Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

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.

Threat to Scotland's greatest art treasures



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

Published Date: 28 August 2008
THE centrepiece collection of the National Galleries of Scotland could be broken up unless it can raise £100 million to buy two Old Master paintings.
The 7th Duke of Sutherland, owner of 28 Renaissance masterworks which have hung in Edinburgh for 60 years, has decided to sell major works to "rebalance" his family's assets.

But he has offered the National Galleries a deal: if it buys two Titia
ns for £100 million, the collection will stay in Scotland for the next 21 years.

John Leighton, the director-general of the galleries, described the situation as both a crisis and an opportunity. He said it could secure the future of the famed 200-year-old Bridgewater collection of works by Titian, Raphael and Rembrandt for a new generation – or see significant works put up for grabs to collectors across the world.

Losing the Bridgewater paintings would be "like the Uffizi without its Botticellis, the Louvre without its Mona Lisa", Mr Leighton said. "Whereas our Michelin rating would be 'must see', we would fall down the ratings to 'not worth a detour'.

The Bridgewater collection of 27 Old Master paintings and one Rubens drawing was put together by the Earl of Bridgewater in the late 17th century. Passed down to the Sutherland family two centuries ago, it was brought to Edinburgh for safekeeping during the Second World War and has stayed here ever since.

It was credited with turning the National Galleries of Scotland (NGS) from a small-scale collection into a world player. But staff have always feared for a collection that depended on the owner's goodwill – and is now thought to be worth more than £1 billion.

The deal the NGS has been offered involves buying Titian's Diana and Actaeon for £50 million by 31 December. The galleries would then have to buy a second Titian – Diana and Callisto – for a similar sum four years later. Both purchases would be made jointly with the National Gallery in London. The deal, cast as a bargain-basement price, would secure the loan of all the paintings for the Scottish galleries for the next 21 years, although the two jointly owned paintings would alternate between Edinburgh and London on a five-year cycle.

If the deal falls through, however, the Sutherland family is set to take the Titians or other major works to the open market, saying they will pursue "all options as an owner".

The NGS stressed it would be getting the Titians at a bargain price, with the respected Art Newspaper saying the pair could fetch £300 million on the open market.

No immediate reason was apparent for the 68-year-old duke's decision to sell, but he has two sons, who are both married with children of their own, and there was speculation that inheritance tax planning could be a motive.

The duke's non-art wealth, including estates in the Scottish Borders and East Anglia, has been estimated at £30 million. By contrast, the Bridgewater paintings are estimated by the Art Newspaper to be worth more than £1 billion – even without the two Titians, considered the finest works.

The duke's spokesman said the collection had "grown in value to the point where it is prudent to review the holding in terms of the balance of the family's overall assets". He added that it was "sensible" to sell part of it, with the Titians offered to the nation at below market price.

He went on: "There is the prospect he would sell paintings on the open market. It might be these, it might be others. If the deal doesn't come off, he retains all his options as an owner."

The Bridgewater collection also includes two Raphaels, a Rembrandt self-portrait, four Titians, a Rubens, a Tintoretto, and Poussin's famous Seven Sacraments, and they have a room of their own in the National Gallery.

In 1984, the NGS bought four paintings from the collection.

In 2003, when the 6th Duke of Sutherland died, the galleries acquired Titian's famous Venus Anadyomene for £11 million, which was sold partly to offset inheritance tax.

For decades, gallery bosses have assiduously cultivated relations with the Sutherland family. But never before has a major sale been threatened.

The Bridgewater collection was considered of such importance to Britain that incoming prime ministers were traditionally briefed on its contents.

First shown in public in London in 1806, it transformed the standing of the National Galleries when it arrived in Edinburgh in 1945.

Mr Leighton said: "Say we fail, then they will be sold. I can't speak for the duke – I can't say which works will be sold – but the decision has been made to sell a significant quantity."

He said that, while £50 million was a huge sum, the duke was offering "extremely generous terms" on a deal for "children and grandchildren".

It would be hard, but not impossible, to secure the "once in a century" deal, he said. But if the 31 December deadline was not met, "we are away from the table and out of the room".

Mr Leighton insisted the two Titians were arguably among the greatest paintings in the world and that the duke was offering a "substantial discount" in a private treaty sale that would carry tax relief.

Nicholas Penny, the director of the National Gallery in London, said there was no greater private collection of art. He went on: "The price for the Titians is extraordinarily advantageous for us. We've really got a lot of time. It doesn't mean all the money has to be in their pocket by then."

Martin Bailey, of the Art Newspaper, said: "It's the Renaissance collection that's at the heart of the National Galleries of Scotland collection, and without the Sutherland, the heart is torn out. It's difficult to imagine it happening, but it could.

"It puts the National Gallery of Scotland in a very difficult position.But loans cannot go on for ever, and public galleries have to react accordingly."

Any deal of this scale would typically bring together UK and Scottish Government funding, lottery funding, tax write-offs, and gallery and private funders.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "Scottish ministers are determined to do everything they can to ensure this world-class collection remains on view for the enjoyment of the public in this country."

The NGS has two other multimillion pound projects on its hands, with the D'Offay Collection of contemporary art and the overhaul of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery.

