New year, new storm
A guid New Year, this message widely and randomly dispersed. And a substantive political controversy to get us all going - how to fund the new Forth Bridge?
And what has to give if the money comes from existing budgets?
As ever, the search is for the plain and simple truth. Equally as ever, the truth is rarely plain and never simple.
The Scottish Government consciously narrowed its options by abolishing tolls on existing estuarial crossings - and ruling out such charges for the future.
It further narrowed its spectrum of financial choices by taking against PPP/PFI.
There was bold talk that the new Scottish Futures Trust would generate innovative ways of funding such projects.
The SFT may well be working furiously behind the scenes but there is little sign yet of the brave new funding world that was promised.
Against that, Scottish Ministers point out that they took the decision to fund a new Crossing where others vacillated.
They reviewed it and produced a cut-price version. They have given a firm commitment to keep traffic flowing over the Forth.
Further, they say they produced a scheme to restructure capital investment. In essence, Scotland would get much more now in return for relative restraint down the line, spread over a twenty year period.
I was sceptical as to whether that would find favour with the Treasury - and said so on the day the plan was published in December.
Now we have confirmation - up with this the Treasury will not put. They say it amounts to advancing capital now on the basis of a promise to constrain distant budgets which have yet to be set for governments which have yet to be formed.
Indeed, the Chancellor went so far as to declare "we don't do that sort of thing."
A more wicked commentator might say that, until recently, the Treasury didn't do things like nationalise banks. But you won't find any of that glib insolence here.
More, Treasury Ministers say John Swinney's plan is different from the capital restructuring they have themselves undertaken which is measurable and limited to three years.
Scottish Ministers have now embarked on efforts to find a solution, in discussion with the Treasury. It was agreed today that there will be an early meeting.
Everyone acknowledges that a replacement crossing is required in order to relieve pressure on the existing bridge. Ferries don't quite cut it in the modern Scottish economy.
So options? The Treasury tentatively suggests PPP. But the tentative nature of that suggestion is intriguing, featuring as it does an acknowledgement that PPP "would not solve the budgeting problem if the scheme was classified as public spending."
Which, say SNP Ministers, it is - or will be under new European accounting rules.
Which, say the same Ministers, undermines any lingering support for PPP.
How about emulating Crossrail, the London transport project? But that partly involves borrowing against future revenue streams.
There ain't no such stream with a non-tolled bridge.
Other Treasury suggestions? Divert revenue to capital - or underspend on the capital budget for a few years, building up a bridge warchest.
Scottish Ministers don't fancy either option - arguing that they run counter to the objective of stimulating the economy with productive public expenditure.
Talks will examine these and other options.
But, in the absence of a grand new wheeze, we might end up with the following - the bridge goes ahead, funded from capital budgets, and other projects - transport, schools, hospitals - face possible delays.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~30~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
A Guid New Year to you too Brian!
Once again the party politics come to the fore!
And once again its the people of Scotland, but Fife in particular that continues to suffer
When Beeching cut the railways, this killed whole communities with one cut - These are only now starting to get back to what it used to be - They now have transport links which enable them to compete in the wider markets, so why play politics with these same people?
The Victorians built huge railways, bridges, infrustructures, which we in this modern life of ours, have destroyed! Learn the lessons and give the people what they need - Not just crossings over a stretch of water, but tunnels, roads, railways, schools, a standard of life suitable in the 21st century!
Politicians need to be honest with the people, and start spending our taxes wisely, for the benefit of the majority, not those who appear to profit from these schemes!
Complain about this comment
Interesting to hear Mr Brown outline how he would save 100,000 jobs by bringing forward infrastructure investment projects in technology and transport among others yesterday.
He forgot to add - "Just not in Scotland!"
A traitor to his region (North Britain)
Complain about this comment
Is the whole "new bridge" charade a cunning ploy by SNP to try to alienate the Labour party from the people of Scotland ?
Live in the real world SNP ! If you're not prepared to juggle the Scottish finances and re-arrange your priorities, your plans for a bridge are just an empty sham.
Complain about this comment
#2 dear_wendy
Interesting to note that Mr Swinney is going cap in hand to the Treasury yet again? A real stalwart to his region but inept when it comes to his day job!
Complain about this comment
Cancel the London Olympics a one off GB promotion.
Bring the troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sell Westminster should fetch a good price due to its museum value.
Complain about this comment
How good to have Brian back in business.
I'm sure many of us missed your Christmas message!
There are many devotees out here who would have been happy to crouch over their monitors at 3pm on the 25th to receive some Taylor Pearls.
Complain about this comment
If it's good for Scotland, its bad for Labour, seems to be the philosophy in the corrupt corridors of Westminster. Anything asked for or suggested by the Scottish executive seems to be met with opposition from the Brown sychophants who inhabit the treasury and the Scottish office. To change the subject, how many people do you know who think Titian is an Italian footballer ? Ian Davidson ( Unknown MP for Glasgow South West ) seems to think most Scots come into this category. Maybe the people who were dumb enough to vote for him think that, but its a wee bit patronising to suggest that the majority of us are unaware of who Titian was. If this is what a Labour MP thinks of his fellow countrymen, God help us.
Complain about this comment
Personally i'm not too bothered about the fifers getting another bridge, they voted Labour recently which seems to represent 'bridge opposition'. So perhaps the fifers don't want it either?
I'm sure there are many places in this country could with investment who would appreciate the gesture.
Complain about this comment
1. Brown promises 100,000 new jobs for England, mostly in the south-east.
2. Brown promises to bring forward capital expenditure projects for England, mostly in the south-east.
3. Brown promises to build £4.5 billion rail hub at Heathrow for Londoners.
4. Brown tells cap-in-hand Scots to sod off.
In Gordon Brown's world Scotland is to be bled dry to prop up London's flagging economy.
Anyone who votes Labour in Scotland after this rejection needs their heads examined!
Complain about this comment
#3 ...
I think Labour are already doing a fine job alienating themselves from the people of Scotland and don't need any help from the SNP or anyone else.
Complain about this comment
Good blog Brian
This is a perfect example of the SNP in action. Huge announcement and loads of spin over the new transport strategy, no timetable for implemtation, no idea how it is to be paid for. It almost brings back memories of new labour.
I kind of agree that the trasury should not advance money that far in the future. Anyway this should only be proposed on the basis that it is clearly understood what is not being funded as a result. But surely there is no need to debate this for long? Alec has assured us that a veritable feast of new building is about to begin when the SFT gets going. When excatly is that......
The policy on transport is fairly fragmented. Look at the A9 issue. The announcement pushes for dualling the A9 at some point in this millenium. It also promises rail improvement for the same route on roughly the same timescale. I use this route monthly and have stopped driving and started using the train due to the congestion. Rail system would work better with more frequent trains to reduce overcrowding. 2 return trains more a day from Inverness would do the job. However if congestion is reduced on the A9 I will go back to using my car. Now what would be cheaper for the nation and better for the environment?
The trouble with this whole mess is that the SNP have tried to be all things to everyone and will deliver nothing but more posturing and spin.
