Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

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

,

28/08/2008 00:36:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
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 solely responsible for the clearncies, perhaps it might suit those of Scots descent who criticise the Sutherlands to investigate the part their clan chiefs played in the clearances and other Scottish injusticies. Let not the pot call the kettle black.
As to the artworks, If the current Duke placed his Scottish heritage above that of his personal family fortune, especially after this length of time, he would
donate these artworks in perpetuity to the Scottish Nation.
84

Dannyranald,

Boston 28/08/2008 14:53:43
Please Duncan, get down off your perch. The cruelties of the Clearances were real. Visit the Highlands and ask yourself, "Where are the people?" There are remains of Highlanders buried all over Eastern Nova Scotia which will attest to the utter banality of the Sutherland family. Do you really think that these Highlanders would have opted for the long and arduous journey across the Atlantic many suffering disease and death if it weren't for the ecomomic plundering and outright thievery of the aristocrats of the day.
Scotland has a problem and its dark history will be replayed if apologists like you have your way.
BTW, let the art galleries work it out. Not a single cent of public money (tribute) for these layabouts
85

Ginger,

Florida 28/08/2008 14:55:55
It's time for the Lottery Fund to kick in and buy these, just like they did the Winston Churchill papers years ago, or is the fund just for south of the border.
86

Joanna,

Cambs, England 28/08/2008 14:58:05
Ginger,Florida 28/08/2008 14:55:55
"It's time for the Lottery Fund to kick in and buy these, just like they did the Winston Churchill papers years ago, or is the fund just for south of the border"


Which border would that be - the one nearest to you must be Mexico!

Read the article, the National Gallery in London is also helping to purchase the Titians.
87

Sylvia,

Edzell Woods 28/08/2008 15:02:24
Commission someone to copy said art work for display : does it have to be original to be appreciated? Not from where I stand. (Only technical experts can tell the difference anyway) Copyrights weren't thought of when these were painted! Problem solved perhaps?
Give the Duke his art work back with many thanks!
88

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 15:04:47
#86 I don't need patronising Yanks telling me to "visit the Highlands" thank you very much, nor do you have any grounds for calling me an apologist when your own understanding of the Clearances is clearly limited to "my pappy was a Scotchman" US bull.

"Not a single cent of public money" eh? Idiot.
89

Lady Golightly,

28/08/2008 15:33:29
Sylvia,Edzell Woods 28/08/2008 15:02:24
"Commission someone to copy said art work for display"


Please tell me you are joking. How many artists do you think there are just knocking about who can replicate a Titian, so that only a 'technical expert' can tell the difference. I'd guess that there are none.

They are valuable and people want to look at them because they are by a great master of the Italian Renaissance. They don't want to and are not interested in a 'knock-off' copy by Joe Soap!

90

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 28/08/2008 15:34:08
Before anyone else passes an opinion on the Sutherland clearances, I suggest reading one of the few surviving eye-witness accounts of what happened. Donald MacLeod's "Gloomy Memories.." can still be found in libraries, and it ought to be reprinted as a national heirloom. It can, incidentally, be read online on Google Books.

91

Joanna,

Cambs, England 28/08/2008 15:37:16
"Commission someone to copy said art work for display : does it have to be original to be appreciated?"


Yes it does or what is the point of it?

Part of the appreciation of the painting is its age, the painting styles used in those days, the way they mixed the paint, the fact that Titian influenced other great painters such as Turner and Constable.

If you just want a copy of it - buy a print.
92

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 15:40:24
The fine collection in the National Gallery would appear to have been bested by the fine collection of sour, jealous old Communists on here. Jeez, it's like a throwback to some 1970s Socialist Workers meeting.
93

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

28/08/2008 15:55:09
As to our "Heritage", were any of these painters Scottish?
I suspect not, therefore how are the works of foreign nationals, however old or great part of our heritage?
94

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 16:02:37
Good to see 'daft' Dunc taking a few hits on this thread.:D

Greedy Tories like Dunc need put in their place.....
95

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 16:05:26
#92 Indeed, McLeod is a very useful source, though it needs to be read in context as a campaigning work (or a collection of works) intended to galvanise the powers that be into action to help the affected farmers of the Sutherland estates. As such it is a passionate and important tome, but it is not the whole picture by any means.

