Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


SNP rejects Tory offer of talks on Forth bridge cash

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: 07 January 2009
THE Scottish Government last night snubbed a Conservative offer of talks over how to fund the new bridge over the Forth.
The Tories moved to strike a deal with the SNP in the expectation of winning the next general election and being the party in power when vital funding decisions are made.

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, and David Mundell, the shadow Scottish secretary, issued the offer of talks at a briefing on the economy in Edinburgh.

But it was rejected by SNP ministers, who made it clear they would talk only to those who currently hold power.

There has been a public row between the SNP-led Scottish Government and Labour ministers at Westminster over how to fund the £2 billion bridge.

The spat erupted after the SNP last month said it intended to spread the cost of the bridge over 20 years and pay for it through direct capital funds rather than through borrowing.

But last Friday, Yvette Cooper, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote to John Swinney, the Scottish finance secretary, saying this could not be done, because it would mean bringing forward spending allocations for budgets many years away.

The Scottish Government has called a debate on the matter in Holyrood next week.

At the Tory briefing, Mr Grayling hit out at the SNP's tactics of "gripe and grievance", but he said Labour was playing into the Nationalists' hands by not talking to them about the alternatives.

He said the Conservatives would not rule out the SNP proposal and would consider it, but added that devolution would only work if the two governments were "willing to sit down and talk in a mature fashion".

Mr Mundell then sent wrote to Mr Swinney offering a meeting.

But a spokesman for the Scottish Government said there were no plans to meet the Tories. He said Mr Swinney had written to Ms Cooper asking to meet her, and he saw this as the priority.

"It's the Treasury ministers we will meet because that is the relevant relationship," he said. "The Tories can have their say in the debate."

The spokesman also rejected the suggestion the two governments were not talking about issues that affect Scotland. He said it was the SNP that had restarted the joint ministerial committee as a forum for discussion between the UK government and the devolved administrations.

"The two governments have productive talks all the time, and we look forward to meeting with the Treasury to discuss the bridge funding issues," he said.

But the Tories said they were astonished by the rejection of the talks offer, especially as they were still bullish about forming the next UK government, even though their lead in the polls has slipped in recent weeks.

Mr Mundell said: "It is an extraordinary response. The SNP is more interested in picking fights than building bridges."


Minister pledges Waverley Line push

MINISTERS have sought to reaffirm their commitment to rebuilding part of the Borders railway line by announcing that preliminary work will start this year.

The Scottish Government said "advanced" works on the Edinburgh-Tweedbank route would start by March and continue throughout 2010.

This includes moving pipes and cables, and other preparatory environmental work.

Stewart Stevenson, the transport minister, said the main work would start next year, as has already been signalled by Transport Scotland, which is in charge of the £235-295 million project. Trains are due to start running on the new 31-mile line in 2013.

However, it was also admitted that the official process for appointing a contractor, which should have started last month, is not yet under way.

Doubts have dogged the project because it is due to be finished two years later than previously expected and the cost has increased by a third.

Mr Stevenson said contractors "continue to express a strong interest" in the project, despite its novel proposed funding method. This will involve a non-profit making consortium managing construction and running the line separately from the rest of the rail network. Details of the scheme for potential contractors should have been published by the end of last year. Transport Scotland said it anticipated issuing them "shortly". Last month, John Swinney, the finance secretary, announced funding to accelerate the advanced works "in this financial year".

Nicholas Watson, a Borders councillor who opposes the line, said: "The latest review shows the business case is weaker than ever, and with so many calls on public money now would be the perfect time to drop this hot potato."

ALASTAIR DALTON

Page 1 of 1

 
1

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:01:49
Who needs dialogue with The Tories when the SNP have the magical Futures Trust to build the new bridge.
2

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:02:00
In May, Mr Swinney told Newsnight Scotland : “Of course that's the type of project (The new Forth Bridge) that could be taken forward under the auspices of this model (SFT)”.

3

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:02:09
Alex Salmond, Evening News, September 5, 2006 "If we have a new bridge, a bond issue is definitely the way to do it. Compared like for like, bond issue against PFI, the savings would be in tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions. Because it's such an iconic project, that would have a wonderful take up and resonance not just in Scotland but worldwide."
4

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:02:18
Fergus Ewing, The Scotsman, December 22, 2006 "Financing the scheme through a bond issue under the SNP's proposed Scottish Futures Trust is seen by experts as significantly cheaper in the longer term than Labour's preferred option of private finance. While a replacement crossing is vital, we must ensure that we use a cost-effective method to fund the project."
5

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:02:29
SNP Manifesto P.19 "Over the first term of an SNP government we will introduce a not-for-profit Scottish Futures Trust, which will provide lower cost borrowing opportunities. We expect the Scottish Futures Trust to emerge as a more attractive source of funding for both national and local projects which will effectively crowd out PFI/PPP over time."
6

Jimmy Le Pie,

07/01/2009 00:06:13
Rufus,

HOW MUCH WOULD A £2 BILLION BRIDGE COST UNDER THE PPP/PFI PYRAMID SCHEME???

I await your figures with interest.

PS Can you see yourself using the new £4.5 Billion Rail Link to Heathrow??
7

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:10:43
6 Jimmy Le Pie,07/01/2009 00:06:13
Rufus,

HOW MUCH WOULD A £2 BILLION BRIDGE COST UNDER THE PPP/PFI PYRAMID SCHEME???
==================================================
How long is a piece of string?
There are so many variables involved it is impossible to say.

Unless you know of course?

Anyway thats a red herring.

SNP have scrapped PFI.

They said they are going to use the Scottish Futures Trust.

So why are they not using it?
8

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:12:45
6 Jimmy Le Pie,07/01/2009 00:06:13
Rufus,
PS Can you see yourself using the new £4.5 Billion Rail Link to Heathrow??
======================================================

Indeed I will.

In fact I will use it more than I will use the Forth Bridge.

So whats your point?
9

,

07/01/2009 00:15:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Darien,

Panama 07/01/2009 00:18:50
All British Nationalists are agin Scotland; NewLab, Tories and FibDums are all British Nationalists first and foremost. Can't trust any of them. Quislings all. You are either a British Nationalist or a Scottish Nationalist - you cannot be both.
11

,

07/01/2009 00:18:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:20:08
9 Traquir , Alba,07/01/2009 00:15:27
I see nothing but the normal Unionist troll behaviour - no positive suggestions
====================================================

Listin to Tracky the defeatist.

All he can spout is................

SEE TINYURL
SEE TINYURL
SEE TINYURL
SEE TINYURL

SNP are in charge.
They scrapped PFI. Fair Enough.
Futures Trust is the way ahead.

Why are they not using it?

They said they would.
13

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:21:03
And Remember Tracky..................

Why use 1 word when 5 million will do.
14

Embra Don,

07/01/2009 00:21:27
# 6 Jimmy Le Pie,

If we extrapolate from the previous PFI bridge to Skye which cost £about £94M for a £15M bridge. That would mean that a £1,700M bridge would cost about £10,500M.
Incidentally which banks are going to come up with the money for a PFI project of this size? .... and will they need taxpayers money to "re-capitalise" them to do so?
15

,

07/01/2009 00:21:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:22:18
10 Darien,Panama 07/01/2009 00:18:50
All British Nationalists are agin Scotland
=========================================

Yes Darien of course we are.

But only in your dreams.
17

Forward not Back,

07/01/2009 00:22:29
I wonder if the SNP are prepared to adopt the 'nuclear' tactic given the impact on Brown's own constituency, namely saying that the bridge won't be built because we can't raise the money as Westminster are stifling us.
18

,

07/01/2009 00:23:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:24:58
14 Embra Don,07/01/2009 00:21:27
# 6 Jimmy Le Pie,

If we extrapolate from the previous PFI bridge to Skye which cost £about £94M for a £15M bridge. That would mean that a £1,700M bridge would cost about £10,500M.
Incidentally which banks are going to come up with the money for a PFI project of this size? .... and will they need taxpayers money to "re-capitalise" them to do so?
==================
Great calculation.
Thats exactly how it would work

Anyway, thats not the point.

PFI has been scrapped. Why dwell on it?

The Scottish Futures Trust is light years ahead of PFI.

Salmond has convinced me of that.

So why is he not using it?
20

Embra Don,

07/01/2009 00:26:46
#11 Scott.Webb
Any suggestion as to why the Scotsman employs him? Or is he a clever hacker??? His ability to post comments - albeit drivel, before the site comes on-line to the public is fascinating
21

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:26:53
18 Traquir , Alba,07/01/2009 00:23:48
2 Rufus-T-Firefly,

Hmm, you do know what the meaning of the word 'could' is ? It would be one of several alternatives.

======================================

AH Tracky I see where you were coming from.

"could" .....................Hmm yes now.

Is it "could" as in, if the bridge was being built in a parallel universe?
22

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:28:38
21 Embra Don,07/01/2009 00:26:46
#11 Scott.Webb
Any suggestion as to why the Scotsman employs him? Or is he a clever hacker??? His ability to post comments - albeit drivel, before the site comes on-line to the public is fascinating
====================================================

Yeah they pay me a bomb.

You should see if you can get a similar job for a Pro-SNP Newspaper.