Complain about this comment
I see that the ongoing shafting of the Scottish people and the infrastructure we will need in the future is on course. The 'almighty leader' is just making sure we are all clear as to who holds the purse-strings. Cross-rail - Yes, Forth Road Bridge - get lost you upstart Scottish gits.
Unfortunately the moronic unionist trolls on this blog along with Nulabs media lapdogs are all in such a mindless rush to suck up to their 'world savior' and his assorted attack dogs and toadies that they fail to see the blindingly obvious fact that we are on the fast train to oblivion.
What really sickens me is the cowardly idoits here who are so afraid to sieze the independence that is our right as a nation. If you suggested that sovereign control
should be handed over to another country to the likes of USA, India, Australia, Canada etc. they would laugh at you until they vomited.
P.S. Andrew Marr should be sacked for being incompetent and his Sunday morning show should be re-titled as a party political broadcast on behalf of the monster raving looney of Downing Street.
Complain about this comment
#4 salmondella:
"Interesting to note that Mr Swinney is going cap in hand to the Treasury yet again? A real stalwart to his region but inept when it comes to his day job!"
If he is coming across in this way, though it is not apparent from the story, then it is to illustrate that that is the nature of the Scotland's relationship with Westminster.
It is no fault of his, but of the devolved settlement.
Complain about this comment
Brian:
"They (the Treasury) say it amounts to advancing capital now on the basis of a promise to constrain distant budgets which have yet to be set for governments which have yet to be formed."
Tell me...how does the PPP or PFI work again?
This is what Labour would prefer the Scottish Government to use, which generally ties the government to a contractual agreement of payments for 25 years, or thereabouts.
Even when it is now clear that the Labour Party can no longer expect to be in power for the next 25 years, or thereabouts.
Complain about this comment
As ever, the vitriol from the cyber Nats is is a desparate attempt to cover-up the lack of subsatnce from the SNP on this issue.
Why on earth should the Westminster government change the rules for the Scottish government? There is a funding option avaailable to it - PPP. of course the dogma of the SNP means that they'd rather we did without our new schools and hospitals so that they can score electioneering points.
When the next election comes round it will be tyhe SNP not Labour who will be held responsible by Fifers.
Complain about this comment
We need a new Forth bridge- everyone agrees on this. Unfortunately, it will need to come out of the capital budget over a very short period- leaving less money for other projects at that time. That is the nature of the Scottish budget unfortunately.
Ian Gray will find it hard to criticise this honestly. He is basically saying use PPP (it costs a lot more, but over a longer period) and we can spend all the rest of the capital budget up front as well without appearing to have borrowed more. Unfortunately, the costs of previous PPP's are stacking up aren't they?
Let's hope wise heads prevail and we can invest in infrastructure during the slump to keep things moving next time the economy picks up (if it ever does)
Complain about this comment
#14. talorthane
Aha, you've missed the point; the difference is between the Treasury advancing capital now and the private sector similarly advancing capital now "on the basis of a promise to constrain distant budgets which have yet to be set for governments which have yet to be formed."
This must not be confused with a Prime Minister advancing money now to save 100,000 from the dole on the basis of a promise to constrain distant budgets which have yet to be set for governments which have yet to be formed.
However that the Treasury said anything at all on this may be symptomatic of a shift in thinking in that the private sector must bear the risk of these governments which have yet to be formed reneging on these onerous PPP/PFI contracts. This would be in line with the doctrine of Westminster parliamentary sovereignty if a little hard on the lenders.
Of course there is a fly in the ointment preventing this from being a spiffing wheeze and that is that Labour have just taken over the banks that lent.
Does anybody know a good fakir who can teach us how to lie on a bed of nails without getting shafted?
Complain about this comment
It is useful for Brown and Darling to making the case for fiscal autonomy for Scotland in such clear terms and utterly hilarious that some contributors to this post can't see that this is what they are doing.
Bluntly put - Brown is getting rings run round him. So glad the rebellion against him as Labour leader was aborted.
Alex Salmond says he won't take "no " for an answer. The message is going to be hammered home relentlessly.
Not just one step ahead...........
Complain about this comment
happy new year to all , well Brian you almost had us fooled. it looked like you had turned over a new leaf for 2009 and then you just couldn't help yourself with that last paragraph , could you?
#9- minuend- exactly spot on, just don't expect any of the media to tell anyone that it's happening!
#14- talorthane - labour have the problem that they must feed the monsters of PPP or PFI that they created and promised numerous projects too.
the labour party or to that end the Tory party are not and will not be, the people who are actually running our country.
big business , banks & of course our best pals in the USA are the people who are deciding what the UK will be doing for the next few years.
Complain about this comment
No.5 is right. To which I would add that if we had our Independence, we would not have to bicker with the Westminster Treasury. It is sickmaking that Scotland, which contributes trillions to the English Treasury through oil taxes, has to go cap-in-hand, just to buid a bridge, which everyone up here knows is essential. Next time around, Scotland knows which way to vote!!.
Complain about this comment
"(...) the truth is rarely plain and never simple."
I think that the quotation that was just managing to elude the Brahan seer is "The truth is rarely pure and never simple." (Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest)
If the truth is indeed rarely pure and never simple, it should surprise no one that it stands to reason that it will prove to be elusive in politics, where it appears to be the case that "A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." (Oscar Wilde, The Critic as Artist)
One trusts that the SNP government's sincere devotion to the national interest of Scotland will not prove fatal to that or to the SNP but that it will in due course prove fatal to the devolution settlement, the various and numerous defects of which the SNP is sincerely exposing with considerable success. The funding controversy concerning the replacement Forth road bridge is an outstanding instance of this.
Complain about this comment
#15. WestFifer
Just because you like to give corporate business a nice juicy living at taxpayers expense most sensible Scots see through the smokescreen.
man about the house
"We all know that Gordon Brown and his New Labour cohorts haven’t really paid for any public projects preferring instead to postpone payment through their flawed PPP, PPI, PPF, PFI (or whatever we’re calling it this weather - sub-prime lending perhaps?) so that we pay for them over the next 30+ years"
Complain about this comment
#15 "Why on earth should the Westminster government change the rules for the Scottish government? There is a funding option avaailable to it - PPP."
Ooh, schoolboy error. It's always a good idea to read all the way to the end before opening your mouth and shouting the odds. If you had, you'd have spotted this bit:
"The Treasury tentatively suggests PPP. But the tentative nature of that suggestion is intriguing, featuring as it does an acknowledgement that PPP 'would not solve the budgeting problem if the scheme was classified as public spending.' Which, say SNP Ministers, it is - or will be under new European accounting rules. "
Incidentally, as any HBOS employee will tell you, this Westminster government is more than happy to change the rules when it thinks there's some political capital in it.
Complain about this comment
"Everyone acknowledges that a replacement crossing is required in order to relieve pressure on the existing bridge."
Not so, not at all. The "replacement" was what the SNP promised when they said the existing bridge couldn't be fixed. The new version is still curiously called a replacement, but now they admit the old one can easily be fixed.
The additional crossing, which would be the fourth road crossing over the Forth, is a bonkers vanity project, unjustified economically, in transport terms, let alone environmentally, and there are Greens inside Holyrood and campaigners outside making this exact case.
