Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Neil · Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

I am rather surprised that nobody has started a discussion on the council committee axing Trump's plan to invest in a world class golf course etc.

Aventinian

"Bewildered" doesn't even begin to sum up my response to all this.

Tarring and feathering sounds like a damnably good idea. As for not starting a thread, I was thinking about it, but I really couldn't be bothered.

Claymore

It’s beyond belief, actually am I right in thinking it was the Lib Dems that voted against this? So it’s not so unbelievable. Even if it gets saved, I sincerely hope that’s the end those councillors political careers, and the Lib Dems in Scotland, they’ve proved themselves once again to be utterly useless, I’m all for tarring and feathering.

mmmm......…

£1 billion pound investment
World Class golf course, championship, media, publicity
Hotels
Tourism
Jobs
Future investments

NEW ROADS
AIRPORT EXPANSION
PRIVATE HOMES

That’s it! Throw it in the bin
Shocked

mairead

Well I don't agree. I don't think any more of Scotland should be sold off to foreign investors.
After all the work is done, what will be the benefit of this project to the ordinary folk of the area.
The houses which are proposed will be beyond the means of ordinary folk and only the wealthy will be able to afford the golf course fees.
Sure, building the hotels, houses and golf course will give work to many, but that is only a temporary thing. What happens when it is all finished. The wealthy and the foreigners will be the only people to benefit.

Anthropos · Re: Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Aventinian

Aventinian · Re: Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Holebender

I'm one of the few posters here who live in the area, not that that makes my opinion any more or less valid.

The amount of money involved shouldn't really matter, unless you think we should be for sale to every passing billionaire. I don't think being a prostitute is very edifying.

sgmillerton

i heard some phone calls about this on the radio this morning, some people can be best described as rascists toward americans going by the language they use. i was embaressed by these 'scot's' peoples views.

billionare yank bully was one of the less vicious.shameful we can be some times.

Aventinian

Holebender

You are, as usual, presumptuous.

If a Thai logged in to this forum and expressed an opinion I think he or she has as much right to have his or her opinion heard as I do. I'd also express good wishes for the eightieth birthday of his/her king.

Aventinian

Niall · Re: Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Aventinian · Re: Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Maol.Chaluim · Re: Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Holebender

Aventinian

mac · The Trump deal

...is exactly the type of inward investment that should be welcomed and encouraged - if we were ever to become Independent, this is the type of regeneration which could potentially transform our economy for the better.

Rinty

I dont know enough about the local area to think that my opinion would be better than the elected representatives on the local planning committee. But this is not a rejection of £1b investment. It is a rejection of a specific 'take it or leave it' plan for a particular outlined area.

Trump wants to bypass the normal procedures and demand that his whole plan is accepted carte blanche rather than negotiate on points of the plan or look at alternatives.

The Scottish Government have set a precedent by 'calling it in', this is usually only done when an appeal is launched (trump refuses to appeal) or when a plan has been approved that goes against an already agreed local or national plan.

Now some Aberdeen councillors want to call a vote of no confidence in the councilor who had the casting vote against. This is again a precedent in our system. The correct way of dealing with this councillor is for his constituents to decide whether he should be re-elected or replaced, not councillors.

The chair in question was against the plan but, even if he supported it, he was still duty bound to vote against in his situation as chair. If it is a tied vote the chair has to vote with the decision that keeps existing council policy and local plans.

The planning committee in Aberdeen DIDNT make a decision on whether Trump could invest £1b in Scotland, they rejected the specific proposal on the table.

Should we let our Scottish Government create a situation where billonaires can bypass our procedures and democracy?

Neil

Economist

I'm not a local, not a fan of Donald Trump or his aggressive business style - but I think it was wrong to turn this down for two reasons:

(1) This project will ultimately go somewhere else, if it doesn't happen in Aberdeenshire. It will most likely go to Ireland. Ireland has already stole a march on Scotland - the supposed home of modern golf - when it comes to golfing, golf-related tourism and the spin off effects of that. This would only augment that.