OOOOPPPS I just realised, there isn't one.
23

,

07/01/2009 00:31:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Embra Don,

07/01/2009 00:35:47
The Scottish government, of whatever hue will not be able to use SFT or similar for national projects. Ludicrously they do not have the power to borrow. Local Authorities do so may be able to use an SFT system for local projects.
The whole concept of PPP, PFI is to keep the borrowing off balance sheet to that the treasury can lie about levels of national debt. It also effectively stops scrutiny as PFI projects are deemed to be in commercial confidence. Absolutely pervect vehicle for corruption.
25

,

07/01/2009 00:35:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

,

07/01/2009 00:36:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

,

07/01/2009 00:40:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

,

07/01/2009 00:42:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

,

07/01/2009 00:42:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:44:44
Holy Mackerel.

Scott Webb has rumbled me.

Either that or he has been watching too many episodes of Columbo.
31

,

07/01/2009 00:46:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:47:48
31 Tracky, congratulations.

A post that was less than 10 lines.

I managed to reach the end of it without falling asleep.

A major achievement.
33

,

07/01/2009 00:50:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 00:51:00
Scott Webb, whats the weather like back in Scotland

Its burning here in this Vietnamese Internet Astroturfing sweat shop.
35

Embra Don,

07/01/2009 00:51:21
#27 and #28
Thanks Scott - very interesting. I am at a loss to know whether his raison d'etre is to promote unionist policy or to put a final nail in the coffin of the Scotsman. Or - it now occurs, perhaps his role is to discredit Labour by associating it with infantile comment or to rid us of a Labour propaganda sheet..... A chap could become paranoid weighing up the possibilities.
36

,

07/01/2009 00:54:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

Embra Don,

07/01/2009 00:58:57
# 39 I'm pleased that you did not call him a useless twaaat - that would have been oxymoron.
38

,

07/01/2009 00:59:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

,

07/01/2009 01:04:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

Embra Don,

07/01/2009 01:04:47
Anyway! Enough of this - ignore the trolls/astroturfers!
Does anyone know if PFI has survived the credit crunch? Can any of our contributors who have knowledge of the banking sector confirm whether it would be possible to borrow £2bn through private finance to build a bridge?
41

,

07/01/2009 01:15:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

,

07/01/2009 01:19:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

FerryPort,

07/01/2009 01:21:41
rufus flea has rattled his own cage
How many postings? About 50%?
Calm down matey
44

,

07/01/2009 01:24:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 07/01/2009 01:45:51
Settle down guys and galls. Please let us not forget that We in SCOTLAND HAVE A REFERENDUM ON INDEPENDENCE in 2010. The result will be that not only will we get our bridge, but also we will be attending the 2012 Olympic Games in our OWN RIGHT AS AN INDEPENDENT NATION.We will be self sufficient in Energy and may be ABLE TO GIVE england a GOOD BORROWING Rate!!!!Just think of that one, or maybe not.............
46

Wardog™,

07/01/2009 01:48:06



Rufus has let the cat out of the bag.

Labour without knowing how much MORE it would cost automatically say they would use PPP, they are ideologically wed to that form of procurement and all of it;s inefficiencies and scandalous profiteering. at the expense of the taxpayer.

I look forward to Swinney giving the figure during the emergency debate....

Labour are heading for a malling over this

People will want to know why the UK Government and Scottish Labour are seeking to either cut spending or waste money.







47

livilion,

livingston 07/01/2009 01:53:44
Rufus-T-Firefly

Who do you know are interested in PPP/PFI for projects like this, given that from now on these VISA credit card deals will have to now appear on the balance sheet?

to paraphrase:
"When the facts change, I change my opinion". "...what do you do, sir?"
48

,

07/01/2009 02:15:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

Yankee girl,

California 07/01/2009 02:28:46
Didn't this bridge used to have a toll on it? Even though no one likes tolls, seems like they would have provided a good revenue stream for the replacement...instead of PPP/PFI/BLT or whatever.
50

Jimmy Le Pie,

07/01/2009 07:35:53
Traquir,

Looks like Rufus is rattled!

I've been speaking to a lot of people over the festive season, and there is a definite feeling among non SNP voters that the London government is trying to blackmail the Scottish government into using a financing scheme favoured by New Labour's financial backers.

We just need to keep putting the message across.
It is notable that no one on the ground is spreading the New Labour Sleaze word - not really surprising.

How can anyone justify the unjustifiable!!
51

subrosa,

07/01/2009 07:56:37
# 56

You do write some nonsense at times.

What about Gordon Brown 'subbing' to keep the banks afloat until perhaps my grandchildren are adults? Also he intends to create 100,000 jobs. Where? Possibly the public sector, then of course, the taxpayer will be paying for generations for them.

I'm genuinely flabbergasted at your short-sightedness with regard to this 'sub' the Scottish government has requested. Especially when you ignore the fact that the UK is bankrupt and being 'subbed' for generations.

All this because of a UK government which is so incompetent it attempts to cover that with lies, lies and more lies.
52

TWC,

07/01/2009 07:57:45
1 Rufus-T-Firefly,
All these proposals are attempts to put buffers between the Holyrood and the treasury/Brown.
Holyrood have a proposal which will bring forward an infrastructure project which everybody agrees is necessary but Labour do not want to support because it may be seen as a Holyrood success.
They hate SNP so badly they are not able to make rational policy nor rational decisions.
Thereby confirming the suspicions of those of us who are drifting away.
Scotland has been totally neglected by Labour as evidenced by their lack of policy proposals.
Finance is the question which is causing the tipping point.
53

Jimmy Le Pie,

07/01/2009 07:58:29
Smee

So by your reckoning Comrade Broon shouldn't be saddling the Tories with hundreds of billions of debt??

Would you describe this as mendacity and/or stupidity or plain deception and/or incompetence???

Do tell??
54

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 07/01/2009 08:10:34
This all sticks in my craw! It makes me sick with rage!

GB stated he'd do anything to save the Union, Save the Economy of the UK and help the people of the UK during these tough economic times.

Fine, in that case START WORKING TOGETHER AND BE MORE CITIZEN ORIENTATED.

That goes for all parties concerned as I'm sick fed up reading about Labour acting like spoilt brats that have had thier best toy taken from them and the SNP acting like high heid yins.

It's feking insanity all this b*tching, fighting and back stabbing just now and political suicide. What we need to see is Westminster saying yes to the funding and the SNP GETTING ON WITH THE FEKING JOB AT HAND.

In the mean time, both parties have lost my vote and I'm voting Tory as they propose to drop taxes on my savings (which are returning fek all just now because of GB and his meddling).

Rant over....for now.
55

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 07/01/2009 08:13:37
61

If GB and Mandelson can move the goal post, invoke anti-terror laws and change laws to suit thier end game with regards forcing bank mergers and holding governments to ransom THEN THEY CAN FEKING WELL WAIVE THE RULES THIS TIME AND HAND THE CASH OVER.


You're the short sighted idiot that will stimey this country, not the other guys that actually care about thier country and fellow countrymen.
56

Rodster,

glasgow/dubai 07/01/2009 08:14:33
+56 sm753/A2 /grahamski or whatever you are today why are you not so vociferous against quisling Brown and cissy Darling they have taken out a 400 billion sub for our grandchildren to repay never mind 2015.
but then again by unionist logic Westminster good Scotland/SNP/ bad very bad
as they say


"hingin is too good for the likes o you!"
57

Rodster,

glasgow / dubai 07/01/2009 08:18:18
donnie Munro if indeed you are from Western isles on election day you arer as well staying at home rather then vote tory there..
What a waste in Scotland SNP / labour is the only show in town so make your choice for Scotland and your fello0w citizens or the spivs in city of London and the labour troughers.....
58

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 07/01/2009 08:19:58
65 Rodster

Indeed I am in the WI's and I will vote for whoever the fek I like.

See, that's the problem. I live in the WI's so I'm expected to vote either Labour or SNP. Why? No reason, just because, eh?

The Tories still have my vote.
59

caithness,

07/01/2009 08:21:04
The SNP doing a bit of posturing here. Why not talk to the Tories? Because they're afraid of being painted tartan tories I suppose (even though many of their seats are in traditional tory areas). Still, they should be more mature.
PS According to Iain Dale the government admitted just before parliament broke up that Mr Bean's botched gold sale cost the exchequer £7 billion.
60

TWC,

07/01/2009 08:41:47
67 caithness,
You can see that at this time it would be of no political advantage.
Tories cannot grant the money
Labour would claim SNP were supporting the Tories
The Tories if successful needn't keep that promise.
This agreement needs to be between Swinney and Darling and it needs to be flattened quickly.
Labour have a problem Gordon Brown is crowing about fiscal stimulus and hasn't mentioned anything in Scotland.
They say they will consider proposals but that means they want to manage them also.
61

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 07/01/2009 09:07:27
Bearing in mind the last Conservative government's handling of the Skye Bridge funding, I don't think there is anything credible that Messrs Grayling and Mundell could offer.
62

57vintage,

Keith 07/01/2009 09:13:07
#10 - "You are either a British Nationalist or a Scottish Nationalist" - you cannot be both. What an immature black and white view of the world - it's also possible to be neither. Are you sure you're old enough to be allowed to play with electrical IT equipment?

