Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

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

Published Date: 27 February 2008
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

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.
13

Hermitage,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 07:30:56
Great to see the Scots fighting themselves instead of the English.
14

Joe,

Stromness 27/02/2008 07:32:51
Here we go...The west coast bias
rearing it's ugly government head again.
15

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?
16

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.
17

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.
18

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?
19

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.
20

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.
21

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?.
22

Xena - Warrior Princess,

27/02/2008 08:22:19
A three year pilot? Long enough to last till the next election? #8 Spot on.
23

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
24

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.
25

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.
26

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 !!!!
27

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.
28

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.
29

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!
30

,

27/02/2008 09:11:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

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.
32

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.
33

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.
34

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.
35

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.
36

Socrates2,

27/02/2008 09:39:12
gee whiz just look what the SNP are doing with devolution
now imagine independence
37

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.
38

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.
39

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.
40

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.
41

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.
42

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.
43

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?
44

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.
45

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.
46

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.
47

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!
48

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.
49

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!!!
50

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?
51

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
52

iain morrison,

nain 27/02/2008 10:41:01
err sorry should read whinging
53

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.
54

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?
55

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. :-)
56

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.
57

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.
58

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?
59

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.
60

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.
61

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!
62

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.
63

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.
64

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.
65

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.
66

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!!
67

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
68

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.
69

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.
70

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.
71

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.
72

AJ Fife,

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

Go Stevie go Stevie, you've got Dunc on the ropes!
73

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?
74

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?
75

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.
76

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?
77

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 ?
78

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.
79

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?
80

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.
81

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.
82

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 ?
83

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.
84

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?
85

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?
86

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 the road."
As far i can see they have not raised tax.

At the end of the day the both the trams and toll issue have to be judged on their merit and people will be subjective in their view. The issue of the tolls is surely on of fairness and the effect on the fife economy. From a fairness point of view how can labour justify removing erskine bridge tolls and not the ones to fife?
87

Alan B,

27/02/2008 12:17:11
#93 clarification "therefore cannot load it onto the car driver if they wanted" other than through tolls.
88

usvisitor,

usa 27/02/2008 12:18:48
Did any of you think about why some of us have never made it to the islands by car?? I/we have traveled to the coast several times but have said "no thank you" to the ferry costs.

It sounds like some politicians are doing what is expected of them. That should be seen as a positive trend which we in the US would love to see.
89

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 12:20:08
#93 I would have to rejoin that the removal of a revenue stream is a cost. But I understand your point.

The sleight of hand is breathtaking from the SNP, since as you rightly say they can happily say that they haven't raised taxes or fuel duties. But the money is coming from the taxpayer nontheless. The bottom line is that there is £200 million a year less in the general pot than there was. What amazes me is that the SNP policy of trying to pretend that it is nothing to do with them seems to be working!
90

Talorthane,

27/02/2008 12:21:57
#80 Duncan in Edinburgh

"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?"

Can you back up your claim that the bridges generated an income in excess of £150,000,000 per year?

It sounds a bit made-up to me.
91

Queen D,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 12:23:43
I understood the Arran ferry was the most expensive run, but that is by the by.
Perhaps this pilot scheme is too long , but I do favour RET.
The islanders need it to survive, Scotland needs it for the tourist industry, and I need it because I visit Arran ! Roll on blanket RET!
92

Miss H,

27/02/2008 12:26:40
92 No. The SNP is scrapping the air discount scheme because it is environmentally unsustainable. It is in fact ridiculous to encourage people to fly between islands when ferry transport is available. As for why they have not rolled it out on every island and route at once - because it is a pilot scheme. Why is it being piloted in the Western Isles? Because they asked for it and have made representations repeatedly.

Have Orkney or Shetland Council or indeed Argyll and Bute Council made representations to the Scottish Government at any time since 1999 regarding trialing a road equivalent tarriff scheme?
93

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 12:32:15
#99 Nontheless the last Executive was even-handed; this one isn't being. You are spinning with environmental issues instead of addressing the point.

And a pilot that lasts until the next election? Why does it need more than one year to test this out?

In any case, I repeat - I support the idea. I just can't stick SNP grandstanding over it. I can't stick SNP grandstanding full stop.
94

Alan B,

27/02/2008 12:34:01
#96 Duncan, if u would just argue your point and stop trying to make digs at the snp, u might be more convincing. Personally i am quite open minded about both issues. I think it is good to have a good public transport system in edinburgh which seems poorer than the west coast but have not heard enough to convince me that the tram proposal is the answer. i did not think the earl or borders projects were the way to go with more important projects about and hence lost confidence in the last exec.

U also did not answer the issue about fairness in regard to erskine toll being abolished and not the one to fife. The 220million a yr that u mention is alot to remove from the fife economy per yr and makes me think it should come from general road taxes.

"What amazes me is that the SNP policy of trying to pretend that it is nothing to do with them seems to be working!" this seems just wrong they have been quite open about their policies on both issues, right or wrong.
95

Alan B,

27/02/2008 12:41:41
#99 have to ur reasoning for the snp choosing the western isles is poor and does come across as favouritism. mps of other parties are not likely to request the policy of another party being implemented in their area against the policy of their own party.

some of the posts above about the cost per mile and the previous deals TS did for the northern isles is much more convincing.