Priceless collection of Old Masters is finest in the world

THE Bridgewater collection has a central place in UK and Scottish art history. It is considered the greatest private collection of Old Masters in the UK and probably the world.

The collection of Titians, Poussins and Raphaels was bought in the 1790s by the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater from the French Orleans collection.

The paintings were among the first privately owned Old Masters in history made accessible to a wider British public. Visitors were allowed to see them on certain days in Bridgewater House in London from as early as 1806.

When the childless Duke of Bridgewater died, they passed to his nephew's second son, who became the 1st Duke of Sutherland.

A century later, in 1922, the British government compiled the first secret list of "paramount" paintings that "under no circumstances should be allowed to leave British shores".

High among them were Titian's Diana and Actaeon. From that date, Bridgewater paintings featured high on every list of the most important artworks in Britain, with six works on an official 1933 list of the most valuable paintings to the country.

The collection includes Rembrandt's Self-Portrait, aged 51; Nicolas Poussin's Seven Sacraments, and an eighth work, Moses Striking the Rock; four Titians; a Rubens painting and drawing; a Tintoretto; a Van Dyke; and a Veronese.

In 1945, 33 works from the collection were lent to the National Galleries of Scotland by the 6th Duke of Sutherland. Housing them transformed the NGS's status from provincial to international.

In 1984, the NGS bought four of the loaned paintings, by Lotto, Tintoretto, Dou and Steen, for £2 million. In 2003, following the duke's death in 2000, the NGS bought Titian's Venus Anadyomene for £11.6 million in cash, with a tax write-off.

"They hang there serene and supreme," said the National Galleries director-general, John Leighton. "It would be hard to exaggerate the importance of these works in terms of art history."

The popular modern Scottish painter John Bellany said of the Bridgewater collection: "I have loved and admired these great paintings since I was an art student in Edinburgh. I go and stand in front of each of them for half an hour and my knees turn to jelly."

'Imbalance' in assets leads to rethink on 60-year-old loan to Scots gallery

THE 7th Duke of Sutherland fell 44 places in the Sunday Times Rich List this year, to joint 357th richest person in Britain, with an estimated fortune of £230 million.

The duke also owns a large collection of antiques and jewellery. The list halved the value of the duke's assets to allow for tax, putting its estimated value at nearer £400 million.

Francis Ronald Egerton, 7th Duke of Sutherland, inherited his title from his uncle, John Sutherland Egerton.

But any estimates of his wealth hang on prices in the art market, which have wildly spiralled. By some estimates the Bridgewater art collection, in his family for two centuries, would now be worth well over £1 billion on the open market.

The Duke of Sutherland owns 12,000 acres in East Anglia and the Borders, including Mertoun House near Melrose, which accounts for the £30 million part of the fortune.

It is a tiny amount compared with the paintings, which have been on loan for 60 years, with insurance and security costs met, and inheritance tax avoided but bringing no financial gain, and it is this "imbalance" in the duke's assets that is driving a sale.

"Over the years, the Bridgewater Collection has grown in value to the point where it is prudent to review the holding in terms of the balance of the family's overall assets," said a spokesman for the duke yesterday. "It does now seem sensible to consider the sale of some part of this collection, and the duke and his family would very much hope that it could be acquired by the nation."

The 6th Duke of Sutherland died in 2000, aged 85. The family's wealth had already shifted from landholding to art, but with the Bridgewater Collection then estimated at only £120 million.

The paintings had been inherited from the third and last Duke of Bridgewater, whose estate passed to the descendants of his sister, Louisa Egerton, who married the 1st Duke of Sutherland's father.

The 6th duke sold many of the paintings, but kept the older classics.

Despite selling Bridgewater House in London and retiring from metropolitan life, the former Duke of Sutherland kept a keen interest in the family hobby of horse racing.

Upon his death, Francis Egerton became the 7th Duke of Sutherland and 6th Earl of Ellesmere.

He was also faced with large death duties. He eventually sold Titian's Venus Anadyomene to the Scottish gallery for £11.6 million, with another £8.4 million being offset against the tax. This satisfied the Inland Revenue, and Britain's greatest collection of Old Masters was allowed to remain in Edinburgh.

BEN BAILEY



The full article contains 1910 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 August 2008 11:42 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Richardinho,

28/08/2008 00:09:42
This was always likely to happen. It's sad but inevitable.
I disagree that the National Gallery of Scotland is of no interest without these paintings. Possibly of less interest to tourists, but there are still major works by Ruisdael, Saenredam, Seghers, del Sarto, Bassano, Veronese etc which lovers of art would be willing to make a pilgrimage, far less a 'detour' to see.
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 00:24:53

Such a shame and I agree with #1, suffice to say Scotland is loosing everything anyway, I doubt very much this would be of a loss to 99% of the Population.

Our 'values', 'treasures' and heritage, have been replaced, by the £250k house, 4x4 at the door, and that 60"Plasma on the wall.

Our immigrants however will "Treasure" Scotland and put us all to shame!

Shame needless to say we asked for.
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 00:31:49

Needless to say, NO WONDER Chris HOY used the word,...

"Ridiculous"

One could say, we are now in a state of being "Ridiculous"!

Not forgetting the 'Madhouse' of-course!
4

Jwil,

28/08/2008 00:36:39
Never mind the London galleries will come to the rescue and keep the paintings in the UK capital.
5

Fifi la Bonbon,

28/08/2008 00:58:20
So if we, the taxpayer, give the Chooky Sutherlin a hundred million quid for some paintings, he won't sell some other ones?

How did this chancer or his antecedents get these paintings in the first place? Did someone work a second shift to get the money? Did they run a private hire car in the evenings? Or did some relative who was also a pirate, mass murderer or slaveeowner pay for them?

This is extortion, They, and others like them, need to be put up against the wall (the pictures, I mean) goes without saying - but in the meantime let's just take them and hang them (the pictures, I mean) up in the most convenient local gallery for the whole world to see - call it a fine for gross impertinence and damn cheek.

Meantime, there are Russian oligarchs with blllions in their pockets fresh from robbing their own people. Let our aristos do business with that bunch of scumbags.
6

jerrymanders,

28/08/2008 01:04:52
The Duke of Sutherland?

Wealth built on sheep. Not people. Is this a Clearance sale?
7

walter,

28/08/2008 01:16:15
I am sure Sir Sean has a few bob to spare for the country he loves so much.
Then again maybe that nasty king in waiting to the English throne Charles will save the day like he did for Dumfries house.
8

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 01:26:13

walter ~7,

"I am sure Sir Sean has a few bob to spare for the country he loves so much."

'AYE' And 'Pigs might Fly'

A deluded old man, that decided to give Scotland the,..

'Heave-ho' and live the life of materialism,..

Let him keep his money! we don't want it!
9

senza nome,

28/08/2008 01:30:24
Didn't his ancestors clear most of Sutherland in the 19th. century? He should donate the paintings in reparation for his family's shameful behaviour.You've got to feel sorry for him though,he's down to his last £400 million.
10

walter,

28/08/2008 01:32:33
#8
'AYE' And 'Pigs might Fly'
Salmond has been on a plane.
11

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 01:40:19

walter ~10,

That's the best laugh, I have had all week, :DD

Thanks for your humour!
12

Scotfree,

Erskine 28/08/2008 01:52:57
"All fortunes begin with a crime" (Mario Puzo "The Godfather"

All the Sutherlands land and property should be annexed by the Scottish state for their crimes against the Scottish people, their profiteering from the burning out of Scots from the land of their birth and the brutish removal and starvation of our people. The farcical foppish sop to the people in lending artworks to the National gallery and other "charities" (tax avoidance scams) is a mirage to give them and their ilk the appearance of cultural benefactors rather than be seen in true light as the murderous landgrabing craven profiteers which forms the basis of their wealth.
Is this not an indication that they realise their days of profiteering from Scotland’s misery are numbered and its time to cash in their chips, with the assurance of support from the fops and ponses of the Art world.
13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 02:23:00

Scotfree ~12,

"All fortunes begin with a crime"

NEVER a Truer word Spoken!
14

Pilrig.,

Livingston 28/08/2008 05:49:11
4 - yep London is the centre of the univers and we're all British these days.
15

Pilrig.,

Livingston 28/08/2008 05:52:23
8 we don't want it ? speak for yourself. If I had his amount of bucks I'd scarper to a warmer and sunnier climate too. Might have to, considering the heating bills we'll get this winter.
16

A Better Way,

Scottish Republic. 28/08/2008 06:19:07
Of course the answer to this problem is easily solved.

Sutherland takes his paintings back and we take all the land holdings he aquired by betraying the Scottish People.

Seems like a fair deal to me. He is the descendant of thieves, and as such doesnt deserve to own the spoils of his ancestors crimes against the Scottish Nation.
17

eric,

Lothian 28/08/2008 06:46:11
How genuin are they anyway!and if they are so important.Scrap the tram line then simple.
18

Boy Wonder,

28/08/2008 07:01:46
Personally, I dispute the valuation of all of the Old Masters. These paintings are probably really worth a couple of hundred pounds ... and then have ASV put on them to inflate the figure way out of all proportion to the work that went into them.

ASV? Added Snob Value. Cos that's all it is! Just another snobby excuse to lift certain things way above the heads of the working classes and make them look like monkeys by comparison (though there is some justification in the case of Chuckles Linskaill!)

The Galleries have other "Old Masters" which can hang in their places ... so let the Robber Baron take his pictures and get what he can on the open market ... otherwise ... it's just blackmail he's trying ... and let's face it ... these aristos are used to it, having conned our country for long enough anyway!

100million? He's having a laugh! He's still got millions in the bank!!! Git!!!
19

John Jamieson,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 07:14:32
Let them go ! The paintings are not Scottish and the money would be better spent on our indigenous artists.
20

Black Five,

edinburgh 28/08/2008 07:15:35
Couldn`t care less about the paintings .They`re hideous anyway.Must agree with the general comments though.The horrible things were probably ill gotten gains in the first place.The gallery should tell the guy to pash off.The paintings are staying on the wall and that`s that.
21

Graeme,

Guangzhou 28/08/2008 07:16:59
#16. A Better Way

If you were in the Dukes position you would of course donate the land to the people for the paintings? I think not. What is worse? Being accused of a spurious timeworn thieving betrayal (with title) or found to be a liar? You work it out wee man!

