Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th July 2008

Free Monet Print with The Scotsman

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.

Islands at war over ferry subsidies



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

SCOTLAND'S islands were left fighting against each other last night over a Scottish Government scheme aimed at cutting the cost of ferry fares.
Stewart Stevenson, the transport minister, was in Stornoway to launch a pilot scheme that could result in ferry fares to and from the Western Isles being slashed by up to half the present cost.

But that has angered politicians in Orkney and Shetla
nd, who say the three-year pilot will give the Hebrides an unfair advantage as the cost of transport to the Northern Isles will remain high.

They say the scheme is biased in favour of one island group and amounts to "blatant discrimination", and question whether the Western Isles are getting subsidies because they have an SNP MP and SNP MSP.

Mr Stevenson said the government wanted to replace the existing ferry fares system with a Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) scheme, which would link ferry prices to the cost of travelling the same distance by road. A £22.5 million pilot scheme will start on 19 October and run until the spring of 2011. It will initially look at routes between Ullapool and Stornoway; Uig in Skye to Tarbert (Harris) and Lochmaddy (North Uist); Oban to Castlebay (Barra) and Lochboisdale (South Uist), and Oban to Coll and Tiree.

There is no guarantee the scheme will be rolled out to Orkney and Shetland.

High ferry charges have been blamed for hampering development and it is argued that cutting fares will boost island economies by reducing charges to businesses, lowering the cost of living for islanders and helping to attract more tourists.

A report in 2006 said more than 700 jobs and £22.2 million a year could be generated in the Western Isles if ferry fares were cut by about 30 per cent and journeys increased.

Under the Ret scheme, cars and small vehicles will be charged £5 plus 60p per mile; passengers will pay £2 plus 10p per mile, and commercial vehicles £30 plus 18p per lane metre per mile.

It will mean the present £15.30 one-way passenger fare for the Ullapool-Stornoway crossing will be cut to £7.22. The £75 fare for cars will drop to £36.32 and for commercial vehicles from £264.43 to £133.90.

Shetland and Orkney politicians feel aggrieved as peak one-way charges on Northlink Ferries from Scrabster to Stromness in Orkney are £15.50 for passengers and £46.40 for cars. Those from Aberdeen to Lerwick are £32.70 for passengers and £116.60 for cars, and for Aberdeen to Kirkwall, £24.90 and £88.40.

The £22.5 million will be paid to the state-owned ferry company Caledonian MacBrayne, which already receives a subsidy of £43 million for its 24 routes.

In terms of car numbers using ferries, Uig/Tarbert/Lochmaddy is the sixth biggest in the CalMac fleet, with Ullapool-Stornoway seventh, Oban/Castlebay/Lochboisdale 18th and Oban/Coll/Tiree 19th.

Mr Stevenson said: "For years, our remote and fragile communities have been expressing concerns about the affordability of ferry travel and the impact this has on islanders.

"Expensive fares can be damaging, not only to our local economies but to our national economy, and this Scottish Government wants to take action."

He added: "While initially focusing a pilot on the Western Isles, we want this test case to pave the way for cheaper fares for all our island communities."

The news was hailed by politicians in the Western Isles and within the SNP. Alasdair Allan, the Nationalist MSP, said islanders had been waiting for 40 years for Ret. "In all that time, they have been paying far more per mile to travel than virtually anywhere in Scotland, creating a real economic disadvantage for the Western Isles.

"Now we know the waiting will finally be over later this year. This is the biggest transformation of island transport services in a generation and will have, I believe, immediate benefits for businesses, tourism, and shops, as well as individual islanders," he said.

Alex MacDonald, the convener of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles Council), said: "This scheme will be a boost for tourism, for business in the islands and for the travelling public."

But the Liberal Democrats condemned the announcement. Tavish Scott, the MSP for Shetland and a former transport minister, said: "This is blatant discrimination. Reducing ferry fares to help island economies is the right approach, but this pilot is expected to last for three years and only targets one Scottish island group.

"The SNP government is essentially operating a permanent scheme in one part of Scotland, but not in the equally deserving other island groups.

"People here are slightly wondering, 'Is it to do with the SNP hold on the Western Isles?' Because if that were the reason, that's not a good reason to base policy".

Liam McArthur, the Lib Dem MSP for Orkney, said the scheme would put Northern Isles businesses at a competitive disadvantage over the next three years.

"We will find it harder to attract the tourists seeking an island experience, as the Western Isles trumpet their cheaper fares. These are not pilot schemes. The fact that they run right up until the next election shows that they are electoral bribes," he said.

Labour transport spokesman Des McNulty said ferry users would have benefited more from Labour proposals – which would have seen the discount scheme for air travellers in the Highlands and Islands rolled out to the ferries.

The Scottish Government says that after the pilot, there will be an assessment of traffic statistics and information from ferry users and local employers, including the freight and tourist sectors. Consultants will then report their findings

before ministers consider whether RET should be applied on a permanent basis and rolled out to other ferry routes in the Clyde and Hebrides and Northern Isles.





