Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Swinney rejects Treasury proposals to pay for bridge

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

Published Date: 06 April 2009
By HAMISH MACDONELL
SCOTTISH ministers have rejected Treasury proposals to pay for the new Forth bridge, it was confirmed yesterday.
Scottish finance secretary John Swinney told the UK Government that its plans to release £1 billion for the replacement crossing would not amount to any new money.

Yvette Cooper, the UK Treasury Secretary, had suggested that the Scottish Governmen
t might like to use a series of financial packages to help fund the £2 billion bridge.

These included giving the Scottish Government access to end-of-year underspent budgets, £500 million in Barnett consequentials of the London crossrail project and increased efficiency savings.

But yesterday Mr Swinney wrote to Ms Cooper arguing that her plans would not make any difference to the funding problems over the new Forth Bridge.

"I do not believe that your suggestions have identified any methods of covering the cost of the project which would in practice ease the pressures which my initial approach to you last year was seeking to achieve," Mr Swinney wrote.

Labour leader Iain Gray said the Treasury plans would have totalled £1.1 billion in additional funding for Scotland.

"This bizarre refusal confirms that the SNP's gut instinct is always to play politics, rather than to work in the interests of Scotland," Mr Gray said.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 April 2009 10:04 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

,

05/04/2009 22:10:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

alba nach,

Tarbert 05/04/2009 22:42:54
Yes, this should have been headlined "Treasury offers Scotland 1bn of own money - Swinney says 'thanks a bunch'".
3

The Answer,

Glasgow 06/04/2009 00:16:00
8% of the UK population, yet produce only 7% of UK new undegraduates......
4

Billiam Wallace,

06/04/2009 02:05:21
The Answer: Due to us being kept poor and ignorant of our true potential. I have to agree with a poster on the SoS thread about repairing the old bridge at a fraction of this cost and seeing how traffic levels go in future. There is a strong possibility that this bridge will never be needed anyway and we could certainly use the money for other projects.

Saor Alba
5

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 06/04/2009 02:13:59
Would you like a glaring example of how Jim Murphy lies about Scottish finances? Go to tinyurl.com/cdj4q7.
6

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 06/04/2009 05:08:02
"Labour leader Iain Gray said the Treasury plans would have totalled £1.1 billion in additional funding for Scotland. "This bizarre refusal confirms that the SNP's gut instinct is always to play politics, rather than to work in the interests of Scotland," Mr Gray said."

Claiming that 800 Billion in money that is already Scotland's is new money is playing politics rather than working for the interests of Scotland.

Shows that once again the SNP is the only party that is fighting for Scotland.
7

The Answer,

Glasgow 06/04/2009 05:16:31
Prime example of the scotch nation living in a fantazy world.

Edinburgh world heritage city!

Another scotch lie exposed...


"Jonathan Glancey The Guardian, Monday 6 April 2009

Only two cities on the planet are World Heritage sites. While it's true that parts of other cities have the cherished status, in just two cases does the designation apply to the whole place. One of them is Venice. The other is Bath. "



tinyurl.com/cay53z


8

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 06/04/2009 09:28:09
The Opposition should stop being so paranoid!

John Swinney has now got them confused after refusing Treasury assistance to build the new Forth Crossing.

Where else can the Nationalist Government find the billions required to build the new bridge?
9

alanh,

ek 06/04/2009 10:27:11
why is Mr Grey allowed to LIE in this paper and not be questioned on it.

"Labour leader Iain Gray said the Treasury plans would have totalled £1.1 billion in additional funding for Scotland."

there is NO additional funding coming from westmonster and the greyman knows it. Half of the £1b was from consequentials that were known about already and budgeted for already.
The rest are from cuts, called efficiency savings to go with the £500m we are expected to give Broon for his stupidity, or selling off of land and assets.
10

,

06/04/2009 10:39:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Scotty F,

The Borders 06/04/2009 10:48:42
The SNP should be called the Scottish Numpty Party!
12

Duncan in Edinburgh,

06/04/2009 12:11:41
Unedifying on both sides, quite frankly. Unsurprising since the SNP described their first budget as a "cut" despite it being an increase over and above inflation. That set the tone for UK/Scotland exchanges on money ever since.

It's silly for the UK to pretend there is new money when there isn't. Equally it was ridiculous for the SNP to spin the rejection of their numpty plan for paying for it when no UK government of any hue would ever have accepted such a deal. And the amazing disappearing SFT makes the SNP's public funding policies a laughing stock anyway. Brick for brick... ha.

Economic dialogue between Scotland and the UK needs to improve, and Swinney needs to lead that improvement because he has been responsible for leading the politicising of it.
13

Arfur,

06/04/2009 12:52:10
Well as £800m of this is Scottish money hootsman that goes down as - shoite.

Try this little thing like - digging for the truth hootsman.
14

,

06/04/2009 14:35:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

bill-alba,

fife 06/04/2009 16:05:40
#11 the Scottish National Party are not in the business of plagiarism..you know full well the the treacherous british labour party have already copyrighted the name of Scottish Numpty party.
16

Westfield Bairns,

Falkirk 06/04/2009 19:42:40
Spin,lies and propoganda. Anyone who checks the facts will come to the same conclusion. THE TREASURY ARE OFFERING NO NEW MONEY, now why does that not surprise me
17

JC1,

Glasgow 06/04/2009 20:11:37
So Swinney's thrown his rattle out of the pram- he's been told where there's some money but he's not interested. Who cares if it's new money/old money -it's money, but the nats are just too hell bent on argument to cooperate with the government to work out solutions
18

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 06/04/2009 20:48:50
I'v said it several times before. I'll say it again. The old Forth Rail Bridge is heavily overdesigned, and only bears the weight of trains intermittently. Double lane roadways can be cantilevered out from the sides of the existing track-supporting truss by means of steel beams, with the outer edges of these deck-supporting beams being suspended from steel cables rising to steel towers added to the major steel columns on the Forth Rail Bridge piers. The work can be done without interrupting existing rail traffic and the approach roads are easy to upgrade. If necessary road traffic can be stopped or limited while trains use the bridge. The cost would be somewhat less than half the cost of a new bridge.
19

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 06/04/2009 23:44:09
cheapest solution is to recognize that the bridge was not built for the weight of modern lorries.

If these were prevented or charged a rate commensureate with the damage they cause - the kind of money the operator of the M6 toll road charges (cos they damage roads more)- Bob et ton oncle - no new bridge needed for years.

If a bridge was really necessary - one way the SNP could finance the bridge - in fact the same way that the crossing at Thurrock was paid for - road tolls on the old bridge could help subsidize the cost of the new.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.