Complain about this comment
#15 spoken like a true Labourite, quite prepared to see the new Forth crossing bridge scuppered so that their beloved Labour party can show they are really in charge, how pathetic the Labour mindset is.
Complain about this comment
#15 -Westfifer, if you took your head of of Gordon Brown's orifice for even 1 second, you'd see the answer quite clearly. The reason the Westminster government should change the rules for the Scottish government is because they've just done the same in England. Gordie's announcement about bringing forward capital expenditure, blah, blah, blah, is almost exactly what the SNP are proposing. Yet, because it's an SNP proposal, it's obviously bad. Gordie makes big announcements about creating 100 thousand jobs in England. He omits that there's nothing for Scotland.
Thankfully, not everyone in Fife is as blinkered as you and will lay the blame squarely where it belongs at the next election.
Complain about this comment
Personally I can't stand PFI/PPP etc. But I think the SNP are not doing themselves any favours here.
Looking at this from a neutral point of view (please, don't start with the unionist idiot posts) a few things have to be asked:
Why on earth was the issue of funding not sorted BEFORE announcing the bridge project?
Never mind politics, it is basic planning procedures to have finance sorted out first.
And what has happened to the Scottish Futures Trust. As one who liked the idea, I am now wondering if it really is viable. I would have expected Swinney to use this at least as a backup to Darling's refusal to fund the bridge.
And Alex has to get away from the confrontational approach. "We are not taking no for an answer" is not going to work this time.
Swinney is right to refuse the PPP offer, but he really should have sorted out this mess earlier.
7. At 1:59pm on 05 Jan 2009, kaybraes :
To change the subject, how many people do you know who think Titian is an Italian footballer ?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I read this post at lunchtime, and asked a fair few people in the office. Not a single one knew who he was. They got the Italian bit correct, and no one mentioned football.
But maybe Ian Davidson (who?) is trying to be a smart****.
Complain about this comment
who much of the100,000 jobs is planned for Scotland. once again ENGLAND RULES NEW LABOUR.
Complain about this comment
Labour thinks "advancing capital now on the basis of a promise to constrain distant budgets which have yet to be set for governments which have yet to be formed." = Bad.
On that basis, the outgoing London-Labour government has exactly zero right to continue to overspend so massively and launch their English-only (no Scots, no Welsh, no Northern Irish) 'stimulus package' ... I like this line of argument!
This stimulus package appears on the very same day they turn down 'bringing forward' a major infrastructure project JUST BECAUSE THE SNP THOUGHT OF THE IDEA FIRST. This is exactly the sort of project Gordon Brown has been talking about in the last couple months! But, he will happily ditch the interests of his own constituents; just because Salmond's Government proposed the solution.
Rest assured had Labour scraped home at the last Holyrood election ministers would right now be trumpeting the 'bold step' of hurrying the bridge construction forward in the face of economic depression. At which point the normal mince about 'stronger together' and 'there are monsters under the bed' would be trotted out!
This is just another way in which Labour has sought to punish the Scottish people for utilising their democratic right to elect someone else in May 2007.
Complain about this comment
Well: London are getting the fabulously expensive CrossRail, as well as the hideously expenive Olympics.
And it is Scotlands oil that is paying for that and has been keeping England afloat for the last 30 years.
Not to mention the BBC collects 500 million in Scotland, claims to spend 250 million in Scotland (though no-one believes them) and spends the difference in London.
Complain about this comment
Occasionally in politics one or other of the parties get's a decision so completely wrong that even it's most loyal supporters struggle to defend it.
This decision by Labour is one such. Not because of any ideological adherance to PFI nor indeed any antipathy towards the SNP, but due entirely to it's breathtaking hypocrisy.
This story isn't about funding, nor is it about the lack of concrete evidence for SFT. This story is about Labours attitude to a democratically elected government.
An attitude that any self respecting journalist would be seriously questioning at this very moment.
It is therefor a great shame that Brian Taylor has decided that the hypocrisy of Labour should be all but ignored in this piece.
His one reference to it is this:
"Treasury Ministers say John Swinney's plan is different from the capital restructuring they have themselves undertaken which is measurable and limited to three years."
However it is the style of this piece that causes concern. Brian, when criticising the SNP's removal of tolls, refusing to use PPP and lack of progress with SFT, is using his own words. He is presenting these criticisms as his own, they aren't presented as Labour claims.
See examples below:
"The Scottish Government consciously narrowed its options by abolishing tolls on existing estuarial crossings - and ruling out such charges for the future."
"It further narrowed its spectrum of financial choices by taking against PPP/PFI."
"The SFT may well be working furiously behind the scenes but there is little sign yet of the brave new funding world that was promised."
His style changes when the attacks or aimed at Labour. Here the they are presented as SNP claims:
"Scottish Ministers point out ... "
"Further, they (Scottish Ministers) say they produced a scheme to restructure capital investment."
"Which, say SNP Ministers, it is - or will be under new European accounting rules."
"Which, say the same Ministers, undermines any lingering support for PPP"
"Scottish Ministers don't fancy either option - arguing that they run counter to the objective of stimulating the economy with productive public expenditure."
"Which, say SNP Ministers, it (PPP) is - or will be under new European accounting rules."
The last statement on PPP is a case in point. THis a verfiable fact and should have been portrayed as such instead of being portrayed as an SNP claim.
Why didn't Brian use the same style as when attacking the SNP? In other words what was wrong with printing:
"PPP cannot be used as it is shortly to be classified as public spending."
instead of:
"But the tentative nature of that suggestion is intriguing ..."
He is also all too quick to provide reasons why similar funding to English projects cannot be provided. It appears that he is desperately looking for something within each project in which it differs from the Forth Bridge - in other words, he offers excuses.
As I said at the beginning of this comment, the real story has been ignored. The principle of bringing forward capital funding has already been accepted by Labour South of the border - but not in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
I'm generally supportive of the SNP government (even more so since I got a chrimbo card from wee eck, a very nice Bellany!). However, he's in my bad books today.
Did anyone else read about the £17 million the Scottish Goivernment intends to contribute towards the purchase of the Titian "for the nation"?
I'm sure that with savings on the other crap they might be spending money on then the expenditure difficulties might not be so bad.
#5. cynicalHighlander ,
as well as ending UK spending on Iraq/Afghanistan and the Olympics, let's:
- end spending on Trident
- Cut the Commonwealth Games
- Let the banks sort themselves out
- No subsidy for car manufacturers
- cut MP/MSP/MEP wages to the average wage
- no subsidy for Scottish Opera/Ballet
et cetera et cetera ad nauseam....
Complain about this comment
John Swinney has announced the bridge will go ahead regardless. The statement form Westminster merely reads to the public that Westminster is trying to block a major Scottish project.
This is the case for Scottish fiscal autonomy and it will be driven home relentlessly
What Swinney has done is manoeuvre the pretty thick Westminster Government into refusing the financial latitude to Scotland that is has widely applied recently to other cases.
All Swinney did was ask for a sensible realignment of budgets which would allow the costs of and imprtant Scottish project to be spread over many years at huge advantage to the public interest.
People will soon make the comparison of the huge sums being dedicated to the London Olympics, to Trident replacement and to the 20 to 30 year committment of public liabity through PFI.