There were also contemporaries of McLeod who expressed differing views, and it's worth examining the reasons why McLeod's work gained such popularity (largely among emigrant communities) whereas the words of others were dismissed.
96

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 16:06:57
#96 AJ, please try to behave like a grown-up when you're conversing with them. The suggestion that I am a Tory is laughable, but then most things you say are.
97

CANUCK,

28/08/2008 16:12:49
Let them go - such money that is being asked for them should be spent on our own home grown artists - past - present and future.
I think people - at home and abroad - are more interested to see what we (The scots) can produce rather than what we can buy, borrow or the amount we can go into "Hoc".
We have some very good Scottish artists and an interesting rich Scottish school of art - we need to invest and display as much of it as is possible.
98

AJ Fife,

28/08/2008 16:16:33
#98 Dunc,

Of course, YOU always behave with impeccable decorum on these threads!

The toys come hurtling oot the pram on a regular basis, when you get going, you melodramatic auld fruit cake....
99

Brian M,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 16:32:46
They are not Scotland's treasures in any way so he should just get on with selling them on the open market.

In fact the museum should just wrap them up in brown paper tonight and tell him to come and collect them by the end of the week.
100

Old Cartha Boy,

28/08/2008 16:56:01
Re #101 - and I'd start to charge him by the day if they are not picked up or they will go in the nearest wheelie bin. This is an obscene demand when you can pick up a couple of Vettriano prints from Artworks for £25. If these 2 pictures represent "the heart of the collection" the rest should be donated to one of the charity shops on the Bridges.
101

Dannyranald,

28/08/2008 17:01:21
Apparently I touched a nerve with Duncan. The poor illiterate child had to resort to name calling.
102

Phil1,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 17:22:49
It is good to see that the battle betweeen Scots continues down the ages - Lowlander V Highlander, Catholic V Protestant, and now Old firm against the rest.

Sean Connery got paid millions for doing very little in a few movies and then he pays no tax as a tax exile. All the money he keeps in his bank in the Bahamas earns him interets but no tax on the country of his birth, education and upbringing. Now if he bought a few pictures and in 150 years it turns out they are worth a fortune good luck to him and his family

What have the 'numpties' complaining above done for Art what work of art owned by them has been loaned to the nation for 60 years.

There are too many grubbie, greedy and envious people pretending to be Scottish.
103

Truely English,

28/08/2008 17:25:51
Why can't the Scots get over the Clearances and live in the Modern Era of our great nation.
The Dukes of Sutherland have been lambasted for all the ills of the Clearances, but what about all the Scottish Lairds and Landlords, who did the exact same things without one whimper from anyone on this thread.

Isn't it just a bit rich to forget about all those others who were involved like the Gordons, Grants and Cathcarts and simply concentrate on this one family.
104

Beth Boyle,

NY 28/08/2008 18:35:36
The National Gallery is wonderful with or without the paintings of the Duke of Sutherland but I still hope the Gallery can some how manage to buy them. I enjoyed the Gallery more than anything else in Edinburgh and hope I can get back soon! Once is never enough to see a great museum such as this!
105

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 19:01:53
#108 Beth

You're so right. The gallery is a pleasure and it's obvious some of the peasants righting above have never visited. It would be a national embarassment if the paintings are lost. The SNP are always going on about Scotland taking its place amongst the nations of Europe. Well, the other nations of Europe have world class national galleries. If the government allow the paintings to be sold, it be as well admit they're happy for us to be a cultural backwater. Yes, we have great Scottish artists but these are iconic across the world.
106

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 28/08/2008 19:02:23
That'll be writing of course.
107

Russell M,

Stirling 28/08/2008 19:45:08
So the current Duke of Sutherland has found a way to fleece ordinary Scots again. The 7th Duke of Sutherland, should give the Titians to the National Galleries of Scotland to begin a meaningful atonement for the death and misery his forebears caused when they cleared Strathnaver. And if your knowledge of Scottish History is a little thin let me remind you that George Granville Leveson-Gower, 1st Duke of Sutherland was only 2nd Marquess of Stafford when he implemented the "improvements". The dukedom was created for him by William IV in 1833 in spite of, or maybe as a reward for, the misery and suffering he and his good lady wife Elizabeth Sutherland Leveson-Gower, Duchess of Sutherland and 19th Countess of Sutherland had caused.

Some claim all those who suffered are dead, therefore the debt died with them. Tell that to African-Americans and Jews. And you're right the Duke never soiled his hands he had factors like Patrick Sellar. Sellar was brought up on charges of murder but was acquitted by a judiciary just as much in bed with the establishment then as now.

