Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 20th July 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Local heroes would back The Donald



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 December 2007
I'VE seen Donald Trump up close and so I've had the chance to take a good look at his famous hair. When you're talking to him it's impossible to stop your eyes straying upwards to marvel at its ingenuity. Heaven knows what miracle of manmade fibre and embroidery manages to keep it in position. But when Trump visited St Andrews last year to talk about his plans for a massive golf complex in Scotland, a stiff gale coming in off the North Sea failed to put even a strand out of place.
Trump's grand plan for the Menie estate in Aberdeenshire is proving similarly robust in stormy conditions. Last week John Swinney, the Scottish Government's Finance Secretary, called in the planning application to prevent it from being scuppered by A
berdeenshire councillors who had voted for its rejection. There were predictable squeals of outrage that the SNP administration was trampling over local democracy, but Swinney's judgment was spot-on. There is a national interest at play here that supersedes local sensibilities.

Americans can't get enough of this story. The Yanks love the idea that the great Donald Trump might be thwarted by a bunch of pawky Scotchmen, who would rather have a bit of beach than a billion pounds of investment, 6,000 jobs and an extra £60m a year for the local economy. Our role in this drama is to play the part of wily but unworldly natives, instantly recognisable from films such as Whisky Galore!, Local Hero and I Know Where I'm Going. Now I love these movies too, but to perpetuate these stereotypes in 2007 would be a disaster.

I feel strongly about this because I know the real damage that can be done if such a project founders. My home town of Dundee spent a decade trying to live down the woeful saga of the Ford electronics factory that was planned for the city back in 1988. The $68m investment was substantial for its day, but was killed off when Ford couldn't strike a deal to have the workforce represented by a single union. Instead, the money, jobs, spin-offs and kudos went to Cadiz in Spain.

Even though the fault lay with squabbling union barons at UK level, it was the Dundee workforce that got the blame, giving the city an undeserved reputation for militancy and obstinacy. Only recently, through diversification into life sciences and video gaming, has Dundee killed off that canard. The Trump saga carries a similar risk, not just for the northeast but for the country as a whole. Like it or not, international businessmen considering an investment in Scotland are a lot more like Donald Trump than Martin Ford, the well-meaning but naive Lib Dem councillor whose casting vote on Aberdeenshire Council's infrastructure committee gave Trump his bloody nose.

Ford has spoken of his astonishment at the hostile reaction he received from local people. "The world's gone mad," he said, inadvertently revealing he had no idea how high the stakes truly were.

Environmental objections to the Trump scheme need a little perspective. The last time I looked at a map of Scotland we seemed to have quite a lot of coastline - 7,140 miles of it, to be exact. We don't seem to be badly off for sand.

To reject this proposal to save a sand dune therefore seems a tad unnecessary. Nor does the area's status as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) carry much weight. This designation doesn't mean Menie is a natural treasure that must be preserved at all costs, like a Grade-A listed building. There are actually 1,455 SSSIs in Scotland, covering more than a million hectares. That's 12.9% of Scotland's land mass. Are we really saying that none of this land should be considered for any kind of development whatsoever?

Then there's the reaction to Trump himself. I don't remember the same hoo-hah two years ago when the Al Tajir family from Saudi Arabia announced a deal to build a £100m playground for the super-rich on a 600-acre chunk of Perthshire next to Gleneagles, with golf courses, a world-class spa and holiday homes that cost £5m a pop. This was widely seen as a good thing for tourism, while, in contrast, Trump's plans are apparently akin to a full-scale invasion by the 101st Airborne Division.

I don't doubt that some of Trump's opponents have a sincere concern for the environment - but for others this is simply camouflage. You don't have to dig too deep to find other, less edifying motivations. Let's be honest, if this golf scheme was the brainchild of a Swedish tycoon famed for his impeccable manners and Renaissance art collection it would have been passed with little difficulty. But because Trump is a vulgar, self-publicising American property shark with garish taste in women and architecture it's a very different story. There's a smidgeon of snobbishness in attitudes to 'The Donald', and maybe a dash of anti-Americanism as well.

Obviously, the Menie masterplan must come under careful scrutiny. This can't be a walled fortress that flouts Scotland's right-to-roam laws. The beaches must still be accessible for the local people to enjoy. The architecture of the hotel complex must gain its inspiration from Scotland's grand Victorian links hotels, such as Turnberry, and not from Disneyland or Las Vegas.

And the Trump Organisation must look at ways to be generous benefactors to the local community. But with these conditions satisfied, the scheme should go ahead.

Scotland is the home of golf. We are so familiar with this phrase we perhaps fail to recognise its potency and potential. If we want to continue attracting golfing tourist dollars we must compete with what the rest of the world is offering the filthy rich. And, let's face it, no one knows them better than The Donald.



The full article contains 986 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 December 2007 10:27 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Kenny Farquharson
 
1

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 09/12/2007 02:25:32

That was the most balanced restrained reporting of this topic I have read.

