart Milne, etc.) and toss. Add a few hundred inches of column spaces, revoltingly poor architectural grandiosity, and unintelligible drawings.

Garnish lavishly with hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money (for consultants, PR, etc.). Serve with a side helping of indigestible financial sauce. Add £50 million pounds; remove; add again; remove. This dish can be served again and again. And again. Keep serving until someone, somewhere swallows. Best eaten out of Sir Ian’s hands.

Yes, he’s at it again. We can’t keep our only city centre green space, despite having so much unused brownfield, because Wood wants it.

Barney Crockett has promised that if the garden is raised, it will not be for parking spaces – which are what was wanted by the ACSEF/Wood mob in the first place. If you have any opinions on this, please let your elected councillors know, lest they then turn around and say no one ever got in touch with them.

Let your council know how great a glass pyramid will be, or how ruining the back side of Belmont Street’s businesses which overlook the park will somehow add to connectivity. Tell your councillor how destroying our only natural wind break, getting rid of the few city centre trees we have will mean to your sense of transformation.

Pickles: (English noun) A sour, bitter, bloated vegetable, preserved in brine.

Eric Pickles. Where does one even start with this one man’s accomplishments? He’s been in the news again lately, and like me, I’m sure you relish reading about him. I love to ketchup with his doings, even if some people find Pickles unpalatable.

MP Pickles claimed expenses for a second home so he wouldn’t have to commute the massive 37 mile trek from his first home to Westminster. (I wonder if Pickles’ second home is close to the Gherkin?) This may have seemed a bit greedy to some, but for Eric to have to travel so far to get to work just wouldn’t have been right.

If he was tired in the House of Commons, he might not be able to cut the mustard. He also needed at least £300 in cleaning expenses, which he kindly repaid when asked to, at the height of the MPs expense scandal.

One of the reasons he’s rated so highly is his love of the countryside, as development opportunity anyway. As Secretary of State, he refused to call in controversial plans which saw a vast swathe of historic Dover and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty turned into a housing development / complex.

Area residents found Pickles jarring.

If the refusal to listen to a public demand sounds familiar to anyone in the Balmedie area, another quote from this particular debacle may ring bells with Union Terrace Gardens watchers: defenders of the plan said “This is about building for the future; unlocking the economic potential of our heritage assets.” – the tone of which somehow seems familiar to me.
http://pickles_public_inquiry_into_controversial_development

You can’t help but wonder if Pickles and his supporters would find a spiritual home in city and shire.

teenagers at the Kendall House home in Gravesend were restrained with huge doses of tranquillisers

He was also instrumental in getting rid of greenbelt in Yorkshire, Liverpool and other formerly boring areas in favour of skyscrapers and parking lots- and a gas plant in Tewkesbury where the objections were virtually unanimous. We do need a man of his vision here.

But in his latest pickle, Eric told a woman with health issues, who had severe side effects to ‘increase her medication’ as he wisely disputed her story of residential care home forced drugging. His friend (yes, I didn’t know he had any either) told the BBC that Pickles “was giving her a frank piece of advice in private. It wasn’t meant in any way to offend or insult her”.

What a nice guy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24324556

The BBC story goes on to say “An investigation… claimed that teenagers at the Kendall House home in Gravesend were restrained with huge doses of tranquillisers and other drugs… 10 girls who were heavily sedated while living at the care home during the 1970s and 1980s went on to have children with a range of birth defects.” – Doesn’t sound like much of a big deal to me; perhaps upping her medication was just Eric’s fatherly, well-meant advice. With Pickles around, there is never a dill moment.

Golden Rice: (Modern English noun) A genetically modified, patented rice variety.

Are you one of those people who are unsure about GM foods – not certain that Monsanto should be able to splice genetic material from arctic fish into strawberries, own entire strains of food, seek a monopoly on existing seed businesses, charge farmers each season for food crops rather than farmers being able to store and use their own seed?

Are you unsure about environmental and health aspects of newly-nascent GM plants entering our food chain? Do you have ethical qualms about the third world being indebted to Monsanto forever for using GM food? Maybe you’re not convinced farmers should be sued for theft when GM pollen gets into their own crops (as happened in Canada)?

Then Minister Owen Paterson knows what you are: wicked.

Paterson said as much to the BBC; quite rightly too. The proliferation of GM food into our environment is nothing to fear at all, no more so than when the pesticide DDT came into wide use, and was hailed by the Patersons of the day. Of course, traces of the deadly stuff can now be found in EVERY living organism in the planet, but there you go; no harm done.

There may have been the occasional reason to harbour doubts about scientific advancements, but Science is always right, and technological advances are not made for profit, but for the betterment of the world in every instance. The odd nuclear accident, Thalidomide birth defects, tranquilisers with deadly side effects such as Halcyon – that sort of thing doesn’t happen anymore, well hardly ever.

Don’t question, don’t worry, don’t object – doing so is wicked. Where would we be without the guiding moral compass of Paterson and his ilk?

You wicked people should be ashamed; Paterson also says it is your fault people are starving in the third world, and golden rice will solve everything. That’s you told, then. And here I was thinking centuries of colonialism, civil war, disease, violence and draught were to blame.

Next week: A look at recent Trump news including his classy new roadside sign and 2012 accounts; a glance at Stewart Milne-related news, and more definitions.

Confidential to anyone who is feeling old: In passing, someone in their mid 50s told me they were old. First of all, I was Old Susannah way before anyone else decided to be old. Secondly, don’t be old if you don’t want to be old. One of the most youthful people I’ll ever meet was Les Paul (the guitarist and innovator).

I had the extreme pleasure of watching him play many times. There was nothing like it; the music he made; the passion for what he was doing all kept him at a mental age of perhaps 21. He’d joke; he always smiled; he had a twinkle in his eye, and he loved every moment. (And I wish I could see and hear him again). Did he have pains, aches, heartache, problems the same as the rest of us? Absolutely. He just chose to be young.

I hope to be as young as he was one of these days. Anyone who’s reading this at a computer/phone, in a warm building with food in their stomach is pretty lucky compared to most of the rest of the world, something too easily forgotten. If you have some kind of talent or gift, you have much more reason to lighten up.

Refuse to be jaded. Carpe Diem. Do something new. Go somewhere you’ve never been. Go on an adventure. Start something. I can promise you, you can stay young in heart and mind if you want to. As they say, ‘this is not a dress rehearsal’.

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

Bipeds, By-passes And Bye-bye Responsibility

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 4 Responses »

Oct 112013

The other week, Scottish Energy Minister Fergus Ewing caused a bit of a fuss by stating that the road system in Aberdeen was ‘an embarrassment and the worst in Scotland’. With his eyes firmly on the road ahead, our man in the driving seat, Fin Hall continues.

Barney Crockett, whose name incidentally comes up as Blarney with spell checker,
was outraged at these comments.

And rightly so, since it is the Scottish Government who has overall responsibility for the trunk roads in the country.

Meanwhile, MSP Lewis MacDonald, whilst agreeing with Mr Ewing, points out that the SNP government hasn’t started the AWPR despite almost 12 months having passed since the last stage of the appeal was heard.

Aberdeenshire Council member, Jim Gifford, also has a go at the Scottish Government over the lack of money that has been spent on NE roads.

All of these points are potentially valid, but the whole thing does smack of political point-scoring.

For a start, the Labour-led council has very short memories. It was the current incumbents’ predecessors who, for many a short-sighted year, publicly stated that we did not need a bypass, and actively encouraged us to take public transport, walk, or ride a bike. This was despite the fact that councillors themselves refused to do so stating that they, ‘…needed their cars to attend meetings all over the city’.

