Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Royal commission-Cadw merger opposed, inquiry finds
#11
This is just one aspect of the possible reorganisation of the historic environment sector at all levels currently being mooted, with alarmingly short timeframes for discussion and change. A single national historic environment body or trust is one of the options. Personally, I don't think a RCAHMW/Cadw merger would necessarily be such a bad thing, but too much amalgamation is not wise. Not only in terms of the three Rs (redundancies, resources and research) but crucially, in effectiveness. Happily, Cadw are not part of the new Single Environment Body for Wales, which merges Environment Agency, Forestry Commission and CCW, to streamline, simplify, and in theory, speed up schemes and programmes and developments, by issuing only a single response to each proposal. Ain't gonna happen. Bigger organisation, more soup for messages to be lost in; three agencies with conflicting interests, gonna be a case of who shouts loudest. Reckon it's bye-bye to the furries and pretty flowers in a futile battle against flooding, and a uniform landscape of coniferous green.
Reply
#12
Martin Locock Wrote:A single service might have made sense in the past, but in the post-devolution situation it doesn't. Scotland has always had its own laws and Wales and England have started to diverge. The governments they are advising (or part of) are separate too.
...but at the moment the National Trust seems perfectly capable of operating in England and Wales without any suggestion it is compromised by devolution and I am guessing that National Trust Scotland holds similar principles to its sister organisation south of the border without any conflict over central or devolved funding. So if its possible for organisations to maintain a regional identity whilst still being part of a supra-entity, I can't see that there is any conflict with the aims of devolved responsibility for all the current functions that are devolved.

Scotland will be a very interesting proposition if they vote for Independence next year, What will happen to all of the properties that are owned by non-Scottish based institutions (over and above the National Trust) or properties or sites that have been bequeathed to one nation (UK), but now appear to be sequestrated by another ? What is the recompense for a land owner who is told his property they believed attached to one nation is now in the possession of another. Could make the HS2 compensation package look like chicken feed!!
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Reply
#13
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/perso...-bill.html

the trust is just a tax scam. I wonder if anybody has tried to evaluate the amount of corporation tax, inheritage tax, vat that the national costs the country. Scotland would do best to claim a refund.

and if anybody wants a bit of archaeology experience there is still just enough time to commit a crime in wales and get a bit of life changeing archaeology instruction
http://wales.gov.uk/newsroom/cultureands...g/?lang=en or is it a simple message that says ex archaeologists should consider a job in the prison service.
Reason: your past is my past
Reply
#14
Quote:...but at the moment the National Trust seems perfectly capable of operating in England and Wales without any suggestion it is compromised by devolution and I am guessing that National Trust Scotland holds similar principles to its sister organisation south of the border without any conflict over central or devolved funding.

Isn't the National Trust for Scotland rather chaotically run and so close to being broke that it was talking about floggin off its properties last year? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-hi...s-15673114

The thing about the Trust is that the general public already assumes that it is an arm of the state, but in fact it is unaccountable to anyone except its trustees and the charity comission. Also they have vast incomes from 3.5 million members, legacies and estates. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Statutory organisations have to produce advice on behalf of government, which means being ultimately accountable to ministers, rather than anonymous trustees.
Reply
#15
Unitof1 Wrote:But then who comes and pays anything for it, old fasioned things like books and pictures? Are you doubling your money, that kind of thing, break even, even, cause if your not then all the hidding behind its an smr or her which we all know isnt stautory

RCAHMS are very focused on revenue streams from publications and rights from images (which much more than books is the way forward) which is partly driven from their management of SCRAN (an image library) and reflected in their commercialisation of their world-wide historic aerial image library they hold. Indeed some have accused RCAHMS of being overly focused on generating revenue from sales, but they certainly put substantive effort into the commercial side and indeed combat piracy of their images (shutting down a facebook page reproducing images that had their copyright). So the last thing RCAHMS could be accused of was hiding behind their archives hoping no one notices the public monies they receive. The question is really how well this balance of making public thumbnails of all the resources available but charging for commercial use will survive in the post merger HS/RCAHMS body.
Reply
#16
Oxbeast Wrote:The thing about the Trust is that the general public already assumes that it is an arm of the state, but in fact it is unaccountable to anyone except its trustees and the charity comission. Also they have vast incomes from 3.5 million members, legacies and estates. Not that there is anything wrong with
.

The Trust is indeed unaccountable to any one but it's trustees (and its members with membership open to anyone who can afford it) and the charity commission. It's vast income goes on maintaining properties that generate no income. It manages vast landscapes which generate very little if not negative income. The National Trust for Scotland is totally separate.
Yes it benefits by tax breaks given to those who leave property etc to it but the logistics and finances needed to maintain a stately home and it's surrounding park land are mind blowing. I cannot see such an independent body becoming a Government agency especially for a Government it is constantly locking horns with.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Merger Greyfriar 48 19,616 27th April 2015, 09:22 AM
Last Post: GnomeKing
  Metallic Finds Rates on excavations BAJR 60 19,550 31st March 2014, 01:09 PM
Last Post: Jack
  The French finds database...online BAJR 1 1,302 31st January 2014, 02:24 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress kevin wooldridge 91 21,008 19th July 2013, 10:44 PM
Last Post: Unitof1
  THe shape of things to come - Historic Scotland / RCAHMS merger BAJR 1 1,633 9th May 2013, 08:51 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  Not just us... that's a lot of boxes of finds BAJR 2 1,734 5th May 2013, 11:39 AM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  Trouble with dating site causes CADW spat. BAJR 13 6,648 26th August 2012, 04:38 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  oh.... RCAHMS and Historic Scotland. merger BAJR 7 4,106 7th July 2012, 09:10 AM
Last Post: archaeologyexile
  Must Farm Finds. BAJR 1 1,135 3rd April 2012, 07:02 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  Symbols on Finds BAg BAJR 39 9,296 8th March 2012, 02:09 PM
Last Post: Seedy Girl

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)