2

redcliffe62,

brisbane on hols 09/12/2007 03:43:53

Excellent piece. Whether you agree or not with Trumpville you have explained the case for both sides well.
And the point about Dundee, my mum and dad's home town, is so apt. The knock on effects should not be forgotten.
Have you considered transferring to the politics section of your newspaper to improve the overall standard of journalism? Better still why not run it?

3

Crawford, Bauld, Wardhaugh and Urquart.,

USA 09/12/2007 03:55:28

Actually, a piece well written for the Trump case with the same amount of flaws as well as positives for his arguement.
Yes, Scotland needs to take it's head out of the sand as regards it's place in the golfing world nowadays.
Myrtle Beach in South Carolina vies with Florida for the title of 'Capitol of the Golfing World.'
And, as Jimmy Cricket used to say, there's more! Mission Hills Golf Club in China has overtaken Pinehurst in the Guiness Book of Records as the number one golf club in the world.
But, 6000 jobs?? Tell me how?
There will probably be a number of idiotic 'numpties', to use the current idiom, who will provide the local building industry with a reasonable amount of work in the short term, but when that is completed, or drastically slows down, a few cleaners, security men and the greenkeeping staff will be what's left.
Oh, and in the current Aberdeenshire weather, how many of them will even be needed?
I am not anti development in Scotland - quite the reverse.
But Farquhson, if he wishes to bring Dundee into the arguement, might be better reflecting on the NCR and Timex Companies who set up in Dundee with huge promises - certainly fulfilled in the short term - then contracted in the case of the former by about ten times, whilst the latter closed it's doors.
Hello!!!! What was it? Around at least ten or twelve thousand jobs lost!
Put the blame where you may, experience of these developments in America is that they all have teething problems, many are abandoned and go to the wall.
Or, in the case of St Andrews Bay, another development built with unbelievably bad advice, it has moved on to another owner.
Oh, and wasn't there a large voice of warning that would happen there, but American money saw it passed.
The hard fact is, Trump will get his way, numpties will buy houses there, but the chickens will come home to roost when the chickens see the Noth East of Scotland's weather for six month

4

Stuart W,

09/12/2007 05:21:26

Quote from article:

"Even though the fault lay with squabbling union barons at UK level, it was the Dundee workforce that got the blame, giving the city an undeserved reputation for militancy and obstinacy. Only recently, through diversification into life sciences and video gaming, has Dundee killed off that canard."

But I doubt if union militancy or the lack of it was ever a factor vis-a-vis the growth of the life sciences and video gaming industries in Dundee.

Dunno too much about the substantive issues myself, but KF's article seems to be of the kind which says that the bigger the chequebook, the less planning and democratic considerations matter.

On balance I would probably have supported the application, but the treatment of the objecting councillors at the hands of the media et al has been disgraceful.

5

Scozzy,

Aus 09/12/2007 05:46:39

What legislative act empowers the Scottish Govt to call in and potentially overturn the planning decision made by a democratically elected Local Authority which quite rightly rejected the development because it breaches local planning laws and impacts upon a site of special scientific interest?

The appalling message this send to the world is that the rules are re-made for Donald Trump and Scotland is prepared to circumvent due process on the basis of one man’s wealth and the undue influence he has on our Ministers.

6

Pilrig.,

Livingston 09/12/2007 06:43:41

Kenny says that the Trump development "cant be a walled fortress that flouts Scotland's right-to-roam laws"

Does he seriously think the Trump development wouldn't seek an exception from the Land Reform Act ?
Dream on.
The Gloag case ruling, along with the goverment's reluctance ( I wonder why ?) to appeal against that ruling means the said act has been torpedoed. A a result anyone with money (and a sympathetic sheriff) can gain exception from the Act.

7

abcd,

edinburgh 09/12/2007 09:26:21

I wish the reporting about this would get real. Where do these figures come from? The people planning the development. Does Kenny Farquharson (or anyone else in the Scottish media) subject them to any scrutiny or analysis? No, of course not. They accept them and quote them as fact.

And this bull about 'we've got lots of SSSIs, so we can afford to bulldoze a few' line is just laughable. Balanced reporting? My a*se.

Couple of other points.

When are people going to realise that this isn't about golf. The man wants to build a new small town in Aberdeenshire - this is about the 500 (500!) homes that he wants to build IN ADDITION to the holiday homes, hotel and golf course. Now, this isn't to say that the area doesn't need more housing but do you not think that it's legitimate for the local planning authority to make a decision about that?

Secondly, where is this consistent line coming from that local people are overwhelmingly in favour? I just don't believe it and I never see these assertions backed up by any information. My family live in that neck of the woods and know plenty people who think it is a terrible idea.

Rant ends.

8

JR Ewing,

Aberdeen 09/12/2007 10:10:22

Rant begins

Information as requested for abcd
http://search.petitions.pm.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/petiti...
Also take careful note of the pro trump signatories, mainly indigenous surnames unlike its rival with their double barreled surnames and titles.

