Local Archives - Page 3 of 5

Hidden Aberdeen: History On Your Doorstep And Underfoot

Jun 072013

David Innes reviews Dr Fiona-Jane Brown’s new book which is published this month.

This eagerly-awaited book has been trailed for quite a while, but at last Hidden Aberdeen is unveiled, in more ways than one.

First impressions are quite surprising.

Although written by an academic, Hidden Aberdeen is no wordy narrative; neither is it a history text. It’s not even published in portrait, all of which gives it a welcome air of informality.

The cover is attractive – plain white with colour thumbnail photos of several of the mysteries on which the author sheds light inside. It almost demands to be opened.

Dr Brown employs no stuffy language, neither does she let her explanations of each of the city’s historical and cultural features stretch to over 500 words. Call that a page and a half.

Yet, the economy of language deployed and the open writing style will give readers enough insight to the subjects featured to encourage them to find out more for themselves.

Further research is made easier by the provision of a detailed and comprehensive bibliography.

So, this is more a guidebook than an in-depth investigation into hidden Aberdeen, structured geographically to allow its users to walk easily and quickly between the city’s mysterious but often highly-visible landmarks.

Anyone working in the city centre, or Old Aberdeen, for example, will be able to explore more than one nearby attraction and still have time for a lunchtime snack.

It would spoil the fun of exploration to list here the features Dr Brown enthusiastically introduces.

An idle half hour’s stroll, with a copy of Hidden Aberdeen tucked into a handbag or pocket to discover the city’s little-known physical history, will be time well spent by anyone with a sense of heritage and civic pride.

As has been demonstrated in the past couple of years, there are many around who have passion enough for their city to want to fight to retain its character. For them, and for those just keen to broaden their knowledge, Hidden Aberdeen is an indispensable resource.

You can meet Dr Brown and have a copy of Hidden Aberdeen signed, at WH Smith, St. Nicholas Centre, at 13:00 on Saturday 8^th June, or at Waterstones, Union Bridge (Trinity Centre) at 18:30 on Tuesday 18^th June.

Hidden Aberdeen – History On Your Doorstep and Under Your Feet is published in hardback by Black and White Publishing and costs £9.99 from all good bookshops.

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

Black & White: Gothenburg Winners And Hidden Aberdeen

Aberdeen City, Information No Responses »

May 172013

Last week, Voice offered two copies of Richard Gordon’s marvellous Glory In Gothenburg as prizes for answering the question, “Who tripped as he dashed from the dugout at the final whistle in the Ullevi Stadium and was trampled all over by his fellow occupants of the dug-out?”. By David Innes.

Richard Gordon Launches 'Glory in Gothenburg' At Pittodrie

It was, of course, the man who couldn’t be kept out of the news last week as he announced his retirement, Sir Alex Ferguson.
Hang your heads Bryan Gunn, Stuart Kennedy, Doug Bell, Ian Angus, Eric Black, Archie Knox, Teddy Scott and Roland Arnott. You have no respect, but I bet you laughed like overflowing Ullevi drains at the time! The gaffer probably did too.

Our lucky winners are:

Richard Simpson of Aberdeen whose book I posted through his letterbox personally on Tuesday night and Richie Bisset of Queensferry, whose copy was put in the post the day after. Both Richards are probably devouring their namesake’s mellifluous prose at a single sitting as we go to press.

Enjoy the prizes, fellas, and thanks again to Black and White Publishing for their donation. Commiserations to the others who entered but were unsuccessful.

Further good news from Black and White.

“Hidden Aberdeen, a fascinating look at the history of the Granite City. From Dr Fiona-Jane Brown, folklorist, educator, storyteller and founder of Hidden Aberdeen Tours, comes a book that will open your eyes to the hidden, the forgotten and the abandoned remnants of the past which lie under your feet as you walk round the city today”.

This is being published very soon and the author will be signing copies in WH Smiths on 8 June and Waterstones (we’ll find out which one) on 18 June. A review copy is on its way and we’ll do the honours, of course. With a bit of luck we’ll have a word with the author and run that in Voice too.

Young Politicians Sought For Youth Parliament

Aberdeen City, Information No Responses »

Jan 112013

With thanks to Kenneth Watt.

The Aberdeen City Youth Council is calling for young people interested in making a difference to register their interest in standing in the elections to the Scottish Youth Parliament which are being held in March this year.

Holding office as an MSYP (Member of the Scottish Youth Parliament) lasts for two years and involves four sittings a year on top of around five hours per week of voluntary work in the member’s constituency.

Constituencies mirror those of the Scottish Parliament and there are currently six MSYPS in Aberdeen namely Justin Rheiner (23) and Chris Cromar (18) for Donside, Megan Lukins (18) and Kris Chapman (24) for South and North Kincardine, and Ashleigh O’Connor-Hanlon (18) and Barry Black (17) for Central.

Registration for 14 – 25 year-olds to stand for election as an MSYP is open until end of January and advice on this can be sought from the Aberdeen City Youth Council (ACYC), who will run the elections. All MSYPs are obliged to be members of ACYC as part of their position.

Barry Black, who is chair of the youth council as well as Convenor of the Social Justice Committee of the SYP, said:

“It’s a really rewarding group to be a part of. It builds confidence, lets you work with many different individuals and spend two years choosing how you want to help your area.

“I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the past two years I’ve spent on the SYP and hope that young people in the North East will get involved.

“Whether you like holding representatives to account or want to have more of a say about the issues that affect Aberdeen, the Scottish Youth Parliament has the expertise and support to help you do it.”

UTG Referendum: The Real Attacks On Democracy

Aberdeen City, Featured, Opinion 3 Responses »

Sep 132012

By Suzanne Kelly.