Don't imagine for a minute that John Swinney does anything without being full aware of what he is doing and the effects of it.
Complain about this comment
The promotion of the Swinney Bridge funding plan as a non-starter/ harebrained scheme/ ripe for slapping down/ piece of SNP cheek was entirely predictable and I expect the slap down was anticipated as eagerly as the "humiliation" of our banks.
Here is a Prime Minister who is trying to increase employment through massive public works schemes and yet this potentially huge public works scheme to replace an essential transport link has been scuppered on book-keeping grounds or knowing the attitude of Brown to the SNP, it's been stopped out of petty spite.
Guido Fawkes has not had a good week with this reader as far as the Middle East is concerned but I had to agree with this comment
"It is all getting a bit like the dying days of Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania; only the party faithful, the nomenklatura, senior police officers, those on the welfare payroll, the state bureaucracy and state broadcaster support a government led by a leader increasingly out of touch with reality."
Complain about this comment
Could we not cancel the Edinburgh Trams and use that money please?
If the council manage to reproduce 2008's performance in keeping the buses service running when they shut Princess Street in 2009 it will be a fun year for bus users in the city.
And anyway, the proposed new bridge looks better.
Down with Trams up with Bridges!
Complain about this comment
33. At 9:01pm on 05 Jan 2009, sneckedagain:
Don't imagine for a minute that John Swinney does anything without being full aware of what he is doing and the effects of it.
-----------------
I know that he is aware of what he is doing. But he is playing politics. I'm totally against PFI, but I have to ask why did he not sort out the finances for the bridge - in private - prior to announcing the project?
Try that approach in private industry and see how far it gets you.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147 asks:
"Why on earth was the issue of funding not sorted BEFORE announcing the bridge project?"
This is a fair enough question and one that the SNP should provide an answer for.
It is my own understanding that the bridge will be built come what may and that other capital projects would have been delayed but for the recession.
The SNP are reluctant to delay these same projects due to the recession and appear to have made a reasonable and sensible request that capital funding be brought forward.
However, as I have said, this criticism or questioning of the SNP is entirely appropriate and deserved. What is also deserved and appropriate is that Labour be asked why it is OK in principle for such funding to be brought forward in England but not in Scotland.
The relatively minor differences between capital projects North and South is a red herring, the principle of bringing forward funding is the same.
The South East is certainly not short of capital projects and has never been short of such. I myself lived in Narrow Street in East london at the time of the construction of the Limehouse Link, an expensive stretch of tunnell that served as a road link to a huge project that was Canary Wharf.
The Docklands Light Rail, Millenium Dome, Underground extensions and London Olympics are all a case in point, there is a bottomless pit of funding for London.
So, by all means scrutinise the SNP but in Scotland we should also be scrutinising Labour.
Complain about this comment
37. At 10:16pm on 05 Jan 2009, greenockboy:
I agree that the same rules should apply in England as in Scotland. Ignore the creation of 100,000 jobs, as that is a separate issue.
I sometimes wonder if Darling knew beforehand that Swinney was going to try the tactic he has, and decided to make political capital out of it. I also wonder if Alex Salmond deliberately used this approach to cause further division.
Both sides have scored political points, but this childish behaviour needs to stop.
It makes me think what the rest of Europe thinks of us. Firstly, we have a Chancellor who decides to use the wrong approach (ie VAT cut) to stimulate the economy. Then we have First Minister who refuses to accept no for an answer and demands the money. Is that the way he will deal with Europe?
All sides have to remember that they are being watched by the world. And the world is looking for weaknesses to exploit.
Complain about this comment
Off topic, so apologies.
Glen Campbell on Radio Scotland just now absolutely appalling in his exchanges with Nicola Sturgeon as she attempted to address a point from the Lib Dem, Robert Brown, who stated that an independent Scotland could not cope in this crisis.
Sturgeon was in the process of destroying Brown's claims when a clearly furious Campbell interrupts and shouts "What about Iceland", his rage is palpable.
If this program is available on the internet I urge all to listen to it especially this particular exchange !!
The program started off as a supposed examination of the recession and has rapidly deteriorated into a 'have a go at the SNP' time.
Campbell willfully allowed the program to be diverted from it's advertised topic. Every Unionist party speaker is allowed to make whatever attack they wish on the SNP, Campbell simply expands on the attacks and then makes one of his own.
Complain about this comment
You would think that after 18months in power the SNP would have been able to come up with how to finance the bridge properly.
All them seemed to have done is ask for an advance because they are too stubborn to use a system that currently works.
Also from what I've read the capital spending that is being brought forward to cover the 100,000 new jobs are for small scale projects. The type which can be started quickly. As far as I can see there isn't even a proper plan for the bridge .. it'll take up to 2 years just to get the plans/environmental impact surveys etc sorted out .. by which time the recession will be over and the economy growing again.
Anyway I think a tunnel would be much better ... give us all a clear view of the proper Forth Bridge (the rail one that is)
Complain about this comment
#32 irnbru_addic
Still relevant when one considers that what the country needs are much needed improvements to basic infrastructure rather than GB promotions.
London 2012
This is supposed to be a link to benefit the whole of the UK, look at who is being promoted Sport England and the National Lottery..... where's Sport Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland? Looks like London still believe's it's the centre of the Universe.
Complain about this comment
#40. rjakes
These 100.000 jobs will those be the ones where 50.000 dig the holes and the rest fill them in because that what nulab is all about statistics.
Would you like to enlighten me on what assumptions you base your economy prospects on, as all the tell tale signs are that we are nowhere near the bottom yet. You might also like to show the cost differential between a tunnel and a bridge. Thought, thought that if you plant a feather you'd get a hen to grow!
Complain about this comment
Happy New year to you too Brian.
I dearly hope this year more and more Scots wake up to what a de facto foreign government in London is doing to them, their lives, country and pocket. Independence now or at least asap and end this embarrassingly and unedifying inter-national debacle.
Alex Salmond is of course absolutely right to say No. Why should Scotland accept a No answer from a PM (and Chancellor) who has announced public projects as the way out of the mess he's made more precipitous by his decade long inactions. And why should Scotland accept a No on this when so many other mostly Southern English projects have gotten the green light. This is just Westminster being spiteful towards a country increasingly desperate to be rid of its destructive pettiness. How can they feel so spurned when they were never loved to begin with.
I have no idea whether you read these entries Brian but Glenn Campbell is a disgrace. I know you're a Unionist Brian but please try to give the SNP and independence a fair hearing. The intrigues, personalities and machinations of Holyrood and Westminster are obviously and understandably your stock and trade but there's a wider picture here. Please bear this in mind.
Complain about this comment
Re: 100,000 jobs .. since the digging holes and filling them in again wasn't mentioned in the statement I can only guess you made that part up.
Also every recession since 1931 has lasted about 2 years (8 quarters). Considering we've had 2 quarters that only leaves about another 6 (year and a half). Off course it could last longer, but I feel its better to think positive rather than being all negative. Still if you like to think the worst all the time ....
Regarding the tunnel/bridge .. that was just a preference although it would be nice to think the SNP would go and build the best option rather than just the cheapest.