Personally i do not necessarly think the same policy should apply to all islands, but differnt polcies can be tailor to different groups of islands depending on their needs. For instance the argyle and bute islands are not as remote and therefore situation can be different.
96

Calum Crubag,

27/02/2008 12:43:17
Maybe the SNP are gonna give the northern isles back to Norway? I thought they wanted that. Will they also speak Norse though?
97

Talorthane,

Lennoxtown 27/02/2008 12:44:43
#100 Duncan in Edinburgh

"In any case, I repeat - I support the idea. I just can't stick SNP grandstanding over it. I can't stick SNP grandstanding full stop."

So, we can ignore all your future comments as you have declared that your opinions are clouded by your emotional response to the SNP.

You cannot comment objectively as, in your words, in your eyes, you will never accept anything the SNP does, whether they are right or wrong.
98

Am Balach,

Isle of Skye 27/02/2008 12:46:12
Duncan

You seem like an intelligent lad but your antithapy towards the SNP is clouding your judgement.

"And a pilot that lasts until the next election? Why does it need more than one year to test this out?"

Please explain how a pilot scheme over one year can give any sort of reliable economic information? The primary purpose of RET is to boost the economy and increase growth and tax revenue. It is not a subsidy but an investment. Judging the return on that investment cannot be done over 1 year. As I say, you know this but your contempt for the SNP won't let you admit it.
99

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 12:46:27
Have any of you ever been to any of the Scottish Islands on holiday ?
It will take a couple of years for people to become aware of changes, for example, brochures for 2008 came out months ago.
We should forget about the previous administration as did nothing about this for eight years, although they did find time to botch the introduction of the NorthLink service so badly that it had to have a massive injection of money over and above the expected subsidy.
100

Boggle fey the Bog,

27/02/2008 12:57:45
#80 Duncan in Embra

'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?'

Loss of revenue for the management of the bridges will be approx £15m with an outstanding debt on the Tay bridge of £13m, so if my memory serves me well and I can still do 'sums' it will take 30 years or so to reach the equivalency of the Embra trams.

Talkin pish again sonny, aren't ye.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/may/23/scotland.devolution

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7153021.stm

As for the failed former Transport meenistir, he's a Unionist isn't he, so he is 'dishonour' bound to snipe at anything that may benefit the Scottish people.

Conservative (with a small c) Fife,

Why do you claim to be a conservative with a small c when you admit that you are a labour voter, New Labour/Owld Torie are more conservative with a big C than Maggie the Snatcher ever was.

However BOT.

The RET idea is a sound idea and I personally think it should be introduced forthwith, on the Orkney/Shetland route and should be renamed the 'Tavish Scott Union Dividend TAX on Northern Islanders'.

This man will surely go down in history for his infamy and misconduct against the people he claims to represent.
101

Linda,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 12:59:35

Another rum headline from Scotsman (or should that be Rhum). I have relatives and friends in Orkney, Lib Dem Tavish Scott had 8 years to introduce RET to Northern Islands.
If anyone watched Newsnight last night you would know the Northern Isles already have a subsidy which is greater than this RET trial. Also if RET had applied to Aberdeen to Orkney the fares would go UP.
Pity this article didn't say anything about it though - poor journalism again.
102

Miss H,

27/02/2008 12:59:48
100 Duncan.

No I think it is you that is not addressing the point. You are alleging that this is favouritism. It would only be favouritism if all island councils had asked for RET trials in their area. Have they? Or was it just the Comhairle (ans also HIE)? Do you know the answer to that? If you don't, then what are you basing your allegation on? Do you know in fact whether Orkney and Shetland Councils want RET? It's a safe bet that Argyll & Bute probably will but they didn't lobby for it - or did they? Do you know the answer to that?



103

Joe M.,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 13:01:05
The SNP's move is a step in the right direction towards lower fairs for all the Isles.
104

brownlie,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 13:01:28
Conservative/Fife,

Get in your car and go to places like Lochgelly etc which have been devastated by Conservatives and New Labour. Can you perhaps give us a run-down on the cost in lives and finance to subsidise the Falkland Islands? What contribution do they make to the UK economy?
105

Sedov,

Scotland 27/02/2008 13:10:57
So much for the usual SNP rhetoric of "one Scotland". but this is what the poison of nationalism does to peole - makes them spiteful and selfish. We are fast becoming a deeply divided nation thanks to the SNP.
106

Seoras67,

Edinburgh 27/02/2008 13:14:40
Congrats to the SNP. Well overdue. Labour/Limp Dem coalition had 8 years to introduce similar. Their lack of action speak volumes. Cheap(er) transport to the Islands (Western and Northern) should be something we all welcome. One wonders if it will be a Lab/Limp Dem manifesto pledge at the next election to scrap RET?
107

Miss H,

27/02/2008 13:16:30
112 Don't be so naive. The only people who have made any negative comments about this are two Lib Dem politicians - who are opposed to RET in the first place.

