Stewart Archives - Page 2 of 2

Blood Feud – Part 2

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

Jul 292011

Continuing on from Part One of Blood Feud, Voice’s Alex Mitchell offers up yet another slice of Scotland’s troubled and violent history. Last week Alex looked at The Gordon, Forbes and Stewart Families in the Time of Mary Queen of Scots and King James VI This week we see how the fortunes of Clan Gordon changes in the turbulent times of Mary, Queen of Scots.

The Gordons, for their part, held back until the Earl of Huntly was ‘put to the horn’ or outlawed and rendered fugitive on a trumped-up charge of refusing to answer a summons from the Protestant-dominated Privy Council, of which he was still a member.

Huntly marched towards Aberdeenwith a force of about 1,000 men, almost all of them Gordon kinsfolk and dependents; no other gentry families joined his campaign to ‘rescue’ the Queen.

He mistakenly believed that many of the Queen’s troops would join his side.

He took up a commanding position on the Hill of Fare, near Banchory, but his men melted away. His troops, now reduced to about 500, were assailed by some 2,000 men under the command of the Earls of Moray, Morton and Athole, and were forced down on to the swampy field next to the Corrichie Burn.
The Earl of Huntly, aged 50, corpulent and in poor health, and suffocated by his heavy armour, suffered a heart attack or stroke, and dropped down off his horse, dead.

Huntly’s body was thrown over a pony and taken to Aberdeen, where it was put in the Tolbooth and gutted, salted and pickled. The body was then taken by sea to Edinburgh, where it was given a more comprehensive embalming. After lying unburied in the Abbey of Holyrood for some six months, the mummified corpse of the one-time Cock o’ the North was brought in its coffin before the Scottish Parliament on29 May 1563 on a charge of High Treason.

The coffin was opened and propped up on end so that the deceased Earl could stand trial and ‘hear’ the charges against him.

Those present included the Queen and Huntly’s eldest son George, himself under sentence of death, later repealed. A sentence of forfeiture was passed, stripping the Gordons of all their lands and possessions, which reverted to the Crown and were redistributed amongst favourites, not least the Earl of Moray.

The Gordon armorial bearings were struck from the Herald’s Roll and the once-great dynasty was reduced to “insignificance and beggary”. Huntly’s body lay unburied in Holyrood for another three years until21 April 1566, when it was finally returned to Strathbogie and interred at Elgin Cathedral.

It has to be said that Mary’s behaviour at this time makes little sense.

Two days after the Battle of Corrichie, Huntly’s son, young Sir John Gordon, aged 24, was ineptly beheaded in front of the Tolbooth inAberdeen, to the visible distress of Queen Mary, who was in residence just across the Castlegate and was seen to observe the proceedings from an upstairs window.

It had been rumoured that the Queen and Sir John Gordon were lovers, although this is unlikely given that Mary was constantly under the guard of the Protestant Lords. They had achieved their twin purposes of destroying the Gordons of Huntly, the leading Catholic family inScotland, and of reassuring those Protestant Reformers suspicious of the Queen’s own Catholic leanings.

It has to be said that Mary’s behaviour at this time makes little sense. She was a devout and observing Catholic herself, yet she acquiesced in the legalised persecution of fellow-Catholics and the forfeiture and redistribution of their land and property.

The assumption has to be that she was not in control of events, partly because she was young and inexperienced and was disorientated by her return to Scotland, a country she had departed for France at the age of five; but also because she was fatally uninterested in the processes and responsibilities of government, seldom attending meetings of her own Privy Council at Holyrood. The judicial destruction of the Gordons of Huntly meant that Mary Stuart had lost her most substantial and dependable base of support, and put her thereafter in the grip of her political and religious enemies.

414px-james_i_of_england_by_daniel_mytens

Mary Queen of Scots was made, probably unlawfully, to abdicate her throne on 24 July 1567, in favour of her infant son James, born 19 June 1566, by her second husband (and cousin) Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, from whom she was already irretrievably estranged. Mary’s effective reign had lasted just six years, and was over before she reached the age of 25.

The birth of a male heir to the throne meant that she had served her purpose, was now surplus to requirements and was in any case by this time dangerously out of control, having fallen under the destructive influence of James Hepburn (1535-78), the widely-detested 4th Earl of Bothwell, a Protestant, but intensely hostile to England.

The Queen’s remaining authority was destroyed by the sensational murder of her husband Darnley, not yet 22 years of age, at Kirk o’ Field on10 February 1567. Bothwell was instantly identified as prime suspect and the Queen as obviously complicit, an accessory, having gone to great lengths to seduce Darnley away from the protection of his Lennox Stewart relations in Glasgow and back to Edinburgh.

But how much did Mary really know? She would not have stayed overnight in the house at Kirk o’ Field, just inside the Edinburgh city walls, only two miles from Holyrood, if she had known that its foundations were being stuffed with gunpowder. To the end of her life, Mary Stuart was convinced that the plot had been to blow up her and Darnley together. This is unlikely, given that the explosion, which literally blew the house sky-high, took place after Mary had left Kirk o’ Field for Holyrood, which most people took to mean that Mary must have been party to the plot to murder Darnley.