Complain about this comment
The imbalance on virtually all political programmes is built in. Usually it is three unionist against one SNP, but even when it is not the interviewer usually makes sure the SNP is outnumbered.
The SNP should insist on one against one in all TV debates or a guaranteed right to reply to all remarks made by unionists to each of them.
I don't usually have big problem with Glen Campbell (apart from his interrupting SNP spokespersons mid sentence) but it was very obvious tonight on Newsnight that he and David Whitton were old pals.
Complain about this comment
rjakes:
"Also every recession since 1931 has lasted about 2 years (8 quarters)."
I feel this is quite an ignorant comment. Have you taken into account the recovery in the post-recession Britain? The recovery is sometimes far longer then the recession itself!
"Regarding the tunnel/bridge .. that was just a preference although it would be nice to think the SNP would go and build the best option rather than just the cheapest."
And how would the 'better' option be funded? The settlement that Scotland regulates under does not work. This whole situation demonstrates that, it has also shown one rule for England and another for Scotland.
Labour are punishing the Scots, yet again, for not voting for their party. This is politics at it's lowest, UK-Labour swing a few punches here and there, and Scottish Labour pick at the scraps at our expence.
Complain about this comment
Happy new year Master Thomas Porter!
Keep it clean now.
Complain about this comment
44. At 11:51pm on 05 Jan 2009, rjakes wrote:
Regarding the tunnel/bridge .. that was just a preference although it would be nice to think the SNP would go and build the best option rather than just the cheapest.
-----------------
The cost of a tunnel would be astronomical and not necessarily suitable for the terrain. They HAVE gone for the cheapest option. Tunnels are also costlier to maintain.
But on the finance side, why doesn't Swinney allow tolls to be used on the bridge? Since the Scottish Government will own the bridge, the tolls could be kept cheap and it would provide some financial cost to the upkeep of the bridge. At least if he allowed tolls it would give the option of future income.
A bit of negotiation perhaps, but that is unlikely from either side.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
Tolls are the wrong way to go. It seems to be another way of taking from your pocket, then consider the type of negative impact anyone or any party would receive.
Let's put tolls on the new bridge, during a recession, when trade becomes ever more important and thousands of workers loose their jobs?
It's political suicide.
Complain about this comment
Here's Quisling Campbell at full froth:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gdw9m/Scotland_at_Ten_05_01_2009/
From 20 minutes in it gets heated amidst our current chill...
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147
re SNP not discussing the finances in private / playing politics etc.
Neil, this is not a personal attack on your fine character! - I'm sure you a very nice bloke ;-)
But oh, my Good God! I've had to come out of my contemplatory coma...
You would have had the SNP 'get it all sorted in private' with Westminster. They don't like each other! One has all the cards. In what world would they come to some cosy agreement? The only way would be if they did dubious deals or something (unless we trust them to play fair?). I'm sure you would be less than impressed.
What exactly else could the SNP do? What are the other options Brian did not account for? The problems with each way were explained.
As for comparisons with business. You come across so deliberately sensible so you know the two are not (and cannot be) the same. As I've said before you don't let us nationalists away with comparing Scotland and Norway or Slovakia etc.
The SNP is not allowed to run its business in the way that other businesses in the same business, i.e. running a nation, can do. (It would in fact be good business, judging by other national governments 'business plans', to utilise borrowing.) I'm almost astounded, with your common sense, you don't recognise the obvious implications of that. THAT dictates how Swinney can operate. You are so good at details. Why not the big picture?
It is politics, not business, so of course Swinney will attempt this route. He isn't dealing with friendly (or respectable) business partners. He knew roughly where the money would have to end up coming from for this bridge. But he saw a better way, given Scotland's tight budgeting reigns, so he suggested it.
Just because he knew it would not happen isn't reason to ignore what in his view would have been in Scotland's best interests. It's not business, its politics, and he's not elected to not do that.
Rather than seeing it bitterly as I think you do, as electioneering, he is illustrating that he knows a better way. As he's paid to put his constituents first, that's good isn't it?
I agree with sneckedagain that Swinney's chess moves were considered in advance, but add that 'playing politics' is legitimate, if indeed not absolutely necessary if you're dealing with other politicians, as sometimes it has to be done to achieve what's best.
Now if the SNP didn't understand that then they would look stupid.
------
sneckedagain, do you know, I asked (the SNP too) but no one replied, am I naive to expect the SNP to monitor blogs like this as a matter of course or optimistic to assume they do? What do they want the public to do? Maybe I missed it, does their website say? (I saw your Grandfather featured back at the start and so just wondered if you were suitably informed...ta!)
Complain about this comment
#50 - I've got to say that Campbell probably gave Joanne Lamont a harder time that oor Nicola during this one. Is this a sign that even the BBC Scotland wing of the Labour party are starting to see that Gordie's a failure and Scottish Labour have nothing positive to offer? Let's hope so.
Complain about this comment
Good grief. I'm usually extremely sceptical about allegations of bias against individual broadcasters, but Campbell's fury against Nicola Sturgeon when she's making a reasonable and innocuous point is absolutely startling. He practically *screams* at her, out of nowhere. He gets a grip of himself later, and regains his professionalism to give Lamont a hard time too, but I think he's let his colours slip there for a moment.
It is, of course, absurd to imagine that broadcasters aren't human beings with opinions and leanings like the rest of us. I can't help but feel that it's actually better that things like this happen so that at least we know where their sympathies lie.
Complain about this comment
#51 aye-right
I understand fully WHY Swinney had to act as he has, and certainly I am not going to defend Darling over petty politics.
To me, the bridge is important for the economy, and 2 billion is small change for Westminster. I cannot see why Darling can't just say "here's the money". Since it is a major construction then he could justify his actions.
But, Alex Salmond is too predictable. Whatever issue pops up, you know he's going to demand something he knows he want get, and so he can highlight that Scotland is being victimised. As a result, Labour have ambushed him over the bridge. neither side comes out smelling roses. Labour as usual seem obstructive over an necessary project; SNP appear to not have a solid finance plan in place.
I know what is behind it, but remember the bulk of the population either don't understand or care about analysing politics. What they see is one of two things: Labour ignoring Scotland or the SNP failing to deliver, depending on their point of view.
Complain about this comment
Well now we know what Labour would do with the funding of the New Forth Road Bridge - it would be PFI with Knobs-On - the knobs being BRIDGE TOLLS.
VOTE LABOUR - VOTE FOR THE RETURN OF BRIDGE TOLLS.
All those Fifers voting Labour need their heads examined.
Complain about this comment
#54 Neil_Small147
"Labour as usual seem obstructive over an necessary project; SNP appear to not have a solid finance plan in place.
I know what is behind it, but remember the bulk of the population either don't understand or care about analysing politics. What they see is one of two things: Labour ignoring Scotland or the SNP failing to deliver, depending on their point of view."
Alright, thank you, you're fair. But, given Scotland's situation, meaning they cannot realistically have a 'solid' finance plan in place, how does Alex do the necessary and outwit Westminster and 100% smell of roses?
Maybe you do know, but given the reality I think it's an unfortunate contradiction and therefore a bit rich for that happily uninformed bulk of the Scottish people to expect that he does. Still c'est la vie, so is Salmond not doing the best he possibly can under unfavourable circumstances?