108

Alan B,

27/02/2008 13:17:33
#109 Miss H

"It would only be favouritism if all island councils had asked for RET trials in their area"

I find ur reason for using the Western Isles as a pilot bizzare. Firstly if based opn ur statement that if all councils request it then there would be not pilot/trial. Also surely selecting the western isles should be argued on merit. Different parties are less likely to request trials of a policy from a different party. The main argument will be over lower fairs not necessary this particular scheme.

If ur reason is why the sp have choosen the western isles then that is wrong and does show favouritism. Based on what ur saying people of other islands are going to suffer based on the lobbying of a specific council.
109

Talorthane,

27/02/2008 13:18:08
Sedov

Don't be so petulantly disinformative.

The SNP's aim is to include RET for ferries to all Scottish islands.

However, they have to start somewhere. This tends to be the case with pilot studies.

What Tavish Scott should have been doing since the SNP's manifesto pledge was put forward was to support the move and have it extended to the other regions in return for that support.

Instead, he and his party have chosen not to engage with the Government in the hope that they can bring about the SNP's demise.

Now that the SNP Government have got their budget through and demonstated that they will not be leaving office any time soon, Tavish Scott is panicking.

Panicking because the SNP's initiative will; highlight his failure as Transport Minister, highlight his failure as MSP for the Shetland Islands, and highlight his failure to operate in any effective way while in opposition.
110

Alan B,

27/02/2008 13:20:28
#112 Have u completely lost the plot. How are lower ferry prices, to help the economy of remoter parts of our country, in any way "spiteful and selfish".
111

Miss H,

27/02/2008 13:27:21
115 I find your reasoning odd. If all island councils had requested it the Government would have had a decision to make - whether to run trials in all council areas or just some and which routes to trial. As it was I believe that the Comhairle was the only council campaigning for it with the support of HIE. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar is not an SNP run council incidentally and the transport spokesperon Cllr Donald John MacSween is also the Labour candidate for Westminster.

The trial is specifically for a road equivalent tarriff - not simply increasing the subsidy on fares. RET is what exists in Norway and I think some other countries. Because it is based on making ferry journeys the equivalent of road journeys in cost terms council areas like Shetland and possibly Orkney might not benefit from it because journeys are longer. The Western Isles and Argyll and Bute however will. But before investing what will be substantial amounts of money we need to see whether it actually works and whether there is an economic benefit. Otherwise there would be no point in proceeding.
112

SeriouslyAmused,

Ayr 27/02/2008 13:29:25
I cannot believe hte political polarisation and posturing on this board over this. I am not an islander but I welcome any opportunity to go visit the islands, and lower fares will certainly encourage me to do so, and many others. Some of the spite shown here is immature and base. Those who recognise themselves should hang their heads in shame for some of the comments made. Disgusting.
113

Alan B,

27/02/2008 13:39:42
#118 I am happy with a trial and happy with the schema.

"But before investing what will be substantial amounts of money we need to see whether it actually works and whether there is an economic benefit."
Agree.

I just think the logic of increasing the subsidy to 1 set of island over the other needs to be based on more than the lobbying of the council or mp/msp's. I would not get caught up on the exact sheme (RET) as it is about bringing down the price of fares and its effect on the islands economys.

It does seem to me if we are going to introduce a scheme like this it has to be seen to be fair and i do not think your reasoning is.

Other things
1)if the pilot is fails does the subsidy get removed. labour seemed to bring in a policy, it failed based on their objectives and then they kept the policy. Personally i would be happy for the island to keep the higher subsidy but making a pilot/trial means that it could and should be removed in the event of not meeting expectations.
2)As the groups of islands seem quite different. does a pilot in one are actually show that it will effect the others in a similar manner. Bute, Millport and Arran are not as remote and the first 2 people to commute to the mainland eg glasgow for work.

114

Miss H,

27/02/2008 13:49:41
120 It is not simply an increase in subsidy, it is specifically a road equivalent tarriff. And it is not a scheme - it is a pilot. As far as I understand it will be trialed on different routes over the next 3 years so that the effect can be measured.
115

The Master­,

27/02/2008 13:55:39
Having pondered, I dont see the story here. Apparently Orkney ahd Shetland already have ferry pricing BELOW the road-equivalent-tarriffs the SNP now introduced for the Western Isles.

Which would mean of course that all those complaining about the SNP action as biased in favour of an area of SNP support should really have been complaining about the last Lib/Lab admin favouring a Lib Dem area and doing nothing for 8 years to help other island communities.
116

Sedov,

Scotland 27/02/2008 13:55:56
#116 - Yes you are right - I am petulant aren't I? Its just that I am so cynical about politicians promises -is this wrong? However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt Talorthane and we will wait and see. As a regular passenger on ferries to the islands I will be the first to praise the SNP if what you say comes true. Watch this space.
117

John H C,

edinburgh 27/02/2008 14:01:08
These comments from the Scots about the Scots are comparable with the comments from the English about the Scots. Maybe the Nothern Isles should work towards Nothern Independence and tell Holyrood to go jump in the River Forth.
118

Alan B,

27/02/2008 14:03:46
#121 "And it is not a scheme - it is a pilot" I am not going to ask what is think the difference between the 2 is give the context of what i have posted, where i have used the term pilot and scheme inter changably. I would have called it pilot scheme or pilot project but it is abit of a bizarre semantical thing to raise. (particularly given that i support the "pilot"). I just think there are better reasons to be given for choosing the western isles. (i also as an snp support think it is important that the party is not only fair but seen to be fair.)