If it's all about Bonds, why doesn't the FM contact his best mate in his tax haven and ask him for advice? He has a history in Bond films.

#62 - you were doing well until you mnetioned you were going to exercise your right to vote for whoever you choose by casting for the Nasty Party who will never deliver the promise on abolishing tax on savings or if they do, will immediately slap it on elsewhere.
63

Elethiomel,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 09:15:39
If any further proof were needed that this issue has just become a length comparison contest between the SNP and Labour this was it. This entire debate is a lot more about politics than it is about finding the best way to provide a crossing.

Considering the main areas affected the Lib Dems will be loving it.
64

TWC,

07/01/2009 09:21:16
71 57vintage,Keith
And you are one of the number of New Labour trolls who will support Labour no matter how much they persecute Scotland.
THe Nats policies at least would benefit Scotland; Labour have no policies.
65

mr angry,

ayrshire 07/01/2009 09:22:09
#61. You are the thickest of the thick participants on this paper. I can only assume you are in primary school or an idiot. What part of the £1 Trillion that Labour have borrowed do you not get, the £2 Billion Scotland needs of its own money is chickenfeed.
66

TWC,

07/01/2009 09:24:39
74 mr angry,ayrshire

Labour should sack Smee he isn't even good enough as a post interrupt
67

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 07/01/2009 09:35:16
Unless a toll bridge is built (which noone wants, except the Labour Party), the new Forth crossing should be a bona fide motorway link. Anything less would let the people of Fife and Scotland down.

We have been short-changed for long enough - scrap Trident and the supercarriers to pay for it (there will be lots of dosh to spare for other projects)!
68

salmondella,

UK 07/01/2009 09:36:12
This is a good tactic by the SNP. They understand that Labour may well scrape through and win the next election on the basis that Cameron has very little more to offer than Brown. Better to keep the options open, after all, nationalism is all about compromise with whatever bosses party that is in power - and there's not much difference between the lot of them.
69

Miss H,

07/01/2009 09:38:58
77 Not a bad effort. You should maybe think about journalism when you leave school.
70

ddmc,

07/01/2009 09:42:56
at least roofus is waiting till midnight before posting, it was the 2 hour head start that gave his game away !

71

Miss H,

07/01/2009 09:43:29
72 You are completely wrong. It has already been decided what kind of crossing to build and it has already been decided how to fund it.

The issue is whether it can be funded over a 20 year period or over a 3 year period.
72

57vintage,

Keith 07/01/2009 09:45:21
#73

"And you are one of the number of New Labour trolls who will support Labour no matter how much they persecute Scotland."

Er...no I'm not. I regularly condemn the hypocrisy of all the major parties. Your comment reminds me of the paranoia of Old Firm fans who arrogantly assume that if you don't support one, you support the other. Does the yellow in the SNP emblem cause not cause you some confusion in your black and white, 4 legs good, 2 legs bad world?

You have to do better than unsubstantiated name-calling you know.
73

Miss H,

07/01/2009 09:47:27
67 Talk about what? The Tories are not in a position to offer anything - they are not elected yet. They may or may not be the next government of the UK but that is actually irrelevant at this time.

Ironically SNP ministers are being lambasted for playing politics with the issue when the opposite is true. Both Labour and the Tories are playing politics. The SNP isn't.
74

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 09:47:28
SM753 @ 56 The bonds are for current and projected government costs. The UK government is betting that the bank bailout and the 12bn VAT cut will and other changes will swing the economy back into growth this year. However I have read mostly different opinions that the recession will be longer and with 3m unemployed by this time next year so more bonds will have to be issued to cover the extra.

The UK government is borrowing money to spend on infrastructure projects are they not? They are borrowing money against future tax receipts from us.

John is asking that some of this capital is used to build the bridge and offset by future reductions in capital spend. Exactly what the UK government are planning to do to kick start the economy.

Again the current UK government and previous executive have committed future Scottish and UK Governments to PFI/PPP expenditure, without knowing what state the future budgets will be.
75

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 09:51:29
Under the terms of the Scotland Act the Scottish Government is not allowed to borrow money directly.
The Scottish Futures Trust will be used by local authorities and similar bodies (eg FETA) to raise money for capital projects.
It is high time that the people of Scotland had a government which was able to borrow money, we would not be waiting on the scraps from Westminster's profligate table.
The Treasury has refused to fund the new Forth Bridge on the grounds that there will be no income from the bridge to repay the debt,(ie tolls).
London's crossrail project is supposed to pay back the sixteen billion invested capital over a number of years from passenger fares. Does anybody outside government think that this is even possible or likely to happen. The most likely scenario is that the debt will be quietly written off in some way somewhere down the line.
76

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 09:53:58
Also SM753 the next three years budgets are using money that is funded through the bonds issued, so that money is being borrowed against a projected budget requirement.

What if there is a general election before year three? Surely that is tying in a new government to that budget?

Do you think that the project UK government budget three years from now will be accurate, or do you think like myself and others that the recession will be longer and deeper than the treasury are forcasting?
77

Nevsky,,

Moscow 07/01/2009 09:54:09
85 sm753#

Funny as Labour has just commited the UK taxpayer to repaying billion upon billion for a failed bailout which will extend well beyon this and the next election and thrown out all of their so called Golden Rules in the process.

Are you advocating that no expenditure can be committed to that extends past the current term of a government..lol..buffoon!

Perhaps you could suggest another and ore cost effective alternative that that proposed by the SNP?

Doubt it!
78

Miss H,

07/01/2009 09:54:38
86 Very simply - all parties other than the Greens have agreed that a new Forth crossing is necessary.

Labour (and I would assume the Tories) are arguing for a PFI/PPP contract. Like other PFI/PPP contracts it would have a lifetime of at least twenty years, probably more like 30.





79

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 09:58:27
SM753 The UK government are doing that at the moment they are getting a cash advance to stimulate the economy then reducing expenditure and raising taxation in later years. They are tying in a later government and the taxpayer to pay the bills for there current decision making.
80

Wardog™,

07/01/2009 10:00:05
86. Sm753

"...HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT OF 2009 COMMIT THE GOVERNMENT OF 2014 TO MAKE A CASH ADVANCE?...."

Your so far off the mark it's becoming ludicrous


Here's a question for you.

Has Labour committed the Government of 2014 to spending £250BILLIONN on a new Trident System?

From which budget did the £12BILLION VAT Cut come from?

81

Hugh Roscombe,

07/01/2009 10:01:25
sm753

Isn't PFI the same thing? Governments committing future governments blah blah blah. When John Major brought in PFI, labour called it creeping privatisation. Once in power they embraced it wholeheartedly.

Patricia Hewitt: "...back door form of privatisation"

Alistair Darling: "Apparent savings now could be countered by the formidable commitment on revenue expenditure in years to come".

I'll not even begin to list all the snouts in the trough MPS who have benefited from PFI.
82

Observer,,

07/01/2009 10:07:12
94 Smee you keep on asking the same question over and over again. All it does is show your lack of understanding of how government finances work. Everyone has explained this to you but you just don't seem to get it.
83

Elethiomel,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 10:08:18
#81 Ok then, it's a length comparison contest and not about deciding the best funding mechanism for a crossing. I perhaps didn't choose my words all that carefuly but it's pretty clear what I meant

This debate is far less about funding than it is about political position, otherwise the SNP would have at least talked to the Tories. How the bridge will be funded will be decided by whoever postures best which in this case will probably be the UK Government as they hold all the financial strings.
84

frank mcbride,

lusitania 07/01/2009 10:08:51
#69, TWC.

The duplicity of NuLabour, and Brown in particular, knows no bounds.

Be prepared for accellerated spending, on infrastructure, in E&W being announced in the next 2 months. The reason given for Scotland not being included will be the SG's responsibility for infrastructure, in Scotland: "that is the responsibility of the SG, and as such, it is up to the administration in Edinburgh to bring forward its own proposals".

He will say that PFI/PPP is available, as is the restructuring of the SB to 2011 thus implying that the SG has the same latitude as Westminster, but is not willing to use it. In this he will be willingly supported by the Media in Scotland.

"I will use ANY means to preserve the Union (even to the extent of destroying Scotland)." G.Brown.

Anyone will doubts this is seriously deluded.
85

Darien,

Panama 07/01/2009 10:09:35
#sm753: "Your Finance "Minister" has just asked the current government - in 2009 - to commit the government of 2014 to providing a multi-billion sub over three years"

Big deal! Brownshirt's Britain now has so many £ zillions of debt it will take the next several generations to pay back through ever higher British taxes. He has committed us and our children and theirs to pay ever more taxes over the next several decades. This is because of his economic mismanagement and the fact his beloved Britain plc was allowed to be so much more highly leveraged than any other country. It was his strategy to build up a 'strong' global financial centre in London that turned out to be no more than a pack of cards built on debt - he is a fraud.

By the way, put £2bn into context will you. For £2bn you would be lucky to buy one nuclear sub nowadays, and that is tax revenue squandered. Brown should hand over the money to Swinney now and do the people of Fife a favour for once. But we won't hold our breath - this is the type of behaviour Scots have come to expect from British Nationalists who hold Scotland's purse strings.

Silver spoon son of the manse teenage genious or not, Brown should be run out of Fife now.
86

Nevsky,,

Moscow 07/01/2009 10:10:54
94 sm753#

Quite simple, they agree it and vote it through the commons...Tories seem favourable to the idea it seems!

Difficult to understand?

87

brownlie,

07/01/2009 10:14:38
62 Donnie Murdo

What is the Tory Party's policy on ferry fares to the Western Isles?

Will they re-introduce tolls on the Skye bridge?

Will they re-introduce the poll tax so beloved by islanders?

Have the ferry fares gone down recently?

Who was responsible for the fares going down?

Have fuel costs on the islands gone down as a result?

Has this created any benefit for the islands and islanders?
88

Jimmy Le Pie,

07/01/2009 10:14:53
I see yet another one of New Labour Sleaze and Corruption's finest has found himself caught with his snout firmly in the trough. No, I don't think it's an ex Glasgow East MP.

Come on down John McVicar, former chief of the Glasgow Housing Association, who fraudulently claimed benefits.
The Labour Party activist, who was elected to the GHA board in the summer of 2005 and is vice chairman of Maryhill Local Housing Association. He has overseen the evictions of tenants who have fallen behind in rent while he himself was falsely claiming benefits. He has also resigned from Maryhill Local Housing Authority.

Does he share an office with alleged fraudster, David Marshall, who is alleged to have illegally fiddled £750,000 in expenses?????

McVicar's fraud spanned 14 years!!

Thank God New Labour Sleaze and Corruption have been kicked out of office, never to return.

Vote SNP, for a fairer Scotland for EVERYONE!
89

noswod,

Honestas 07/01/2009 10:16:31
Jockies, there is no such thing as a free bridge ! What is wrong with making the users pay for it like the first Forth bridge at no cost to the tax payers. The answer is of course the SNP obsession with the dependency culture, everything must be free and paid for by free money from whitehall. When will Slamond and his cronies get real. Scotlamd is bust, it is entirely dependant on hand outs from Whitehall. If Slamond had kept his mouth shut and had the long term interests of Scotland at heart by now, The Waverely Line would have been started, EARL i.e the plan to put a new Waverely under Edinburgh Airport would have been statring and the money under a PFI would have been in place for a New full sized not slimmed down second Forth Bridge would be in place. About £6bn's worth of infrastructual spend urgently needed at a time when Scotlands economy is collasping. What have the Nats done given us unsustainable free car parking at hospitals and a proposal for a new Poll Tax. Absolutely madness kick them out, Nationalism has been proved as another fix for the dependency culture from the Lawyers and DOctors to the Methedrone user than permeates Scotish society and is funded by Whitehall.
90

Observer,,

07/01/2009 10:17:05
100 You are dense. Just repeating something doesn't make it so. Jesus Christ how do you think Governments both local and national actually do anything if they have to pay for it all up front ? Nothing would ever get done. The govt in power (or council) makes the commitment if they have the mandate and succeeding Governments (or councils)inherit that. It happens all the bloody time.
91

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 10:18:58
100 Yes you can decide to repeal Trident but that is a totally different thing from infrastructure. D'oh.
92

brownlie,

07/01/2009 10:20:36
100 sm753

I haven't got it yet!

If the PFI contracts are binding contracts enforceable in courts what happens if the PFI providers under-estimates or the contract price is reviewed?

Would the government throw good money after bad and bail the provider out?

Alternatively, could the government take the provider to court to ensure the contract was carried out to the letter and for the original price?

Have any instances occurred of the two options above being used?
93

Observer,,

07/01/2009 10:21:47
105 IT IS OUR MONEY YOU DIMWIT. We are just asking for an advance in a reprofiled spend. You are just thick and don't understand this I am fed up wasting my time on you for the fourth day running. Bye.
94

Nevsky,,

Moscow 07/01/2009 10:24:08
105 sm753#

Considering it is the Conservatives who are approaching the SNP to discuss the matter it makes your scenario a little unlikely don't you think.

Swinney is neither a lar nor stupid..you are a bit ridiculous though!
95

frank mcbride,

lusitania 07/01/2009 10:24:24
#94, sm753.

OK, ok, enough!!!

Explain to the assembled masses, please.

1. The Trident replacement.
2. The Aircraft cariers.
96

brownlie,

07/01/2009 10:25:15
105 sm753

If Gordon Brown, on behalf of the Government, borrowed money from, say, Saudi Arabia and then loses the election could Mr Osborne say to the Saudis we did not borrow the money you'll have to get it back from Mr Brown?
97

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 10:26:39
100 As far as I am aware a UK Government has never defaulted on a bond repayment. All government borrowing is deferred taxation.

Also the cash advance would be required within the next two years and not start in 2014.

Again the UK government is planning in doing the same thing, there budget plans could be ignored by a new conservative government e.g. a new government might drastically reduce expenditure and increase taxation.

So that argument doesn't stack up.
98

brownlie,

07/01/2009 10:26:44
111 sm753

No, No, No - be fair. I asked the questions first so go ahead and answer then I'll address yours.
99

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 10:27:52
110 You don't even understand your own argument do you.
100

brownlie,

07/01/2009 10:28:22
117 sm753

PS: Is there anything trivial about PFI? There certainly is nothing trivial about the profits to be made from it.
101

G,

dundy 07/01/2009 10:28:26
Come on we all know that the SNP are completely unbothered about building this bridge...they are only interested in picking funding fights...
SO are they working in Scotland's interests???? Or their own?
102

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 10:31:01
115 OK so basically you are saying that a new government are going to stop funding Scotland YOU DIMWIT.

It is our money, it belongs to us via the Scotland Act. An inheritor Government could renege on the Bridge payments by repealing the Scotland Act, devolution, and the Scottish Parliament, but I don't anticipate that happening.
103

Faux Cul,

07/01/2009 10:32:01
I suggest we just ignore See

He is banging his head off the wall trotting out the same old mantra; defending the indefencible.

He is a member of the Flat Earth Club and is politically bankrupt.


Don't talk to him, it only encourages his drivel.

104

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 10:32:34
In answer to your scenario it could happen, any future government could withdraw funds at anytime during that project, however do you think that would happen?

Would a future tory government reduce the money for the new FRB when it was under construction is that a feasible scenario?
105

Nevsky,,

Moscow 07/01/2009 10:33:04
121 sm753#

If it is debated in the commons and passed then it is agreed isn't it?

Or does a parliament only agree to policy within it's own term of Government?

No commitment or long term planning takes place in Westminster on behalf of the country then?
106

Ananurhing,

07/01/2009 10:34:12
Does anyone else find it galling that serial expenses scammer Yvette Cooper has the power to stymie spending on Scottish infrastructure.

" because it would mean bringing forward spending allocations for budgets many years away"

Yet it's okay to stick it on our grandchildren's PPP/PFI credit card. Without their consent.

Wonder if my bank would do the same for me? New extension? No problem. Don't worry, we'll bill your yet to be born grandchildren for it!

107

Nevsky,,

Moscow 07/01/2009 10:34:51
New Year..same old lingering humiliation for the arrogant sm753.
108

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 10:35:59
123 Yes you are right Faux up to a point but it needs to be amphasised that Westminster do not have the option of cancelling giving Scotland our bleedin' money if a new Govt gets in. It's our money we are just asking to reprofile the spend.
109

Nevsky,,

Moscow 07/01/2009 10:37:09
128 sm753#

Olympics?
110

Hugh Roscombe,

07/01/2009 10:38:36
IT CAN'T BE DONE - IT CAN'T BE DONE!

But it was done - banks were nationalised.
111

Miss H,

07/01/2009 10:39:35
sm753 Your arguments are becoming, on the face of it, increasingly preposterous.
Unless you are suggesting that a future Westminster administration will abolish devolution, the Scottish Parliament’s funding is guaranteed.

The funding for the new Forth Crossing is part of that funding. It is not extra funding. It is not a ‘sub’. It is not a ‘loan’. Under the terms of the Scotland Act the Treasury has the powers to advance funding. The fact that it has not been done so far does not mean that it cannot be done.

I don’t actually know if you are stupid or clever in what you are saying. All of your arguments support the case for Scottish independence or at the very least full fiscal autonomy – whether intentionally or not.

It may be that you are simply posing as a unionist to make that case. If that is how things are well done – if not, you are your own worst enemy!
112

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 10:40:31
SM753 Governments put in place spending plans that affect future governments all the time.

113

Nevsky,,

Moscow 07/01/2009 10:41:53
133 sm753#

Tories don't seem to agree with you..see above article!
114

brownlie,

07/01/2009 10:43:21
133 sm753

Can you cut out the insults and the side-tracking, please, and answer my question regarding the PFI Contracts?
115

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 10:44:08
133 You are ''Union is Best'' in disguise.

What else do you think an inheritor government could cancel apart from the Scottish block grant.

Christmas ?

You give idiots a bad name.
116

Embra Don,

07/01/2009 10:44:40
#56 sm753,
By using PPP those who "negotiate" the deal commit future governments/local authorities/toll payers/taxpayers to make payments up to 30 years into the future. Why is that ok but committing direct government spending bad?
117

Jimmy Le Pie,

07/01/2009 10:45:54
Will the replacement Trident junk be bought under PPP/PFI???
118

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 07/01/2009 10:46:13
"Not legally or constitutionally possible." 133

Neither was some of the things Darling did to force the HBOS take over but he waived the rules and changed the legislation and law to achievee his goal. Also, the lending "legislation" was torn up in order to allow even more government borrowing.