Oh, and the rest of us don’t, eh?

Funnily enough, the man at the head of this campaign, rejecting common sense, was one George Kirbride. At the time he was not an elected official, but a very opinionated civil servant, a man whose salary was paid by we tax payers.

He actively encouraged us all to cycle everywhere just as he did, because he didn’t drive. He wanted to build cycle lanes all over the city, the first one being out Cults way, which was apparently where he stayed. This futile example of a cycle way, is a mere white line painted around 18″ from the kerb, with no vehicle parking restrictions, thus totally negating its usefulness. It stopped around Mannofield.

NE drivers must surely be amongst the worst in the country

When all is said and done, the AWPR will not be a panacea in curing all traffic ills, and although it will certainly stop a vast volume of southbound and northbound traffic coming into the city, it will not make Aberdeen an idyllic, peaceful, fresh air city.

Much of the frustration and many problems in this part of the world are caused by the state of the traffic system, but drivers must take a goodly share of the blame. NE drivers must surely be amongst the worst in the country. Just check out the annual fatality list.

Indicators seem to be an added extra on most cars purchased up here, and lane discipline at roundabouts leaves a lot to be desired.

As for no entry signs and one way streets, forget about them.

Go down Stirling Street any day and you’ll see cars going down the street rather than travel 12 feet further along and travel down Exchange Street, the proper way. I have even seen a police car do this, and no, its blue lights were not flashing.

On these streets it is not uncommon to see cars parked facing the wrong way, as the owners know that City Wardens have the remit to book only vehicles parked outwith the parking zones, not parked in them facing the wrong way.

The police, in line with their budget cuts, pay absolutely no heed, thus perpetrating the vicious circle of irresponsibility.

The road saga is indicative of attitudes in modern society. As well as living in a world where blame culture predominates, we are now developing a parallel world, possibly blame culture’s twin – the idea that it is always someone else’s responsibility to get something done, rather than getting up off your backside and doing it yourself.

The AWPR will not solve the ills of the truly inadequate road system in the area, but it will surely assist in lessening congestion slightly. Provided that is, that the powers-that-be stop designating short cuts as rat runs and sticking road humps all over the place, forcing traffic on to already over-populated roads.

And stop passing the buck, just fix it.

Drivers need to stop thinking that the rules of the road are for everyone else and not for them, or that rules are in place to make your life awkward, rather than to help traffic flow swiftly and, above all, SAFELY!

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

Milne Petition: What the Committee Didn’t Let You See

Aberdeenshire, Featured, News 10 Responses »

Sep 192013

By Suzanne Kelly.

As per previous articles, Menie Resident David Milne appeared before the Scottish Government’s Public Petitions Committee to request a public inquiry into the past and present situation at the Menie Estate.

Over 19,400 people supported this call.

The Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, Police Scotland, Aberdeenshire Council were going to have to answer some tough questions.

Each was asked by the Petitions Committee if they wanted an investigation. Each said no. ‘Good Enough’ was in effect the Committee’s response; it sent Milne packing.

Before rubberstamping this blatant self-regulation by the organisations already in the firing line for their actions, the Committee allowed Milne to make a final statement.

Part of it can be found here:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_PublicPetitionsCommittee 31.08.13.pdf

But only part. The Petitions Committee decided that the sections crossed out (redacted) were potentially defamatory and/or possibly not from genuine sources. David Milne was urged to retract these crucial passages. He did not, and the result is that they were blacked out.

And what was so potentially scandalously defamatory? Precisely what did the Committee call into question as to its authenticity?

Information which has been in the public domain for years: one a quote from Donald Trump, and the other a letter from Jack Perry (once Scottish Enterprise head) to Trump published in Aberdeen Voice, and obtained directly from Scottish Enterprise under Freedom of Information legislation.

it remains fact that many meetings took place between Trump, Swinney, and Salmond

These two items were and remain very damning to central government and Scottish Enterprise.

They should have been addressed, not put aside, and the public have every right to see information already in the public domain, to remind them of just how badly the public inquiry is needed.

It is unclear how any claim of potential defamation exists in the Trump quote. No one is named; the government is mentioned. Here is the quote, as originally covered in national newspapers:-

“In an interview with Scotland on Sunday, the 66-year- old tycoon claims: “I give the Executive (Scottish Government] a lot of credit. They called me and really wanted me to continue going forward. I said are you kidding? I just lost. I don’t like to lose. They said no, you’ll win. They didn’t want me to leave.”

“Four days after the rejection, the Scottish Government “called in” the application on the grounds the decision put the integrity of the planning process in jeopardy. It then went to a public inquiry before being approved by finance secretary John Swinney.

“The revelation has brought calls for a new inquiry into the chain of events that preceded that decision.

Labour MSP Duncan McNeil, who led a Holyrood local government committee inquiry into the affair two years ago, said: “This is an explosive admission from Donald Trump. In many ways he has let the cat out of the bag and raises serious questions. The Scottish Government cannot form an impartial view on a planning application that has been called in if they have given secret guarantees to one side. There is now a case for reviewing the evidence in light of this new information.”
– The Scotsman, October 16 2010

While the Government and Trump bickered back and forth about these comments, it remains fact that many meetings took place between Trump, Swinney, and Salmond (on one occasion at least with the taxpayer flying Jack Perry to New York) in advance of and during the planning application process.

Coming over all coy about this 2010 comment in 2013 is curious, and it would be interesting to know the source of this sudden queasiness.

The petitions committee would be more than welcome to issue me with an apology

In a move I find personally insulting (who knows? – I may take action at what I consider to be comments defamatory to me), the Petitions Committee redacted the Jack Perry letter.

They decreed that unless Jack Perry concurred the letter was from him, they would not allow its use. They admit they saw the letter, but were not sure if it was genuine.

For the avoidance of doubt, I received this letter by email in response to a Freedom of Information request I made to Scottish Enterprise. It was emailed to me from Scottish Enterprise. SE further advises that other correspondence may have been ‘lost’ when a member of staff left. There is for instance no correspondence post course construction, yet a glowing recommendation from Jack Perry appeared on the Trump website. I had to make several requests of SE to receive correspondence, and am surprised that an employee leaving would result in their work somehow being deleted or lost.

The petitions committee would be more than welcome to issue me with an apology for casting aspersions on whether or not a letter I produced was genuine. I will not hold my breath.

In the meantime, here again is the text of the letter:-

“You may or may not recall that I had the pleasure in October 2006 of joining you for lunch in the Trump Tower with the then First Minister, Mr Jack McConnell. At that time, you shared with us your vision for the development for the Menie Estate. We at Scottish Enterprise (S) certainly shared your excitement over this project. As the project developed we believed and still do that the economic benefits to Scotland of this project were substantial.

“Accordingly, we were profoundly dismayed by the decision made by the Aberdeenshire Council Infrastructure Committee to reject the planning application for this project. I recorded that disappointment in a personal letter to Ms Anne Robertson, Leader of Aberdeenshire Council. As you know, since then the Scottish Government has decided to ‘call in’ the application. Rightly and properly, Scottish Government Minister’s [sic] will not now comment on the application but I regard their action as encouraging. We concur with the Scottish Government’s contention that this is genuinely a project of national importance to Scotland.

“I have taken the liberty of discussing the matter with the Chairman of the Scottish Parliament’s Enterprise, Energy and Tourism Committee to make him aware of our support for the project and to offer any evidence to him and his committee should they require [sic].

