Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Glasgow Boards/Forums _ Glasgow News Blog _ Statues To Be Moved From George Square

Posted by: GG 13th Sep 2012, 10:20pm

Glasgow City Council today announced that it will be removing all statues from George Square as part of an expensive landscaping project which is expected to cost the city up to £15 million. The historical monuments could be removed as early as next year in a rushed effort to make sure the work is carried out in time for the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014.

The monuments to be removed – without public consultation – include works dedicated to famous Scots like the bard Robert Burns and inventor James Watt, as well as unique mounted monuments to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. The square's centrepiece, the 80ft-high column featuring Scottish historical novelist Walter Scott (shown below), is also to be removed. Only the Cenotaph is expected to remain in place.

It is believed that senior civic and business figures want to use the project as an opportunity to make Glasgow's premier civic space more amenable to hosting large-scale commercial events such as concerts, shows, fairs, exhibitions, promotional campaigns and sporting events.

The photo below shows preparations in George Square for one such event, 'Run Glasgow', which took place earlier this month.



GG.

Posted by: Isobel 13th Sep 2012, 10:58pm

Martin I think its a dreadful idea.

Posted by: A Mackinnon 13th Sep 2012, 11:17pm

So! they want to remove the monuments & replace them with Port-a-Potties, what a crappy idea..........pun intended.

Posted by: Elma 13th Sep 2012, 11:18pm

I agree with Isobel. These statues have significant historical value and should remain in George Square for tourists and residents alike to see and admire.

Posted by: sallygr 14th Sep 2012, 12:01am

What a loss that would be. It's so wonderful to see statues of poets and writers in George Square. I love seeing all of the flowers at the foot of the Robert Burns statue every January!

Posted by: Jupiter 14th Sep 2012, 12:02am

Makes me wonder if there is any appreciation for the figures and what they achieved.They are a constant reminder of what made Scotland great from Engineers to medicine, literature and of course Rabbie.
There has been consultation going on in Aberdeen for months about changing the gardens and this was vetoed but it looks like the changing of George Square is a fait accompli.

Posted by: Jazzsaxman 14th Sep 2012, 12:18am

The question in my mind is how are they going to move them without damaging them and where are they going. The whole idea is crazy, like we needed another concert venue next to the SECC and the Clyde Auditorium. WTF is going on in Glasgow Council.

Posted by: jonsglasgowguide 14th Sep 2012, 12:22am

Where did these crazy people get their minds from and why are they allowed to run a city I really hope there will be a petition to stop this as these statues are more important than any of our half witted council whom I doubt very much there will ever be any great statues erected for them... send petition to all persons on your lists and then send it to all social network sites in order to send to this crazy council and stop it before it gets to uprooting our memories and rights to presenting our visitors and residents of a great city...and remember that there are travellers from all over the world with families and friends who come specifically for the purpose of photographing these statues.

Posted by: Coliboy 14th Sep 2012, 12:54am

Yet another little bit less of a City of Culture.
It would be national news and the subject of national debate if the City of London Council announced this sort of plan for Trafalgar Square.
Make it easy to make a quick buck from commercial events and fairs and to hell with the heritage.
While we're at it, why not tarmac over Glasgow Green and pebbledash Provand's Lordship.



Posted by: Kassy 14th Sep 2012, 01:18am

NO

These are part of our history and George Square would never be the same.

I am just gobsmacked at this.

Kassy

Posted by: okiegal 14th Sep 2012, 01:50am

In total agreement with Jupiter. If we remove the statues George Square will be just a run of the mill park found in any city anywhere in the world. George Square is one of a kind please don't let them destroy it.

Posted by: Mary Gill Keir 14th Sep 2012, 01:55am

Dreadful idea....who had hair brained scheme! Leave them there!

Posted by: Bejasus 14th Sep 2012, 01:58am

How disgusting is this. I know I don't currently live there anymore, but it is the city of my birth and the place where I grew up through my teen years. Who the hell are these people who sit in our elected councils and dream up this crap. It is time to start hanging people from lampposts and taking back our lives and our history. These people have no respect at all,l and deserve to be treated accordingly.

Posted by: littlebernie 14th Sep 2012, 02:21am

Although i do not live in glasgow i used walk from bridgton to the square and admire that wonderful poet and bard rabbie to carried out this sacrilege is insult to the history and the people of scotland start a protition now and save our history.

littlebernie sad.gif

Posted by: Jan44 14th Sep 2012, 03:13am

I can't believe this was even thought about.... How will they possibly remove the statues without damaging them. I was born in George Street my childhood memories are of playing on the lions in the square when I got older I appreciated the who and why the statues where there. I have lived overseas for many years when I come for a visit I always make for the square to sit and appreciate its beauty. Why oh Why would this be even considered.Shame on you Glasgow City Council.

Posted by: youngsy 14th Sep 2012, 03:48am

An absolute disgrace,these statues are part of the history and heritage of the city and no doubt are a tourist attraction also.

Posted by: tigerplank 14th Sep 2012, 06:35am

The Council has no right to do this without the public being allowed a vote on this. I'm surprised a newspaper or an MP is not shouting from the roof tops about this silly idea.

Posted by: bilbo.s 14th Sep 2012, 06:57am

Surely it would be easier (and cheaper) to remove the councillors from the City Chambers. That would smarten up the place somewhat.

Posted by: chas1937 14th Sep 2012, 06:58am

QUOTE (Mary Gill Keir @ 14th Sep 2012, 03:10am) *
Dreadful idea....who had hair brained scheme! Leave them there!

The brainless and bigoted run City Council and all adding up too a few people deciding what they want and how we should be gratefull.
Time to get rid of Labour run Council who have proved through the years they have no brains

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 14th Sep 2012, 07:24am

I'm with Billbo. Go for the cheaper option and remove the councillors ... but first find out who's giving out the back-handers; this smacks of corruption.

Posted by: Lennox 14th Sep 2012, 07:31am

Absolute Disgrace !!!!!!!

Who is their right mind thought that one up sad.gif * shaking head in disbelief *

Posted by: *lizN* 14th Sep 2012, 07:34am

I think it's disgusting that these young up-and-coming councillors think they can remove all signs of our history. The statues depict the history of Scotland and they should be left in George Square and wherever else they may be in the country. For goodness sake, why does making money from these so-called concerts take precedence over the history of our country. At a cost of 15 million pound to remove these and create a sleezy concert venue is disgusting.

Leave Scotland, and Glasgow's history intact, and take your concert venues to the poorer areas of Scotland to help the economies in those areas. So what if people may have to travel (even by public transport) to get there, leave the city centre intact. Clean it up by all means, but leave the statues of Scotland's historic folk where they are.

Liz

Posted by: nanajune 14th Sep 2012, 07:39am

George Square is a disgrace to Glasgow, it's ugly. You wonder what tourists actually say when they visit compared to other "squares" all over the world. The only saving grace it has is the surrounding beautiful Victorian buildings. Taking away the statues is outrageous but typical of the fools who run our city. Next thing they'll want to do is rip out all the marble from the city chambers and kit it out from Ikea!!!

Posted by: DavidT 14th Sep 2012, 07:49am

I wrote to the council last year about the mysterious disappearance of the Crum water fountain. I got no reply. However, I also wrote to a historical society in the Busby area (where Mr. Crum came from) and they got an answer. Apparently the fountain had been removed to make way for a temporary ice-skating rink. As far as I know it has not been put back. Have the council been removing items from the square a bit at a time? I saw a woman on a news vox-pox saying "don't let designers anywhere near it." I agree with that lady.
David smile.gif

Posted by: LesleyReed 14th Sep 2012, 07:57am

Does Glasgow really need £15m spent on it? There are parts of West Scotland that have a greater need for, at least some of that money?. Cheap run down and tatty all the way to Loch Lomond I say.

LMReed

Posted by: *greta* 14th Sep 2012, 07:57am

I am disgusted that they even thought of this, not surprised that they went behind peoples backs though as they know very well what the reaction would be. These statues are not just of historic significance but are a part of Glasgows culture and life its a damn disgrace. This is me being very mild about it, there has to be a public outcry that will put these half wits back in their place and put an end to this madness.

Posted by: bilbo.s 14th Sep 2012, 07:58am

I note that none of the (so far) 9 voters in favour of this move has posted any comment. Are they afraid of being identified and being condemned along with the council ?

Posted by: Guest 14th Sep 2012, 08:06am

Where is the public consultation?

One of the rising concerns about for example the Olympics is the extent to which the whole ethos has been infected by commercial interests.
And here , the very centre of Glasgow to be stripped of it's heritage.
As it happens I have little interest in Victoria or Albert, but that is hardly the point.

William Wallace ?

Posted by: *Bailley* 14th Sep 2012, 08:30am

It was previously published in the media re the proposed change / upgrade to the square..It was intimated the council wished to remove some of the statues...apparently some could not / would not be removed ...They (the council) were then going to put it to the public(the people of the city of Glasgow) for their views on any such removal..or changes to the square...Why are they not now going to put it to the people of the city...I understood that the proposed upgrade was to make it more people accessible..grass may have been put back and area made more of a central focus...They (the council) need to / should seek our views regarding any proposed changes to what is after all a central focus of our city and widely used by the public in general..

Posted by: *Yogihughes* 14th Sep 2012, 08:40am

Think about it!

It is just another way for these money-grubbing councillors to try and make some more money to increase their wages. A previous poster referred to tarmacing Glasgow Green, well, they haven't done that yet but have come close. There is hardly a week goes by where there isn't some sort of event or other going on. Glasgow Green has gone from somewhere to walk/relax to being a money-spinning "Events Area" (their description not mine) to benefit the city fathers.

So to get back on to the subject in hand, it is time for the people of Glasgow to stand up to these "elected" representatives and let them know that they are on borrowed time and they have been chosen to implement our wishes and not for their own benefit.

By all means, improve the area by bringing back the grassed areas where the citizens of Glasgow can relax when we do get some good weather BUT the historical statues MUST remain. Let's make our point to these councillors and tell them that it is "our" city and we will decide on the future of George Square.

Posted by: Guest 14th Sep 2012, 09:13am

I left Glasgow 15 Years ago ,but to me George Square is Glasgow History and the statues should not be removed, when I come back I always go through the town also visiting george square.

Posted by: annmcpherson 14th Sep 2012, 09:15am

What the hell is Glasgow City Council thinking of. Even to consider removing statues from George Square is a disgrace. I work as a taxi driver in Glasgow and I am always impressed by interest shown by foreign vistors in our George Square. It was bad enough several years ago when the council decided to tarmac over the square thereby reducing our "dear green places" even more. Can you imagine the uproar if this was Red Square Moscow or any other country.. Come on fellow Glaswegians let these people know we are not lying down to this, they need to be brought back to reality'. Ann McPherson

Posted by: JAGZ1876 14th Sep 2012, 09:19am

Removing the statues must surely be seen as the ultimate act of vandalism, if a group of neds had defaced and damaged them overnight the city would have been up in arms demanding justice, yet here we have the elected members of the Labour run council removing them to who knows where.

I just hope that they don't put them into the cities museum storage yards as i would fear for their safety, particularly the bronze ones, remember, if half a tram car can roll away undetected then what chance does Rabbie Burns head have.

Posted by: john.mcn 14th Sep 2012, 09:19am

I went past George square the other day and it's now an eyesore, i'm not only against the removal of the statues but fully support bringing it back to the babe market on sunny days it used to be. Ohh the shouts of 'ya jammy B' when I got sent to a site across from it still ring in my ears biggrin.gif

Posted by: annmcpherson 14th Sep 2012, 09:24am

You know, reading over this piece of news re: statues in George Square I am now really thinking this is just a hoax piece of news (is it really true?) then again if it is (its not the first of April ) then it really means our city fathers have definately lost the plot, entirely, God help us all !!!! Ann McPherson

Posted by: JAGZ1876 14th Sep 2012, 09:31am

QUOTE (annmcpherson @ 14th Sep 2012, 10:39am) *
our city fathers have definately lost the plot, entirely,

Did they ever have a plot?

Posted by: annmcpherson 14th Sep 2012, 09:36am

QUOTE (Jazzsaxman @ 14th Sep 2012, 01:33am) *
The question in my mind is how are they going to move them without damaging them and where are they going. The whole idea is crazy, like we needed another concert venue next to the SECC and the Clyde Auditorium. WTF is going on in Glasgow Council.

I agree wholeheartly with Jazzsaxman WTF is going on in Glasgow Council. Hit back next time we vote, that is the way to show them how strongly we dissagree with them. Ann McPherson

Posted by: christine murray 14th Sep 2012, 09:40am

Will there be anything left for me to see in Glasgow?? When i finaly get there from Australia to visit the home of my ancestors , i would love to see the monuments and history. Im not coming all that way to see the left overs of a rock concert. Stand up to this council and tell them what you want your city to look like. The stupid mayor of Melbourne has rubber stamped the removal of ALL the 150yr old the cobble stone lanes and road ways. What do these councils think theyre doing? Its destroying our heritage. Thought the stupid ones were only in Australia!

Posted by: Scotsman 14th Sep 2012, 09:41am

Hoax?? Thats exactly what I was thinking Ann but I checked the Evening Times site and this is what they are saying about this very sorry affair....

QUOTE
THE civic heart of Glasgow will be transformed into a building site from January.

This is how George Square looks just now -- but it will be all-change from January. After Christmas, the bulldozers will move on to George Square and begin the transformation of the area at a cost of £15million.

The first step will be to remove all 12 statues in the Square, including the 78ft (24m) column bearing writer Sir Walter Scott.

So they are to go and the square is to be shut for a full year also. This is just crazy stuff.... who actually comes up with these schemes and its costing us a fortune at the same time!!

Posted by: Dave Fisher 14th Sep 2012, 10:19am

Im sure if the statues were of 'Irish History' the councillors wouldnt even dream of moving them, has anyone started an e petition?

Posted by: Frank Wilson 14th Sep 2012, 10:20am

What are they thinking of? They will destroy the whole feeling about the place, it will no longer be unique to Glasgow but hey ho thats what the council they excell at destroying the culture and feel of Glasgow.They always plead they have scarce funds so where do they have £15,000,000 to spare,I,m sure that in these days there must be more pressing needs nfor that cash. The City of Glasgow belongs to the citizens , NOT the council who are there to run the city for and on behalf of the citizens and it's time they realised that.

To me it's like Edinburgh demolishing Princess st and building a mall as it's more modern!

Frank Wilson.

Posted by: *Yellow Rose* 14th Sep 2012, 10:25am

George Square belongs to the people and should be returned to the way it was before they put down red tarmac, that was a disgrace. Now you can't find a place to sit in the city centre as they keep moving away the benches and there is little grass areas. The square is now a mess and has been for years since they keep trying to make it into a venue. Why not look to the river side and develop that for open air events there is plenty of land at Tradeston. Who gave them the permission to take away the statues. I don't remember seeing anything on the New/papers relating to even the idea of this. This should have been voted on by the people as it affects the people who live their and visitors. The city has many places to stage events and that should be looked at. George Square should remain the place in Glasgow city centre that salutes the efforts and achievments of historical people, we have been named as the City of Culture please don't take that away from us.

Posted by: Rab2 14th Sep 2012, 10:28am

PREPOSTEROUS 'Contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous' I can't think of any more to say - I am choked! angry.gif
Our poll vote says it all.

Posted by: Des Harrigan 14th Sep 2012, 10:42am

A terrible idea which will destroy the whole atmosphere and wher would they put them?

