Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 18th July 2008 Change Date

Festival of Politics - Special Report free inside The Scotsman

Premium Article !

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

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Sign In
Register

Bute House upkeep bill tops £230,000



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

MORE than £230,000 has been spent on the First Minister's official residence in the past four years, it was revealed yesterday.
Figures released by the Scottish Government showed that bills for work at Bute House in Charlotte Square, Edinburgh, amounted to £234,473.

The figure included £30,387 for refurbishing bathrooms and redecorating the cabinet room after a "serious leak". That was in 2006-7 – the same year £110,000 was spent on maintenance and repair to external stonework and windows at numbers 5, 6 and 7 Charlotte Square.

Other bills that year were £880 for upgrading security, £377 for repairing the drawing-room carpet and £627 for remedial work on the cooker canopy.

The previous year saw a £16,006 refurbishment of the catering kitchen, along with new controls for the disabled lift at a cost of £5,373.

A security upgrade in 2004-5 cost £35,000. The only "substantial item of expenditure" in 2007-8 was £8,309 for the inspection, cleaning and maintenance of the chimneys. Alex Salmond took up residence last year, from Jack McConnell.






The full article contains 188 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 May 2008 11:20 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

13/05/2008 01:31:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Guga II,

Rockall 13/05/2008 04:02:38
This looks like an attempt by the Hootsmon to make up for their totally biased and distorted article yesterday, which implied that Alex Salmond had wasted £10,000 on chimney sweeps. It was also written in such a way as to imply that he was being careless with taxpayers money.

At least they have had the good grace and decency to try and set the record straight in this article.

I also hope that the Labour Party card carrying member who wrote yesterday's article has had his knuckles rapped; or is he still dragging them along the ground?
3

Juan Handed,

13/05/2008 04:20:06
A bit of a smear filled headline. intimating the first minister is responsible and only making that clear in the final paragraph. No wonder people are deciding to publicly boycott this paper.

Really laughable "journalism" you can make up your mind to it's value by virtue of the fact the so called journalist could not even bring themselves to putting their name to this taudry piece.
4

yockel,

13/05/2008 06:40:25
The past four years, that will be the SNP then?
5

pamwy,

Perthshire 13/05/2008 07:06:39
And has this journalist asked the same question for 10 Downing Steet?
6

Alasdair,

13/05/2008 09:20:08
If it were me, and I was running a paper that had shed readers at a faster rate than any other in the country, I'd seek to claw back some of these deserters with worthy and informed writing. I guess that's a crazy notion..
7

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 13/05/2008 09:32:43
OK, so let's just neglect it and let it fall into dis-repair then shall we?

Bute house was only really brought into regular use again 10 years ago. It was BOUND to need work to bring it up to date and for essential repairs.

It's not a "luxury home" for the First Minister, any more than No.10 is a "luxury home" for the Prime Minister. It is an official residence and as such it is used for hosting all kinds of dignitaries and potentially, heads of state. Is it not fitting and proper that Scotland gives a good impression to these people?
8

DouglasT,

13/05/2008 09:55:13
How does that compare with the spending on the official residence of one Michael Martin MP (Labour)
9

David MacVicar,

Web 13/05/2008 10:05:56
Agree with Guga.

Keeping the residence of our first minister properly maintained and fit to receive gusts from all over he World is totally above board.

How much is spent on Nos 10 and 11 downing street each year? These residences need to be well maintained for the same reasons. However much did the Blairs spend on cosmetic change?

Salmond and the SNP ministers know that he have to cleaner than clean and that the unionist press and many other institutions would jump at a chance to expose some misdeed. At the moment the Press are doing their damnedest by making do with innuendo and distortion. The hacks must be at their wits end!
10

David MacVicar,

web 13/05/2008 10:08:21
The Scotsman is known far and wide for its negative introspective analysis of all things Scottish. Depending on the Scottish topic the slant is one or several of: too poor, too illiterate, too insular, unworthy, unnecessary, quaint, dressed up as tartan, inferior, antiquated, etc etc.