The full article contains 980 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 February 2008 8:45 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 27/02/2008 00:15:58

" that has angered politicians in Orkney and Shetland, who say the three-year pilot will give the Hebrides an unfair advantage as the cost of transport to the Northern Isles will remain high."

Well, thats what you get when you build three boats that don't have proper hulls which cannot weather the high seas and cost 19 Million pounds sterling a pop. Besides prices dropped two thirds from Shetland to Orkney to Aberdeen 6 years ago.

Northlink boats are so unfriendly they should pay you to use them.
2

John Blackley,

Winter Garden, FL 27/02/2008 00:25:52
Someone accusing a member of the ruling party of steering money to his home constituency?

Shocked, I am! Shocked and horrified!
3

Highland Mighty,

27/02/2008 00:49:35
"But that has angered politicians in Orkney and Shetland, who say the three-year pilot will give the Hebrides an unfair advantage as the cost of transport to the Northern Isles will remain high.

They say the scheme is biased in favour of one island group and amounts to "blatant discrimination", and question whether the Western Isles are getting subsidies because they have an SNP MP and SNP MSP."

What do YOU think?! LOL!
4

HEN McSTOORIE,

PORT WILLIAM 27/02/2008 01:06:00
wHIT ABOOT A WEE BOATY TYPE THING FRAE PORT WILLIAM DOON TAE WALES. AH DINNA WANT TAE DRIVE THROO ENGERLUND
5

Pundit,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 02:05:23
Its a pilot that is so attractive that those who were not chosen for the pilot are crying foul?
Maybe the reason for choosing 3 Western Isles routes is that it gives the pilot, routes of different length, serving different communities, and the length of the pilot is to allow for a long enough period to be able to properly assess its impact before committing more public money rolling out the scheme. Seems a very sensible and prudent way to go forward.
6

Edward,

27/02/2008 02:08:35
Yet another non story in the Scotsman!
Everyone understands (except perhaps the Libdems) that its a pilot scheme, which if successfull will be rolled out to the other islands
7

Pundit,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 02:27:36
Just did the Arithmetic. If the present pilot RET scheme was extended to the Northern Isles it would actually increase the fares for vehicles!!! £5 and 60p a mile
8

Fifi la Bonbon,

27/02/2008 02:49:43
The Western Isles are getting subsidies because they have an SNP MP and SNP MSP.

I hope that helps.
9

Guga II,

Rockall 27/02/2008 03:47:22
If the Whigs are so concerned about this, why did they not speak up for RET whilst they were in bed with the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party (North British Branch)?

As for the New Labour ideas about a discount scheme for the ferries, as per the high priced BA flights, if it was anything like the flights, you'd be lucky to get the fare any cheaper than was already available on the Internet.

Incidentally, the last New Labour MP for the Western Isles was a self seeking prat who did absolutely nothing for the islands, despite him serving part of his time as the New Labour Transport minister.
10

Navvy,

27/02/2008 05:08:03
save money by getting rid of macbranyes who think they own the western isles and giving it to western ferries who do the same job on the clyde with 25% of the men
11

Royster,

27/02/2008 05:26:45
Crnyism from the SNP - so much for acting in Scotland's interests. At least Westminster looks at the overall picture. This is probably why the English local-parliaments were voted down; they trusted Westminster more than the local worthies who would simply help out their mates.
12

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 27/02/2008 07:17:42
Get rid of the Sunday no sail on the main routes. Bring Lewis into the 21st century. It might increase the WI's competetiveness.

Mind you, the fares are pretty heavy considering it's a partly subsidised company (not mentioning that it's also an offshore company now)
13

AJM,

27/02/2008 07:24:11
#7 Pundit, that is probably exactly the reason that nothing has happened previously. They wanted a scheme that was fair to all. As with the air fair scheme. If it is a pilot then it can never work for Shetland as prices would go up as you say. So it can never be rolled out across the islands, therefore it is a waste of time, but the SNP hope not a waste of money.

I hope the people of the Western Isles are smarter than this crude bit of favouritism. This sort of behaviour does not give the impression of a mature governmnet.
14

Hermitage,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 07:30:56
Great to see the Scots fighting themselves instead of the English.
15

Joe,

Stromness 27/02/2008 07:32:51
Here we go...The west coast bias
rearing it's ugly government head again.
16

conservative,

Fife 27/02/2008 07:46:25
We should provide the islanders with free food and clothing, build them houses and holiday homes and give them all a couple of free holidays every year. We already subsidise their power and water after all.

If it's expensive to live there it's their problem not mine. They could move home. Why should I have to foot their bills?
17

brownlie,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 07:48:59
1. Why are Lab/Lib complaining about this when they refused to make any efforts over this when they had the chance?
2. To make it a level playing field charge all island communities the same rate per mile travelled.
18

lachlan,

27/02/2008 07:49:26
'Tavish Scott, the MSP for Shetland and a former transport minister, said: "This is blatant discrimination. Reducing ferry fares to help island economies is the right approach, but this pilot is expected to last for three years and only targets one Scottish island group.'
yes, mr scott was transport minister and what did he do to reduce fares to the islands? as has beeen said before this is a pilot.
19

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 27/02/2008 07:56:46
From Seil to Easdale is £1 return. The journey is 100 mtrs(?). It would be 1p by car. Of course no cars are on Easdale, but you do get my drift, no?
20

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 27/02/2008 07:57:22
16

Why should we subsidise your roads and bridge? ~Why should we subsidise the tram system in Edinburgh?