“While this Committee has no role in the approval process of your application, it is possible they may consider the repercussions of Aberdeenshire Council’s decision on Scotland’s tourism industry. I have also now spoken about this matter to the Shadow Enterprise Ministers from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in the Scottish Parliament. I have tried to make it clear in these discussions that the impact of Aberdeenshire Council’s decision goes far beyond the immediate issue of the Trump development but has much wider implications for Scotland’s international image and reputation as a country which welcomes investment.

“I have been greatly encouraged by the unequivocal support from the Scottish business community which your project was [sic] attracted. I remain hopeful that Scottish Government Ministers will address this matter with speed. We shall continue to provide whatever evidence and support we can, should we be called to do so.

“For your information, I have also been greatly encouraged over the past few days by the support shown by the Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Forum [ACSEF] whose chairman, Mr Patrick Machray, has been very public and very vocal in support of the Trump development. Patrick is also the Chairman of Scottish Enterprise Grampian. As Scotland’s principal economic development agency, we at Scottish Enterprise wish to see your development proceed. We will continue to do what we can to help.

CC (redacted), Lorna Jack, Patrick Machray”
– Perry to Trump 7 December 2007, sent via email to S Kelly Wed, 29 May 2013 16:17

What do the Committee say about the redacted text? What do they say about ignoring Milne’s arguments? What do they say about dismissing the will of 19,400 people? What do they say about the most flawed methodology in the history of investigation?

Nothing. They sent the following:-

“Thank you for your email. I am responding in my capacity as Convener of the Public Petitions Committee. I appreciate that you and others feel strongly about the issues raised in the petition. However having considered the matter, the Committee members decided to close the petition for the reason given.

“In relation to procedure, the Scottish Parliament’s public petitions process provides that the Public Petitions Committee shall take such action as it considers appropriate in relation to any petition and that it may close a petition at any time. There is no appeal process against a decision of the Committee.”
– David Stewart MSP – email to me from Committee on Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:12 (hopefully, they will not accuse me of fabricating this!)

Getting the government to open this huge can of worms and put its institutions under a microscope was a big ask. The committee might not be pursuing the answers, but others are.

David Milne told Aberdeen Voice:

“Now that I have finally finished laughing at the self incriminating actions of the public petitions committee I have to say I am saddened by their lack of interest in the facts of the matter. They have in effect proven my case better than I ever could have done, the way they so readily brushed aside facts that have been in the public domain for many years and have now given the appearance of trying to airbrush them out of existence, proves the need for an inquiry.

“They have shown that the governance of this country cannot be trusted and if they truly believe that the people of this country will quietly turn and walk away cowed and defeated, they are sadly mistaken”

Further investigation is taking place. Further Freedom of Information requests are in progress, and cases will be built for presentation to other regulatory institutions; there are other avenues to explore.

Mr Milne continues:

“Tomorrow is another day and a future for this country still beckons brightly, we will see it realised even with direct interference and obstruction from those who believe they are in power. The truth has a habit coming to the surface and it will do so, in due course.”

If anyone is dissatisfied with this decision and state of affairs, this would be an excellent time to contact your elected representatives.

This is not, as some might feel, a defeat and the end of the matter. Some might even say this is the government’s committee showing its real colours. And that is where things stand: for now.

Further information on the need for a public inquiry:-

https://aberdeenvoice.com/2013/08/trump-at-menie-the-case-for-a-public-inquiry/
https://aberdeenvoice.com/2013/08/menie-case-public-inquiry-part-2/

Scottish Parliament image – Credit: Freefoto.com

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

Menie: The Case For A Public Inquiry – Part 2

Aberdeenshire, Featured, News 2 Responses »

Aug 272013

Plaque at Menie with wild claim that dunes are the world’s largest.

Suzanne Kelly sets out part 2 of her case for a public inquiry, examining the role of the Scottish Government, Scottish Natural heritage and the police.

“It’s a request about good governance, about the way planning rules are set and managed – about the way the relationship between officials and developers are kept within appropriate bounds…”
– David Milne, The Scotsman

http://www.scotsman.com/police-questioned-over-donald-trump

What’s wrong with the state of play at the Trump International Golf Links Scotland course and its genesis?

The following, among others, think quite a lot:

BBC’s Panorama (The Trouble with Trump);
Rob Edwards (environmental journalist)
Anthony Baxter’s and Richard Phinney’s ‘You’ve Been Trumped;’
Councillor Martin Ford’s report ‘Deciding the Fate of a Magical, Wild Place;’
David Milne’s (the petition’s author) ‘Blinded by the Bling??; and
My own Report ‘Menie Estate Report: Systems Failures’
http://menie-estate-report.yolasite.com/
Andy Wightman ‘Donald Trump’s Ego Trip, Lessons for the New Scotland’ http://www.academia.edu/1481204/Donald_Trumps_Ego_Trip._Lessons_for_the_New_Scotland

The institutions which would appear at the public inquiry are: Aberdeenshire Council, Scottish Enterprise, Police Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, and The Scottish Government. Their representatives – often the very people who would have been in place when things were going awry – are writing to the Committee, insisting everything is fine and all the evidence has already been examined. This is demonstrably untrue.

Information continues to emerge (e.g. from FOIs to Police Scotland and Scottish Enterprise; the ‘disappearance’ of MEMAG, (the environmental group meant to observe and recommend), and problems continue to either arise (e.g. the new course is set to border a public park) or they remain unresolved (e.g. bunds blocking Munro home).

Those who gave the Trump golf complex project the thumbs up are giving a thumbs down to an inquiry into the emerging details of how they and their institutions acted in the past and present. No surprise there of course.

With no inquiry, the future for civil rights, journalistic freedom, equal protection of law, restrictions on quango interference with government, unchecked civil servant conduct, independence of local government and our environment (for openers) looks pretty bleak.

There are relevant issues that have never been addressed whatsoever :–

the growing number of work taking place which require retrospective planning,
the genesis and status of the bunds which cut properties off from light and view, and which have causing property damage (sand and dirt from bunds has blown into the Munro garden, home and motor vehicles)
how the Shire insisted weekly site visits ensured no deviation was taking place,
how MEMAG (set up as a result of the Scottish Reporter’s Report) proved to be such an inefficient environmental force and what its current status is
how and why Dr Christine Gore (then with Aberdeenshire planning) came to communicate with lawyers representing Trump, seemingly taking direction from them – and how instead of being criticised she became promoted
how efficiently the council, Scottish Natural Heritage and SEPA are monitoring the environmental situation (residents report trees have been buried; how a very large rubbish tip of mixed material (including unlabelled bottles possibly containing chemicals) came to be on the estate and how it was disposed of, what chemicals are being used, what is happening to biodiversity; what was their interaction with MEMAG, what chemicals are in use on the course;
how the police dealt with the arrests of journalists Phinney and Baxter; how much time and effort they spent accompanying Trump/Trump personnel to and from the airport;
how the police dealt with Michael Forbes, who was cautioned for removing £11 worth of plastic border flags put on land he believed was his;
why the police chose not to pursue action against the Trump organisation which had allegedly gone onto the Milne property, removing items and causing damage – especially when Milne offered them a video of the event: they refused to take the evidence;
why this application was called in in the first place – did government seek to ignore its own SSSI designations to allow a dining chum of the First Minister (one who has some unsavoury connections as Panorama revealed) to build a golf course and housing on one of our most unspoilt, environmentally sensitive regions?

Having looked at the responses from Aberdeenshire Government and unelected Scottish Enterprise, this second part of the article now looks at Police Scotland (formerly Grampian Police in our area), The Scottish Government, and Scottish Natural Heritage.

