£160,000 new post as chief executive ‘pinnacle of career’

City boss Sue quits for top job in capital

By Calum Ross

Published: 03/09/2010

The woman hired to rebuild Aberdeen City Council is to leave after landing the top job in Scotland’s capital.

Sue Bruce is to become the new chief executive of Edinburgh City Council, less than two years after taking the helm in Aberdeen.

She said last night that her appointment to the £160,000-a-year post at Scotland’s second-biggest local authority would be the “pinnacle” of her career.

Mrs Bruce’s move south will be seen as a major blow by many at Aberdeen City Council, which now begins the search for a new top official to oversee £120million of spending cuts over the next five years.

In a statement last night, Mrs Bruce said: “I have enjoyed and valued my time in Aberdeen greatly. However, this would have to be regarded as the pinnacle of my career.

“Working with Aberdeen City Council has been a wonderful, challenging and interesting experience for me.

“I joined the authority during turbulent times and, by working closely with elected members and staff at all levels, together we have been able to get the council back on a steady footing. The opportunity to take on the role of chief executive of Edinburgh City Council was simply too good to pass up.

“Having the chance to apply for such a job at a time in my career when I was ready to take it on is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

The 54-year-old added that she was delighted with the progress the Aberdeen council had made and it was well placed to tackle the challenges over the next few years.

Her appointment in Edinburgh still has to be approved by councillors but the process is expected to be a formality.

Mrs Bruce moved to Aberdeen from East Dunbartonshire Council in December 2008 to help repair the city council’s battered reputation after a financial crisis and a string of damning inspection reports led to the early retirement of her predecessor, Douglas Paterson.

She has overseen a radical overhaul of the council’s structure, the stabilisation of its finances and the assembly of a new management team.

Council leader John Stewart said: “I am delighted for Sue. I would be disappointed if the chief executive here did not have the ambition to take on the post in the capital.

“Sue joined us at a difficult time and she has had a lasting impact on the structure and the operation of the council.

“I am confident that she has laid the foundations upon which the council can build a successful future.

“The search for a new chief executive will begin immediately. Sue has set the template for the kind of ambition and drive we will be looking for in her successor.”

The council’s deputy leader, Kevin Stewart, said: “I have congratulated Sue Bruce on her appointment, but unfortunately Edinburgh’s gain is Aberdeen’s loss.

“Mrs Bruce has been an excellent chief executive. She has built up a great team around her and has worked in partnership with councillors through some difficult times to secure Aberdeen’s future.”

Mr Paterson quit the local authority on the first day of an Accounts Commission public inquiry into the running of the council in May 2008 after weeks of public unrest over massive spending cuts.

Troubleshooter Robert Coomber was brought in to run the council until Mrs Bruce was chosen to take charge. She arrived just weeks after the global financial crash threatened to send the council into a fresh crisis.

Her first job was to implement the Accounts Commission’s instruction to restructure the authority, which she did by bringing back distinct departments for education and social work, and scrapping the neighbourhood model that divided the city into north, south and central areas.

She went on to controversially recommend that councillors accept Sir Ian Wood’s £50million pledge towards a development at Union Terrace Gardens, as well as acting as returning officer in Aberdeen during this year’s UK general election.

In June, Mrs Bruce became the first public sector leader to receive the Prince’s Ambassador in Scotland Award.

In Edinburgh, she will immediately face major headaches such as the capital’s £600million tram project.

Alan Campbell, the former chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council, was recruited to help advise the local authority in Edinburgh in its search for a successor to outgoing boss Tom Aitchison.

Edinburgh City Council leader Jenny Dawe said: “It is essential that we have the right calibre of chief executive for what is a difficult but rewarding role at the best of times.”

Councillor Willie Young, spokesman for the opposition Labour group in Aberdeen, said: “Nobody can blame Sue Bruce for wanting to take on the job as chief executive of the capital city.

“Sue’s departure does, however, show that the Lib Dem-SNP administration in Aberdeen is in disarray and we will be looking for their third chief executive in as many years.”

Reader's Comments

As Sue Bruce leaves Aberdeen a new academic year dawns. But is there an alternative way of getting that degree? Without the tedium of lectures and the stress of exams. No part time job, no student loan. Actually there is. Congratulations are due to Dr Stewart Spence, upon whom Robert Gordon University conferred an honorary doctorate of Business Administration on 15th July. Dr Spence is a well known local hotelier and a member of the board of Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future, a public-private partnership that drives economic development in the region. RGU is a dynamic, modern place to study with an international reputation for providing high quality education from undergraduate through to PhD level. RGU’s principal, Sir Ian Wood, is one of Scotland’s leading businessmen. Dr Spence and Sir Ian may well have crossed paths in the course of their dazzling careers. ACSEF is driving forward a dynamic proposal to redevelop Aberdeen city centre’s Union Terrace Gardens. Sir Ian has pledged £50m of his family fortune to the project. This is not the first time Dr Spence’s academic potential has been recognised. In July 2009 an honorary doctorate of laws was conferred upon Dr Spence by Aberdeen University. Dr Martin Gilbert and Dr Sir Moir Lockhead were similarly honoured by the ancient and noble university at the same time. As indeed was Dr Tucker, the editor of this very newspaper, in 2007. Perhaps in recognition of a lifetime’s tireless service to investigative journalism. Ut sulum vir a trinus.
Ubi D
Report this comment