Why should we subsidise your daft wee hovercraft from Kirkaldy to Portobello?

Why should we subsidise your daft electronic factories that are footloose?

Why should Fife exist at all?
21

conservative,

Fife 27/02/2008 08:13:55
#20 Dave from Barra

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. You don't subsidise anything. The islands make a net loss (ie they contribute next to nothing but burn lots in subsidised costs). Why don't you break away and form a republic or some such? It's a real turn-off to see scotland's future driven by pandering to the likes of you.
22

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 08:20:43
Heard a Shetland Councillor on the BBC news last night speaking about this. We went up there by boat in September and I think we paid £108 for the car each way. At £5 plus 60 per mile we would have paid around £125 for the 200 mile journey.
Can't see why the islanders would want this RET as they pay "Islander Fares" which receive a higher rate of subsidy and are lower than what we paid.
23

Gusto,

27/02/2008 08:21:47
All island communities of the British Isles should have government subsidized travel to stop unnecessary, excessive price rises "due to shipping costs". The Tories should have thought of it, Labour should have thought of it. The fact that the SNP have thought of it is why they now complain. Because the Hebrides have an SNP rep? Duuuuh! the message to the Orks and Shets is - VOTE SNP.
That's why he was voted in - its called politics, and here's a polititian who is doing what he promised for his constituency.
Apparently much too difficult for this anonymous reporter to grasp the concept of democratic representation, or is the article plaigerized?.
24

Xena - Warrior Princess,

27/02/2008 08:22:19
A three year pilot? Long enough to last till the next election? #8 Spot on.
25

,

27/02/2008 08:26:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Angus Ogg,

On A Ferry 27/02/2008 08:30:06
#16 What a crass and ignorant comment to make. Islay for example pays a huge whack to the customs and revenue in taxes on all the whisky it exports. Whilst you #16 get subsidised bus transport and taxpayer funded tram systems, and a FULL range of taxpayer funded facilities that all urban areas come to expect.

If you had to pay £140 to drive from your house to Glasgow or Edinburgh each time you left your house I am sure you would re-arrange your priorities in double quick time.

How about having a decent debate founded on some constructive thoughts and initiatives instead of old political dogma?

For example, a point that everyone has evidently missed amongst the appalling green eyed envy of the LibDems and the polorised political footballing here is the fact that this is a pilot scheme.

The question should be: Why is a Pilot Scheme needed?

Well in 1968 a man called John Rose, started a company called Western Ferries and built the first RORO ship on the West Coast of Scotland. She was called the MV Sound of Islay and carried 22 cars. Not content with introducing the first RORO ship, when MacBraynes were lifting cars off with ropes and hoists, Western Ferries halved the fare between the mainland and the island of Islay. Passenger and car numbers doubled so Western Ferries built a second bigger ship: MV Sound of Jura and she carried 44 cars. Incidentally both ships were built with private money and WITHOUT ANY CAPITAL OR REVENUE SUBSIDY.

The main point is that the Islay economy boomed. This had both good and bad results. More jobs were created and islanders were much better off economically.

In balance, some islanders were concerned that huge increases in visitors had problems as well, and that a way of life was being disrupted and distorted. At least at a rate that was uncomfortable.

Hence the SNP initiative is a PILOT scheme aimed at examining the good and bad effects of the RET principle.

Also if you subsidise Northlink on Orkney, that wo
27

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 27/02/2008 08:32:44
http://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/factfile/economy/mluri2/keyFindings.htm

Now stop being such a nobrocket Conservative.
28

Angus Ogg,

On A Ferry 27/02/2008 08:33:53
#21 conservative, Next you will be saying Scotland is subsidised by the English. Get a grip man. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

If you must post inflammatory messages on this board, PLEASE do it with intelligent reasoned debate? You clearly know very little about island economies and the net overpayment many islands make to the tax system.
29

,

27/02/2008 08:37:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

subrosa,

27/02/2008 08:40:06
If anyone watched Newsnight last night you would know the Northern Isles already have a subsidy which is below this RET trial one. Oor man in Shetland should have kept his mouth shut. Pity this article didn't say anything about it though - poor journalism again.
31

Farmernot,

27/02/2008 08:41:21
#8 Not a problem with that and #11 Cronyism.........the last Executive poured millions into North Lanarkshire.........SNP just doing what predessessors did.......its called looking after their own..........now Eck how about dualling the A9 all the way !!!!
32

AJM,

27/02/2008 09:00:41
#30 Surely all ferry routes are subsidised. What is happening here is an alteration to favour a SNP voting area. If this government is happy with the results of a pilot of a few months for the hovercraft why make this 3 yrs? This the politics of a banana republic.
33

