Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Bridge row may scupper schools and new hospitals

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: 05 January 2009
MAJOR government projects, including schools, hospitals and transport schemes could be delayed or cancelled because of a dispute over the funding of the new Forth road bridge, ministers warned last night.
The Scottish Government wanted to spread the payments for the new £2 billion bridge over the next 20 years, minimising the impact on its existing budgets. But yesterday the UK Treasury rejected this plan, telling Scottish ministers it was impossible to take that sort of decision on budgets so many years in the future.

That leaves the Scottish Government will little option but to pay for the new bridge as it is built, taking about £700 million a year out of its main capital budget for 2013, 2014 and 2015.

A spokesman for the First Minister, Alex Salmond, said it was impossible to say which other projects would suffer but all other major spending plans would have to "take their place in the queue" behind the new Forth crossing.

Labour agreed that other projects would be delayed or cancelled, but blamed the SNP for the problems, arguing that it was only the Nationalists' ideological opposition to a Public Private Partnership (PPP) funding model which was forcing the project to be paid for out of existing budgets.

The new Forth bridge was expected to cost up to £4 billion, and the SNP government wanted to use its new Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) to pay for it. SFT is a modification on Labour's PPP model, generating less profit for private contractors and using economies of scale to drive down the price.

But the SFT option has run into problems and the Scottish Government is not able to pursue it for this project. That left ministers with the option of Labour's PPP model – to which they are firmly opposed – or paying for the bridge out of existing budgets.

Stewart Stevenson, the transport minister, managed to get the cost of the new bridge down to about £2 billion which brought it within the reach of existing budgets. However, aware that this would squeeze other projects, Scottish ministers asked the Treasury for permission to spread the cost of the bridge over the next 20 years.

Yesterday, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, delivered his answer. He said the Scottish Government had been "asking to borrow money from budgets that had yet to be allocated over an extremely long period". He added: "That's something that we just don't do."

He said the Treasury was "happy to work with the Scottish Government, to co-operate and find a solution". However, he stressed: "What you can't do is bring forward spending 15 or 20 years out, in budgets that haven't been allocated.

"If you want to spend a large sum of money on a particular project, it does have consequences."

Asked if other projects might be affected, Mr Salmond said: "I'm not putting anything on hold – I think the Chancellor might be guilty of that if he continues in his present attitude, but I'm not taking no for an answer."

But a spokesman for the First Minister said later: "Obviously, the implication of refusing this commonsense request is that other projects must take their place in the queue."


Q & A

Why do we need a new Forth road bridge?


According to all the major parties (except the Greens) the current road bridge is suffering from wear and tear and may have to stop taking traffic in about ten years.

What is going to be done?

Scottish ministers decided the current bridge can actually survive and be used, indefinitely, but only for public transport. They will build a new bridge to take all lorries and cars.

What will it cost?

About £2 billion.

Where will the money come from?

Ministers had three options: using existing budgets (pay as you build); using the Private Public Partnership model (effectively a long-term mortgage); or the Scottish Futures Trust (a long-term mortgage which costs less than the PPP scheme).

Which option was chosen?

The Scottish Government is opposed to the PPP model, so that was ruled out. There are ongoing and unresolved problems with the SFT model, so that didn't work, either. This left ministers with just existing budgets, which means about £700 million a year from the Scottish Government budget every year for three years (2013-2015).

Did they try to soften this blow?

John Swinney asked the Treasury for permission to spread the payments for the new bridge. That way, other budgets and projects would not suffer from the massive investment in the new bridge.

What did the Treasury say?

It rejected the idea, claiming it was impossible to take spending decisions on budgets so far in advance. It told Scottish ministers to save in advance of the bridge or to use a PPP model.

What happens now?

Scottish ministers want a meeting with Treasury ministers, believing they could still win the argument.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 January 2009 11:29 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

Rufus-T-Firefly,

04/01/2009 23:30:22
What a great move that was scrapping the tolls.

Especially when Salmond knew a new bridge was needed and there was no money to pay for it.

The short sighted SNP should have plumped for a tunnel anyway. Less maintenance. Less noise and it would never need to get closed because of high winds.
2

Rufus-T-Firefly,

04/01/2009 23:48:31
Why can the bridge not be built using the Scottish Futures Trust?
3

Jimmy Le Pie,

05/01/2009 00:02:34
How much did the Bank of America make from funding the Skye Bridge??
4

I can see for miles,

05/01/2009 00:06:39
Looks like it's going to be another great year for Salmond
5

Forward not Back,

05/01/2009 00:10:38
Given that there will be a jobs bloodbath in Edinburgh in any case, is there any need for a new bridge as the Dunfermline commuter belt is slowly repossessed?
6

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 00:13:17
It says the Scottish Futures Trust cannot be used for this as it has run into difficulties.

