Abergeldie Castle – could it be saved from the Dee?

The estate stretches to almost 12,000 acres. I don’t think it’s all going to end up on Aberdeen beach any time soon 😆

Would you have a different point of view if this building was owned by a charity, for example?
Disregarding the this particular event, would you prefer it if [in general] a country’s heritage was left to rot?

If its owned by the nation the nation is responsible for repairs. If it’s owned by an individual, company or charity then it’s down to them IMO.
Our proud heritage rests in more than buildings, plenty of the things which make us the Nation we are are being left to rot, or worse.

Bear in mind there are a LOT of downsides to living with a listed building as well.

He chose to live there. He could have sold the place off, and avoided the hassle of the bills and maintenance.

I suspect he enjoys the many benefits of owning a stately Highland home and estate alongside the Royals.

There are a LOT of downsides to living in my 1970’s, too small for a family of 5, poorly maintained semi, but I don’t head off looking for funding when the roof leaks or boiler blows…

Suck it up, sweetcheeks.

Well it’s Scotish money so hardly any concern of us lot. Does look like they’ve bent the rules on the grant though so happy to hear the full story from the head of Scotland.

And, whilst I’m commenting I would now fully expect the council to help others in similar situations…

Absolutely disgusting. Unless, of course, there will be comparable levels of aid to all financial victims of the floods.

<tumbleweed…>

Didn’t think so. **** elite looking after their own as usual.

Some big shoulders holding big chips on this thread.

I don’t see £100K going that much further than a bit of piling, gabions and a few lorryloads of rock. The aerial photos show the whole bank having moved back over a quarter mile or more. They can’t be looking to put all that back, and reinforce it, especially as the river has chosen it’s new course right under the library window.

Schadenfreude postponed and replaced by outrage.

Water feature?

At least he can go fishing without leaving the house now.

sharkbait – Member

Would you have a different point of view if this building was owned by a charity, for example?

I’d have a different point of view if the public had access to it. But he’s resisted even legal access to the land, and wouldn’t even let Historic Scotland into most of the house when they tried to update the listing in 2005, never mind members of the public

I don’t see it as “protecting our heritage” because I don’t see it as our heritage in the first place. I’d be up for it being “saved for the nation” but it seems obvious that’s not what would happen, it’d be saved for the owner.

Doesn’t mean I’ll be happy if it falls in the river though. But any public funding should be conditional on public access.

Oops, sorry, forgetting my place <tugs forelock>

What Northwind said +1

This castle has no amenity for society at large.

Oops, sorry, forgetting my place <tugs forelock>

That’s the spirit! <throws aracer/dirty oink a penny for his humility>

Doesn’t mean I’ll be happy if it falls in the river though

this, it’s probably the best course of action to prevent it falling in and creating a bigger problem. Taking public money should come with conditions though if the owner has resisted access before

I’m struggling to believe the Laird couldn’t scrape together £100k given the urgent nature of the situation.

If your house fell down and caused damage to 3rd parties or polluted and blocked a water course you’d be liable for it and hoping very much your insurance would cover it.

Or in the case of the landed gentry, you call a few mates and get £100k made available to save you all that nasty trouble.

Theres a lot of spite on this thread, I trust you know that flood affected properties in Cumbria can get a 500 grant to make a start on repairs?

http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/flooding-help-and-advice/grants/500-household-grant/
[/url]

Appreciate that’s a blanket and its not huge, but its not a million miles different.

It is a tricky one though – given imminent collapse there isn’t the time to mess about deciding who’s going to pay – the owner appears to have successfully played brinksmanship, if I was in his position I’d have expected somebody to stump up money to save it, so why dip in your own pocket? The question is whether the “public” would be happy just to see it collapse rather than do what needs to be done now. Would there be knock on public costs from allowing the collapse?

Of course once enough has been done – and I’d suggest it should be just the minimal amount necessary – to prevent it collapsing tomorrow or later this week, then the situation is different. At that point it’s up to him – or if he wants more public funding then he has to allow public access.

That old chestnut portraying anyone who objects to being swindled by the elite as having a ‘chip on their shoulder’ is hackneyed and lazy.
When that same ruling class object to being swindled by benefit cheats or whatever they don’t get that.