Since a precedent has been set, then they can advance the cash.
119

Nevsky,,

Moscow 07/01/2009 10:46:27
Interesting that SM753 seems to know better than the Conservative Shadow Cabinet.

Arrogant buffoon busy shooting himself in the foot to save a bit of face lol!
120

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 10:48:08
128 sm756 construction is due to begin in 2011, so money will be required from that point until completion, unless you are advocating changing the standard terms from 30 days to 6 years.
121

brownlie,

07/01/2009 10:50:24
137 Observer

Can I suggest to you that you look at Union is Best's overall contributions in general rather than in isolation and you will see a trend which would, in all probability, change your opinion?
122

Wardog™,

07/01/2009 10:50:37
Smee

"... there is NO way for the current government to commit that of 2014 to advance extra cash to the Scottish Executive of 2014...."

How is the 2014 Commonwealth games being funded Smee?


Your point is getting weaker by the minute.

Yes it is feasible that a future Government could it it wanted to change spending priorities but some items but it can't write off ANY Debt that the previous Government has run up.

From your logic, the Scottish Government should be in a position to write off PFU Debt.




HOW DID THE LABOUR EXECUTIVE OF 2000-2007 COMMIT THE CURRENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT TO SPENDING ON PFI DEBT?








ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CAN CHOOSE TO IGNORE THHE SPENDING IMPOSED ON IT FROM THE PREVIOUS EXECUTIVE?



Nonsensical drivel as usual from you, your dealing with hypothetical rubbish......




123

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 10:53:09
145 I was being sarcastic. Union is Best is actually not as clever a smee in showing up the unionist argument as idiocy.
124

frank mcbride,

lusitania 07/01/2009 10:53:12
sm753.

Did you write the "Intelligence" paper that took the UK into the Iraq War?
125

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 10:53:50
SM753 nobody is arguing that a future government can change / ignore a previous spending commitment, the question is why would they for an important infrastructure project such as the new FRB?

The UK government is no different they are starting projects that will be go over to the next parliament.
126

Wardog™,

07/01/2009 10:54:32

150. Bingo


127

brownlie,

07/01/2009 10:55:03
144 sm753

Not to me you didn't. My question was specifically to you as you appear to know so much about PFI/PPP.

Are you defending the PFI/PPP on behalf of the Tory party?

We all know that you are not a Labour supporter despite defending them to the hilt on a daily basis.
128

John Jamieson,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 10:55:30
The Scottish Government appears to be the only arm of authority, local and national that cannot make any commitment which would result in a financially being placed on an authority in the future.
Think about this for a moment, it is complete lunacy.
Would any PPP/PPI contractor take on the building of a school, hospital or bridge if the contract was only for the duration of that administration ?
The most extreme case is of course the UK government where the Prime Minister can terminate it at any time.
129

Nevsky,,

Moscow 07/01/2009 10:57:55
147 sm753#

Discuss what? Your whole argument has been that there is legally and constitutionally nothing to discuss..it simple can't be done right?

If you concede that something can be done (that is why the Tories want to discuss it i presume)then you whole argument is as usual a load of nonsense...as in most cases it usually is!

130

brownlie,

07/01/2009 10:58:36
148 Observer

Grovelling apologies. Sorry, I got distracted some-one posting an unprecedented combination of arrogance and ignorance. I'll get my sack-cloth and ashes!
131

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 11:00:11
154 Are you suggesting that Westminster can withold money paid by Scottish tax-payers on a whim ? Because they are in a bad mood ? If we beat them at football ?
132

Boab1,

07/01/2009 11:07:03
I think the SNP are winning the argument over this.

I missed the chance to comment on the story that Labour want an immediate inquiry into this. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Iain Gray said, prior to his selection as leader of the MSPs in Scotland, that an alternative to Council Tax would be his highest priority and he's not going to come up with that until 2011. Labour must, therefore, be looking for this inquiry to start about the same time!
133

Wardog™,

07/01/2009 11:07:16

154. Smee

"...There is NO way the current government can commit its successors to make such a payment......"


"such a payment"

So what your arguing about is simple the 'type' of funding..

Today you say it isn't a DEBT, well that's progress from a few days back.

You seem to now concede that it is indeed a CASH ADVANCE for a key infrastructure project which happens to be in Scotland and under Scottish Government (An elected body) control.

Can you explain to all those that may not know, why this type of 'borrowing' and 'repayment' is ok under PFI where private companies benefit?



Scotland Act 1998 Chapter46
Section III : 66 Borrowing by the Scottish Ministers etc
Section III : 67 Lending by the Secretary of State

(2) Amounts required for the repayment of, or the payment of interest on, sums borrowed under this section shall be charged on the Fund.

(3) Sums borrowed under this section shall be repaid to the Secretary of State at such times and by such methods, and interest on them shall be paid to him at such rates and at such times, as the Treasury may from time to time determine.

Black & White Smee

It is simply Treasury Intransigence that is preventing this model working.

Game Set Match as you say

134

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 11:08:10
154 sm753 the cash advance is debt, as I already wrote construction is due to begin in 2011 and be completed in 2016, the monies will be required for those years.

The money will come out of projected UK government borrowing for those years.
135

Wardog™,

07/01/2009 11:14:14

154. Smee

You continue to say the Scottish Government is like 'any other government department" but then refer to the Scotland Act.

A piece of primary constitutional legislation which sets up a framework for relations between two wholly elected bodies.

Which is it Smee?

Your whole argument actually turns on the 'type of funding.

Why are Labour pushing for PFI,

There was a benefit to this in the past in so far as it kept debts off balance, this is not the case anymore.

Debt from Government Borrowing v PFI Debt is the same in the eyes of the regulators from April this year.

There is absolutely no benefit in using PFI if you can borrow money at lower governmental rates. To advocate to do so is lunacy as David Whitton demonstrated two nights ago on newsnight.

Labour are on a hiding to nothing with this I'm afraid






136

Wardog™,

07/01/2009 11:17:08


What's becoming increasingly clear is that Labour are entirely out of touch.

It's like they are in denial over the Tory PFI.

Brown himself admitted that UK borrowing will likely hit 80-85% GDP in the next year. Why do they want to increase that by using PFI.

Why are they forcing Scotland to make cuts whilst allowing London to built infrastructure fundamentally based on borrowing low governmental rates?


Brown is yet again punishing Scotland.

Glenrothes, take note


137

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 11:17:29
After 1997, the Scots Tories were sidelined permanently, and have very little influence in present day Scotland, and it appears a sign of desperation on the part of Miss Goldie, and David Mundell, their only MP, and Shadow spokesman on Scottish Affairs(sic), at Westminster?

The Scots Tories still have a huge mountain of Himalayan proportions to climb before they will ever become acceptable en masse again to the Scottish Electorate? You reap what you sow.
138

,

07/01/2009 11:29:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
139

,

07/01/2009 11:29:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
140

,

07/01/2009 11:42:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
141

Darien,

Panama 07/01/2009 11:49:50
#168 Traquir: ". £1.3 billion On MI5/MI6 centered in England Particularly insulting since MI5 was (is ? ) used to spy and infiltrate the SNP.

Aye, Perfidious Albion ye cannae trust. "Is" is the correct tense. That is what they are there for, to 'protect' GB, in their own quaint way of course.

What is worrying is that GB Security services view Scottish independence as a threat to Britain. In that sense the SNP Government is the 'enemy' of the GB state. GB security services view the SNP Government as no better than terrorists.

And that is also Gordon Browns take.

142

,

07/01/2009 11:56:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
143

Embra Don,

07/01/2009 11:56:59
#155 1, 2, watch..,
Absolutely spot on.

#128 sm753 - With regard to the timetable for the proposed bridge, there will be very considerable expenditure required before construction starts. e.g. land acquisition costs, legal fees in respect of that and any necessary CPOs, design fees, site investigation (I see that a drilling barge has already been on site) and so on. This may amount to 10 -20% of the total cost. Were PFI to be used, another very substantial set of legal fees, funding arrangement fees and sundry sweeteners would also be required. (apparently amounting to 50% of the construction cost in the case of the Skye Bridge fiasco)
144

Brian Hill,

07/01/2009 12:02:58
#12 the current leader of the unionist trolls says of Traquir:

All he can spout is................

SEE TINYURL
SEE TINYURL
SEE TINYURL
SEE TINYURL

A jaw dropping, astonishing and childish thing to say to anyone in debate. How can you possibly attack an opponent for constantly backing up what he/she says with verifiable, easily accessible proofs?

# 169 1,2,watch. Thanks for that, didn't know Deans' embarrassment of Labour had come so soon, though there were those more knowledgeable than I who forecast this
at the time.

But of course this won't be a "a devastating blow" for Labour, no doubt 'getting rid of' Deans will be 'good management' on their part.
145

,

07/01/2009 12:09:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
146

,

07/01/2009 12:10:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
147

Miss H,

07/01/2009 12:16:55
138 Yes I get it. It is you that doesn’t and it is becoming painful to watch.
The Secretary of State can make any order for any amount. There is no constraint. There is no barrier to what the Scottish Government has put forward. The Treasury can of course say ‘we don’t usually do that’. They don’t usually become majority shareholders in high street banks either. It doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

There is absolutely no reason why the funding of the new Forth Crossing cannot be arranged as the SNP suggests and you know what – at the end of the day it will be because it is a sensible proposal.