Let's be generous to Sue Bruce. She was brought in to sort out an Aberdeen council behaving like a manic teenager with 12 credit cards. She forced them to balance the books and now as the article says we will all have to suffer the effects of £120M of cuts over the next 5 years. Painful, but at least she prevented financial meltdown for the city. However,criticism where criticism is due. It was a bad move to approve the City Square project. Bad, bad, bad. The council are now back to their sorry old ways and are seriously considering borrowing £70M to pay for the project, a project that nobody outside the dinner party circle of the Aberdeen chamber of commerce wants. Given that the council are owed £28M by the exhibition centre and have to fork out at least £30-35m for the ringroad, we are clearly back to the old irresponsibility; the sort of mess that that Sue Bruce was brought into to manage just under two years ago. I hope who ever replaces Sue will have the sense to instill common sense into our council.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

It will be £100 million for the AWPR which we just can't afford.
Don Duncan
Report this comment

It will be £100 million for the AWPR which we just can't afford.
Don Duncan
Report this comment

That's very generous Mike. I don't think she's had any positive impact. Let's see one year without massive cutbacks before we rejoice in a job well done. ACC continues to waste vast amounts of money on ever more ridiculous schemes while cutting back on essential services and being unable to pay for long term commitments without introducing new taxes. The best thing ACC can do is to pocket the 135K and shuffle existing management but they'll probably hire another £1000 a day consultant for 6 months raise the CE salary to 150K and bring in another do nothing bureacrat.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Congratulations to Mrs Bruce. She has achieved a tremendous amount in her 2 years at the helm of our Council. Her emphasis on growth and economic development was a vital change that our City needed. She has restructured the departments, and given a dynamism to the management team. While she will be missed, the City now has the opportunity to seek a new visionary Chief Officer, and will have someone at helm the Capital who understands and sympathises with the way decisions taken there effect others not so fortunate in their share of public resources. She will do well, and Aberdeen will continue to generate wealth for Scotland under a new CEO. As always, our City's future prosperity will depend on a change of direction in Holyrood and Westminster. Until some of the City's wealth is returned to us to invest here, no CEO or local politician will be able to satisfy the aspirations of we citizens.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Bye bye Sue - an even bigger garden to play with in Edinburgh!
Mike Miller
Report this comment

Getcha, still firing those arrows of yours. Isn't it totally bonkers for the city to consider borrowing £70M to fund the City square under the pretext that they will get more of the business rates back (which if it happens will merely go to serving the debt of the loan). I can understand that the council feel wronged that they don't get their fair share of business rates, but to use this as an excuse to justify borrowing £70M is a bit shifty.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Getcha if you are a member of Facebook, have a look at my run-down Aberdeen site. Over 200 members posting photographs of how tatty the city is getting. It's worth a look. There is evidence there for the vital change that the city needs. No more private affluence and public squalor. Please council, no more spending money on big ticket projects, look after the city properly. Borrowing £70M for the city square is a scandal.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Hey Getcha I assume you'll disappear along with Sue. A since my taxes are paying your salary I wish you'd do your job instead of blogging all day. ACC must learn to live within economic constraints instead of continually wasting vast amounts on hair-brained schemes. To blame ACC's economic problems on Holyrood and Westminster is to fail to accept responsibility for managing our affairs. Childish and totally unprofessional. Sue Bruce was about a year away from being sacked. A total failure that only a resignation would hide.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Getcha, if an emphasis on "growth and economic development" is what gets us to £120m spending cut programmes then perhaps ACC should be looking for somebody with a more modest set of ambitions - such as the protection of existing services, the maintenance and improvement of current infrastructure, the enhancement of civic assets through minimal investment generating a higher return, and so on. Having finished her time here by turning down the opportunity of investing £3m from ACC's capital budgets which are *in fine fettle* (not to mention rebuffing £6.5m of central belt money you so constantly complain Aberdeen never gets), and instead recommending the speculative, not-yet-legal route of a £70m loan that will require significant and irreplacable assets to be put up as collateral, Edinburgh are more than welcome to Sue Bruce. She turned down a brilliant, affordable option that was deliverable and would have benefitted our city in favour of throwing money away on one wealthy man's obssession. Good riddance!
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

"the rats leave the sinking ship first" and "money for old rope" comes to mind.Any guesses on the possibility that Getcha Faxwright may be one of our incompetent city councillors?
Aber Donian
Report this comment

Getcha knows to much to be a councillor. She's either Sue Bruce or a council executive PA (aka a PR consultant). Obviously she's too cowardly to sign her name so must have something to hide. Eitheer way she'll leave with Sue and the misinformation campaign will cease.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Me Shepherd, I agree with much that you say. I'm also sure so would Mrs Bruce. The only major thing you appear to disagree with her on is whether the development of UTG is a positive or negative way of influencing the future prosperity of the City. The true answer will be hard to prove either way, and I am happy to see further debate before I come to my own conclusions about that.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Alan, Getcha praises Sue Bruce for her focus on "growth and economic development" and then complains that the central belt hoovers all our wealth up. So more wealth is great even though we don't see it? I suspect that's the kind of double-think our councillors are only too capable of, sadly.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Mr Craigie, on several occasions I have pointed out where you postings have been factually incorrect. Could you let me know which if mine were? You seem to spend a lot of time jumping to wild conclusions, without the slightest piece of verifiable evidence, and then post it as facts. Whilst we are all entitled to our opinions, a healthier debate would be had if we made sure we used facts to back them up.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Getcha, you're happy to see "futher debate"? Good lord I hope you're nowhere near budget responsibility anywhere in the North East. Have you any idea how much money has already been spent on "investigating" Wood's scheme? Have you the faintest idea how much was spent on the PVA project which was forced to be abandoned at Wood's behest? You really should find out some facts, I would humbly suggest. Perhaps you'd then be less sanguine about the idea that the CSP is a topic for endless debate, when you've established its costs thus far.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Well Getcha, As Sue takes the tram to work in Edinburgh (the one that is costing over £500M), she will see just how much of a mess the city is in because of a speculative big-ticket project that went horribly wrong. I reckon this will almost certainly change her mind about the bonkers city square project.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Mr Fraser, are you referring to the loss of the Peacock development when you quote the loss of central government investment? If so, I take it you have some evidence that the money has now been lost forever? Also, you must have considerable faith that despite the economic times we are in, that Peacock's business plan was highly robust, even though it relied heavily on continued annual subsidy from a Council you say has no money, and income from other Council services that if our PM Mr Cameron has his way, may not be in existence in a few years time.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