Police Scotland

Submission to the Committee by Derek Penman, Assistant Chief Constable, Policing North
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01474

Police Comments on Scrutiny:

“Police Scotland remain completely neutral on all matters concerning the development of the Menie Project with our focus remaining on ensuring that officers approach their duties with integrity, fairness and respect for all parties involved, and only taking action where appropriate to address behaviour which breaches the criminal law.

“It is our position that all officers involved in the policing response connected with this development have carried out their duties in an impartial and transparent manner.

“Prior to Police Scotland and in response to media interest in relation to the police action around the Menie Project, Grampian Police commissioned an independent peer review, conducted by Northern Constabulary, which reported in November 2011 that there was good evidence that impartiality is a major factor in all decision making. The action taken was lawful, proportionate and in keeping with the strategic aims. There was no evidence of any individual, group or organisation being favoured’.

“Notwithstanding, Grampian Police acknowledged there were occasions where they could have provided a better service. On each of these occasions, explanations, and where appropriate, apologies have been provided to those concerned.”

“There are currently no outstanding complaints against the police nor, to the best of our knowledge, has any associated matter yet been referred to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. This is a legitimate avenue of recourse for any party who remains dissatisfied at the response to any complaint against the police, and also highlighted as an option by a committee member at the recent Public Petitions Committee.

“In the continued interests of transparency, balanced against a requirement to maintain confidentiality where appropriate, Grampian Police (and subsequently, Police Scotland) have made over 200 documents, emails and other records available to the public, including various media agencies and other individuals who have requested them. Most, if not all of these documents have subsequently been made widely available and/or reported upon, either by those who have requested them, or on the world wide web and/or through various media outlets.

“In conclusion, Police Scotland is satisfied that the policing response by Grampian Police into the development at Menie was undertaken in an impartial manner and has been subject to review.”

It seems incredible that Police Scotland claim all aspects of how they acted have been fairly, fully, independently investigated, and there is no need for the requested inquiry (as SE, Aberdeenshire, central government and others have tried claim). But they’re trying it anyway.

They have still not explained how they came to arrest two journalists

At the time of writing, their claims of disclosure and peer investigation aside, there are still outstanding issues; surely the letter’s author must know this. Issues which should be covered include alleged property damage and trespass at the Milne home, the cost of extra policing provided to Trump, the treatment of Michael Forbes, and not least how two journalists came to be arrested in the absence of any evidence or just cause.

With regard to the Milne Property, some people trespassed, removed fencing, and caused damage: David Milne has a video. The police refuse to explain why they showed no interest in this video, and refused to take action. A current FOI request concerning this incident is ongoing, but they will not say why their solicitor decided not to pursue the case, and why they refused to look at the evidence Milne offered. This hardly agrees with their assertion all information is in the public domain.

Police Scotland also refuse to say how much money has been spent by the taxpayer on policing Trump. The police seem to agree their presence is needed when Trump or his operatives travel to or from Aberdeen Airport to Menie. They admit some £8k was spent for a cancelled event – yet claim they could not determine the cost of extra policing given to Trump. Surely a check of payroll records for increased presence/overtime on Trump travel days would give this information.

It is most worrying to contrast the different treatment given to Trump compared to the caution given to Michael Forbes over boundary flags Trump agents put in a field Forbes believed he owns. He was later charged with theft – of £11’s worth of flags left in a field he believes he owns, when he had made efforts to give the flags back. The police also stood by when Trump agents went onto Forbes held property and caused damage. Police were allegedly tipped off that a ‘demonstration’ would be going on, although there was no sign of this, they remained and allowed Trump agents onto the disputed land, and watched as Forbes property was damaged. They simply stood by. By contrasting this incident with the police refusal to investigate the Milne damage/theft when they refused to look at evidence, and you can see that an independent investigation is needed with full disclosure.

Then we come to the arrest famously caught on film of two journalists whose crime seems to have been going to the Trump estate office to ask about restoring water to residents (the Trump builders damaged the local water supply, leaving residents without running water for a week; no remedial action was taken). Image control seems to have trumped robust, fair policing. Rob Edwards wrote an article detailing how the police put their efforts into managing the public relations aspects of a TV screening of ‘you’ve been trumped’ which showed them arresting – roughly arresting – Baxter and Phinney, who had been working on their documentary.

No such efforts seem to have ever been directed at determining who ordered the arrest, or how the police decided on the use of the controversial charge ‘breach of the peace’ (which seems to be a blank arrest warrant).
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/environment/police-planned-pr-strategy-following-the-broadcast-of-bbc-television-documentary.21900432

Paul Holleran of the NUJ said of the journalists’ arrests:-

“This is blatant example of police interference aimed at stopping bona fide journalists from doing their job. Their footage shows they were asking very pertinent questions in a mannerly fashion as befits professional journalists. I believe this is a breach of human rights, and we are taking legal advice.”
http://www.academia.edu/1481204/Donald_Trumps_Ego_Trip._Lessons_for_the_New_Scotland

The police were happy enough to create a special initiative for policing the area. In September 2011 they wrote to me; here is an excerpt:-

“However, in Spring 2009, following the announcement of a number of strategic economic and infrastructure developments, Grampian Police established a short life ‘Critical Incident Preparation Group (CIPG)’ with a remit to coordinate the prepared phase of ‘critical incidents’.

“A ‘critical incident’ is determined in the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) Critical Incident Management Practice Advice as;- ‘any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have a significant impact on the confidence of the victim, their family and/or the community’

“Accordingly, this development was founded on guidance contained within the NPIA manual and centred around the ‘three phases of critical incident management’ determined as

“Preparation
“Management
“Restoring Best Confidence

“From this, a generic, local strategy relevant to Menie Estate and other similar developments was developed.

“This has been determined as;-

“Maximise safety;
“Minimise disruption;
“Facilitate lawful protest;
“Deter, detect, detain and report those responsible for unlawful behaviour.”

A public inquiry should look at the way this strategy evolved, who decided on its nature and application in principle, and not least its legality.

What police powers were invoked at the estate and where their lawful application was either overstepped (Phinney, Baxter) or ignored (Milne) needs to be examined, and flaws ironed out for the future.

is there not a huge potential for future abuse of power?

Photographer Alicia Bruce was aggressively threatened by an on-site security guard so much so she called the police. Their approach? They tried to dissuade her from making a complaint against the guard because he could get in trouble. Compare and contrast that with their arrest of Baxter and Phinney.

If the police do wish to be ‘restoring best [sic] confidence’ then they should submit to an inquiry.

A police state? If the police can stretch the power to ‘detect’ and ‘deter’ anything they deem potentially unlawful; if they have wide sweeping, unspecified powers to ‘maximise safety’ – is there not a huge potential for future abuse of power?

The power to issue cautions to those who have been arrested has led in the cases of Baxter, Phinney and in cautioning Forbes to situations where people have been denied the chance of going to court to state their side of the issue – while at the same time being in effect bound over not to do anything the police might not like.

It is intimidating. But is it lawful?

Likewise the application of ‘breach of the peace’ seems to be a very open-ended issue with potential for abuse and over-use. A public inquiry could ask the police to explain themselves on these points in this situation. Additionally, a recommendation for review of these wide sweeping powers would be most welcome.

There are signs the police were growing jaded by Trump’s demands http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/trump-accused-of-using-police-as-his-private-security-force.15321686 ; perhaps it is time for them to welcome this inquiry, explain themselves, and tell us who is accountable for this rather iniquitous catalogue of events, and to give assurances things will improve.

Everyone understood their roles; everyone acted perfectly

Scotland is now a country that locks up journalists, on the say-so of an entity with links to organised crime (as Panorama claims). If that alone is not grounds for an inquiry into the entire saga, then what would be?