While i support the concept of a pilot. What about my question regarding the issue that the effect lower fairs would have on groups of islands maybe completely different eg Argyle and Bute. Do u think the results of pilot in the western isles is necessarly transferable to Argyle and Bute.


119

Alan B,

27/02/2008 14:06:13
sorry

"And it is not a scheme - it is a pilot" I am not going to ask what the difference between the 2 is given the context of what i have posted, where i have used the term pilot and scheme inter-changably
120

hubris,

embra 27/02/2008 14:39:09
Those who whinge about "subsidy junkies" should take a visit to the Western Isles occasionally.
It is one of the most scenically rich parts of the earth.
It is economically sterile.
Part of the problem is the cost of the ferries
It increases cost of all goods and services, discourages visitors and inhibits tourists and makes it very difficult for people to travel relatively short distances.

This is an excellent initiative which will go a long way to improving the tourist trade, the local economy and the quality of life of many of our remote citizens who rightly feel they dont get much back for their tax in the way of services
121

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 14:42:29
#121 But it *is* simply an increase in subsidy. And a fairly marginal one at that. A whole raft of commentators here talk about the SNP "opening up the Western Isles" and bringing fairness etc. But there is currently a subsidy of £30 million a year plus to CalMac for these routes, so another £7.5 million can hardly be considered a saviour. Yet again the SNP want to paint the former Executive as the bad guys, but they are really only having a marginal effect on what the bad guys already had in place.
122

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 14:44:19
#127 And here's another one! This is a change from £30 million a year to £37 million a year. Why were you not celebrating the £30 million, but you are celebrating the extra £7 million? Why did the £30 million not help, but the extra £7 million will?
123

The Master­,

27/02/2008 15:37:14
129. Someone's What-Everyone-Wants 3 for £1.99 knickers are a bit too snug.
124

AJM,

27/02/2008 15:39:35
If the SNP wanted to really pilot the RET they would have done it in several areas. As for pilots the hovercraft had to only run a few months before the main SNP benefactor was satisfied enough to ask for government money. So 3 yrs is a joke.
So we can expect other sweeties to be handed out to other SNP voting areas dressed up as an initiatives or pilots.

The SNP is beginning to show its true colours, I did think that they would at least show themselves to be a national party, but nope, handouts to those who vote for you and sneer and snipe at the UK government, that appears to be the strategy.
For what it is worth I think that the subsidy should be greater for all the islands to encourage visitors and their economy.
125

MichScot,

USA 27/02/2008 16:05:33
Who are these SNP MPs ?
126

Talorthane,

27/02/2008 16:08:53
#131 AJM

This is the excerpt from the SNP Manifesto for last year's election.

""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."

This is what has been put into place, it appears, to the letter.

How can this be a reward for those who voted for the SNP when this pledge was made before anyone cast their votes?

And how has it taken so long for these criticisms to com eout when this has been in the pipeline for almost a year?

From their manifesto pledge, it is clear they have proceeded as they said they would.

In the same commitment, they said that the other Scottish islands are in their plans, and that will follow.

I would hazard a guess that if the pilot is going well, that the scheme may be rolled out much sooner than the next election. It's probably got something to do with budgets, and they couldn't afford to provide this level of service everywhere, and that with next year's increased settlement, the other islands will begin to see progress.

The Tories have shown the Lib Dems and Labour how to behave in constructive opposition. If Tavish Scott and his party have any sense (of duty), they will begin negotiations with the Government about next year's budget, and begin to work with them constructively.
127

AJM,

27/02/2008 16:30:47
Talorthane, I agree that there is every chance that a role out will start before the next election. Did I miss the report being published last year. Do you know where it is?
128

Miss H,

27/02/2008 16:43:39
128 Duncan no it is not 'simply' an increase in subsidy. If they were going to increase the subsidy they would just have increased the subsidy without all this palaver.

It is a pilot of a road equivalent tarriff for ferry journeys in Scotland. It's not an across the board thing even in the Western isles - it is being tested on different routes on different years.

The aim is to see if over time it actually has an economic benefit and is therefore worth doing. If it doesn't show a benefit they won't do it.

129

Angus Ogg,

On A Ferry 27/02/2008 16:56:28
#35 Why are you calling me and other islanders "parasites" ?

You don't know me? Would you abuse me to my face?

Do you get off hiding behind anonymity and abusing people ? Were you abused by someone is that why you are abusing others?

What exactly is the point on your posting at all. You don't back up what you say with any intelligent comment. Do you just like baiting people from a standpoint of ignorance?

Aaron Sorkin said "I believe in free speech, but not everyone has earned the microphone. The problem is the internet gives anybody a voice".

He has a point.

Comments such as yours are best ignored.
130

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 27/02/2008 17:03:28
#6 - a "pilot scheme" doesn't need to run for 3 plus years to prove its of benefit. We know already this should bring benefits to island communities so whats the problem in extending the RET trial to all islands and running it for a year instead?