To be honest, I really don't care anymore. The quicker I get out of this city and far away from this money-wasting, expensive and carefree council the better.
Dickie Hart
Report this comment

I am quite interested in the thought processes of the people behind Lord Lucan and Aber Donian. They both have their pseudonyms, yet exercise a great deal of their postings trying to find out who's behind the pseudonyms that post things they disagree with. Do we have any psychologists here who could enlighten us?
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Gee Getcha where to start. Your name seems to be a lie. Fundamental lack of credibility there.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Yes I think Getcha is definately on the council, if not a high up in the ACSEF. To say that the PVA would still have to be subsided by the council. Just what does she think the massive 4 storey concrete buildings maintainance costs will be. Subsidided by the council at a far greater amount. As for Sue Bruce, Aberdeen was only a stepping stone in her ambitious plans, the award she got by dealing with ACSEF proves that. The only thing she had going for her was her outstanding ambition to get further up the ladder. I did not agree with her one bit, but give her credit, at least she had more gumption that the whole rest of the council put together. It is amazing that everyone including Sue and the council knows that the costs of the Edinburgh trams went far above budget, but did that deter them in voting for a far more expensive exercise on the UTG. Once again, it is Fairy story time. Patterson retired very quickly because he knew he would be sacked without the golden handshake. Will Sue get her "Golden" handshake. If she does it is a very distateful thing, when the council has so many other things to spend its money on.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Hey Dickie, take Hart, at least you're rid of her now! Out of sight out of mind? Good luck.
manniewe naeclue
Report this comment

Getcha, the answer to your question is yes. But I'll take it easy on you and not make you swallow your own tongue, since your a newbie.
manniewe naeclue
Report this comment

Did Sue also approve the siting of a Recylcing plant at Hazlehad??? With a Primary and Secondary school on the road, in the middle of two residential areas and a tourist attraction at the Hazlehead Park. If this is what the council and the approval by Sue Bruce as CEO does for the city, it beggars belief. Did anyone of those involved bother to see just where this site was, or was it the usual sit on their chairs in their comfy offices and decree something they know nothing about. Have they got a clue about anything apart from Grandiose Pie in the Sky ideas. Nothing so mundane as planning a proper site for recycling. Then we know that Kevin Stewart is Director of that company. Explains it all.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Mr Fraser, Edinburgh's tram catastrophe will have less if an impact on the Capital's finances than you think. That's because most of it is being paid for by our central government that gets somewhere near £70M of Aberdeen's business rates every year. The really big financial disaster for Edinburgh is the collapse of a group of City Centre redevelopment projects under the Edinburgh Development Company. The initial plans were done with the best intentions, but they were too ambitious in size, cost and speed. Our own City can take valuable lessons from the fallout of both these Edinburgh infrastructure problems.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Getcha, You are wasting your time arguing against a breed of Aberdonian who looks through the window to the future of what might be and can only see the smudges on the glass pane. Of course there are increasingly unsightly aspects in the city centre, as some of your opponents claim, but they are only superficial.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

We're only a couple of months away from the annual cutbacks, more school closures, teacher redundancies and pool closures. The heat on council will intensify when cutbacks are announced after the ridiculous expenditures of the past year. The money councils wasted will come out of our cities ability to educate our children and maintain recreational facilites. To be fair Sue Bruce can't be held responsible for the continued failure of council she really wasn't there long enough to have an impact. She just didn't reign them in when they blundered away.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Jock Willam another council lacky using a pseudonym?
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Just as superficial as the comments from Getcha and the council thinkers. Most Aberdonians want to see progess and the city prosper, but not the destruction of the garden. Why is it that all of the Pro CSP lot seem to forget that the Council had a great plan for a Civic Centre which included a great building in the Garden, with a Civic centre in Broad Street, The Green being redeveloped, It would all have been great, but The lure of the money overshadowed it all. So now we have this horrendous proposal of a 4 storey concrete building housing goodness knows what, at the cost again Nobody can tell us. Plenty of Sketched, plenty of comments of £120-£140 million pounds. With that figures they have lost the plot, as those figures were plucked out of the sky to make it look good. Believable. No way. For a council who cannot make ends meet, and now tell us that the roads in winter might not get gritted, this scheme shows just how out of touch they really are. As for Gethch, would like to know how and where she gets all these "Council" costs etc. Tell us, so we can all hava a gander at the proposals. So far we have seen that it would not be the first time that the council has had its figures thrown out for being inaccurate.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Real name. Mr Craigie. I lack the necessary imagination to think up pseudonyms. Normally I would resent your personal comment but as I am unfamiliar with the term 'lacky' (is it Doric?) I am in a bit of a quandary.
Jock Willam
Report this comment

