[Closed] Abergeldie Castle - could it be saved from the Dee?

Page three of the watch thread

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

I didn't say [i]you[/i] had used it this week, just that it had been used.

Righto, that wasn't very clear. Apologies!

Those Hebden looters need to get in there sharpish, while there's still time.

No worries, and like I say i'm not here to offend anyone, sorry if it came across personal.

Piemonster that map is an absolute hoax, no way would any tory leave Liverpool above sea level 😀

Refugee camp for Newcastle innit

[quote=dragon ]As I doubt the £100k will be spent on him personally wading into the river to fix it, then surely this money will end up in the local economy and be recycled into the shops etc.

Ah, good old trickle down economics. I presume if that money was spent on something more directly for the public benefit instead it wouldn't trickle down in the same way?

Refugee camp for Newcastle innit

I think any self respecting Geordie would rather move to Scotchland TBH!

Big old f'ugly house that belongs to a real life aristocratic version of Mr Twit; get in the [s]sea[/s] Dee!

(Just felt the need to exercise my chip 😉 )

dragon » As I doubt the £100k will be spent on him personally wading into the river to fix it, then surely this money will end up in the local economy and be recycled into the shops etc.
Ah, good old trickle down economics. I presume if that money was spent on something more directly for the public benefit instead it wouldn't trickle down in the same way?

Odd, I could have sworn people were making much the same comments about Hebden Bridge, waxing lyrical about how they will be spending their holidays and cash there to "do their bit" and yet not one snarky comment was put their way. Wonder why?

Is it still standing this morning ?

squirrelking - Member

Odd, I could have sworn people were making much the same comments about Hebden Bridge, waxing lyrical about how they will be spending their holidays and cash there to "do their bit" and yet not one snarky comment was put their way. Wonder why?

Because the 2 things are really very different?

squirrelking - Member

Odd, I could have sworn people were making much the same comments about Hebden Bridge, waxing lyrical about how they will be spending their holidays and cash there to "do their bit" and yet not one snarky comment was put their way. Wonder why?

People in Hebden Bridge etc. are suffering real hardship. Some of them will have no insurance due to previous floods. Some of them have been given £500 to help. The guy in the "castle" has been granted £100,000 from a "charity" to help preserve one of his homes. Do you really see [i]any[/i] similarity?

Odd use of "quotes" ?

Unless the £100k is a short term bridging loan, it does seem utterly unacceptable. I've emailed SBC to ask if they'd confirm the BBC article. Perhaps if others do the same they might rethink how they hand out large lumps of cash to the already extremely wealthy.

GrahamS - Member

Odd use of "quotes" ?

It's hardly a castle is it?

[i]castle
?k??s(?)l/
noun
noun: castle; plural noun: castles

1.
a large building, typically of the medieval period, fortified against attack with thick walls, battlements, towers, and often a moat.
"Edinburgh Castle"[/i]

I put charity in quotes as my understanding of charity is a body that helps out people who need it. This guy is minted, he doesn't need charity.

#edit: Although his moat is pretty damn impressive.

It's hardly a castle is it?

castle
?k??s(?)l/Submit
noun
noun: castle; plural noun: castles
1.
a large building, typically of the medieval period, fortified against attack with thick walls, battlements, towers, and often a moat.
"Edinburgh Castle"
synonyms: fortress, fort, stronghold, fortification, keep, citadel, fastness, tower, peel, palace, chateau, donjon; alcazar
a magnificent and imposing old mansion.
"Castle Howard"
CHESSinformal
old-fashioned term for rook2.

It's hardly a castle is it?

It seems to tick off most of the requirements in your definition.

[i]"A large building"?[/i]
[url= http://s13.postimg.org/9wv0yc23r/abergeldie_castle_1948.jp g" target="_blank">http://s13.postimg.org/9wv0yc23r/abergeldie_castle_1948.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Check.

[i]"typically of the medieval period"[/i]

[url= https://canmore.org.uk/site/31138/abergeldie-castle ]Built circa 1550[/url].

[i]"fortified against attack with thick walls"[/i]

The walls are four foot thick.

[i]"battlements, towers"[/i]

Not much in the way of battlements remaining, but the whole thing is a four-storey tower and it was sufficient enough to be fought over and sieged during the Jacobite uprisings.

[i]"often a moat"[/i]

Ruddy great river.

https://canmore.org.uk/site/31138/abergeldie-castle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abergeldie_Castle
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeenshire/796446/long-noble-sometimes-terrifying-history-abergeldie-castle/

Unless the £100k is a short term bridging loan, it does seem utterly unacceptable. I've emailed SBC to ask if they'd confirm the BBC article. Perhaps if others do the same they might rethink how they hand out large lumps of cash to the already extremely wealthy.

I also wonder if (as their current charitable aims and programmes suggest) be supporting the many small businesses and communities across Deeside and Scotland that are suffering total loss already, with such quickly available help?

Dunno about SBC, but below is a link to some info on Prince Charles and charity help for flood victims. BERG have previously helped in Ballater when the old station was fire damaged.

[url= https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeenshire/796260/prince-charles-looking-to-help-victims-of-north-east-flooding/ ]P&J Help for flood victims[/url]

There's pictures now on Press & Journal website showing lorry loads of rocks being tipped over the bank to help support it.

Because the 2 things are really very different?

Are they? Money in the local enconomy is money in the local economy, no matter the source. Why does it matter if it's you buying a sticky bun or his lordship buying a few trucks worth of boulders? I fail to see the difference provided the money is spent locally (which may well be a condition).

Presumably you'd think it just as reasonable for him to get a huge grant to redecorate the interior when he decides he doesn't like the colour, because that money would be spent with local decorators - as it would be for the same amount of money to be spent on grants to many people with flood damage to their properties who need to redecorate to make them inhabitable?

Or do you think there is an infinite pot of money and that spending this money on protecting one of his houses doesn't affect the money available to support those in greater need?

You presume wrongly because that's not really essential to keeping the fabric of the place together is it?

Your outrage also seems to be severely misplaced, the pot this came from isn't for domestic applications, it's a business development charity who's aims are to sustainably increase profitability of local businesses. Given the estate is a business which presumably brings employment to the local area, why would it be in their interests to see it fail? And with that in mind, would it not be in their interest to see that whatever they contribute is then dispersed amongst other local businesses? Taking his title and anecdotes regarding his character out of the equation, would you still feel the same way?

Once again the big hitters are away on a crusade built upon presumptions and supposition without even bothering to establish any of the facts. But so long as some toff didn't get taken down a peg or two it's justified, right?

BTW, found this little snippet which may upset you:

The 21st Baron of Abergeldie hit the headlines in 2009 when he broke a leg after being attacked by his cows. Ten years before, he was in the news after manually hoeing 10 acres of swedes at the age of 60, a job which saw him work 13 hours a day for 10 days.

I wonder, how many of you could claim to work as hard?

Me, I work in Banking.

I work that hard 😛

squirrelking - Member

the pot this came from isn't for domestic applications, it's a business development charity who's aims are to sustainably increase profitability of local businesses. Given the estate is a business which presumably brings employment to the local area, why would it be in their interests to see it fail?

Why would having the house collapse cause the business to fail?

So he's an ex-naval masochist doing jobs he could pay someone else to do (the skinflint). Did you find the article about how much some fraudsters were paying him in rent too?

He wouldn't pass any kind of means test and should not receive charity or public money, simple as. Digging up swedes does not qualify him for subsidies. I wonder why the cows attacked him.

The 21st Baron of Abergeldie hit the headlines in 2009 when he broke a leg after being attacked by his cows.

See, even his own cows don't like him!

Edukator, how do you know how much turnover he has? Once again a distinct lack of facts here...

I presume the house would be considered an integral part of the estate and the shooting "experience" as opposed to a 21st century eco cottage. Yes, assumption but it's about all anyone can manage around here.

The 21st Baron of Abergeldie hit the headlines in 2009 when he broke a leg after being attacked by his cows. Ten years before, he was in the news after manually hoeing 10 acres of swedes at the age of 60, a job which saw him work 13 hours a day for 10 days.

This is somewhat contradictory with your "trickle down" economic theory. An extremely wealthy man who won't pay a local worker to tend his neeps. He's probably out there dragging rocks from his own quarry to dump in the river himself.

[quote=squirrelking ]You presume wrongly because that's not really essential to keeping the fabric of the place together is it?

What's that got to do with it? I thought the only thing which mattered was whether the money was spent in the local economy and now you're bringing other considerations into it. Are you now suggesting that some other sort of test should be applied to determine the best way to spend such money?

He's probably out there dragging rocks from his own quarry to dump in the river himself.

He's 76, somehow I doubt it!

He is supervising though.

[img] ?resize=480%2C320[/img]

I thought the only thing which mattered was whether the money was spent in the local economy and now you're bringing other considerations into it.

No, you're doing that on your own.

You asked for my reasoning, I gave it to you. If you don't like it fine, no skin off my back.

You obviously have your position on the matter and that's fine, I just wish you and your cohorts could be a little more intelligent about it rather than getting frothed up about something you know actually very little about.

I'm pretty leftwards myself, probably more so than some of you who love to remind everyone about it, but even I can see that whether you give money directly to a business or indirectly, so long as the money ends up where it is intended then it doesn't make any difference in real terms.

[quote=squirrelking ]You asked for my reasoning, I gave it to you. If you don't like it fine, no skin off my back.

I'm simply pointing out that your reasoning is flawed and [b]you[/b] don't seem to like that. Your reasoning apparently being that it doesn't matter whether grant money goes to people who have plenty of assets to raise money themselves or it goes to people who have no way of raising money themselves, because it all ends up in the local economy. Except when challenged on that, apparently you do have other criteria.

Congratulations on the subtle ad hom BTW

And as already pointed out if he could pull the money out his arse I'm sure he would have. And as similarly pointed out nobody knows if it's a grant or a loan he has recieved.

And no, it's not so much my reasoning that is flawed but rather you keep looking for holes to nitpick. I have already laid my cards on the table and said that I'm merely speculating, you on the other hand seem to be convinced that you're talking facts.

I'm sure he [s]w[/s] [b]c[/b]ould have.

[quote=squirrelking ]And as already pointed out if he could pull the money out his arse I'm sure he would have.

Really? I suggested earlier that he's played a blinder of brinksmanship - and plenty of others have pointed out the lack of difficulty he'd have had in getting a loan off the bank - he does after all have plenty of assets, that is a [b]fact[/b] and even nowadays banks are quite happy to lend money to people with assets. If somebody else will pay for the work then why would he dip into his own pocket?

And no, it's not so much my reasoning that is flawed but rather you keep looking for holes to nitpick

There you go again - you could address the argument instead of belittling it and those arguing against you.

Last night's TV coverage showed a large and suspiciously 'British Army green' 360 excavator working to tip rocks alongside the house. It looks like we taxpayers might be providing more support than the cash sums described above... The army does keep some heavier kit around Balmoral for use in emergencies.

Today's P&J (which hides behind a paywall online) suggests that this funding is open to all businesses in the area and perhaps others. While I never trust a journalist too much they are perhaps basing their article on facts rather than judgement calls as above.

I'm not belittling anything. Certainly not anything of substance which you have yet to offer the argument.

Facts or GTFO

I fail to see the difference provided the money is spent locally

he does after all have plenty of assets, that is a fact and even nowadays banks are quite happy to lend money to people with assets.