Once again the SNP talk about representing "all of Scotlands interests" but when it comes to it they are showing the same insensitivity demonstrated by the likes of Maggie Thatchers Tories when they introduced the poll tax to Scotland, of course only "as a pilot scheme"!

Any true Scot worth their salt should be protesting against this underhanded approach, not applauding it as some great SNP success story. The majority of fair minded Scots will recognise this for what it is I'm sure. Shame on the rest of you gNATS and a plague on all your houses I say.
131

Jimmy the Pie,

27/02/2008 17:06:13
On a completely different tack

LIVE ENTERTAINMENT TOMORROW
WENDY'S TRAVELLING CIRCUS APPEARING AT FMQ'S.

Will she make an erse of herself, yet again??
Will Nicol make an erse of himself, yet again??
Will Lard Fatty Foulkes spout his usual drivel??

NOT TO BE MISSED
132

Angus Ogg,

On A Ferry 27/02/2008 17:19:39
#50,

Dear Mr Baumgärtner,

I think one of the reasons the RET pilot was not universal is perhaps because, for example, the Orkney Islands have a completely unsubsidised service run by Andrew Banks across the Pentland Firth.

Any variation of the Orcadian part of Northlink's fare increasing the state subsidy to the state ferry service would either put Pentland Ferries out of business, or result in punitive EU action against Northlink for destroying fair competition. Orkney is a little tricky for this.

With regard to Arran, there are many successful business people on the island which I think is the most prosperous on the West Coast. Why do you not do what the Ileach's did in 1968 and have half a dozen local folk join together and start your own ferry service in competition to CalMac?
133

Miss H,

27/02/2008 17:20:32
137 RET will not bring the same level of benefits to all the islands since it is based on ensuring that a journey taken by ferry has the equivalent cost as the same journey would if taken by car. So the further away the island the more it would cost under RET. Thus fares to Shetland for example would probably go up rather than down. It is not therefore going to benefit every island and even if adopted it seems likely that Shetland and possibly Orkney may wish to opt out. It may not benefit all of the Western Isles either. It needs to be studied. Which is why it is being piloted on a number of different routes between a number of different islands over the 3 year period.

It is not simply a cash giveaway in other words, a point which very few people seem to grasp.
134

rock on jonny,

27/02/2008 17:23:17
great reading ,lots of thougt out opinions ,without the usual, voltaire ,paterson and antionette crap.
135

Angus Ogg,

On A Ferry 27/02/2008 17:25:08
#53

Hi Duncan,

Orkney can't have RET at this time as the EU will be called in to stop the state operator killing off Pentland Ferries with unfair competition.

Last time CalMac killed off ferry competition, as Taggart would say they murdrd Western Ferries (Argyll) Ltd., the Monopolies & Mergers Commission were called in and CalMac were in deep trouble.

CalMac are still in hot water with the EU and the new Scottish Executive are a lot smarter than the old Tavish Scott driven lot. That is why they are trying RET on a localised network first.
136

Talorthane,

27/02/2008 17:37:56
#137 Liberal for Life

"#6 - a "pilot scheme" doesn't need to run for 3 plus years to prove its of benefit. We know already this should bring benefits to island communities so whats the problem in extending the RET trial to all islands and running it for a year instead?"

This has probably got something to do with the fact that this year's budget settlement for Westminster is particularly tight.

This will not be the case next year or the year afterwards.

I would expect there to be extensions of thsi scheme to other islands within these two budgets.

However, the budget process for the coming year was debated only recently, and there is no evidence that the Lib Dems or Labour objected to this scheme then, or made any ammendments to have other islands groups included in this scheme.

In fact, in the end, they didn't even object to the budget, they just abstained. And the Lib Dems made no attempts to have the budget ammended at all.

Now they are jumping up and down.

Why now?
137

The Master­,

27/02/2008 18:20:28
Do these ferries have Waitrose sandwiches for sale on them?
138

Scot Patriat,

Bandon 27/02/2008 18:25:01
A little common sense will go along way!
If you set a flat crossing rate based distances,in 5 or ten mile increments for ALL ferry crossings based on vehicular size this would be a fair and reasonable solution. Then subsidize ALL ferry crossings to their current fare (or reasonable fare if the are gouging) to keep them in business. This can be done very easily on a percentage basis and would make it fair for all. This will work wonders for the tourist trade throughout Scotland and the small businesses on the Islands will benefit greatly.

139

The Master­,

27/02/2008 18:36:41
137. I usually post gibberish, but I must say old chap, not even I can make head nor tail of your post.

The SNP are extending road euivalent tarrifs to the Western Isles - the Northern Isles already have pricing below that. Was the Lib/Lab administration handing out bribes to its own areas before, while neglecting the Western Isles, you balloon?

PS - you are incredibly boring and perhaps one of the most boring posters ever to darken these threads
140

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 27/02/2008 18:59:03
#146 I am the most boring poster!

To prove it I shall say nothing new on this topic, other than that I both agree and disagree with all other posters.
141

Scot Patriat,

Bandon 27/02/2008 19:06:11
The solution is simple as posted above and would be fair for all.
Get rid of the political BS and do what is right for Scotland!
142

WL,

livingston 27/02/2008 19:25:18
If some people think that the Western Isles are being favoured by the politicians, then maybe they are right. But every political party only favours areas where they get a lot of votes. So nothing new.
In any case, this is only a pilot scheme, which - if successful - will in the future benefit all Scottish islands.
143

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 27/02/2008 19:27:09
#146 - I'll take that as a "no" then.