The Scottish Government

Submission to the Committee by Scottish Enterprise Chief Executive, Lyndsey Murray, Decisions Manager, writing on behalf of the Directorate for Local Government and Communities – Planning and Architecture Division
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01474

Scottish Government Comments on Scrutiny: (opens with lengthy history of the decision being called in, Scottish Reporters creating their report)

“The Scottish Government has released a substantial amount of information into the public domain through evidence given to the Local Government & Communities Committee’s inquiry … a significant number of answers given to Parliamentary Questions and responses to a substantial volume of correspondence to date. The information released shows that Ministers are fully aware of their responsibilities in relation to planning and have discharged these responsibilities fairly and responsibly having regard to the Ministerial Code.

“The documents also show that civil servants involved in the handling of the case have fully met the standards of propriety expected of them as per the Civil Service Code. Kevin Dunion, the former Scottish Information Commissioner, in an interview with Holyrood magazine in December 2011 stated:

“’I think a sensible government, and we have seen a couple of examples of this in Scotland where the Government has done it very well, where they say something is of such public interest that let’s get into a position of strength and put everything in the public domain. Our government did that over the Trump development which was causing a lot of headlines and the Government said, well, here is the information that we have regarding our engagement with Donald Trump.’”

“Scottish Parliament‘s findings in relation to the handling of the call in of the application by Scottish Government.

“The Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Communities Committee published a report, on 14 March 2008, on their consideration of the Scottish Government’s handling of the “call-in” of the outline planning application which concluded that Ministers and officials had acted in accordance with planning legislation. Paragraph 63 of this report sets out a detailed chronology of events, established through a detailed examination of available documentation and through questioning of the key participants.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uklparliamentarybusiness/PreviousCommittees/18875.aspx

“Post decision on the outline planning consent

“Aberdeenshire Council is responsible for planning matters within its area and for enforcing the conditions attached to the grant of planning permission for Menie Estate. Any planning application for development at Menie Estate, subsequent to Ministers’ approval of outline consent in 2008, is a matter for the planning authority.”

And there it is. Everyone understood their roles; everyone acted perfectly, and if you don’t believe Murray, you can believe an excerpt from 2011 from the ex-Information Commissioner in Holyrood Magazine.

No mention of Christine Gore dealing with Anne Faulds of the Trump legal team. No impropriety in the transatlantic wining and dining.

No problem with the Reporters’ Report (for openers it uses emotive, leading, subjective terminology when referring to the proposed development – ‘world-class’.. ‘the applicant estimates that it would bring major benefits…’ ‘a course which avoided the SSSI would not achieve the applicant’s ambitions and the development would not proceed’.. and some clearly overly optimistic promises: ‘an estimated 4,694 net full time equivalent construction jobs… 1,237 net full time equivalent jobs from ongoing operations, both at the Scottish level.’ (see pages 6 and 7 of the Report – http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212607/0067709.pdf

No mention either of the curious status of Professor Bill Ritchie, which is nearly as cryptic as the MEMAG he headed. He is listed as being a pro-Trump witness and yet the document also contradicts this on Page 81 where it states:-

“[Ritchie] gave geomorphological advice to TIGLS on an independent basis, based solely on scientific judgement. He does not support or oppose the proposed development at Menie Links.”

Was Ritchie reimbursed for this ‘independent advice he gave Trump? He would eventually head MEMAG (whether any fees were paid to the mysterious MEMAG’s members would be very interesting to learn).

there is more evidence that this knowledge was not applied

How you can claim independence while consulting Trump and then create a role for yourself within MEMAG, which you recommended be created should make a fascinating conversation. (I should love to hear more from this University of Aberdeen professor, but he is not answering emails at present).

Did Dr Christine Gore, then in Planning at Aberdeenshire understand her role as well as Lyndsey Murray asserts? If so, why was she dealing with Ann Faulds?

Was it above reproach for Salmond to have dinner dates with Trump when the plans were being formulated?

Despite Murray’s assertions everyone knew their roles, there is more evidence that this knowledge was not applied. There was the famous phone call with Sorial present – is and other instances of our local and central government meeting with Trump camp are detailed as Murray says in the Local Government and Communities 5th Report 2008 Planning Application Processes (Menie Estate). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_08_trump.pdf

It shows a great level of interaction with local planners, central government and Trump factions – and virtually no contact with the government’s environmental entities. Its scope seems to be the planning process and sequence of events. It is certainly damning in places, but it would feed into the proposed inquiry – certainly it would not replace it due to its limited scope.

Point 45 is itself worthy of some attention by an inquiry:-

“It is important to note that the provisions of the 2006 Act relating to the hierarchy of developments are yet to be enacted and do not apply to the Trump application. As such the Trump application is neither a national or major development, as defined in the 2006 Act.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_08_trump.pdf Page 8

In light of the above, is it wrong to wonder if the act of calling this application in was a political one?

Murray would point out that the information is in the public domain for the TIGLS development, and that everyone in the chain observed the proprieties. He would reach a conclusion favouring his government and his office; the facts are as we have shown just a bit out of sync with his (bias?) conclusion-drawing. A particular event, which the 2008 refers to as ‘brief’ is this:-

“Aberdeenshire council officials disclosed that they had to terminate a telephone discussion with Jim McKinnon, Scotland’s chief planner, on the disputed application, when they realised that members of the Trump Organisation were in his office.

“The phone call was just hours before Mr McKinnon informed councillors that Scottish ministers had taken control of the planning decision, and less than a day after Mr Salmond met with Mr Trump’s team.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1572543/Salmond-faces-sleaze-claims-in-Trump-row.html

In light of First Minister/SE/Trump dinners, a phone call with Sorial present to top planners, Gore communicating with Faulds, no one appearing to seek government advice (only the Trump team’s advice seems to have mattered), Murray’s assurances are not as comforting as he would have us believe. It is inquiry time.

Scottish Natural Heritage

Submission to the Committee by Ewen Cameron, Tayside & Grampian Operations Manager.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_PublicPetitionsCommittee/.pdf

SNH Comments on Scrutiny: They objected to the plans; they have been in a largely consultative position; they will supply documentation if required. Unlike all other respondents, they are not saying there is no need for a public inquiry.

Passages, frankly, boring ones, about dune shift were not going to stop Trump

You have to feel a bit sorry for SNH; they were certainly not invited to any steak dinners; they were not invited to the Marcliffe; they did not lobby government – perhaps they did not think they needed to.

After all, the law was supposed to protect the environment, a golf course can be built most anywhere, and surely Scottish Enterprise and VisitScotland – two quangos – could not successfully wine, dine and lobby their goals successfully in view of environmental law? Alas, that’s what happened.

If the SNH submission to the Reporters had been as emphatic, enthusiastic, promise-filled and accessible as the submissions for Trump, things might have been different. Passages, frankly, boring ones, about dune shift were not going to stop Trump. Perhaps they felt that Professor Ritchie, heading MEMAG, would be all the environmental enforcement they needed?

As we’ve seen, the professor professed neutrality, while consulting with Trump and while planning MEMAG, which he would join. MEMAG has faded; it has removed its minutes (the last ones indicated communication failures and the lack of Trump attendance at meetings). No one including central government can tell me precisely what its status is.

And yet SNH indicated in its letter to the Petitions Committee:-

“The ecological clerk of works copied us into reports which they sent regularly to Aberdeenshire Council on behalf of Trump Golf Links Scotland… we would also raise matters in MEMAG meetings. We have attended regular meetings of MEMAG since its inception.”

The letter is dated 5 July 2013. When did SNH meet MEMAG last?