What difficulties?
7

Bill_on_a_boat,

Still Docked 05/01/2009 00:20:36
Rufus T Barfly - one wonders what you get paid by Nu Lab to sit here so much and support them?

That aside - there's NO money in the treasury at westminster - they've already way overspent - and Scotlands Oil isn't worth what it was so there's little hope of more borrowing to proivide any (see the embedded graph here of sterlings fall paralleling NS Crude decline)

http://tinyurl.com/63wneh

It's also most interesting that Scots money can be diverted for LONDON's olympics but none is available for vital infastructure in Scotland.

It's also interesting how much of the REAL disaster that is Gordon Brown's disunited kingdom is being hidden from the public.... Here's CITIBANKS analysts take on it....

www.spectator.co.uk/business/trading-floor/3078296/the-true-extent-of-britains-debt.thtml

Lastly WHEN will nu lab in Scotland EVER start working for Scotlands' well being instead of being London's mouthpiece?

It's a disaster, a disgrace, and enough for now.

There went the "Happy New Year" - with all those jobs...
8

Elethiomel,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 00:33:07
#7 The Olympics aside though money was available, the highest ever level in fact. It's just that there was never going to be enough for the SNP to do all they said they were going to.

I'm no fan of Labour or Brown but Britain's Government are elected to handle Britain's finances and the Scottish Government should learn to live within its means. They knew what the score was at the start of their term so the dummy spitting that is going on is really just playing politics.

You shouldn't base a finance plan on money you don't have, or on a funding mechanism you don't have either.
9

subrosa,

05/01/2009 00:40:51
# 8

So you believe in the 'put up or shut up' type of politics then? Sorry but they're on the way out and Scotland wants to do what is best for Scotland, not what's best to keep the south of England comfortable.

We need to take responsibility for our own finances and not be sending our taxation monies to another country and wait for it to dispense it at their will.

The mess that is Britain just proves that Scotland would be far better being independent. Unfortunately England needs Scotland and won't let us go without a dirty fight but we all know the gloves are off.
10

Forward not Back,

05/01/2009 00:44:30
The joke about PFI/PPP is that HMG are being forced to add this back on to the public debt as the idea of it being 'off balance sheet' is a joke. This is because there is no way that, should a health trust, for example, default on a repayment that the government would allow the hospital to close.

So, in essence, part of the budgets 20 years hence have been set anyway, viz. the liabilities on maintaining these projects!
11

,

05/01/2009 00:45:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

Warden An' All, Reborn,

05/01/2009 00:49:22
Now we really see what this whole bridge money con was all about. Now the excuses will flow like niagra falls.
We didn't have enough money here, we didn't have enough money there. We should have been able to have our advance.
There will be nothing about rotten book keeping, or budgeting, and don't forget the promises, no!
It's all the fault of those treasury people thhey will say. YES RIGHT!
13

,

05/01/2009 00:49:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 00:55:42


"....He believes speeding up school, transport, technology and environmental projects will help offset the effects......"

Who are we talking about?
15

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 00:57:05

1. Are you saying that Labour and the Liberals' pledge to scrap tolls over the forth was never going to be honoured?
16

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 00:59:32


"....taking about £700 million a year out of its main capital budget for 2013, 2014 and 2015......"

ha ha ha ha

Will labour want to win the referendum and the 2011 Election?

Devolution will be a nightmare if it continues beyond 2011.

Well played by the SNP again....
17

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 01:00:53


Does anyone know how much the bridge will l cost using PPP?

There's a simple test here, Darling is forcing the tax payer to use the more expensive route, meaning higher taxes to repay it.
18

Warden An' All, Reborn,

05/01/2009 01:02:09
14-Wardog™-All I could think of is someone enlightened.
Who was it?
Please tell us, go on you know you want to.
19

Bill_on_a_boat,

Docked tonight 05/01/2009 01:04:32
Rufus:

Where are your unionists taking Scotland / England - please think about it - long and hard - the big picture if you're capable, and we hope you'll prove you just might be....

Scotland can either get on a single page - back independence (and that includes the media) grasp the nettle and stride forward to a future of it's own making or follow the disunited kingdom to RUIN.

Now -RUIN- strong word no less - but accurate in hte extreme as if you look at the link we posted earlier the fundamentals for the UK are, quite frankly, horrible, and appear in 2007 to have passed the point of no return that Germany did in 1928.
There WILL be IMF intervention, there WILL be hyperinflation (3-5 years max, maybe earlier) - there WILL BE economic disaster, which is just starting at this time.