Xena - Warrior Princess,

27/02/2008 09:04:11
Funny I thought we were getting rid of all the cronyism with the brand new SNP government, and if it is true that they are JUST doing what their predecessors did (looking after their own) why on earth would we want to vote them back in next time around.
34

millport curler,

Millport 27/02/2008 09:08:59
As one who lives on an island and will never vote SNP I welcome this scheme. I am however dismayed that it is only a pilot for the Western Isles. Cumbrae is the dearest ferry crossing per mile in Europe definitely and in the world probably. We are the ones who need RET most!
35

,

27/02/2008 09:11:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
36

Duncan the first.,

27/02/2008 09:17:43
I for one think this is a great idea. It will be great for the Islands and hopefully will enable them to reduce the amount of subsidies required through increased tourism and business. For those that have never been to the Western Isles can I recommend Barra which is truly beautiful.
37

millport curler,

Millport 27/02/2008 09:19:59
#35 - if a tiny part of the money which is spent on motorways was spent on ferries we would probably be paying 1p per mile.
38

conservative,

Fife 27/02/2008 09:24:21
#37 Millport Curler

I expect you're right - now just remind me again what ferry tax you pay (like the road tax, petrol duty etc. etc.).

Most road vehicle tax doesn't go to roads of course.
39

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 09:24:51
#16 You picked a glass house from which to throw those stones, and Dave's response at #20 was justified anger.

However, the more important point is that it is right and proper that we all contribute, businesses and individuals, to a general fund from which all public expenditure is made. The existing CalMac subsidy for the Western Isles already costs £30 million a year, and it is worth paying. But it does no good to complain about, for example, Edinburgh and Glasgow getting investment in transport projects (like trams and the M74 extension), because if the money stayed where it was generated, rather then being divvied up across the country, then both Edinburgh and Glasgow would have has these projects completed years ago.

Green eyed monsters do not make good politics. Let's judge things on their merits for the country as a whole.
40

Alan B,

27/02/2008 09:33:06
The Scotsman is really losing creditibilty by engineering a negative slant to this report in the way it does.
41

Socrates2,

27/02/2008 09:39:12
gee whiz just look what the SNP are doing with devolution
now imagine independence
42

conservative,

Fife 27/02/2008 09:41:46
#39 Duncan
Yes that's a reasoned response but it is still wrong.

The effect of subsidies is only to average out the losses, not to create wealth. It isn't to Scotland's benefit to prop up naturally lossmaking areas. Quite different if we were talking about a 1-off grant but we are not, we are talking about long-term subsidising to some people at the expense of others.

The real answer is to let those areas run down naturally. And no - you're wrong about Edinburgh and Glasgow too - if those cities were allowed to keep more of the wealth they create Scotland as a whole would be far far better off.

Can't help it if it doesn't appeal, but we should back winners, not losers.
43

Alan B,

27/02/2008 09:43:11
conservative fife; do u believe the tolls on the bridge to fife should be reintroduced to stop this subsidy.

The problem with ur agrument about subsidies is, much taxation is just cross subsidising someone or something, taken to it there would be little tax and no welfare system and we would pay for public services at the point of use rather than through tax.
44

conservative,

Fife 27/02/2008 09:46:52
#43 Alan
This is a bit of an old topic. The capital (and interest) of the bridge is long since paid for. The maintainance is no different than for any other bit of road so is rightly paid for out of the road fund (which is mostly used elsewhere anyway).

In principle I agree with you that it shouldn't be subsidised buit in fact it isn't anyway.

I think that welfare is quite a different thing. We aren't talking about that. We're talking about paying people to live (and work) in a place which has no eceonomic possibilities.
45

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 09:52:51
#42 I can see that you are a true fiscal conservative. I fundamentally disagree with you (although it's good to have a discussion about real politics rather than nationalism versus unionism).

Your prescription would create an economically polarised country, and much as you might argue that the country's overall wealth might initially increase, the long-term prognosis for a polarised country is disaster. If you don't at least try to create a level playing field you are writing off some of the country's greatest assets simply because they are not currently profitable. It would be a crazy way to run a company and an equally crazy approach to running a country.

In addition, the effects of areas like the Highlands and the Western Isles on the prosperity of the nation are not only measurable in economic terms. Tourism requires broad facilities to be available, but profit in one area can often be the result of investment across a range of other areas. Equally, standards of living in rural areas benefit immigration to allow us to attract and retain economic talent.

Your approach is blinkered, and mistaken. Fortunately very few people would consider it anyway.
46

Alan B,

27/02/2008 10:00:54
#44 If u consider rail it is subsidised. Should it not be? If rail should be subsidised why not ferries. People that live in remoter places do not get access to much of the services that are generally subsidised by the tax payer.

The other issue is how credible is the report about the economic benefits of this subsidy. If it puts people in work then it will not be a drain on society.

My point about Welfare was who should we subsidise and why. Is it better to subsidise ferries to allow a stronger island economy or someone that does not work.

"paying people to live (and work) in a place which has no eceonomic possibilities"
I think that statement really needs to be investigated to see if there are no economic possibilities. The question that has to be asked is can we have successful economic island economies. Do cheaper (at the point of use) ferries help this.