All the ferry services receive support subsidies but thats not RET and we all should recognise that, whether you admit it is an entirely different thing and that was the point I was making so it obviuosly has hit a few nerves along the way.

As for your insulting remarks, believe me you have a very long way to go before this kind if spik makes any impression. It only reveals what an ignorant person you are who has to resort to it in the first place.

144

Sheltie,

Lerwick 27/02/2008 20:02:13
Interesting comments from many people who clearly have no idea how much it costs to get to Shetland or how much Shetland and Orkney put into Government coffers by way of oil revenues.

To take a car and family south on North link will cost a family of 4 around £432 assuming they have a cabin. Given that it's around a 12 hour journey that's usually essential if you have children.

We could suggest that with the oil revenues that come in from around Shetland's waters we could afford to run a ferry service free of charge if we didn't have to give it to sponging plonkers on the mainland.

Do we get our fair share of the revenues that pass through Sullom Voe? No.

Doesn't it surprise people that the SNP are quite happy to plunder other people's resources in exactly the same manner that they claim Westminster has done for years.

You're quite happy to take the oil revenues, but less happy to make the lives of people who live in the Islands equitable (in cost terms) to everyone else.
145

AJM,

27/02/2008 20:05:49
#133 Points to SNP manifesto to "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"

I have asked where it is with no reply and all I can see is indications from an emerging findings from a research study on the Scottish government site.

So if it is not there, they have jumped the gun for some reason. So it still seems to be political as clearly RET was not going to ever work for Shetland.
146

AJM,

27/02/2008 20:09:36
#151 Sheltie, absolutely right although I have traveled to Orkney many times, Shetland has always been too expensive.

Surely if the fares were lower then accommodation providers on Shetland can charge closer to the Scottish norm, money in their pockets rather than the ferry.
147

The Master­,

27/02/2008 20:32:29
154. His point is that there are more Waitroses on the mainland, so Mike wouldn't have to mae so many damned trips. You being a Farmfoods cheerleader would not appreciate that
148

The Master­,

27/02/2008 20:40:39
156. I have noticed that too. It isprobably because the trolls shop at Asda and thus have little imagination.
149

Scot Patriat,

Bandon 27/02/2008 20:51:33
# 151

All islands Inner and Outer Hebrides, Orkney and Shetlands should be accessible for a reasonable rate.

The shorter trips would take up the slack on revenue as they will be used more frequently.

If a subsidy is being given to one it should be given to all and all should be equally accessible for a fair price. After all it would be to the benefit of all of Scotland to increase the tourist trade.
A lesson from the way that Switzerland handles its bus, train, boat infra structure, Scotland could benefit greatly by putting something like this in place.
The politicians could also learn a lesson from the Swiss, in that they were voted in by the public and are public servants who need to remember make decisions for the good of the people of Scotland and Scotland itself. If they are in it for themselves then there needs to be away in which they can be immediately released from their duties.

Shetland you are and will always be a part of Scotland.
Surely Scots should by now in this modern age have easy and equal access to their own country. It sounds as if it is probably cheaper to fly in by easyjet and pay for car rental, if easy jet goes to Lerwick.
150

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 27/02/2008 20:53:48
There should be NO subbies at all for these ferries, I do not get subsidised for my trip to Edinburgh each day.

151

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 27/02/2008 20:56:25
# 151

your arguement is pure rubbish ......... r u saying its Shetlands Oil now??
152

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 21:01:12
#161 Oh yes you do! Who do you think is paying for the Edinburgh roads that get huge amounts of wear and tear from people commuting in from outside the city? You certainly don't.
153

Sheltie,

Lerwick 27/02/2008 21:06:07
Unionist Troll (or trow)?

No not quite, as Westminster is quite happy to rake in oil revenues without returning money to the Isles for development. My only point is that the SNP seem quite happy to continue this beneficial arrangement for mainlanders. I had hoped for better.

...and no, we don't have the luxury of an Asda in Lerwick so I can't comment on that aspect of mainland life.

#161 Got rid of the bridge tolls didn't they? Who's making up the lost revenue?
154

Nikostratos,

27/02/2008 21:11:43
Deserted Islands

On a group of beautiful deserted tropical islands in the middle of
nowhere, the following people are suddenly stranded by, as you
might expect, a shipwreck:

2 Italian men and 1 Italian woman, 2 French men and 1 French woman,
2 German men and 1 German woman,
2 Greek men and 1 Greek woman,
2 English men and 1 English woman,
2 Bulgarian men and 1 Bulgarian woman,
2 Japanese men and 1 Japanese woman,
2 Chinese men and 1 Chinese woman,
2 American men and 1 American woman, and
2 Scottish men and 1 Scottish woman

One month later on these same absolutely stunningly beautiful
desert (and deserted) islands in the middle of nowhere, the following
things have occurred:

One Italian man killed the other Italian man for the Italian woman.

The two French men and the French woman are living happily
together in a menage-a-trois.

