The Kintyre Forum

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Use-3 ... 6658411.jp


Should historical works of art be sold to help balance the council budget as suggested in the article above?
Would it even be legal for the council to do so?.............


"George McMillan, a former chairman of the old Argyll and Bute District Council, said a museums expert had valued Campbeltown's historic assets alone at more than £2m. These include the McTaggart paintings and the original charter, signed by King William, declaring Campbeltown as a Royal Burgh in 1700.

There are valuable historic items stored away in other parts of the district, and Mr MacMillan said that while in an ideal world it would be nice to hold on to them, the time had come for the council to consider selling some of its assets."

"Campbeltown councillor Donald Kelly, from the Argyll First party, said he understood that one of the McTaggart paintings, A Westering Gale, had an estimated value of £1m.

Councillor Kelly said: "I want to see frontline services protected and I think the council should be looking at every single avenue of making savings."

He added: "The bottom line is, do we protect frontline services, or do we protect these artefacts?"

this proposal could be a tradgedy for the area, Does this part of our heritage not belong to the people?.
How much per annum do these poor managers make, maybe a cut in wages for them would sort some of the budget shortfalls.
I can understand selling off a little, but once you start its hard to stop.

MPR wrote: Does this part of our heritage not belong to the people?.

On the other side of the coin, when did "the people" last see these items ? Have they ever been on public display ?

This idea was mentioned by art critic Brian Sewell a week or two ago. I heard him on the radio talking about it and to be fair he said that "important" works of art should not be sold just the run of the mill items. The sort that will probalbly be hanging on office walls but are worth maybe a few hundred/thousand.

bill wrote:Councillor Kelly said: "I want to see frontline services protected and I think the council should be looking at every single avenue of making savings."

He added: "The bottom line is, do we protect frontline services, or do we protect these artefacts?"

Well Mr Kelly, we know where you stand, such a stark choice. What about getting rid of unnecessary managerial expenses.
Historical works should belong to the area, and the people, you and your cronies don't have a mandate to sell Kintyre's soul to the devil, with the biggest dollar.

ionnsaigh wrote:Mr Kelly, we know where you stand, such a stark choice. What about getting rid of unnecessary managerial expenses.

EXERT FROM FOR ARGYLL WEBSITE wrote:Councillors Dougie Philand, Donald Kelly and John McAlpine, in an effort to share some of the financial pain inflicted on communities in the public spending cuts, had suggested to the full Council earlier in the year that all should take a 10% cut in salary. The result? No action.

Following this, the three went ahead and did it on their own, setting up a trust fund to receive their contributions and to benefit the constituents of Argyll and Bute.

EXERT FROM FOR ARGYLL WEBSITE wrote: Argyll First – who have voluntarily taken a 10% pay cut, diverted to a trust fund for community benefit – have challenged the councillors joining THE ADMINSTRATION (for so the rag bag alliance of independents, LibDems and Tories is to be called) to do the same with the extra money they are now given for their new posts.

Why not sell off all the disused buildings, for example Dell Road Ofiices, St Kiarans School, the old school down the dalsmeran road etc to name but a few in order to raise funds instead of letting them fall into a further state of disrepair and diminsihing value. Also, I assume the council is liable for the maintenance of these buldings should they become dangerous - how much money is being wasted on inspections and maintenance?

I'm sure there are many more disused buildings throughout Argyll & Bute owned by the council that could be sold in order to generate revenue to protect vital services??

Argyll & Bute Council have no right whatsoever to even suggest the sale of our cultural heritage. The Free Library and Museum was the gift of a benefactor - James McAllister Hall, and the contents of the museum are the property of the community and people of Campbeltown, this, by deed of gift from various contributors - including William McTaggart the now famous artist.

Even if it was possible, surely it amounts to sacrilige to even think of selling of our heritage to bail out the financial woes of the council. Should the Egyptians sell off the pyramids? What about McCaigs Tower to a property developer , or better still, Kilmory Castle along with the ruling dynasty!!

The sale of these articles should not even be considered by the council. Whatever they may be worth in the marketplace, they are worth much more to the people of the constituent parts of Argyll and Bute as part of their history and heritage. In actual fact, the proceeds of the sale of this stuff would only produce a temporary papering over of the cracks in the council's finances. Also, as stated by other contributors here, the right of Argyll & Bute Council to sell these items is probably questionable, as they are merely the current custodians as successors of the various Town Councils that they succeeded.

If it was 1st April, I'd be thinking this was a wind-up.

The hosptial at Witchburn was a gift to the town and look what happened to that!

Have to agree with the people opposing this and rather alarming to even read this as a suggestion.

The Council are looking for REVENUE savings - that is savings that will be made year in, year out. The selling of some historical items will only make the saving for 1 year then it is back to square one the year after.

The suggestion of selling off property makes sense as these buildings must be costing a small fortune to the council annually.

Just for info---- re selling off the property portfolio. The "Dell Road" offices at Kirkland have had a "For Sale" sign at them for some significant time. I would hazard a guess that it's well over a year, maybe even a couple, but obviously no takers. The sign blew down during gale season about a month ago. It hasn't been put back up yet. I see it every day, on my way home.

Having read this article.. In my opinion.. the Council wouldn't attempt sell off our local artifacts unless A.) the money was vitally needed and B.) the view from the whole community had been taken into account.
I think a few choice quotes have been selected and highlighted from this article which is giving off an untrue reflection on what its really about.

Mr.Everready wrote:

MPR wrote: Does this part of our heritage not belong to the people?.

On the other side of the coin, when did "the people" last see these items ? Have they ever been on public display ?

This idea was mentioned by art critic Brian Sewell a week or two ago. I heard him on the radio talking about it and to be fair he said that "important" works of art should not be sold just the run of the mill items. The sort that will probalbly be hanging on office walls but are worth maybe a few hundred/thousand.

Good point Mt.E.... Never really heard of any of the above or the value of this painting.... Albeit I am only in the town 16 years !

If this is the case, the lot should be sold, £2 Million could do quite a bit towards Schooling, Roads, Hospital care etc....

As said elsewhere, in this day and age, cash in the community is worth 10x more than some artifacts that are no good to no one....

maxmix

PS Unless of course i'm wrong !!!! Maybe there are thousands of uncounted tourists that come to visit this painting every year (Not sure about that one !)

Never really heard of any of the above or the value of this painting

I think that goes for many of us Maxmix. Surely the point of heritage is that the item is bequeathed to the community in order that it benefits them in some way. Now that could well be a famous painting that attracts many tourists but, if it's hanging in an office or, even worse, lying in some loft then surely it mearly becomes an investment. However it would be an interesting debate as to which items were up for sale and which would be kept for posterity and even more interesting to see who had the final decision!! However, if it came to a choice between a painting hanging in a museum and a kid being able to attend their local primary, it would be a simple choice, personally speaking.

The sale of these items is not going to provide the Council with funds to solve all its current and future problems. The point that SCD made above stating that the Council's current problem is with revenue is at the centre of this issue. The sale of these artefacts can only give temporary respite against a more deep-seated problem that needs addressed in a more holistic way. The sale of these items would merely be asset-stripping, quite apart from the fact that it arguably does not have any moral or legal justification.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it would solve all the council's current or future problems EMDEE. However I think it is a worthy debate, if the council has assets it neither uses nor displays, whether selling them is a reasonable course of action. It would also be interesting to know what these artefacts are and, just as importantly, where they are.