This is an article about Sutherland and his Titians don't even think that this absolves the rest of the Scottish nobility who succumbed to their own greed and pressure from the Stuart Kings after they went to London. And lest you think Donald MacLeod's "Gloomy Memories" is the only source read Mathilde Blind's "The Heather on Fire", or "The Highland chiefs, in short, were assimilated in position to English landlords. They were by the central government invested with the fee-simple of the land which was once held by the laird and the clansmen in common, and so a great wrong, amounting to a national crime, was done to the Highland population."--"Storm-Clouds in the Highlands" J. A. Cameron." Nineteenth Century," Sept. 1884 and "Thirty-four battalions marched from these glens to fight in America, Germany, and India ere the eighteenth century had run its course; and yet while abroad over the earth Highlanders
108

wattie>x 1,

PLYMOUTH 28/08/2008 20:35:59
Where did the present Duke of Sutherland emerge from ? And what century does he imagine he now lives in?

The sooner our nation regains its respect and stolen Independence, the sooner we can regain ALL the land and wealth that was plundered from it over the past Centuries and put it to the use off our people.
109

La5t_minit,

28/08/2008 20:50:22
£100m for 2 bits of cheap canvas, a fancy frame and a quick lick of Dulux... Wonder how may hospital beds that would buy?.
110

Sile,

Planet Earth 28/08/2008 21:09:58
You just do not know the value of all the culture that is Glasgow four times I have travelled the length of this country just to admire what you whingers[some exceptions]have, the art in Glasgow is breathtaking from Pollock park to the galleries in Sauchiehall Street to the National, to the wonder that is Charles Rennie Macintosh, I cannot believe your lives are so barren you do not see the beauty that is there. drink up lads the bottom of the glass is far more inspiring..
111

Sile,

Planet Earth 28/08/2008 21:11:29
p.s no wonder Vettriano shows in London.
112

Fairfax,

28/08/2008 21:29:12
Russell M (111): "The 7th Duke of Sutherland, should give the Titians to the National Galleries of Scotland"

Titian was a Venetian painter. If it's right to return the Elgin marbles to Greece, or the Stone of Scone to Scotland, why should Titian paintings remain in Scotland?
113

Pilrig.,

Livingston 28/08/2008 21:37:45
19 - so better a Vettriano than a Poussin ?

Actually I'm in a dilemma here as I usually support the return of art works and cultural artifacts to the country of their origin. But the thought of NGS losing the Seven Sacrements ? Woe is me.
£ 200 million ? Doesn't that cost the UK about half a year for the fool's errand in Iraq ? And of course the Embra tram system will be at least £600 million.
114

Pilrig.,

Livingston 28/08/2008 21:40:52
28 - correction; what a nation of philistines we are.

And I hope you don't believe the Fry version of the Clearances.
115

Fairfax,

28/08/2008 21:46:54
Pilrig (118): "£ 200 million ? Doesn't that cost the UK about half a year for the fool's errand in Iraq ?"

A better comparison might be the approximately £1.2 billion per year spent on Scotland's incapacity benefit. Unless, of course, we use the obese unemployed to provide biofuel via liposuction.
116

Pilrig.,

Livingston 28/08/2008 21:46:54
No shortage of forelock tugging on this threid re the Sutherland Clearances. What next I wonder ? Regret for universal suffrage coming to Scotland ?
117

Pilrig.,

Livings 28/08/2008 21:48:01
120 so the GPs are a bunch of liars ?
118

Pilrig.,

Livingston 28/08/2008 21:51:26
115 - well said, although as far as I'm aware Glesca has no Poussins or Turners.
119

Pilrig.,

Livingston 28/08/2008 21:56:47
117 you have a point about returning the paintings to the country of origin. The only mitigating factor in this case is that Italy and France aint quite bereft of Old Masters.
120

Scotfree,

Erskine 28/08/2008 21:57:40
41# A rather preposterous statement. If Scotland is not a state then there is no Act of Union and no Scottish law and by implication everything that follows from that does not exist.

Returning to the central issue the basic hypothesis in the headline is simply not true. Titian was an Italian artist so how can this be "Scotland's greatest art treasure" when it is neither a Scottish artwork or owned by Scotland. On the contrary it is simply a piece of speculative merchandise acquired from the profits of the ethnic cleansing of the Scots people of Sutherland, a crime and theft which has gone unpunished to this day. In truth, given the history of these artworks we cannot even be sure if it is genuine (not important aesthetically but speculatively critical). The Sutherlands well realise the speculative nature of the works as they wish to sell at the top of the market where the collapse in the financial markets is sure to be followed in the Art market. So the prospect of an independent Scottish government reacquiring the lands and properties stolen from the Scottish people and the need to act quickly before the market collapses, the establishment media demands that the father enrichment of the Sutherlands is more important than Scottish Artists, homeless, unemployed, fuel impoverished and indeed everyone and everywhere else in Scotland where £100million could be usefully employed.
121

Russell M,

Stirling 28/08/2008 22:12:08
Fairfax (117): To the best of my knowledge the Titians were not stolen from Venice.
122

Fairfax,

28/08/2008 22:15:32
Russell M (126): "To the best of my knowledge the Titians were not stolen from Venice."