Hmm, Jock, no imagination have you? How far past smudges on windows can you see then?
manniewe naeclue
Report this comment

Thank you Mr William. From my first few postings on this site, I made it clear that I had no wish to get involved in the UTG argument, but I've sadly let myself down as so many people turn any story into a blog about it. I will take note of your wise words, and refuse point blank in future to get dragged into it again.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Getcha, you sound like you're hiding in the corner sulking now. As far as I can see the UTG is just one of the many issues mentioned.
manniewe naeclue
Report this comment

An interesting debate on pseudonyms. (With a smattering of personal insults from Mr Craigie, as we've come to expect.) we all have names on here, some are obviously made up and others could be real. When I first posted on here, I used my real name, but was disappointed in the level of personal abuse levelled by some, and so reverted to a pseudonym. The general advice I was given about blogs like these, is to enjoy them, but not take them too seriously. Anyone can post under any name they type in, so in the end what anybody posts only has a limited value.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Ms Mo, I think the people of Hazlehead are very fortunate to be getting a recycling centre. The City needs a lot more of them. And bring close to schools will help ensure our future generations realise the importance of not disposing of our waste as if there was some 'refuse fairy' who magics it all away. If we all had to deal with our waste closer to our homes, we might all start to be a little more responsible in out generation and treatment of it.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Can Sue Bruce not take all of the councillors with her as well? And then perhaps we can have people running the council who are not in the hip pockets of various businessmen, who are only out to line their own pockets at the expense of our heritage, city and future. Of course all our tax money is vanishing on various projects that started life in the EU, diversity this diversity that, cultural this cultural that, when all we need is common sense and the same rules applied to everyone. The current traveller’s fiasco is just one example. Also if you look at some of the jobs that we the tax payer now have to fund, that yet again started life as EU projects/diktats Traveller liaison officer, ethnic housing officer, Multi Ethnic Aberdeen Ltd ( MeAL) and many other jobs that have now been created to provide very little in return other than keeping pet projects going. The best way is to treat everyone fairly and equally there is simply no need for all these hugely expensive projects, how much is the business development manager of Meal getting paid, how much does the whole operation cost to run. If you want to find out where all the money dig deep inside the council at all these newish posts that started life in the EU. We are away to be hammered via taxes for climate change, which has very little to do with mans activities on our planet. We need out of the EU and we need decent people who are not pursuing leftie political agendas to run Aberdeen City for the people of Aberdeen.
Steven Thomson
Report this comment

Can Sue Bruce not take all of the councillors with her as well? And then perhaps we can have people running the council who are not in the hip pockets of various businessmen, who are only out to line their own pockets at the expense of our heritage, city and future. Of course all our tax money is vanishing on various projects that started life in the EU, diversity this diversity that, cultural this cultural that, when all we need is common sense and the same rules applied to everyone. The current traveller’s fiasco is just one example. Also if you look at some of the jobs that we the tax payer now have to fund, that yet again started life as EU projects/diktats Traveller liaison officer, ethnic housing officer, Multi Ethnic Aberdeen Ltd ( MeAL) and many other jobs that have now been created to provide very little in return other than keeping pet projects going. The best way is to treat everyone fairly and equally there is simply no need for all these hugely expensive projects, how much is the business development manager of Meal getting paid, how much does the whole operation cost to run. If you want to find out where all the money dig deep inside the council at all these newish posts that started life in the EU. We are away to be hammered via taxes for climate change, which has very little to do with mans activities on our planet. We need out of the EU and we need decent people who are not pursuing leftie political agendas to run Aberdeen City for the people of Aberdeen.
Steven Thomson
Report this comment

Well Getcha, that comment from you is priceless. Obviously came from some council doctrine. This would be great for the Hazlehead area???. It would teach the kida at the nearby schools about disposing of their rubhish. Is that after they cannot manage to cross the roads to get to school for the traffic. As it is they do not know how to use the bins that are there, so I hardly think that a recycling site will encourage them. As seen from your comment, you do not live remotely near Hazlehead, or you might be concernced about the traffic and noise in the area. Considering that the council is trying to encourage tourism, this is hardly an ideal way to make them come to the largest park in the City. Do you really try hard to antagonise people with your comments, or do you just not care. Full of facts we cannot verify, now telling us that residentual areas are ideal places for recycling sites. Are you real??? Wise up, these places should not be situated in residentual areas. Perhaps you are one of the councilors who does not know the city very well so therefore can willy nilly say what goes where without seeing the area. Typical of a council beauracratic mind set.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Thank you Ms Mo. I've just won my bet.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Getcha, thanks for your reply. Clearly you are aware of the money spent on the PVA scheme, which makes it slightly alarming that you appear so relaxed about the continued spend on the CSP. The "evidence" for the loss of central belt money is twofold: firstly, the SE grant and the SAC funding were both conditional on the project PVA put forward for funding. This project having been thrown out by ACC, that funding has gone. Secondly, unless Aberdeen or the CSP has put in applications to either organisation for similar (or larger) amounts, there's no evidence to suggest that it is still going to be spent in our city. The clear conclusion is that it has gone. With regard to your other point, PVA are a social enterprise funded by ACC and the SAC amongst others; this wouldn't change whether they were in their new build or their current location. What would change would be their ability to generate their own cash, through increased footfall, cafe facilities and other commercial opportunities currently denied them in their old schoolhouse hidden behind Aberdeen's top tourist magnet, the Castlegate. For somebody so quick to praise Sue Bruce's focus on economic development you appear strangely unaware of such factors.
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Sue Bruce came to Aberdeen as a stepping stone to bigger and better things, only to enhance her final salary for a better pension. She has generaly kept a low profile and followed the guide lines of the accounts commission.Any one following the footsteps of Patterson would appear good at their job. She showed her true colours of poor management when she spoke to the coucillors before they made their decision to persuade them to agree to a concrete car park for the centre of the city. reading between the lines of hes statement I think she is trying to say " I wanted to soar like an eagle but was surrounded by turkeys" In any event I am sure she will be leaving a couple of her old hand bags as a gift to those that worshiped her.... Eh.. Getcha????
Richard Puller
Report this comment