Btw
Maybe your local connections may explain why 840 houses plus retail park are being built on green belt at Portlethen without a cheep from the ecofreaks.
Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that Trump is not the developer

9

robthom,

Abdn 09/12/2007 13:01:20

How can the local interest win against a tribe of million dollar US lawyers plus a local press that puts money and US business before everything else. This is a personalised campaign to make sure that the dollar wins. The planning process was perfectly valid and correct. The press and the Trump lawyers didn't want to compromise so launched a massive attack. They didnt attack the planning system because it had run correctly and fairly but had gone against them. They attacked the individuals instead because a lot of public will respond to a populist witchhunt and this is all about making a profit for foreign business interests. This kind of imbalanced propaganda war has been used since the dawn of history. If the North East believes in democracy and a fair deal instead of just the US dollar, they would have the decency to look at this proposal to build a new town in perspective. Can people in the North East not pull themselves together and create their own business activities instead of this slavish belief that only foreigners can give them the economic future they need? It suits the SNP to turn this planning decision into a political issue - which is illegal.

10

Debra Storr,

balmedie 09/12/2007 13:42:40

A £100m develeopment at Gleneagles and a £1 billion development at Menie are of rather different scales. Or are the zeros too confusing?

The question now is will the Scottish Government send this to a public local inquiry. Last week, questions were being asked about the timing of the call in after Aberdeenshire had made the (to Alex, wrong) decision. The Politics show revelations today can only lead to more questions.

11

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 09/12/2007 13:58:19

Let Aberdeenshire Council organise a consultative local referendum to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants. This would determine what the electorate wants and settle once and for all the will of the people. Let the voters have their say, because they are the people most affected and will have to live with the consequences.

12

Hebb,

09/12/2007 16:30:05

#7

Just wondering why people have set up petitions to Downing Street when this whole issue has got nothing to do with the administration in London. Surely it makes more sense to focus any petitioning on the Scottish Parliament, which is where the final decision will be made.

13

robthom,

abdn 09/12/2007 17:01:20

A referendum on planning decisions? - what a ludicrous idea! This is further proof that the SNP are politicising the planning process. Now we learn that Salmond met and was lobbied by the developer. If planning was decided by referendum or 'the people' you would have the developers running everything by manipulating the newspapers and therefore public opnion. The local readership is usually so gullible they let their opinions be formed and changed by the violently expressed views in one way or another. The developer would simply buy votes. If the press had happened to opt for the "Local Hero" angle, there would be a fury about Trump. But the press and Trump stand for the same financial interest - the US dollar - so obviously they are backing the development at any price- and they can afford to spend endless amounts of dollars to work together to manipulate public opnion. Hundreds if not thousands of people would have wanted to vote to stop the the Stewart Milne development at Kepplestone but planning has never been about getting everything you want. We need houses and developments but these have to fit into the environment and the existing context. Just like Kepplestone, all the relevant planning policies, Local Plan, procedures etc were followed. But one side loses in planning - get over it.

14

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 09/12/2007 17:35:03

Robthom

This was a local planning application of regional and national significance. It was never treated that way by the council. It should have at least gone to full council, if not National Govt before now, and should never ever have been left to the chair of a committee who has very strong views on environmental issues.

The local press were expressing the views of the vast majority because the Council nor the ISC didn't. The dog wagged the tail, the horse pulled the cart, not the other way round as you have argued.

It will be very interesting to find out what the full council express at their extraordinary meeting this week. This will definitely have a bearing on the National Govt decision.

15

abcd,

09/12/2007 21:13:52

Gee, JR, thanks for that. Your in-depth analysis has really won me over. Double-barrelled names, gosh, how very un-Aberdonian.

Now, in terms of your second point, what could be the difference between the well-known sh*t-hole, wasteland of industrial estates that is Portlethen and the pristine beaches of Balmedie? Guess that will forever remain a mystery. To you.

16

Stiggy,

Arbroath 10/12/2007 15:13:58

I must say hats off to Kenny Farquharson for what I thought it was the best article I have read on this subject. It didn't get drawn into the petty politics or planning details that a lot of the other articles fall into the trap of. Personally speaking I don't believe the planned course would ever make the Open rota but it is certainly permissable to make the same impact as say Loch Lomond did in recent years. Living only a few miles from Carnoustie I see at first hand the difference such events make to the local economy. Aberdeen is in for a big shock once the oil does go and they need to look at other forms of investment - why not tourism? To me the economic side of the argument is a no-brainer. On the enirovmental side again for me, the green lobby haven't made a convincing case for the ordinary guy on the street. why this project should be knocked back. Mr Farquharson makes the right point that we have an abundance (indeed embarassment) of sand/coastline/countryside. Will the local eco-system be irreparably damaged - again the green lobby have not made a convincing argument for that. I'm all for preserving the environment but it has to be realistic. We're not speaking about drilling for oil in the Arctic. We're speaking about construction work on land. I'm sure the local flora and fauna can survive it/adapt accordingly. We live in a constantly developing world and while I do agree certain areas should be sacrosanct there has to be a balance. That only leaves the planning argument. Was it mishandled - definitely. Should the application go through? Of course it should (and watch this space it will). Does it set a possible precedent? Of course it does but at least the situation can be managed as Kenny rightly points out. Government was absolutely right to call it in - the only fault was allowing the local councillors to have any involvement in the first place. Government should be able to balance all sides of the argument including planning, economy and environm


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.