‘Undemocratic!’ is the cry coming from various people in Government and some Aberdeen residents concerning the death of the granite web scheme.

The truth is that democracy took a beating in the way the referendum campaign was waged, in the secrecy over the TIF ranking the scheme received, and in the statements made by ministers who should know they were overstepping their bounds.

For those who really care about ‘Democracy’ and how it has been chipped at by those insistent that the web goes ahead, here is an overview of some newly emerged issues.

TIF Application: Information Wrongfully Withheld

Last Sunday 9 September, the Sunday Herald carried two articles pertinent to how undemocratically the granite web has been pushed. The first piece by Steven Vass was entitled ‘FOI Victory Over Aberdeen Project’. Vass explains that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust have been criticised by the Information Commissioner. These two organisations are refusing to release information on Aberdeen’s TIF bid, in particular how it was ranked against other projects.

TIF is meant to be used for deprived areas. Our city centre needs improvement, and a good place to start would be practical assistance to local businesses which now must compete with multinationals in our shopping malls (which have far more financial power than the little guy does).

We are not, however, a deprived area; businesses are continuing to set up shop here, our housing prices are good, and our standard of living has on the whole been found to rank highly in the UK.

So why can’t we find out more about the TIF application? Is it possible that our TIF application was one of the lower-scoring ones? (It was ,after all, soundly criticised by an independent accountant.) If it was not a high-scorer, then was it given priority unfairly over other projects?

In the interests of democracy, whatever side of the debate you are on, you have to agree that withholding critical information which could help evaluate the facts is undoubtedly undemocratic. The information Commissioner has concluded as much , and hopefully on 22 October the truth of the situation will be revealed. Either that, or the Government and the SFT will appeal to the Court of Session.

It will be interesting to find out who was involved in this non-compliance with the democratic principle of Freedom of Information, and to find out what they have to hide. It will be interesting as well to see if the Government refuses the Information Commissioner’s decision and lodges a Court of Session appeal.

There is legislation saying this information should be supplied, and yet it is being withheld against the Information Commissioner’s decision. Verdict: Undemocratic

Above the Law? How BiG Partnership and an Anonymous Group of Businessmen Seized the Airwaves with Propaganda

The other article in the Sunday Herald brings us to an even more serious issue. This article, entitled ‘How to get ahead in the race to the White House…by advertising’ explains how voters are bombarded with election propaganda and how important it is to spend on adverts. It also brings us to the decision just released by OFCOM against the radio advertising that took place during the referendum.

The Herald article explains the vast sums spent on TV and radio ads to try to secure election victories in the US. The article quotes Erika Fowler, the associate professor running the Wesleyan Media Project:

“ Campaigns are not going for efficiency, they are going for moderate voters in the centre who have not made up their minds. There are going to be many, many people tuning out the messages, but in a competitive election cycle, you really are going for that last one or two percentage points. So the parties and the interest groups… are going to do whatever it takes to get a competitive advantage.”

And as the article says,

“That means spending money…”

The American spin doctors and PR firms know, as do their UK counterparts, that advertising works. And OFCOM, the communications regulator, knows it as well. It exists to prevent the public being misled, and it has come down hard against the aggressive saturation campaign and adverts placed by The BiG Partnership on behalf of the anonymous VFTCGP members- what do they have to hide?

As a referendum campaigner who had to obey stringent rules and spending limits, I was astounded that an unelected and anonymous group, ‘Vote for the City Gardens Project’ were allowed to place a huge volume of radio and print advertising. Not only did they have a degree of media saturation which I couldn’t have hoped for – but the contents of their ads were misleading. Why do I say that? Here are two direct quotes from the ads and my comments on each:-

1. Quote: “I’m voting yes because of the £182 million of investment to the city centre – and it’s all coming from grants and private donations so it won’t cost the taxpayer a penny.”

“The City Garden Project won’t cost you a penny, it will be paid for through private donations and business rates.”

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb213/obb213.pdf – see Pages 6 and 7

Comment: As demonstrated by invoices paid by the City Council, taxpayer money has ALREADY been spent on this project for advertising, PR and ‘stakeholder engagement’ in the region of at least £200,000. What is galling is that the BiG Partnership, working closely with ACSEF would have known this. In fact, it is still a mystery what agency or agencies carried out the PR, advertising and photography: was BiG a recipient of taxpayer money? If so, how democratic or ethical was this agency acting when it submitted these ads for broadcast?

2. Quote: “It will create twice as much green space in the City Centre.” (reference as above)

Comment: We have a green park – when I say green, there is a deep, rich fertile layer of soil supporting wildlife and ancient trees. (Democracy fans note – there are trees and species in this park which are protected by UK and EU law, even though the past administration allowed fireworks displays in the gardens).

If you build underground structures and have a layer of topsoil over them, you won’t have the same environmental quality as we do now.

If you chop the trees down, and build a 5,000 seat outdoor theatre on formerly rich soil, then there is absolutely no way that you are going to double the amount of green space.

Layers of turf over the concrete theatre’s roof and making similar turf-clad structures does not mean you can claim you are doubling genuine green space.

By the way, the idea of building an outdoor theatre in Aberdeen makes very little sense indeed weather-wise. Building a theatre in front of where a theatre already exists raises questions about the ‘non-displacement’ concept – rules are supposed to prohibit using public resources to build something that will compete with or take away from an existing business – but this is being conveniently overlooked.

Aside from my opinions on the accuracy of these ads – Aberdonian citizens were bombarded with over 200 ads on Northsound 1 and 2, and Original 106 played ads over 100 times between 16 and 29 February. ( In contrast, Mike Shepherd had one ad played a total of 26 times).

The point is that if so much as one person heard these hundreds of ads, assumed they were true (after all, the trusted radio stations continued to run them) and voted for the web based on these spurious claims (no cost to the taxpayer, double (??) the green space magically created), then the commercials and the big money behind them unduly influenced the referendum result.