Posted by: norrie123 14th Sep 2012, 10:44am

Why leave the cenetaph and remove the rest, they might as well leave the square barran and souless

15 million to be spent when things are bad crazy
A bad idea
Why not pull down that modern building on George st, that should give them extra as sapace, I doubt that would be missed

Bye for now, norrie

Posted by: Libisa 14th Sep 2012, 10:49am

Absolutely no-way should they be allowed to go through with this! Like all cities throughout the world, our statues and monuments are part of our history. The city council are in office to look after, and protect Glasgow’s heritage and the statues/monuments are part of that. They belong to the people of Glasgow, not a bunch of farts sitting in a bureaucratic world pushing pens trying to justify their already inflated salaries.

Posted by: Alex Moffat 14th Sep 2012, 10:49am

The people who are making these decisions are 'elected representatives' of the people of Glasgow. I do believe it should not be necessary to be constantly 'consulting the people' on issues, I think when it is a matter relating to something that is seen as an iconic symbol of Glasgow and/or Scottish culture or history I think it is ESSENTIAL that the people of Glasgow and maybe even the Scottish people as a whole should be consulted. An official website should be set up so that as many people as possible can have a say in this matter. Sometimes our elected representatives do need reminding that we live in a DEMOCRACY.

Posted by: Harrymc 14th Sep 2012, 11:00am

Looks like yet another example of the contempt the city fathers have for the culture and history of Scotland as exemplified by the disregard for the sites of Wallace's Well and the Wallace Monument at Robroyston.I might add the display of similar contempt for the good citizens of Glasgow in deciding,without consultation,to spend £15m on this nonsense at a time of austerity.
Then again are we surprised???

Posted by: bob paterson 14th Sep 2012, 11:01am

OK. Hands up all those who voted Labour in the May Council elections? Happy now?

Posted by: *Archie* 14th Sep 2012, 11:36am

This is a terrible decision and must be revoked immediately. These statues are a heritage and part of our past. They are an icon of our city and must not be touched.

Posted by: Billyboy 14th Sep 2012, 11:39am

Removing the statues from George Square is an idea that must have come from either bad taste or back handers. i also notice that the very few who are in favour in the vote have stayed silent. Shame on the 9 of you I think you must be coucillors.
Billyboy

Posted by: Jim D 14th Sep 2012, 12:28pm

Check this out - for old photo's of the square.

http://www.restoregeorgesquare.com/timeline/

Posted by: weenorman 14th Sep 2012, 12:41pm

folk must remember that it was the same labour controlled councill that changed the square before in the 80s with the same attitude . the statues are part of the square have been for years ,dont get rid of the statues just the useless self serving councilors . jsut to add they dont mind consulting you when they need your vote

Posted by: Heather 14th Sep 2012, 01:00pm

What do we expect from those Councillors who think that once the are Elected into Office it gives them the right to do what they want with our City.

First they made George Square into Red Square, now the are removing the Statues and I wonder if we will ever see them again. Probably end up in some Councillors back garden.

I remember when they got the red tarmac put down there was a lot of complaints and the Council said they would put more tree's around the Square. They put plant pots with tree's in them around the area, but they vanished a few years ago.

Many years ago I worked in an Office that looked right into George Square. As my desk was right beside a window, I had a full view of the Square with all the lovely flower beds. On sunny days we could sit outside on a bench and eat our lunch. Now there are very few benches.

Maybe we need to set up a Demonstration March and walk all around George Square letting the Councillors know what we think of their ridiculous idea to remove the Statue's.

Posted by: ashfield 14th Sep 2012, 01:21pm

I don't know what the status of this group are but they appeared to actively trying to get the square restored to it's previous glory. The issue of the statues is a bit of a red herring but the proposal to move them suggests a change for the worst. George Square should be a place reflecting gravitas, not a glorified theme park.

http://discuss.glasgowguide.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=23214

Posted by: mlconnelly 14th Sep 2012, 01:21pm

QUOTE (TeeHeeHee @ 14th Sep 2012, 08:39am) *
I'm with Billbo. Go for the cheaper option and remove the councillors ... but first find out who's giving out the back-handers; this smacks of corruption.

For goodness sake Tomi, don't mention the C" word, you'll only set Jupiter off again. We had the opportunity to get rid of these idiots earlier this year but seems that ship has sailed at least till the next election.
The design and general upgrading of the Square is to open for discussion with the public having their say in what happens, allegedly. I may well be wrong but I am under the impression that any new design must incorporate the original historic statues, but I sure someone will correct me if thats not the case. Mary

Posted by: *Katie* 14th Sep 2012, 01:34pm

Unbelievable, it's about time the Scottish people rose up and objected to our history being eroded by Council morons. Surely this is all part of our heritage and should be protected for future generations.

LEAVE GEORGE SQUARE ALONE

Posted by: bilbo.s 14th Sep 2012, 01:40pm

22 in favour now. Wonder who they are. Not my usual suspects.

In our village last year there was word that the council were to cut down all the trees on the main street, to save expenditure on trimming them. There was uproar, as those trees add beauty to the village, not to mention providing the only shade from the roasting sun. Posters were placed in shop windows and even on the said trees and the stupid idea was soon dropped. I guess we have a wee bit more democracy here.( at least sometimes!)

Posted by: marcam7 14th Sep 2012, 01:43pm

It certainly needs a major revamp but not at the cost of our heritage.

Posted by: bilbo.s 14th Sep 2012, 01:46pm

What it needs is to be restored to its former condition - say 1960s.

Posted by: ashfield 14th Sep 2012, 01:55pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 14th Sep 2012, 04:01pm) *
What it needs is to be restored to its former condition - say 1960s.

I'll go with that ...........but only if I can get restored to what I was like in the 60s at the same time tongue.gif

Posted by: stratson 14th Sep 2012, 01:55pm

I have spent the past hour reading all the posts re. George Square,
George Square was never intended to be a venue for shows etc.
Am trying hard to contain my anger and B.P. at the very idea of the vandalism the Powers that be can possibly be allowed to do as THEY choose without a public meeting and discussion of it's future.
Have been looking at the photos Jim D, posted dating back to mid 19th century.
I suggest they should all study the beauty therein. Why fix something that is a work of art.
By all means clean the filth from the stones, get rid of the red tarmac..
Have the lovely gardens and grass with seating , is so beautiful sitting in the sunshine (when it appears).
Am praying sense prevails, re. this matter. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: *Bobby Stevenson* 14th Sep 2012, 02:04pm

Yet another shocking decision from the faceless wonders in the City Chambers. Everywhere we go Heritage is so important. Why has Glasgow always the one city to be so different. George Square will never be the same and will have no attraction for visitors or residents.

Posted by: A Mackinnon 14th Sep 2012, 02:06pm

Would these "lefties" go to the Red Square, Trafalgar Square or even the fountains of Rome & remove them?...of course not! So why do they think they can remove the history & culture of both Glasgow & Scotland & replace it with a bloody fairground.
Tourist that go to Glasgow put a visit to George Square high on their agenda, if they just wanted to see a Ferris wheel they would have stayed at home.
Councilors... Idiots all angry.gif

Posted by: Rosemary 14th Sep 2012, 02:14pm

Hello everyone,

I am planning my first visit home to Glasgow next year and St George's Square was going to be one of the first places to visit. I hope its not to late I will be so dissapointed. Do we get to vote on what they are planning to do?

The Americans talk about Scotland all the time, when speaking about Glasgow they say the buildings are unique and the history is so interesting.

Rosemary

Posted by: wee davy 14th Sep 2012, 02:40pm

Outrage

QUOTE
these statues are part of the history and heritage of the city
rot

QUOTE
our statues and monuments are part of our history
not part of mine (except Burns and Watt)

QUOTE
These statues are not just of historic significance but are a part of Glasgows culture
eh ???? What has statues got to DO with Culture? Even Donald Dewar on Buchanan St would laugh at that one.

QUOTE
I note that none of the (so far) 9 voters in favour of this move has posted any comment. Are they afraid of being identified and being condemned along with the council ?
22 in favour now. Wonder who they are. Not my usual suspects.

Hiya bilbo wink.gif

The monuments in question;

The Cenotaph - 1921 -24 by Sir J J Burnet Lions and figure of St Mungo by Ernest Gillick, a memorial to the city's fallen in the Great War and other conflicts.
(Rightly so, Not moving)

The Scott Monument - 1837 Column by David Rhind and statue of Sir Walter Scott by John Greenshields carved by Handyside Ritchie.
Do we really think (or even want) Scott to be 'part of Glasgow's Heritage'? I mean, I ask you in all seriousness

Thomas Graham, Chemist – 1872 by William Brodie cast by R Masefield and Son of Chelsea
Candidate for repositioning (Glaswegian) to the Uni somewhere. Famous for work on dialysus.Could YOU point him out, in a crowd of statues? lol

Thomas Campbell man of letters – 1877 by John Mossman
A Glaswegian poet - name me one of his poems, without googling him

Lord Clyde, Indian Army commander – 1868 by J H Foley
Great Warrior of the Empire, who changed his birth name from Mcliver to Campbell, on enlisting under the name of Campbell, after meeting the Duke of York. (Honorary Englishman)

Sir John Moore, Peninsular War commander – 1819 by John Flaxman
Another honorary Englishman, who helped put down the Irish Rebellion
QUOTE
Im sure if the statues were of 'Irish History' the councillors wouldnt even dream of moving them, has anyone started an e petition?
Oh really? Read about John Moore - Lets see if it stays

Robert Burns, Poet – 1877 by George Edwin Ewing, reliefs by J A Ewing cast by Cox and Son.
From Ayrshire - a womaniser and a drunkard - probably deserves to replace Scott on the column

James Watt, engineer and inventor – 1832 by Chantrey
Though born in Greenock
Good case for keeping him - though repositioning to the University would be an option.

Queen Victoria equestrian – 1854 by Baron Marochetti.
Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, equestrian - 1866 by Baron Marochetti.
Robert Peel, Prime Minister – 1859 by John Mossman
William Ewart Gladstone, Prime Minister – 1902 by Hamo Thornycroft.
James Oswald, Member of Parliament – 1856 by Baron Marochetti

I fail to see why we need ANY of the above statues (from Victoria to Oswald) in the middle of Glasgow

Especially as only ONE of them has ANYTHING to do with Glasgow
(In fact, Peel and Gladstone were both from LANCASHIRE!


so,... there we have it - get rid of Scott off of the column, replace with Burns (or Watt), and re-position a couple of Glaswegians.

George Square has always been (to me) a door, dead space, and could be modernised. Anyone ever see Nottinghams Market Square? Enough said.
I don't think we need keep ANY statues, ... but I recognise people want to honour others, in this way. From the list above, I cannot see why 75% of Glaswegians today, would want to 'honour' them in any way, shape, or form.

Its a Victorian/Empire thing - commit it to the past, is what I say

wee davy (one of the usual suspects, lol)

Posted by: Kerry Gill 14th Sep 2012, 02:51pm

George Square was already one of the worst of any big city in Europe having been denuded of flower beds, trees etc to make way for commercial/leisure events which would be more suitable on Glasgow Green. Now it will be even worse. There is something seriously wrong with the mentality of Glasgow councillors. Don't they ever visit cities in France, Italy, Germany, etc, to see what a decent centre looks like?

Posted by: wee davy 14th Sep 2012, 03:21pm

As much of Germany was flattened during the last war, Kerry, most of Germany (even East Germany, now) have fairly modern, bright and spacious centres, with up to date sculptures and artwork. (Much of Holland, the same)

French historical monuments tend to be not of people - but of important events.

Italy is probably the exception, having (somehow) escaped the ravages of war and time, to maintain mostly mythological and religious figures. Large monuments here, were often SELF funded and a bit of a 'look at me, how I did well' types of monuments, often erected as ADVERTS to their chosen profession, skill, or trade.


Posted by: hudggy 14th Sep 2012, 03:35pm

The council should be removed not the statues!!!!

Posted by: *lou* 14th Sep 2012, 03:38pm

Disgraceful, the square IS Glasgow

Posted by: bilbo.s 14th Sep 2012, 03:49pm

Wee Davy,

I go for a wee siesta and come back to read this utter bilge. You really have had a wee brainstorm today. How many cities, anywhere in the world , only have statues of their native born?

Your facts are as usual non-facts. For example " only one has any connection to Glasgow" - Lord Clyde and Sir John Moore were both born in the city and both were pupils of my alma mater, The High School of Glasgow.

I freely admit that I am not familiar with some of the others, but my personal ignorance, or your dislike, of some has nothing to do with whether the square should be further desecrated. For many of us the square was at its best in the 60s and before. That is how we would like to see it - as we remember it. That´s history !

There are times when I wonder about you.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 14th Sep 2012, 03:57pm

QUOTE (Heather @ 14th Sep 2012, 02:15pm) *
What do we expect from those Councillors who think that once the are Elected into Office it gives them the right to do what they want with our City ... Maybe we need to set up a Demonstration March and walk all around George Square letting the Councillors know what we think of their ridiculous idea to remove the Statue's.

That's a good idea to start off with.
I still think someone needs to look into what passes for business transactions behind closed doors to see if the councillors who pushed this idea are being slush-funded by the concerns who stand to gain most from this modernisation.

Posted by: bilbo.s 14th Sep 2012, 04:12pm

Tomi,

Do you have any facts, figures or statistics to support your suspicions? Oops, just stole sumbdy´s copyright ! laugh.gif

Posted by: GG 14th Sep 2012, 04:21pm

QUOTE (Heather @ 14th Sep 2012, 02:15pm) *
... Maybe we need to set up a Demonstration March and walk all around George Square letting the Councillors know what we think of their ridiculous idea to remove the Statue's.

You'll have to be quick if we need to do that: the same councillors who are wanting the statues gone also want to ban people from demonstrating in George Square. From the Herald last month:

QUOTE
Glasgow's George Square has been home to some of the biggest protests in Scotland – from 90,000 striking workers in 1919 through to the poll tax rebellions in the 1980s.

But now the days of mass rallies there could become consigned to history as council leaders plan to curtail the use of the city's principal civic space.

Trade unions are, however, unhappy at the plan and are gearing up for a fresh battle for the right to preserve "the historical role of George Square as a centre of protest".

Under plans to tighten up its policy on parades, Glasgow City Council is looking to rule out the square as an appropriate gathering or dispersal point for demonstrations, citing fears over crowd control and the potential for protesters to be involved in an accident with traffic passing on all four sides. [...]

Full story here:
http://election.theherald.co.uk/mobile/news/home-news/unions-condemn-plan-to-ban-george-square-rallies.18543972?_=c954052ce87a7a54f3a000e064cf823ed350b2fa

GG.

Posted by: petunia 14th Sep 2012, 04:29pm

I don't know what to say about this I am just dumbfounded I can't imagine going into George Square the next time I visit Glasgow and seeing a wide open space it is just ludicrous, too bad you can't get rid of city council as easily, haul them away instead of the statues. As for the concerts all you need is a big patch of waste ground and build a platform as concert venues are not pretty sites after a concert especially after it has been raining, use some of the 15 million to fix up the Square instead of desecrating it.

Posted by: GG 14th Sep 2012, 04:31pm

QUOTE (*Yogihughes* @ 14th Sep 2012, 09:55am) *
... By all means, improve the area by bringing back the grassed areas where the citizens of Glasgow can relax when we do get some good weather BUT the historical statues MUST remain. Let's make our point to these councillors and tell them that it is "our" city and we will decide on the future of George Square.

Yogi, I'm afraid there is no chance of bringing back the former grass areas, as the remaining raised grass areas are also to be removed along with the statues. I think that the idea is just to have one big bit of tarmac in the centre of the city ... available to anyone (except trade unions and the Orange Lodge) who has enough money to rent it out by the hour.