I'm off for a hot chocolate, it's freezing!
Complain about this comment
RE #56
PS. That 2nd last statement was my bigger picture. :-)
Complain about this comment
Of course humans are humans and passions become involved. But Campbell's outburst is just one of many many outright slights against the SNP and yet another breach of claims to BBC impartiality. The plain fact is people like him only have their jobs once their Unionist credentials are established because the entire organisation is obviously full of people who think as he does on the independence issue. The BBC really is an instrument of Anglo Imperialism in that regard working hard to ensure the Scottish natives remain compliant.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad that Salmond is becoming 'predictable'. It means the logic of his position is taking hold ;-)
Complain about this comment
Pair wee Brian and his cohorts in the Pravda section of the BBC.
Your time will come ladies and gentlemen. Far from silencing the Independence War, you lot simply create another National Supporter everyday.
Can we have more Marr interviewing his political paymasters by way of dead man walking Brown.
That old saying about come the revolution, is finally coming to fruition and many of us just cant wait.
So many names to be put on many lists. Certain portly mouthpieces will rue the day they chose to not be able to view their dundee team whilst they live in London.
The Flower of Scotland is about to bloom or boom.
Complain about this comment
Does Brian live in London? I imagined Edinbra...
Complain about this comment
Internecine warfare already! And Christmas only now being packed away and the twinkly lights still disappearing from driveways and the facades of twee suburban residences not yet paid for.
Christmas was all about building bridges, unless I have misconstrued it. The message has obviously not got through, for here you are all bickering about the building of a bridge, no less, one that both sides want built, both unionists and non-unionists, that is.
There is clearly more to this than meets the eye, of course, as has been pointed out, but you might have waited for all the decorations to be taken down before lunging at one another with daggers drawn, kicking up such a dust that the complexity of the issue is reduced to little more than an expression of the Labour Party's well-known "visceral hatred" of the SNP and the response to this that may understandably be expected.
"How many observe Christ’s Birth-day! How few, his Precepts! O! 'tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments." (Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1743)
Complain about this comment
If we don't have the manufacturing and population bases needed to use these vast public expenditures either present or future, all these £'millions will be wasted. And what is the % of actual indigenous people / materials to be used in its eventual construction you'll be hard pushed to reach 10 - 15%
Complain about this comment
#24, the SNP did NOT say that "the existing road bridge could not be fixed". The Civil Engineers and experts reported a life expectancy of the current crossing... which is not forever. One can easily conclude (as the SNP did) that if you do not want to return to ferries, then a new bridge is required.
Also, the sooner that a new bridge is built, this will ease strain on the existing bridge and extend its' useful life while at the same time easing morning and evening conjestion.
Yes, we could wait, but the economies do not point to that as a sensible option. As for PPP or PFI, by the time you take private sector profit margins into account, the public will be paying roughly double the 2 Billion price tag...
...meanwhile banks are being bailed out to the sum of 50 Billion!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7357880.stm
...I guess that since most of the large share holders in banks are in the South-East of England, then Labour can find enough money to pay for 25 Forth Crossings in order that the elite can retain their huge divident payments... but sorry Scotland we have no money for your bridge.
Anyone feel we are being ripped off?
Complain about this comment
Looks like 2009 starts the same way as 2008.
the BBC are picking on the SNP, Fifers are still bad because they had the cheek to muck up president eck's plans, Darling is not treating us fairly. Yawn
Meanwhile if only we had independance everything would be just fine. I thought pantos finished at Christmas.
I would like to point out that there is one small, but important difference between how the SNP want to fund the bridge and the proposal to bring forward expenditure in other government areas. the propsal for acceleration of spending is for budgets already set, it is clear what is available and where it is coming from. Don't expect that the more rabid amongst you will appreciate the difference and will continue the "4 legs good two legs bad mantra", but there you go. Modern Scotland.
I would say though the transport fiasco shows the SNP in a very bad light. But never mind the SFT will blow all this away when it revolutionises public funding of capital schemes. When exactly is that? Anyone at all got even a clue?
Complain about this comment
#65 northhighlander
In blaming others for crying "anti-SNP!" and sounding rabid, you do not at all sound rabid yourself! What is your improved vision for Scotland? (Or are you just anti-SNP?)
Complain about this comment
#60 scottishrepublic
Have you been watching Braveheart before you posted?
You sound like you are about to march over the border!
Complain about this comment
Maybe a new year but it still the same old anti-SNP tune from BBC Scotland.
This North British organisation is institutionally and hopelessly partisan.
Even my local Labour club shows less bias than the Beeb, and that is saying something.
Complain about this comment
It has been announced that labour are seeking an emergency debate at Holyrood over the Forth bridge funding row. It is becoming clearer by the hour that Labour have fouled up big time with this one, and that they realise it.
Coming hard on the heals of Whitton’s shambolic performance on Newsnight where he admitted he did not know how much the bridge would cost under PFI and that tolls may need to be used, the latest comments from Andy Kerr take idiocy to new levels.
Remember, before reading Kerr’s imbecilic rants that the SNP have stated that the bridge will be built, come what may. The SNP are seeking to bring forward funding in order to continue with other projects that will help in this recession.
Kerr says:
Labour finance spokesman Andy Kerr said finance secretary John Swinney was "guilty of incompetence on a monumental scale".
Apparently, asking to bring forward funding is incompetence.
Kerr says:
"The new Forth Bridge is Scotland's biggest construction project in a generation and the SNP are making a mess of it.”
The SNP have stated quite clearly that the bridge will go ahead, no mater what.
Kerr says:
"Scots deserve a Government that will deliver results rather than excuses. The SNP are doing real damage to the economy by undermining important infrastructure projects and creating uncertainty for construction companies at the worst possible time."
Does Kerr agree with Whitton that PFI should be used? Is this not borrowing from future budgets over a lengthy period?
Does Kerr believe that the SNP should not request funding for capital projects to be brought forward? Does Kerr realise that such a policy is already Labour’s stated intention in England?
Like I have said, Labour have misjudged thisone, big time. So much so that Brown the ‘organ grinder’ has let the MSP ‘monkeys’ loose in order to try to create a diversion.
Watch for the Scottish media re-aligning it's portrayal of this subject. They will jettison the Westminster angle and will start headlining Holyrood Labour rants.
Complain about this comment
Re my #66
Can I just add onto the end of mine,
What a dork!
Complain about this comment
At least there is some backbone and meaning though to #60 scottishrepublic.
I'd take that over droopy-draweredness anyday.
;->
Complain about this comment
Why can't we just have a new railway bridge?
Once the fifers have sped across the Swinny crossing, they'll have to negotiate the M8 or the west side of Edinburgh. And when the oil really does run out, and petrol's 10 euros a litre, how clever's a road bridge going to look to our children, who'll still be paying for it?
Complain about this comment
See this "PM's New Deal for Britain".
More than anything Brown just wants glory, more glory.
It's like watching him go insane...
;->
Complain about this comment
Those trying to defend the Westminster stance on this can do so until they are blue in the face.
The hypocracy is clear!