If we let the islands run down who is going to pay the welfare of higher unemployment.
47

brownlie,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 10:03:45
Conservative 42 - The Thatcherite philosophy of backing winners not losers is precisely the reason why Scottish voters ditched conservatism - never to return.
48

Alan B,

27/02/2008 10:16:52
#45 Duncan "Equally, standards of living in rural areas benefit immigration to allow us to attract and retain economic talent."
Do not really understand how subsidising ferries to the western isles will somehow encourage immigration to scotland to attract economic talent?
49

Miss H,

27/02/2008 10:26:30
A few points here. Firstly, Tavish Scott as Transport Minister consistently ignored requests for a road equivalent tarriff pilot or even a study for any island group. Secondly, from his point of view as MSP for Shetland RET is not something that would benefit his constituency because obviously it operates on the basis that the oost of ferry transport would be the equivalent of road transport. On that basis fares to Shetland would probably go up not down because it is further away. So I don't think he is arguing for RET to be extended to Shetland actually. Des McNulty is just at it - the Labour proposal applies to FOOT passengers not vehicles. It is the cost of transporting goods as much as people that is the problem on the Western Isles.
50

Bruno Baumgärtner,

Isle of Arran 27/02/2008 10:27:24
I can not understand why there has to be a geographically restricted pilot scheme, lasting a full three years.

A one year pilot for the whole of the CalMac routes would have been sufficient, and if the results would not be what we all hope for, the scheme colud be abandoned after 12 Months.

Imagine the positive impact for the Governments image, if on the thousands of websites all over Scotlands Islands the message to the world would be:
«The new Scottish Government has slashed the Ferry prices by half!!! Now you all are even more welcome at our Island!!! And that for considerably less money!!!»

We on Arran have elected an SNP-MSP as well, but do not profit until 2012!!! What a disappointment.
51

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 10:33:54
#49 I notice you carefully avoid mentioning Orkney Miss H. Why would that be? :-) RET would be extremely popular there, wouldn't it. It's difficult to see the difference between Orkney and the Western Isles other than their political representation.
52

AJ Fife,

27/02/2008 10:34:08
More progressive policies from the Scottish Government which will benefit all. This will open up the Western Isles and hopefully, the beginnings of an Economic boom for the Isles.

It was clear in the Newsnight Scotland programme that the Shetlands and Orkneys are already subsidised to an enormous degree with regards to ferries. I couldn't see what their gripe was about, apart from some new competition in terms of the tourism industry!
53

Shug,

27/02/2008 10:35:25
I suppose we have to ask why we support remote islands. Why do we want people to live there. The people that live there have made a choice. The fact it costs a lot to get there and import products etc is just tough. They shouldn't be subsidised. If they don't like it leave! I lived on a very remote island for a good few years and everyone accepted that the basics cost much more than the UK. Some commodities were much cheaper but the essentials cost a small fortune, as did getting too and from the place. But it was my decision to go there and you simply have to balance the pro's and the cons. These people presumably live there becuase they like the quality of life, scenery etc. Everything comes at a price.
54

Bruno Baumgärtner,

Isle of Arran 27/02/2008 10:35:58
#16: you wrote:

«We should provide the islanders .... We already subsidise their power and water after all.»

We, at least on the Isle of Arran, would have enough fresh water without any from the mainland and a large enough Glen to build a dam and a hydropower station to supply all Arrans needs in a green and CO2-free manner if we only could. Like many other parts of Scotland. But as long as free enterprise is restricted to the large and big global Giants, we have to pay extra money for something we could get for free. (I know, the building of usch an infrastructure costs as well, but a «Free and Independent Republic of the Isle of Arran» can invest the Taxes for its common good, not for the profit of the few.)

Independence for the Isle of Arran!!! Bring in Ian Smith from Rhodesia!!! He will help us!!!
55

Paul R,

27/02/2008 10:37:11
Since when did it cost £5 plus 60p per mile (plus 5 passenger fares) to travel in a car? The ferries need to be even cheaper than this to encourage more use.

And what will happen with the short ferries? £5 plus 60p per mile (plus passenger fares) won't be any cheaper than they are at the moment! Surely the driver should be included with the cost of the vehicle?
56

iain morrison,

nairn 27/02/2008 10:40:10
I'm confused what are the Lib-Dums winging about.

It would appear that
1 Tavish Scott as transport minister delivered better than RET for Shetland (The imposition of RET on that route would lead to fares going up).

2 That the Northern Isles route recieves more subsidy per journey than the Western Isles even during the pilot scheme.

3 The Lib-dums are now in danger of opening the whole can of worms as to why the Northern Isles services sail from Aberdeen instead of Scrabster, which is much closer and Caithness could sure use the extra business of the Ferries terminating there.

4 When Ferry fares to the Northern Isles were slashed by the last Administration there was no price reduction to the Western Isles, indeed fares went up.

5 When the fares were cut to the Northern Isles there was no protest from the Western Isles.

In short this looks like the Lib-Dum speciality the politics of snide opportunism, envy and devision.

In short t
57

iain morrison,

nain 27/02/2008 10:41:01
err sorry should read whinging
58

conservative,

Fife 27/02/2008 10:49:42
#45 Duncan

I disagree. Of course it's not hard to demolish any argument by taking it to extremes. 'Lame Ducks' may have had bad press but I think the general idea of not throwing good money after bad is sensible enough - we all do it.