GG.

Posted by: bilbo.s 14th Sep 2012, 04:38pm

Wee Davy,

It is a pity you did not read more about the people commemorated by the statues, while you were lifting your information from Wikipedia. tongue.gif

Posted by: Debz 14th Sep 2012, 05:18pm

This is so wrong!!!

Is there a petition set up against it?

Posted by: bilbo.s 14th Sep 2012, 05:55pm

Wee Davy,
I apologise for my paragraph 2 in my post#71- in my anger and haste, I had not connected your sentence:-
Especially as only ONE of them has ANYTHING to do with Glasgow

with the previous one.

I think, however, you will find that Victoria was Queen of Scotland, including Glasgow. Gladstone and Peel were also, like it or not, PMs of UK including Scotland, although perhaps we could replace them with Andrew Bonar Law (born in Canada) and Henry Campbell-Bannerman , two PMs both also FPs of Glasgow High.

Posted by: Mrs L 14th Sep 2012, 06:32pm

My late husband & I were born and raised in Glasgow; my two daughters were born there.
I worked in an office overlooking the Square and loved those statues, etc. - they were a connection to our past history and the people who played such a great part in our progress. It was so nice to sit there and dream (when it wasn't raining too hard).
I lived near St George's Cross before we were married and used to walk to work.. Shamrock St, Cambridge St, Sauchiehall St and whichever street took my fancy that day to get to 29 St Vincent Place.

We live in British Columbia now which I love but I do hate the thought that a few people on a council have the power to destroy such significant historic areas. How much more damage have they done or propose to do in the future? What and who is influencing them - certainly not the folks who live there. I find this preposterous and certainly not in keeping with the vision of those who worked so hard to make Glasgow what it is now.

Ellen (Mrs L)

Posted by: Billbhein 14th Sep 2012, 06:38pm

It shouldn't just be about the 'Money, money, money...' Short term gain from the odd concert or show can never out-weigh the long term heritage and memories of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Glaswegians down the ages who appreciate George Square for what it is, statues and all.
Whoever thought this up must have been dropped on his/her heid as a baby...

Bill

Posted by: Cameron 14th Sep 2012, 07:30pm

THIS IS THE MOST STUPED THING I HAVE EVER HEARD ABOUT . I WAS BORN AND LIVED UP THE GILSHE IN MARYHILL AND I ALWAYS WHEN I WAS IN THE SQUARE ENJOYED SITTING THERE FOR A FEW MINITS . A FREIND OF MINE WAS IN SCOTLAND FOR 2 WEEKS THIS PAST SUMMER AND HE WAS IN THE SQUARE AND HE THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT PLACE . THIS WAS HIS FIRST TIME IN SCOTLAND HE WILL BE UPSET WHEN HE HEARS ABOUT IT

Posted by: Scots Kiwi Lass 14th Sep 2012, 08:10pm

Please, please keep the statues. I spent some time in Glasgow last year and had a lovely day in the city centre, I think it was the Merchant City festival. George Square was full of people and events, the weather was great, and the statues stood proudly.

I am a bit emotional about it, especially as our local Cathedral Square is reduced to rubble after two earthquakes. There were a few statues who lost their heads in the quakes - maybe what should happen to the Glasgow City Councillors?

Posted by: Treehugger 14th Sep 2012, 08:20pm

Come on, it's the 21st century. George Square, as the centre of our city, is for the people who live there not for a bunch of stone monoliths erected in the days of the empire.

We need to look forward to survive as a community not fantisise about the past. When these statues were built Glasgow was at the centre of the industrial revolution. Most of our forefathers did not benefit as individuals from the wealth generatated first by the slave plantations and secondly by the coal and iron mining. They lived in squalor, experienced ill health at a young age and wound up forgotten in paupers' graves.

My children are the equal of any of the "worthies" currently on pedestals in George Square. They deserve a square they can use.

Posted by: wee davy 14th Sep 2012, 09:23pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 14th Sep 2012, 05:04pm) *
Wee Davy,

I go for a wee siesta and come back to read this utter bilge. You really have had a wee brainstorm today. How many cities, anywhere in the world , only have statues of their native born?

Your facts are as usual non-facts. For example " only one has any connection to Glasgow" - Lord Clyde and Sir John Moore were both born in the city and both were pupils of my alma mater, The High School of Glasgow.

I freely admit that I am not familiar with some of the others, but my personal ignorance, or your dislike, of some has nothing to do with whether the square should be further desecrated. For many of us the square was at its best in the 60s and before. That is how we would like to see it - as we remember it. That´s history !

There are times when I wonder about you.

That siesta didn't improve your attention to detail.
I credited BOTH Clyde and Moore with being from Glasgow - I was saying there was only one from Queen Victoria, down.
George Square is overated - always has been - and its none the better for statues to many who have nothing to do with Glasgow. To move statues is hardly a desecration, bilbo.
(PS thats the wonder of me! lol remind you of a song?)

PPS Just spotted your apology
PPPS Did Vicky & Bert ever actually STAY in Glasgow, when she quarantined Balmoral for their Stag Hunts etc?

Posted by: wee davy 14th Sep 2012, 09:36pm

I cannot for the life of me see why people are getting all emotional about statues they probably didn't even KNOW who they were erected for, (and most probably still don't, but for this thread).

Get rid - and as Treehugger says, make it into a wee oasis of tranquility in the dead centre of Glasgow - where people would once again, enjoy it for a change.
Now that all the smoke and smog has gone, you can at least SEE it again

PS yeah, I use Wiki for speed and am completely unashamed of it.
Its accuracy is virtually identical to scholarly confirmation. Many tens of thousands of people spend their time checking it, and I for one applaud it as a real miracle of the age. In fact, I've even been known to donate!

There is NO reason why information should only be for the learned ones.
That really P's me off, when I try to access stuff (perhaps even to verify) and I find I must have a degree to access it grrr

Posted by: wee davy 14th Sep 2012, 09:49pm

QUOTE (GG @ 14th Sep 2012, 05:46pm) *
Yogi, I'm afraid there is no chance of bringing back the former grass areas, as the remaining raised grass areas are also to be removed along with the statues. I think that the idea is just to have one big bit of tarmac in the centre of the city ... available to anyone (except trade unions and the Orange Lodge) who has enough money to rent it out by the hour.

GG.

Sorry - I missed this bit of important info - if the plan is as you say, GG, then I am totally opposed to it. Gardens, and space can be married together quite well, for event purposes. It is not should not, be a cash cow. (Can still get shot of the statues for me lol)

Posted by: DavidT 14th Sep 2012, 09:59pm

I seem to be in agreement with both sides of the debate. I'm not in favour of keeping the statues because of some romantic attachment to the past, but I am in favour of leaving the square exactly as it is. That is in the same way as we leave old graves to rot and crumble. Future generations deserve to scratch their heads and wonder who these people were. I still wonder who half of them were. If you would like to see how polished and cared for old statues can look just cross the road from the square and check out the shiny, comfy, cosy interior of the City Chambers. While you're at it try to imagine the living conditions of the average city dweller of 100+ years ago.

Posted by: wee davy 14th Sep 2012, 10:08pm

You don't have to go quite so far back as that, DavidT - 60/70 plus is quite far enough!

Welcome to the boards, all you newbies, btw.

Nice to see you,... to see you, nice smile.gif

Posted by: A Mackinnon 14th Sep 2012, 10:15pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 14th Sep 2012, 11:04pm) *
Sorry - I missed this bit of important info - if the plan is as you say, GG, then I am totally opposed to it. Gardens, and space can be married together quite well, for event purposes. It is not should not, be a cash cow. (Can still get shot of the statues for me lol)

Wee Davie, you quite surprised me with your stance on this matter & simply could not believe you were for George Square being turned into simple a "square" of asphalt for the sake of a few pounds, now it turns out you didn't read GG reports...shame on you rolleyes.gif
Of course you are still full of it regarding the statues, what you and a couple of others who agree with you fail to realize! it is not JUST the statues & who's on them, it is the grass, the flowers, the seats & if I can use a big word that might not really fit? it's the "ambiance" of the whole area.

And let's not forget the "lumbers" we got from the dancing who lived in the housing schemes, they caught the late night buses from the square, many a great time we had with all the party animals waiting for their bus. laugh.gif

Posted by: DavidT 14th Sep 2012, 10:26pm

I realise people were living in poverty more recently and sadly some still do, but I was referring to the approx age of our current city chambers. Thanks for the welcome wee Davy. I'm happy to be here as the telly is rotten and Glasgow is a good subject for discussing. Off topic a bit, but see that funny looking tower that doesn't work outside the equally funny looking science centre. I think that should be toppled and used as a bridge. You can't have too many bridges.

Posted by: loungey 14th Sep 2012, 11:20pm

I worked in george square post office from 1968 till 1971 and at that time the square had lovely flower beds all around and were well used by office workers and shoppers as a space to sit enjoy the sun and have lunch and yes we did have sunny days then lol and then the council decided to remove them that to me was the start of the downfall of the square now all we have is concrete and if they have there way removing the statues will be nothing else but a disgrace wake up glasgow and restore the square to its former glory not a concrete square in in the centre of some of glasgows finest buildings.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 14th Sep 2012, 11:33pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 14th Sep 2012, 10:51pm) *
... PS yeah, I use Wiki for speed and am completely unashamed of it.
Its accuracy is virtually identical to scholarly confirmation.
Many tens of thousands of people spend their time checking it ...

No it isn't!

I had to inform a group of those tens of thousands to whom you refer, that William Shattner was NOT a star of p*rn films (many of which were named) as stated in the wikipedia page on William Shattner.
This was almost a year ago and the eMail I received by way of thanks was to an address which I've recently closed since aquiring my new pc or I'd post that up here as proof.

When statues in bronze or otherwise; which are a great form of art, depicting poets, warriers or engineers and inventors have nothing; in your opinion, to do with a city's culture Davy, then I think it's high time you moved out of Yorkshire, or Lancashire, or wherever it is you're growin' your roses, and come back into the real world. rolleyes.gif

Wiki has plenty of worthwhile information but anyone can add to or change that info after it has been put up so it must be checked out at reference sources for accuracy by the wiki user.

Posted by: benny 14th Sep 2012, 11:44pm

QUOTE (Treehugger @ 14th Sep 2012, 10:35pm) *
. . . . My children are the equal of any of the "worthies" currently on pedestals in George Square. They deserve a square they can use.

With all due respect to your children, how many of them have been Prime Ministers, victorious generals, national poets, or monarchs?

Yes, perhaps it would be nice if a statue were erected to the labouring masses who helped make Glasgow the city it is, but the statues are part of Glasgow's history as well and should remain where they are.

Posted by: seamus1954 15th Sep 2012, 01:08am

As Always it comes down to the Almighty pound . Money over Culture greedy politicans , and the eternal quest for profits , no different from Our politicans ever see a poor politican now That is an Oxymoron

Posted by: pagege 15th Sep 2012, 03:06am

It would be a sad day when they are all gone. I visited George Square when I went to Scotland in 2007, I ended up going on three different days just walking around looking at the statues and taking pictures and reading the plaques. To go there now and see what? I am glad I went when I did and still have the pictures.

I do hope they put them back and all are in one piece.

George

Posted by: bilbo.s 15th Sep 2012, 07:09am

Wee Davy,

I was not criticising your use of Wikipedia, although you gave it no credit for the information, preferring to give the impression that you had done some painstaking, scholarly research. I have no quarrel with the facts stated, but I think you could have done similar research on the people concerned. I refer in particular on your veiled slur on Sir John Moore, who certainly took part in the Irish "trouble" as an officer of the British Army, but is widely accepted as being against any atrocities carried out there.

My attention to detail certainly lapsed, which I accept, but yours is a bit dodgy as regards reading Martin's original post.

Posted by: Reeni 15th Sep 2012, 07:12am

Okay for them to be removed during works, are there plans to put them back when work is completed? Opportunity for new statues chosen by the folk of Glasgow.

Posted by: Doug1 15th Sep 2012, 07:18am

The last time i saw George Square it was beautiful with flowers and benches to sit on etc but I gather from some of the posts that the memory I have is long gone. If indeed the square has been messed up then maybe it's time to start all over again. If it is the will of the people to reinstate the gardens so be it but if there is a strong movement to create a completely new open space on which all sorts of activities can take place that too should be considered, but a great deal of consultation will be necessary. As far as the statues are concerned I dont think thats such a big deal. Whether they are in George Square or another perhaps nicer and more relevant position as long as there is full access to them it should be okay. This whole thing reminds me somewhat of the controversy in Aberdeen over changes to Union Terrace Gardens.

Posted by: Irene Shennan 15th Sep 2012, 07:21am

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 14th Sep 2012, 08:12am) *
Surely it would be easier (and cheaper) to remove the councillors from the City Chambers. That would smarten up the place somewhat.

smile.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 15th Sep 2012, 07:29am

Quite true, Doug, but the point surely is that the people of Aberdeen had their say.

Posted by: Doug1 15th Sep 2012, 07:43am

Absolutely Bilbo, thats why I was saying the whole matter would need a lot of discussion. I doubt if Glasgow city council would do this but if they wanted a really good outcome of what to do with the square then an international competition to find the best design would be the answer, but I have a feeling the council may be looking for a quick fix, or am i just being cynical??

Posted by: ashfield 15th Sep 2012, 07:50am

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 15th Sep 2012, 09:44am) *
Quite true, Doug, but the point surely is that the people of Aberdeen had their say.

Yep, and after the public vote went one way, the council voted the other smile.gif

Posted by: GG 15th Sep 2012, 08:09am

QUOTE (ashfield @ 14th Sep 2012, 02:36pm) *
... The issue of the statues is a bit of a red herring but the proposal to move them suggests a change for the worst. George Square should be a place reflecting gravitas, not a glorified theme park.

I think you have got it in one, ashfield. The issue of the statues is a highly emotive one and, I believe, one that has been raised to deliberately divert the public attention from the wider and more nuanced changes which underlie the raft of council proposals for the square released over the last few months. What we are witnessing is a general exercising of power by Labour councillors to bring George Square wholly under their control, or at least to demonstrably remove control and ownership (or the impression of control and ownership) from the people of Glasgow. They will know their own reasons for doing this.

But the statues are a red herring and I foresee some quick concessions by the very unpopular council leader regarding the long-term location of the monuments; however, the very act of doing so simply reinforces the message being sent – that George Square no longer belongs to the people of Glasgow.

GG.

Posted by: alec devine 15th Sep 2012, 08:19am

As representatives of our City of Culture, can anyone inform as to why? they can make such an important decision without discussion planning with the Citizens that they supposedly represent.
Can someone publish their names in order that the citizens of Glasgow know who not to vote for, next time!!!

Posted by: GG 15th Sep 2012, 08:40am

Welcome alec. The sad truth is that some councillors in Glasgow do not particularly represent the people because, in general, 'the people' refused to vote for them. In Anderston, for example, the ward in which George Square sits, more than 75% of the electorate did not vote at the last election. You can view the elected members for Anderston http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/852BEFC3-5574-4CD0-9521-7FB466648612/0/Ward10AnderstonCity.pdf.

Although it is Labour councillors who are pushing the plans for George Square through, we await official response from the other parties.

GG.

Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 09:18am

QUOTE (DavidT @ 14th Sep 2012, 11:41pm) *
I realise people were living in poverty more recently and sadly some still do, but I was referring to the approx age of our current city chambers. Thanks for the welcome wee Davy. I'm happy to be here as the telly is rotten and Glasgow is a good subject for discussing. Off topic a bit, but see that funny looking tower that doesn't work outside the equally funny looking science centre. I think that should be toppled and used as a bridge. You can't have too many bridges.