Scotland and England are seperate countries - individually they each have the opportunity to lessen the disaster on the horizon and flourish afterwards. Look at the wider picture (if you dare) and draw your own conclusions.

Scotland will be FULLY self governing again, within 2 decades - the only defining issue will be is it before or after the hemlock now in the cup before it is swallowed.....
20

Billiam Wallace,

05/01/2009 01:05:09
#8 I'm not an SNP voter or activist but I'm certainly heading that way as the hatred of Scotland becomes more and more apparent in everything that comes out of Westmonster. The SNP could not have imagined how the powers down south would renage on spending for Scotland. I reckon that their manifesto promises on capital and other spending were made in reasonable good faith on the understanding that year on year increases in spending would continue and that grants of OUR tax money being returned to the Scottish budget would also continue. The difficulty arises because Broon Troosers got a wee petted lip when Labour lost control of the Scottish Government and they stuck the knife in and twisted it at every opportunity that they got. I have to say that Scotland should get out of the UK ASAP or risk being sucked down into the economic black hole that Broon has created.

Rufus T Sh!t for brains, not everyone who desires freedom and justice is the most literate in the world. Look at you, you work for a newspaper and yet you are still a moron who backs an unjust, evil government that is intent on oppressing the majority of it's voters, (in England too). So, in the words of the great sage; "Away and bile ye heid!"
21

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 01:08:29
18 It's much better if you guess Warden, makes it more fun

22

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 01:14:07

"....He believes speeding up school, transport, technology and environmental projects will help offset the effects......"

72 Schools' / £1 Billion delivered since 2007
£840 Million Publicl Funded Hospital Announced
M74 Completion started
A9 Improvements being actioned
£1Billion of renewable Investment made to date with lot's more happening
International Marine Renewables Prize to use Scotland


Brown's playing catchup with Salmond

His and Darling's stance on the Forth is a major owngoal, the voters will see only Westminister rhetoric about spending but then withholding money from Scotland.

In any event, if funded from capital budgets these will be after a 2011 referendum and Scottish election, plenty of time to get SFT up and running properly.

Salmond has a real coup on his hands here.

Labour advocating PP, how much will that cost?

SFT coming online now with the first NHS hub projects expected in March/April.

Trip to middle east coming up to get funding for SFT.





Has everyone noticed Ian Gray has stayed well away from commenting on this, left to Andy Kerr to carry the can as usual.

Expect the full PPP price to be exposed this week and Labour to be in a shambles





23

Bill_on_a_boat,

Still Docked 05/01/2009 01:33:56
Wardog - Figuring PPP over a 30 year term, two bill financed (IF it can be obtained) - fairly typical costing of 20% compounding interest on these projects plus associated PFI "running costs" averaging 20% / annum of initial build costs as opposed to around 12% (high estimate) for public costs - that's around 400 million a year in interest plus 200 million a year in maint for 30 years - 18 billion with PPI

With futures allow interest at 10% (high) and public operating budget at 12% (high) and you get 440 million or so per year - being generous round it up to 450.

that's 13.5 billion.

For the difference of 6.5 billion (very low estimate) can we suggest funding a few hundred new schools in Scotland to be built in the same period and upgrading many NHS facilities.

Quick ballpark figure based on overview of PPI over the last decade and brief knowledge of general maintainance costs on large projects. Feel free to pick it apart - but it's close....

Of course - Under the Lib/Lab proposal for a 4 bill bridge - we can also fund the London Olympics....
Sorry - forgot - we're having to do that and a tube line too.........
24

Bill_on_a_boat,

On Board 05/01/2009 01:40:57
Addendum:

The figures above don't exactly equate - we allowed for inflation averaging (not hyperinflation) but didn't explain the calc. It's late.
25

,

05/01/2009 03:03:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

,

05/01/2009 03:05:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

,

05/01/2009 03:14:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 05/01/2009 03:36:54
There is a very simple solution to this funding problem.

As things currently stand, in 2013, 2014 and 2015, 700 Million will have to allocated each year from the Capital Budget to pay for the Bridge.

This is because of the intransigence of the Treasury which will neither advance funds from future years or allow the Scottish Government to borrow by issuing bonds for capital projects.

The solutions is if you what to have new Schools and Hospitals is to vote for Independence in the 2010 referendum.

The Union does not work, it only holds Scotland back, time to kick it into touch.