(2) The refusal of a project as big as this, from a globally known brand as Donald Trump doesn't send out the right signals about Scotland or its business ethic to potential investors. It shows a hostility to inward investment in Scotland - something in this competitive world we cannot have.

Is it right that the Scottish Government are stepping in, and are most likely going to approve the project - I don't know. One thing's for sure though, the local planning process in Scotland is thoroughly in need of a shake up - as recent events show us. It isn't really representative or, in many cases, completely above board.

Rinty

"Rinty they HAVE turned down an offer of £1 billion. To say they would nonetheless think about another offer is immaterial (& rather hopeful). Should I turn down Michelle Pfeiffer (unlikely) I would still have turned her down even if I said I wouldn't mind her asking again later. Whether this would influence my chances with Angelina Jolie positively or negatively must remain a matter of speculation."

No, you miss my point. The Scottish Government can look at it as a £1b investment and go out of their way to accomodate Trump so that the investment comes to Scotland, that's part of their job. The job of the Aberdeen planning commitee, however, was to look at the specific proposal weighed up against other issues as well as just investment in the economy.

Normally any developer, will take on the decision and recommendations of the planning committe, dicsuss with them what tweaking of the plan would likely meet approval and submit an alternative proposal. Or he would appeal and then the Scottish Government would look at it.

So the council had to ignore the £1b investment and treat it as they would any other development proposal. The chair clearly had to cast his casting vote in the way that he did as this development would breach the current planning for the area.

You dont know whether they would have accepted the development with slight changes to the plan. We dont know this because Trump refuses to negotiate, appeal, or change his plan.

I have no problem, in theory, with the SNP government pursuing Trump to persuade him to spend his cash here. The problem comes if the govt overrule the local council on how they develop their own local economy and areas of special scientific interest.

Maybe a smaller development or the same development a few miles further up the road would be better. The council have weighed these options up, Trump refuses to, and we are just speculating on the basis of Trump having one billion to spend. If the Scottish Govt are planning to find him another site that's one thing, if they are talking about overruling local planning decisions thats an entirely different issue.

Developers wil be watching this with interest. There is a clear indication here that the SNP in govt are going to be willing to cut through local and national plans, ignore the environment, and centralise power away from councils, if the price is right. Of course they won't find much opposition in holyrood.

Niall

The Councillor Martin Ford has just been outed as a downright hypocrite. This article from Todays Press and Journal tells it all.

HYPOCRISY CLAIM IN TRUMP RESORT ROW

08:50 - 07 December 2007

The councillor who almost ended Donald Trump's north-east golf dream was last night accused of double standards in backing a windfarm plan that meant building a road through a site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Martin Ford, chairman of Aberdeenshire Council's infrastructure services committee, was also accused of hypo-crisy for using his casting vote to throw out the tycoon's plans to build the "world's greatest golf course" at Menie Estate near Balmedie, to protect sensitive sand dunes.

Last night Lord Aberdeen, laird of the Haddo Estate near Ellon, attacked the stance taken by Mr Ford, pointing out that three years ago the East Garioch member backed plans for 48 wind turbines near Huntly, which were later refused by the then-Scottish Executive.

Part of the access road to the proposed wind turbines would have crossed an SSSI.

In a letter to the Press and Journal, Lord Aberdeen said: "Can I suggest that if Mr Trump's attempts to construct a golf course at Menie come to nothing, then he submits a planning application for 48,100-metre high, wind turbines to try and mitigate his losses.

"This would have the advantage of being wholly endorsed by Councillor Martin Ford who was perfectly prepared to see an SSSI, together with 1,500 acres of forestry at Clashindarroch, near Huntly, totally destroyed in support of such an application in early 2004.

"As Councillor Ford stated then, the people of Aberdeenshire should expect consistency in planning decisions."

Lord Aberdeen added last night: "I am not pro or anti- golf course, it is just the hypocrisy of it all which aggravates me.

"He voted one time for the destruction of an SSSI and then to protect it this time because it is near the coast."

Mr Ford said last night that the two applications were not at all similar and that he would not be drawn into the argument.

However, he again underlined his determination to remain chairman of the infrastructure services committee, despite a motion of no confidence lodged by Banff and District member John Cox.

The motion reads: "Following recent public comments made by Councillor Ford, I believe his position as chairman of the infrastructure services committee is no longer tenable.

"I move that Councillor Ford is replaced as chairman of the infrastructure services committee to ensure that Aberdeenshire debates and makes decisions which benefit residents and visitors to the north-east of Scotland and are not constrained or influenced by Councillor Ford's personal stance to developments which do not meet his personal objectives."

Mr Cox called for Mr Ford to be replaced to "draw a line" under the saga.

It is understood business leaders have also written to council chief executive Alan Campbell questioning Mr Ford's position.

The unrepentant councillor said last night: "Following the refusal, the applicant has not dealt with the council in anything like a normal manner.

"Instead of resubmission or appeal, the council was given what was widely described as an 'ultimatum' to grant the application as it stood.

"Immense pressure was put on the council, and seven councillors in particular, through the press - pressure that has caused real difficulties within the council.

"The council must not allow itself to be bullied."
*********

'S mise
Niall.

Rinty

This is all nonsense and this councillor didnt desreve it. Each application has it's own merits and because he qwpproves one development in that area doesnt mean that he needs to approve all.

As Chair he couldnt approve a plan that goes against the local five-year plan so even a councillor who supported trump's plansd would have had to cast his casting vote against.

We domt know what the sticking points were re the plans or how easy the council would have been to deal with as Trump insists on my way or nothing.

We simply cannot allow planning permission to be a matter of who is investing and how much they are investing.

This has been a really ill-informed debate so far but the scapegoating of one of the councillors who voted against (and the one who had no choice) is a turn for the worse in an already loaded debate.

Neil

Ford didn't just vote against it because he was chairman - he had been openly pushing all along (& to be fairto him hasn't used that excuse himself being willing to tell the press he wants to stop it).

The people who don't deserve this are the locals - whiose disapproval is clearly overwhelming - they see far better than parasitical councillors how damaging this is for the reason Economist gave in his 2nd point. This is, whatever Rinty says, a rejection of £1 billion of investment in the local community.

The locals got no choice in the matter - the councillors are fully responsible for their pillorying.

Niall as an accountant you will know better than me but would I be far out if I guessed the normal tax & rates take for a project costing £1 billion would be about £100 million a year. What a complete pointless waste.

Rinty

"This is, whatever Rinty says, a rejection of £1 billion of investment in the local community."

Of course it is, but you miss my point. I perhaps should have said that "it's not as simple as just rejecting a figure of £1b". A planning committee have to weigh up their own five year plans, national plans, other potential developments in the area, environmental concerns etc. For instance, Trump aims to build thousands of expensive holiday homes. Experience shows that this can often cause problems in local house prices which make it difficult for the local economy.

What the council rejected was not "do you want £1b or not" they rejected a specific plan for a specific area.

"Niall as an accountant you will know better than me but would I be far out if I guessed the normal tax & rates take for a project costing £1 billion would be about £100 million a year. What a complete pointless waste."

The £1b figure is what the whole thing will cost, that is no measure of what will be raised in tax revenue. Trump is very good at making sure that his companies dont pay much in the way of tax wherever they are. It may cost millions to build the holiday homes and they might sell for millions, but that is no gauarantee that those homes will bring a specific amount into the economy. As Niall would tell you, the capital cost of a project is no way of judging it's long term worth to the local or national economy, otherwise we would be quids in from the millenium dome.

"Ford didn't just vote against it because he was chairman - he had been openly pushing all along (& to be fairto him hasn't used that excuse himself being willing to tell the press he wants to stop it)."

It is irrelevant, as the councillor HAS clearly said, the chair has no choice in the matter. This particular councillor did oppose the plans but as Chair he had to back the status quo re councils five year planning. A chair who supported Trumps plans would have had to voted the same way as Ford. Otherwise he would have had to stand down as Chair.

"The locals got no choice in the matter - the councillors are fully responsible for their pillorying."

Are you saying that locals should on every planning application. The locals choose their councillors, the councillors run the council, if they dont do it well then we can elect someone else. Or do we now have to change the democratic system as well as planning procedures to appease this billionaire.

As I said at the start of this thread, I dont have the knowledge to decide whether this plan was wothwhile or not, I assume that others taking part in this dont either. How it would normally work is negotiation of the pints that are causing the council problems. In this case that cant happen as Trump flatly refuses to compromise, it is a case of do what Donald says or nothing.

Why not go the whole hog neil and tell every rich developer that the rules dont apply to them and that they can do what they want if they wave a cheque under our noses.

For all I know (and you know) this plan might have been accepted with some reasonable alterations. Are you sure that the plans were not rejected because of Trumps intransigence and a plan could have gone ahead if he had agreed to move some of it a few miles up the road?

This whole debate is over simplified and scapegoating.

Niall

Neil

Thanks Naill. It is useful to know from somebody who knows, what we are dealing with.

When we have a sucessful economy almost all other things are so much easier.

Rinty

"Slightly more than that, around £120 million. Money thats desperately needed by Aberdeenshire council to finance Infrastructure improvements, inward investment and to build social housing."

I am sorry Niall, I didnt catch what model you were using to calculate this. Are you saying that you have worked out what the income would be from the people who buy the holiday homes and stay at the hotel, and how of that the council will see?

Developers would run a million miles from an idea like this. Are you saying that if it costs trump £1B to do this then he will have to pay 12% of that total every year to the local council? Or are you saying that Trumps plane have a specific business plan that points to £120m raised in local tax revenue every year. It does seem a very high estimate for what the council will gain from this, and how does it get to them, surely most of the revenue will be UK tax revenue.

It woukld be intrested to know how you came up with an annual figure on this, seemingly based on the capital cost.

If I spend a billion pounds redesigning a museum, will that guarantee a £120 million revenue per year? If so it looks like quite a good investment and councils would build more themselves as they would see the cash back in 8 years by your calculations.

"As someone who believes the free market works better than politicians running everything perhaps you could explain in what way Aberdeenshire benefits from counillor's five year plans & exactly why you think the council forcing up house prices by maintaining a local monopoly is what socialism is all about. I always regarded it as pretty much the monopoly capitalism Marx (but not Friedman) said socialism would save us from."

Woah, slow down there, that is a different subject altogether. Are you now arguing that we shouldnt have planning regulations at all? Are you saying that Aberdeen Council are socialist or that our planning procedures are socialist?

What we are talking about here is a specific plan in front of a planning committee who dont, and cant consider plans in isolation of other local needs.

For instance the RSPB opposed the plans but only asked that half of one of the two golf courses was moved inland half a mile or so to protect rare habitats. They didnt oppose £1b development in the local economy, they opposed the specific placing of one small part of the project. That seems like a reasonable way to approach planning to me, but not to Trump. I am not a planner and dont have access to all the details in this particular case, I am sure dont either. But there must be dozens of not hundreds of considerations to look into in any development, especially one of this size.

What the SNP govt have done is turn our planning procedures around and set a precedent, it will be interesting to see what happens here, I expect a whole load of legal challenges and an angry reaction from councils if the Govt decide to force this plan, as is, on the council.

Will the Central govt pay for the costs to the council from this project, roads, extra school places, school transport, NHS provision etc. Will the govt guarantee local income from it and ring fence some of the tax revenue generated?

I doubt it.

Neil

Rinty

Neil

Since, as a socialist, you have already expressed your support for preventing building to allow capitalists to make monopoly profits it is somewhat hypocritical to say how dreadful it would be if this developer were ever to be allowed the same right. I assume that if Trump gets to build in 10 years you, or your idealogical successor wil be calling for building restrictions to defend the value of trumps project & I will still be supporting free enterprise.

If you think that windfarms are an example of free enterprise you indeed do not live in the real world. If you are aware they exist purely because of massive subsidies, supported by all right-minded socialists, then you have lied.

Since your non-existent "example" isn't intended as a business it is a rather silly example of a "business2 failing to make profits. Though in fact it is very similar to Andrew Carnegie's Skibo Castle, which, a century later is still paying taxes. Doubtless you idealogical ancesors would have wished to prevent him rebuilding it to - though, as suggested above - i guess you would not be averse to using its existence as an argument against some other development in the area.

I note that in all your objection to the £120 million figure of what taxes will be paid you have unaccountably omitted to give your own estimate. How much do YOU think is being lost by rejecting this development?

Rinty

Neil

1) I think you did say on this thread that you objected to Trumps plans specificly because[ they would provide an alternative to the local housing monoployquote] For instance, Trump aims to build thousands of expensive holiday homes. Experience shows that this can often cause problems in local house prices which make it difficult for the local economy.[/quote] You ignored that when I pointed it out before but to say you never said it is ridiculous.

As I pointed out Marx promised that socialism would end capitalist monopolies whereas Friedman showed it usually produced an entrenched bureaucracy which worked at first in the interests of the best funded lobbyists (which in those days meant capitalists but, in an era where 90% of Friends of the Earth, Europe is 90% funded by government bureaucrats this is changing) & later merely to extend its own regulatory powers. With your specific complaint that Trump is providing competition in housing & your insistence on enforcing ever more rules before anybody is allowed to create wealth you are demonstrating which one was right.

2) If windmills were a serious method of producing power, which is the only way free enterprise would fund then, then my attitude would almost certainly be different. In fact it is a way of pissing away £1 billion a year to no useful effect. I do not consider that worth defending.

3) As you should know I did not arrive at the figure but Niall, who is a trained accountant did. I suspect he knows much more about accountancy & most other things, than you, even if he is less keen to lecture. In any case since you will stand by no other figure you are merely blowing smoke & saying we should ignore anything concealed.

Rinty

Neil

Cymro

Well in my opinion Aberdeen Council where perfectly right to turn down that clowns application. The guy is a bully and he and his cronie in the area have done their best to bully Aberdeen Council and the Councillors to give in to them. I also think the Scottish Government need to move very carefully in looking into overturning this decision.

The person that would benefit mostly by a long shot out of this is Trump himself. Not the communtiy, not Scotland and certainly not the environment.

Niall

Apologies for the delay in posting my breakdown of the £120 Millions. The tax revenues come from four different tax bases starting with the largest. The figures were aggregated over a period of ten years and then divided by 10 to arrive at the mean.:

Corporation Taxes £77.8 Million
Income taxes + NIC £25.2 Million.
Business rates and Charges £12.3 Million.
Council Taxes £4.5 Million

Total aggregate £119.8 Million.

These figures will be smaller in the first three years of operation rising to a much higher figure in the latter years of the ten year period. There are some variables such as the proportion of the 1,500 homes being sold or let. A holiday homes business will pay more in rates than a private house paying CT.

'S mise
Niall

Rinty

Good stuff Niall. Where did you get these figures from?

The corporation tax would be based on profits of the business, do you have a copy of the business plan and it's projected profits?

The split in the homes is 1,000 holiday homes and 500 permanent homes.

That would mean that are reckoning on £9k per house in Council Tax! Seems very high to me.

At 30% corporation tax you are estimating that Trumps resort will show a profit after allowable costs of £260 million per year. How are you calculating the turnover and profit of the resorts hotel and golf courses? Again it seems very high and would see Trump recover all of his costs in just a few years, my experience is that this would be very rare indeed, to recoup a £1b capital investment of four or five years of business. I would expect him to recoup most of the money from the sale of houses and then expect a much smaller annual profit than you are predicting.

Also, how are you calculating the income tax, do you have figures on the number of employees and their likely salaries?

The hotels staff and groundstaff will all be on minimum wage (and probably mostly polish) so the tax revenue from them would be very low, and for UK residents might be met with a cost for tax credits.

1,000 employees at minumum wage would, by my reckoning, bring in about £2m in income tax, not including what might be offset by tax credit claims from low earners. I know there will also be higher paid employees, but I doubt that the low wage ones will number anything like 1,000 and that you figures make sense without a breakdown of how many staff will be paid what.

