Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


The missing £11m that persuaded Greens to hold out against SNP

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

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: 31 January 2009
THE deal-breaker on Wednesday was just £11 million in a Budget of £33 billion.
It was the difference between the £22 million guaranteed by John Swinney, the SNP finance secretary, for a "free insulation for every household" scheme and the £33 million demanded by the Greens as their bottom line.

In the dying minutes of the
Budget debate, Mr Swinney offered to get the £11 million from social partners, but this was too vague for the two Green MSPs whose votes then brought the Budget down.

Initially the Greens wanted £1 billion to fund the scheme to provide free insulation for 1.8 million households.

Under their proposal, £100 million would be spent every year for the next decade providing loft and cavity insulation for the homes in Scotland that needed it.

They saw this as a fair balance for them supporting a Budget with road-building projects such as the M74 extension.

They put this forward to the SNP in early October and were hopeful of getting the full or near to the full amount when in November both the SNP and Labour backed it in a meaningless vote in Holyrood.

The scheme was developed by Green councillors in West Yorkshire and the Scottish Greens' figures were based on the reduced costs achieved there.

The Greens claimed that every household in Scotland would save £340 a year in energy costs for a one-off insulation cost to the Scottish Government of about £500 per home. There would be a carbon emission reduction of 6 per cent in Scotland from this measure alone.

Their second demand was to provide home renewable energy devices, such as windmills and solar panels, under a loan scheme where the Scottish Government or local councils would take part- ownership to meet the costs.

This would also be the means of paying for difficult-to- insulate homes – about 20 per cent of the total in Scotland.

If they had got this, it would have been the biggest achievement by any Green Party in the world and many experts thought it was a good idea.

The scheme was warmly welcomed by the Scottish Building Federation, whose members have been suffering in the recession as work has dried up and thousands of jobs have been lost.

The federation's chief executive, Michael Levack, put out a supporting statement declaring that it was "precisely the sort of scheme needed in the current economic climate".

Environmentalists backed the scheme because it would tackle the carbon footprint of households and seriously reduce emissions in Scotland. And economists were impressed by the way the scheme could help tackle the recession.

Professor Brian Ashcroft, from Strathclyde University, said: "While there is always the caveat of how much money is available in the budget, it is hard to see anything wrong with the idea."

Yesterday the Greens formally resumed negotiations with Alex Salmond, the First Minister, for the first time since Mr Harvie had been ushered out of the chamber to hold discussions in the corridors of Holyrood in a bid to strike a last-minute deal.

In a statement afterwards, Mr Harvie said: "The meeting did not finalise an agreement, but it looks like one will be possible."





The full article contains 546 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

webwise,

Scotland 30/01/2009 22:24:29
It's sad that no newspaper in Scotland can bring itself to actually headline Labour when apportioning blame for the budget being voted down.

Will the newspapers ever acknowledge Labour's role in the event?
2

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 00:29:53

I suspect that the Scottish Government with more detailed figures based on the Scottish Housing Quality Survey will be able to reduce the outlined £100Million, demonstrating that to the greens will in effect increase the proportion that £33Million will cover.

It is very questionable just how detailed the Green's calculations actually are, it appears that they had taken no allowance of the various types of homes, their specific technical insulation requirements and planning approvals required to insulate 'every home', this could be better defined with a pilot scheme.

Swinney did offer a £22m pilot scheme which would be directed at properties identified in the Scottish Housing Quality Standard Audit and be used to develop ways of insulating properties that did not have cavity walls and /or lofts.


3

,

31/01/2009 00:57:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 01:04:44
£11M was the deal breaker. A 60th of the waste of money trams cost and maybe a 100th of the lost revenue in Edinburgh the tram roadworks is costing.
5

Sanny,

31/01/2009 01:12:27
The Greens only had two votes so they themselves could not defeat the budget that was down to the Lib Lab consortium. If either of these parties had voted or abstained then the budget would have been passed.

I do not believe that it was the intention of the opposition to reject the budget. They fully expected the the Greens to vote with the government and pass the budget with the smallest of margins. This would then have allowed the opposition - Labour in particular - to continue to make mischief on the basis of the paucity of the margin. Now they are hoist by their own petard! Salmond has once again shown himself to be a master in the politics of managing a minority government.
6

subrosa,

31/01/2009 01:13:06
# 2

Wardog, the installation costs of some of the Green's ideas are horrendous although I'm convinced ground source heat pumps, solar etc are the way to go. But they should be for new buildings, it's just not feasible for anyone to spend vast sums on installing this technology into an old house.