The issue really is as you say whether there's a return on the investment. In this case I'd say not.
59

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 10:50:47
#54 These routes have been subsidised to the tune of £30 million a year for quite a time. This new scheme represents an increase in the subsidy of about £7.5 million a year. It's good, but it's not reasonable to suggest that the SNP are "opening up the Western Isles". Perhaps "building on the good work of previous governments"? Or would that stick in your craw?
60

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 10:54:01
#60 Your assessment of the return, I would argue, is on too short a term and in too narrow a field. The long-term return on this investment, in both economic and social terms, is significant. And the likely effect of removing such subsidy across the board would be catastrophic.

Even Thatcher didn't suggest that. I suspect you are not being entirely serious. Still, a Tory in Fife can pretty much afford to say what he likes I suppose. :-)
61

conservative,

27/02/2008 11:05:01
#62 Duncan
You say "a Tory in Fife can pretty much afford to say what he likes I suppose. :-)"

I suppose so.
In fact I'm a 'small-c' conservative. I usually vote Labour as it happens. Doesn't change my views on subsidies for their own sake though. In my view nothing significant is done in the Western Isles that couldn't more conveniently be done elsewhere. This isn't an eceonomic argument. It's about enabling people to live somewhere that suits them at the general expense and that's not sensible. If people want to live there despite the costs then they shouldn't expect the subsidies.
62

daveydees,

edinburgh 27/02/2008 11:09:57
The ferries already get a huge grant from the government. It is madness to increase this further. The islands' unique lifestyle and environment are completely dependent on their isolation. Why turn try to turn these beautiful places into mini versions of every other place in Scotland?
Those residents who want the 'progress' that comes with shopping mall and service industry 'economic growth' can move to anywhere they like. Getting us taxpayers to pay even more for cheap ferry fares is cultural and environmental vandalism for the islands and an unfair levy on those who do not choose to live there.
63

AJ Fife,

27/02/2008 11:10:34
Dunc#61,

It doesn't "stick in ma craw", and as you know only too well, the SNP are implementing schemes that Labour could have, but weren't allowed to by No10. The Labour administrations tried to govern Scotland with both hands tied, but what is sad, they always try and justify that state of affairs.

Dunc, don't you think the current Scottish govt is streets ahead in terms of effectiveness, than the lame duck govts of the Labour era?
64

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 11:12:05
#63 But as I keep trying to point out, the issue is wider than economics. Who would want to live in the grey and faceless country that such a policy would create?

And there is another fundamental flaw in your argument - in fact two of the most significant industries in the Western Isles cannot be relocated: tourism and whisky.

I repeat, you would see a serious drop in tourist footfall across the whole of Scotland if you carried out the sort of economic polarisation you are talking about.

It reminds me of an MBA case study about a manufacturing company whose new production director came in and shut down the one loss-making line in the factory. The knock on effect was that another line became loss-making. So he shut that one down too. Eventually the business went bust, because despite being loss-making, the original line to be shut down was facilitating the highly profitable remainder.
65

daveydees,

edinburgh 27/02/2008 11:15:56
The other, as yet unsaid, argument against subsidies is that they very effectively suppress any sort of competition, so that any alternative to the state monopoly that is Cal Mac is smothered before it is even started.
66

conservative,

Fife 27/02/2008 11:18:15
#66
Nonsense Duncan, nothing would happen. What we are talking about here is INCREASING a subsidy. Noone has actually suggested (so far) removing what's there (although I for one would remove the ferry subsidies). No INCREASING it will not hamper those industries.

By the way - have you actually looked at the tourist interest in the Western Isles? Exactly!
67

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 11:20:18
#65 No, I honestly don't. I think they have a cheering section, like you, who see everything as a "breath of fresh air" or "finally in Scotland's interest" or other such rhetoric, and I think that blinds you to the reality that not everything they do is really that great.

They have a good line in populist policies. The problem with populism is that it is unsustainable. Look at the Forth tolls - I have had full on fights with people here on the basis that they refused to see any downside to this at all - and yet we are seeing massively increased congestion in South Queensferry and the road from Livingston, and an extra £200 million a year cost to taxpayers across the whole of Scotland.

In comparison the £7.5 million a year for this RET pilot is chump change. And yet the SNP cheering section sees only positives in the tolls removal.

I think we are due a reality check.
68

conservative,

Fife 27/02/2008 11:23:53
#69 Duncan

You are simply writing nonsense. I travel across the bridge and back every day and I can tell you that congestion has not increased one whit. My journey time home in the evening takes roughly 15-20 minutes less now than before the removal. A letter in the Dunfermline Press last week from someone else confirmed this. Where you get your figures from I don't know but they don't represent reality.
69

Steve,

Bo'ness 27/02/2008 11:26:16
OK someone has said it already, (post no.7) but some of you seem to have missed it.

"UNIONIST" ORKNEY AND SHETLAND'S FERRIES ARE ALREADY HEAVILY SUBSIDISED.
IF THE RET SCHEME WAS INTRODUCED THERE, THEIR FARES WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE!