The two German men have a strict weekly schedule of alternating
visits with the German woman.

The two Greek men are sleeping with each other and the Greek woman
is cleaning and cooking for them.

The two English men are waiting for someone to introduce them to
the English woman.

The two Bulgarian men took one long look at the endless ocean,
another long look at the Bulgarian woman, and started swimming.

The two Japanese men have faxed Tokyo and are awaiting instructions.

The two Chinese men have set up a pharmacy, a liquor store, a
restaurant, and a laundry, and have got the woman pregnant in
order to supply employees for the store.

The two American men are contemplating the virtues of suicide
because the American woman keeps endlessly complaining about her body,the
true nature of feminism, how she can do everything they can do, the
necessity of fulfillment, the equal division of household chores, how sand
and palm trees make her look fat, how her last boyfriend respected her
opinion and treated her nicer than they do, how her relationship with her
mother is improving, and at least t
155

Nikostratos,

27/02/2008 21:14:01


The two Scottish men have divided the island into North and South and
set up a distillery. They do not remember if sex is in the picture
because it gets sort of foggy after the first few liters of coconut
whiskey.
But they're satisfied because at least the English aren't having any fun.
156

Sheltie,

Lerwick 27/02/2008 21:18:32
"Shetland you are and will always be a part of Scotland"

Oh? Sounds rather high handed; what if we democratically decide that we don't want to be part of your SNP utopia, or Westminster for that matter? We have many links to Scandinavia, for example.

"It sounds as if it is probably cheaper to fly in by easyjet and pay for car rental, if easy jet goes to Lerwick."

Wonderful idea, except that jets can't use Sumburgh and oil flights at Scatsta (which can take jets) aren't available to the public. Oh, and we have the choice of BA (operated by Loganair) or no one. The mainland based airport operator (HIAL) was quite happy for Sumburgh's oil flights to subsidise its mainland operations but isn't quite so keen to invest in better facilities here.

Yes, we are amiable because we should have been spitting tacks long ago.
157

The Fly Fifer,

Fife 27/02/2008 21:19:29
Duncan, I pay my Road Fund Licence each year on time, I also pay my taxes on time, the roads are in a disgusting state and if it were not for my X5 it would be a bumpy ride each day I come in to the city
158

Conan the Librarian™,

27/02/2008 21:27:46
A Wee Free minister is rescued after many years on a desert island. The captain of the rescuing ship says to him, "I thought you were alone. How come there are three huts on the beach?"

"Well, that one there is my house and that one there is where I go to church."
"And the third one?" asks the skipper.
"Oh, that's my old church."
159

Michael,

27/02/2008 21:31:57
The last administration abolished tolls on the Skye Bridge but not the Forth and Tay Bridges. I always thought that was in order to shore up the Lib dem vote there. Am I wrong?
160

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 27/02/2008 21:37:22
As the famous Baldric said on more than one occasion, 'I have a cunning plan'.

Reckon the larger ferries must burn 7 tonnes of gasoil/24 hours steaming. Tot up all the ferries, calculate the quantity of fuel used in a year, and it amounts to one heck of a carbon footprint, and all for one man and a bag of ferrets. Capture all the carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide, and turn these gases into carbon fibre, which we are all told is immensely strong and durable. Make a number of squinty and/or wobbly bridges, and join up all the islands. It is so simple, and it will not rust - FETA please note.
161

Sheltie,

Lerwick 27/02/2008 21:45:20
#176 Who's denigrating the alternative?

As I said earlier, we'd hoped for better...but that doesn't seem to be the case is it?

Had the SNP wanted to make a telling statement they could have run a joint pilot, in the same way that they abolished ALL bridge tolls.

We're not asking for special treatment, just equitable treatment. If that basic desire makes me anti-SNP then I would suggest SNP followers aren't very mature in their outlook.
162

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 21:58:55
#172 Neither your road fund licence nor your taxes pay for the upkeep of Edinburgh roads. Trunk roads, yes, but the rest are paid for by people like me, who either walk or get the bus into work, but get the benefit of the pollution and road damage from you thousands of Fifers arriving by car every day.

I'm a regular visitor to the Kingdom, I have family there and I'm very fond of it. But the status of much of mid-Fife as dormitory towns for Edinburgh essentially means that Fife Council is living off Edinburgh money, and Edinburgh council is paying for Fife folk.

Now wonder the roads in Fife are so much better than those in Edinburgh.
163

The Master­,

27/02/2008 22:03:20
179. My goodness, that must be the most parochial and ludicrous post since I myself posed earlier!

And no doubt Edinburgh people are paying for damned day trippers from Linlithgow, come to Edinburgh and wear aware the pavements!

PS - Do you go to Farmfoods in Fife?

164

Pundit,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 22:08:19
#13 AJM
if the reason that previous administrations did nothing because "They wanted a scheme that was fair to all." Then how come there appears to be a much higher subsidy to Northern ferries than to those serving other parts of Scotland, could it be that the previous Transport Secretary (Tavish Scott) MSP for Shetland was in fact guilty of what he is now accusing the SNP of doing.

The real issue is that all of Scotlands communities should have access to good and affordable transport links. I think the challenge for Scotland is the that our island communities are severely disadvantaged by the huge cost of ferry transport, the fact that ferry crossings range from hundreds of Yards to hundreds of miles makes it unlikely that one scheme will fit all, howver this is not a reason for doing nothing. Perhaps what we want to establish is a principle that it should not cost more to take a ferry than to drive the same distance. RET is a step in the right direction however it is probably not the complete answer.
165

,

27/02/2008 22:18:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
166

Tris,

Dundee 27/02/2008 22:21:40
~ 7 Pundit
"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."

You really couldn't make it up could you? Oh, please put our fares up; it's not fair, it's because you are SNP. Stupid b******.

As for the idiot Conservative and his odious post. You sir make me ashamed to be Scottish. Trot off and join Mrs Thatcher in England. Bet Annabel Goldie loves the likes of you! NOT.
167

Scot Patriat,

Bandon 27/02/2008 22:24:24
#171 Sheltie reread #158 & #159.

In #159 it was stated All islands should be accessible at a reasonable rate! That was refering to ferry service. Yes If easyjet went there it would be cheaper but it should not be.

The Shetlands are a part of Scotland are they not, and so they should be! What is so high handed about that? Why all this politican disunity, who has created it? Scotland and its people will always be a part of me but the political sonario of today seems like it could learn from Switzerland as could its infra structure systems.

Maybe a little benevolence could be learned from the Andrew Carnegie story.

If a unfair disected Scotland is what you are vying for, the political effect on Scotland, that its own people have created and rendered it to this sad state of affairs. How about going back several hundrerd years and have a fight about who should be the King of Scotland. This is 2008.
168

,

27/02/2008 22:26:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
169

Pundit,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 22:28:45
#183 Tris
Does it not just show up that previous administrations allowed schemes to implimented that were uneven and unfair to other parts of Scotland
Please see my post at #183
170

Pundit,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 22:33:33
#186 sorry my previous post was #181
171

Yane,

27/02/2008 22:37:03
#165 Hey! You forgot to mention the Scottish woman & the Japanese woman! I say they seduced the English men, moved away from the others & became fat & happy.
The End.
172

,

27/02/2008 22:38:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
173

,

27/02/2008 22:40:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
174

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/02/2008 22:42:43
What on earth does AGRR mean you tiresome fool?
175

,

27/02/2008 22:46:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
176

,

27/02/2008 22:49:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
177

,

27/02/2008 22:52:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
178

,

27/02/2008 22:54:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
179

Conan the Librarian™,

27/02/2008 22:54:40
194
Media muncher.
I'm grey and I'm proud.

Grey Rights.AGRR...cough, splutter.

180

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 27/02/2008 22:55:53
#171 - Sheltie is quite right - there would never be such a thing as an "independent" Scotland - it would have to rely on Shetland oil and English gas especially now they don't agree (yet) with a wind farm being established in the Western isles - I'm sure this development would benefit the indigenous Hebridean economy far more that cheap trips to the mainland anyway. Thats why the SNP don't have a long term strategy beyond this call for so called independence. Its time their supporters wised up and Stopped Nationalist Propaganda now.
181

Pundit,

Glasgow 27/02/2008 22:56:58
#178 Sheltie
I suspect that the reason for the limited scope of the pilot is to do with the cost and competing demands for a very tight budget. I believe the length of the Pilot, 3 years, will allow a real measure of the effect on the islands economies and may even show some effect on reversing population drift. Measuring these things takes time. If successful then the body of evidence for further monies becomes very strong
182

,

27/02/2008 22:58:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
183

Conan the Librarian™,

27/02/2008 23:03:48
196
Note absence of posts.
184

,

27/02/2008 23:06:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
185

Conan the Librarian™,

27/02/2008 23:08:45
KIMBA ate Darkside f and all.
186

Conan the Librarian™,

27/02/2008 23:10:02
Piano bar anyone?
187

,

27/02/2008 23:12:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
188

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 27/02/2008 23:15:51
Its nice to see that Scotland is just like Ireland and that the SNP. like labour before them, believe in Pork barrel politics. Its a shame that they cannot be strategic, otherwise, they would have built the rail link to Edinburgh airport.
189

,

27/02/2008 23:17:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
190

The Dark Side­­,

27/02/2008 23:43:26
Wow!

That was weird...I was sucked into a Void no light no sound only the stench of last weeks kippers...seems like I was there for hours.

Then suddenlly I could hear the music from Club Hoos Poos but I could not find the door.

Very Strange.
191

David Macintosh,

weert 28/02/2008 08:37:14
If the Island of Islay were independent from the rest of the UK, it would be richer per head of population than Soudi Arabia. The tax generated from the sale of Islay whisky would make the island the richest place on earth. We are fed up subsidising the rest of the UK!! says he with a broad grin on his face. Independence for Islay.
192

Angus Ogg,

On A Ferry 28/02/2008 10:47:01
#173 Just to help, the larger CalMac West Coast ferries use 700 litres per hour, the smaller Loch class 230 litres per hour.

#204 Point very well made. When are you getting Western ferries back on the route. I hear the ferry MV Sound of Islay is coming up fro sale from the Newfies.

Ileach Gu Bràth


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.