Labour advocate UK Govt borrowing to bring forward capital infrastructure spending in an attempt to reflate the economy. That is an undeniable fact.
When the Scottish Government proposes one such critical capital infrastructure investment project it is rejected as "just not the done thing". Despite far larger capital investment in infrastructure getting the green light in England.
Rejected by Scottish Labour MPs (Brown and Darling) with constituencies on either side of the bridge - who know well its critical position in the Scottish Economy.
Why would they do this?
It would seem that it's the Westminster way.
Any Scot defending this has only party political interest at heart, and not the best interest of Scotland, her economy and her people.
Complain about this comment
#72 freakowski
"Why can't we just have a new railway bridge?"
Well, I'm all for the romance of it, but do the trains stop at all the workplaces / shops / business parks wherever the people want to go?
Is it as easy to pop to the Tescos as journeying from Edinburgh to London Euston?
Complain about this comment
I agree that Westminster should just hand over the money for the new bridge. It's needed infrastructure. A tunnel would be better, of course, but everyone seems to want a big fat edifice instead.
In other news, there goes Wedgwood and Jaguar. Luxury good makers. They must have not built up the brand enough, I expect. Luckily we Scots know better.
Complain about this comment
73.aye_write
Going insane! I think its more advanced than that time for the men in white coats methinks.
Asperger’s Syndrome
Complain about this comment
Re 66 And 70
66 is a reasonable post, 70 doesn't show you in a good light. personal abuse is never the mark of good debate, but typical of the SNP supporters we see on these pages.
We need acrossing of the forth. Okay It has to be paid for. If we use John Swinneys economics then we buy now and pay later out of general taxation. Fine. But who gets nothing when we get the forth Bridge? What effect does this plan of Swinneys have on the rest of the transport programme? We can't say because we don't know. the SNP have a half baked plan with no real thought behind it.
PFI is ruled out, originally in Favour of the SFT. We still don't know what that is or how it will work. Reasonable questions.
Any large project like this is usually funded over a long period by borrowing money. PFI may not be perfect but it is better than nothing and should be considered against a costing of all other models. then we can decide on the basis of real information not political games.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#77 cynicalHighlander
Thanks for reminding me, I'm supposed to be reading that! The skyline logo's a bit dodgy, but very funny.
Interesting how prophetic bits of the article were:
(On Brown getting to be PM)
"Allowing him the chance to impose an even less diluted form of this statism on the country might send Labour back into opposition for the best part of 20 years. However, the damage that would be done in the four or five years before that could happen would be both unnecessary and hideously wasteful."
"Mr Blair’s pals now say he will go a year into his third term and hand over to the Chancellor. That is very witty. By that stage (if indeed we reach it) the chickens of the Brown economic miracle will have come home to roost, and the brilliant Chancellor will look pretty tarnished."
What fun!
Complain about this comment
Re #78 northhighlander
Yes, governments normally borrow for big capital projects but, and you may have noticed this, the Scottish Goverment isn't allowed to borrow like a normal government by order of the Westminster government led by the 'great leader'.
PFI is not a solution, it's just a trick to keep spend off the books. It's borrowing by any other name. Instead of issuing bonds, we get a private company to borrow the money and then we pay them through a contract (inluding their profit) over the next 30 year or so.
It's like public sector pension debt - as far as GB and co. are concerned it doesn't really exist as it's our kids and grandkids that will have to pay for it.
So, please explain why it's ok to build the bridge with PFI, but not use the more transparent method of funding it with public debt.
Complain about this comment
#78 northhighlander
"66 is a reasonable post, 70 doesn't show you in a good light. personal abuse is never the mark of good debate, but typical of the SNP supporters we see on these pages."
Alrighty. I'm not so overly proud that I won't have a wee needle and happily take the same back. You didn't cover yourself in self-respecting glory in your original post remember. Most times we are providing entertainment to those who can't be bothered to write that report and are instead taking a lunchbreak. I'm ordinary, not a paid political pundit, not a scum bag. Like many ordinary voters. So criticise.
"We need acrossing of the forth. Okay It has to be paid for. If we use John Swinneys economics then we buy now and pay later out of general taxation. Fine. But who gets nothing when we get the forth Bridge? What effect does this plan of Swinneys have on the rest of the transport programme? We can't say because we don't know. the SNP have a half baked plan with no real thought behind it."
If this is indeed a cack plan, what are his alternatives? All pretty cack. You want more details. Fair maybe, but it won't improve the plan's cackness. You seem to think if John had bothered more he could have done better here. Nope, it would be more detailed, but smell the same.
John Swinney cannot come up with a plan that will make John Swinney look good. There isn't one - is there? (Can you 'put some thought behind it' and answer your critique?) Unable to behave like a grown up govt., borrow etc., John is already doomed to look idiotic.
"PFI is ruled out, originally in Favour of the SFT."
If true, haven't they said it's not suitable for these big projects? You, fairly, may prefer proof first, but that's unlikely to make SFT become more viable (here).
"PFI may not be perfect but it is better than nothing."
John's not in the best position to be helping the Scottish people then is he? No wonder he proposes what he sees as his better plan. You see it as playing politics. Your nation's in a bit of a fix - hands tied behind its back (wouldn't you try all ways, sneaky included, to get free?). I hope somebody plays something to get us out of it.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, I still don't understand this!
PFI costs taxpayers double (maybe more?) in the end with big profits for those financiers and constructions companies involved.
The SNP plan will presumably cost taxpayers whatever the final cost of the bridge is. I imagine the construction companies will still be making a huge profit but the taxpayer will save money by not being in hock to the financiers in perpetuity.
Can someone explain exactly why the SNP plan is so unacceptable to Labour? Other than a few one-line quotes about not borrowing from future revenue I haven't seen any detailed explanations. I've had a look at various newspaper articles but can't determine what makes "future revenue borrowing" acceptable for some schemes but not others.
Where are Old Nat and Reluctant Expat to argue about the fine detail??
Complain about this comment
Re #82
I meant to add after "So criticise",
My comments weren't made to deeply offend.
#83
See #463 'Christmas cheer in the chamber' thread, and don't know!
Complain about this comment
Glenn Campbell is a disgrace, with a long-standing record of anti-SNP and pro-Labour bias.
Any fair-minded listeners or viewers can vouch for this having scene his various performances: ripping up the manifesto of a government - live on tv - and his greeting face during the last hour of the wait for the Glasgow East result are amongst the highlights for me.
He should be sacked, or at least shuffled as that ridiculous 'interviewer' Kirsty Wark was.
Wark, Paxman and Campbell ... do any have a worse record on bias? Fox news and MSNBC are not as bad in the States. Collectively the three of them would shame Berlusconi's media empire!
Complain about this comment
#83 fencesitter1
You called? :-)
Brian was absolutely right to say "The Treasury tentatively suggests PPP". As they well know, International Financial Reporting Standards accounting rules (which come into force in April) mean that this mechanism can no longer be used to pretend that public borrowing is actually "private".
There's a good (brief) article on this in the Financial Times.
Taking the politics out of it, this seems the best time to build the bridge. Specifications are in place, and as soon as the money can be found it can be commissioned and work start at a time when firms are likely to provide competitive tenders.