Thanks for listening.
I think we know who the self interested fraudsters are here. Labour and the Lib Dems. The SNP's proposals for the Western Isles have been drawn up since the 60's, long before they had the sense to boot out Labour.
70

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 11:26:52
#68 But that is exactly what you said in #35, and your sentiment in #35 is what I have been responding to.

"Well the simple fact is that if the islands paid their way they wouldn't need a subsidised anything. The fact that they do speaks for itself. If the parasites (sorry that's probably too inflammatory) that live there think they are net contributors then why do they need this gift (from my back pocket). How about an even playing field?"

That was fairly clear I think.
And you are ignoring my point about non-economic benefits.
71

AJ Fife,

27/02/2008 11:28:11
Dunc,

Are you always such an auld misery guts? If Alex Salmond discovered a cure for aids, you wouldn't give him the time of day!

The SNP are certainly making popular decisions, but I suspect the likes of McConnell, were prevented from doing the same. Couldn't you see the Westminster effect, when it was staring at you in the face?

As for the bridges - think weather and roadworks, that's where the congestion comes from! Desperate times call for desperate criticism - a new Labour catchphrase!!
72

Talorthane,

27/02/2008 11:31:09
Tavish Scott says:

"This is blatant discrimination. Reducing ferry fares to help island economies is the right approach, but this pilot is expected to last for three years and only targets one Scottish island group.

The SNP government is essentially operating a permanent scheme in one part of Scotland, but not in the equally deserving other island groups."

Tavish Scott presents himself as the defender of the Northern Isles, and of equality, and that he has responded to this move by the Scottish Government as soon as he became aware of it.

However, is that the case?

Firstly, on the issues of his constituency and the Northern Isles. Tavish Scott was a Transpost Minister in the last administration. During that time there was never any proposal for such a radically fair approach to ferry travel as the SNP's introducation of "Road Equivalent Tariff".

Secondly, on the issue of fairness, again Tavish Scott was Transport Minister in the previous administration, where they oversaw bridge tolls in some parts of the country but not in others. They also resisted the SNP's attempts to have the issue of fairness established, by removing all tolls across the coutnry.

Thirdly, is he really responding promptly to the development of a threat to his constituency?

This is what the SNP manifesto said on the matter a year ago.

"A fairer deal for Scotland’s Islands - The benefits of an improved transport network must be
felt in all parts of Scotland and to this end, the Scottish government will commission a study
into Road Equivalent Tariff (RET), reporting on options for improved connection to our northern
and western isles by end of 2007. As part of this we will undertake a pilot project on RET to the
Western Isles which will include support for freight and tourist journeys."

So this was the SNP pledge from day one.

Why has it taken Tavish Scott a year to raise this matter?

Why, instead of voting against the Government's budget in the initial s
73

Talorthane,

27/02/2008 11:31:39
...steps, and then abstaining at the final stage did Tavish Scott and the Lib Dems not engage with the Government, as the Tories did on their issues, to lobby for the RET scheme to be expanded in return for their support? (An abstention isn't much to bargain away)

The SNP have done exactly what they said they would do and, despite what Tavish Scott claims, they are committed to expanding this scheme (if successful and if expected) to all islands in Scotland.

It appears that the penny has finally dropped for Tavish Scott, and he can see that the SNP are now doing more for island communities than his administration ever did (and doing more for island transport than he ever did as Transport Minister).

Once this scheme is in place in his constituency, a lot of his constituents are going to see the benefit of having a Scottish Government, and he is likely to lose his seat.

Perhaps this is his only optionl; to try to present the scenario that the Northern Isles were never in the SNP's plans and that once the scheme is expanded to the Shetlands, that he can claim that it was due to his intervention.

Unfortunately, for him, the SNP's manifesto commitment is there for all to see, as is his record in Government.
74

Steve,

Bo'ness 27/02/2008 11:32:20
69, you are clearly blind.
Maybe someone should put you through the driving test again, as you are a danger to the roads.
The bridge crossing is actually faster than it was before, if you ask me.
There is not one reason why removing tolls would increase congestion. The Forth Bridge is the only viable route over unless you want a 50 mile detour.
Nobody ever drove 50 miles to save £1.
Apart from you, that is.
75

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 11:32:27
#70 You are simply not reading what I wrote. I'm not talking about the M90/A90 route, I'm talking about everyone else. The people whose feed-in to the bridge used to be managed by the tolls, and who now have to be funnelled into two lanes of traffic without any management, and who are finding delays of 40 minutes or more on a daily basis.

The comments from "Roland Rat" on this story in the Evening News might help to demonstrate that there are more experiences in the world than your own:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/Travel-chaos-warning-as-city.3814676.jp

See especially comment #30. Widely confirmed.
76

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 11:36:18
#76 You appear to be responding to an argument no-one is making.