Just read todays P&J an there appears to be a major recruitment campaign at ACC. Nobody seems to have told them about budget cuts. So they'll hire a host of new people and then give generous redundancy/early retirement packages to existing workers and we'll be assured of the necessity of another huge cutback in years to come. Yet we're still told Sue Bruce has had a positive impact, it's certainly not apparent. ACC continues to be badly mismanaged and Aberdonians continue to pay more and get fewer services and facilities.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Mr Fraser, I'm not aware of any decisions of central government about the money initially earmarked for Peacock. You are right to be concerned that it may be lost, but as yet there has been no definitive statement. In the same way that some folk are not convinced on the feasability of the 'project that shall not be named' there were many who felt the same about Peacock. I didn't state my position on Peacock btw, merely asked questions to test your statements on it.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Mr Puller, I may agree with Mrs Bruce on many things, but I don't recall ever seeing her with a handbag that I would covet.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Come on then Getcha, just who were you betting with to win???? You stated earlier that you used to use your own name, but changed it as you got too much abuse. Really, I wonder why. Curiosity now aroused, who was you betting against. The possibilites are endless, after all the council has 34 of you.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Beginning to think that Gotcha is really Kate Dean, the comments sound very much like it. True Kate would probably get a lot of stick if she ventured on the blog. But with all the comments lately it sounds more and more like Mrs Kate Dean.
minnie mo
Report this comment

I... Ha!Ha! Ha! am not able to Ha! Ha! Ha! post on here today Ha! Ha! Ha! as I can't stop laughing long enough Ha! Ha! Ha!.. after reading the comments Ha! Ha! Ha! by the wifie Bruce and John Stewart Ha! Ha! Ha! in this article, as well as those left by Getcha Ha! Ha! Ha!
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

Minnie moe getting aroused watch out everybody...... :-)
Lord Lucan
Report this comment

I think you may be right Minnie. Getcha are you the failed council leader Kate Dean?
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Ms Mo, another pseudonym who is desperate to uncover someone else's pseudonym. It's been claimed I am many people, and I may or may not be one or more of them. Like you, I am the fictitious creation of an inquisitive, opinionated and slightly mischievous mind or minds. The bet, btw, was with my cat.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Getcha, if grant-awarding bodies such as SE and the SAC disbursed cash in such a fashion that it could be used for something other than that for which it was intended (in this case, the PVA scheme), I suspect they would be dealt with severely by central government for failing to manage their funds properly. Or are you aware of "facts" that mean in this single, isolated case, the grants exist in limbo until something else comes along? That would be quite unique. How could you know this? After all, you only deal in "facts" on this forum - unless you wish to change your moniker to "getcha speculation and conjecture wrong"?
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Getcha, isn't it now time for John Stewart to use Sue Bruce's departure as a means to tell the Aberdeen public what he really thinks about the city square rather than continuing with what is looking more and more like a lost cause. Certainly the Friends of Union Terrace Gardens are there to provide plan B, we will turn into a trust and will raise funds for the park's upkeep and carry on organising social events. Maybe even TIF can be used for something much more useful then a modern square that very few want. Sprucing up the rest of the city for a start.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Mr Shepherd, how nice to hear your reasoned comments among so much dischordance. I'm afraid I have no more influence over the Council Leader than any other poster on this site. He doesn't know me, and I'm told the Councillors don't read this anymore. I thought Councillor John Stewart was in favour of the scheme, but I get more information about UTG through these blogs than anywhere else, as i try to avoid the issue elsewhere. What makes you think he might have changed his mind?
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Mr Craigie, I might disagree with much of what Getcha says but she's clearly far too intelligent to be Kate Dean, n'est-ce pas? And Jock, nice to have you back - I've been missing you and wondering if you were attempting to renege on our 2020 dinner in Perugia? Looking increasingly likely don't you think? But seriously good it's to have you back and I hope you will stick around to inject some wit and wisdom into this debate - both have been in short supply lately on the CSP side! Anyway I'm off to enjoy the glorious sunshine - happy blogging everyone!
Alasdair Johnston
Report this comment

Mr Fraser, SAC hasn't yet made any statement on what it intends to do with the money formerly allocated to Peacock. All we have to go on is conjecture, which may be 'fun' on a blog, but is worthless in any other context. Some are claiming it's lost to Aberdeen for good, and others that it will be allocated to a different project in the City. Until we get a statement from SAC or whichever Scottish Government quango gets responsibility, no one actually knows.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Derar Jock, Excellent point about us aberdonians that are too focused on looking at the smudges on windows... I assume that all the ACSEF fans are happy to keep ignoring the facts in front of them waving to passers by, unaware of how stupid they look...