Even you must realise that your tactic of accusing SNP ministers of being ‘thick’ makes you look like a fool and not the intellectual genius you are posing as. If it was the case that individual ministers did not understand how the finances work (and I am sure that was in fact the case with Labour) they have civil servants to advise them – civil servants who are a part of the UK civil service. You are not one of them, you are trying to pass yourself off as some kind of expert on the basis of what? The amount of time you spend surfing the net? Give it up, you are just making an a@se of yourself.
148

Wardog™,

07/01/2009 12:19:32

105 sm753,

"Explain how this cannot happen:

2009 - Hapless Swinney "Can I have £2bn over 3 years from 2014?"

2009 - the fragrant Yvette Cooper-Balls "Yes, sure."

2010 - General Election. Tory win.

2014 - Hapless Swinney "Mr Osborne, can I have that money?

2014 - George Osborne "No. I didn't promise you it. Buy your bridge yourself.""



or


2009 - Scottish Government get agreement for funding to be put in place for Forth Road bridge, they receive £2Billion with an agreement to pay this back by receiving a suitable deduction from any future block grants inc interest.

2010 - Land Acuisition and Preliminary Work Begins

2010 - Conservatives are elected and continue the agreement to deduct agreed amounts from the Scottish Block Grant

2011 - Preparation & Tender Documents issued

2011 - Scotland votes YES for Independence, negotiations begin which include all debt repayment share, oil revenues etcetc

2012 - Construction Phase Begins

2015 - Bridge Opens

2016 - Existing Forth Road Bridge is converted to Light Railway & Bus Lane.

2021 - Scotland Celebrates being 10 Years Old




149

MWM,

Argyll 07/01/2009 12:21:15
Miss H @ 177

I nominate you for the 'Post of the Day'


150

,

07/01/2009 12:23:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
151

Wardog™,

07/01/2009 12:25:10


178. oops


2011 SNP Elected as the First Government of Independent Scotland

Labour slaughtered as a series of scandals involving public finance initiatives hits their leaders.
152

Embra Don,

07/01/2009 12:30:23
#168 Traquir , Alba,

I understand that the expenditure at Aldermaston, as it is "secret" is deemed "unallocated" when the proportion of Government spending in the component countries of the UK is calculated. Presumably that also applies to GCHQ, MI5/6 etc.


153

,

07/01/2009 12:31:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
154

brownlie,

07/01/2009 12:33:42
174 Brian Hill

Brian, if Rufus is the leader no wonder they wander astray so often. Rufus's contributions always remind me of an earnest but less intelligent Boris Johnson.
155

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 12:36:19
184 I think you mean who held Glenrothes with a reduced majority don't you ?
156

Luigiana,

Aberdeen (North of the Forth) 07/01/2009 12:36:42
2015 - the so-called super-carriers, newly-built at a cost of 20 billion, but already obselete, are arranged bow to stern across the Firth of Forth between North and South Queensferry.

2016 - with no resources to operate the supercarriers, and no geopolitical use for them, they are, however wide enough to accomodate a six-lane motorway, and are quickly tarred over and connected to the M90, thereby ending the problem of the Forth crossing forever.

2020 - the gleaming structure will turn a rusty hue and be fondly named by the people of Fife as "Brown's Bridge". The old bridge continues to ping.
157

brownlie,

07/01/2009 12:37:02
184 Rules

Have Labour agreed to run your federation from Westminster?
158

,

07/01/2009 12:42:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
159

,

07/01/2009 12:43:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
160

Wardog™,

07/01/2009 12:44:10


184. The same people that are privatising post offices?

I don't think Glenrothes saw that coming did you?
161

Brian Hill,

07/01/2009 12:58:13
#185 brownlie

brownlie, Rufus and earnest definitely go hand in hand, as he thrashes about trying to make sense of people who argue with facts he can't control.

Boris is at least well educated with major league personality going for him, for me he is the acceptable face of Conservatism unlike La Grande Vache Thatcher and her like.

The trouble for Rufus and his fellow unionist trolls is, as Traquir says in #180 they cannot cope with information which is out there in the public domain, it makes arguing their spurious case infinitely more difficult.

162

HughB,

Edinburgh 07/01/2009 13:06:20
Did London Labour not announce the London Olympics before they had worked out a proper budget or where the money was coming from?

Are they using PPP/PFI to pay for the Olympics?

I guess not - it's just us that are paying for it.

Most of it will only be used for a few months, while a bridge built in Scotland will last for decades.

Tell me which is the better value?
163

brownlie,

07/01/2009 13:07:25
192 sm753

Talking of "no answers", have you got the answers to my questions at 107? I thought you'd know it off the top of your head but you've had time to research it now?
164

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 13:08:26
SM @192 They answers and examples you were given make perfect sense, they disproved your arguments.

The previous executive and present government did exactly the same, government commits future parliaments to pay for the bills of decisions they take

I think you are letting your visceral dislike of John Swinney to cloud your logic, your last sentence quote:-

"So why ask for one?

A serious commitment or a mendacious ploy to divert attention from the total failure of SFT?

Evidence of stupidity, an attempt at deception, or both?"

Contradicts the previous quote :-

""Hapless" Swinney has asked for a financial commitment from the current UK government which would be binding on its successor.

A quick glance at the Scotland Act (Part III, Section 64) demonstrates that there is NO WAY such a commitment can be made:

"The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments into the Fund out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine."

165

Brian Hill,

07/01/2009 13:11:31
Rufus to sm753:

Won't be able to meet you tonight at the Union Jack Club for re runs of Last Night at The Proms, my head is really hurting with all those blo*dy Tiny URLs from that really annoying Tra blo*dy quir!!!

Why can't he just screech like a big girls blouse, like we do, instead of confusing everybody with all these unnecessary facts???

166

Embra Don,

07/01/2009 13:13:28
#192 sm753
The almighty Gordon, saviour of the world, is currently proposing a fiscal stimulus including major expenditure on infrastructure projects. As these will not be possible through PFI, the banking system having collapsed under his regime, they will have to be financed by direct government spending. Of course this will only be possible in England and Wales according to your theories. Is this a union dividend?
167

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 13:16:46
Sm753 of course it's a serious commitment at any time in the future a new government could really reverse a huge swathe of the decisions of previous administrations but that has always been the case.

Your case seems to be based on that because this could happen the money should not be used, I and others have pointed out that same process could be applied to any decision taken by the present UK government of projects in other parts of the UK, by a future UK administration.

So why pontificate otherwise it makes no logical sense.
168

GB's Dairy,

07/01/2009 13:46:27
sm753

It has been noted here at HQ that you have lately been letting the side down and making statements you are unable to back up.

A word to the wise, if I may. When you are asked questions whose answers might embarass yourself, and the union, use the ambiguous "commercial confidentiality" and/or "public interest" which always works for us.

I've noticed that you over-used the old ploy of answering a question with a question but that does not always work, especially, if they know the answer to the question as they appear to do quite frequently.

I regret to inform you that if your performance, which we are of course, monitoring, does not improve you may be forced to attend the next "Blustering, Bullocks and Evasion" session under Lord George who is busy at the moment on the FOI Front in one of his silly and futile attempts to embarass the SNP. He was chosen for this as the prime example of embarassment.
169

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 13:55:44
Quote:-

"any time in the future a new government could really reverse a huge swathe of the decisions of previous administrations but that has always been the case."

AT LAST!

You admit there is no way the current government can commit its successor to provide advanced funding.

Sm753 Everybody has been saying that for the last couple of days it's not a Eureka moment, that's been the case since Pitt the younger was in breeches.

This is no different from the decisions that the present UK government are taking presently, a future tory government might scrap ID cards for example.

I and others are being critical because what is happening is pure politics nothing else, it isn't about capital spending or budgets it's pure politics.

I think the reasons that the tory were giving the knock back is that to enter into talks with a labour minister whilst the tories are making hay that they have had talks with the SNP is not clever and John saw right through it.
170

TWC,

07/01/2009 14:12:16
82 57vintage,Keith (Sorry I was out for a Hike)
I am not an old firm fan and I am not a Nat, I watch the posts and I have NEVER seen you criticise the Labour Movement in spite of the fact that they are so far from their socialist background it makes me Puke.
You most certainly hate the Nats but that is not a policy it's a hang up not inlike bigotry.
The Bridge is a solid infrastructure proposal which all Scots should support and there is no reason why it should not form part of the UK Fiscal stimulus.
All this anti Scottish posturing by New Labour has made my mind up;I will never vote New Labour while they are financially ruled from Westminster.
171

Miss H,

07/01/2009 14:55:01
200 OMG. They can reverse decisions but not contracts.

Example – SNP reversed decision to shut down A&E depts.

But they cannot make PFI car parks at hospitals free (without having to pay out tens of millions of pounds) because they can’t reverse contracts.

You might have an inkling of a point if the decision to build a new Forth crossing was controversial – if an argument could be made that a future Scottish administration would decide against it and just pay the penalty on any contracts that had already been signed.