But was she? And which plot? Or whose plot?

No-one as unpopular as Darnley was going to survive very long in 16th centuryScotland; but why murder him in such a sensational, attention-grabbing manner, when he could have been quietly dispatched back at Holyrood? Whatever the case, the ensuing scandal was hugely compounded by Mary’s subsequent marriage to Bothwell (in a Protestant church) on 15 May 1567.

Prior to all this, on 8 October 1565, Mary had restored George Gordon, the eldest surviving son of the 4th Earl of Huntly, to most of his father’s titles, including that of Lord High Chancellor, and some part of his former lands and property. This was little more than two years after the deceased 4th Earl had been found guilty of High Treason, his son George imprisoned and put under sentence of death, and his entire family reduced to “insignificance and beggary”.

Mary was presumably trying to rebuild her support in the North-East, but it was too little, too late. On top of everything else, the 5th Earl’s sister, Lady Jean Gordon, had made the mistake of marrying the Earl of Bothwell at Holyrood on24 February 1566. She was cruelly thrown aside and divorced within the year in order that Bothwell could marry his Queen.

Coming in Part 3: Alex Mitchell analyzes the changes sweeping through all aspects of Scottish life – dynasties rise and fall, clans battle for power and dominance, and religious conflicts dominate.

Blood Feud – Part 1

Aberdeenshire, Articles, Community, Featured, History, Information No Responses »

Jul 222011

Voice’s Alex Mitchell offers up yet another slice of Scotland’s troubled and violent history in the first part of Blood Feud: The Gordon, Forbes and Stewart Families in the Time of Mary Queen of Scots and King James VI

Following the death of her first husband, King Francis II of France in December 1560, the young Mary Queen of Scots, born 8 December 1542, resolved to return to Scotland.

Whilst still in France, she was visited by a deputation of Scottish Catholics, headed by her cousin, George Gordon, the 4th Earl of Huntly (1514-62). They entreated her to land at Aberdeen, where she was promised an army of 20,000 men under the leadership of Huntly himself, ready to protect her and convey her in triumph to Edinburgh. This would almost certainly have led to civil war between Catholic and Protestant factions in Scotland.

Instead, Mary chose to take the advice of her post-Reformation Parliament. She landed at Leith on 19 August 1561, and thereafter depended on the support and advice of her half-brother Lord James Stewart (1531-70), the illegitimate son of King James V and Margaret Erskine.

His two fixed principles were his support of, firstly, the Protestant Reformation of 1560, which sought to displace and abolish the Catholic religion, and secondly, closer relations with England rather than with England’s enemies France and Spain.

To these ends, Lord James insisted that Mary, herself a devout Catholic, should respect the Reformation and defer to ‘moderate’ Protestant opinion rather than that of Catholic Earls, such as Huntly and Erroll. In return, Lord James would use his contacts in England to secure from Queen Elizabeth recognition of Mary’s claim to be her legitimate successor. Mary was a grand-daughter of Margaret Tudor, elder sister to King Henry VIII, whose six wives between them produced only three surviving children, Mary, Elizabeth and Edward, none of whom had any children of their own.

Lord James Stewart favoured a middle way in religious matters, acceptable to mainstream opinion in England.

He tried to fend off the more radical Presbyterian reformers like John Knox, who intimidated the Episcopal Church of England. Similarly, he set out to crush unrepentant Catholics like the powerful George Gordon, 4th Earl Huntly, The Cock o’ the North, whose opposition was substantially based on his justified resentment of Lord James himself.

Mary’s elevation of Lord James to the vacant earldom of Mar in 1562, which he then resigned in favour of the earldom of Moray in 1563, both of which had been effectively under the control of the Gordons of Huntly, obviously threatened that family’s long-standing domination of North East Scotland. Moray then, of course, was a much larger territory than it is now. Lord James, for his part, was fearful of the stated intention of Sir John Gordon, Huntly’s violent and unstable third son, to marry the 19 year-old Queen Mary. That he was already married seemed not to concern him.

Aberdeen regularly paid the more powerful and aggressive of the local gentry families large sums of money

The Gordons had ruled the North East like provincial kings for about 250 years, having been granted the lands of Strathbogie by Robert the Bruce in 1307. They were an enormous kindred, with cadet branches throughout the North East, and prolific; George, the 4th Earl, had nine sons and three daughters.

The original expression the Gey Gordons (note spelling) is a reference to this sense of the House of Gordon as being literally overwhelming, unforgiving and dangerous. They were also rich, and lived like princes; the 4th Earl rebuilt Huntly Castle as a splendid Renaissance palace. He had been created Lord High Chancellor in 1546, being a trusted supporter of Mary’s redoubtable French mother, Mary of Guise, who ruled Scotland as Queen-Regent from sometime after the death of her husband King James V in 1542, until her own death in 1560.

At a time when Aberdeen regularly paid the more powerful and aggressive of the local gentry families large sums of money in the hope that they might then leave the Burgh alone, the Gordons were undoubtedly the family to have on your side – rich, numerous, widespread, possessed of great political influence and close to the Throne. Hence the close relationship between the (burgess) Menzies family of Aberdeen and the (gentry) Gordons of Huntly, to the occasional extent of inter-marriage. In fact, in 1545, Thomas Menzies resigned as Provost to allow George Gordon, 4th Earl Huntly, to succeed him, albeit for a period of only two years. George Gordon was the only Peer of the Realm ever to be Provost of Aberdeen.

There was intense hostility between the Gordon and Forbes families and their respective allies, the feud extending over some 200 years.

The Forbeses, as one of the few authentically Celtic of the twelve main land-owning families in Aberdeenshire, resented Norman-French incomers such as the Gordons, Hays, Burnets, Bissets, Frasers and Keiths.

They were now Protestant, and allied to the Ogilvies, with whom the Gordons were in a separate dispute. These were violent times.

In 1527, Alexander Seton of Meldrum, an ally of the Gordons, was murdered by the Master of Forbes in Provost Menzies’ house in the Castlegate. A Commission was appointed, but it reached no conclusion.

As described, Huntly and his allies had expected the young Queen’s support for their proposed Catholic uprising against the Reformation, to commence in Aberdeen. He and Mary were cousins, both being grandchildren of King James IV. But the Queen withheld her support.

In August 1562, Mary toured the North East in the safe keeping of the Protestant Lords of Moray, Morton and Maitland. They went out of their way to insult and provoke the Gordons, snubbing their invitation to visit Huntly Castle. The Royal party feared, with some reason, that the Gordons planned to capture the Queen, murder her Protestant minders and forcibly marry Mary to young Sir John Gordon.

On 27 August, the Queen’s party, returning from Inverness, reached the Kirktoun of Aberdon, lodging at the Bishop’s Palace in the Chanonry – the Bishop of Aberdeen remained in post for a good twenty years after the Reformation. In Aberdeen itself, the Queen was warmly received by Provost Thomas Menzies but, perhaps significantly, was accommodated in Earl Marischal’s Hall on the south side of the Castlegate, and not in the adjacent Pitfodel’s Lodging. Around this time, Lord James Stewart married Agnes Keith, daughter of the Protestant 1st Earl Marischal.

Alex’s insight to those turbulent times and bitter familial relationships will continue in future editions of Aberdeen Voice.

Old Susannah No. 44 – Portraits, Papers And Parties

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Creative Writing, Environment, Information, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Jul 152011

Old Susannah looks back at the week that was and wonders who’s up to what and why. By Suzanne Kelly.

Tally Ho! First some good news this week: In a speech to graduating students, our very own Sir Ian Wood has said ‘his generation’ is responsible for many problems that the next generation will inherit. I suppose everyone who is in the great collective of people of his age have had equal power to improve the world as this particular billionaire oil magnate has.
Never before have so few done so much to get rid of a Victorian Garden. Fifty Million pounds – of his own money –pledged to building a parking lot with a bit of grass over it, conveniently adjacent to his friend Stew’s plot of land.

Could there be any better use for that kind of money?

I wonder how much of the remainder of his fortune will be used for the current African drought/famine crisis, to counteract poverty in the UK, to improve care for the elderly, to buy jewellery for attractive statuesque blondes. I hope everyone in Ian’s generation is sitting up and taking notice. It’s your fault – one of the richest men in your age bracket says so.

However, it is with a heavy heart and tears in my eyes that I must report that the News of the World has closed and the Murdoch takeover of BskyB is off. I have been crying over my pints of Brewdog for the last few days, so much so that people have mistakenly think I am laughing so hard I’m crying.

This must be quite a blow for Rup; at least he has his loving young wife Wendy and friend Tony Blair to comfort him (Tony and Rupert spoke quite a bit just before the UK joined in the Iraq takeover – sorry Iraq War). That nice Rebekah Brooks was photographed while being drive away from NotW HQ in a rain-spattered car; it reminded me of the photo of Maggie Thatcher tearfully leaving No. 10 – which also made me very sad indeed. Cheers!

They said he was ‘no oil painting’, but this has now been disproved.

Bad news close to home as well – one of our Labour Councillors is having a hard time over a dodgy old boiler (no, not you Kate). Councillor Hunter allegedly doesn’t have the correct credentials to fix gas boilers, which is rather unfortunate for someone who works fixing gas boilers.

The P&J had a splendid photo of Richard Baker, Labour MSP for the story it printed about Hunter. The picture of Baker’s caption had a scoop-of-the-year quote: “I know the man” Baker said. I take back everything I’d ever said about the Press & Journal now that they’ve uncovered local Labour politicians are known to each other. We should tell the authorities.

But at this rate I’ll not get on with any definitions, so here we go:

Public Spending:

(modern English phrase) Governmental use of funds to procure benefits, goods or services which may be of temporary or lasting significance, generally for the benefit of the public at large. See also Common Good fund, applicable in parts of Scotland.

There is more trouble in Paradise this week, I am sorry to say. Sadly, some people are being rather negative about our very own Lord Provost having his portrait commissioned. They said he was ‘no oil painting’, but this has now been disproved. This fantastic event will be justly commemorated with a joyous celebration, courtesy of The Common Good Fund.

What could be more reasonable? The portrait cost £9,000 (I guess we could not find any RGU graduates in need of a commission), and hopefully the Chain of Office in the painting will have been gold-leafed on by Italian craftsmen flown over for the purpose. I so look forward to attending this party!

I shall buy a new hat. I’m thinking of getting my own portrait done, and may well pop out to one of those photo canvas printing places in Union Square Mall or similar for the £39.95 photo on canvas.

After all, it’s Common Good money paying for the whole event – so I am taking this opportunity to tell everyone who pays taxes in Aberdeen to show up at the party. If the Council has any objection to us all enjoying the party we’re paying for, I invite them to get in touch with me.

From my point of view the portrait and party represent all the best of public spending: not only do we get a great party for our important citizens, but all of us will have a lasting reminder of the Lord Provost and all he has done for us. In a previous column I complained that our City Councillors no longer had the taxpayer paying for their beautiful photo Christmas cards – this expenditure more than makes up for my disappointment. I may suggest we do a statue as well; they are all the rage at present.

You would have thought with everything the LP (as his friend calls him) has done for Stewy and Ian, they would have clubbed together to pay for the bling portrait

Early rumours that a protest march will coincide with this monumental event are very disappointing.

I would hate to see marchers carrying pictures of our Lord Provost down Union Street on the day and/or holding a parallel party at some suitable venue. If I’ve been spotted buying paint, brushes and sign-making material, it is purely coincidental.

The cost of outfitting our Lord Provost and his wife for a year … £10,000

The cost of a portrait of our Lord Provost … £9,000

The cost of a party to celebrate the portrait … £4,000

The cost of a blonde woman to guard said Provost and his bling necklace … unknown

The cost of the Lord Provost casting the crucial tie-breaking vote that opened the floodgates on developing Union Terrace Gardens: PRICELESS

You would have thought with everything the LP (as his friend calls him) has done for Stewy and Ian, they would have clubbed together to pay for the bling portrait. After all, one good turn deserves another, and what are friends for?

Whistleblower:

(modern English noun) a person who is aware of public or private sector corruption, malpractice or unlawful act(s) who comes forward to expose it.

Private Eye’s current issue has an excellent work concerning NHS whistleblowers and how badly they have been treated – and how vital their whistleblowing has been. If you get the chance, please do pick it up.

Here in Aberdeen obviously there is nothing going on in government which needs any exposure. All invoices are always above board, every councillor declares their interest in advance of any relevant vote, land deals are always done to get best market value, and everything’s just rosy.

As I touched on last week, the City has written to its employees to warn them not to use ‘social networking websites’ to make any comment about their managers or the Council. Many of you have sent me copies of your letters – after all the letters are not marked ‘confidential’ – so why not? You have been wondering what is or is not appropriate to post on websites or ‘disclosing in any medium’. Here’s the Council’s sage advice from those letters (asterisks are mine):-

“to clarify what is regarded as unacceptable*, so there is no doubt about what is being referred to, would include:

“Publishing defamatory or generally unacceptable* comments, views or information about the Council, its employees, clients or customers (including school pupils) in any medium including social networking sites;

“Publishing any photographs of clients or customers in any medium including social networking sites without first obtaining formal permission;

“Breaching confidentiality by disclosing information relating to the Council in any medium, including social networking sites, to persons not authorised to possess it”.

*Old Susannah is no lawyer, but if you’re going to set out to define what’s ‘unacceptable’ and you use the word ‘unacceptable’ in your first point, you’re not doing a great job. In fact, I’d say it’s ‘unacceptable.’

Again, I’m no lawyer, but it might have been a good idea to mention in these great letters that there is legislation protecting whistleblowers. It doesn’t often protect these people as well as it should, as the Private Eye Whistleblower article points out.

However, if you know of something going on that is wrong, then you should forget all about it because you fear the City’s ‘discipline’ procedure which is mentioned later in the letters. I did not read all of the City’s whistleblower policy – but here is a taster of that policy:-

“…The policy allows individuals to voice their concerns in relation to information they believe shows serious malpractice or wrongdoing within Aberdeen City Council. It allows for this information to be disclosed internally* without fear of reprisal and independently of their line management if appropriate. The Public Interest Disclosure Act (1999) gives legal protection to individuals against being dismissed or penalised by their employers as a result of publicly* disclosing certain serious concerns.”

*Once again Old Susannah is not a lawyer, but on the one hand the City says you can disclose information internally – the act says you can publicly disclose serious concerns. Back to that Council letter :-

“…if you make comment on your employment/employer via social networking sites or by other electronic means and this is brought to the attention of management you will be held to account for those comments. Such behaviour will be viewed as contrary to the Council’s Employee Code of Conduct, which is being updated to reflect this issue and will be dealt with under the Managing Discipline procedure.”

I hope everyone who got a letter is suitably frightened.

So to clarify: in the larger world of the UK, it is acknowledged that there are times when public disclosure is allowable. Here in Aberdeen you have the right to complain internally, and if you go public with something, you will be…disciplined. I’m very glad to have cleared that up. It is just as well nothing ever goes wrong or is untoward in our city.

But if you are one of the lucky letter-holders, you might want to brush up on the Public Disclosure Act – just in case you ever find something in our City is not quite as it should be. (Call me; we’ll talk). Obviously no one would ever make an anonymous Facebook page or blog (whatever that is) and air their grievances anonymously.

Finally, just as proof there are plenty of good news stories out there, not only does the Aberdeen Voice bring them to you, but one of the Voice’s contributors has a rather nice blog.

I guess this blog thing is a ‘social network’ thingy that has the City so very worried. This ‘rxpell’ chap and I often seem to be along similar lines – he’s written things in the past just before I planned to, and has made a nice job of it. (Unfortunately he does tend to veer towards sarcasm and cynicism sometimes – which of course I cannot really approve of). The clues to the blog’s content are in the link below:
http://rxpell.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/blundergate-boilergate-briefgate-buffetgate/

Now off to buy that new outfit and hat for the portrait demonstration – sorry, I mean portrait unveiling.

Next week: probably: still no progress on FOI requests on land deals or deer. Hopefully: Aberdeen Voice art competition announcement. Definitely: more definitions

Old Susannah’s Journal – Reels, Roles, Rules And Reds

Aberdeen City, Articles, Community, Creative Writing, Information, Opinion, Satire and Humour No Responses »

Jul 012011

Voice’s Old Susannah casts her eye over recent events, stories, and terms and phrases familiar as well as freshly ‘spun’, which will be forever etched in the consciousness of the people of Aberdeen and the Northeast.

Old Susannah is still reeling from the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens Ceilidh held last Friday night at the Hilton Treetops. The ‘vocal minority’ as the Council likes to call the Friends was certainly vocal on the night, and the excellent Ceilidh band was ‘vibrant and dynamic’ – so much so that we upset the party in the next room, which happened to be Aberdeen Football Club!

A red-faced man from AFC was ever so slightly angry and spent his entire night yelling at the hotel staff that; ‘he had spent a lot of money’, and ‘’didn’t expect to hear a band’ during his event.

Actually, I could barely hear the band over this refined gentleman for most of the night. He was obviously very important, because he kept saying who he was.

Eventually many of us took our drinks out of our room and sat on sofas watching his endless tirade. If AFC players had his stamina, then there would be more silverware in their trophy cabinet. I can only hope we have not inconvenienced Mr Milne himself.

Anyway, the Friends raised lots of money; Anne Begg made a moving speech and everyone (except the AFC man) had a fantastic night.

On Sunday I took advantage of the opportunity to watch ‘you’ve been trumped’ again.

Anthony Baxter did another Q&A session and was joined by Menie resident, Susan Munroe. The giant mound of earth and sand those nice Trump people left next to her house, (no doubt for a very important reason) is having a wonderful effect on her garden and her car. The garden is dying (so less work for her to tend it) and the car is clogged with sand (so that means less C02 emissions – another result).

The Q&A session wound up in the Belmont’s bar and continued for quite some time. Anthony is looking forward to his New York film premier, as you might well expect.

I suspect in reality he’s just hoping Trump will show up and bring his lovely young wife Melania with him – I’m sure Anthony is hoping for an introduction. Then again, I may be wrong about that. Anthony definitely sends his thanks to the Belmont and the people in Aberdeen who have turned out for the film.

But the real story of this past week was the rise of 26 year-old Callum McCaig, now installed as the new leader of Aberdeen City Council. It is pointless to make jokes about his youth; he is bringing his year of experience to the job. Rumours that he wants to turn Union Terrace Gardens into a skateboard park are (so far) unfounded.

I am actually going to give him the benefit of the doubt for the present. To be honest, when I was 26 my interests lay in other directions, but the less said about that the better. He says he wants to listen to what the people are saying. Is it possible he is embracing….

Community Engagement:

(modern English phrase) involvement of a group of people in decision-making processes.

If you read the many wonderful booklets and reports the City and its army of quangos and consultants have written over the past 10 years (well, a girl has to have a hobby), you will realise what lengths the City has gone to in its quest to ensure we are all given a voice in planning. The City might not actually listen to that voice (viz Union Terrace Gardens, the Tullos Hill Deer Cull, school closures, etc etc). – but it’s awfully nice of them to give us a voice all the same. To quote from some of their literature, here is what the city kindly does with us:-

Effective Community Engagement means:

Ensuring that people are made aware of proposals that affect them as early as possible.
Appropriate systems are in place to allow their opinions to be made, shared, and considered.
To allow better explanations to be made by the Council as to how and why specific decisions on design issues have been arrived at.
Help to implement the principles of Inclusive Design.
Help develop greater interest and transparency in the planning system.
Involving people across the whole public spectrum.

The ‘Inclusive Design’ implementation has long been a personal favourite. I don’t understand what this phrase means in the slightest but it certainly sounds both important and beneficial. Please feel free to send me some examples of Inclusive Design the City has put in place.

I could be forgiven for thinking that in its haste to improve our lives; the City might have forgotten these principles on a few occasions. Let’s look at these points again as applied to the Tullos Hill and other current situations (my comments are in bluish):-

Ensuring that people are made aware of proposals that affect them as early as possible.

I don’t remember the part when the City told us a deer cull was coming for their tree programme, but I do remember they and SNH wanted to keep the cull quiet.

Appropriate systems are in place to allow their opinions to be made, shared, and considered.

The public were allowed to comment on the tree planting until the end of January. This was the ‘phase 2 consultation’. However, once we found out that the cull was part of this phase 2 plan and that it had been kept secret, we were told we could not share our opinions. That nice Ms Aileen Malone and other Lib Dems refused to let me and the Nigg Community Council representative address the May Housing Committee with this new information: because she had only asked for a verbal report on the cull, not a written one.
Democracy in action! Or is that Democracy inaction? You could be forgiven for thinking it was a sneaky, underhanded, undemocratic ploy on (HoMalone’s) part– but if the City says it has systems in place for public opinion sharing then who are we to question it?

To allow better explanations to be made by the Council as to how and why specific decisions on design issues have been arrived at.

The deer campaigners keep asking why the cull was kept secret, why we can’t have non-lethal measures, why the trees have to be there at all. The Council either ignore these questions, or keep repeating that a cull ‘…is standard practice for maintaining woodlands throughout Scotland.’ It doesn’t seem to matter much that there is no woodland on the hill at present, just the deer.

Help to implement the principles of Inclusive Design.

Again, Inclusive Design is fantastic. This is being shown to great effect in the ongoing Union Terrace Gardens saga. The inclusivity seems a bit limited to a few millionaires, ACSEF and Scottish Enterprise, but hey ho.

Help develop greater interest and transparency in the planning system.

I have to say I find the planning system very very transparent: I can see straight through it when it comes to Union Terrace Gardens, Loirston Loch, and Tullos Hill.

Involving people across the whole public spectrum.

Fantastic! Four Community Councils at least have condemned the cull and its handling. Two thousand five hundred local people signed petitions against it. And what does the City’s Chief Executive say?
It says that this only represents a small number of people.
It seems inclusion doesn’t mean including groups of only a few thousand members. I’ll get the hang of who does and doesn’t get included yet.

Now that we have seen how Community Engagement works, I hope we can all appreciate just how important our opinions as taxpayers and residents are to our City.

Maybe this is one engagement that should be broken off.

Open Plan:

(adjective) description of a style of interior layout, particularly in an office situation, characterised by the lack of walls.

The idea was to create an open area where information would free-flow. The reality however is that people in such areas have no privacy and are under pressure to conform. Most companies are getting rid of such uncomfortable, noisy interior layouts. But not our City.

Inside the new Marischal College, aesthetic sensibility rules OK.

Staff who were lucky enough to be moved to this open plan nirvana had been told they could bring a maximum of two packing crates of their files / work with them – and one of those crates was for their computer (unless a new machine had been laid on). Thankfully architectural and interior design principles will continue to guide how things operate – staff cannot have any personal mementos or – heaven forbid – plants on their desks!

What would it look like if people could have their desk look the way they wanted? Chaos would ensue and things would not look as uniform as a factory. There is a horrible fear that someone will spill something on the new carpets.

I am sure our 65 million pound wonder building won’t have any acoustic problems; no doubt there are acoustic tiles and such in place. Since shouting, swearing and screaming are rarely heard in the City’s hallowed halls, I’m sure everyone will get on in the new office just fine.

Other staff members are being moved around from building to building; it certainly keeps things lively.

Next week: Definitions, Deer info, and I attempt to contact Neil Fletcher again with a civil question.

What’s Happening With The City Square Project?

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

May 262011

What’s happening with the City Square Project? Mike Shepherd continues to keep Aberdeen Voice readers up to date.

TIMING: The design competition for the City Square was launched on the 19th April. Companies are being asked to express an interest by the 13th of June. A shortlist of 5 to 7 companies will be identified and these companies will be asked to tender designs for the city square by the 16th September. Once these come back, the plans will go on public display. The winning design will then be picked by the city square board with the advice of a jury.

The winning team will be announced in mid December following approval of the design by the Council at their meeting on the 6th December. Planning permission will be sought in 2012. There is also a possibility it could be passed to the Scottish Government for approval.

Meanwhile the Aberdeen Local Plan has been handed over by the Council to independent reporters for review. Union Terrace Gardens is an unresolved issue in the plan and it is possible that the reporters could call for a hearing or more likely work with the written submissions to resolve this. They will have their work cut out as there were over 370 submissions against the inclusion of the Gardens as an opportunity site (and only two in support). The plan will probably not be finalised until early next year.

WHO IS DOING WHAT: This is complicated and rather murky.

The Council set up a project management board to look after the City Square Project. The board in turn have assigned some of their responsibilities to an independent trust (limited company) formed by local businessmen in January this year. The Aberdeen City Gardens Trust has been funded both by Sir Ian Wood and the Scottish Government (Scottish Enterprise). The Council have been asked to nominate a council representative for the trust.

The trust then formed a subsidiary called ACGT Enterprises.

I understand that the trust is seeking charitable status and would not be able to charge, or reclaim VAT as a result.

ACGT Enterprises Ltd has been set up to be the commercial arm of the project, which would be responsible for taking rent, and providing services for the proposed development, but will be non-profit and would pass all the monies back to the charitable trust.

ACGT Enterprises have subcontracted to a company called Malcolm Reading Associates to manage the design competition.

Although councillors John Stewart and Kevin Stewart are on the Project Management Board, the council largely seem to have lost control of the project. The original intent was to have a council controlled trust (Special Purposes Vehicle) to manage the city square, but this doesn’t look as if it is going to happen, even though it was what the councillors voted for.

THE DESIGN BRIEF: The five to seven companies that are selected to come up with designs for the city square will need to be given a design brief.

This will have to be reasonably detailed as to what is required for the city square. For instance, if a new bus station is to be built under the square, there will have to be some means of getting the buses in and out. The design brief will have to be submitted to the full council for approval and it will most likely come up at the meeting on the 29th June.

I’m getting the distinct impression that the design brief is one major headache for the project management board. The problem isn’t so much the square but what goes underneath it. The accommodation space under the city square is about 5/6ths the size of Union Square according to the technical feasibility study. How do you fill such an enormous space? We are told it is not going to be a shopping centre or the site of a big multi-storey car park. Various suggestions to date have included an arts centre, a heritage museum, a transport hub, a cafe quarter, a conference centre and even an alternative energy research centre.

LAND OWNERSHIP: The question of who owns Union Terrace Gardens has arisen.

The Council have farmed out the question of land ownership to the solicitors Brodies who are currently investigating the issue. However, I’ve been told by the Council that the park is thought to lie entirely on Common Good land. As a result, it is likely that a court order would be required for any change in status for the property.

I’m told by the council that they are considering retaining the ownership of the land but with the intent of providing a long-term lease.

If the city square project goes ahead, the civic square and the large building underneath it will belong to the private company / trust that has leased out the underlying land.

There had been a plan to get the council to approve leasing out the land this April, but it looks as if the council had second thoughts on that one.

FUNDING: The funding is the major problem with the city square and the one most likely to scupper it.

The oft quoted costing for the city square is £140M although in reality an accurate estimate will not be available until the designs have been scoped out. One architect told me that £140M is an unrealistic figure. Union Square cost £250M to build and was located on a flat, reasonably accessible site. If you consider the city square as an upside down Union Square on a difficult site with limited access, then you are perhaps on the way to a more realistic idea of the cost.

So far, only £55M of private money is on the table including the £50M allocated from Sir Ian Wood. The plan is for the council to borrow an additional £70M through Tax Incremental Financing (TIF). John Stewart complicated the issue by adding three extra projects (St Nicholas House demolition, the art gallery extension and signposted walkways in the city centre). As a result, the feasibility of TIF funding is not likely to be decided until the end of the year.

The TIF funding mechanism for the city square is somewhat risky as it depends on the idea that the city square will cause a rise in business rates in the wider city centre to pay off the loan. If this doesn’t happen the council will be left with large unpaid borrowings.

The Scottish Government may not have available funds to provide money to the Council for the city square. Just after the Scottish parliamentary election Alex Salmond was quoted in the Evening Express as wanting to show his gratitude to NE voters for their support. He would do this by supporting funding of the bypass and upgrading the Tipperty to Ellon road. The city square was not mentioned.

WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN: I often hear comments that the city square will never happen, lack of funding being the main reason for this.

I’m not so sure. The project has developed a momentum and has the support of the majority of councillors, business interests and is getting favourable press by Aberdeen Journals.

no images were found

Funding is of course an issue. However, in spite of statements to the contrary, I don’t detect universal enthusiasm for the city square amongst the councillors who support the scheme.

They are well aware of the strength of public opinion against the city square.

One factor is the recent resurgence of the SNP, gaining all 7 NE constituency seats in the Scottish parliamentary elections.

The SNP have become the dominant party in the Aberdeen Council with Callum McCaig likely to become council leader before long. Although the council administration is a coalition between the Lib Dems and the SNP, it will be Callum that will be the public face of the council. Will he want to have the smoking gun of leading an administration that voted for the city square when the council elections are due next May?

Perhaps even worse for the SNP is that the city square could be in the construction phase, come the next Scottish parliamentary elections. By then, the trees will have come down. The SNP would have to defend their three city seats in the face of a very angry public.

As reported two weeks ago, Alex Salmond has suggested a referendum for the city square with keeping the existing park as a voting option. This may be the way forward to defuse the controversy and perhaps even restore public faith in local democracy.

Join the Friends of Union terrace Gardens who are campaigning to keep and improve the city centre park. www.friendsofutg.org

The Bruce’s And The Comyns – Part 3

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

May 262011

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

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

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

He had been an irreconcilable enemy of the Bruce.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Election – The UTG Effect

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

May 122011

By Dave Watt.

Having looked at the election results from all over Scotland, May the 5th was an SNP landslide only moderated by list system which prevented them from getting even more seats.
New Labour were beaten out of sight, the treacherous Nick Clegg’s Lib-Dems were flung into a deserved oblivion and their Tory bedmates got their usual seeing to from the Scottish electorate and only the list system got them into double figures.

Huge constituency swings ranging from a national average of 12.5 % to peaks of around 20% paved the way for a long awaited referendum on Scottish independence and brought a ubiquitous bright new glow to the Scottish political scene.

Well, almost everywhere. In one particular constituency the swing was much, much smaller. Which constituency? Why, Aberdeen Central.

Aberdeen Central was a key marginal in the election – particularly as the constituency borders had been changed leaving Lewis McDonald (Labour) with a notional 300 or so majority over the SNP’s Kevin Stewart – his main challenger in the constituency. The final vote was pretty close with Kevin Stewart running out the winner with 10,058 votes to Lewis MacDonald’s 9441. This majority of 617 represented a miniscule swing of 0.5% from Labour to the SNP. Easily the smallest SNP constituency swing of the night over the whole of Scotland and one in which the Labour vote actually went UP by 8.6% which didn’t happen in many constituencies.

So why did Aberdeen Central buck such a huge national trend?

The short answer to this is the ongoing UTG controversy and Kevin Stewart’s role in the controversy which is seen by many people as little more than a cheerleader for Sir Ian Wood’s vanity project.

Last week I spoke to several people I knew who were undergoing a crisis of conscience whereby they although were very much in favour of an independent Scotland but were struggling to bring themselves to vote for what one of them obligingly referred to as ‘Woody’s f**king sock puppet’.

Obviously, bearing in mind the result, some of them did vote for the ‘f**king sock puppet’ whereas others didn’t vote or voted for Lewis MacDonald. Either way, the vote for Aberdeen Central was extremely close and, if it had been repeated nationally I think the SNP would have definitely struggled for an outright majority in the Parliament. Realistically, it was only the huge SNP national vote which got the rather unpopular* Mr Stewart down to Edinburgh.

So what does this say about the UTG controversy?

Basically, any councillor still hawking the Garden Square Project round Aberdeen over the next twelve months can expect to get his/her well-worn backside seriously kicked when the Council Elections roll round next May when the national question won’t come into play and it will all just be down to local politics.

* Mr Stewart showed his strange notion of winning hearts and minds a couple of Saturdays before the election when he was outside Marks and Spencer jabbing his finger forcefully and snarling into the face of an elderly lady who had declared her support for UTG. A long term friend of mine (of Italian origin) who intimated, on seeing this, that he had rather more than half a mind to ‘deck the b*stard’ was fortunately persuaded to desist.

Where The Various Parties Stand On UTG

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

Apr 292011

7 months on from gathering comments from the Scottish Party Leaders on the development of Union Terrace Gardens, Mike Shepherd enlightens readers as regards where the parties stand 7 days ahead of the Scottish Election.

no images were found

CONSERVATIVES: Mixed views. The Conservatives in the council split last year, and the city centre park was one of the contentious issues leading to the split.

One of the splinter groups supported the development; the other has major concerns about the financial exposure to the Council of borrowing money to build the city square.

The Conservative candidate in Central Aberdeen, Sandy Wallace, supports the development of the park:

“21st century public space over 19st century public space is a no brainer. The question is can we afford it? We should make sure we can afford it. Building for our grandchildren’s future takes preference over employing yet more council officials.”

GREEN PARTY: Against the development of Union Terrace Gardens. In an Aberdeen Voice article, leader of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie said:

“The Greens both locally and nationally fully support the campaign to retain the historic Union Terrace Gardens in their current form. The people of Aberdeen were consulted and rejected the proposal: it is shameful for the City Council and business to try to overturn that outcome.”

See: https://aberdeenvoice.com/2010/09/scottish-party-leaders-comment-on-utg/

LABOUR: Against the development of the city centre park. Lewis Macdonald, the sitting MSP in the marginal Aberdeen Central constituency, has highlighted the issue in one of his election leaflets. In this, he pledges to oppose plans to fill in the Gardens:

“The people of Aberdeen should have the final say in what is done with Union Terrace Gardens.”

no images were found

LIBERAL-DEMOCRATS: Mixed views. In the Council group, Council leader John Stewart is the prime mover for the City Garden project when votes come up. He is also on the board for the City Garden project and is helping to progress the plans. On the other hand, Councillor Martin Greig and several Lib-Dem colleagues are consistent opponents of the scheme in council debates.

SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY: The main supporters of the City Garden Project, although largely silent on the issue in their current campaign. Kevin Stewart, a strong contender for the marginal Aberdeen Central seat, is also on the board for the City Garden Project. He has led most of his Councillors in support for the city square in council voting and this is one of the main reasons why it has progressed through the Council to date.

Alex Salmond was quoted in Aberdeen Voice last year:

“Aberdeen City councillors voted in favour of the proposals to build a new City Square and I understand a design competition is underway, which will seek the views of local citizens, as to what the development will look like.

It strikes me that in these tough economic times there is all the more reason to think big for the future of the North-East of Scotland. We should be excited by the scale of this vision and the commitment to ensure great things can be made to happen.”

See: https://aberdeenvoice.com/2010/09/scottish-party-leaders-comment-on-utg/

Newer Entries