Just ask father ted about ignoring smudges.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Isn't Mr Johnston such a lovely man!
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Getcha, you're absolutely right about any suggestion on the SAC funding being allocated elsewhere being conjecture. However, you raised that very point in answering my post regarding the money a: spent developing the PVA scheme and b: lost as a result of its abandonment. The only certainty is that £4.5m allocated to PVA will now not be spent on that project - anything else, as you rightly point out, is conjecture; sadly it's conjecture that you introduced. I stuck to the fact that it won't go on the PVA scheme. Still, it's all semantics, isn't it? At least our discussion doesn't cost seven figures and counting, unlike the "investigation" instigated by Wood in November 2008. Not that you appear at all bothered about this collossal waste, which is odd given your admiration for Sue Bruce allegedly bringing a great deal of this waste to heel in her tenure at ACC. Ah, well - contradictions. They make life interesting!
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Mr Fraser, I'm only cyber-human!
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Uh, huh Getcha. I've been astonished by certain individuals on the council who tell me that in public they support the City Square (£50 million spend on the city) but privately they don't like it much or like yourself are ambivalent on the subject. I've also heard that the general misgivings on the city square are now being more commonly voiced in the Town House. Nobody has any illusions any more that the project is very unpopular with the Aberdeen public and that the consultation was a PR disaster.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Mr Fraser, anyone who was against Peacock from the start will say that anyone who spent any money on trying to make it happen had wasted that money. If the Council delivers the AECC hotel at a profit, then the money invested so far will have been well spent. If it doesn't then those that claimed it was wasted will feel justified. If the project 'that shall not be named' goes ahead and it works, the costs so far will have been well invested, and if it doesn't those who opposed the scheme from the start will be denouncing the waste. For someone like me, who is a great believer in the taking of calculated risk for future advancement, I see merit in at least trying to get such projects off the ground. What I believe no one should do is make decisions about the future of any major project based on gut feelings, rather than careful analysis. We all have the tendency to believe what we want to believe, and we should question most the things that fit too easily with our view of the world. Mr Thompson gave us a very detailed posting above, but it appears to me that is arguments are somewhat diluted by some rather strongly held personal assumptions.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Good to see Getcha Faxwright retaining a sense of decorum in the face of all this nonsense. Must be a candidate for the new PR job for CSP. I wonder if Rita or Tom will apply for Mrs Bruce's old job.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

I think that the business men must he hosing themselves... it's just sad to see that the argument is always about money. "We" (the smudge gazing, tree hugging, spotty etc etc) have not a leg to stand on if we've got to justify ourselves (or compete) with "business".
It's my understanding that this WAS a civic project - you know, to benefit people not in a financial way (with financial spin offs). But, I am sure that many anti UTG people are happy with the way the "argument" is shaping up. Lets get back on track about the anti-civic (thinly veiled as one) CSP project. Lets scrutinise the function of "the arts" (or at least creative sector) in the North East - and how people actually do benefit from it (again, Business would argue that Financially it's a mere fly) - but we all know that life's not about making your boss richer, or aiming to buy that bigger TV by working more... I think life in Aberdeen needs both, and the argument I've always pursued is that we need both business and culture to ensure a decent life "up here"... my complaint is that business just seems to get the backing (financially and promotionally) yet Culture seems to be seen as either a "waste of money" (again with the finance arguments) - or something that Rich people can afford to do (a "luxury"). I've been laughed at by the two biggest trolls on these pages for suggesting that disillusioned / bored kids might find ways of expressing themselves (and possibly changing their lives) by participating in constructive creative projects... with no "solutions" from the pro CSP whingers...(other than shooing them off the land they want to occupy).
lets discuss benefit - but include all "benefits", nit just "finance" - otherwise, business will "win" always.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Getcha, calculated risk is a given in any development and reasonable folk accept that. The big clue, though, is the word "calculated". The CSP has blown the PVA project out of the water (the PVA project being an excellent example of calculated risk, their calculations being good enough to win planning permission and nigh on £10m in funds). The "risk", if you can call it that, associated with the CSP has been brilliantly summed up by our Lord Provost, who stated that he feared being laughed at for rejecting a £50m gift. That is not "calculated" risk, it's utterly pathetic and should have no hold over important decisions in the public realm. The other "risk" is, apparently, the economic future of Aberdeen, doomed so we are told, without the CSP. Again, no calculations have been produced to demonstrate why this risk is even a hypothesis, let alone a predetermined outcome of rejecting the CSP as stated by Wood and Acsef. Anyhow, I understand that you're not here to debate the future of UTG and respect that. However, I would point out that there are significant differences between the PVA scheme (which demonstrated the calculated risk you speak of) and the CSP (which is propelled by the promise of £50m, the quite cringeworthy fear of it being rejected, and very little else). Again, if you are aware of certain "facts" that demonstrate the CSP offers us the ability to determine what calculated risk it offers, please do share. At the moment it offers us nothing more than a conveniently costed project, magically close to the outer limit Wood mentioned in November 2008 (but with 25 significan cost exclusions listed in the HFM feasability study). Or, if you prefer, "massive risk".
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Mr Shepherd, please keep up your fight for what you believe in. It's only if we get a genuine, open and honest debate about this that those of us with open minds will be able to take a proper judgement when the time comes. I really am not going to say anymore on UTG except to paraphrase a previous posting of mine. Whether Sir Ian's plans are good enough to be worth the loss of a lovely Victorian garden is a complex and probably impossible question to get a 100% accurate answer to. However, if the Scottish Government decide to give the TIF project to a central belt Council, then the question will be immaterial.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Getcha, you seem to imply that the Scottish Government will only grant one project on TIF (a pilot project?). This is news to me, have I missed something? If this is the case, it won't got to the city square. It's far too controversial.
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Mr Shepherd, I just went to double check the current status of TIF as regards the Scottish Government, and appears I may be been being overly pessimistic in assuming that TIF projects will be rationed. Their statement says that each will be taken on its own merits. As I've pressed others on using facts above conjecture, it was wrong of me to suggest that the Scottish Government will not approve unlimited good TIF projects, just because they may need to keep as much as possible of business rate increases to cushion their own financial constraints. Completely wrong, so I won't say it again and I apologize to anyone who could have been misled by my terrible assumption that what has happened for the last 50 years or so will happen again;-)
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