How can a system allow a developer to be his own watchdog?

Who was in charge of the environment? It seems paid Trump personnel. Who salaried the ecological clerk of works? MEMAG was paid for by Trump. How can a system allow a developer to be his own watchdog?

I do feel for the SNH; it would be interesting to know if any political pressure or influence was used to dissuade them from proactively protecting the area. It does not seem that far-fetched an idea; and an independent public inquiry could ensure future environmental monitoring and environmental protection powers are guaranteed, and responsibilities clear-cut.

Case Proven: An Inquiry Is Needed

In Part 1 of ‘Menie: The Case For A Public Inquiry’ an overview was given on Aberdeenshire Council’s and Scottish Enterprises’ written submissions to the Petitions Committee that all was right with the world.

With information still coming out – as well as having been ‘lost’ – by Scottish Enterprise (which claims it has lost/discarded correspondence re. Jack Perry/Trump), the case for an inquiry has never been clearer. The public inquiry is required, not only to re-examine a flawed report created by the Scottish Reporters at the time, and all the other issues, but to ensure that lessons are learned.

The institutions which should be eager to clear the air and explain their seemingly bias, unorthodox actions are instead claiming they’ve already released all their information, and that they have done nothing wrong. Where such investigations do exist, such as for the police and the Scottish government, the examining bodies have links to the organisations they were investigating.

Given the conclusions that such examinations reached, exonerating those involved from any wrongdoing, the case for independent inquiry is further strengthened. Phonecalls from the Marcliffe with Sorial present? Police refusal to investigate the damage/theft at the Milne property – and their ongoing refusal to explain this are absolutely at odds with claims that any robust, independent inquiry has taken place.

If a public inquiry doesn’t take place, what kind of local and national government do we have in place? What kind of accountability will we see for what has happened? What kind of message would the absence of an inquiry send?

It would enforce the ability of powerful developers to construct how they please

If the inquiry does not take place, it would be a thumbs up for government ministers and quangos meeting with planning applicants when plans are under scrutiny. It would be affirmation that quangos can lobby government and prevail with their plans, overriding environmental protection designations such as SSSIs. It would be a go-ahead for planners to take legal advice and suggestions from lawyers representing planning applications.

It would be a green light for unaccountable, ineffectual ad hoc environmental ‘watchdogs’ to be invented, trotted out to demonstrate some sort of environmental concern exists; then to in fact be ignored by developers, to fail dismally to communicate and protect, and to be mysteriously wound down when no longer needed for press calls.

It would be a go-ahead for further national call-ins of local matters. Where would this end?

It would be carte blanche for police to enforce laws or not, acting arbitrarily. It would enforce the ability of powerful developers to construct how they please, in effect walling up residents with giant bunds and dying trees. A refusal to hold an inquiry would be nothing short of an insult to the 19,000+ people who want one. It will mean status quo at this out-of-control development.

Possibly worst of all, it will send a clear message out to future developers that anything they want is theirs for the price of a few expensive dinners.

Until that inquiry, we are not just open for business, we are selling our heritage, biodiveristy and environment for money, and we seem to be in bed with what seems to be a rather unsavoury developer.

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

‘Improve, Don’t Destroy’ – FoUTG’s Defiant Message

Aberdeen City, Information 18 Responses »

Aug 232013

To a background of calls for those sympathetic to the preservation and enhancement of Union Terrace Gardens to be extra-vigilant as the Wood Family Trust’s 12-month deadline for withdrawal of its strings-attached £55m ‘donation’ to ‘city centre transformation’ approached, a predictable and transparently-concerted campaign, backed by increasingly-vocal local press coverage has emerged.

Our democratically-elected representatives now appear to be under renewed pressure to reconsider their decision to take a prudent approach to financial risk and publish imminently alternative and affordable plans for city centre regeneration. ‘Stand firm’ seems to be the message from the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens. Thanks to Robin McIntosh.

Union Terrace Gardens are an emerald jewel in Aberdeen’s civic crown, and part of the city’s proud Common Good heritage.

When the Victorian public toilets were closed in the 1990s, the Gardens entered a period of ‘managed decline’ with virtually no capital expenditure attributed to them. The last five year period has seen a variety of groups comment on the potential of UTG, motivated by their particular opinions on what is best for Aberdeen.

The result has been further degradation of the park, its suitability for events and its facilities as we await a resolution on the future of this publicly-owned green space.

The Friends of UTG group has compiled a wide range of transformational and evolutionary ideas from its membership and has presented its Vision and Proposals to the council for consideration.

The cost of delivering these membership-originated projects will be but a fraction of the predicted £140m cost of the City Gardens Project, and the benefits of evolutionary change to the ‘feel’ of our city centre are clear.

Robin McIntosh, Chair of the Friends of UTG, said:

“It is now vital that we move forward in the spirit of Bon Accord (good agreement), and undertake a full sympathetic restoration of this green heart in our Granite City. A modern society requires a combination of history, culture and facilities, and we must find the funds to deliver this for Union Terrace Gardens, in the same way that we have for the outstanding Duthie Park.

“The Friends have already delivered some minor, but sustainable improvements – building nesting boxes and planting a Spring Walk and a Flanders Field poppy field for the WW1 Centenary in 2014.

“Larger capital projects will obviously require greater investment, and we are committed to continuing to work closely with the council, senior members of the administration, and any other interested parties, to secure finance to deliver a Garden with civic pride at its very heart.

“Our aim is to achieve the best possible outcome for the people of Aberdeen – improvements that are both affordable and which will allow the Gardens to remain in public ownership.”

FoUTG’s blog outlines its proposals and gives current news updates http://friendsofutg.com/

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

Ian Wood And His Granite Can Of Worms

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 11 Responses »

Aug 232013

By Suzanne Kelly.

The Press & Journal devoted its first five pages on 21 August to august business mogul Sir Ian Wood.

On the following day, while the Scotsman put the Ian Wood ultimatum on Page 23 (with the little matters of Syria and other news taking precedence), our P&J had Alex Salmond on the cover entreating us to take the Wood shillings, and the following three pages were likewise dedicated to the granite web (with one pro-Trump article also up front, undoubtedly for balance).

This ceaseless Aberdeen Journals attempt at blatantly trying to rewrite history ignores reality. The AJL owners must be convinced the public will buy into the brainwashing and forget the past. From what I’m told, this propaganda is not appreciated by a web-wearied (and possibly dwindling) readership.

The details which the P&J brazenly try to paper over may be of interest to anti-granite web factions. Those who had to fight against an onslaught of propaganda during the non-binding referendum need to be able to counter this latest myopic, self-serving pro-web media onslaught; a round up of the issues may help with this.

During the referendum a wave of factually inaccurate, expensive, garish leaflets and newspapers (created by an anonymous, clearly well-off group) bombarded City (and accidentally shire) residents. Let’s make sure the oversimplified argument ‘Aberdeen must take this generous £50 million gift’ is one gift horse that is looked in the mouth, pronounced diseased, and refused (again).

Here are a few select counter-arguments which the Press & Journal conveniently overlook.

1. Ian’s promises to go away

Wood was going to abandon the plan if the first consultation for the city garden project indicated the public didn’t want it. The illustrations which first did the rounds clearly showed a flat, barren, concrete or tile giant square, with one or two plants in a pot.

The public didn’t want this and said so. Ian Wood however did not go away. The pro City Garden Project factions then accused the public of not understanding the illustrations, claiming the drawings looked nothing like what was really on offer. And back they went to the drawing board, rather than backing away as initially promised.