LOL Thats been annoying the heck out of me on photographs of our beautiful toon, for as long as I can remember - but I'll bet someone here has an aesthetic/historical reason for demanding it should stay, as part of the skyline. (Always thought it was just me though about it like that haha)

Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 09:43am

In reply to THEE's post

QUOTE
Wiki has plenty of worthwhile information but anyone can add to or change that info after it has been put up so it must be checked out at reference sources for accuracy by the wiki user

Suggest you take a look at Wiki registration and usage/manipulation details
THEE.
Of course they have to remain 'open' for ammendment/update. Unfortunately, this was always the drawback of reference books. Lies did REMAIN lies.

I'm sorry if William Shatner got a 'bum' deal - but you know what they say 'no smoke without fire'. Helen Mirren done LOADS of soft p*rn - look at her now! (Bet you don't find anything on Wiki about that)

PS No it isnt. Oh yes it is. lol I didnt make my statement up - many academic institutions have run checks on Wiki - and have found it to compare in the accuracy stakes ver similarly to their own references.

PPS Disputed information is always highlighed on the page - I can only say perhaps there was more weight behind the allegations

bilbo - touche biggrin.gif

Posted by: Dave Grieve 15th Sep 2012, 09:48am

Would love to see the upoar if Trafalgar Square was threatened with monument removal like this.

Interesting statistic on the number of voters not voting, seems its true you get the Goverment you deserve.
Treat politics with apathy, you get mediocrity.

Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 09:54am

In answer to

QUOTE (A Mackinnon @ 14th Sep 2012, 11:30pm) *
Of course you are still full of it regarding the statues, what you and a couple of others who agree with you fail to realize! it is not JUST the statues & who's on them, it is the grass, the flowers, the seats & if I can use a big word that might not really fit? it's the "ambiance" of the whole area.

I just have a thing about statues Archie - its probably me, but I do not 'get it' when we simply plonked a statue down because every other big town/city has them. Art is after all, very subjective.

Whew ,... busy morning! lol yes.gif

Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 10:03am

QUOTE
When statues in bronze or otherwise; which are a great form of art, depicting poets, warriers or engineers and inventors have nothing; in your opinion, to do with a city's culture Davy, then I think it's high time you moved out of Yorkshire, or Lancashire,

I wasn't saying that, Tomi

I was referring to the majority of these PARTICULAR statues, in this PARTICULAR square. It was often simply a fashion statement, during the Victorian era, which has always rubbed me up the wrong way.

Right,... better get my 'real world' head on rolleyes.gif

Posted by: tombro 15th Sep 2012, 10:19am

Sounds like WeeDavy is one of the Councillors, or is he just receiving payments from the same 'behind the scene' entrepreneurs !

My memories of the square are from the late 1950's (emigrated to Australia at the end of 1960) and I reckon any monies available should be used to restore the square to the state it was in those days.

I'm not a Luddite, I just think 'the Square' is the centre of Glasgow and, as such, it should showcase the city's history. I don't think providing a stage for modern music, such as that put out by 'eclectic' and uniquely named groups like LMFAO (obviously laughing at the ignorance of modern day society), is what the centre of a city should be all about !

Tombro smile.gif smile.gif

Posted by: d.c. 15th Sep 2012, 10:33am

Just before the Olympic Team celebrations yesterday, there was some informal chat going on in George Square between council officials and members of the public about removal of the statues.

From what I could hear, council officials were saying that no plans have been drawn up yet either for the square or for the permanent removal of the statues. They said that this impression has been created due to misreporting in the media of a council statement which announced the launch of a design competition this week, followed by a public consultation in December when the people of Glasgow will be able to give their verdicts on the proposals put forward by the design teams.

They did say that to coincide with whatever works take place in the square, the statues will be removed for their own protection and also for repair or restoration. What happens to them after that depends on the outcome of the public consultation. They might be returned to their current positions or be relocated either within the square or to other city parks.

I have just found the council statement/press release now, this is a section from it:

QUOTE
The second phase of the consultation, taking place in December, aims to gather views from the public and other stakeholders on the potential designs which will be shortlisted.

Given the scale of the proposed transformation, statues and monuments - except the Cenotaph – will be removed, at least on a temporary basis, in order that the design and construction can be efficiently carried out. This will also allow a comprehensive conservation plan of statues to be implemented in partnership with Historic Scotland.

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/News/George+Square+competition.htm

Hopefully they will stick to their word and give the people of Glasgow the final say, and more importantly that the people of Glasgow make sure they have their say rather than remain silent and only complain afterwards if the square doesn't turn out how they would have liked.

The statues don't mean a lot to me personally, I am ashamed to say that without looking at the plaques I wouldn't even know who most of them are. But I have spent a lot of time in George Square during any good weather in recent months and I have been surprised at what a major tourist attraction these statues are. I would much rather see the statues in the square, than the tents and marquees that appear week after week for various commercial events and promotions.

Posted by: john.mcn 15th Sep 2012, 11:19am

QUOTE (wee davy @ 15th Sep 2012, 11:09am) *
In answer to

I just have a thing about statues Archie - its probably me, but I do not 'get it' when we simply plonked a statue down because every other big town/city has them. Art is after all, very subjective.

Whew ,... busy morning! lol yes.gif

Irrespective of who sits on top they are part of the square and should remain, although there is one statue i wouldn't mind seeing torn down, top of buchanan st, you cant miss it.

Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 11:29am

Thank you for that extremely helpful post, d.c.

I must say some people might have my 'stance' on this issue, contrary for the hell of it.
This couldn't be further from the truth.
Sentimentally, the Square means a lot to me - I'm just saying the statues meant nothing to me as a youngster - and until this post, didn't feature in my life, at ALL!

ANYTHING which might be conducive to Glasgow having a centre they can enjoy, is fine by me. That includes them having as many statues as they bliddy like cool.gif (A bit sunny here in pudding country)

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 15th Sep 2012, 11:43am

From an other topic ...

QUOTE
GG
The production team for World War Z arrived in Glasgow today. They're busy converting George Square and surrounding streets into downtown Philadelphia ...


Maybe the councillors see an empty George Square as having more appeal to movie makers as well as other commercial events thus turning it into a nice wee money maker for those who weild the rubber stamps.

Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 11:46am

I don't think Mr Dewar had much say in his being erected - insoever as he is/was a Glaswegian, and the 1st First Minister, this has both historic, and local significance.
(Its quite a good statue as well,... as statues go lol)

Oh,... whilst I'm here bilbo.
As far as my veiled slur on John Moore goes, I retract nothing.
If he WAS lilywhite - he was the exception not the rule - AND he would not have disobeyed orders. Once again, history can be what you make it out to be!

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 15th Sep 2012, 12:03pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 15th Sep 2012, 10:58am) *
In reply to THEE's post

Suggest you take a look at Wiki registration and usage/manipulation details
THEE.

Silly davy ... How else do you imagine I was able to report the misuse of a wikipedia page?

QUOTE
I'm sorry if William Shatner got a 'bum' deal - but you know what they say 'no smoke without fire'.

There was no fire Davy it was complete misuse of a wiki page just as I thought and just as was confirmed by wiki.

The belief in "No smoke without fire" was responsible for a lot of innocent women being burned as witches at the stake, Davy.

Posted by: *george* 15th Sep 2012, 12:04pm

Any one with half a mind can see what GCC are up to , removal of all obstacles creates greater free space, more room for more travelling shows and accompanying side shows, not only blighting the square but additionally creating more city congestion, more parking charges more work for traffic wardens, who cares about the need for city centre workers enjoying their breaks in the sun?

I suggest leaving the statues where they belong , undeniably they are a tourist attraction in their own right, one only has to see the daily presence of camera touting tourists there, I have often witnessed the frustration of visitors when they couldn't get a clear shot at some statue partially smothered in a shroud of tenting.

There is also the prospect that the removal of the statues might just result in the less frequent presence of tourists in the city centre in favour of finding the locating of the evicted statues.

My thoughts are that if the council have to have these mobile shows, set aside an area on the Green there is more than adequate space there to accommodate more than one show should the occasion arise including visitor parking access which would relieve the amount of traffic congestion in the city centre area. Alternatively bring back the Carrick, stuff the council in the ''prison ship'' demolish the city chambers and use the void for the travelling exhibitions.

Hopefully there will be a democratic vote on the issue, the Square has been there in my seventy years I like to walk through it but detest having to walk round it to accommodate the presence of shows which have no entertainment value to the public at large.

Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 12:09pm

IS STAT U, AGAIN? tongue.gif

Wow - yer no implicating ME in THAT wan lol

I know what you had to do, in order to put it right.
I asked you to take a greater look into the efforts they DO go to, in order to try and ensure accuracy etc, and to keep people from posting hogwash.
(Particularly damaging hogwash - which as I say, isn't always as damaging as may be thought)

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 15th Sep 2012, 12:16pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 15th Sep 2012, 12:44pm) *
... I'm just saying the statues meant nothing to me as a youngster - and until this post, didn't feature in my life, at ALL!

The debate was on the importance of George Square and it's statues; as it exists, to the people of Glasgow.

QUOTE
ANYTHING which might be conducive to Glasgow having a centre they can enjoy, is fine by me. That includes them having as many statues as they bliddy like

That one statement would have saved you a lot of typing had it been your first post on this topic. rolleyes.gif


Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 12:20pm

QUOTE (TeeHeeHee @ 15th Sep 2012, 01:31pm) *
That one statement would have saved you a lot of typing had it been your first post on this topic. rolleyes.gif


I know - but it wouldn't have been HALF as much fun! wink.gif

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 15th Sep 2012, 12:38pm

laugh.gif Aye, for you Davy. laugh.gif

Posted by: Mathieson 15th Sep 2012, 12:40pm

QUOTE (*lizN* @ 14th Sep 2012, 09:49am) *
I think it's disgusting that these young up-and-coming councillors think they can remove all signs of our history. The statues depict the history of Scotland and they should be left in George Square and wherever else they may be in the country. For goodness sake, why does making money from these so-called concerts take precedence over the history of our country. At a cost of 15 million pound to remove these and create a sleezy concert venue is disgusting.

Leave Scotland, and Glasgow's history intact, and take your concert venues to the poorer areas of Scotland to help the economies in those areas. So what if people may have to travel (even by public transport) to get there, leave the city centre intact. Clean it up by all means, but leave the statues of Scotland's historic folk where they are.

Liz

I think the problem is that Glasgow's Labour Party has precisiely zero grasp of Scotland's history, and, just as significant, even less concern regarding their ignorance on the subject.

Posted by: Dan Dan 15th Sep 2012, 01:35pm

I can not believe that there are going to be such significant changes to George Square. Whilst I think most people would agree that while the currently layout is not visually appealing, it would be catastophic to eliminate the statues which have stood tall and proud for so long.

Look at what we have in the Square and enhance the area by cleaning the statues, and making it an altogether nicer place to spend an hour or two, watching the world go by, rather than clearing it all and starting again with another pile of "modern art" Give the tourists something worthwhile to take photographs of, rather than statues with bird poo and a red hardcore!

Glasgow should remain a green city. Bring back the grass and forget about ice rinks. We have plenty of lovely parks which could host such facilities for the Christmas period.

Is anyone listening to the Glasgow people?

Posted by: aussiejimmy 15th Sep 2012, 01:47pm

Absolute thuggery. I can not see for the life of me how a group of people elected and paid by the people of Glasgow can even think of denegrating an area that many towns in Britain would give their eye teeth for. The Heritage Association of Scotland must be turning a blind eye if they let this one slip through, sensible and proactive solutions are the fibre of their being I hope not, it is an area of great importance for Glasgow and Scottish history. I feel for the brave soldiers who have fought and lost their lives over the years to protect our wonderful country particularly our home divisions, they must be turning in their graves at the thought of this cotastrophic plan to alter the soul of their city and thats just what it would do. Why would you have exhibitions and concerts in such an area, it is not suited for these occasions never was. As someone has proposed, the clydeside is now a bustling complex able to accomodate entertainment and would be more able to withstand the rigours of large crowds and the wear and tear that go with these occasions than the Square. Let us not look back in years to come and wring our hands in anger that we had let something happen by a few uninformed and uninforming people that has had the effect to take away something that was the heart of Glasgow, too late then. Let us that care see sense and sensibility prevail. Keep Glasgow beautiful.

Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 01:52pm

Beauty really IS in the eye of the beholder smile.gif

Welcome aussiejimmy.

I do hope you enjoy your sojourn around the boards.

Posted by: aussiejimmy 15th Sep 2012, 02:01pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 16th Sep 2012, 01:07am) *
Beauty really IS in the eye of the beholder smile.gif

Welcome aussiejimmy.

I do hope you enjoy your sojourn around the boards.

Thanks Davy Ill be keeping my eye on you. Cheers

Posted by: Melody 15th Sep 2012, 03:21pm

Well, given any option I'd have statues in the square not of old warmongers but of people who fought for the poor and working class of Glasgow and elsewhere:

[attachment=39147:thomas_muir.jpg]
Thomas Muir of Huntersill

[attachment=39149:220px_Jamesmaxton.jpg]
Jimmy Maxton

[attachment=39148:Mary_Barbour.jpg]
Mary Balfour

[attachment=39151:jimmy_reid.jpg]
Jimmy Reid

[attachment=39150:200px_Jo...passport.jpg]

Then I'd have a fountain and grass and lots of seats for the world weary. smile.gif

Posted by: irrie 15th Sep 2012, 04:47pm

That seems like a perfect place to spend a summer afternoon Melody.

Posted by: Melody 15th Sep 2012, 05:08pm

Thank you Irrie, you can join me and we'll sit and stare and dream while wee look at those fabulous faces of the real good and the great. smile.gif We could even get a fab buttered scone fae Greggs as well if ye fancy it. smile.gif

Posted by: Anne1 15th Sep 2012, 06:42pm

A pineapple tart would go well with that Melody biggrin.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 15th Sep 2012, 06:49pm

OOOHHH - I´d forgotten aboot them!

Posted by: Melody 15th Sep 2012, 06:57pm

laugh.gif Oh stoap it, next thing we'll be getting rolls on sausage as well. laugh.gif

Posted by: Rosemary 15th Sep 2012, 07:11pm

Rolls and square sliced saugage my favorite breakfast
How I miss having that for breakfast. Can't get that over here in
America!

Posted by: John Wilson. 15th Sep 2012, 07:17pm

Who sat at the table and came up with this idiotic idea, the people of Glasgow should not let this happen, leave our history alone, these landmarks make the centre of Glasgow flourish and make me proud to be Scottish, leave them alone. Angry Glaswegian John Wilson.

Posted by: Rosemary 15th Sep 2012, 07:23pm

I need spell check. I meant i would love a roll with a square sliced sausage on it!

Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 09:19pm

http://gordonhamilton.hubpages.com/hub/lorne-sausages

Ye sure ye dont mean you want one wi the sausage IN it, rosemary? wink.gif

Posted by: weeray 15th Sep 2012, 09:38pm

It will be a sad day if the statues are removed from George Square. I was born and brought up in Glasgow and remember as a wee girl getting off the bus at George Square with my mother to go shopping in the city. To us overseas George Square is the heart of Glasgow please leave it alone.

Posted by: wee davy 15th Sep 2012, 10:08pm

http://www.threetowners.com/scottish_butchers.htm

check it out, rosemary - there might be one not too far from you

g,bless

wee davy

(PS theres a couple with websites i see)

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 15th Sep 2012, 10:32pm

QUOTE (Melody @ 15th Sep 2012, 04:36pm) *
Well, given any option I'd have statues in the square not of old warmongers but of people who fought for the poor and working class of Glasgow and elsewhere ...