I don’t think it’s spite at all – it’s a question of what is a good use of public money. That is still 200 times different, which is kind of the whole point. I doubt anybody would begrudge him getting a £500 grant. Of course those £500 grants are also going to many people for whom that is a significant sum, who don’t have huge estates of land some of which they could sell off to pay for repairs.

It’s not like I’m one of the standard lefties on here either.

£100,000 is quite different to £500 if you ask me

Because he’s worth it?

Nice neighbours

There’s the other side to this which is that the people and resources needed to do this could (and probably) should be working on fixing essential infrastructure like the A93. I would not be in the least bit surprised if the same “influence” that secured £100k so easily via a slightly obscure charitable route has also helped secure the resources needed to the detriment of others. It’s how Britain works.

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.

I don’t head off looking for funding when the roof leaks or boiler blows…

You claim on your insurance surely? This is a bit worse than that though, this is the whole place collapsing and a listed building at that.

I kind of imagine (rightly or wrongly) that as he had some 60 odd ft of land at the end of the garden before the river then he probably wasn’t banking on a major land re-inforcement project this year.

I’d also be surprised if he had 100k just lying about, there’s a difference between wealth and available liquid cash.

When that same ruling class object to being swindled by benefit cheats or whatever they don’t get that.

That old chestnut is hackneyed and lazy.

Could have given Wonga a shout. That’s what the plebs have to do when hit with unexpected problems. Or maybe speak to a bank and secure a small loan against the thousands of acres that you own.

Or get a wee loan from the neighbours – maybe an advance on what you charge them for hunting on your land?

Your chip on the shoulder one has been used within the past two weeks on this very site.

Of course there is always the possibility that he would quite like to be shot of the castle so he can build something a bit more comfortable and modern, but he can’t knock it down, alter it or build near it because it is a protected building.

If that was the case, should he be forced to maintain and protect it out of his own funds even if he doesn’t want it?

Does anyone have a source for the £100k other than the throwaway “£100,00” line in the BBC article? Since there’s clearly a mistake in there it could be “£100.00″*, “£10,000” or “£100,000”. It could also be an emergency loan to allow him to liquidate some assets and pay for the work or until his insurance fronts up.

There may well be some horrible cronyism going on but it’s a bit of a leap from what I can see.

*insert smiley to suggest not entirely serious.

I’d also be surprised if he had 100k just lying about, there’s a difference between wealth and available liquid cash.

That’s what banks are for, borrowing against assets. I’m torn between thinking it’s a piece of heritage worth saving and it belonging to someone who doesn’t deserve it and happily seeing it fall in the river rather than a penny of public money being given to him.

Your chip on the shoulder one has been used within the past two weeks on this very site.

Explain?

Looks like a 19th century Walter Scott inspired piece of self agrandisement without any real connection to the highlands, put up as a keep up with germans over the road exercise. That said it’s not public money it’s a charities and they have discretion over where there money goes even if that is, in this instance, your mates back pocket.

Page three of the watch thread, I’m not wanting to have a personal go at you but its been rolled out so many times to portray the masses as surly louts for resenting being exploited that its become tiring.

He doesn’t have a choice about that, as the owner of a listed building it is his legal responsibility to maintain it. blah blah blah etc.

What I meant was he could have sold it but chose not to and so coughs up the maintenance costs.

Hope the building falls into the river before a penny of the donation is spent on it.

I definitely don’t want it falling in the river.

As I said on page 1, controlled demolition is what is required.

Looks like a 19th century Walter Scott inspired piece of self agrandisement without any real connection to the highlands

It is 16th century, and figured in the first and second Jacobite uprisings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abergeldie_Castle

New flood map released;

http://news.bfnn.co.uk/government-release-post-flood-map-of-uk/

SNP representative Jock McDougal told BFNN: “These floods are brilliant for us, we aren’t even connected to England anymore. It’s what we’ve always wanted. It’s a wee Christmas Miracle.”

So abundant is the rejoicing in Scotland that a new town on the southern coast will known as “Salmond-upon-sea”.