I looked very closely at installing a ground heat pump here in my 1840s home (instead of a large combi boiler). The cost of the pump work alone would be nearly £30,000 then there was the cost of the equipment to convert to heating and water plus the installation costs. As one surveyor said "We'd have to more or less knock down that side of your house to get all the pipework in."

Pity Patrick hadn't insisted on amendments to his policy to suit Scottish needs then perhaps it would have been more appreciated. He had long enough didn't he? Muttered something about October didn't he?
7

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 31/01/2009 01:28:00
The sequence of events was fascinating. Labour once again miscalculated the consequences of their actions and now bear sole responsibility for this shambles.

They are clearly now becoming more and more isolated at Holyrood. The Libdems and Tories now appear to be putting Scotland before Westminster. Labour, as usual, are doing the opposite.
8

,

31/01/2009 01:31:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

donald,

glasgow 31/01/2009 07:32:30
Broon will be pleased with Gray.
10

Ewan Randall,

31/01/2009 08:07:01
(#2) – (Wardog) – Why do you feel the SNP backed what the Greens wanted in November with a vote, and draw back so tightly after so little time?

What makes you believe the Greens haven’t taken allowance of the various types of homes?

Was not the project to be targeted at the poorer and more needy first?

Am I right in thinking the sticking point was though the SNP said they would find the extra £11 million they didn’t guarantee it would be from new money?
11

Ewan Randall,

31/01/2009 08:19:09
(#5) – (Sanny) – As you believe it wasn’t the intention of the opposition to reject the budget, and the Greens two votes weren’t enough to defeat it either, do you feel this particular impasse happening had the qualities of a coincidence?
12

Ewan Randall,

31/01/2009 08:31:14
(#7) – (connaughtboy) – Is it possible all the parties miscalculated the position they were all in?

In a parliament where there is a minority government shouldn’t there be more sounding out by each party in order to reduce such incidents which we have witnessed over this budget?
13

Grahamski,

Falkirk 31/01/2009 09:24:57
#1
There is nothing quite as pathetic as the sight of two bald men fighting over a comb. The political parties should get a grip here before they make even more of a laughing stock of themselves than they already have...
14

Curley Bill,

31/01/2009 09:33:51
Ewan Randall, getting overtime at John Smith House, are we?
Do you have any answers, or simply a spreadsheet of questions?
For us that are house bound, we have an excuse, but shouldn't a young lad like you be out playing?
Don't you think that Grahamski's a hoot?
Your question's tend to rise in inflection towards the end, so are you Australian?
Now you've seen how thick Labour are, wouldn't you like to join the EthEnPeeeee?
15

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 10:04:01
(#10) – (Ewan

"....Why do you feel the SNP backed what the Greens wanted in November with a vote, and draw back so tightly after so little time?...."

I have no idea what you talking about, can you provide some link background?


"...What makes you believe the Greens haven’t taken allowance of the various types of homes?..."

Patrick Harvie has said as much, on Newsnight he conceded that the Scottish Government held more detailed information on the Scottish Housing Quality Standard and may be able to therefore look at bulk procurement for specific scenarios thus reducing the cost.

"....Was not the project to be targeted at the poorer and more needy first?..."

NO, the Greens want a blanket provision, the SNP have advocated pilot scheme focused on the poor and establishing the different costs requried for different types of house.

"....Am I right in thinking the sticking point was though the SNP said they would find the extra £11 million they didn’t guarantee it would be from new money?...."

No you wrong, Patrick Harvie didn't accept Swinney's assurance that they would make the £11M 'happen'




Why are you asking questions that you already think you know the answers too?

16

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 31/01/2009 10:11:54
"The Greens claimed that every household in Scotland would save £340 a year in energy costs for a one-off insulation cost to the Scottish Government of about £500 per home. There would be a carbon emission reduction of 6 per cent in Scotland from this measure alone."
If we believed this was true we would improve the insulation of our 1970s house now.
17

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 10:30:12

16. 2.5million homes in scotland.