Get them up while you can Melody because they'll be back down soon to make room for another event area rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
Then I'd have a fountain and grass and lots of seats for the world weary smile.gif

that's not what is classed by your councillors as an event. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: rossmckenzie 15th Sep 2012, 11:54pm

There has not been a decision....this has been floated to see whether the public responded.Heard today that the council have back tracked and want the public to decide what they want retained in the Square....its a pretty empty space at the moment and it looks horrendous.Its up to the people of Glasgow to make sure their views are heard and dare the council to try and turn this space into a venue.....


 

Posted by: bilbo.s 16th Sep 2012, 07:06am

QUOTE (ashfield @ 15th Sep 2012, 10:05am) *
Yep, and after the public vote went one way, the council voted the other smile.gif


I said the Aberdonians had their say, not had their way! laugh.gif

Posted by: wee davy 16th Sep 2012, 09:58am

Who would give a choochter their own way!
Perish the thought.

Thanks for posting that picture, Rob.
This is EXACTLY why I cannot get emotional about it - I'm afraid it does NOTHING for me - especially wi' a certain Walter Scott raised to the gods in the middle - someone who was responsible for a complete fabrication of what it is to be Scots. (and thats not just MY opinion)


Posted by: tombro 16th Sep 2012, 10:24am

weedavy,

Don't entirely agree with your thoughts on George Square but thanks for the recipe for Square Sausages.

Off to the butchers tomorrow to buy the ingredients and looking forward to sampling some home made sausages later in the week.

Ta mate,
Tombro smile.gif smile.gif

Posted by: wee davy 16th Sep 2012, 10:53am

Ach, we needn't necessarily agree, but your very welcome just the same.

(I can smell yer square sausage already - after all, its Sunday!)

Awe ye need is a plain loaf, and ye'll be WELL away lol

Posted by: Heather 16th Sep 2012, 12:30pm

I read in the Sunday Mail today, that a design competition will be staged later this year and the Council hope work will begin on the new look square in April.

I think that it is odd that the Council have announced they are going to change the look of George Square when the Councillors themselves don't have a clue at this point, what changes they are actually going to make.

Maybe we should all send Glasgow Councillors picture's of how George Square looked before being made into Red Square. laugh.gif

Posted by: wee davy 16th Sep 2012, 12:34pm

What a good idea, Heather.
Something constructive, rather than destructive.

c'mon you folks - get scanning

Posted by: Heather 16th Sep 2012, 12:50pm

Wee Davy, anyone who is good at drawing could draw a sketch of the old look George Square and submit that to the competition. smile.gif

Posted by: Doug1 16th Sep 2012, 01:57pm

Is this the sort of thing the city fathers have in mind?


"In Britain piazza now generally refers to a paved open pedestrian space, without grass or planting, often in front of a significant building or shops. King's Cross Station in London is to have a piazza as part of its redevelopment. The piazza will replace the existing 1970's concourse and allow the original 1850's façade to be seen again. There is a good example of a piazza in Scotswood at Newcastle College" (pasted from Wicki)


If it is I reckon most Glasgow folk would be well chuffed. I'm sure there are many excellent and more relevant locations for the statues close to the city centre

Posted by: DavidT 16th Sep 2012, 02:45pm

According to wiki the square has already been bulldozed and a massive statue of William Shatner has been erected there wink.gif I'm boldly going doon there for a wee look.

Posted by: Jupiter 16th Sep 2012, 03:38pm

The Square.


Taken a few years ago.
Best seen enlarged.

Posted by: wee davy 16th Sep 2012, 03:51pm

Thanks anyway, Joop - but I was asking for pictures showing how totally pictersque and fabulous it once looked. (Don't want any touched up picture postcards, either lol)
People keep telling us how beautiful it once was...

DavidT,... I'll only believe that if you tell me Mr Shatner is posing nude!

Posted by: Jupiter 16th Sep 2012, 05:59pm

weedavy,I hadnt read earlier posts.I found this on an external hard drive I hadnt been using today and decided to put it on here.This incidentally is the first Ive put on for a long time;for some reason they were not uploading.
PS I dont touch up.

Posted by: bilbo.s 16th Sep 2012, 06:14pm

QUOTE (Jupiter @ 16th Sep 2012, 08:14pm) *
weedavy,I hadnt read earlier posts.I found this on an external hard drive I hadnt been using today and decided to put it on here.This incidentally is the first Ive put on for a long time;for some reason they were not uploading.
PS I dont touch up.


OOOHHH, Cheeky ! tongue.gif

Posted by: Catarina 16th Sep 2012, 06:32pm

What to add in finding the words to express my utter disgust with this idea,that haven't already been stated here by other members.
This is such an injustice to our Scottish History.
I also no longer live in Glasgow the place of my birth. Each time I return,I always visit George Square,and each time I am disgusted with
the removal of the Green spaces. It is becoming more like a parking lot. Now this outrageous,thoughtless idea will just kill the once beautiful Square...Where else in Europe
would politicians be allowed to make such a decision...It is pure sacrilege.
Come on Glaswegians...organize yourselves, take to the Square in the thousands to protest this destruction.

Posted by: wee davy 16th Sep 2012, 06:50pm

Afternoon Caterina.
Always nice to see an old (senior,... awe am getting myself in a whole load of trouble here lol), member throw their 5 pennyworth into the ring biggrin.gif

Just to let you know,... it appears the council are already backing off,... but your opinion is none the less valued smile.gif

Posted by: Rab2 16th Sep 2012, 07:29pm

This topic has sure wakened up our Rip Van Winkles. Nice to see you! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Rab2 16th Sep 2012, 07:35pm


Posted by: Elma 16th Sep 2012, 09:23pm

When I was last in Glasgow 4 years ago now, I spent some time in George Square relaxing among the statues, trees and pots of flowers, I enjoyed the ambiance at that time and to be honest, I never noticed the red paving. I sat on a bench by the Cenotaph and the City Chambers, maybe it isn't so obvious at that side of the Square.

Posted by: Guest 17th Sep 2012, 02:47am

Get rid of the German monarchs, Victoria and Albert, who have no place in Scotland and less in Glasgow.

Posted by: GG 17th Sep 2012, 07:23am

A leading Scottish expert on public monuments, writing in the Sunday Mail, warned of his fear that the George Square statues could be "trashed within days" if relocated. Sculpture expert Gary Nisbet has warned against moving the Victorian statues, including images of Robert Burns, James Watt and Queen Victoria, saying:

QUOTE
"I fear claims the Glasgow public will get the George Square they deserve means they'll get the George Square the city council wants.

If the statues are moved to, say Bellahouston Park, then who's going to care for them? They will be trashed within days.

And who decides which statues are going to come back? Are we going to have some weird history version of Big Brother?"

In a related comment, SNP Councillor Martin Docherty said:
QUOTE
"The local elected [SNP] representatives have grave concerns about the lack of consultation so far with other elected members and the local community council. I would hope to see all local members and representatives from the community council to be involved in any working group which is deciding on the restoration of George Square."

GG.

Posted by: Norman G 17th Sep 2012, 08:00am

I used to work in the City Chambers and spent many a summer lunchtime on the grass in the square. It was always really busy and a great meeting place.

Like others on this topic I first of all thought this was a spoof report, but alas no. Unfortunately the majority of Glaswegian voters have blindly re-elected labour councillors time and time again regardless of their record and I despair that there will be any change here. sad.gif

Posted by: aussiejimmy 17th Sep 2012, 11:05am

QUOTE (GG @ 17th Sep 2012, 06:38pm) *
A leading Scottish expert on public monuments, writing in the Sunday Mail, warned of his fear that the George Square statues could be "trashed within days" if relocated. Sculpture expert Gary Nisbet has warned against moving the Victorian statues, including images of Robert Burns, James Watt and Queen Victoria, saying:


In a related comment, SNP Councillor Martin Docherty said:
QUOTE
"The local elected [SNP] representatives have grave concerns about the lack of consultation so far with other elected members and the local community council. I would hope to see all local members and representatives from the community council to be involved in any working group which is deciding on the restoration of George Square."

GG.

Council members. SNP reps. commities, are but a few people. Let us not forget this issue should be in the hands of the general public of Glasgow who live and work and pay rates in the great city, put your views through the correct channels and make sure the info is followed through dont be bamboozled by commitee reports or (how would you like the square to look) sidetracking ! sounds like most people would say leave the square alone.

Posted by: ashfield 17th Sep 2012, 01:48pm

The link below will take you directly into the GCC web page for the planned reconstruction of the square, there is an email address for comments at the bottom of the page. I'm sure some of the comments made on GG could be usefully forwarded, although I doubt those abusing the councillors with pass the vetting process biggrin.gif

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/YourCouncil/Consultations/George+Square/

Posted by: reneeb 17th Sep 2012, 02:03pm

How on earth was an outrageous decision like this given the go ahead!? Yet another example of Glasgow's historical and architectural heritage being bulldozed willy nilly. No such move would be allowed in cities like London and Edinburgh. No wonder tourists think of Glasgow as the cultural "poor relation". angry.gif

Posted by: Rab2 17th Sep 2012, 07:56pm

Cllr. Matheson - 'George Square looks tired.' It sure does Councillor - and who made it look that way!

Posted by: wombat 17th Sep 2012, 08:23pm

QUOTE (Rab2 @ 17th Sep 2012, 10:11pm) *
Cllr. Matheson - 'George Square looks tired.' It sure does Councillor - and who made it look that way!

rolleyes.gif THE PIGEONS tongue.gif

Posted by: GG 17th Sep 2012, 10:36pm

QUOTE (Rab2 @ 17th Sep 2012, 09:11pm) *
Cllr. Matheson - 'George Square looks tired.' It sure does Councillor - and who made it look that way!

This was posted on another topic: an apology and an apparently unfulfilled promise from another Glasgow city council leader, Frank McAveety. This was when, without consultation, two large grassed areas were ripped up and the whole square was covered in the now infamous red tarmac.

QUOTE
I found the following article in the Daily Record from 1998: this was the turning point when George Square was redeveloped to accommodate entertainment events. The ruling Labour administration was forced to apologise to the people of Glasgow, but promised that the redevelopment work would "leave the square as green as ever"!

QUOTE
So Sorry as George Square is Ripped Up

Council chiefs last night apologised to the people of Glasgow after bulldozers ripped the heart out of George Square.

City council leader Frank McAveety admitted the Policy and Resources Committee had decided on the pounds 200,000 facelift without the public being told.

Work started last Thursday when the square's famous Swedish white beam trees where chopped down by workmen with chainsaws.

Council bosses said the 75-year-old trees were felled because they had Dutch elm disease.

And yesterday, bulldozers moved into the square to tear up the colourful flower beds and the grass.

The move sparked angry protests from green pressure groups Friends of the Earth and the Scottish Tree Trust.

But Mr McAveety said: "The work will leave the square as green as ever.

"The work can only enhance what is a most important public space.

"We have apologised. We can't deny that the public were not told about the work.

"We regret the inconvenience the work has caused but the surface of the square needed upgrading."

Eight 15ft trees will replace the ones which were cut down, and the grass will remain around the war memorial.

But the flower beds have been taken away to make more space for bigger entertainment events. ...

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

GG.

Posted by: irene seddon 18th Sep 2012, 08:22am

Is this expenditure really necessary,I think not.This amount would be of better used elsewhere. How dare they spoil such a traditional landscape by removing these meaningful statues. Are they "Aff their heids"?

Posted by: tombro 18th Sep 2012, 09:36am

... Work started last Thursday when the square's famous Swedish white beam trees where chopped down by workmen with chainsaws.

Council bosses said the 75-year-old trees were felled because they had Dutch elm disease ...


And what did the colourful flowers die from ? Was it total ignorance on behalf of a Council looking to line their pockets with monies from the many greedy entertainment organisations that their total ignorance created ?

Swedish trees getting a Dutch disease is about as far fetched as the tooth fairy giving me a hundred quid for my recently superseded dentures !

Tombro rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: aussiejimmy 18th Sep 2012, 12:27pm

QUOTE (GG @ 18th Sep 2012, 09:51am) *
This was posted on another topic: an apology and an apparently unfulfilled promise from another Glasgow city council leader, Frank McAveety. This was when, without consultation, two large grassed areas were ripped up and the whole square was covered in the now infamous red tarmac.

...

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

GG.

Can anyone tell me where the Scottish National Heritage Trust are in this issue with the Square. I read that trees are cut down and garden beds decimated a while ago and tarmac laid all without consultation. Were the Trust involved in the changes.? In any other part of the world with historical issues any impending changes must go before Heritage to get legal permission to alter change or remove from site.

Heritage has far reaching powers thankfully but in this case of the square they appear to be sitting in the wings. Work has taken place in the past on the square and now talk of really altering the must I say it again (historical site) I trust the council has informed the Heritage Trust of their intentions . There is due form to follow.

Posted by: Doug1 18th Sep 2012, 03:12pm

Good point Aussiejimmy. Where indeed is Scottish National Heritage, in hiding? Up here in the north they get involved in just about everything. If you cut down a tree without permission you'll end up getting the tree polis knocking at your door.

Posted by: wee davy 18th Sep 2012, 03:55pm

I'm happy to be proved wrong, but apart from the City Chambers, I don't think the Square is on anybody's Heritage List (World, Scottish, English, or National Trust)

One thing which has been proven, in all of this (thanks to GG) is the council HAVE been found to be negligent, and have acted in the past like hooligans

Swedish white beams with Dutch Elm, indeed!

And all the while, 'the people' keep on voting these clowns into power, like zombies.

Posted by: wee davy 18th Sep 2012, 04:06pm

My whole point I've been trying to make, is, if its a case of re 'planting' some statues (which have dubious historical CITY significance), in order to RESTORE the centre of Glasgow, to its 'apparent' splendour then I for one am up for it.

But I know thats NOT the plan - so, as has been said before, stand up and be counted, Glasgow. Don't let them walk all over you. (or your tarmac!)

Posted by: angel 18th Sep 2012, 05:50pm

When I was there this spring , my impression was ,' the square ' is a derelict site being used until something better turned up .

So , whatever transpires , I do think that it is time that this public square , moved into the 21st century , to accomodate the present , and future generations .

Posted by: Rab2 18th Sep 2012, 09:03pm

Just been looking at a photo of the Square and wondered how much actual space the statues take up. The answer seems to me - miniscule, over the area of the whole Square. Just makes the plan as daft as ever - unless 'they' think the statues make the place untidy!

Posted by: Coliboy 19th Sep 2012, 01:18am

QUOTE (angel @ 18th Sep 2012, 07:05pm) *
.......

So , whatever transpires , I do think that it is time that this public square , moved into the 21st century , to accomodate the present , and future generations .

Following that thinking, should we empty the Kelvingrove Art Galleries and install....a shopping Mall or a cinema. That's more 21st century than fusty old pictures. (And how many of them were painted by native Glaswegians?)

Posted by: bilbo.s 19th Sep 2012, 08:09am

Some folk would demolish the Acropolis and the Coliseum and build a theme park. sad.gif

Posted by: HenBroon 19th Sep 2012, 09:47am

The statues in the square are being moved to make way for statues of Iain Gray, Donald Dewar, Johann Lamont, Jackie Bailey, Pauline McNeil and Margaret Curran. This will ensure no one walks on the grass or any where near the square, and will keep the kids away from it. No maintenance required, simples. tongue.gif

Posted by: Melody 19th Sep 2012, 11:04am

laugh.gif Great post HenBroon.