Obviously the money needs to be borrowed to build such a large project - it can't be met from annual capital or revenue re-allocation within the Treasury's 3 year cycle.
The options would appear to be
1. The Treasury changes its rules for the devolved Parliament/Assemblies and allows the planned expenditure now, and be repaid by reducing future block grant allocations (Swinney's plan). Presumably one of the reason they won't do this, is that they treat the Scottish Parliament grant in the same way that they do for other Government Departments (technically the Scottish Budget is given to Jim Murphy, who then disburses it to Scotland).
They haven't made devolution much of a real thing!
2. Scotland does not have borrowing powers, but can ask Murphy to borrow it on their behalf, through a bond or similar measure (issued by HMG at Westminster), to be repaid as in 1 above.
3. Some form of PFI scheme, which will still mean Westminster has to "borrow the money", as far as public debt is concerned.
In other words, we either get the bridge via the debt being added to the UK National Debt, or Westminster says no to the bridge and blames it on the SNP.
Complain about this comment
Re #75 Aye_whatever ...
"Is it as easy to pop to the Tescos as journeying from Edinburgh to London Euston?
My point is that in the next few years we're all going to have to change life-styles to some extent - so rather than feed the voracious motor car with yet more steel and concrete, maybe we should re-adjust the infrastructure at either side of the existing bridges - such as building tesco next to the railway station.
I expect a thousand word essay in response ...
Complain about this comment
#87 freakowski
No fear there. Still up doing my shopping list (1,000 items to buy maybe) so I'll reply.
Take your green ideas and fly with them. I only meant to suggest that certain practicalities would need to be considered. Not too mean a point?
I'd thought I'd put humour in. I'm "stepping away from the laptop".
Complain about this comment
Some may be interested in this website which has numerous threads on identity from an English perspective (and input from Cornish Nationalists as well).
Complain about this comment
Amazing!
Robbie Dinwoodie in the Herald has a balanced article on the funding of the bridge.
"When talks get under way on this issue between the Scottish Government and the Treasury there is considerable scope for negotiation, but only if Westminster can get its head around the idea that an elected government is not just another Whitehall department."
Complain about this comment
Kenneth Roy in the Scottish Review on why the Scottish media are so acquiescent.
"I scan the daily papers for evidence of that lively, sceptical 'civil society' monitoring and exposing the actions, utterances, pomposities and delusions of the political class, but find such independent-minded criticism largely wanting; I await with a decreasing sense of expectation the howls of outrage about transparent injustices; I wonder who speaks for the inarticulate and the marginalised and the 25 per cent of our young people who admit to being long-term depressed.
The alternative narrative, of a sort, provided by the opposition parties is ritualistic and self-serving. The indigenous media (I choose to dismiss the incomers as cynical opportunists) to some extent scrutinise the established order, but are too enfeebled by financial restraints to mount the sustained inquiry required. In short, Scotland has become a strangely acquiescent little place."
And a Merry Xmas Day (7 Jan) to any Russian Orthodox Scots!
Complain about this comment
Now here's an imaginative solution for the Forth crossing from a Herald reader (in the Diary) -
""The Treasury has, however, given the go-ahead for the two aircraft carriers which will be assembled at Rosyth.
Since the planes for them might not be built, we don't have enough destroyers and frigates to defend them, and they are not much use for fighting in places like Afghanistan, which doesn't have a coast, wouldn't it be a better idea to moor them bow to stern across the Forth and allow the traffic to drive over their flight decks and save the cost of the bridge?"
Complain about this comment
9. The very simple reason for all that is that in the absence of an English Parliament, Westminster is responsible for capital projects in England while Holyrood is responsible for capital projects in Scotland.
That is why this Westminster list of projects is heavily biased towards England.
Ah, but don't you dare let this little factette of reality interfere with yet another of your ignorant, ill-informed nationalist rants!
Complain about this comment
#93 - Expat, welcome back. I see the festive break hasn't dulled your idiocy.
Your point about responsibility for capital projects is the very point being made. Repeatedly. But, hey, don't let this little factette of reality interfere with yet another of your ignornant, ill-informed anti-SNP rants!
Complain about this comment
94. Mmm. Being called an idiot by a nationalist.....yet another savaging by a goldfish. Ouch.
I had some very interesting conversations during the Christmas party season, especially at two Holyrood bashes. Would you like to know what I found out about the SNP's internal discussions from a certain well-watered SNP bod? Within an hour or so of conversation on a sofa in one corner of the room, much of my understanding of the SNP was dramatically and profoundly changed.
Or how about the comments and views of various Holyrood/party staffers?
It took a few days for it all to gel but I then had what can really only be described as an epiphany and, to be quite honest, I now feel quite foolish for wasting so many months on the childish, pointless arguments that go to make up these blogs nowadays.
In summary, this blog has become just a source of entertainment for me and I'm now more interested in relevant debates elsewhere.
Feel free to deny this for whatever reason you and yours can conjure up. It really doesn't matter.
Complain about this comment
#95
What other fairy story books did you get in your stocking, the labour party manifesto possibly.
Complain about this comment
#95 Reluctant-Expat
"94. Mmm. Being called an idiot by a nationalist.....yet another savaging by a goldfish. Ouch."
Expat, that's so "Gay"!
(Moderators, the teenage not the homophobic expression.)
;-)
Complain about this comment
#95 and after you had solved world poverty and the energy crisis, what did you do next Expat....do tell us.....we hang on every word you type.
Complain about this comment
Brown and Darling have a cheek to say no. Especially true when they have got the country into record debt which will still be there for decades to come.
This whole bridge crossing fiasco shows how empty and hollow the Calman report will be. A Scottish government without borrowing powers is at the mercy of the scraps from the westminister table.
We should send Calman packing along with New labour and get some teeth for holyrood.
Complain about this comment
#95 - "Feel free to deny this for whatever reason you and yours can conjure up. It really doesn't matter."
Deny what, exactly (you didn't actually say anything of any relevance)? So you had a drunken discussion with somebody who was equally steamboats. In what way is that any different from any swaree attended by MPs / MSPs up and down the country? In what way does this give you some miraculous insight denied to those of us with a more tee-total nature?
"I now feel quite foolish"
Only now? At least your post contained something approaching the truth (for a change).
Complain about this comment
Am I alone in puzzling how the Scottish Government's desire to raise capital from the budgets it anticipates getting from the UK Treasury in future years and repayable over a long period fits with their obsession with becoming independent in the not too distant future?
Complain about this comment
101
I really don't think that would be a worry, should Scotland ever wish to be independent it would obviously involve regosiation in many areas.
Debt can be transfered. The UK has massive borrowing at present and that is going to weigh us well into the future anyway. Scotland's percentage of that as I say, would have to be worked out.
Complain about this comment
This is panning out nicely. The Westminster arguement on this issue
is politically unsustainable.
Local councils have borrowing powers
The Isle of Man parliament has borrowing powers
The N Ireland Assembly has borrowing powers.....
but the Scottish Parliament is not to be allowed borrowing powers.
Salmond, Swinney and co are running rings round them
Complain about this comment
If we have to pay the UK's debts do we get a rebate on all those revenues generated by Scotland but spent anywhere but here?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS