Jun 182011
 

With thanks to Mike Shepherd.

Peter Williamson was kidnapped as a child in Aberdeen harbour and taken to the American Colonies where he was sold as a slave.

On gaining his freedom, he was kidnapped by the Indians, living with them and eventually escaping from them. He then spent three years in the British Army fighting against the French and the Indians, only to be captured again, this time by the French.

As part of a prisoner exchange he was repatriated to Britain in 1757.

In Plymouth he was released from the army with a purse of six shillings.  This was enough to get to him to York, by which time he was penniless.

He managed to persuade some local businessmen to publish his book, titled  The Life and Curious Adventures of Peter Williamson, Who was Carried off from Aberdeen and Sold for a Slave. This sold very well and gave him enough money to return to Aberdeen in June 1758, fifteen years after being kidnapped.

He had several hundred copies of his book with him, some of which he managed to sell on the streets of Aberdeen. The book eventually came to the notice of Councillors and merchantmen in the city, and although nobody was named, they did not like what they read. The Procurator Fiscal lodged a complaint with the Provost and Magistrates, stating:

“that by this scurrilous and infamous libel … the corporation of the City of Aberdeen, and whole members whereof, were highly hurt and prejudged; and therefore that the Pursuer (Peter Williamson) ought to be exemplary punished in his person and goods; and that the said pamphlet, and whole copies thereof, ought to be seized and publicly burnt.”

A warrant was issued for his arrest. He was taken from his lodgings and brought before a Magistrate at the courthouse. Peter was asked to repudiate publicly everything he had said concerning the merchants of Aberdeen. Until he agreed, he was to be imprisoned and his books seized. After a short time in the Tolbooth (a jail in the Aberdeen Town House), he was bailed and stood for trial. On being found guilty, he was told to lodge a document with the court confessing to the falsity of the book and to pay a ten shilling fine, otherwise he would be imprisoned. This he reluctantly agreed to, leaving Aberdeen and moving to Edinburgh.

In a ceremony watched by the Dean of the Guild, the Town Clerk, the Procurator Fiscal and the Baillies, the offending pages were sliced from 350 of Williamson’s books and publicly burnt at the Mercat Cross by the town hangman.  The remaining pages were never returned.

In Edinburgh, Peter contacted a lawyer and started planning for a legal challenge. He opened a coffee shop which became frequented by the Edinburgh legal fraternity and he started to teach himself Scots law. The year 1760 saw the  start  of an extended phase of courtroom battles against his persecutors in Aberdeen. In 1762, he was successful in getting the result of the Aberdeen trial reversed and was awarded costs and a £100 in damages.

The results of his investigations had revealed the names of the businessmen behind his kidnapping. These were Captain Robert Ragg, Walter Cochrane (the Aberdeen Town Clerk Depute), Baillie William Fordyce, Baillie William Smith, Baillie Alexander Mitchell, and Alexander Gordon, all local merchants with a share in the ship, Planter.

Further litigation ensued. Witnesses were found and they were mainly men who as boys had managed to escape kidnapping. The father of a boy who had sailed with Peter Williamson to the Americas testified. He said that while the Planter had been moored at Torry, his son had returned to him and refused to go back. He claimed that Captain Ragg and others involved had spoken again and again with him in the street, warning him that he would be sent to the Tolbooth if he didn’t send his son back to the ship. The boy went back.

The main incriminating evidence was the so-called “kidnapping book”. This was a ledger detailing all the expenses of the slave-ship venture. It mentioned Peter Williamson by name and included entries such as:

“To one pair of stockings to Peter Williamson, six pence; To five days of diet, one shilling and three pence.”

One entry read:

“To the man who brought Peter Williamson, one shilling and six pence.”

Eventually in 1768 the case was proved. Peter was awarded damages of £200 plus 100 guineas costs.

Child slavery was endemic in Aberdeen and elsewhere in the 1700s. The plantations in the American colonies were desperate for labour. The Book of Bon Accord (Robertson 1839) records that:

“The inhabitants of the neighbourhood dared not send their children into town, and even trembled lest they should be snatched away from their homes. For in all parts of the country emissaries were abroad, in the dead of night children were taken by force from the beds where they slept; and the remote valleys of the Highlands, fifty miles distant from the city, were infested by ruffians who hunted their prey as beasts of the chase.”

Skelton (2004) mentions that it was estimated that 600 boys and girls were abducted and sold for slavery between 1740 and 1760 in Aberdeen and the North-east. On the voyage alone that took Peter Williamson, there were 69 youngsters on board.

A BBC website accompanying a radio series on the history of the British Empire fills in some background from the period:

“Most accounts of British slaving date from the 16th century with the shipping of Africans to the Spanish Main. But less discussed is what happened to English and Scots eight, nine and ten year-olds in places like Aberdeen, London and Bristol. Many from those places were sold for forced labour in the colonies.

London gangs would capture youngsters, put them in the hold of a ship moored in the Thames and when the hold was full, set sail for America. Many authorities encouraged the trade. In the early 17th century authorities wanted rid of the waifs, strays, young thieves and vandals in their towns and cities. The British were starting to settle in Virginia. So that’s where the children went.

This was a time when it was common enough in Britain to have small children as cheap, or unpaid labour. In 1618 one hundred children were officially transported to Virginia. So pleased were the planters with the young labour that the then Lord Mayor, Sir William Cockayne, received an immediate order from the colony “to send another ship load.”
See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/empire/episodes/episode_36.shtml

Sources:

*Joseph Robertson: “The Book of Bon Accord”. Aberdeen 1839.
*Douglas Skelton: “Indian Peter. The extraordinary life and adventures of Peter Williamson”. Edinburgh, 2004.
*Peter Williamson “The Life and Curious Adventures of Peter Williamson, Who was Carried off from Aberdeen and Sold for a Slave”. York, 1757.

Read the full story here: The Life and Curious Adventures of Peter Williamson

Apr 222011
 

By Bob Smith.

Anither iconic building we need
Is the view o yon Stewartie Spence
A luxury hotel like his nae less
Chargin mair than a fyow poonds an pence 

Gie St Nicholas Hoose site awa says he
Ti some gweed developer chappie
Faa’ll build a great fantoosh palace
Ti keep the weel aff richt happy

A hotel nae doot fer the rich
Like the Burj ower in Dubai
A placie fer toffs ti swan aroon
Far prices are fair sky-high

Bit let’s hae an iconic building
Fer the less fortunate in oor toon
A placie fer the hameless ti bide
Wid be mair o a bliddy boon

 

Awa wi yer haverins Mr Spence
We’ve aneuch for the rich ti survive
We need ti look efter the poor
Faa’s lives hiv teen a bit o’ a dive 

Nae doot he’ll class me “a traitor”
Fer nae wintin oor economy ti expand
Bit aboot the gap atween rich an poor
I’ll nae beery ma heid in the sand

O coorse anither use fer iss site
Is ti mak it a City Square
C’mon aa ye toon cooncillors
Aa it taks is a bittie flair

 

 

©Bob Smith”The Poetry Mannie” 2011

 

 

 

 

 

Nov 122010
 

By Mike Miller.

When the City Square Project was originally considered by Aberdeen City Full Council on 19th May 2010 little was known about Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) and indeed, at that time,  it was not even a legal mechanism for funding regenerative projects. The origins of TIF are in the United States where it has been a mechanism for funding regenerative project for the past 50 years or so.

Indeed so widespread is its use that the the term ‘regeneration’ is virtually interchangeable with that of TIF.

Its widespread use in the States has led to somewhat strange situations with regeneration centring on a single shed in a field in order for one state to lure WalMart in at the expense of another! This is one of the flaws associated with TIF; potentially all it does is move business from one area in need of regeneration to another as incentives, by way of paid for infrastructure, lure commercial companies across State boundaries.

So is it suitable for the funding proposition that is the ‘regeneration’ of Aberdeen City centre? Well the first question is; does the city centre require regeneration? Sir Ian Wood obviously believes that it does and has proposed to gift the City some £50 million to support the claim. He describes the city centre as ‘second-rate’. The regeneration proposed is very specific – it must be a city square (well actually now a city garden since the public rejected the square concept in the deeply flawed consultation process earlier this year that was driven by ACSEF) with walk on access from all four sides. This will require the engineering of a raised platform thus obliterating the Denburn Valley and destroy the existing city garden in the process. But then you know all this. The key is that the City Square is essentially a civic project and, this is important, will not generate in its own right enough commercial ‘revenue’ to repay any TIF loan (because that is what TIF is – a loan that has to be repaid ) required to fund the infrastructure build.

So how will the TIF borrowing be re-paid? Well the original proposition was that a variety of sites dotted around the city would suddenly become attractive to developers, as a result of the City Square, and the business rates so generated would be used, in part, to repay the TIF. The other element that would contribute would come from the increased business rates generated in areas adjacent to the City Square. Now business rates can only go up because  any given business is more profitable as a result of the regenerative project.  All sounds good. Apart from its not good at all.

even with the Edinburgh proposals there are risks, more so with a stagnant economy because TIF relies heavily on business taking up the cudgels to build

Firstly the proposal that you can use business rates from properties that have no connection whatsoever with the City Square (for example the Oakbank school site, an original candidate for TIF loan repayment) is nonsense. This author has had conversations with TIF experts at the British Property Federation (whose job, amongst other things, is to promote the use of TIF where appropriate) who indicate quite clearly that you cannot repay TIF in this way.

Interestingly someone at the City Council must have picked up on this too because in the report to the City Council Finance Committee of September 28th it seems to have disappeared as a TIF repayment proposal.

This leaves the mechanism of the increased rates from adjacent businesses. Such TIF repayment is known as loose-coupling.  In TIF terms loose-coupling is highly risky. This is because the linkage between TIF funded project and the surrounding rates increases is far from guaranteed. It is worth stressing this as all other TIF proposals in Scotland  are closely-coupled. Close coupling is far less risky because the TIF funded infrastructure is directly linked to the development with which it is associated. Here’s an example. In Edinburgh infrastructure (roads, a pier, a marina, etc) are to be built in order to attract in developers to the brown field Leith waterfront to build (note that additional build is happening) some 2,800 homes and 900,000 commercial square footage of new properties that result specifically because of the TIF funded infrastructure.

Hopefully the difference between loose-coupling and close-coupling is clear and  the greater viability of what is proposed in Edinburgh self evident. There is (unless you hate development of any kind) nothing wrong with TIF when it is correctly and sensibly applied. Even so everything is not clear cut. John Handley, a regeneration expert, writing in the Scotsman newspaper earlier this year quite clearly indicates that even with the Edinburgh proposals there are risks, more so with a stagnant economy because TIF relies heavily on business taking up the cudgels to build; more uncertain at a time when money is scarce and the need for new office space dubious.

Loose coupling has its place too, where there is blight in an area (i.e. the area is so undesirable and decrepit people have moved out and so have businesses and no one will touch development in its present state as it is completely non-viable), then TIF infrastructure can act to pump-prime an area so that business and residents return and start paying rates and council tax that then repays the loan – but there are still risks. For Aberdeen it makes no sense as no one would describe the centre of Aberdeen as ‘blighted’. There are some empty shop spaces but this is largely normal ‘churn’ and to some extent might actually indicate the over-representation of retail space in the city –  is there more capacity than there are shops to fill the available space?

At the Finance committee of 28 September 2010 a paper was presented that sought to indicate that TIF could still be applied to a variety of projects within the city irrespective of whether the City Square project were to proceed.

The frailty of the TIF business case for the Aberdeen City projects has recently been alluded to in an article in Holyrood Magazine

There was some debate regarding the proposals as well there should have been as there are some fundamental flaws in what is being proposed. One potential scheme was for construction of infrastructure by way of a “high quality pedestrian route” with absolutely no indication of how the construction costs of this facility might be repaid; does building a pavement lead to increased business activity in an already prosperous city?

Worryingly for the citizens of Aberdeen, the Council, at a time when swinging budget cuts are to the fore, are seeking to borrow some £200m using TIF. The belief being that they can do so at zero risk to the Council. One presumes that they will seek a commercial sector 3rd party to under-write the borrowing, perhaps by way of a Special Purpose Vehicle, to which assets,including Union Terrace Gardens will be transferred. One cannot help but feel that the proposals are speculative at best and at worst could leave half completed construction projects scattered across Aberdeen – that’ll help the City’s image no end.

The frailty of the TIF business case for the Aberdeen City projects has recently been alluded to in an article in Holyrood Magazine. In the article, The TIF Factor in the 15 October issue, the City Council’s Project Director for Economic and Business Development indicates the risks associated with what is being proposed; the basis of which is that because of the City Square/Garden project, people will suddenly be more inclined to linger in the city centre and spend more (even more!) money. Such a model is dubious at the best of times but with a recession under-way and massive cuts still to come to the pubic sector, this could well be completely the wrong time to attempt such a tenuous approach.

As the Council scuttles around trying to jump onto the TIF bandwagon, bemused citizens are left to look on wondering just what could be achieved with Sir Ian Wood’s generous offer that would genuinely help the city without huge debts being incurred. Union Terrace Gardens could be improved and better access facilitated. St Nicholas House could be demolished and a new city square enabled by the closure of Broad Street; the Wallace Tower could be returned from the oblivion of Seaton Park and the upper deck of the St Nicholas Centre (a precursor of the City Square?) re-invigorated with connection to the new St Nicholas civic space.

This ‘second- rate ‘ blight if cleaned up and  removed could give Aberdeen a city centre a face-lift without re-course to the potentially financially crippling projects that the TIF proposals seek to enable. It would also mean that the much loved Union Terrace Gardens need not be lost by insensitive development thus placating the majority who voted in favour of their retention all those months ago.

Mike Miller November 2010