Campaign Slogan For The Referendum:

If you want new Roads, Schools and Hospitals vote Yes for Independence.

If you want nothing vote No for continuing Dependence.
29

Graeme,

Guangzhou 05/01/2009 03:40:48
Scott Webb.

You must be seeing a whole team of psychiatrists?

A bit of sleep might help as well!


30

Fifi la Bonbon,

05/01/2009 03:46:41
Rufus-T-Firefly asked: "It says the Scottish Futures Trust cannot be used for this as it has run into difficulties. What difficulties?"

He or she was then subjected to a torrent of vile abuse by people who I assume are Nationalist Party supporters. People who think their political agenda can be advanced by describing someone asking a simple question as "Rufus T Barfly", "Sh!tefly", "Rufus T Sh!t" and so on. Fought an died for, eh?

Obviously you all don't like her or him, but it's a pretty good question.

The Nationalists have been in power for twenty months now.

No Scottish Futures Trust has been set up to replace the PPI system.

That is worrying. Why hasn't it been put in place?

What is Angus Grossart actually doing?

Actually, I don't really care what the Nationalist Party supporters have to say - I want this reported properly by the Scotsman as news.
31

Fifi la Bonbon,

05/01/2009 03:52:21
In case someone deletes my earlier post I'll restate it without the obscene quotes from the Nationalist Party element. The Nationalists have been in power for twenty months now. No Scottish Futures Trust has been set up to replace the PPI system. That is worrying.

Why hasn't it been put in place?

What is Angus Grossart actually doing?
32

,

05/01/2009 03:53:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 04:10:49
23. Bill

Thanks Bill, that's the first working I've seen and although it looks high the proportional difference between SFT, PPP and Public Funding looks about right.

Your right to highlight it, we're talking potentially BILLIONS added under PPP.

Labour need to explain why this is better value than simply agreeing that future Scottish Block grants will be reduced to pay for this over a 15- 20 year period at minimal additional cost.

HM Treasury have a habit of saying "look, it;s the rules", as though they can't change those rules for special projects or indeed special circumstances

It didn't take them very long to set aside competition rules to allow a dodgy take-over of HBOS, that too was against the rule but they found a way.

Taken in the context of Brown's move to accelerate public spending, his refusal to even countenance this common sense approach from the SNP is inexplicable other petty politics at ordinary Scot's loss.

You'd have to be a hardline unionist to see this any other way.






34

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 04:12:34

31. Do you know how long it took to setup PFI and PPP?

The SFT is reported to start delivering in March/April this year with NHS Hub projects the first off the blocks and dovetailing very snugly indeed with the current Building Programme.

Why Labour and the Tories want to waste our money through PFI is anybody's guess.

Do you think they've got a few more Lordships to hand out?
35

Roy,

05/01/2009 04:21:48
Remember how the last Lab/Lib Scottish 'government' avoided taking any decisive action on the Forth crossing problem.

Remember how Brown and Darling are shackling Scotland when the next election comes.
36

Jimbo2,

05/01/2009 04:53:03
Yet again we have unionists revelling at the news of Scotland being handicapped by the British Labour Party at Westminster.

Why do unionists see any disadvantage to Scotland as a victory for the union?

What kind of twisted logic finds reason to rejoice at a member state of their beloved union suffering a setback?

Surely if they wanted Scotland to remain within the union they would be shouting from the rooftops about the unfairness, churlishness and lack of common-sense approach by the British Labour party, to what is in essence, a reasonable request by the Scottish Government?

Gordon Brown, the leader of the British Government, has already stated that he intends to spend billions on infrastructure, and bring forward spending on projects, as yet unallocated, in order to help the economy recover.

British Chancellor, Alistair Darling, contradicts this by saying "What you can't do is bring forward spending 15 or 20 years out, in budgets that haven't been allocated."

Doesn't it kind of make Brown's words ring hollow?

The Scottish economy is obviously excluded from their forward thinking.
37

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 05/01/2009 04:59:43
The peice of british called rufly, He She has know idea. They are obviously english, who now live here in SCOTLAND. Please enjoy my country, but do not abuse it. Have a wonderful 2009 EVERYONE!!!!!!!!
38

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 05/01/2009 05:03:49
INDEPENDENCE AT ANY COST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
39

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 05/01/2009 05:24:42
#38

"INDEPENDENCE AT ANY COST"

It seems that with Westminster's attachment to PFI that the low cost option is Independence.
40

,

05/01/2009 05:45:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

,

05/01/2009 05:45:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

,

05/01/2009 05:47:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

,

05/01/2009 05:48:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 05/01/2009 05:49:33
Gordon Brown on bringing forward 10 Billion in Capital Spending

"I want to show how we will be able, through public investments and public works, to create probably 100,000 additional jobs over the next period of time in our capital investment programme - schools, hospitals, environmental work and infrastructure, transport. We are not going to stand by and allow nothing to be done when people are facing difficulties,"

Yvette Cooper on Scotland's request to bring forward 2 Billion in Capital Spending.