Meanwhile the A93 is still closed. Maybe those rocks being dumped in the river would be better deployed half a mile upstream. Then the castle could get the trickle down effect.

It looks like we taxpayers might be providing more support than the cash sums described above...

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35184999 ]500 soldiers were deployed in Yorkshire and Lancashire to help with the floods[/url] - not to mention all the firefighters, ambulance crews, police, rescue crews etc.

Or does that not count because they were sent to "normal" people?

Meanwhile the A93 is still closed.

[quote=squirrelking ]I'm not belittling anything.

Oh, what do you mean by "nitpick" then?

squirrelking - Member

I presume the house would be considered an integral part of the estate and the shooting "experience" as opposed to a 21st century eco cottage. Yes, assumption but it's about all anyone can manage around here.

squirrelking - Member

Facts or GTFO

Door's just there.

edit. Can't be arsed.

Latest on the A93:

The Invercauld Bridge on the A93 at Braemar remains closed to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, following damage to the flood relief arch on the east of the structure.

A plan to repair the damage to the relief arch has been agreed and contractors began work today. It is expected the works will be complete in about a fortnight. For the meantime, vehicular access to Braemar will continue to be via the A93 from the south.

Following discussions with landowners and relevant agencies, the old Dee Bridge is now available to pedestrians, and is lit at night. Pedestrians are advised to take a torch and take additional care when using the bridge.

Emergency vehicles will be able to use the bridge as required, but there is no access to public vehicles.

• The A93 at Micras remains unpassable following the collapse of a large section of the road. Diversions are in place via the B979 South Deeside Road to the south, and via the A939 and B976 via Gairnshiel to the north.

Both routes are narrow in sections and extra care and time should be taken when using these routes.

Agreement has been reached with a local landowner to construct a temporary diversion at Micras, and it is hoped this will be in place within the next week to 10 days.

[img] [/img]

From the Daily Record

"Aberdeenshire Council confirmed contractors supported by their structural engineers were on site after funding of £100,000 was secured from Scottish Business in the Community"

I don't see how anyone can really support a charitable donation of that scale to a single private 'owner' of a publically inaccessible estate.

To save a house of national importance would be fair enough if the public had any rights over it. But we don't. So **** him.

If the laird can't afford to fix it he can sell it to someone who can or raise money from his other assets. That's what anyone else would have to do.

If the issue is saving a listed building and that means that the public purse should be stepping in to save it, then perhaps listing a building should mean that the public have a quantifiable stake in a listed property.

This charitable donation does seem to be stretching the remit of the charity somewhat.

Another thing:

I doubt anyone donating to a body called "Scottish Business in the Community" would really expect the target businesses to be lords with enormous shooting estates. I would expect they would have in mind twee little bakeries and nurseries and other mundane stuff which actually needs support to get off the ground. Cronyism at its finest I think.

He's not a Lord, he's a Baron; a title which is attached to the house (not the estate since we ended feudalism about ten years ago) rather than the person, it can be bought and sold to anyone. Again, don't let facts get in the way of a good froth.

Northwind - I was open about the fact I was speculating, others however seem to be quite happy passing off their speculation as fact. That's my problem, nobody has brought anything factual to the table, I'm just trying to balance things off a bit.

#edinburghdefence, Junkyard in 5,4,3...

I hope it doesn't get washed away. Its a 16th century castle, of historical significance, in a beautiful part of the country.

£100, 000 seems like a worthwhile investment to stop it collapsing. If the charity is happy and able to help, great. I don't give a hoot if I'm not allowed to visit it.

[quote=squirrelking ]He's not a Lord, he's a Baron; a title which is attached to the house (not the estate since we ended feudalism about ten years ago) rather than the person, it can be bought and sold to anyone. Again, don't let facts get in the way of a good froth.

Ah, now we get to the nub of it - if the castle falls down does he stop being a baron?

Northwind - I was open about the fact I was speculating, others however seem to be quite happy passing off their speculation as fact.