What really beggars belief is the behaviour of the BiG Partnership.

They were involved with ACSEF to push the web scheme. They know that invoices were paid by the taxpayer for consultation, PR, ‘stakeholder engagement’, photos and the like (even including a photo for about £150 meant to show how ‘inaccessible’ the gardens are).

They knew that the web was already costing the taxpayer money, yet they were involved with creating and placing advertisements on radio saying the taxpayer wouldn’t pay a penny. Whatever your position on the web is, don’t you agree this is unethical?

People would have been influenced by hundreds of ads

BiG also appear to have placed these ads apparently without getting full advice and clearance. Reading OFCOM’s decision, it is easy to conclude the ads would not have been deemed acceptable had clearance been asked for in advance.

How does an organisation as big and experienced as BiG explain itself to the regulator? This is what they said:-

“Northsound told us that this organisation was set up by a group of private individuals who supported the re-development project. They were not a formally constituted organisation, the Licensee said, and had “no legal status”. This advertiser appointed The BIG Partnership, a public relations consultancy, to run and manage its campaign.

“The BIG Partnership made the following comments through the Licensee:

“This campaign was set up a by a group of private individuals who wanted to see the project go ahead. They were not a formally constituted organisation. They have no legal status. They got together and appointed The BIG Partnership to run and manage the campaign and they provided funds for that campaign. The City Garden Project, as part of the wider city centre regeneration scheme, will be funded by private donations and a TIF scheme whereby Aberdeen City Council borrows money to pay for the regeneration and uses the new business rates generated by new business across the city as a result of the regeneration to pay back the loan. It will not be financed by Aberdeen City Council’s annual revenue budget and therefore not have an impact on local council tax payers or on the delivery of public services. The group behind the campaign is not political. The campaign aimed to influence the outcome of the referendum by communicating the facts and the benefits of the project to the public. The objectors to the project also ran similar advertisements.”

If there is even a single person who voted for the project based on these radio ads, which should never have been aired, or has a friend or relative who was taken in by these ads, then they should come forward now and say so. (Write to me if you wish; I can keep your details anonymous if you prefer – sgvk27@aol.com)

An anonymous group of people, via an experienced agency, placed ads which should never have been aired . The ads contain spurious claims, but at the time the regulatory bodies were unable to intervene. The regulator has found the ads in breach of code.

We need to know who the VFTCGP members were to see whether there were any conflicts of interest. People would have been influenced by hundreds of ads, the contents of which could not be contested at the time.

Whatever side of the issue you are on, if you care about law, democracy and fairness, you must admit these ads should not have aired and would have influenced the voters who heard them. Verdict: Extraordinarily Undemocratic

( Note – BiG has not answered questions on this issue at the time of going to press. )

Local Newspaper Coverage: Lacking and Slanted

Unfortunately our local hard copy tabloids, the Press & Journal and its sister, the Evening Express, are clearly in favour of the web going ahead.

Their coverage in the past has seemed one-sided. However, they have chosen to exclude the news item about the information Commissioner’s verdict re. the TIF details. They have covered other Information Commission decisions in the past, and this one certainly has local importance.

More importantly, at the time of writing, no local tabloid has mentioned the OFCOM decision, and instead have run pieces critical of the Labour administration. The BBC and the Herald have decided these two stories were newsworthy enough to be published. The local press did not find room for them, but do have articles on a new chocolate shop opening in the mall, and a photo of a black swan.

Note – The local press has not answered questions on this issue at the time of going to press.

Is it possible that our papers are slanting coverage to please their advertisers? It just might be possible. Verdict: Newspapers can take any side of an issue they want; that is democracy. However, do you want a paper that gives you one side of an issue, or one that covers all ground?

Democracy: Labouring the Point

This is a good time to discuss Labour and Democracy. When the referendum was announced, Labour said at the outset it did not agree with holding it, and explained they were already legally representing their constituents. They also pointed out that the referendum was not a legal vote that had to be adhered to; it was in law always just a consultation (like the one we had before which rejected the city square).

Labour told the people that if elected, they would scrap the City Gardens Project, which by the way was still in its infancy. Some people seem to feel the web was a done deal. It had not had TIF approval yet – it lacks details (we don’t have anything other than fanciful artist drawings which ignore necessary architectural and safety features which would make the thing look far different from the concept art), and it had to go through planning.

Labour explained what was wrong with the referendum before it started, and vociferously objected to all the abuses that went on during the campaign. They asked to be elected with scrapping the CGP as a main campaign plank: they did what they were elected to do Verdict: Democratic

SNP Sniping

It is very interesting to see in today’s Press and Journal our Scottish Government minister for planning, Derek MacKay, speaking out against Labour over the web – which is a planning issue. There are guidelines which direct him not to make such statements, but he seems to be ignoring them.

Is a minister involved with planning overstepping his remit and going contrary to Scottish Ministerial Code? Seems like it. Verdict: Out of Order
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/12/01141452/9

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

ATUC Objection To National Front March In Aberdeen

Aberdeen City, Community, Information, News No Responses »

Apr 062012

With thanks to Kevin Hutchens.

Aberdeen TUC successfully mounted a co-ordinated campaign against the plans of the National Front (the NF) to march in Aberdeen on Hitler’s birthday, Friday 20th April.
The NF of course claimed it had nothing to do with the birthday of the Fascist Dictator and everything to do with the founding date of the SNP.

Surprisingly then, some would say, both the reports from Grampian Police and the Human Rights Impact Assessment carried out by the City Council argued that there might possibly be a link between the date and Hitler’s birthday: though both, in the interests of democracy, recognised the need to consider other options .