I love socialists…# 18 .So do you Boy Wonder, eh? Consumed by envy. Whining and pointing fingers when anyone has more than you.
22

Ron Thomson,

calonge 28/08/2008 07:36:52
How about this to raise some cash,
If all the Provosts in Scotland,
PAWNED their CHAIN of OFFICE.
MSP, gave up their extortionate expenses for 5 Years, took Buses instead of Taxis and official cars.
Stop fact finding missions and big fancy lunches,
That would be a start
23

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 28/08/2008 07:39:40
#6 Jerrymander. A good joke!

The philistines above (not #6) should consider that while they don't like or value the paintings, many others do and the pictures are part of our national treasures and as such must be kept intact for the benefit of future, more appreciative, generations.

The cash value of a painting is what someone will pay for it. The intrinsic worth of a picture is something else and is best judged by those who are well-informed about art. We must not let the family jewels be sold abroad.
24

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 07:48:06
SNP approved ten times this spending on a tramline that will replace a couple of busses, surely can see what a real investment in Scotlands future is and guarantee the cash for this.

Are we a 3rd world country that has to sell it's assets, I hope that is restriced only to Edinburgh council.
25

4legbyes,

Lincoln, England. 28/08/2008 07:56:06
As all Scotsmen will understand the true origins of these paintings; the clearances instigated and maintained in part by the Sutherlands. By right, these paintings should be "GIVEN" to the people who bought them - the Scots who were ousted from their crofts to provide land for English sheep farmers. I think a kindly donation back to the people of Scotland by the Sutherlands family is now in order (two paintings would be nice!) Unless the family decide again to rob Scotland of yet more of its treasures.
26

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 28/08/2008 08:04:21
#25 4legs.

I think you'll find that those dispossessed by the old Duke are dead, and that their descendants living abroad do not wish to return the family hovel. There are no debts to be paid here.
27

Dancer,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 08:16:50
Have the paintings been checked that they were not war spoils, stolen froom some poor sod? A lot of paintings looted by the Nazis have been returned, how far back should we go. Maybe some poor pensioner that was related to some previous owner could find they now own a painting worth a few mil. Would go a long way to heating and feeding them.
28

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 08:26:21
No surprise that the name Sutherland has brought out a range of ill-informed rants about a history of which we Scots remain largely blissfully ignorant.

It appears not to matter to most such commentators that the actual history of the ownership of these works is detailed in the article, that it was long after any of the "Clearance" history being dredged up that the Sutherlands were bequeathed them, and that successive Dukes have been generous beyond reasonable expectation with the public's access to them.

No no, this is the Scotsman forums, inhabited by a particularly rabid species of Braveheart Nat, and any mention of a name they think they know elicits half-baked indignation and claims of past wrongs.

What a nation of children we are.
29

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 28/08/2008 08:43:16
How about charging the Duke of Sutherland £100M for insuring and security surveilance of his paintings for the past god knows how many years.
30

WatchKeeper,

Nr. Diss 28/08/2008 08:46:06
I believe I'm right when I say that for many years, the Duke of Sutherland lived in Surrey. I believe the family still own an estate between Woking and Guildford. I used to go swimming in the river Wey that borders the property.
I have no argument with the Scot' Nats', and independence, but remember, their are many Titled people living in Scotland who are British as well as Scotish. My Grandfather, Ernie Buttler, was from Scotland.
Scotland has a most grand History and many eminent men and women grace the pages of your History Books in just about every Country of the world. Please don't spoil it. Scotland belongs to all of us, you are just lucky enough to live there.
Kind Regards, ATFlynn, "Norfolk's Mutineer"
http://www.atflynn.co.uk
31

ratatouille,

scotland 28/08/2008 08:47:58
How about renting out space in the gallery to artists (such as Jack Vettriano) who believe that they should be represented there? Rent in proportion to income. That should raise some money to keep the collection and allow "the people" to make their own comparisons.
32

Paul Spencer,

Glasgow 28/08/2008 09:11:26
Having just come back from Bettyhill, the focus of the "Sutherland Clearences" can I just say what aload of tosh, the fact was the land was not economic, had the "clearences" not happened we would now have the good folk of Caithness and Sutherland most likely living on disability or some EU based subsidy for wee Tam and his 3 sheep, and 2 goats. It happened and for folk to start dredging this up is frankly ridiculous, the rantings on here are more like a Morganthau plan that was proposed for Germany after the second world war to be revisited upon the descendants of Betty Sutherland and her Factor.
As to the paintings, I hope they do get the ££££ from a mix of government and private individuals, the top 100 rich folk in Scotland could easily give half the cash without a major dent in their wealth.
Then again since art and culture are a devolved matter, could not the Scottish Government nationalise the collection.
Will Mr Broon give up the paintings, well he would have a CGT gain of £120 million on an estimated sale of £300 million, which could be used to offset what ever mad scheme he has to shore up Albions dodgy balance sheet, the Duke is giving up a potential £80million which by anybodies standards isnt small change. Will Mr Broon want to give up £120 million...........watch this empty space at the national gallery.
33

Stephen Cowley,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 09:20:02
It is partly the approval of the galleries that inflates the market value of these "old master" paintings.

