Don’t think I’d throw money in a bucket for any charity whose primary goal is to help businesses.

But then I suspect such charities don’t rely on bucket rattling.

Has anybody managed to work out where the funding of that charity does come from? Their largest income item is “grants and trusts” which suggests mostly public money, though it’s not explicit. Otherwise there is subscription income, though that is less than the amount spent on “member services” suggesting members are a net drain, and there is sponsorship and event income (there are other income items, but those are the only ones larger than this expenditure).

For year ending April 2014 total turnover was less than £1m, so this expenditure is more than 10% of that, and grants paid were £160k, so if this comes under that category it is more than half the amount previously paid out in grants in a year.

All from latest annual report http://www.sbcscot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Signed-Annual-Report-for-year-ended-31-May-2014-23-02-2015.pdf I’m sure there is more detail in there, but I’ve only skimmed the accounts.

edit: there does seem to be a breakdown of the grants – mostly either lottery or public funds, all with specific purposes which are presumably ringfenced, none of which would appear to cover this expenditure, and none of which are individually large enough.

aracer – I don’t have the time or inclination to go into that detail to confirm what is patently obvious anyway! Its quite interesting though. The words dodge and tax would appear to fit quite neatly in the same sentence here.

It was kind of a rhetorical question – I wasn’t really expecting anybody to go through that in more detail than I had. It does appear that unless their funding model has changed that most of their money is in fact public money – though it is of course possible that this expenditure has been funded from their private sponsorship income.

LOL at the charity Patron

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’m struggling here, unless the house is essential to the business.

My guess is the charity trustees won’t challenge it!

I’m struggling here, unless the house is essential to the business.

Its a hunting estate, what do you think? Its all part of the pomp and drama that convinces folk to part with ridiculous sums of money just for the opportunity to shoot something never mind the extra should they actually kill it.

Hunting rights are leased out to Balmoral. I don’t think the neighbours will be that fussed about the “grandeur” of Abergeldie.

Public money/ public access.

Bizarre as it may seem, I have building and contents insurance for this sought of thing or perhaps I’ve been paying all these years when I don’t really need it, obviously the county council will pay.

Squirrelking, you are really struggling to keep your head above water 🙂

Obviously 100k spent in the local area will trickle down to some extent whatever it is spent on. But if it is spent on repairing the houses of 100 locals who have been flood damaged (or a bridge used by the community etc) then the community also benefits by having 100 more housese fixed up or a bridge they can use in their daily lives, on top of any trickle-down. If on the other hand it’s spent on saving some gentry’s castle then said gentry benefits by having a castle. I think the difference is pretty clear.

Cockermouth Castle too.
they’ve piled flood gravel deposits up in a protective bar along the base.

Still hoping it falls over before they Spunk too much cash on one old git.

I’m struggling here, unless the house is essential to the business.

I’ll post this 1948 Canmore photo again because it makes the size of the place more apparent than close up photos that only show the old tower part:

Obviously we don’t know much about the daily workings of the estate there but I’m guessing those buildings hold more than the Baron, his wife and their favourite armchairs.

Those other buildings don’t exist anymore. Any colour photos of the castle have trees where the other buildings were.

https://goo.gl/maps/72cYYjgLK152

Those other buildings don’t exist anymore. Any colour photos of the castle have trees where the other buildings were.

Bloody STW pedants

As an aside, according to that document the ceo of virgin money is the duke of rothsay’s ambassador for Scotland.

WTF?

Scone ?

I don’t know – is that a fact, or just wild speculation? I’m sure there are hunting estates without castles doing just fine (that’s my wild speculation BTW – feel free to try and refute the idea if you want).

Any word/s from Ms Sturgeon on this?

Those other buildings don’t exist anymore. Any colour photos of the castle have trees where the other buildings were.

Fair enough – it was hard to tell in the colour photos I looked at whether the buildings were gone or just had mossy roofs and trees in front of them.

The colour Canmore photos from 2007 certainly show the roofs of the steadings to the left, but you are right the main building seems to have been reduced back to the tower house and a small adjacent single storey building.