However for that scenario to work we would be looking at a majority Green administration because everyone else is for it.

Which is why this argument is going nowhere.
172

,

07/01/2009 14:57:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
173

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 14:57:36
205 Bird of Prey will pan what you say,flutter me
Very weak argument, in that case why is Labour bulldozing ahead with the £20 billion ID card scam
======================================================

To keep tabs on undesirables like you.
174

,

07/01/2009 14:59:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
175

,

07/01/2009 15:01:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
176

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 07/01/2009 15:05:46
sm753 Yes they have! Folk have used the example of PFI and bonds as examples of current government decisions being set that will have to be borne by future governments without budgets being known.

Which contradicts your statements of present governments not passing on future spending commitments to a future government.

Quote:-

"This is garbage.

A court cannot enforce a commitment from Government to Executive if the relevant legislation simply says that the Government simply has to provide finance as it sees fit."

What has a court to do with this discussion and who is asking a court to enforce what exactly?

Quote:-

"All Labour have said is "we cannot give commitments against budgets which are not set". Now, one might wish for them to be honest enough to add "...and we might not be in office then anyway", but that's not done, is it?"

The UK government are already doing this by borrowing money to inject into the economy.

As far your statements about playing politics well it's interesting if a wee bit absurd.
177

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 15:10:12
197 Brian Hill,07/01/2009 13:11:31
Rufus to sm753:

Won't be able to meet you tonight at the Union Jack Club for re runs of Last Night at The Proms, my head is really hurting with all those blo*dy Tiny URLs from that really annoying Tra blo*dy quir!!!
====================================================

Hey Brian, do you not have something better to do?

Like complaining about the cloud over the North Sea on the BBC weather forecast??

HA HA

What a chump.
178

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 15:11:44
Sorry, Bird of Prey, I will try harder next time.
179

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 07/01/2009 15:33:15
Allow more people to work from home and you won't need a bridge. the economy will keep ticking and the environment will get some respite...
180

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 15:37:48
8 Brian Hill,Edinburgh 05/12/2008 02:30:12

It (The BBC) seems to think that if news is not negative it's not news. Even the weather forecast shows rain falling into the middle of the North Sea or Atlantic.

Rain = depressing, it also = discouraging for tourist
We even have snow falling in the middle of the sea, what the h*ll's that all about?
=====================================================

HAHAHAHA

Brian its all a conspiracy.

The weather man is out to get you.
181

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 15:41:38
219 Bird of Prey will pan what you say,embra 07/01/2009 15:27:58
Is this the way forward for funding projects in Scotland ? feed the fat pigs but screw the tax payers at the same time.
===================================================

Not a problem for you though eh?

Have you ever paid any tax?
182

57vintage,

Keith 07/01/2009 15:51:41
#203

I don't care whether or not you are a fan of either of the Old Firm or a Nat.

I have certainly criticised Labour, the SNP, the tories (that's a lifetime hobby, I'm afraid). It may be that the SNP take most of my flak due to the fact that they are acting like every other elected set of representatives by seeming to me to put party political issues before the community good, just like the other free marketeer parties masquerading as representatives of the people.

For your information, I worked for the SNP in 1970, voted for them in 79 to try to keep Pollock out in Moray, again in 92 when "Free By 93" was promised. I was also heavily involved in "Yes For Scotland" in 1978-79 and campaigned in 97 for a Yes-Yes vote in the referendum. I worked for Labour in 97 to get rid of the tories but was quickly disillusioned by the tory behaviour of the Blair lot, never more so than by the run-up and the eventual invasion of Iraq. I have never been a member of any party other than the SLP from 1975-79. Having typed all that I can't fathom out why I am trying to justify myself since you have already made up your mind about me with no justification which is more your problem than mine.

Do have a nice day.
183

Hugh Roscombe,

07/01/2009 16:00:38
2004

"Tolls abolished as Executive buys back bridge from private owners
• Move results in paying £50 million for a bridge costing just £15 million in 1995
• Politically significant as bridge was first private finance initiative (PFI)"
184

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 16:01:37
224 Bird of Prey will pan what you say,embra
I own a substantial slice of West Lochaber with Ardnacarry castle in its vacinity and you ask me if i have ever paid any tax ??
=======================================================
You should fly over to Bulgaria and help them out with their energy crisis.

They have a shortage of gas.
185

Nevsky,,

Moscow 07/01/2009 16:04:20
227 Rufus#

You should go with him. They are short of circus clowns as well!
186

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 16:08:11
Ah Nevsky, The Norwegian Ambassador is back after his ban.

Is that you served your time Nevsky? You really should give up posting on here after drinking a couple of babychams.

Shame about that extra comma after your name all the same.
187

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 16:12:18
On the Weakest Link today - Immense answer

In the wild west which surname was shared by out law Butch and Fictional Character Hopalong?

Answer = Lesbian

She got to the final 2 as well.
188

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 16:16:02
My favourite is still................

Question - what are the ingredients in a margarita?

Answer - cheese and tomato
189

Hugh Roscombe,

07/01/2009 16:19:45
231 Rufus

Why are you commenting on pap TV programmes?
190

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 16:23:01
232 Hugh Roscombe,

Okay, to keep you happy, from now on I will only comment on good ones.
191

John south of Soutra,

07/01/2009 16:27:29
Incredible - out of the 1st 13 posts, 9 are by Rufus and all he is doing is spouting his usual nonsense with no sensible suggestions
192

57vintage,

Keith 07/01/2009 16:28:43
#225 Bird of Prey etc.

"You never said why you left the SNP".

I didn't because I was never a member. I thought the bit "I have never been a member of any party other than the SLP from 1975-79" might have been a clue.
193

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 16:29:59
John south of Soutra,

Untrue.

I asked why the Scottish Futures Trust is not being used to build the bridge, when the SNP said it would.

All I got back was PFI this and PFI that.

Maybe you can tell me?
194

John south of Soutra,

07/01/2009 16:35:29
Sorry mate, I used to read these comments boards but they have been hijacked by political activists like yourself, who just cut and paste info drip fed to them
195

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 16:41:09
237 John south of Soutra,07/01/2009 16:35:29
Sorry mate, I used to read these comments boards but they have been hijacked by political activists like yourself, who just cut and paste info drip fed to them
=====================================================

So you 'used to read these comments'?

As in today?
196

TWC,

07/01/2009 16:50:49
223 57vintage,Keith
You are right I have made my mind up you are a New Labour man.
I was an Old Labour man
197

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 16:54:31
240 Bird of Prey will pan what you say,embra 07/01/2009 16:49:42
Oh ho ho ho you dancer, uncle Rufus is that old he needs to be drip fed in his bed, man am i right or am i right ?
=====================================================
I am so old that I remember Bird of Prey when he was an egg.

http://www.democracyfornewmexico.com/photos/uncategorized/eggman.gif
198

Hugh Roscombe,

07/01/2009 17:06:19
2004

"Tolls abolished as Executive buys back bridge from private owners
• Move results in paying £50 million for a bridge costing just £15 million in 1995
• Politically significant as bridge was first private finance initiative (PFI)"

2006

"The private finance initiative (PFI) contract for the Inverness Airport passenger terminal has been bought out by the Scottish Executive for £27.5m. This takes the full bill to more than £36m. It is understood the terminal cost £9.6m to build."

PFI - Pure F***ing Idiocy.
199

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 17:20:06
204 You really have a problem getting your head around this don't you.

The SNP want the money in advance, accelerated funding, front loaded, to put it simply they want the money all at once instead of in dribs and drabs.

They then build the bridge.

The block grant which comes from Westminster is then reduced accordingly on a yearly basis, and future Government's budget their spend accordingly, spreading the reduction in capital spend (because of the bridge) over a long period of time, rather than a short one.

It is as previous posters have explained quite legal and proper. The frontloading of capital spend to achieve quick build is also Government policy.

Now if the bridge was commissioned through PFI the principle would be exactly the same - future Governments would have less money to work with because of PFI payments. The only difference is that they would have a LOT less money to work with to service PFI, as it is an enormously expensive way to fund capital works, which everyone in the universe and his dug now acknowledges.

I really do appeal to you to try and understand this, and stop posting rubbish.


200

Hugh Roscombe,

07/01/2009 17:42:18
April 2007

"USING private finance deals to pay for major public projects was questioned yesterday, after more than £20 million of taxpayers' money was spent returning a troubled college into public ownership.

The Scottish Funding Council (SFC) approved the £27.5 million buy-out of West Lothian College's Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract.

But in 2005, the Scottish Parliament's audit committee warned that the college faced an £11 million budget shortfall as it tried to meet its PFI payments over the next 20 years."
201

Jimmy Le Pie,

07/01/2009 18:07:06
#250 Col. BlimpIV*

I'm sure the answer is a big no!!

I suppose the nearest equivalent would be buying a hoose on a Debenhams store card over 50 years.
202

Reiver,

Galashiels 07/01/2009 18:12:52
In this time of liquidity (credit) crisis I would have thought any avenue of raising funds would be welcomed if the project was ultimately necessary, with the ultimate cost being the value of the project to the local economy ... just ask the various financiers who can't find liquidity at the moment on this.