Posted by: Rab2 19th Sep 2012, 12:52pm

Maybe we should have even more statues of truly great Scots/Glaswegians, eg Jimmy Logan, Jack Milroy, Rikki Fulton, Chic Murray, Rab2 etc thumbup.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 19th Sep 2012, 12:56pm

I recognise 4 comedians and wan wee coamic laugh.gif

Posted by: JAGZ1876 19th Sep 2012, 12:59pm

The city chambers is full of comedians.

Posted by: bilbo.s 19th Sep 2012, 01:22pm

Ahm no intae yon alternative comedy, but. wacko.gif

Posted by: Rab2 19th Sep 2012, 01:23pm








Posted by: Rab2 19th Sep 2012, 01:24pm

QUOTE (JAGZ1876 @ 19th Sep 2012, 02:14pm) *
The city chambers is full of comedians.

That's funny, I can't hear many laughs! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: JAGZ1876 19th Sep 2012, 01:56pm

QUOTE (Rab2 @ 19th Sep 2012, 02:39pm) *
That's funny, I can't hear many laughs! rolleyes.gif

The laughs on the voters.

Posted by: angel 19th Sep 2012, 04:10pm

Rab, I like your photos , biggrin.gif

Posted by: *Gary B* 19th Sep 2012, 04:47pm

I heard that the bam pots in the council are going to install a gigantic statue in solid gold of Gordon Mathieson and one of Steven Purcell.

Posted by: GG 19th Sep 2012, 09:27pm

In the context of Glasgow City Council spending £15million to rip up George Square and remove the statues, it is interesting to note that the Evening Times today reported that the same council had cut its social work budget by a fifth in the last year.

GG.

Posted by: big tommy 20th Sep 2012, 08:43am

Please, come on. The square deserves to be made modern. A plaza would be nice. As for the statues ,im sure most glaswegians wouldnt know whos statue was there . Certainly , i would keep Robert Burns and perhaps ,bring in the statue of Lobby Dosser from the west end.

A plaza would be a nice place for events and just for relaxing.

Posted by: wee davy 20th Sep 2012, 09:25am

Ahh, the voice of reason, at long last lol Welcome back Big Tommy. Surely your not suggesting something for the people of Glasgow to BENEFIT from? laugh.gif

I just tend to think the Square his been 'wedged'' into a 'I'm in the Victorian era' - 'I'm moving into the 20th Century' dillema. (Nope, the 20th wasn't a typo!).

C'mon City Chambers,... could do better,... a LOT better. SMILES BETTER!

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 20th Sep 2012, 10:31am

QUOTE (*Gary B* @ 19th Sep 2012, 06:02pm) *
I heard that the bam pots in the council are going to install a gigantic statue in solid gold of Gordon Mathieson and one of Steven Purcell.


I wondered how long it'd take before Purcell got a mention here. yes.gif ... Ah well, wait no more. laugh.gif

Posted by: Melody 20th Sep 2012, 02:00pm

There was something going on in the square today but I don't know what it was. unsure.gif

Posted by: wee davy 20th Sep 2012, 04:26pm

LOL Your jist a wee MINE of information, Melody huh.gif

Posted by: Isobel 20th Sep 2012, 04:55pm

Melody do you think they have started the project already?

Posted by: Rab2 20th Sep 2012, 06:30pm

Could it be something to do with this maybe?
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/News/Glasgow+2014+Mascot.htm

................................................................................
..................................

laugh.gif Did she say 'Fifteen Million?? laugh.gif
http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/190010-statues-to-be-removed-from-glasgows-george-square-as-part-of-15m-revamp/

Posted by: bilbo.s 20th Sep 2012, 06:39pm

QUOTE (Rab2 @ 20th Sep 2012, 08:45pm) *
................................................................................
..................................

laugh.gif Did she say 'Fifteen Million?? laugh.gif



¡ Como se viene se va !

Posted by: wee davy 20th Sep 2012, 06:41pm

Are we SURE wee 'Clyde' is no a bit of an animal, oan the quiet? lol

My goldfish could've done better, for a mascot laugh.gif


Posted by: Rab2 20th Sep 2012, 06:47pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 20th Sep 2012, 05:41pm) *
LOL Your jist a wee MINE of information, Melody huh.gif


Thats why they were digging Davy!

Posted by: Melody 20th Sep 2012, 06:51pm

An' that'll be jist aboot enough of aw your lots cheek. If ah'd known at the time ah'd have telt ye's.

It was this actually:

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/191160-police-put-cars-seized-from-criminals-on-display-in-glasgows-george-square/

An' don't you aw dare say anthin' aboot wee Clyde he's fab.

Posted by: GG 20th Sep 2012, 07:37pm

An interesting letter to the Herald last week on the subject, comparing the council's current attitude to the George Square project to the (now obviously flawed) position they took with Paddy's Market.

QUOTE
I felt some degree of trepidation on discovering that Glasgow City Council intends to remove the statuary from George Square before the commencement of the Commonwealth Games in 2014.

It is unclear why the council has declared a need to remove these much-loved features of the urban landscape without first taking steps to ensure that a suitable redevelopment can, and will, take place.

While an international design competition may tick the familiar boxes to boost civic pride, it appears that the agenda is, first and foremost, to clear the square and that development is an afterthought. Just such an approach led to the closure of Paddy's Market in 2009. The popular market – labelled a "crime-ridden midden" by the council – was to be replaced by a jaunty network of stalls and cafes. These have failed to materialise and the council now pays tens of thousands of pounds per year to rent an empty lane.

The pretext on which George Square is to be cleared seems similarly thin. The council has deployed a great deal of subjective, aesthetic language without setting out any compelling case for the removal of decades-old public monuments. The idea that dispersing these statues to far-flung areas of regeneration will lend gravitas to new developments and act as a focus for renewal is facile. Issues of context and scale aside, these literary and historic statues are not magical totems. More significantly, the dispersal plan gives the lie to the council's claim that the statues currently detract from George Square's "dignity and status".

I cannot help but feel the council is merely floating its agenda on a cloud of pseudo-artistic puffery. Indeed, anyone wishing to sample Glasgow City Council's understanding of aesthetic dignity might wish to visit the Scottish Poets' Rose Garden in Queen's Park. There, metal plaques commemorating our most notable literary figures – including Robert Burns – have been welded onto the front of rubbish bins.

G.R., Clarkston.

GG.

Posted by: Pauline 20th Sep 2012, 10:11pm

Peronsally I am disappointed and verging on digusted with what is going on in the square. At the time when a decent family like mine is struggling to pay the bills and old people are going without I cannot understand why these politicians want to fritter away millions. They are completely out of touch with the ordinary person the street who like me must be livid.

Posted by: GG 21st Sep 2012, 05:19am

Another letter to the Herald which must have dismayed council leader Gordon Matheson, linking his call for an updated George Square to his greatest setback as a councillor – his failure, after many promises, to get Selfridges to come to Glasgow.

QUOTE
If council leader Gordon Matheson wishes to restore the status and dignity of George Square, he would do well to start with reversing the vandalism perpetrated by the city council some years ago, by reinstating the green areas on the west of the square, no longer permitting events that result in it looking like a semi-permanent building site and by removing the awful cheap-looking red paving.

There is little enough greenery in the centre of Glasgow and the prospect of the remaining grass and trees being removed with the statues, which evidence Glasgow s heritage and from my own observations are the subject of considerable interest to visiting tourists, is quite frankly appalling.

There is some irony that on the same day the council set up a working party to investigate sites to erect a monument to the victims of the 19th century Irish famine, it should publicise its intention of removing the central monuments celebrating Scotland s great scientists, writers and generals and two great British prime ministers.

If Mr Matheson wishes to show vision, and since there appears to be a budget for this exercise, may I suggest that after restoring the square, he should look at creating a further central public space to host the events he so dearly loves, perhaps by compulsorily purchasing eyesores, such as the vacant lot owned by Selfridges, which has been a blot on the Merchant City landscape for years.

GG.

Posted by: wee davy 21st Sep 2012, 10:05am

Still no pictures of the once beautiful and resplendent heart of the city.
hmmm

I wonder why. Was it all in the minds eye? Or did one have some bird poo in it at the time lol

Posted by: Isobel 21st Sep 2012, 01:43pm

I am all for cleaning up George Square. Bring it back to its original state. All these trucks and stalls that you see there does not make it look like a great square in a wonderful city.

Most citys would love to have these statues, so why not leave them and make something special in the middle . A pond with fountains . Beautiful in the summer where tourists and local workers could sit and enjoy their lunch.Listen to some music. Then in the winter make the same pond a skating ring. Something like what we have in Toronto. A beautiful square Nathian Philips Square.

Then I am sure it would be a show place for tourists and locals alike.
What is there right now is disgraceful.

Posted by: Isobel 21st Sep 2012, 01:56pm



I do hope you are able to open this

 

Posted by: Isobel 21st Sep 2012, 02:00pm


Posted by: bigarthur 21st Sep 2012, 02:03pm

I am not for removing statues but REPLACING them. We should honour the people born here who contributed something to society. Where to start – Architecture : we have world famous architects like Mackintosh, Adam and Greek Thompson, Scientists like Lister and Kelvin, Engineers – take your pick. I have nothing against Burns and Scott (fine poets) but what relevance do Gladstone, Peel and the Duke of Wellington have to Glasgow. I’d rather have a statue to Maxton or McLean than old Queen Vic any day. They fought for their people while she lorded it over the slums in her palaces. We have many great historical figures we should be proud of and who deserve to be on a plinth much more than a couple of English prime ministers from the 19th century. Learn your city’s history and be proud of the great Glaswegians who made the world a better place to live.

Posted by: Melody 21st Sep 2012, 02:41pm

QUOTE (bigarthur @ 21st Sep 2012, 03:18pm) *
I am not for removing statues but REPLACING them. We should honour the people born here who contributed something to society. Where to start – Architecture : we have world famous architects like Mackintosh, Adam and Greek Thompson, Scientists like Lister and Kelvin, Engineers – take your pick. I have nothing against Burns and Scott (fine poets) but what relevance do Gladstone, Peel and the Duke of Wellington have to Glasgow. I’d rather have a statue to Maxton or McLean than old Queen Vic any day. They fought for their people while she lorded it over the slums in her palaces. We have many great historical figures we should be proud of and who deserve to be on a plinth much more than a couple of English prime ministers from the 19th century. Learn your city’s history and be proud of the great Glaswegians who made the world a better place to live.

Absolutely bigarthur that's what I said also. Give us some statues of the people who really mattered to Glaswegians.

Posted by: Rab2 21st Sep 2012, 02:55pm

QUOTE (bigarthur @ 21st Sep 2012, 03:18pm) *
I am not for removing statues but REPLACING them. We should honour the people born here who contributed something to society. Where to start – Architecture : we have world famous architects like Mackintosh, Adam and Greek Thompson, Scientists like Lister and Kelvin, Engineers – take your pick. I have nothing against Burns and Scott (fine poets) but what relevance do Gladstone, Peel and the Duke of Wellington have to Glasgow. I’d rather have a statue to Maxton or McLean than old Queen Vic any day. They fought for their people while she lorded it over the slums in her palaces. We have many great historical figures we should be proud of and who deserve to be on a plinth much more than a couple of English prime ministers from the 19th century. Learn your city’s history and be proud of the great Glaswegians who made the world a better place to live.

Good points already made I think and more relevant too. The point is, the GCC want the space for something else, not replacement and theres the rub! We could have replaced these statues years ago with more of the figures you mention, but what did we get - Lobey Dosser and that Dewar chappie! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: wee davy 21st Sep 2012, 03:11pm

What a refreshing few posts biggrin.gif

(I fear you have done away with the War Memorial, though, Isobel lol)

Posted by: bilbo.s 21st Sep 2012, 04:55pm

Isobel, that´s what´s needed, a fountain ! After all there´s no shortage of water ! Anyone here know the wonderful fountains at Plaza de España in Barcelona ?

http://www.barcelona-tourist-guide.com/en/albums-en/magic-fountains-montjuic/

Posted by: angel 21st Sep 2012, 06:19pm

The square was named after George III, a statue of whom was originally intended to occupy the centre of the square, but the turmoil and anxiety caused to the city's Tobacco Lords by the War of American Independence in 1775 and eventual British defeat in 1783, coupled with his ever more frequent bouts of madness had created mixed feelings toward the Hanoverian and so it was decided instead to commemorate Sir Walter Scott, which, incidentally, was the first ever memorial dedicated to him.

So maybe it is time to change the name of the square , and get rid of
useless statues . Put them somewhere else .

P.S .. I also might add that those tobacco lords and sugar barons aquired their fortunes on the back"s of slaves . It is time to change this square to encourage the public to use it to it's advantage . I'm an old gal but I still look forward to the future .

Posted by: wee davy 21st Sep 2012, 06:50pm

GO ANGEL,... AM WI YOU HEN!

Here's a spade,... ah'll use a shovel wink.gif

Posted by: Tam C 21st Sep 2012, 07:11pm

I would like to see a statue to Jimmy Reid and the rest of the U.C.S work in commitee who done more for Glasgow than the crowd who sit in the city chambers could ever dream of
Cheers Tam C

Posted by: wee davy 21st Sep 2012, 07:16pm

Mibbe the new square could renamed 'Reid Square'! Instead ai heidbanger square.

(By, he's on form the night, so he is lol)

Glasgow's 'heritage history' my arsium. (Scuse the French)

Posted by: Tam C 21st Sep 2012, 07:22pm

Reid Square, now that's not the daftest thing I've heard

Posted by: wee davy 21st Sep 2012, 07:46pm

Has a nice tone to it, don't you think, Tam?
Ah didnae mean 'Red' ye unnerstaun lol tongue.gif

Posted by: angel 21st Sep 2012, 08:20pm

GO ANGEL,... AM WI YOU HEN!

Here's a spade,... ah'll use a shovel
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I like that Davy biggrin.gif

A spade is a spade and a shovel is a rose by any other name . tongue.gif

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 21st Sep 2012, 09:33pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 21st Sep 2012, 08:31pm) *
Mibbe the new square could renamed 'Reid Square'!

What a great idea. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Elma 22nd Sep 2012, 05:38am

Who???

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 22nd Sep 2012, 09:27am

Probably no' me, Elma, but more likely that other real Son of Glasgow ... Jimmy Reid. biggrin.gif

Posted by: GG 22nd Sep 2012, 01:33pm

As was mentioned above, George Square was used on Thursday as a venue for police to show off cars they have taken from what they said are organised criminals. We are repeatedly told by the council, specifically politicians who have acquired business development and tourism portfolios, that the civic square is crucial to the city's prosperity in terms of attracting visitors. So will tourists and travelling shoppers be reassured when visiting George Square to see that Glasgow has a thriving criminal fraternity? Is this likely to encourage tourists and shoppers to return to our great city?

GG.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 22nd Sep 2012, 01:38pm

QUOTE (GG @ 22nd Sep 2012, 02:48pm) *
As was mentioned above, George Square was used on Thursday as a venue for police to show off cars they have taken from what they said are organised criminals. We are repeatedly told by the council, specifically politicians who have acquired business development and tourism portfolios, that the civic square is crucial to the city's prosperity in terms of attracting visitors. So will tourists and travelling shoppers be reassured when visiting George Square to see that Glasgow has a thriving criminal fraternity? Is this likely to encourage tourists and shoppers to return to our great city?

GG.

It's called Shootin' yourself in the foot! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: wee davy 22nd Sep 2012, 01:43pm

The other side of that coin, GG, is this.

