Thank you Andrew. We understood that they had …

Comment posted Crown Estate Commissioners hang on like limpets to Scottish rights by newsroom.

Thank you Andrew. We understood that they had produced separate accounts for Scotland but, in the early days after their decampment, they merged the accounts – although they did later move to disaggregate them in the way you describe.

Your Excel table sounds a very valuable exercise. When you’ve added the 2012 figures, if you would like to email the table to me (lm.henderson@powdermills.com) we could put it in pdf format and add it as an downloadable attachment to this article under your name – along with an explanatory paragraph from you. This wold make it universally available.
Lynda

newsroom also commented

  • We doubt if anyone would see a departure from Charlotte Square as anything other than a corporate diminution – which was allied to a change in accounting practice,removing the previous separate accounting for the Scottish operation. Together these sketch an indicative story that needs to be told.
    We take it that you are not suggesting that the Bells Brae Crown Estate Commission establishment remained identical in number and level in the aftermath of the move from Charlotte Square? You might care to detail both.
  • Fair comment. There is genuine expertise of long standing in those who work for the Crown Estate Commission. We hear favourable remarks on this on a regular basis.

Recent comments by newsroom

  • The view from Lochinvar: party of the century from the Commonwealth Flotilla
    Thank you for your kind comments about the piece.
    I never know to whom comments refer – so to be clear, in what I said to defend For Argyll’s and my own very real independence of anything and anyone, I had not suggested in any way that Mr Black was a supporter of anything.
    I was – and am – concerned only at his assumption that For Argyll is different from what I know it to be.
  • Managed protest at Pacific Quay shames pro-indy campaign
    For Argyll editorialises as a matter of policy.
    With interactive media today, since any reader is free to comment [unedited] – and many do – a news platform is free to take a position and not contribute to a fraud on the public by pretending that there are two sides of equal weight on a specific issue, where this is not the case.
    Our positional judgments are made on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of preconception or bias.
    The powerful evidence for this is that we publicly supported potential independence for several years from 2007. The reasons why we have come to oppose it today are evidential and arise from serious independent researches of our own. These have shown us that the prospectus on which the country will vote on 18th September is incomplete and knowingly deceptive; that promises made cannot be fulfilled as the prospectus stands – and more are being made on a daily basis now [today's is that if you vote 'Yes', wages will go up]; and that controversial decisions planned to be taken [as on various aspects of taxation] have been suppressed until later for fear of losing votes.
    We have also become increasingly concerned at the degree and speed of implementation of a totalitarian political philosophy; and about the willingness to exert intimidation and deploy patronage to suppress criticism and resistance to this direction of travel. Ironically, this is the modus operandi indy is supposed to free us from.
    All that this indy would do is bring those instruments of manipulation even closer to home – and in the hands of a party of majority government now very experienced and skilled in using them. This is quite a frightening prospect.
    Economically and socially we can see nothing supportable arising from this prospectus or, now, from the party promoting it – so we do not support it.
    Personally, I have voted for the SNP in the past – and joined the party for several years – because it showed signs of an objective attempt actually to govern Scotland.
    I departed when it became progressively clear that principle had been discarded in favour of a obsessive will to gamble that the country will buy a false prospectus if it is bribed enough and emotionally manipulated enough.
    Personally, I prefer to hope that people will scrutinise, learn and think enough – but I do not discount disappointment on that hope.
    The methods used to conduct the campaign are below civility and simply insupportable – the bullying, the unachievable promises, the rank dishonesty, the sleight of hand statements to shore up decomposing positions.
    No one to whom honesty and straightforwardness matter could put their name to taking Scotland into an uncertain independence on the back of this prospectus and this campaign.
    I have learned to disrespect the SNP as a party – never a position I had imagined I would arrive at. Whatever the outcome in September, I will not vote for them again.
    Lynda
  • The view from Lochinvar: party of the century from the Commonwealth Flotilla
    On a point of fact, it is not CalMac but CMAL [Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited - also state owned] which commissioned and owns the two hybrid ferries.
    We wouldn’t have spent the money this way. It had too high a degree of the ‘green vanity project’ about it and there have been a range of unforeseen issues about which little is known but which have cost more money than originally budgeted, over and above the usual overruns.
    But the boats are here, in service, with good manoeuverability.
    CalMac does not – contractually cannot – choose the boats it uses. That does not mean that the company would or would not have preferred anything else in this instance. We have no idea of that position.
    The issue is one of the accountability of government to the public whose taxes pay for the results of decisions which are not always made on the defensible criteria, with informed perspectives and with the overt purpose in mind – on projects with no serious pressure to manage to budget. It’s ‘other people’s money’.
  • The view from Lochinvar: party of the century from the Commonwealth Flotilla
    There was a reason why MV Clyde Clipper and MV Cruiser displayed their seamanship in the very close quarters manoeuvre we reported after Clipper came out of her dock at Greenock.
    Clipper had run out of coffee and was being supplied from Cruiser.
  • The view from Lochinvar: party of the century from the Commonwealth Flotilla
    If I thought that was possible from the prospectus we’re voting on, I’d vote for it.