Some papers have reported 6,000 jobs but that is simply ridiculous when we are talking about a hotel, two golf courses and a holiday home park.

Jobs that are counted as part of the construction cant be easily counted as new revenue unless you can show that the same companies would not have been employed elsewhere at similar levels of income. These jobs would also only last for the duration of the building and cannot be relied on as annual income.

George

Slightly off topic but given the frenzy that the press are attempting to create I thought I'd post an observation on the ridiculous 'trumpgate' non scandal.

I'm not too bothered now by this so called story, we all know that it is contrived. It is clear that there aren't many Unionists who are willing to engage in debate on it. It is also clear that the Scottish press have decided to take on the role as opposition in Scotland with an increased vigour.

However, what really dismays me is that they have chosen this sort of topic with which to try to fabricate a scandal. This is a major investment opportunity for the North East of Scotland that apparently had cross party support. However it appears that the Unionists are willing to jeopordise it in order to smear the SNP. Is the Union now considered so precious that the economic development and international standing of the Nation is considered expendable in their game?

This, coupled with the inactivity and apparent ambivalence over the illegal donations and the almost certain lies that followed is very worrying. The conclusion here is that the law, the Scottish economy and the stable and positive governance of Scotland are considered insignificant in this 'battle' to save the Union.

agentmancuso

Economist

I'm not sure whether it was right or not - but then I'm not sure whether a small sub committee of a wider local council (which seems very much in favour) should be allowed to have the casting vote on the issue - but perhaps that is a procedural issue for the local council to take account of.

However the Scottish Government have the ability to act in the fashion they have done, by virtue of section 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

It doesn't seem if any rules have been broken or bent on the issue and that there doesn't seem to be any improprietry on the behalf of the Government or FM - which is the most bizarre thing of this whole episode. Firstly it was the FM had secretive meetings (untrue) with the Trump organision, an issue that seems largely to have been put to the side in the ecstasy of the opposition to pin something sinister on the Government. Then it was the FM improperly used a ministerial car and now the furore is about whether some people were in the room when a phonecall was made.

The opposition should wait their time on the SNP eventually putting a foot wrong, instead of trying to pin things on people and then changing their stories. If they cry wolf all the time....then when that eventuality happens people won't be so willing to believe their every word.

Niall

SLG

George

SLG

George

It would appear that as the allegations by the Unionists are knocked over one by one that they have conjured up another. Apparently the allegation now is that the Chief Planner made a telephone call to Aberdeenshire council with someone from Trump's team in the room.........with a gun held at the Chief Planner's head !!! (OK I made the last bit up)

Anyone notice that the links to Salmond are becoming ever more tenuous?

I wonder if 'phonecallgate' will be twisted to implicate Salmond and contrive another headline.

sgmillerton

lets put some spin on this, replace the name alex salmond with jack mconnell...............................hilaroius double standards.

SLG

What's Jack McConnell got to do with this?

George

sgmillerton

last week wenday alexander and labour in general weregetting slated for being shady, mr. salmond has been a little shady yet his marchers are blind to it. if this was jack mconnel in salmons situation there would be much nashing of teeth.

Maol.Chaluim

There's being "a little shady" (allegedly), and there's breaking the law...

SLG

Aye, if this had been McConnell in charge, I'd expect the SNP to be trying to make capital out of it, just like the Lib Dems are now. I definitely wouldn't expect the media to be making such a big issue of it and I wouldn't expect anyone here to have got too carried away with it.

Holebender

As has been mentioned briefly above, FMQs stands for First Minister's Questions. The format is someone asks the First Minister a question and he answers it. If no-one asks a question about his meeting people on constituency business, how can he mention it? If it comes to that, the fact that he was there on constituency business means that it is not within the remit of the First Minister's job and so probably not even admissible as a question to the FM.

Maybe he could stand up as the MSP for Gordon and ask himself as FM something about it?

Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Re: Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Re: Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Re: Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Re: Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

Re: Was it right to turn down Trump's £1 billion?

The Trump deal