I changed buses, in George Square (63/64). Instead of getting the bus home, I decided to go investigate what all the fuss was about, regards big tents the polis had put up (naw, it wisnae tae hide the crime scene lol).

Inside, they had a very GRAPHIC (and I mean graphic) exhibition on what drugs can do to you, if you misuse them. (Including alcohol).

I'm very thankful to Glasgow's Polis for educating me that day - because it was never done in SCHOOL!

Posted by: jimmy 23rd Sep 2012, 02:32am

Nearly every time I travel into town and pass the square there is something going on it which usually makes it look like a mess because of the metal fences which are put up to stop people getting in for free. George's Square is meant for everyone to enjoy. One question I have is that whether the square was gifted to the people like Pollok Park was?

Posted by: tamhickey 23rd Sep 2012, 03:46am

Another way of looking at is that having seen the Police displays, visitors may feel a sense of relief that the criminal element are being seen to be brought to justice and that the Police here are seen to be doing their job in order to make the city safer for all.

Posted by: bilbo.s 23rd Sep 2012, 07:23am

Maybe then, we should relocate Barlinnie to the square. That'll show the tourists what we do to criminals ! We could also revive the stocks for a bit of interactive fun. unsure.gif

Posted by: big tommy 23rd Sep 2012, 11:43am

ive heard a lot of suggestions regarding re-naming George Square, Most of them are a pure joke . Still ,it would be nice to have a name we Glaswegians could connect with and perhaps be proud of .
How about Millenium Square ,( just a thought ).Any other suggestions will be welcome .
Tommy

Posted by: bilbo.s 23rd Sep 2012, 12:04pm

Och, Tommy ! There wid be ower mony argie-bargies aboot how tae spell it ! tongue.gif It´s a´ready sterted - see the hotel ! laugh.gif

Posted by: Rab2 23rd Sep 2012, 12:15pm

Surely re-naming the Square is unneccessary. If this was taken up, where would the thin end of this wedge end? There are 4 Victoria, 10 Albert, 6 George, 6 William, 6 Windsor, 3 Cumberland, 4 Alexandria, and even an Edward named thoroughfares in the City - are we to re-name these also as they are historically unacceptable? Where will it end - Fort Nevis?


Posted by: Rab2 23rd Sep 2012, 12:46pm

I have just read that George Square, historically, was previously a knackers yard. Is history to be repeated? Or are we flogging a dead horse! sad.gif

Posted by: angel 23rd Sep 2012, 12:51pm

ref post # 228 ...

One question I have is that whether the square was gifted to the people like Pollok Park was?
.........................

I don't know how the city acquired that property but in the documentary that I have been watching on TV these past weeks " Called the history of Scotland " , states that the square was used as a private garden for those very wealthy merchants who built their great mansions in that area .

Posted by: Rab2 23rd Sep 2012, 01:17pm

QUOTE (angel @ 23rd Sep 2012, 02:06pm) *
ref post # 228 ...

One question I have is that whether the square was gifted to the people like Pollok Park was?
.........................

I don't know how the city acquired that property but in the documentary that I have been watching on TV these past weeks " Called the history of Scotland " , states that the square was used as a private garden for those very wealthy merchants who built their great mansions in that area .

According to WikiP -
'By 1850 the surrounding area had become a centre for mercantile activity, with the Merchants House moving to the square in 1877, and the square itself, which had been developed into a private garden for the surrounding townhouses, became an established public space, after frequent disturbances and pulling down of railings by a disgruntled mob'.

Maybe we need a bit more 'mob-rule' with a few tarmac-drills, eh?? wink.gif

Posted by: wee davy 23rd Sep 2012, 01:35pm

Rab
Am I given to believe you are inciting Citizens of Glagow to rise up against social and discrimantory injustices, imposed by the City Chambers?

If so,... who's gonnae supply the drills!

Posted by: bilbo.s 23rd Sep 2012, 02:19pm

Ah´ve goat a hauf inch hammer drill yes kin huv a len o´! laugh.gif
An´a dikshunary as weel, Davy! tongue.gif

Posted by: angel 23rd Sep 2012, 07:52pm

ref. # 231 big tommy/

How about Millenium Square ,( just a thought ).Any other suggestions will be welcome .
Tommy

Hi Tommy , I was thinking something simple
like ,
" Glasgow Square "

Remembering those , who have contributed to society ,
with their time and effort trying to make life more worthwhile for Glaswegians ' also their
benefits too the rest of the world .

Some of their names have already been mentioned in this thread ,
and maybe some type of honor list could be set up .
Perhaps a column and greenery that does'nt take up as much
space as statues , "The Square is not a large space!" it is in a much congested area but it
should include some seating were , one can sit and contemplate amongst all the noise comming from the local traffic .



I do hope that the last couple of lines are tacful enough , they are meant to be only , an observation on my part .



It's a good thing that the city should try to bring in revenue
from the square to boost the city coffers , of course all of this with
good management and planning .

The Glasgow Square biggrin.gif

Posted by: wombat 23rd Sep 2012, 09:03pm

laugh.gif statues R there for birds tae crap on thumbup.gif

Posted by: Tori G 24th Sep 2012, 09:27am

Its such a shame that the statues in Georges square are to be removed, and many tourists whom have already spent time in the square will also wonder why they were removed should they visit again. George Square is major attraction/meeting place for them as well as the citizens of Glasgow. Shame Shame Shame.

Posted by: tamhickey 24th Sep 2012, 09:49am

George Square is no longer a place of quiet contemplation, apart from a few weeks in the year when the council haven't approved an arts/jazz/comedy/Christmas festival. It hasn't really felt like it belonged to the people of Glasgow for quite some time, only to the money men at the City Chambers.

Posted by: A Mackinnon 24th Sep 2012, 11:06am

QUOTE (tamhickey @ 24th Sep 2012, 11:04am) *
George Square is no longer a place of quiet contemplation, apart from a few weeks in the year when the council haven't approved an arts/jazz/comedy/Christmas festival. It hasn't really felt like it belonged to the people of Glasgow for quite some time, only to the money men at the City Chambers.

So true, a check of the Web Cam today showed another bloody big tent in the middle of the square wacko.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 24th Sep 2012, 11:40am

Mibbes mak it intae a campsite, or have marquee dances ! sad.gif

I well recall, many years ago, quietly contemplating the square while waiting for a 23 tram, and being the recipient of that well known Glasgow enquiry, " You lookin´at me? Hink ye´re better than me or sumfin´?" Fortunately my philosophical ponderings, on how best to answer, were cut short by the arrival of the 23.

Posted by: wee davy 24th Sep 2012, 12:58pm

QUOTE (bilbo.s @ 24th Sep 2012, 12:55pm) *
Mibbes mak it intae a campsite, or have marquee dances ! sad.gif

I well recall, many years ago, quietly contemplating the square while waiting for a 23 tram, and being the recipient of that well known Glasgow enquiry, " You lookin´at me? Hink ye´re better than me or sumfin´?" Fortunately my philosophical ponderings, on how best to answer, were cut short by the arrival of the 23.


You should've jist replied 'Are you addressing ME, plebian',... laugh.gif
And they would 'kissed' you lol

Posted by: Rab2 24th Sep 2012, 05:17pm

QUOTE (A Mackinnon @ 24th Sep 2012, 12:21pm) *
So true, a check of the Web Cam today showed another bloody big tent in the middle of the square wacko.gif

Yes, I see what you mean! Blacks of Greenock must be doing well in the City!

Posted by: wee davy 24th Sep 2012, 05:26pm

angel is in there wi her spade lol

Posted by: James1947 24th Sep 2012, 06:48pm

Has this mob in the council not learned any lessons from the past? Glasgow has already been destroyed by a motorway running slap through the middle. What planet does these people come from?

Posted by: Doug1 24th Sep 2012, 07:05pm

QUOTE (Rab2 @ 24th Sep 2012, 06:32pm) *
Yes, I see what you mean! Blacks of Greenock must be doing well in the City!


What a bloody eyesore, why not just plonk down an Asda, at least they would make a better job of landscaping angry.gif

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 24th Sep 2012, 08:56pm

Now we can see the importance of ripping up all those statues ... they get in the way of the tents. wacko.gif

Posted by: Rab2 24th Sep 2012, 09:56pm

The photo above must surely be a foretaste of what is to come if the Council continue on this course. The Square will no doubt look like a huge campsite (without grass!)- and they say this will be an improvement and a modern international image for the world and visitors!!!!! Heidbangers! angry.gif

Posted by: angel 24th Sep 2012, 11:18pm


angel is in there wi her spade lol
--------------------


C'mon Davy , you know it's an archaeological dig
so pick up that rose and start digging yes.gif


Posted by: RonD 25th Sep 2012, 08:52pm

We only have to look at the mess of the Wallace's Well and the Wallace memorial and this council realizes it can get away with anything because all its gets is a little noise once in a while from the constituents. This level of government eradication of Scotland's history needs a strong voice with leadership to say we won't stand for it. Glaswegians have to tell the council do this at you're re election peril.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 25th Sep 2012, 09:56pm

Ron: The last group who held a protest of any meaning on the Square were eventually moved away ... People didn't like their tents.


Posted by: weebren3 26th Sep 2012, 04:33am

blush.gif Dont know why the counsel would do this,to me it was A place of culture,part of history,should have been A topic of votes from the glasgow people.A shame to do do this,and what they are going to do amd place them.Looks like they just go ahead and do what they like. grgr.

Posted by: weebren3 26th Sep 2012, 04:58am

I think as I recall A place to remember Armed forces who died for our freedom too.Our culture is scotland,not to remember the hanovers.Our people of Glasgow tax payers paid for the sculptures to remind us what great history we had,in poet Rabbie Burns,I could go on but we all know who.

Posted by: GG 26th Sep 2012, 06:56am

QUOTE (RonD @ 25th Sep 2012, 10:07pm) *
We only have to look at the mess of the Wallace's Well and the Wallace memorial and this council realizes it can get away with anything because all its gets is a little noise once in a while from the constituents. This level of government eradication of Scotland's history needs a strong voice with leadership to say we won't stand for it. Glaswegians have to tell the council do this at you're re election peril.

Totally agree, Ron, the Wallace's memorial fiasco shows us how much the council cares about historical artefacts. One thing that's for sure (as the experts have already stated) is that once the statues are removed from George Square and relocated, they will quickly be allowed to fall into disrepair.

The problem with threatening to withhold the vote from city councillors is that this has already been carried out! More than three-quarters of voters refused to vote in the last election in the the council ward where George Square is situated!

GG.

Posted by: wee davy 26th Sep 2012, 07:25am

Which is a vote for the status quo - no change - which in turn makes a statement. People have either no trust in the system to effect real change.

Or, they really just dont give a damn. I suggest the latter is true.

Principled or not, voters who do not use their votes, are every bit as guilty of incompetence, as the perpetrators (the enthroned 'elite')

As I've said before, on issues such as this, you get what you deserve.
Doing nothing, is just as bad as having it done wrong for you. You CAN be the difference (peacefully lol).

Posted by: Rab2 26th Sep 2012, 09:45am

Principled or not, voters who do not use their votes, are every bit as guilty of incompetence, as the perpetrators (the enthroned 'elite'

How true that is! I don't want to diverge from the topic but as it is relevant - I have been proposing for years that all voting, national and local, should be compulsory, then we will see true democracy at work, not a dictatorship by default.

I have no vote in the matter, but despite being away from the city of my birth for over 50 years, I still love it and see absolutely no point in ruining a perfectly good asset for no other purpose than a self-seeking whim by councillors voted in by apathy and/or stupidity!

Posted by: wee davy 26th Sep 2012, 10:19am

I don't think we stray far from the original thrust of the debate, Rab.

Of course it is easier for us to sit back - on the outside, looking in - to see what the main problem is. But frustratingly, the solution has always been in Glasgow's own hands.

PS For the umpty dumptieth time - George Square is NOT a reflection of Glasgows heritage. It SHOULD be - but thats whole different debate smile.gif

Posted by: Dave Grieve 26th Sep 2012, 11:49am

Agree with both of you Rab with your voting should be compulsory and Wee Davy with the observation about being able to see what the problem and solution is by living outside the city.

Unfortunatly it is voter apathy that is the main cause of Glasgows problems.

Posted by: Scotsman 26th Sep 2012, 03:55pm

I would have to disagree about it being the voters fault because it is quite clear that these cooncillors are only looking out for themselves. Name one thing that a Glasgow cooncillor has done to make this a better city. In fact name one cooncillor without going on to google it!!

The place is a midden and kids have no chance of getting a job because these puffed up pastries have done nothing to bring any work for them. Why should we vote for them or even against them when we know that either way its always the same old same old?? If the cooncillors had a shred of decency they would be worried about why so few people vote but they are not because they still get the same cheque at the end of the month.

Posted by: Scotsman 26th Sep 2012, 03:56pm

Oops forgot.... SAVE THE STATUES!! smile.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 26th Sep 2012, 04:16pm

Scotsman, The point is that Glasgow gets the same old, same old (i.e. Labour) , because too many people cannot be bothered to vote for change, and therefore have lost the right to complain.

Posted by: big tommy 26th Sep 2012, 05:13pm

Surely Rab2 your last post is a contradiction in terms.

Making voting compulslary does not mean more democracy. RATHER it smacks of dictatorship. At least Rab2, leave this state of affairs as it is.

Tommy

Posted by: bilbo.s 26th Sep 2012, 05:23pm

Big Tommy, I rather think that it is the denial of the right to vote that constitutes dictatorship. Do you know of a dictator who forced people to vote? unsure.gif

Posted by: wee davy 26th Sep 2012, 05:25pm

Mugabe? lol tongue.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 26th Sep 2012, 05:35pm

Perhaps I should have stipulated that I meant a free vote. cool.gif

Stop prompting the witness !

Posted by: Rab2 26th Sep 2012, 05:59pm

QUOTE (big tommy @ 26th Sep 2012, 06:28pm) *
Surely Rab2
Your last post is a contradiction in terms.
Making voting compulslary does not mean more democray .RATHER it smacks of dictatorship. At least rab, leave this state of affairs as it is.
Tommy

Since 1924 compulsory voting has taken place in Australia - not exactly known as a dictatorship Tommy! I take your meaning,but disagree as surely the advantages far outweigh the deficiencies of the other? True democracy has its roots in ancient Greece where it was the DUTY of citizens to assert their voting rights.

Posted by: Scotsman 26th Sep 2012, 06:49pm

North Korea gets 100% voter turnout but I would pefer to stay in North Kelvinside if you dinnae mind!! wink.gif

Posted by: GG 26th Sep 2012, 09:13pm

News today that the council has been busy sowing the seeds of further confusion amongst the firms who are set to tender the costly job of landscaping George Square, meaning that the job is likely to be even more rushed than originally believed. For the fourth time, the council has extended the deadline for the submission date for pre-qualification questionnaires. On this latest occasion, bosses at city chambers have added another 31 days on to the deadline.

The move has frustrated, annoyed and confused the companies involved in the bidding process, with one bidder now questioning the competency of the whole process ... before it has even got off the ground!

The bidder complained:

QUOTE
"The competency of the whole process is questionable and shows a lack of courtesy to tenderers. People have been working on this solidly for weeks. Now to change the process one day before submission is ridiculous and shows a lack of respect for the work that has been done."

Full story here:
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/confusion-as-glasgow-george-square-contest-relaunched/8636312.article

GG.