I think any rational observer of ACC over the last view years would agree that it has been badly mismanaged. This is undisputable. Auditors threatened to take over financial control. We were the Greece of Scottish municpal governments. Massive cutbacks even in boom times. Now when a recession and massive public sector cutbacks are imminent ACC wants to develop new ways of taxing us to pay for underground malls, hotels and roads. I'ts meglomania using taxpayer money, worse it's meglomania using future nebulously defined tax increases. ACC has lost any rational bearing on what they've been elected to do: maintain essential services. They shutdown schools while building hotels and subsidizing convention centres. Absolute madness.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Thanks for the clarification Kate! (oops Getcha ...)
mike shepherd
Report this comment

Mr Shepherd, you and Mr Johnston may call me Getcha anytime, and I'll presume to be able to refer to you both as Mike and Alasdair. I was brought up to use peoples proper titles until were were formerly introduced, but I feel I know you two gentlemen well enough to use such familiarities. I'm also flattered to be associated with Mrs Bruce and Mrs Dean, two exceptional ladies who have worked tirelessly for our City, under extremely difficult circumstances, and received considerable abuse from people who are not half the 'men' these two are better than. No-one has thought to compare me with, or confuse me with, Mrs Wisely, Mrs Cormack or Mrs Jaffray, and that disappoints me more than I can express.
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Getcha, the fact that you are posting in an apparetnly sober and cogent fashion at this time on a Friday afternoon narrows the field somewhat... the net closes
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Give us a break Getcha. Singing praises for a group of bungling incompetents that have robbed Aberdeen of it's greatest assets. When I moved to Aberdeen we had a 40yd art deco pool that any city would have envied. We could have supported it for a tenth of what ACC has wasted on ridiculous schemes. This is how things get this abismal, even against all evidence they congratulate each other instead of resigning in complete disgrace. At least Doug Patterson knew he was a failure.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

It was interesting to read Getcha's break down of the figures available applicable to ACC the other day in response to Richard Fraser's request. I suppose if you extrapolate the figures quoted of >£1bn of assets and revenues of £400m to be eligible for a £70m loan that would equate to a household budget of >£100K in assets and earnings before deductions of >£60K being eligible for a £7K loan. There is not a Bank Manager in the world who would see that as a bad risk in fact they would see that as a good investment. So in all honesty all the scaremongering about figures is not an issue.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

I agree with Alan Craigie on this one. Aberdeen City Council are very poor at realising the value of their existing assets - Bon Accord Baths being a prime example. Now there seems to be a rush towards transforming the city centre so as to resemble "any town any where" circa 1960-70. Union Terrace Gardens is the sort of city centre space that could, with some care and attention, be the envy of Scotland and the wider world. It could be achieved for a reasonable sum without saddling the citizens with £70 million debt using TIF (an untried funding mechanism in the UK) to repay it. I do hope, with a new Chief Exec in place a sensible re-evaluation can be undertaken and the City Square Project consigned to the dustbin once and for all.
Mike Miller
Report this comment

Sandy, that being the case, why the need to cut back £120m spending? Or haven't you noticed that little detail?
Richard Fraser
Report this comment

Sandy what a stupid comparison. Revenues may be 400 million but expenditures keep exceeding revenue. And most expenditures are structural and can't be reduced. Seems there's also upcoming additional expenditures such as AWPR accompanied by imminent reductions in revenues. It' your kind of thinking that's put the UK 2.8 trillion in debt.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Surprised that Getcha is flatterd to be associated with Sue Bruce and Kate Dean, the most unliked women in the council. After all this debate and the denial of being Kate, the facts that Getcha knows are too similar to the comments on any page of the ACC web site written by Kate Dean. So what if she is Kate, nothing wrong there, except she should be working to sort out the mess the city is in, not making it worse. All those figures and quotes about finance, this council only come from some council office. Could it me the Infrastructure dept. Sounds awfully like it. The trouble being that there was a very costly consultation, which proved to be faulty, and which also showed that people did not want the CSP at UTG. They DID like and want the one that (believe it or not) the one the council came up with itself (No joke) and was widly applauded and waiting for it to happen, when all of a sudden a "Donation" (not quite the right word) and Sue Bruce scuppered that plans. Lo and behold, the lady who Getcha admires so much, leaves the sinking ship to go and presumably demolish Edinburgh. A Lord Provost who hardly knows his own name, casting a vote just because he had been brainwashed at breakfast by cronies of Wood and ACSEF. Nice one.
minnie mo
Report this comment

Good bye Sue Bruce, Aberdeen wont miss you one bit. I Found out from a teacher their budget for the dept they work at,it is £500 for the whole year. What kind of education are we providing for the future generations!
Clark Kent aka Superman!
Report this comment

Aye Alan scaremongering again I see. Over to Getcha to explain further.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Clark your just not thinking big enough. We won't even need to educate our children because they'll have handouts from councils brilliant investment schemes. You suggest that a council on the brink of bankruptcy might not want to go further in debt to invest in underground malls and your accused of scaremongering.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

Remember.... The citizens of the Granite City pay Scotland's highest council tax bills – band D £1,195.83 – and its council has been hauled before the auditors at the Accounts Commission. Eight schools will be closed or merged. The main swimming pool, the Choices day care centre which costs £240,000 a year, Doonie's rare breeds farm (which has a stay of execution), a Glencraft factory for the blind costing £650,000 a year and ice- rink with a saving of £900,000 in 18 months, are facing closure or have already shut. The impression of poor management was rather reinforced during the commission's inquiry, when council leader Kate Dean appeared unable to answer questions on policy. But no-one has resigned or even accepted blame – Ms Dean is still in post; her Labour predecessor, Len Ironside, is still leader of the opposition; Neil Fletcher, the former Liberal Democrat finance convener, is now a vice-president of Cosla and the council's deputy finance convener; only chief executive Douglas Paterson has taken early retirement from his £127,000 a year post after a scandal involving the £10 million under-sale of properties. And we want to trust this lot to borrow money to invest in hotels and underground malls. I wouldn't give any of them a job wrapping my fish and chips.
Alan Craigie
Report this comment

I had the experience of a close encounter with K Dean on a professional basis for a short time once. I can say with my hand on my heart she left me feeling cold with the impression that she looks upon ordinary people like stuff just scrapped of her shoe. I avoided all such contact at all cost after that. But, maybe she was just having a bad day. Getcha, you have exposed your self as the facist. Sorry, but you have. Your comments are of a very holier than though nature. Re-read them. very cold indeed. As for working tirelessly for the city, well, I'd say more like working tirelessly to cover behinds, it's all just a big neverending game of coverring behinds, i'm afraid.
manniewe naeclue
Report this comment

Alan, the sorry tale continues. In the last few days Calder Park by Loriston has been sold by the Council to Cove Rangers on 100+ year lease at £1 per annum i.e. sold by the same Council who, in the emerging local plan, propose that the whole of Loriston is taken out of the green belt and zoned for development. Best value? For whom?
pesh chorver
Report this comment

Alan, between Richard, Mike and yourself you've managed to answer your own question. As you quite rightly said ACC's current expenditure is structural and as such unaffordable in the future. The reason for the £120M of cuts is to break this structure and re-structure the finances to deliver best value for all concerned. The reasons for this unaffordable structure is down to previous Labour administrations and the introduction of unitary councils in 1996. This has led to the decline in the City buildings through lack of maintenance and the need to re-invest in replacement facilities now and in the future.
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

"I wonder if Rita or Tom will apply for Mrs Bruce's old job" said Sandy... let's hope they can apply without having to send an email or letter.
Philip Thompson
Report this comment

Pesh - why has this not been reported in the local press? Are the citizens of this fair city being taken to the cleaners - again? So what you are saying that as Cove Rangers will be building facilities that will be shared by Aberdeen Football club that there is a good chance that Stewart Milne will, again, be the winner of this wonderful windfall? What is this council thinking about? And, is Stewart Milne not on the board of Acsef? We really will have to look at what will happen with Union Terrace Gardens, bearing in mind the proximity of Triple Kirks. Investment for the citizens of Aberdeen. Dont think so.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Sue Bruce has been less than two years in the city, so that it is difficult to appraise her performance in her job. What she has not done, is enhance the culture in the city council. If anything there has been an increase in rudeness in responses from officers and councillors. She has let arrogance prevail and the needs of the citizens have been shoved aside in the pursuit of appeasing the wishes of pretty awful developers.
dorothy bothwell
Report this comment

Dorothy, see the original posting for a clue. Incidentally, Dr Stewart Milne received his recognition from Napier University in 2007.
Ubi D
Report this comment

My word, ladies and gentlemen, you have been busy whilst I've been seeing to the children. I'm quite aghast at some of the postings. Some have made personal attacks, been extremely rude, and repeated many claims against others without any factual references. And, apparently after reading my posts, one of you has decided that I am a cold hearted fascist. Quality debate!
Getcha Faxwright
Report this comment

Dorothy, if what Pesh is saying is correct about the £1 per annum rent I don't doubt it is. There is a similar deal already in place for Bon Accord Bowling 2000 for the indoor bowls centre in the Bon Accord Centre. This was a magnificent facility for the citizens of Aberdeen that is now in the hands of a private club. The facility was not included in the transfer of facilities to Aberdeen Sports Trust so questions need to be asked there also. In addition to that, the former Skyline Restaurant is going to be converted to a wheelchair garage at a cost of £65K and rented out to Shopmobility on the same rental deal. OK a decent cause but not getting best return for Aberdeen taxpayers. I'm sure you and Mr B would love to have the opportunity to have a facility like the Skyline Restaurant on those terms and I'm sure you would be successful in turning a profit from it. Note term "if asked" http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/Published/C00000146/M00000338/AI00003742/$SingleEqualitySchemefinancialsupporttoShopmibilityandAberdeenActiononDisability.docA.ps.pdf
Sandy Milne
Report this comment

Sue, Farewell and adieu. Now for Tommy Smith.
Graham Slater
Report this comment

The Press and Journal is happy to encourage discussion and debate on the topics featured within our newspaper and on our website.

However, we would urge people to respect the opinions of others even if they do not agree with them. We will not tolerate abusive comments of any type and such posts will be removed with the people responsible facing a ban from this website.

Only registered users can supply comments, and your registered name and location will automatically be appended to any comment that you upload.

We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using a false name or pseudonym.

To post a comment, please login using the form at the top of the page, or click to register.