I'm simply telling you what is happening. See the thread I quoted. Yes, the M90/A90 straight through route has seen little effect. I'm talking about people feeding in from the roundabout. It's real, it's happening, it's just not happening to you so you don't care.
77

AJ Fife,

27/02/2008 11:37:07
#76,

Go Stevie go Stevie, you've got Dunc on the ropes!
78

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 11:41:46
#73 AJ I know it's largely pointless trying to have a logical conversation with you, but just try to answer me this: why is it that the cost of lifting the tolls on the general taxpayer is never considered as a negative aspect of that policy, and yet the cost of the trams is always thrown up as a negative?

Why, when the lifting of tolls on the Forth and Tay will have cost more than the trams within three years, and will continue to cost hundreds of millions a year, do we not hear a peep from the SNP support about this?
79

AJ Fife,

27/02/2008 11:48:39
Dunc,

You know as well as I do the Trams will be a completely overpriced white elephant, which won't benefit Edinburgh one iota.

The scrapping of the tolls is first and foremost, an act which brings equality and fairness to all road users throughout Scotland. It's a price worth paying!

Is that clear enough for you?
80

Alan B,

27/02/2008 11:49:37
#80 Ur argument here is perverse. It does not not cost to remove tolls apart from the actual toll booths it is simply lowering a tax ie losing a revenue stream. The trams is an additional cost.

That is not to argue for or against either scheme just that ur point here is contrived and does not really make sense.
81

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 11:51:53
#81 You're not addressing my point. No surprise.

Is any price "worth paying"? What would be too much?
82

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 11:53:26
#82 You illustrate my point completely. It is the lowering of a tax, to which the SNP support shouts hooray. But it is also the raising of an equivalent tax, from all of Scotland instead of from just the users of the road. To which the SNP support says ?
83

Webbie,

mullingar 27/02/2008 11:58:17
Unless my memory serves me wrong the whisky and tourism industries were shown to be capable of supporting Scotland in the 60's, so now we boost that at a cost of £22.5m. Sounds like good investment sense, after 3 years if it isn't working we can look at other ways of making every part of Scotland cost the same to every Scot.
To conservative in Fife...people who rely on crossings shouldn't make waves.
84

AJ Fife,

27/02/2008 12:01:41
84,

The SNP Govt are making life better for millions of people and still you complain!

Why the denial?
85

Miss H,

27/02/2008 12:04:50
53 Duncan. No I did not carefully avoid mentioning Orkney. I mentioned Shetland because it is Tavish Scott's constituency and would not benefit from RET which may or may not explain Tavish Scott's opposition to the proposal when he was a minister.

The pilot is being conducted in the Western Isles for one simple reason because the Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
as well as the parliamentarians have been campaigning to get it for many many years. As an SNP delegate I have sat through many a debate about RET, that's why I know so much about it! The campaign for RET goes back at least 20 years and has in the main been led by people from the Western Isles - and not just SNP people.
86

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 12:05:33
#86 And you truly believe that. Bless you. You'll learn in time that every action has a cost, every budget has a limit, and every promise has a caveat.
87

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 12:07:09

The Orkney and Shetland ferries have been a shambles ever since the Labour/LibDem administration started with them. No vost benefit analysis was done to see if it would be better to run to Peterhead or Rosyth.
The NorthLink faeries are about the most fuel inefficient ferries in service as they were built to fit the limited space available in Aberdeen harbour.
On a run from Shetland to Aberdeen via Orkney in October the Hjaltland was traveling at 26mph near Sumburgh Head according to my SatNav. The fuel consumption is shown on board for 16mph and as doubling at 22mph , I wonder what the fuel penalty is for going up to 26mph.
It makes you wonder if any consideration was given to fuel consumption at all when these boats were built and the timetables were constructed.
NorthLink receives a substantial subsidy to run this service. How much of it is being burned off in wasted fuel for the use of Aberdeen's inadequate facilities and a little extra time on the journey ?
88

Gordon, Canonmills,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 12:11:28
“Innovative scheme by the Scottish Government could cut ferry fares by up to half” would have been a reasonable, objective headline for this item.

However, the perverse minds of the Hootsmon hacks manage to turn the story on its head and make it into a negative one.

The NorthBritman’s slide into tabloidism seems to be inevitable.
89

Rosie,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 12:11:35
If all was to be fair between the Northern and Western Isles ferry subsidies then the northern isles ferry would have to go from the north of the mainland (eg Wick or John o' Groats) to Orkney and then over to Shetland.......
At present their ferries go from Aberdeen - something like the Stornoway one going from Glasgow maybe?
90

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 12:11:43
#87 Does it not shame the SNP to reflect on the fact that when the ADS (the Air Discount Scheme) was introduced by the previous Executive it was done across all island groups?

Does it not shame them to acknowledge that this "pilot" is to last for three full years, right up to the next election, in fact? Do election bribes not shame the SNP?
91

Alan B,

27/02/2008 12:12:13
#84 Duncan
I just think ur referring to it as a cost was a wrong use of words. it is the removal of a revenue stream.

"But it is also the raising of an equivalent tax, from all of Scotland instead of from just the users of the road."
Unfortunately the scottish government do no control road tax and petrol exise duties etc and therefore cannot load it onto the car driver if they wanted. Having said that drivers massively subsidise the general expenditure as road related taxation outweighs round expenditure.

"But it is also the raising of an equivalent tax, from all of Scotland instead of from just the users of