I'd sooner the Scottish Galleries also used their weight on behalf of Scottish works of art to give me and others the opportunity to appreciate them and incidentally improve the market position of current local artists.

You really wonder what the quality of judgement is that apparently just accepts some already existing gallery or tourist brochure consensus as to what is important in art. What is important in the context of Scottish culture should count for something too. In the case of the Colourists, etc, they have established a reputation through a local consensus gentium.

I also wonder how the Scotland and impresionism exhibition is going. It seemed quite full when I was there last week.
34

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 09:20:06
This is pure blackmail! £100 million or else????

Mr Salmond should have this 'aristo' arrested and his 'collection' confiscated. The collection should belong to the public(we've all paid for it, one way or another) and not the chancer from Dunrobin!

Dunrobin??? It would seem this boy has never stopped!!
35

C U Jimmy,

Mauchline 28/08/2008 09:23:40
The Sutherlands... still pilliaging Scotland.
36

bumpkin,

28/08/2008 09:25:17
Mr Spencer you are very wrong.
The only thing that was uneconomic in sutherland was the excess rent the duke charged for very poor land.
These farmers paid 3 and 4 times what english farmers paid for the best of soil.
They then built their own house on it, drained it , fenced etc, and were then rented on their own improvements.
When they were burned out, very few were in arrears.
All to fund the dukes fancy lifestyle in london.
The people were considered of considerably less value than deer, pheasants or grouse, and today in 2008, its still the same.
Wholesale evictions are still happening today, very quietly but steadily, shepherds, farmworkers, farm tenants, all cleared so the mega rich can strut about like the turkeys they are.
37

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 09:26:15
#36 AJ, was History one of your recent GCSE subjects? If not, I recommend you read up about the reality of our history, and that of the Sutherlands. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
38

bumpkin,

28/08/2008 09:27:18
I have never been to an art gallery, i am too busy working a 100 hr week to pay the lairds rent.
39

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 09:30:26
Dunc,

So you approve of the blatant attempt to raise funds through a thinly veiled threat!

You do know that the locals in Sutherland take great delight in urinating on the Duke of Sutherland's memorial every year?
40

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 09:32:29
Dunc,

What part of Scotish history are you struggling with?
41

bumpkin,

28/08/2008 09:34:30
Anyone who doubts the brutality of the clearances, log on to the scotsman archives and search"eviction"
The irish shot a few landlords who tried this over there, and they soon backed off.
42

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 28/08/2008 09:35:42
12 - Scotfree
"All the Sutherlands land and property should be annexed by the Scottish state"

There is no such thing as the 'Scottish State'. Scotland is not an independent country with an independent government. It has no territory recognised as such by the U.N. or any international body. Neither do we have a 'Scottish government'; there is a devolved regional administration that is legally subordinate to the government of the UK. If Scotland HAD a real government it could change any law which it wished - bring in a new local income tax, annexe the North Sea oilfields (with its Scottish navy and Scottish airforce).

You may wish that there was a 'Scottish State' - a perfectly legitimate long-term goal - but don't accept the nationalist propaganda as being 'real'. It isn't.

43

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 09:41:06
#41 The paintings belong to the Sutherlands. What you describe as a "thinly veiled threat" is actually an offer to sell for substantially less than the market price. And what you describe as a "blatant attempt to raise funds" is simply a property owner exercising his utterly reasonable right to sell his property.

The locals who pee on the memorial demonstrate the effectiveness of a distorted version of history which is peddled by those with a single-minded zeal to divide our country. You, and they, would do well to open your minds and cast your net more widely in your search for truth and accuracy, rather than latching on to a convenient version of history which is simply there to manipulate you.
44

Bigwull,

edinburgh 28/08/2008 09:52:23
WHO CARES, THEY'RE ONLY OLD PAINTINGS, GET NEW ONES
45

Alec M,

Falkirk 28/08/2008 09:55:04
I am intrigued by the use of the word "buy" in this article.

If I "buy" something, provided the seller has obtained it legitimately, I am granted full, on-going, legal ownership of it.

If, however, at the end of a specified period, in this case 21 years, ownership reverts to the seller, then all I have done is to rent it.
46

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 09:57:47
#47 Comprehension skills not so good?

The 21 year loan offer is for the remainder of the collection. The sale offer is for two Titians. And I can tell you that without even referring back to the article. It's odd how if one reads with the avowed intention to be affronted by the subject matter one can easily achieve this, no matter what it actually says.
47

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 09:59:21
Dunc,

The clearances did happen(despite revisionists like you) and the Duke of Sutherland is acknowledged as a particularly efficient exponent of the policy from 1750 to 1850. It wasn't all forced I'll grant you, but until 1855, life was pretty intolerable for crofters and the like. Plus, the 1886 Crofting Commission wasn't introduced on a whim!

No doubt you would've been in the Lord Napier camp!
48

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 10:04:42
#49 If you don't mind I'll prefer to take guidance on history from respected and qualified historians rather than schoolchildren driven by juvenile nationalism. No offence, like.

Of course the Clearances happened. But the popular image of evil landowners forcing out peasants in order to indulge their sporting pursuits and sheep farming ambitions is not even a quarter of the story, and most reasonable people accept that the Clearances were a part of the wider agricultural and industrial changes which were changing economies all over the world at the same time.

Just because we sing songs about it doesn't mean we're special.
49

C U Jimmy,

Mauchline 28/08/2008 10:05:30
The Duke of Sutherland....the Robert Mugabe of Scotland, history tells us that the crofters were given 24 hrs to leave or they would be burnt out, let him do what he wants with the paintings, there is a lot better things to do with £100 million than to give in to this kind of blackmail, what will he sell next when his £100 million is gone?
50

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 10:16:23
Dunc,

Do you prefer Smout, Whatley, Cowan, MacInnes or Devine? Or have you heard of these guys?

I suspect not....
51

Alec M,

Falkirk 28/08/2008 10:18:26
#48 - I stand corrected. Off now to buy some humble pie.
52

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 10:21:47
#52 Are you suggesting that any, or even all, of these folk would describe Sutherland as a thief? That was your description. Are you saying these folk support your view?
53

N B,

28/08/2008 10:36:44
I think these paintings should be nationalised in a similar way to Northern Rock was. The The 7th Duke of Sutherland will just have to take the hit for the future good of the nation.
54

Joanna,

Cambs, England 28/08/2008 10:46:20
The Duke of S is actually offering quite a good deal on these two wonderfully sensual paintings by the Renaissance master Titian. It is estimated that he could get at least 300 million pounds on the open market. He has offered them to the National Gallery of Scotland for a third off the market value - that's a good deal.

They're great pictures and I think they must attract a lot of visitors to the gallery and revenue to the tourist industry. It would be a shame to lose this asset.

Get the raffle tickets out! :)
55

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 11:01:33
Dunc#52,

I didn't say one way or another! You unionists have a sneaky way of puting words into people's mouth. A bit like the Scotsman attributing bogus quotes to Chris Hoy!

As it happens, the list of historians I've listed give reasoned opinion covering both viewpoints of the clearances. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle ground - a mixture of a natural economic induced diaspora, and of some landowners, brutally seizing opportunities to make a few bob.

The Duke of Sutherland however, consistently struggles with a tarnished image, no matter who you read!
56

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 28/08/2008 11:09:00
This scheme is simple blackmail - the taxpayer is about to be forced to come up with £100 million or the paintings are sold. How much tax would the DOS be required to pay on this little capital gain?
57

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 11:13:15
Joanna ~56,

You've raised an interesting point - the money grabbing Duke would make more dosh on the open market! Perhaps art experts should check the authenticity of these paintings, just to be on the safe side! :)
58

Louis Catorze,

28/08/2008 11:15:39
#27.....no it hasn't been checked, as it says in the article, they are fom the Orleans Collection. This belonged to the deposed French Royal family and was sold off when they encountered their wee spot of trouble.

#58...Blackmail how? The taxpayer isn't being forced to do anything. In fact we seem to be gettnig a rather good offer to buy two paintings for below their accepted market value, which will also let us have custody of another lot of paintings for a further 21 years.

All this tosh about the Dukes ancestors seems to be colouring your logic.
59

Scars,

Agog in inner space ! 28/08/2008 11:17:42
Eh ... 56 #

If these items are seen as part of our national heritage then there is no value applicable. Lets be really blunt, this is absolute nonsense! £100m for some peices of paint on a wall. Fuedalism is alive and well, only the labels and ignorance changes.

The guy that suggested we line them up against the wall had the right idea, and anyone too that somehow thinks this obscene practice is in our national interest is beyond me.

If the Duke of Sutherland has an issue, tell him to get his ars* down the job center and get himself a job. Think of all the issues each one of you could come up with, regarding the state of underfunding/ poor invetsment and ask yourself, truly, is there any justification in this tosh !

Paint for paints sake ? get real FFS !!!



60

Joanna,

Cambs, England 28/08/2008 11:20:49
Tweedmouth makes a good point tho' - while the paintings are on loan to the Gallery they are effectively tax exempt. Inheritance tax and capital gains tax do not apply until the owner decides to sell them on the open market. They are also covered by government indemity while on loan to the Gallery.

I wonder how much tax the Duke would have to pay on the estimated 'real' value of 300 million. Does he pay tax if he sells, as is proposed, one painting for 50 million and the other in 4 years time for another 50 million to the state?

Maybe it is a canny move on his part.
61

Joanna,

28/08/2008 11:24:20
Eh, Eh? 61

Our opinions on art seem to differ widely - so I don't see a lot of point in discussing mine with you.

They are great paintings whether you appreciate them or not and can hardly be likened to a 'paint job' on a semi-detached. But you carry on with that them if you wish to.
62

Scars,

gimme hope hope joanna, gimme hope !! 28/08/2008 11:42:11
Joanna

this is not a swipe at you, and my opinions vary ? Read it again, my opinion does not vary, my comment was "if its in the national interests". It is intrinsically some old canvas with some old oil paint on it... That's it.

The clue is in the headline ... THREAT !!! If its truly a national treasure, he is but a custodian, and his good fortune is in many instances to the peril of others, quid pro quo .....

We need to get our priorities in this world right and to delude ourselves into ignoring what is right in front of us leaves us little scope to be as we wish to be, or at least those that don't allude to the "I'm alright jack" school of living (sound familiar?) . Where your semi detached comment came from I have no idea, I can only conclude it is with regards your hubris!

Truly Joanna, do you really think that this stuff is in the tax payers interest to fork out £100m quid to maintain someone's obscene existence? Its paint, that's it, if someone else buys it, then typically the cultural sycophants of this world will gravitate to anywhere they can posit their delusions in an atmosphere fitting their state...(sic).

£100m would be far better spent on so many things I wont even insult you by starting the list. I am not swiping at you Joanna . I am swiping at the lunacy that prevails vis-à-vis, their life and the harsh reality of most others.
63

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 11:47:42
#57 AJ in #36 you explicitly called the Duke of Sutherland a thief.

"Dunrobin??? It would seem this boy has never stopped!!"

You then throw around some names of historians to give the appearance of validity of your nonsense, and now you claim to have an open mind on the subject.

Hmm.
64

Joanna,

Cambs, England 28/08/2008 12:03:49
Scars

I do agree that it would be better if these paintings were donated to the gallery by the Duke. The fact that he has not had to pay insurance on the entire Bridgewater collection for 63 years must have saved him a very large amount of money. Add to this the non-payment of inheritance and capital gains tax and the Dukes of S have done well out of the deal.

However, the phrase 'national treasure' does not mean, in this case, that the paintings belongs to the nation, they are still privately owned and are the Duke's to sell if he so wishes. Like it or lump it at the end of the day they are his property.

It could be argued that while the Duke has gained in not paying insurance and tax the nation has gained even more by having these great works of art on display and, in this case, attracting visitors to Edinburgh.

On balance, I personally do think that the galleries (London is included in this arrangement) should find the money. They are worth a lot not just in 'art for art's sakes terms' but as a tourist attraction and many people do want to see them. They are possibly the greatest attractions in the National Gallery of Scotland.
65

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 12:12:03
#65,

My attempt to crack a very old joke didn't cut it with you then?

I thought you had a sense of humour as well!
66

Joanna,

Cambs, England 28/08/2008 12:22:39
"£100m would be far better spent on so many things"

On what? It sounds like a lot of money but its a drop in the ocean compared to the money that's wasted on other things in the UK.

In any case - the galleries have raised substantial amounts of money in the past from private backers, raffles and sponsorship, outwith the taxpayer.

It makes me laugh tho' when people bang on about the expense to the taxpayer when we are regularly and thoroughly fleeced by the government every single day. Do you think every tax that you pay is worthwhile and fair? If you do then you are a rarity indeed.
67

Saoghal Beag,

28/08/2008 12:25:42
Does the Duke have no other paintings or artworks in one of his stately piles if the credit crunch is getting to him.

Re the Sutherland clearances, the most poignant memorial is the scratches on the outside of the windows of Croik church.
68

Scars,

Detente !!! Tres bon! 28/08/2008 12:25:42
We are now singing a simliar song dear Joanna !!

I know they are his and this is the rub, he is an extremely weathly land owner that (and lets not argue over this ) that in many cases got what he has through feudalism, pain and suffering and quite frankly, if he has our nations interests at heart, then he should donate them, not hold the tax payer to ransom. Thats the joy of being obscenly rich, you get all the loop holes to keep you that way.

If they attract folks to Edinburgh then good stuff, more reason for him to face up to his responsibility of custodian. If he thinks flogging them to the highest bidder is in the best interests then this clearly puts his perspective to the fore.

My frustration Joanna, and I am sure you probably share this, is that we truly have our priorities wrong and the state should not mainatin the status quo of this heriditary nonsence.

I guess its down to where does he see his loyalty ?

69

Scars,

Somewhere in the land of nod ! 28/08/2008 12:32:06
68, two wrongs dont make a right !!!

I dont even wanna go there about what you make ref to, you are indeed correct, but lets keep a little perspective .. its just paint ....

$100m , you give me this and i'd show what your drop in the ocean could do !!! This could make a big diff to so many if used in efficient ways, not as per the lunacy that is the tuck shop of government !

Anyhoo Joanna , enough .. You clearly treasure your art more than I and I mean you no harm, I just hope sanity will prevail !!!

Steven

70

Joanna,

Cambs, England 28/08/2008 12:32:35
Scars my dear chap..! :))

He won't donate the paintings precisely because he got where he is by 'feudalism, pain and suffering'. The nobility didn't get where they are today by being jolly nice coves who give everything away did they?

So, forget about the donating, even if we agree that he should, he won't. I still think the money should be raised by the galleries and the paintings should not leave the country.

Btw: they are beautiful and not just a bit of auld paint on canvas! :D
71

European Scot,

28/08/2008 12:44:05
I'm all for keeping our oil, as well as our oils.
Retaining the former, would retain the latter.
72

Scars,

Belter !! 28/08/2008 12:52:50
Good, so he wont donate them, so all the art lovers of this world can cobble together £100 million bucks and buy them so they can all go and admire them. Sorted, everybody will be happy then, those that are interested buy them, those that can care less need not worry !!!

I have flowers in my garden that are beautiful, I planted them, I nurtured them, but they are fleeting and only of value to those that see beauty and wonder in such things, the kids down the bottom of the lane could not care less, perspective is what its all about, and at the end of the day, its only paint or flowers.