In the drone footage posted earlier you can see that some of the buildings to the left of your pic are still there, but they don’t appear to have been under threat of collapse due to the erosion.

I know it’s hard to tell from the black and white photo, but it doesn’t look like there is 60 feet of garden between the tower and the river there.

Any word/s from Ms Sturgeon on this?

Should there be? It’s a charity giving out its own money.

eckinspain – Member

I know it’s hard to tell from the black and white photo, but it doesn’t look like there is 60 feet of garden between the tower and the river there.

A 60 foot section of riverbank collapsed, rather than it being 60 foot from the river. But still a big ol chunk

A 60 foot section of riverbank collapsed, rather than it being 60 foot from the river. But still a big ol chunk

So in other words, and looking at that B&W photo, a GCSE level understanding of river hydrology says this scenario has been inevitable for at least 68 years. So basically the entire life of Baron von Twit, in fact. I wonder what his thinking was in NOT doing some serious bank reinforcing work to save his home was then? Seeing as he’s not exactly without means. Even less sympathy now. (If that’s actually possible)

v8ninety – Member

I wonder what his thinking was in NOT doing some serious bank reinforcing work to save his home was then?

Presumably that the river bank hadn’t collapsed for at least 68 years?

I wonder what his thinking was in NOT doing some serious bank reinforcing work to save his home was then?

Presumably that the river bank hadn’t collapsed for at least 68 years?

and I’m guessing he never did river erosion in Geography – or was think on handing the problem to his successor. My sympathy has eroded like a river bank during an El Nino event.

a GCSE level understanding of river hydrology says this scenario has been inevitable for at least 68 years

I was thinking exactly the same thing having seen those photos – the river is/has been heading towards the house for a long time and will continue to do so. This was inevitable but has been accelerated by recent events.
They should have been reinforcing that section of river bank some time ago.
I have no pity for the owner but it would be shame if the house was lost (although it’s already a mere shadow of what it was in the ’48 photo 🙁 )

edit: I wonder where the river was when the it was first built?

sharkbait – Member

(although it’s already a mere shadow of what it was in the ’48 photo )

The other buildings were later additions so you could probably look at it as part of the restoration tbh. (I’m no expert but they look a lot more recent, 19th century? Certainly not in keeping with the original tower.)

all that new stone will be down at the harbour now I reckon…..

water table is beyond saturated now … I’m at 150ft elevation on a hill in lower deeside and we are starting to see water build up to worrying levels now…..

I wonder what he’ll do with the rest of the money? (£90k ish?)

Well I’d imagine he’d either use it for its intended purpose or give it back.

Or are we now just randomly accusing the guy of embezzling money from a charity on the basis that he is a bit posh?

Trail rat +1 – absolutely futile putting all that down.

@GrahamS wondering where the figure of 100k came from if the plan is to put some stones in the river. Also wondering what phase 2 of the ‘plan’ is

Got to say I was expecting some large boulders to be put down initially, or better still groups of large boulders contained within steel cages.

Not sure how its doing today. Regardless of who owns the castle you can’t build a new 450 year old tower house and it would be a shame to loose the heritage.

Pictures of the repairs as I see there are still assumptions being made.

IN PICTURES: Work ongoing to save Abergeldie Castle as River Dee continues to rise

Also I have heard that if all goes to plan, and there is no further damage today, the Invercauld bridge should be open circa the 18th

is the castle still there after last night ?

i had my own moat this morning. drove down to see what the bridge looked like for the mrs going to work and at 6am there was no way i was even contemplating it in the landy water was fast flowing and about 3 foot deep on top of the bridge….. my neighbour was thinking about it in her merc… she thought better of it when a 5series tried to go through and cut out after about 10 ft out of the water – last i saw it was going on a cars recovery low loader.

at 8am it was passable with care in an elevated car – about a foot deep and still fast flowing.

this is a burn thats normally 6 ft wide and 2 ft deep tops ……..it was about 100ft wide and about 15 foot deep minimum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35269135

£1,500 grants to all affected

(Apologies for those waiting for the photo/video of it crumpling into the river)