Posted by: Dave Grieve 27th Sep 2012, 05:57am

QUOTE (Scotsman @ 26th Sep 2012, 09:04pm) *
North Korea gets 100% voter turnout but I would pefer to stay in North Kelvinside if you dinnae mind!! wink.gif

Scotsman North Korea has only one candidate to vote for, Glasgow has several choices the reason the party hacks are returned time after time is not because of the number of votes they get but because of the voters who complain about the city but refuse to take part in the electoral process.

The reason the city is seen to be stagnating is because of voter apathy.

I agree with you keep the statues and the square must be returned to a peaceful green area for the benefit of the people of the city who use it every day.

Posted by: Guest 27th Sep 2012, 10:38am

QUOTE (Des Harrigan @ 14th Sep 2012, 11:57am) *
A terrible idea which will destroy the whole atmosphere and wher would they put them?

It must surely be possible to re- site the statues in various, more appropriate locations, in which case I would agree that it is good to move them in order to make George Square something special for a new age. While some folks may admire the statues where they are, most Glaswegians never look at them and couldn't tell you who the statues represent.

Posted by: DavidT 27th Sep 2012, 12:55pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt56aW-r1MM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Somebody previously suggested that a well known supermarket would make a good job of landscaping the square. Kind of reminded me of this old video (hope the link works).
David wink.gif

Posted by: Heather 27th Sep 2012, 06:31pm

DavidT, the link did work.

Building a Supermarket in George Square would surely cause a riot in Glasgow, and I think the Council know that. ohmy.gif

Maybe when the Square has had its makeover we will all get a pleasant surprise. biggrin.gif

I said maybe.

Posted by: GG 27th Sep 2012, 08:25pm

I dinnae think so, Heather. Senior councillors have made it very clear (in their own unique way) that they want a big, easily-emptied piece of land suitable for hosting major events. To be fair, they're not trying to hide anything: as far as they are concerned, George Square is there to be used to make money, even though the sums made directly are a pittance.

GG.


Posted by: Heather 27th Sep 2012, 09:22pm

Oh well GG, the poor Councillors probably need the pittance for their subsidised lunches, drinks and travel.

Posted by: GG 27th Sep 2012, 11:17pm

You can say that again, Heather. You'd have thought that on all their travels they might have learned to appreciate the value of our own heritage.

In related news today, it was reported that the council will have to make almost £50 million savings over the next two years after its own financial forecast for 2013-15 calculated a spending gap of £48.8 million. Is it rocket science to say "Okay, let's save £15 million right away by stopping the obliteration of the statues in George Square?"

GG.

Posted by: GG 28th Sep 2012, 06:52am

The Scotsman today is reporting that the council will be seeking to cut 1,000 jobs as a result of the cuts it is planning. In the context of George Square, that means that the £15 million spent on the landscaping project will cost (in theory) 300 jobs. Many of the job losses are likely to affect services to vulnerable people.

GG.

Posted by: big tommy 28th Sep 2012, 10:01am

Thanks Rab
But I demand the right NOT to vote.
Tommy

Posted by: Doug1 28th Sep 2012, 10:17am

QUOTE (DavidT @ 27th Sep 2012, 02:10pm) *
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt56aW-r1MM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Somebody previously suggested that a well known supermarket would make a good job of landscaping the square. Kind of reminded me of this old video (hope the link works).
David wink.gif

Great video David and very apt, It was me who posted the post you refer to.

By the way welcome to GG

Posted by: wee davy 28th Sep 2012, 11:59am

QUOTE (big tommy @ 28th Sep 2012, 11:16am) *
Thanks Rab
But I demand the right NOT to vote.
Tommy

Thats fine, tommy - as long as you realise that by NOT voting, you are in fact, VOTING for things to remain the same.
You of course have the right to do nothing with it - nobody can dispute that - however, is it right people who continuously make a complete dogs breakfast of running a council, get voted in by less than 1 in four of the electorate (historically, its usually been something like that).

Don't you realise they are RELYING on your 'NOT VOTE'??

All they need to do is keep making an erse ai things, so as people become so dispirited with the whole process, they give up the ONE thing which MIGHT make a difference.

nice to see you still popping in, btw wink.gif

Posted by: Dave Grieve 28th Sep 2012, 12:10pm

QUOTE (wee davy @ 28th Sep 2012, 02:14pm) *
Thats fine, tommy - as long as you realise that by NOT voting, you are in fact, VOTING for things to remain the same.
You of course have the right to do nothing with it - nobody can dispute that - however, is it right people who continuously make a complete dogs breakfast of running a council, get voted in by less than 1 in four of the electorate (historically, its usually been something like that).

Don't you realise they are RELYING on your 'NOT VOTE'??

All they need to do is keep making an erse ai things, so as people become so dispirited with the whole process, they give up the ONE thing which MIGHT make a difference.

nice to see you still popping in, btw wink.gif

Reminds me of the goverment supporters here in SA who demonstrate about the lack of service delivery and then threaten the ANC goverment that unless things improve they will not vote at the next election ohmy.gif

Posted by: Rab2 28th Sep 2012, 12:26pm

Sounds a bit like the old Naval command - 'FLOGGING WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES'!

Posted by: big tommy 28th Sep 2012, 05:25pm

Honestly guys. I cant remember anyone i wanted to vote for .Ive had so many broken promises from councellors .i have given up all hope of ever trusting any one of them.
XSo please .let me keep my right of not voting for any of them .
It may be wrong as some of you suggest ,but it is my way of making a protest.

Posted by: bilbo.s 28th Sep 2012, 05:37pm

Tommy, a silent (and unseen) protest doesn´t accomplish anything, apart from helping those you oppose. sad.gif A protest must be noticed to have any chance of success.

Posted by: *big tommy* 1st Oct 2012, 09:33am

I know bilbo and i take your point . BUT ,I am a disabled ex service man with a lag amputation from Army Service in 1949. So it not possible to protest any other way. For years i have asked that the voting form should have a section entitled ' none of the above' and maybe we could show our discontent in this wayby signing this section.
Tommy

Posted by: Dave Grieve 1st Oct 2012, 02:34pm

QUOTE (*big tommy* @ 1st Oct 2012, 11:48am) *
I know bilbo and i take your point . BUT ,I am a disabled ex service man with a lag amputation from Army Service in 1949. So it not possible to protest any other way. For years i have asked that the voting form should have a section entitled ' none of the above' and maybe we could show our discontent in this wayby signing this section.
Tommy

Tommy I could suggest that you deliberatly spoil your voting paper but it would only go down as a spoilt vote.
No the only way I can see for anybody to register their displeasure is to vote for a candidate other than any of the favourites.

Posted by: big tommy 1st Oct 2012, 03:28pm

Would they really be any better ? /you know the saying 'power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolulutely'. I have watched some fairly decent people become totally different with a smidgeon of power.

Many years ago ,I myself ,after appearing in a television programme called 'Scotland's War' I was invited by our local Labour Party to put my name forward as a candidate. But in doing so I was told I would have to toe the Partyline and simply go along doing whatever the party decided .

Sorry Dave, NOT FOR ME!

I like to speak my mind and since 1948 after coming out of the army minus a leg I have done my very best to look after the interests of Limbless and civilian limbless.

My arguements did not always suit the policies of the powers that be ,but this will never stop making a particular point.

I am a member os BLESMA, (British Limbless exservice mens Association) and a member on the Board of Trustees of the LA. (LIMBLESS ASSOCIATION) and a frequent attendee at board meetings in London.

From this perspective I can manage too make my views known and in some small way I help those in the same position as myself. I just thank God can.

I am Glasgow born and bread (onthe very best forthe city Boxing Day 1929 to be exact ) very very proud to be a Glaswegian and only wish the very very best for the City.
Tommy

Posted by: d.c. 1st Oct 2012, 04:03pm

QUOTE
Campaigners stake claim on city statues

LOBBYING is under way for the historic statues adorning George Square to be relocated to several major city parks.

One opposition councillor has already asked if the equestrian statues of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert could be relocated to Queen's Park on the city's south side, while a party colleague has suggested that Robert Burns or fellow poet Thomas Campbell would not be out of place at Pollok Park, home to the Burrell Collection.

The bids come as it emerges leading academics specialising in sculpture contacted Glasgow City Council with a report recommending the statues be moved to other parts of the city to allow them to be better appreciated. ....

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/campaigners-stake-claim-on-city-statues-103115n.19029593

Posted by: boots 2nd Oct 2012, 01:01am

First off I'll mention I left Scotland in l948 so usually I hesitate to be too opinionated about issues that mostly impact those currently living in Glasgow but I'm horrified about council's plan to remove the statues from George Square and feel strongly that some attempt must be made to stop it. Heather, your idea of a march around the square sounds great, for as Bilbo said "A protest must be seen and heard to be effective." The larger the number of people who come out to march, the more effective it will be. That's going to take some organizing but perhaps some of you who are Glasgow residents and have the power to vote these idiots out, may want to get together and discuss how to get the support you need to make your march and/or any other protest action you stage, really, REALLY effective!

Posted by: GG 2nd Oct 2012, 07:01am

Thanks d.c. I didn't see that story, however, it's a dumbed-down version of an already fairly dumb story from the Herald. The Herald gives its version of the story the inaccurate and misleading headline 'Campaign to move statues from square to city parks'. The story looks to have been hacked by the editor to encourage some mis-interpretation of the facts associated with the latest developments. What does appear to have happened is that a group of councillors and, separately, a couple of academics have contacted the council suggesting where to site the statues now that a couple of senior Labour councillors have decided for the whole city that the George Square statues are (1) to be removed and (2) not to be put back. It's a startling example of how an accountable and considerate democratic process has simply been brushed aside, then pushed further into the background by the local media (The Herald and the Evening Times).

To deal briefly with the media issue ... let's not misguide ourselves here: the Herald/ET are pursuing an agenda based solely on maximising profits for the ownwers of the paper. That's fine; it's business and that's what businesses do, and the newspaper industry is a tough game, so there is very little opportunity for sentimentality. The Herald/ET will gain revenue from an events-driven George Square space because the events will most likely be advertised in those newspapers. There are other spin-off revenue opportunities, but I'm keeping this brief, so I won't go there other than to say that the council pays those newspapers lots of cash for public service adverts. Enough said!

Reading Alan McCombes excellent book on the Tommy Sheridan fiasco, Downfall, I was introduced to the concept of 'false dilemma'. Wikipedia:

QUOTE
"A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative."

The £15million George Square statue story is fast being presented as a false dilemma, where only two extreme points on a rich spectrum of possibilities are being considered: (1) the statues go back to a flattened George Square or (2) they are relocated around the city. Considering only these possibilities, together with accepting as a fait accompli the idea that George Square is to be flattened, is clearly a nonsense. I suspect, for instance, that most Glaswegians (at home and abroad) would prefer that the flowerbeds, trees and grassed areas which were ripped up from George Square in 1998 (without public consultation) should now be replaced and that the red tarmac be binned. The then Labour council leader subsequently promised to make "the square as green as ever", but, of course, fourteen years on we are waiting for him to deliver ... with the Commonwealth Games coming to the city in 2014, now may be a good time to deliver, and to show off our finest city square in a manner which will do the city proud.

Lastly, and back to the media issue, it's sad to think that of the three stories in yesterday's newspapers which mentioned George Square, it was the London-based Sun which asked the toughest questions of those Labour councillors who look down on George Square:

QUOTE
"But she [Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont] is right. There is a crisis in council funding. Glasgow is trimming its budget by £50million and a thousand jobs are threatened. Of course, that has not stopped Glasgow's Labour administration, including Johann's husband, Archie Graham, ploughing ahead with a £15million scheme to redesign George Square."

Are we going to have to wait for the Sun to shine on George Square?

GG.

Posted by: GG 2nd Oct 2012, 07:11am

QUOTE (boots @ 2nd Oct 2012, 02:16am) *
First off I'll mention I left Scotland in l948 so usually I hesitate to be too opinionated about issues that mostly impact those currently living in Glasgow but I'm horrified about council's plan to remove the statues from George Square and feel strongly that some attempt must be made to stop it. Heather, your idea of a march around the square sounds great, for as Bilbo said "A protest must be seen and heard to be effective." The larger the number of people who come out to march, the more effective it will be. That's going to take some organizing but perhaps some of you who are Glasgow residents and have the power to vote these idiots out, may want to get together and discuss how to get the support you need to make your march and/or any other protest action you stage, really, REALLY effective!

Well said, boots. As far as I am concerned, you have as much right as anyone to express an opinion on this – or any other – subject about Glasgow. It's great to see that our ex-pats still have a great love for our great city, and your/their opinion(s) greatly add to the quality of the debate. Thanks.

GG.

Posted by: TeeHeeHee 2nd Oct 2012, 07:33am

Archie Graham ... Remember the name.

Don't expect that the local media will bite the hand that feeds then either.

Posted by: Scotsman 3rd Oct 2012, 03:53pm

I for one would like the square restored to what it was when there seemed to be much more greenery and flowers everywhere. I dont see the problem with the statues at all.... could they just be a diversion tactic?

Posted by: Scotsman 3rd Oct 2012, 03:56pm

QUOTE (boots @ 2nd Oct 2012, 02:16am) *
First off I'll mention I left Scotland in l948 so usually I hesitate to be too opinionated about issues that mostly impact those currently living in Glasgow but I'm horrified about council's plan to remove the statues from George Square and feel strongly that some attempt must be made to stop it. Heather, your idea of a march around the square sounds great, for as Bilbo said "A protest must be seen and heard to be effective." The larger the number of people who come out to march, the more effective it will be. That's going to take some organizing but perhaps some of you who are Glasgow residents and have the power to vote these idiots out, may want to get together and discuss how to get the support you need to make your march and/or any other protest action you stage, really, REALLY effective!

Well said Boots.... I think you know about Glasgow being in Canada than these daft cooncillors who sup lattes in luxury in the chambers. But will they ever learn to listen to real people??

Posted by: Doug1 3rd Oct 2012, 06:04pm

QUOTE (Scotsman @ 3rd Oct 2012, 05:08pm) *
I for one would like the square restored to what it was when there seemed to be much more greenery and flowers everywhere. I dont see the problem with the statues at all.... could they just be a diversion tactic?

Thats what most Glaswegians want Scotsman but as I see it the city fathers want the square to hold all sorts of events etc, and with the 2014 games in mind they appear to be very committed to achieving this so it may be well nigh impossible now to get them to change their mind.

Posted by: Rab2 3rd Oct 2012, 06:30pm

Isn't Bellahouston Park etc big enough for their needs? sad.gif

Posted by: bilbo.s 3rd Oct 2012, 06:46pm

No. they want tae look oot the windae an´see the show for free !

Posted by: GG 3rd Oct 2012, 07:15pm

QUOTE (Rab2 @ 3rd Oct 2012, 07:45pm) *
Isn't Bellahouston Park etc big enough for their needs? sad.gif

It's a good point, Rab. Actually, there are loads of much more suitable venue spaces for events and none of the would involve further disturbing our most treasured civic square. Glasgow Green is one example of a large, suitable space very close to the city centre, and it has been used many times for events from pop to piping events and loads more.

My understanding is, though, that it has to be George Square because of its proximity to Buchanan Galleries (BG). Remember that the same councillors who want to flatten George Square are the very ones who recently approved £85million for developments to BG, a privately-owned shopping mall. The only way the council will get the people's money back is if the footfall at BG is to rise substantially, meaning that more retail outlets will want to be located there and thus pay the council rates. Problem is that after the councillors approved the BG scheme, their own monitoring stations counting the footfall (the amount of people who go into the mall) showed that customer visits were falling alarmingly!

The theory is that people will visit an event in George Square and then cross the road to shop at the Buchanan Galleries.

GG.