powered by SEO Super Comments

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

12 Responses to Thank you Andrew. We understood that they had …

  1. Good to see that you are still pursuing and publishing on the Crown Estate. But one variation from the article. The Crown Estate’s Annual Report and Accounts do provide material for the whole UK under each of its main budget areas. Its Scottish Report provides data about Scottish income and expenditure under the same budget headings, so it is possible to analyse its performance in Scotland on its own and against the position for the UK as a whole. A year ago I created an Excel table to complete a Scottish/UK analysis and comparison for 2001 and 2011, and will update that with the 2012 figures – happy to provide that to anyone interested in the statistics if they e-mail me on: andrewmreid@btinternet.com;
    andrew

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Thank you Andrew. We understood that they had produced separate accounts for Scotland but, in the early days after their decampment, they merged the accounts – although they did later move to disaggregate them in the way you describe.

      Your Excel table sounds a very valuable exercise. When you’ve added the 2012 figures, if you would like to email the table to me (lm.henderson@powdermills.com) we could put it in pdf format and add it as an downloadable attachment to this article under your name – along with an explanatory paragraph from you. This wold make it universally available.
      Lynda

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Pingback: Argyll News: Community Land Scotland see case for change to Crown Estate Commission ‘undiminished’ | For Argyll

  3. While supporting the thinking that monies collected by the Crown Estate in Scotland should remain in Scotland and that administration of Scottish waters should be based in Scotland, I have concerns about what sort of body will replace the CEC should its powers be taken over.

    As a seafarer and mooring holder, I dread to think what would happen if the likes of Argyll and Bute Council got hold of the rights to collect the rent. A system of sea bed administration which works well, however unfairly from a Scottish perspective, will be demolished at a stroke to be replaced by inept, short term political greed – seeing every mooring as a cash cow. Chaos and anarchy would ensue as rents would be unpaid, moorings laid anywhere without control and there would be a complete lack of policing. The cash cow would quickly become a burden to the council tax payer.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Fair comment. There is genuine expertise of long standing in those who work for the Crown Estate Commission. We hear favourable remarks on this on a regular basis.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • It would be interesting to know what happens in places like Norway or the Aland islands, where the pattern of activity in coastal waters must be similar to that in Argyll.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Not sure if this is usefull to the discusion or not but in Dundee control of the shore was handed to the local council who then upped the rent local sailing clubs were paying for their slipways by around 400%.

      Tony Gill raises a very good point and I dread to think what would happen if the councils were given control of the seabed as well.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Pingback: Argyll News: Correctionlon on ‘reforms’ to Crown Estate Commission Scottish operation | For Argyll

  5. I do think it matters if responsible jounalists get their facts right when writing critical articles of this nature. The Crown Estate Office in Edinburgh has never been closed. It merely moved premises from Charlotte Square to Bells Brae in 2003. True some functions -control of the urban estate-moved to London but that is an entirely different matter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • We doubt if anyone would see a departure from Charlotte Square as anything other than a corporate diminution – which was allied to a change in accounting practice,removing the previous separate accounting for the Scottish operation. Together these sketch an indicative story that needs to be told.
      We take it that you are not suggesting that the Bells Brae Crown Estate Commission establishment remained identical in number and level in the aftermath of the move from Charlotte Square? You might care to detail both.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. I’m looking forward to a continuation of the story. I must admit when I formulated a reply to the Crown estate Consultation on behalf of the Scottish Islands Federation, which is available in full as a book and as far as I know online, the conclusion I drew is that although the Crown estate where perhaps not fully transparent, the formation of an independent Scottish advisory board to act according to Existing Scottish law on behalf of Scottish people. I mean people who are perhaps retired but who have a great knowledge of the various subjects to be considered, particularly maritime affairs, but who are independent of businesses. In September the Scottish Islands Federation (SIF) are hosting the AGM of the European Small Islands Network (ESIN) on Mull so we could gather together information on how it’s done elsewhere. The independent islands seem to be more empowered. Unfortunately local authorities have often disempowered local coastal inhabitants.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Your article stated quite clearly that the Crown Estate had shut its Edinburgh Office. Why can’t you admit you were wrong instead of trying to muddy the waters? Who cares where their office is so long as they have one and as for staff numbers they like many other organisations have flucuated through the years.
    You make some perfectly reasonable points in your article and then spoil it with a lack of balance.Why not mention some positive points? Without the Crown Estate fish farming would never have seen the light of day in Scotland and many fragile West Coast communities would have died along with the deep sea fishing industry. Secondly the tenanted farms on the Crowns’s rural holdings are the best equipped anywhere in Scotland as any visitor to Glenlivet or Fochabers will tell you.But you don’t want your readers to know that do you?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.