The Trade Union movement played a vital and crucial role in co-ordinating opposition via written representations, and also expressed its opposition via two media and press events. Not surprisingly, the NF did not help themselves when they accused the media of being “Zionist” because of the way they reported the proposed event .

On the day of the Aberdeen City Council Licensing Committee, 27th March 2012, a small but determined and committed group of activists from ATUC waited outside the Council Chambers. Much was made of this by the NF, but what they failed to realise and mention is that the activists which were present, though small in number, represented the interests of thousands of Trade Unionists from across the North East.

At the end of the day, Aberdeen City Council Licensing Committee refused (“Prohibited” in Council parlance) the application to march, on public order and public safety grounds. What had however been noticeable in the debate was the unwillingness of the NF to move on crucial issues including the planned time of the march, the starting point of the march and the route. Clearly the committee made the right decision on behalf of the City of Aberdeen.

Whatever the decision, it still remains an important role to expose the National Front for the way many of their supporters promote racism, Islamophobia and Holocaust denial.

“No Pasaran” is the call that comes to mind !

Kevin Hutchens
ATUC Delegate for Unite Local Government, Aberdeenshire Branch.

Union Terrace Gardens – The Big Picture

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Apr 062012

If you are of the opinion that the City Garden Project controversy was all about what flavour of city centre park Aberdeen should have – think again. There seems to have been a much bigger picture involved here, and the politics are murky. Mike Shepherd writes.

The power of the print media in shaping opinion

The public referendum has been held, and the City Garden Project won by the smallest of margins: 52-48%. Feelings are still poisonous in the city, as it is clear that a marginal result was swung by dubious means.

On the City Garden Project side, unregistered groups spent a disproportionately large sum of money on campaign material, whereas the officially registered groups were restricted to spending about £8,000 only.

Some of the claims made by supporters of the City Garden Project were outrageous and substantially misleading. One newspaper advert is now being investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority.

Even Aberdeen Council were responsible for punting a justification for the City Garden Project with the questionable claim that a new park could create 6,500 new jobs in the city.

The local papers showed a bias in favour of Sir Ian Wood’s project and framed their reports to show one side in a much better light than the other (“Yes, vote for change” or “No, don’t vote for change”). Ludicrous claims were accepted uncritically – such as oil companies leaving Aberdeen if the scheme did not go ahead.

I had been advised by an expert that:

“Newspapers are very powerful at shaping public opinion”

and:

“You will need the support of a PR company during the campaign.”

It was very good advice, but in practice not something that a campaign group of limited influence and funds could realistically put in place. Yet, it was clear from canvassing in the street that the combined effort of relentless advertising, the glossy brochures and the press bias was having an effect.
Whereas many would stop and give me a considered analysis of how they would vote, a large minority were reflecting City Garden propaganda back at me, phrases recognizable from glossy brochures or Evening Express headlines.

Our society today is witnessing a battle between democracy and political lobbyists / PR companies. Out of this, democracy is not doing that well. It’s a shock to see this writ large in Aberdeen, but at least the Gardens Referendum result has made this crystal clear to any thinking person in the city.

Local politics

After two years of campaigning to keep the Gardens, I have been able to observe how local politics works. It is clear that the current council administration is very business friendly and they will tend to make decisions that primarily favour business interests. At just about every council meeting you will hear the phrase “Aberdeen is open for business.”

Local democracy commonly involves a conflict between what business wants and what is in the interests of the general public. For example, if Aberdeen Airport is allowed to land flights at night, Dyce residents will get woken up by the noise. The conflict between business and public interests came to the fore after the consultation on Sir Ian Wood’s scheme two years ago. Over 50 local businessmen wrote to the council asking for the result to be ignored:

‘due to misunderstanding of the project among the public’

and an ‘inability’ to appreciate its impact. The council – to their shame – did this. The current Council administration (an SNP / Lib Dem coalition) appears to favour business almost every time.

There are a number of reasons why business gets its own way with the council. Many councillors are instinctively business friendly and will tend to support projects that are favoured by local commercial interests. This is certainly true of the Conservatives on the council and of many councillors from the other parties too.

There is also a powerful business lobby. Businessmen make up two thirds of the Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Forum (ACSEF), a “public-private partnership that drives economic development in the region”. Funded by both Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils, ACSEF is a non-elected body that have been given a significant degree of control over local economic policy. There is no doubt that ACSEF exerts power and influence over the activities of both councils.

advanced societies work by a system of checks and balances between moneyed interests and the public regard

ACSEF were involved with the City Garden Project in the early days and described it as one of their flagship projects. Two of the board members, including the Chairman Tom Smith, are directors of the Aberdeen City Garden Trust, the group that organised the architectural competition and who hope to take the project forward to completion.

Extensive networking appears to go on amongst the “great and the good”. Politicians, local businessmen, council officials and senior figures in local organisations turn up and meet at parties, functions, charity events and business meetings. One Freedom of Information request gives an indication of how much hospitality is provided to council officials for instance:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/76531/response/199821

To the worldly wise, this will not come as a surprise. However, advanced societies work by a system of checks and balances between moneyed interests and the public regard. This does not appear to be working too well in Aberdeen.

The SNP and the City Garden Project

The SNP have been intimately involved with the City Garden Project since its inception. Alex Salmond was present at the project launch in 2008.
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/933616

But only recently have both Alex Salmond and Callum McCaig, the SNP leader in the council, explicitly endorsed the City Garden Project.

Yet, the majority of SNP councillors have supported it throughout (the notable exception being Clr. Muriel Jaffray). This is clear from the voting records every time the project has come up for debate in the Council. The SNP support has been instrumental for the progress of the City Garden Project through successive council votes.

Major businessmen such as David Murray, Brian Souter, Jim McColl and Martin Gilbert have now endorsed the SNP.