Lilies and sun flowers they may be, but they aint worth a hundred million in any semblance of humane reality . . . A rose by any other name ?

They left someone else's country, did they not? If we seek heritage or providence, then maybe they should go back to whence they came !!!
73

Lianachan,

Highlands 28/08/2008 12:57:58
I never thought I'd see a Highland Clearance apologist. I had no idea such a thing existed. Well, well.

Anyway - the sad fact is that the paintings are his, to sell or do what he pleases with. The atrocious actions of his despised ancestors are irrelevant here.
74

Joanna,

Admiring a Titian 28/08/2008 13:05:24
"sun flowers they may be, but they aint worth a hundred million in any semblance of humane reality"

Unless of course they are by Van Gogh. One of his sunflower paintings sold for over 30 million dollars to a Japanese collector 10 years ago. I bet they'd fetch a bit more than that now.

75

bumpkin,

28/08/2008 13:05:55
Duncan in edinburgh, or is it moo moo land?
You are correct that clearances happened in other countries, but only in scotland did the lairds succeed totally in uprooting an entire agricultural population.
They were ably assisted by parliament ,the judiciary(and still are) the police, the army and the clergy(except the free church).
The other countries you mention where clearance was applied , or "improvement" as the lairds spin it,dissolved into revolution, most notably france, where the lairds all lost their heads on the guillotine. French peasants took ownership of their land ,which they still possess. Most european countries followed suite, culminating with russia in march 1917.
Fuedalism exists only in the uk now, unique in the western world
76

Dylan fan,

Planet earth 28/08/2008 13:17:19

So things are bad with him too? It gets pretty rough I imagine, having to sell off a masterpiece or two!
77

Scars,

irony .. 28/08/2008 13:42:28
That was the point Joanna , I was being ironic. I am only too familiar with those insane musings !!

I was playing on the sunflowers and lilies .. I think the word is erudite !!!

Anyway, its bed time where I am, I am of to "turner" a new leaf, as I "Giotto" go and "Rafeal" a few fathers before i have to give someone a good boot in the "Contsable" , cant sit her on my "Boticelli" all day long . catch ya another time ..
78

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 13:48:04
Joanna,

I've noted you're a bit 'High Brow', have you ever seen the Cistern Chapel by Michael and Gello!

79

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 13:49:29
#77 Ah, I see - Scotland is unique, blah blah. Not in my opinion. And in fact, with the rise of the Liberal Party, the UK didn't need a bloody revolution to mete out justice - where do you think the Crofters' Act came from?

Saying that Feudalism exists in the UK today is akin to saying that we live as subjects of the monarch. Which is to say that strictly speaking it is true, but for all practical purposes it is of no consequence whatsoever.

We live in a modern democracy. We are no more serfs than the people of any other modern democracy, and we are in a far better position than most of the peoples of the world. That people like you like to pretend that we are somehow under the thumb is both preposterous and offensive to those who truly are.

Now away and paint your face and scream like Mel Gibson.
80

ARP,

Scotland 28/08/2008 13:51:04
What possible benefit would expenditure of £100m bring a country that cannot afford to provide appropriate medicines for those who are ill and feed those who are poor properly.

It is a scandal that such a proposal is even considered for a moment. Far better the things be sold abroad at their full price - and bring in a some revenue. Maybe the rich might be persuaded to pay some tax.

The nation does not need such rubbish anyway. Costs a fortune to keep it.
81

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 14:00:10
I see auld 'misery guts' Dunc is back!
82

Joanna,

Cambs, England 28/08/2008 14:27:21
Scars,

Oh irony! Thought you were just a keen gardener! Possibly a tennant on the Sutherland estate - hence the bitterness?

Mind you - I do agree with you about the sunflowers, they don't float my fighting temeraire either. :))

Any road up....

AJ.. your lavatorial humour just cracks me up. I thought you'd have liked some of the old masters - some are positively pornographic ;)

Re: the Clearances, no they were not unique, the Enclosures Acts in England during the late 18th and 19th centuries were accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed and remain among the most controversial areas of agricultural and economic history in England. Rich landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for their private benefit. This created a landless working class that provided the labour required in the new industries developing in the north of England.
83

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

Not Dunrobin Castle 28/08/2008 14:51:37
I am a Scot, and a Sutherland and proud to be both.
I do not defend the first Dukes actions or methods with
regard to the clearances, in hindsight and with modern
attitudes things would have been done differently, but
it was all very different then, and beyond the ken of us pampered moderns. It should be said that the first Duke who is villified the most, was something of a weak personality, and a chinless wonder who was largely influenced by his English wife, and who's instructions
may not have been carried out by his murderous factor Sellars, exactly as he wished.
Of the dispossessed who survived emigration, their descendants who may care or not about their ancestry,
doubtless have a far better life than if their ancestors had stayed in their crofts with their cow, pig, sheep, hen, and runrig system which didn't even afford them subsistence.
It is very much a truism that most fortunes start with a crime(s) and how true is that of all landed gentry, aristocracy, nobility, and nuevo riche but how far back
in history to you wish todays generations to be held accountable for their ancestors crimes.
The clearances can be regarded nowadays as a crime against humanity, but it has been done and cannot be undone, further the Sutherlands, were not so