2.5M x 500 = £1.2Billion or roughly 10x£100M

That's how basic the Green's maths were on this.

Insulation would improve many houses but homes from the 1970's onwards, especially ex council houses will actually have not bad insulation, probably improved in the 90's.

Newbuild timber frame would be very hard to improve without substantial internal works costing far more than £500.

Historic tenements would cost far more than £500 per flat to properly insulate.

I'm all for doing this but the blanket funding that Harvie is referring to is a very blunt figure and pilot schemes to figure the true costs of each type of house is a much better idea.

The Scottish Housing Quality Audit gives a better indication of the homes that should be prioritised and the phases required.




18

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 31/01/2009 11:25:43
I think Salmond will be relishing the opportunity to crash into Calman - it will be like letting a cat loose among the pigeons. Maybe he has being patiently waiting for this moment all along - all he needed was an excuse........

Gee thanks, Tavish - much appreciated.
19

Calum Crubag,

31/01/2009 11:55:01
What have the Greens acheived? A waste of time and money having to renegotiate the budget? That will really help the environment.

I won't vote Green again until these jokers are shown the door.
20

Calum Crubag,

31/01/2009 11:56:05
Where the Greens too thick to understand the offer of an extra £11m? Even i knew that Swinney had upped his offer. I don't think Harvie is up to it.
21

Curley Bill,

31/01/2009 12:24:55
I'll say this for Harvie, dislikable as he may be - it took spine to do what he did knowing that if an election was called because of him he'd get the shove. Or maybe it was just that the red mist descended and he stamped his little foot in temper - I prefer to think it was the former.
By the way, he should get rid of the fluff below his bottom lip - it looks so lavender.
22

,

31/01/2009 12:39:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Added
23

slap-dash,

Border Patrol 31/01/2009 12:51:45
Afternoon all !

I see Johnstone Press are having a little trouble with their new software "Microsoft Random Question Generator v1.311" Hmmmm I wonder why they felt the need to give it a name (Ewan)?

Anyway I think old patrick is gonna be hung out to dry on this one !
24

JCA REID,

Annan 31/01/2009 13:06:48
They blame this Green MSP for preventing the Budget getting through the Scottish Parish Council. Why not anyone of the 46 Labour/Liberals that also voted it down??
Do these people have Scotland's interests @ heart? I think not - just their own egoes & diktats from Westminster.
25

Grahamski,

Falkirk 31/01/2009 13:33:44
Any party that attempts to make capital out of the shameful budget shambles should think twice. The nats on here attempting to blame other parties should bear in mend that if their finance minister had done his job properly then the budget would have gone through.
Nobody emerges from this unscathed and the only winner here is apathy - expect an even lower turn out as the electorate get increasingly disgusted by the infantile bickering and petty point-scoring of our jumped-up second-raters at Holyrood....
26

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 31/01/2009 19:01:51
The SNP leadership treated the two Greens with a contempt they did not deserve so they were quite right to vote down the budget.

As for "blaming" Labour and the Lib Dems for this fiasco, the nationalists knew neither was going to support their wholly inadequate budget that falls well short of addressing the major economic downturn as it was so it was incumbent upon Swinney and Salmond to sort the situation out with the Greens long before the vote came to the crunch. The fact they didn't shows what an arrogant lot of political animals they really are and the sooner we have an election to sort them out once and for all the better.

The public will then get a chance to examine their REAL record since taking power, not just the sound bite promises and pledges they have resorted to during the first 18 months.

Now the gloss is starting to crack will the real Aik Salmond please stand up?
27

Wardog™,

31/01/2009 21:26:56

26. Flip Flop

Any idea yet how you'd pay for a £800MILLION tax cut?

Or were your mob just winging it as usual?

Save us the 'gloss is starting to crack', you and your ilk have been saying f that for the last 12 months.







28

Scottish 'N British,

02/02/2009 10:30:41
Swindley's to blame - his bumbling brinkmanship (most probably drive by Salmon), failed in its attempt to ambush/railroad the Greens as the clock ticked down.

Harvie had set out his demands as early as October.

The idea of faxes flying about and adhoc meetings between the desperate sweaty Salmond and the determined Harvie behind the chambers undermines the parliament and makes me wonder who'd be better running the show.



Especially the hapless SNP.

 

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.