The SNP have a reputation for populist politics and it may seem surprising that they have embraced such a controversial project for the city. I believe that there is a much bigger picture here, and one that takes precedent over local politics. The SNP are essentially a single-issue party; they want independence for Scotland. The realpolitik of the SNP is that much of what they do is focussed towards this end.

A key aim for the SNP has been to secure the support of major business figures in Scotland. This is partly financial; the party has no natural source of funds apart from membership fees, but they are also trying to secure influence leading up to and beyond any independence date. Major businessmen such as David Murray, Brian Souter, Jim McColl and Martin Gilbert have now endorsed the SNP.

Sir Brian Souter, founder of the bus company Stagecoach, caused controversy when he donated £500,000 to the SNP in 2007. Shortly afterwards, the SNP dropped an election commitment to bus re-regulation, although they denied that there was any connection to Sir Brian Souter’s donation.

Sir Ian Wood has not given open support to the SNP, yet the SNP continue to court the billionaire’s favour. Not only has Alex Salmond given his own backing to the City Garden Project, the machinery of Government has also been used to bankroll the scheme.

Scottish Enterprise funded the public consultation two years ago and also allowed grant money to be used for the technical feasibility study. Although the public rejected Sir Ian Wood’s project in the consultation, it didn’t stop Scottish Enterprise from giving Aberdeen City Garden Trust £375,000 of public money from its available funds for major infrastructure projects.

Another niggly problem has been the concerns of Audit Scotland

The Scottish Government are keen to provide investment money for the project through TIF funding. Yet it has been established that the initial proposal did not rank very highly by comparison to other investment and infrastructure projects elsewhere in Scotland.

The Scottish Futures Trust, who carried out the ranking, has refused to make their calculations public in spite of Freedom of Information requests to do so. Another niggly problem has been the concerns of Audit Scotland, who have questioned the long term capability of the indebted Aberdeen Council to pay back a risky loan for the project.

The proposed use of valuable investment and infrastructure funds for something as trivial as building a new park is shocking. The business case is dubious and the council can’t afford the risk. Political considerations seem to have taken precedence to a strict business evaluation on the Aberdeen TIF case.

Sir Ian Wood discussed independence recently and gave an indication of what he wants from the Scottish Government:

“The Wood Group will not endorse a Yes or No vote on independence. But Sir Ian added: “What’s key is the extent to which our clients, and to some extent ourselves, anticipate that a Scottish Government would continue with a similar oil and gas policy to the UK.

“The suggestion right now, from the discussions I’ve heard, is that there’s a lot of overlap between the present Scottish Government’s thinking on the development of the oil and gas industry and the UK government’s thinking.”

He went on:

“What’s important – and I think the First Minister realises this – is that they must provide as much clarity as possible over the next two years towards the vote in 2014, so that we minimise the uncertainty.”
http://www.scotsman.com/captains-of-industry-and-finance-join-clamour-for-clarity

I have no doubt that this will happen.

The SNP are hoping to secure a majority at the council elections on May 3rd. This is possible, but as a one-issue party they tend to do better in national elections than local elections. They are also heavily identified with the Union Terrace Gardens issue and this appeared to have cost them votes in the Scottish elections last year.
https://aberdeenvoice.com/2011/05/the-election-the-utg-effect/

If they do not get a majority, this raises the intriguing possibility of an administration run by a Labour-SNP coalition. The Lib-Dems are likely to see their vote collapse outside the West End of the city. The Labour group are vehemently opposed to the City Garden Project and it could be that a condition for agreeing to form a coalition is that the scheme is dropped.

The “Union” in Union Terrace Gardens refers to the union of the United Kingdom and Ireland in 1800. Perhaps it is ironic that the park has ostensibly become a pawn in the big game of Scottish independence. It would be immensely sad if this was the case. Aberdeen’s heritage could end up sacrificed for the sake of political wheeling and dealing.

This would not bode well for a future Scotland. As Paul Scofield, playing Thomas More, said in A Man For All Seasons:

“I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”

Tullos Hill Deer Cull – A Resident’s View

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Featured, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Mar 222012

With no sign of regret or compromise, let alone acknowledgement of a huge problem, Aberdeen City is literally ploughing ahead with its unpopular tree planting on the rocky soil of Tullos Hill, which sits on the North Sea. This tree planting as we now know involves a deer cull – which as documents show was deliberately withheld from the consultation. Local resident Alan Robertson gives his point of view.

Anyone who has watched the Tullos Hill deer cull debate unfold over the last eighteen months cannot help but be astonished by how this has been conducted by Officials and Councillors at Aberdeen City Council.

In the latest twist to this sorry tale, the Council have started the deliberate destruction of areas of the deer’s natural habitat by removing large quantities of gorse from the Tullos Hill area.

These are areas where the deer used to shelter and graze. Along with the gorse in these areas, the plants and grasses that the deer eat have also been cleared.

The Tullos Hill meadowland has been ruined by the Council actions and the biodiversity of plant life and creatures who depended on it destroyed.

The Council released the following statement to the Media a few days ago:

“The roe deer population on Tullos Hill is currently much higher than the land can support. There is very little variety of vegetation growing and deer suffer as a result.”

Yes, the deer will ‘suffer as a result’ of the deliberate destruction of their habitat by the Council who have removed the gorse where the deer shelter. The clearance of these areas by the Council has ensured that there ‘is very little variety of vegetation growing’. As far as overpopulation goes, I walk across Tullos Hill regularly, and I have not seen any deer there for many weeks and suspect that most of the deer have migrated to Kincorth Hill or other areas nearby because their habitat on Tullos Hill has been destroyed by the Council.