All this time, the taxpayer was paying the bill via invoices submitted to the City via unelected quango, Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (formerly Forum – they created their own manifesto).
See: https://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/02/the-great-city-gardens-project-gravy-train/

I have lost count of the headlines similar to the current ones in which Sir Ian threatens to send his money to Africa, take the offer off the table, etc.etc. But one thing seems clear to me: this is not a man of his word, going by these broken promises alone.

1.1 Alex Salmond to the rescue? Has Salmond learned nothing from his intervention with Trump?

Ian and Alex Salmond shared correspondence, and the web was one of their topics. Salmond has again come to bat for his friend, and is flexing his muscle in the same city where he recently disregarded the rules and protocol, sauntered into a primary school during a by election and had a press and photo call.

One friend helping another is a heart-warming thing. Here is an excerpt from Wood to Salmond correspondence:-

“I have been particularly grateful for the support your Government have provided to the Aberdeen City Centre Regeneration Project which, as you know, I believe is vitally important for Aberdeen’s long-term economic future and wellbeing.

“The vote of Aberdeen City Council on 22nd August will be crucial, and if this is positive I will obviously allocate some of my time to support the development phase of this project in any way I can, and I know there will be an important role for Scottish Government to play in facilitating this. If the vote is negative, Wood Family Trust will have no choice but to withdraw their offer of funding.”
See – https://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/11/wood-to-salmond-01-08-12/

Let’s not forget Sir Ian’s signature appears on a letter to the First Minister from Aberdeen City Gardens Trust (which is meant to be Smith, Crosby and Massie). If he had control at ACSEF, over Salmond, and over the ACGT, then he pretty much will be calling all the shots should this web ever be woven. https://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/12/salmonds-web-exclusive-correspondence-revealed/

28 July 2012: Aberdeen City Gardens Trust, ACSEF and Wood to Salmond

“The concept designs will be available to exhibit to the public late September with the public asked to indicate their views… with the winning concept design presented to Aberdeen City Council to endorse.

“The current plan is that by mid-December the city council will be in a position to approve the TiF business case prior to it being submitted to the Scottish Futures Trust. It goes without saying that the Project will not proceed without TiF funding.

“We’d be very happy to discuss this with you further… We will also be seeking some further discussion with John Swinney…”
See – https://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/11/wood-smith-acgt-acsef-to-salmond-28-07-11/

The striking feature of this letter is that it indicates the city council is not in the driving seat.

The council is expected not to debate or vote; it is expected to ‘endorse’ and ‘approve.’

The Aberdeen City Gardens Trust (ACGT) is a private entity set up to run the City Gardens Project that listed Tom Smith (also of ACSEF, and formerly Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce) and Colin Crosby (A&GCoC) as its two directors.

It is therefore of further interest to note that in this letter of 28 July 2011, ACGT lobbies Salmond with praise for the scheme and seeks further meetings with both Salmond and Sturgeon.

There is the statement that the project will not proceed without TIF. Wood is still chasing it.

Despite many past promises (see previous Aberdeen Voice articles) Wood’s not going to go away any time soon. This being the case, it’s best to recollect some of the history of this saga.

2. The people were ignored when they rejected the web – twice; then the referendum was called. Labour rightly said the referendum was not legally binding and that they would not build the web if elected. They were elected. Any arguments about ‘people being ignored’ discount the past disregard pro-web forces showed when the public went against them.

Despite people like Rita Stephen visiting companies to talk up the new project, and telling groups that Peacock was not going to happen (before it had been officially killed off it seems to me), people said ‘no’ to the giant square. For that matter, I deliberately used the word ‘preposterous’ in my feedback during the first consultation. This word and my feedback never showed up on their master list of comments. I wonder how many other anti-square comments were omitted?

Eventually the Granite Web was selected as the project of choice. We didn’t get the chance to vote to keep and improve the gardens, even though councillors such as Willie Young were minuted as saying they wanted the public to have this option at an early stage. Letting us vote not to do any project, but to clean up and improve the gardens could have saved a great deal of time and money.

Gerry Brough, now departed from the Council, was minuted at the time as saying the public were not going to get this chance – by the wish of unelected members of other web-related committees. So, the web triumphed, and its drawings were put forward.

3. The web is hideous, makes not spatial or aesthetic sense, and that’s just the concept drawings. It would look far worse if ever built.

Lurid giant flowerbeds sprouted; children played, a woman sunbathed on top of a potato-chip-shaped wedge overhanging an outdoor theatre.

Giant ramps at steep angles jutted to the sky and back sharply down (for no apparent utilitarian purpose).

This was particularly insulting.

One of the propaganda fallacies which seem to stick is the gardens can’t be accessed.

Yes they can; there is a short, gently sloping ramp next to His Majesty’s Theatre; cars get in; people with prams and wheelchairs get in. And yet, the web proposes that these ramps will have some form of function.

If the public didn’t understand the drawings of the flat giant square, which seemed rather easy to grasp, why has no one from the pro-web side ever produced drawings showing what precisely the gardens would look like if they got a thumbs up?

Where are the Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning vents that would have to stick up from the garden to serve the underground spaces? Where are the drawings of the required safety features that would stop people jumping or falling from the potato chip wedge?

Click on pic to enlarge.

Where are the drawings showing what the granite-clad ramps would look like when they are made safe from people falling, jumping, or quite likely throwing objects on those below?

Stop and think for a moment what a disaster the real garden, fitted with legally required safety measures would look like.

I’ve put my hand to making one such drawing, and I welcome the architects’ submission of a fully safe, legally compliant drawing.

4. A gift is not a gift if you are told how to use it – and that you have to stump up £90 Million to get it.

I keep receiving junk mail, saying I’ve won a valuable prize. All I have to do to get that prize is to spend my own money to claim it. This type of sham sadly does take in some people. Sir Ian’s offer is its relative.

He will only give us this gift if we surrender our common good land, the park, to a private company, Aberdeen City Gardens Trust. There is no other use Wood will accept it seems for his ‘gift’ but to build in the park. And we have to pay nearly twice as much (by conservative estimate) to get rid of our park for parking, shops and a web.

TIF would have been a risk; this is undeniable. If the thing didn’t make money – and the projections were ridiculously high for its income and jobs creation (see past Aberdeen Voice issues), then the taxpayer would be stuck. TIF was never risk free, whatever anyone says – a loan of any kind is a risk, let alone on an unprecedented building work.

If it were a gift, it could have been put in the common good fund, for the city to decide how it were best spent. This is not a gift.

5. So – what did happen to Peacock? Who had a role in its demise?

Peacock raised funds, came up with a plan (which did not please everyone, but it was far more architecturally and environmentally sound than the granite web). It was getting advice from Scottish Enterprise, which initially seemed happy to go along with the Peacock scheme.

Here is an extract from February 2009 from unelected quango, ACSEF’s minutes:

“The small sub-group which will drive the project forward will comprise ACSEF Board/MT members, supported by Zoe Corsi in her communication role. It will be chaired by Dave Blackwood, with Andrew Murphy, Mike Salter, Tom Smith, Abigail Tierney and David Littlejohn as core members, with others, including Andy Willox and Melfort Campbell, available to support as required. Dave Blackwood invited any other Board members who wished to be involved to advise him.

“Abigail Tierney will be the main interface with Peacock Visual Arts, supported by Dave Blackwood as required. Dave Blackwood will be the main contact with Sir Ian Wood and his representative Jennifer Craw.

“The Board will be provided with a summary outlining the facts around public funding to Peacock Visual Arts, key deliverables and timelines expected for the technical appraisal.

“The ACSEF website set up following Sir Ian Wood’s announcement has fulfilled its function and will be closed shortly, with clear communication on next steps.”

And then Peacock was dead, and Sir Ian’s city gardens project rose from the ashes.

Tell us exactly how this transformation came about Sir Ian, for we should be told.

You could have contributed to Peacock’s plan; even using remaining funds from your £50 million donation to embark on other projects, or (perish the thought) helping people in Aberdeen city and shire directly.

Our residential care homes, our schools, our arts education, our people with special needs could have benefitted, and there could have been a project to bring people back from the Union Square Mall into the city centre (should the mall have been approved in the first place, and what were the financial projections for the future of the existing independent retailers? It certainly has harmed city centre businesses).

Then Ian Wood, former Chair of Scottish Enterprise http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2000/06/f1eb0785-1ad2-4379-8fc1-9dd399024b7b decided, while SE was meant to be helping Peacock,to build a web. Peacock didn’t stand a chance.

Until we know all of the facts behind this volte face, you have to wonder what kind of ethics were in play. Speaking of ethics, a few more things to remember.

6. Spending other people’s money is easy as history shows – would this project turn into a mega cash cow and construction/consultation jobs for the usual suspects?

You could certainly be forgiven for asking this question. Here is a little piece on Sir Ian’s old Scottish Enterprise, and how while axing jobs, hospitality sucked up budget http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/193483/Outrage-over-Scottish-enterprise-chiefs-1m-hospitality-bill

Who would be keeping an eye on the spending for the web, the inevitable onslaught of consultants, the construction and likely overruns? Is this a gift horse or a cash cow for the boys? If ACSEF managed to bill the city for pro-web propaganda including £150 to take a picture showing the park to be ‘inaccessible’ what hope is there that people would act responsibly with £90 million of taxpayer-backed loans?

The original Aberdeen City Gardens Trust companies were private individuals – the usual suspects Tom Smith and Co., with no major project management or architectural skills on this scale. Would they really be in a position to manage this project keeping a reign on finances?
Arguably, Wood didn’t think so – he felt it necessary to pledge millions more for cost over-runs.

Some firms have done quite nicely so far; see https://aberdeenvoice.com/2012/02/the-great-city-gardens-project-gravy-train/

But as his pledges to back off if the garden project got the thumbs down have been conveniently ignored, and replaced by blackmail threats such as his latest pledge to put a project on the table which he will approve of by Christmas or he’s off to Africa with his £50 million, can you believe the over-run pledge or any pledge for that matter. And speaking of Africa…

7. Venture Philanthropy and helping Rwanda’s…Tea Plantation Owners

I invite the Wood Family Trust to explain how much money it has to hand, and how much it is spending on pensions for its members (when I last looked at the Office of the Scottish Charities Register, just under £30 million is sitting around, unused, and pensions were being paid to its members, who are the Wood Family plus Jennifer Craw…)

They can do whatever they want with their money; they can pay generous pensions to their board members. They may even be able to take this money to Africa. Will it go on victims of Rwanda’s social and health problems? Not directly – it will go to producing more tea. How this can be done without cutting more forest down will be interesting to learn; and I invite them to enlighten me.

Venture Philanthropy seems to be a newish phenomenon where the ‘donors’ sometimes expect some form of return for their ‘donation.’

8. Democracy out the window if the web comes in

There are planning laws; there are procedures for those who want to build. We have common good land; it is Union Terrace Gardens. If we give control of our land to Tom Smith and Co. in an unaccountable, arm’s-length company to build Wood’s web, where does that leave the right of the common man?

10. If you wanted to put something back into the community Sir Ian – why did you take £22K from a struggling local authority to pay for an ‘educational’ pilot promoting the idea of entrepreneurship?

Not only are people good at spending taxpayer money; they are also good at clawing money back from the taxpayer.

The city also paid the WFT £22,000 for an educational pilot scheme

The Wood Family Trust invoiced Aberdeen City Council for a pilot programme based on entrepreneurial philosophy. A billionaire taking money from the local council to carry out his programme, and wanting us to consider his generosity at the same time.

Wood Family Trust

The Wood Family Trust (WFT) is listed as having paid £160,000 towards the CGP referendum. The taxpayer chipped in £40,000.

The city also paid the WFT £22,000 for an educational pilot scheme involving Kincorth Academy ‘per contract’. What contract ACC and the WFT have entered into will make interesting reading. Perhaps other charitable trusts have contracted with ACC – but why a charity should be engaged by contract on an educational scheme is at present unclear.

https://aberdeenvoice.com/wp-content/gallery/images2/wood-family-trust-get-22-k-from-acc-nov-11.jpg

10. The granite web won’t cost the taxpayer anything. Rubbish. It’s cost us plenty already which could have gone on people – or just plain improving the gardens

Here is a small extract from the ‘Gravy Train’ article (link above).

Item	Description	Date	Amount
1	Technical Feasibility Study to undertake an engineering, cost and design appraisal of the development options for UTG, each incorporating an arts centre.	Jun 2009	£162k
2	Architect, Design & Project management fees for a Contemporary Arts Centre project	Feb 09/May 10	£226k
3	Consultation Report – City Square Project..	Mar 2010	£113,915
4	Union Terrace Gardens (TIF)-Tax Increment Financing	Mar 10 Oct 10 Nov 10	£71,959.65
5	Scottish Enterprise holds 22 copies of invoices relating to ACSEF approved spend for activities relating to stakeholder engagement, events management, and communications. [sic]	2009-10 2010-11	£51,766.60 £22,712.72

(source – Scottish Enterprise email exchange with Suzanne Kelly May 2011)

11. Speaking of morals – how about just paying the full amount of tax you should Sir Ian, without using offshore schemes?

12. Maybe if we had the benefit of his wealth via his fair share of taxes, we could see some real economic, social benefit.

Sir Ian, are you using any tax devices which allow money to avoid taxation, such as offshore payroll arrangements for you or WGPSN employees?

If so, do you think the public’s interests might be better served by your paying your fair share in tax for it to be deployed as government sees fit (not that I have a great deal of faith in government, but there is some democratic hope money will be spent as needed) rather on what is an overblown, badly-designed monstrous vanity project? Just asking.

Uncharacteristically, the P&J carried this on the subject: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2198187

13. We still need some fresh air. Ridiculous claims of ‘doubling’ the green space by building a web are a thin veneer easily scratched away – as would any turf planted on the raised garden floor would be as well.

This city has very few trees in its city centre. It also has two of Scotland’s most polluted roads according to Friends of the Earth.

Back off our garden; back off our trees.

What if?

If I had a tenth of his money, I would enhance the gardens (let people put in a small play area, let there be a café to encourage social use of the gardens; the parties that have been held are great for bringing people together). The gardens are not the problem.

I would take over brownfield site and regenerate; we could use social meeting places; places for older citizens to gather, places for people with mobility issues to socialize; places for children to safely play, to learn arts, to have fun.

I’d build Peacock or build an arts/social centre on brownfield. I’d give money to the bodies cruelly axed by Kate Dean.

I would not build parking in a garden; I would not chop trees down.

I would not continue to divide a city I had damaged while pursuing my egotistical, self-centered fantasy.

We do not need more shops.

If I had the time, money and energy of the P&J team, I could spin out another 10 pages of reasons why the web has to stay in the dustbin, and why its genesis should be fully investigated. For now I suggest averting your eyes from the P&J, remembering what actually took place, and thanking your stars it hasn’t been built yet.

Better still, tell your elected rep you want the whole thing investigated, the project denounced, and stop buying AJL papers until they start reporting news, not what they want to make happen.

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

Older Entries Newer Entries