Of course the SNP rejected the offer of a sensible dialogue ... this is because they are incapable of any sensible dialogue and because it suits their style of managing the executive (in a deplorable manner with on-going broken promises and calls of "its no ma fault, honest!") so that they can continue to quibble in a churlish manner over nothing much with their big bad fictional enemy who runs our country with our very own 'real' Government representatives - lets face it, our very own local representatives are having to stomach this nonsense from the minority executive who just want to create strife and division while letting the social services within our community that they have some responsibility for, fail in a bigger way every single time.
203

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 07/01/2009 18:24:48
How did lovely Shania Twain put it into song: "It was fun while it lasted but now I'm past it". That's the SNP. They'll go down to ignominious defeat at the next election. Won't be missed and quickly forgotten.
204

,

07/01/2009 18:49:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
205

,

07/01/2009 18:52:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
206

,

07/01/2009 18:54:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
207

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 19:53:44
257. No, saying the Secretary of State can make an award for any amount is not a reversal of saying that the Scottish block grant is 'guaranteed' by the Scotland Act ( a simplistic way of putting it, but for this purpose will do). It just means the amount issued can be varied by agreement.

No, asking for an advance of the money due to Scotland is not depriving the rest of the country, it will be depriving Scotland (marginally) for the next twenty years, by agreement.

If Wales, NI, Rutland County Council or any other body funded by the Treasury ask for an advance, then I would expect the Treasury to evaluate any bids on a business case for case basis. The Treasury has already significantly advanced funds already due to its policy of accelerated spending, a fact which yet again you ignore.

And your idea that Governments cannot make spending commitments binding their successors is ludocrous. Governments could not govern if that was the case.

The only conclusion that can be reached is that either you are monumentally thick, which is belied by your language and presentational skills, or you are the deceptive, mendacious, politically motivated liar.
208

,

07/01/2009 19:57:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
209

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 20:01:00
And it is rather amusing 257 that you - who claims (erroneously) that Governments cannot make decisions which will bind their cuccessors - appear to think that the Scottish Government should entertain talks with a Government who haven't even been elected yet.

Very amusing indeed.
210

Darien,

Panama 07/01/2009 20:01:49
#257 sm753: "What happens when Cardiff, Belfast, London and flipping Rutland County Council all stick their hands up shouting "me too"

You heard it, the Scottish Parliament compared with 'flipping' Rutland County Council. Such aspiration! (Good English word that, 'flipping'; bit of giveaway).

"a bunch of lying liars."

You mean New Labour. They'd sell their grannie. They'd have an illegal war. They'd set MI5 on the Scottish Government. They'd say boom when its bust. They have no business experience but say its no time for a novice. They'd say Scotland's oil will run out. They'd say anything, anything, to cling to power. That's New Labour for you. "a bunch of lying liars."

211

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 20:34:17
Darien its a good point you make.

These clowns in Holyrood would be incapable of running Rutland County Council.
212

,

07/01/2009 20:42:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
213

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 20:43:04
Oh dear. The oil price has collapsed another 12%.

Lucky for us we are not independent.

We would be spending more on importing Buckfast than we would be earning on oil exports.
214

,

07/01/2009 20:45:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
215

,

07/01/2009 20:49:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
216

Rufus-T-Firefly,

07/01/2009 20:51:07
I just had the misfortune of switching on the Gaelic Channel.

The news was on.

Exactly the same news stories as the main BBC News but with some ridiculous hoochter teuchter stuttering through it in a language spoken by about 5 people.

Whoever dreamed that idea up should be sacked for wasting a perfectly good Sky channel.
217

The Tin Man,

07/01/2009 20:54:16
All bridge-funding conundrums will undoubtedly be solved by introducing a 3% local Income Tax.
218

brownlie,

07/01/2009 20:56:06
Union is Best

Naughty, union, you were told at the briefing this morning to bolster Rufus's confidence as the new leader of the unionist apologists. That Jackie has ignored us again!

Private message for Rufus,

Chan'eil thu glic, amadain na galadh. I hear they're running short of morris dancers - is that rhyming slang?
219

The Tin Man,

07/01/2009 20:56:49
#270 Richard

Sorry, you have come to the wrong place if you want " honest debate and dealing in facts".

We're all mental, here.
220

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 20:58:23
265 Word soup, oh phoney one, you haven't rebutted a single thing I said.





221

Westfield Bairns,

falkirk 07/01/2009 20:58:44
sm753
Thick as a plank. Unionist Troll

Rufus-T-Firefly
Nursey know your posting again, have to up the medication. Unionist Troll

If anyone is looking for an informed debate probably better avoiding the above as they are a couple of Nulabour spin Doctors

222

The Tin Man,

07/01/2009 21:05:32
The Tin family are willing to donate one mecano set to Transport Scotland by way of 'doing their bit' to build a new Forth bridge.
223

The Tin Man,

07/01/2009 21:08:40
#276 Col.

We have been 'devolved', old chap.
224

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 07/01/2009 21:14:23
ColB, 276, If Smee knew anything about finance it would not be on these comments boards.
225

,

07/01/2009 21:15:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
226

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 21:16:48
278 Yes we are devolved, which makes it all the more remarkable that when the Scottish government actually volunteer to pull spend forward from their own budget, dovetailing remarkably well with the Treasury's spend now and spend often new found Keynesian policy, the Treasury is attempting to knock them back.

Unbelievable even.
227

The Tin Man,

07/01/2009 21:24:40
#281 Observer

The Scot exec get their block grant, and they are responsible for spending it. Bridge building is a devolved matter, so the Scot exec are responsible for funding bridges.

Westminster are responsible for providing the Scot exec with the block grant. (That's a full stop, by the way). Maybe the treasury would love to borrow the money to finance a bridge, but I don't think that is within the rules of the game.
228

Observer,,

Glasgow 07/01/2009 21:27:04
283 It's in the rules of the game Tin Man, if you know how to play it properly. The rest of the country is benefitting from accelerated spending, and so should we.
229

The Tin Man,

07/01/2009 21:27:18
#282 Col.

Do you think that government spending should be cut in 2009?

No retreat! No surrender!
230

The Tin Man,

07/01/2009 21:31:40
#284 Observer

Well don't tell me, tell John. Dorothy and myself plan to build a rainbow over the Forth.
231

puskas,

East kilbride 07/01/2009 22:37:36
The Scotsman teaboys answering their own comic book topics make a real fool of themselves worldwide.

Over in Canada at the moment our ex-pats who still have a postal vote will be voting in future elections.

SNP and Independence for Scotland is the warcry from Canada. Also NZ.

The despicable tea boys do wonders for the cause of Independence with every utterance they print on these sites..
Keep up the positive postings my fellow nats and other political groups who are immersed in this rightful cause


232

truthsleuth,

08/01/2009 00:15:33
The M6 toll cost £400million and tolls run at £4 for a car and £8 for a lorry
At £2.3billion (and rising) that would mean the tolls should be approx £20 plus for a car and £40 for a Goods Vehicle.

So it would seem someone is losing out on this deal and as usual its the taxpayer/ratepayer.

Lets be clear road users 'pay tax' the same as cigarrette smokers, drinkers etc so road tax //fuel tax is yet another tax we all moan about.

If motorists, hauliers etc want this bridge then they should pay for it just as they should pay tolls on the existing bridge. In fact both should be 'privatised' and the capital released used to reduce taxes for us all.

It would also give the bridge users the opportunity to buy shares in the Bridge company and so demonstrate their strength of feeling for the new bridge.

It would also free the rest of us from their continuous carping about how much tax they pay for this that and the other. As shareholders they could determine the tolls on the bridges and remove one more source of their complaint.

Come on
233

puskas,

East kilbride 08/01/2009 03:03:54
No 289.

NO
234

57vintage,

Keith 08/01/2009 08:52:11
#241

You're Old Labour, eh?

It was once my natural home.

Now it isn't.

New Labour most certainly isn't my home, but you can guess all you want.

There, once sentence per paragraph.

Just so that you don't have to use layout as an excuse for not reading properly.

Reading can be made easy for you by such devices.

Understanding, however, is down to you.

No saviour from on high deliver.....
235

puskas,

East kilbride 08/01/2009 12:36:34
No 241. TWC


Aye.. many of us have seen sense.

Deserting NuLabour in droves. Like many other stats the membership is near collapse unlike the figures they give.

Cathcart, Linn Cemetery in the Glasgow South are full of the faithful who had been deceived in their lifetimes.
It seems NuLabour have still to upgrade membership figures. Maybe it is more appropriate to say downsize..
236

57vintage,

Keith 08/01/2009 16:00:56
#292

As John McAllion said when he was asked why he was still in the Labour Party at an Aberdeen May Day rally event, "I haven't left Labour - it's left me".

But he saw sense and did although with Solidarity or the SSP he's pretty much in the wilderness, like so mamny of us.
237

Libertarian!,

18/01/2009 19:32:33
A road bridge could have been " built across the Atlantic linking Scotia with the US or Canada" with the many billions of sterling that has been needlssly
squanderd both by the Tories and Labour over the past thirty years. The proposed Forth road bridge could have been built a 'thousand times over' if we only had a fraction of the money wasted by both of these parties. Where is the present champagne socialists finding all this recent money which according to Brown and Darling was non-existing a few months ago?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.