When it comes to a negative article on a Scottish topic count on the Scotsman to give you the 'low' down. When its something positive, trust the Scotsman to play it down.
11

Nikostratos,

13/05/2008 11:00:55
I see the mental snp tendency once again show their 'Weirdness' all the Scotsman has done is reveal some £234,473. has been spent on Bute house.

The rest is the product of the diseased Nationalist mind.
12

Guga II,

Rockall 13/05/2008 11:07:54
#12 Talking of diseased minds, did yours manage to comprehend yesterday's article on this subject?
13

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 13/05/2008 11:42:45
I'm glad its being looked after, while we're at it could we get the horrible attic window extensions removed from Charlotte square, to retain the roof line and lose the name Charlotte.
14

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 13/05/2008 12:10:08
There is an insidious pattern in this e-paper.

Lambast all that involves tradition or skilled craftsmanship in the maintenance of quality buildings that will last for hundreds of years, mentioning a price.

Conversely,

Praise fake modernist architectural new build, which is really an excuse to erect cheap sh1t buildings, which will be required to be demolished with in a lifetime.

Eh?
15

A voice from SCOTLAND..,

13/05/2008 12:24:32
6
Alasdair,
13/05/2008 09:20:08


If you can only afford to pay peanuts due to free falling revenue then you have to depend on monkeys to fill the voids in your paper. Voids which are only equaled by those in the heads of the editorial staff.

Considering what Alex Salmond is delivering for the Scottish nation this a but a piffling amount and worth every penny.
16

Lillig,

13/05/2008 12:34:28
Agree with Guga (2) and David MacVicar (10) - what kind of image would we present if we didn't take pride in looking after the premises allotted to the First Minister. This is not about Alex Salmond as a person.

I am sick of the Scotsman for its continual stirring re what Scottish Parliament and local government pay for essential things. Naturally, we want to know about mis-spendings, but for costs that require to be allotted, lay off Scotsman. There is plenty of news out there that you just don't get to us.
17

Lillig,

13/05/2008 12:35:19
15 Ard Righ - well said.
18

A voice from SCOTLAND..,

13/05/2008 12:36:07
What about a report on the PFI con presently being exposed in Lanarkshire by The Public Interest Research Network at Strathclyde University.

The PFI con that has cost the tax payer £145 million pounds for an investment of £8.4 million by the consortium involved.

There is also the question that NHS Lanarkshire channeled money away from the general fund to cover the 'spiralling costs of the Hairmyers deal,' which in turn contributed to the health board's attempt to centralise services and downgrade Monklands.

Thankfully the SNP got in just in time to prevent further madness.

Had Hairmyers being built using public funds we could have got another hospital for the price we have paid.

Would you not laugh if you saw in your local supermarket a label on goods saying "one for the price of two," you would laugh if it were not so disgraceful. Labours fine legacy. No wonder Wan Kerr is spitting feathers as his incompetence is being gradually exposed.

Now would that not make a great story Scotsman editor?
19

Dr. James Wilkie,

Olomouc, Czech Republic 13/05/2008 14:03:00
#9 & 10. David MacVicar. You have taken the words out of my mouth. it is not just The Scotsman. The Scottish media generally seem to be in a state of intellectual meltdown at the moment. However, there are others who are determined to fill this vacuum with informed and genuinely analytical comment and information. You might find it advantageous to contact the RealmOfScotland website, which has been set up for this purpose, and is presently on the verge of a comprehensive revamp and extension. Try: info@realmofscotland.com

20

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

13/05/2008 14:28:52
#12 I don't quite get why some are getting mad at this - I can see no slant that has been put on this - not even the headline. As it also covers both Salmond's and McConnell's period of tenure - so it can hardly be accused of being partisan.
21

Samoyed,

Costa del Menie 13/05/2008 18:05:33
Johnston Press, which bought The Scotsman from the Barclays for £160m in 2005, will update the market this week and the expectation is of another tale of woe. In February, Johnston said that advertising was down 4.2%.

In figures published last week, The Scotsman’s full-rate circulation has fallen to just under 45,000; its overall figure, including bulks, was just over 50,000.

They'll never learn in time.Farewell Northbritonperson

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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