Presumably you're going to provide a quote where somebody makes such a claim?

We're all speculating here - that's the nature of most of the discussions on STW where we don't have access to anything other than media articles. Yet you seem to be the one who's introduced that as an issue in this discussion, complaining about other people not having facts despite having none yourself - such an argument appears to have the aim simply of shutting up other people and ignoring their points (you can make it if you want, but you look a bit daft). Sure we're speculating, speculating based upon reasonable assumptions - and we do have the fact of £100k funding compared to £500 for the plebs.

Lord, baron, whatever. The point is he's hardly in a position where, even with the loss of his house, he'd be standing in the queue at the jobcentre once a week.

But of course, here on the internet (or more particularly STW), using the wrong word means everything you have ever said and will ever say is entirely incorrect and untrustworthy in perpetuity.

He has enough by way of cash, assets and influence to sort his own problems out. If he wants [i]his [/i]problems to be [i]our [/i]problems then he should be handing over some stake to his assets.

You're assuming the best of intentions on his part, I'm assuming the worst. Meh.

He has enough by way of cash, assets and [b]influence[/b] to sort his own problems out

How do you think that's working out then?

and we do have the fact of £100k funding compared to £500 for the plebs

Tinybits - that does seem to be going quite well. It would have been nice if he'd used it to secure some sort of non-charitably funded help though eh.

How do you think that's working out then?

speculating based upon reasonable assumptions

You say reasonable assumptions, I'd say idle prejudice.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35242529 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35242529[/url]

[img] [/img]

[img] ?resize=670%2C479[/img]

we do have the fact of £100k funding compared to £500 for the plebs.

Is that all it costs to repair burst banks and divert rivers away from pleb houses? £500?

Wow. No wonder people are complaining that the Environment Agency aren't doing enough - I was under the impression that billions of pounds had been spent protecting pleb houses.

Which particular assumptions of mine do you think are idle prejudice? Just wondering what facts you're basing that statement on...

All about how you see the £100k isn't it:

1) To protect a building 400 years old of cultural significance or

2) Money thrown at a rich old tw*t

To put the money into perspective Aberdeen council spent somewhere between £60-80 Million on the redevelopment of Marischal College 😯

The difference is that spending £x million pounds on flood defences for a town or community benefits everyone equally. It prevents transport links from vanishing and ensures that the town business don't suffer undue disruption and fail.

Our baron mate here "benefits" from flood defences up and downstream same as everyone in the nearby area.

This is £100,000 to protect one private residence, culturally significant or not don't pretend its the same thing.

It's normal for the owners of buildings of cultural significance to pay for stuff to stop them falling down - that's the cost of living in such a place. Arguably for a listed building the council could have stepped in and done the work required and then charged him for it - though doubtless that would have required lengthy court proceedings.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of the amount spent on a building which is effectively publicly owned.

This is £100,000 to protect one private residence, culturally significant or not don't pretend its the same thing.

You're right. It's absolutely not the same thing, because the billions spent on flood defences and restoration work for "pleb" houses comes from the public purse.

Whereas the £100,000 this guy has been given/lent/granted is private money from a charity that specifically aims to help [i]"businesses, of all sizes and in all sectors, to operate more sustainably and responsibly to improve the economic, social and environmental outcomes for Scotland"[/i].

You're right. It's absolutely not the same thing, because the billions spent on flood defences and restoration work for "pleb" houses comes from the public purse.

The EA apply a fairly ruthless cost / benefit analysis for flood defences. Your pleb house only gets protection if it meets nationally agreed criteria. How a charity managed to do this in a day just after the New Year break is just amazing.

Controversially the best thing economically would be to let it fall down. The clean up and construction of new sustainable dwelling would a be a boon for the local area.

Whereas the £100,000 this guy has been given/lent/granted is private money

The EA apply a fairly ruthless cost / benefit analysis for flood defences. Your pleb house only gets protection if it meets nationally agreed criteria

Criteria which includes [i]"Historical environment: No. of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and listed buildings affected"[/i] (from Table 6.4 of "Evaluating a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) methodology for application to flood management and coastal defence appraisals")

Abergeldie is a Grade A listed building:
http://portal.historic-scotland.gov.uk/designation/LB3005

I wonder if tipping some big rocks and small rocks in the river is part of a properly scoped engineering plan? Looks a bit knee jerky to me.

[quote=GrahamS ]You're right. It's absolutely not the same thing, because the billions spent on flood defences and restoration work for "pleb" houses comes from the public purse.

Which is an interesting point of discussion - though one I think we've already done, the question being whether helping to preserve a private dwelling correctly comes under the aims of a charity which purports to help business (charities can't do whatever they like - this one also gets public funding - that's a fact BTW). From their "about":

We form a vital bridge to help make the right difference in communities all over the country by:

Helping to tackle poverty and getting vulnerable, disadvantaged people into work – and back on their feet.
Working with children and young people to gain skills and have aspirations that can change the course of their lives.
Making workplaces fairer, more productive and more sustainable.
Improving our civic spaces through harnessing the effort, expertise and commitment of Scotland’s workforce.

Which of those aims do you think this comes under?

Though it doesn't directly address the question of the amount of money being spent on protecting a single residence, compared to the amount spent on protecting thousands of residences.

[quote=gallowayboy ]I wonder if tipping some big rocks and small rocks in the river is part of a properly scoped engineering plan? Looks a bit knee jerky to me.

Well to be fair, it might not be a long term solution, but right now they just need a short term solution and I suspect that's a method which has a sound engineering basis in that it's worked before. Simple methods are sometimes quite effective and they've probably not had time yet to go through a complete engineering design cycle.

You know for a fact that all their income comes from private sources and not as grants from taxation/lottery money?

Some of each if you look at their website (not too dislike most charities / companies).

NB: Lottery money shouldn't be lumped with taxation, it up to you whether you want to play the lottery and it is run by a private company.

Which of those aims do you think this comes under?

I think it comes under the one on their [url= http://www.sbcscot.com/about-sbc/ ]About SBC[/url] page that I quoted:
"SBC's vision for businesses, of all sizes and in all sectors, to operate more sustainably and responsibly to improve the economic, social and environmental outcomes for Scotland"

I freely admit it seems a bit of a stretch, but losing a 450-year old listed building is certainly a bad social outcome.

Depending how it would affect estate business it may well be a bad economic outcome too.

Ultimately none of us know any real details of the deal the charity did with the estate - but it's their money and they have their own board and members to answer to.

Though it doesn't directly address the question of the amount of money being spent on protecting a single residence, compared to the amount spent on protecting thousands of residences.

Well according to this BBC article Cameron says "We are going to spend £2.3bn on flood defences in this parliament".

I dare say that mobilising the fire service, police, army, ambulance crews, emergency road repairs etc etc has cost a pretty penny too.

I suspect 100k would be a drop in the ocean, [i]even[/i] if it had come from the same purse. Which it didn't.

Some of each if you look at their website (not too dislike most charities / companies).

NB: Lottery money shouldn't be lumped with taxation, it up to you whether you want to play the lottery and it is run by a private company.

GrahamS that's all fair enough then.

My interpretation of this

businesses, of all sizes and in all sectors, to operate more sustainably and responsibly to improve the economic, social and environmental outcomes for Scotland

wouldn't fit here though.

In fairness it seems so loosely worded that the trustees can do whatever the **** they want so long as its in Scotland.

Whether its the best use of the money is another question, as is whether or not it would be made available so quickly to someone in a less prominent position is another.

As I said before, if someone was rattling a bucket for this charity, the name of the charity would suggest a different use of the money and I am fairly sure that if you asked them, different examples would be given.