There was no mention of the Council’s intention to cull the deer when the public consultation was released and now they have resorted to destroying the deer’s habitat to eradicate the deer from the area. In addition, the Council say that the culling of the deer will still go ahead. The result of Council action is that the deer are being attacked on two fronts; first by the destruction of their habitat and then by culling.

the Council should be aware that Tullos Hill isn’t suitable for their tree planting scheme.

It is obvious to anyone who has followed the Council’s plans for Tullos Hill unfold via their Committee Reports, Media releases also and from emails I have received from Officials at the Council, that they are prepared to do and say anything to continue with their ridiculous tree planting scheme on Tullos Hill.

The Council proposal that Tullos Hill will become a commercially viable forest is unrealistic. The soil at Tullos Hill is unsuitable for tree planting let alone being capable of sustaining a large forested area.

In addition, consider this: have you ever seen a forested area on a North East Scotland coastline? There are very good reasons for this and the Council should be aware that Tullos Hill isn’t suitable for their tree planting scheme.

Aberdeen City Council is determined to go ahead with the tree planting scheme despite the obvious inherent disadvantages of the Tullos Hill environment. They have recently erected three perimeter fences to ensure that deer and rabbits are kept out of the main areas where trees will be planted. The combination of gorse removal and these wide ranging fenced off areas leaves the few remaining local deer on Tullos Hill with far less of their natural habitat available.

To proceed to cull the few remaining deer on the hill would be barbaric considering what the animals have already been put through by Aberdeen City Council in the last few months.

I urge local people to speak out against the proposed deer cull and contact their local Councillors regarding this issue.

Swish Into Spring With Fab New Fashion Event

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Environment, Information, News No Responses »

Mar 092012

With thanks to Mark Beresford.

Canny fashionistas will be in their element on 15 March at Aberdeen Forward with a chance to trade unwanted and unworn garments for something fresh and new.
This free event is open to anyone with clothes to swap and fashion professionals will offer advice on nails, jewellery and makeup to help complete your new outfit.

The Swishing event will run from 6-8pm on Thursday 15 March at 2 Poynernook Road. All guests will receive a free glass of bubbly on arrival.

Aberdeen Forward is an environmental charity and social enterprise supporting local waste minimization and sustainability projects.

Its Volunteer Manager, Gillian Marr, said,

“This is a great fun way to refresh your wardrobe and get some top tips on how to accessorise your new look. We’re running the event as part of our Zero Waste Club and it’s a really great example of how we can encourage people to reduce waste whilst having fun and saving money.”

The event is supported by The Body Shop and Saffron Settings who will have a presence at the event. Zero Waste Scotland, which works with businesses, communities, individuals and local authorities to reduce waste and use resources sustainably, is funding the evening. www.zerowastescotland.org.uk

Anyone interested in coming along can call Aberdeen Forward on 01224 560360 or e-mail admin@abzforward.plus.com and should bring along at least one item of clothing no longer wanted but in good condition.

Swishing events are gaining popularity across the country and are best described as clothes-swapping parties for women. More information about swishing and other events around the country can be found at http://www.swishingparties.com/

02.03.12 – A Black Day For Aberdeen

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Featured, History, Information, Opinion No Responses »

Mar 092012

The black calendar of Aberdeen’s civic history has a new entry: 2nd March 2012, the day that its citizens, evident sufferers of apathy and myopia, handed both its natural heritage and its economic future to a cabal of businessmen. Arthur Taylor writes.

The fight to retain and improve Union Terrace Gardens hit the buffers on that day when the public – or rather 27.5% of them – voted to support the plans to destroy this unique piece of the city’s heritage and replace it with a concrete monstrosity – presumably confused by the smoke and mirrors of the PR campaign which branded it “The Granite Web”.

Whether the battle turns into a war, protracting the debate, and driving further wedges between parties already badly divided, remains to be seen, but it is hard to see a rapid healing of the wounds that this process has created.

It is also difficult to stop the passion that fuelled the Retain campaign from dissipating, before all avenues of challenge are exhausted against a process labelled as democratic – but which in reality has been anything but that.

What is clear is that events from 2008 to now should be reviewed and recorded for posterity, so that future generations when looking back can seek to understand a number of things:

why we allowed our heritage to be given away to a clique of egoists and nepotists, who deluded the public and maybe even themselves into believing that they were altruists and philanthropists

why the local authority whose primary function is to act in the citizenry’s best interest handed control to an unelected quango, immune from public scrutiny

and why we allowed the city’s future to be mortgaged on the most questionable of business cases, flagged up as high risk by Audit Scotland in the final days of the campaign – when most votes were already cast.

Not that this was a revelation: Friends of Union Terrace Gardens had identified the risk months before, but their claims were played down in the media.

The last two months have seen a referendum conducted by a returning officer who sought to have the campaigns run to a fair set of rules.

The dominance of the local print media in forming and steering public opinion, and its incestuous relationship with local business, is deeply concerning.

While it appears that the retain groups stayed within their £8000 budgets, the pro groups – aided and abetted by the collaborators in the local media – spent an estimated £1,000,000 to buy the votes of the people of Aberdeen. Their cynical campaign saw radio adverts dressed as public information broadcasts, and a drip-fed daily editorial in the local press, with each day’s evening paper offering more extravagant promises than the last, as part of a fawning hysterical clamour.

That the retain groups, variously composed primarily of grey-haired men, beardies, tree-huggers and an enthusiastic schoolboy, ran the referendum right to the wire, losing by such a slender margin, is testament to their energy, enthusiasm and resourcefulness. That they did this against a campaign co-ordinated by the BIG Partnership, Scotland’s largest PR agency, is little short of a miracle.

The dominance of the local print media in forming and steering public opinion, and its incestuous relationship with local business, is deeply concerning.

The public need a source of true facts rather than propaganda dressed as objective reporting.