They are, however, Venetian heritage. Why should Scottish money be spent on their remaining in Scotland? Does returning artifacts only apply when the current owner is English?
123

Fairfax,

28/08/2008 22:18:45
Pilrig (120): "so the GPs are a bunch of liars ?"

They're well-intentioned and in a difficult position. Given the enormous increase in incapacity benefit over the past two decades, the obvious conclusion of benefit fraud suggests itself.
124

bumpkin,

28/08/2008 22:39:10
Duncan, if you think feudalism is over, try living as a tenant farmer in scotland today. I know a certain earl , who on arrival at one of his hundreds of farms, he just walks in to the farm house, no knock at the door, no common courtesy.
The crofters land act of 1883 helped the crofters, but only went halfway to what was needed.
Tenant farmers outwith the crofting counties still have their improvements stolen and rented back to them, still have a tortuous rent review system and dream about getting the same rights as crofters.Most other peoples who have been wronged recieve an apology, ie aborigines, african slaves etc,when is the apology for the clearances coming?
125

cataibh,

Over the Struie 28/08/2008 22:43:31
Duncan in Edinburgh# read Highland Clearances history in full and may I suggest especially the case raised by the Sheriff-Substitute of Sutherland Robert MacKid.
I was brought up in Sutherland and there is a well known quote which says "The Sutherland family is not completely useless as they can always be held as a bad example" I also visit the manny and pay my due respects.
126

CANUCK,

29/08/2008 01:29:23
Enough - this is just pure revolting greed -let him have his .....paintings and quickly before some nutter gets it in his head to walk in with a paint spray can and finish them off, just for spite.
The Gallery should charge him an arm and a leg from today for the security for looking after his "assets"
as he refers to them which have now become a real liability.
127

Jock ex 45Cdo RM,

THORNHILL 29/08/2008 07:51:23
Makes you proud to live in a FREE society. All the non achiever bloggers -done nowt- sitting in front of screens, wondering what to say- I say try something.
128

bumpkin,

29/08/2008 21:07:12
jock, just because you are the only one who puts his ex occupation on your blog, doesnt mean all the rest of us are jobless.
129

Stephen Cowley,

Edinburgh 01/09/2008 14:57:57
It is relevant to note that the last Titian painting was sold in 2005 for just under £5 million and that a Titian has never been sold for over £5 million. My source for this is another daily newspaper. That surely casts doubt on the £100 million figure for two Titian paintings. There's some funny things can happen when that kind of money is floating about, to my mind.

Any clarity on that one folks???
130

Z L Brookes,

South of Scotland 07/09/2008 10:44:32
God help the poor man for inheriting all this clutter!

You Scots need to get something right aswell, there's a certain lady up in the Highlands who owns thousands of acres, she is the direct descendant of the Sutherland line who 'robbed' your people. The Chappie down here is descending from the Bridgewater, Ellesmere lineage, their fortune was made in coal, canals, property all in England through shrewd business moves and marriages.

Oh and by the way not only did they make lots of money they also spent a lot of it on the less so fortunate. One Duchess of Sutherland's portrait hangs proudly in a certain major city hospital, the same hospital she funded and gave the land for.

Drives me up the wall all this socialist claptrap, wish you'd go away, you must dribble acid at the sight of someone doing well.
131

Z L Brookes,

South of Scotland 07/09/2008 11:05:19
The Sutherlands used the money they generated from the forced deportation of "his" kinsmen to finace his fortunes and acquire these works of art.

"WRONG AGAIN"

The paintings descend from the Egertons not the Leveson-Gowers. They passed to the Marquiss of Stafford who became the 1st Duke through the will of his uncle. The paintings were purchased from wealth created from the vast coal reserves, land, property and sheer brilliance of the canal system. The Marquiss of Stafford married the wealthy landowning Countess of Sutherland.

The Duke gave money and blessed those who took his offer and left the misearble, dank, windy lands of sutherland to seek a better future over the pond. As one poster above mentioned, you ask their descendants to come back, their answer? PI** off mate!

Anyway, heres a question for you, what does the clan Sutherland have to say about this? Their spiritual leader the Countess is seeing one of her families titles dragged through the mud and it hasnt got all that much to do with her?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.