That said, there have been two positives to emerge from the press coverage of the campaign: the amusement derived from watching the Evening Express contorting itself like an India-rubber prostitute in a bid to champion the development, while not entirely abandoning its habitual council-baiting; and the emergence of the STV Local site as a place where all parties can present their voice without editorial bias.

It is hard not to see the future of local journalism as lying in hyper-local online spaces, as counterpoint to the shrinking of print to the point of complete insignificance.

the dead-eyed, gape-mouthed novelty-seekers who lurch zombie-like through the malls

Returning to the proposed development itself, it should be remembered that Union Terrace Gardens is the only part of the city where one can see the original topography of the land on which the city is built.

Sadly the local authority in the last century has allowed almost all traces of the city’s history to be erased like some embarrassing legacy instead of retaining and celebrating its character. Compare this with Edinburgh’s old town or York’s centre.

We are now confronted by the effacement of the final part of our history in order to satisfy the dead-eyed, gape-mouthed novelty-seekers who lurch zombie-like through the malls that have brought about the systematic homogenisation of the city centre and obliterated all individuality and character.

If we do not continue to challenge this proposed act of civic vandalism, by:

opposing the planning application,
challenging the use of Common Good land,
exposing the business case as one which will leave the city bankrupt (as it was last in1817) when the TIF scheme plays out as feared,

then we should at least ensure that we record for posterity the names of the businessmen who proposed this vanity project; note the politicians and faceless unelected quango-ists who eased its path to realisation; and ponder the many, many idiotic consumers who swallowed the hype, without challenge or analysis.

If we do nothing else, we should record those names on the black calendar’s page for 2nd March 2012.

TIF – A Message From America

Aberdeen City, Articles, Information, News, Opinion No Responses »

Feb 192012

TIF – doesn’t this American innovation in borrowing just sound fantastic? You get to ‘unlock’ money, re-develop an area, and money comes flooding in. What could be wrong with that? Karin Flavill looks across the pond to the home of the junk bond and bad mortgages, and doesn’t like what she sees.

While arguments rage over the future of Union Terrace Gardens, there’s consensus about one thing. Tax Increment Funding is a somewhat difficult concept to get to grips with. Not because the basic definition is complex.

TIF funds development by borrowing against future business tax gains arising as a consequence of that development. New developments mean new business rates. The local authority keeps a portion of those business rates (from businesses that wouldn’t have moved into the area but for the development) to repay the loan.

The complexity arises in assessing how this mechanism can be applied in a manner that avoids various potential pitfalls. TIF is still very much in the experimental stages in the UK, so we lack a domestic reference point to understand how well the process is likely to work from start to finish.

When business is attracted from one area to another by a TIF funded development, it may be at the expense of another area. This is known as “displacement”. The area benefiting from TIF is pleased to lure business away with its spanking new TIF-funded development. The region losing out wants some protection against financial detriment.

The TIF scheme provides that tax increment coming at the expense of another region can’t be retained by the local authority to make TIF repayments. Like other NDRs, those increments must be sent to Central Government who will pool them with other funds then redistribute the funds equitably among regions.

Rather than being a tool to give cities a competitive edge and win City of Culture status for celebrated developments (the vision currently being promoted in CGP supporters’ referendum campaigns), TIF was first developed in the US as a means of helping regions to improve their most blighted areas. Gradual shifts away from this philosophy, and increasingly creative ways of arguing blight, have led to many states in the US tightening up legislation to prevent TIF from being awarded except where genuine blight is demonstrated.

Chicago is often cited as example of the TIF scheme being misused to benefit the areas that least need it. In August last year, a report was released outlining areas for improvement in the operation of TIF in that city. The report highlighted problems regarding the monitoring of TIF expenditure.

Taxpayers had not been afforded easy access to information that would help them understand the TIF process or to evaluate the performance of the investment. This reduced transparency of the process.

although the initial cost proposed was $224.3 million, ultimately the park cost $482.4 million

The harder it is for the ordinary citizen to understand the TIF process and to evaluate the success of the development it funds, the greater the potential for corruption and abuse of the process by those who do understand it, and who can make it work to their own advantage.

That some will seek and gain an advantage through cronyism is an unfortunate element of life from which no city is immune.

In the 1990s, Chicago Mayor Daley (no relation to Arthur) developed a strong attachment to a project that would come to be known as Millennium Park. A 16-acre landscape situated over an underground parking structure, it was built on top of Railroad tracks in an existing park called Grant Park. The architect involved was Frank Gehry who had won international acclaim for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. The Chicago Tribune enthused that:

“The most celebrated architect in the world may soon have a chance to bring Chicago into the 21st Century”.

The park has certainly won many admirers worldwide and is, in many ways, an excellent model for what the City Garden supporters are hoping that project will become. Properties in the immediate surrounds have become very fashionable and have increased significantly in value.

For others there has been a hefty price tag. For example, although the initial cost proposed was $224.3 million, ultimately the park cost $482.4 million. The park has come at a very high price to Chicago residents in terms of cuts to funding of public services and job cuts that were necessitated by the cost of the park. Salt is rubbed into the wound, on occasion, when the park is closed to the public so that corporate functions may be held there.

During and after the building of the park, Mayor Daley was frequently criticised for alleged cronyism in the awarding of contracts. Other areas of the city continued to deteriorate, while their inhabitants observed the increasing wealth and prosperity of those parts of the city that benefited from TIF funded schemes.
Areas that never suffered from true blight in the first place, but which were a focus of interest for developers, politicians, owners of business premises and others who could make the TIF scheme work for them.

In some ways it’s puzzling that we, supposedly a far more socialist nation than the US, are applying a model of TIF so similar to that model which states in the US have been increasingly trying to move away from by drafting legislation that aims to help TIF function in accordance with its original aims.

There has always been a tendency for conservatives to condemn the poor for their reliance on state sponsored welfare, but in recent years have people started questioning more vigorously the exploitation of taxpayer financed schemes by the some of the biggest players in business (players who have traditionally, but not always accurately, been lauded for their self-sufficiency).

TIF deserves close attention for its potential to increase this problem. Failure to know, or care about, the original philosophy of TIF leaves us less alert to its potential for misuse that could worsen existing inequalities in our society.

The UK version of TIF springs from recommendations in a 2008 report by PWC and Core Group Cities for an alternative method of funding developments in core group cities (the 8 largest regional cities in England). The report is here.

It begins with commentary on the economic successes of the core group cities, and highlights continuing problems relating to unemployment and deprivation in some neighbourhoods. It states an aim to “rejuvenate communities, provide new employment opportunities and stimulate further economic growth.”

Promoters of the CGP dismiss the possibility of serious overspending as scaremongering

The report then discusses the increasing political emphasis on a devolved approach to economic development . A defining aspect of TIF is that it permits local authorities greater autonomy in the matter of funding developments once they have been granted the TIF loan.

For this to happen, they must submit a detailed business plan to the SFT who make recommendations to central government regarding feasibility.

PWC, having been involved in the UK version of TIF from its conception, is ideally positioned to assist local authorities with the preparation and submission of their business plans. Finance and Resources Committee meeting minutes from September 2010 discuss PWC’s remit in preparing a TIF business plan for approval by the SFT. The minutes refer to several important city projects the Council would wish to progress, whether or not the City Garden project went ahead.
See: https://docs.google.com …committees.aberdeencity …pwc+tif+business+plan

“The terms of PWC’s assignment make it clear that they are required to produce a business case that ensures zero financial risk for the Council.”

The Council states that it will make no financial contribution to the City Garden Project. The development must be funded wholly by private contributions and by the TIF loan and completed within the budget.

Promoters of the CGP dismiss the possibility of serious overspending as scaremongering. Chicago’s Millennium Park experience demonstrates, however, how this can and does happen. As a response to such concerns, Sir Ian Wood has pledged an extra £35 million. It’s not clear what will happen if the cost exceeds this.

Despite ACC’s insistence that PWC present a business case involving zero risk to the Council, the draft business case completed in January of this year contains no such promise. It focuses on minimising risk and balancing the risks involved in carrying out the project against the risks involved in doing nothing.

Outlining the need to attract investment and talented professionals to Aberdeen to assure future prosperity, the plan refers particularly to the energy industry. Due to the oil and gas industry being regarded as the primary targets for investment in Aberdeen, and Aberdeen’s existing status as the main centre in Scotland for this industry, PWC anticipate displacement being low (10%). A low anticipated displacement figure is essential for arguing the likely success of a business plan.

PWC appears to anticipate investment by that industry increasing in Aberdeen, alongside the increasing depletion of oil and gas reserves

Work is expected to be completed over a 5 year period beginning this year, with TIF borrowing being carried out in stages (the first draw down taking place in 2014). The proposed development is expected to create approximately 2 million square feet of commercial space and to speed up the development of a further 1.4 million square feet of commercial space.

The CCRS (City Centre Regeneration Scheme) predicts 6,500 new jobs resulting from the development. It should be noted, though, that that figure is a “by 2039” prediction.

The business plan states:

“Oil and gas reserves will run out over time, perhaps 30 years, and Aberdeen is looking ahead. It knows it needs to adapt its industrial base and re-examine how it creates wealth and prosperity. Aberdeen is confident it can do so.”

This project is to be completed in 2017, and its success relies significantly on a very low displacement figure of 10%. In presenting this figure PWC relies on the oil and gas industry, already present in Aberdeen (and therefore not being taken from other areas) being the main sources of increased investment in Aberdeen. Confusingly, PWC appears to anticipate investment by that industry increasing in Aberdeen, alongside the increasing depletion of oil and gas reserves in the North Sea.

Perhaps in anticipation of confusion about this assertion, much is made of the possibilities relating to renewable energy – an industry Aberdeen must embrace and develop expertise in, regardless of Donald Trump’s views. The question is whether developments in other areas area will not only compensate for the steadily diminishing presence of the oil industry, but expand to the point where the business plan can work as anticipated.

Regarding the City Garden proposed as a replacement for UTG, the report comments…

“While there is no direct benefit the fact that the City Gardens Project becomes a reality and underpins the CCRS will benefit Aberdeen’s wider population and business community.”

During a recent BBC Scotland debate, campaigner Mike Shepherd (a geologist with years of experience in, and expert knowledge of, the energy sector) was shouted down and jeered at by pro CGP hecklers. The latter have tended to define opponents of the City Garden Project as tree-huggers and luddites who will be crushed by the wheels of change. UTG has also been described, throughout the debate, as a dangerous area…despite police reports indicating far lower crime levels in UTG than in surrounding street level areas.

The debate has often been an acrimonious one, featuring conflicts of various kinds. Already the TIF pilot scheme in the UK form originally advocated by PWC has brought deep divisions to Aberdeen. It seems set to be promoting a cheerfully unapologetic attitude, amongst some in our community, with regard to social exclusion.

A popularly cited reason for getting rid of UTG is that this will also rid the city centre of people with drug and alcohol related problems. Presumably, relegating them to more blighted areas that would, were TIF being applied in a manner consistent with its original aims, be the areas actually benefiting from this scheme.

Older Entries Newer Entries

TIF Application: Information Wrongfully Withheld

Above the Law? How BiG Partnership and an Anonymous Group of Businessmen Seized the Airwaves with Propaganda

Local Newspaper Coverage: Lacking and Slanted

Democracy: Labouring the Point

SNP Sniping