“The UK-wide public spending framework does not allow for bringing forward spending in this way to fund major infrastructure projects”.

WTF?

London Olympics? Yes
London Crossrail? Yes
Heathrow Railhub? Yes
Highspeed London to Manchester Line? Yes

Edinburgh Bridge? P!ss Off



45

,

05/01/2009 05:56:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

,

05/01/2009 05:59:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

,

05/01/2009 05:59:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

Graeme,

Guangzhou 05/01/2009 06:26:42
#46, Scott Webb

Gosh, I never thought of that before…While you mention it, perhaps you should also take a look at the new swimming pools and their fortifications (next to all the supermarkets in every town and city). Fortifications in fact hidden behind the undergrowth alongside the trenches cunningly disguised as fish and lily ponds? Just think of it, with purification plants you could hold out for years?

49

subrosa,

05/01/2009 07:02:10
# 13

The semi-literate aren't welcome on AWM. Upset you has it? The fact that he doesn't let you post?
50

McNasty,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 07:04:27
The Edinburgh trams could be put on hold for 20 years!
Perhaps forever?


51

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 05/01/2009 07:14:09
#50
I agree: We need a bridge, we need schools etc.
Trams are a pie-in-the-sky Labour nice-to-have when The City was producing all that false boom for Labour's economic miracle.

Labour/ Westminster will wring their hand and starve the Scottish Government of cash, and then say the SNP can't govern.
52

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 05/01/2009 07:28:55
I seem to remember that when Labour ruled the now defunct Scottish Executive, their Westminster master were throwing money at them.

I also remember Maggie Broon (or was it Teflon Tony) promising the voters an extra £1.8Bn for "Education, Education, Education" at the May 2007 elections. Obviously that was dependent on the voters returning Hurricane Jeck.

It's the same old story. We produce wealth and send it off to London, who then turn round and dole it out to us as they see fit. And if we dare to get above our station, they cut off funding until we doff our cloth caps suitably enough.
53

John Cameron,

St Andrews 05/01/2009 07:33:26
Surely we could find more suitable things to sacrifice? Since any Scotsman only needs three levels of government (Westminster, local council and the wife) we could get rid of everything else starting with the absurd Scottish Parliament. Then every single quango could be binned plus 90% of social workers, most of the "new universities" (back to technical/vocational colleges), and all of Gordy MacBroon's new public service jobsworths. We could also have a complete revision of the public service pensions of ALL the rest. Oops! We could end up as the wealthiest small country in Europe.
54

Ian C,

The Real World 05/01/2009 07:33:38
Rufus T Firefly. Why are you such an A S WHOLE ?

We all you know that Labour will try to scupper anything the SNP tries to do for Scotland. They don't care about Scotland or its people - seems like you are the same.

Maybe you are part of the Labour campaign, sitting up through the night waiting to comment on the Scotsman for Labour. Try the Sun or Daily Sport; they seem to be more your intelligence level.
55

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 07:35:27
53

What he obviously isnt is controlled by ZanuLiebour therefore has an opinion based on what he really thinks rather than what he's told to think.
Maybe you should try expressing your own opinions once in a while rather than party propaganda and set statements spoon fed to you.
Of course that may involve thinking before you post rather than after.
56

brownlie,

05/01/2009 07:39:21
13 Professor???

Very strange comment to make considering that subrosa is one of the more literate and balanced contributors to this site.

Do we assume that, as a professor and an esteemed and distinguished member of the intelligensia, you have no room in your society for those who you regard to be, shall we say, not as literate as others?

Do you recall any politicians who thought along similar lines?
57

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 07:43:46
56

Moron all we need is independence to become the wealthiest small country in Europe.
Within the union we are a basket case region of another country full of natural resourses which are unavailable to us as a nation. A bit like Iraq really only not so obvious.
58

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 07:47:34
The UK government could of course divert one years worth of North Sea oil revenue to Scotland in order to allow it to pay for its infrastructure projects but that means of course letting the cat out of the bag regarding the true revenue figures.
That would be a rather large nail into the coffin of the union.
59

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 07:49:23
61

An independent what? A S is wrong about what? are you basing your assumptions on a story written by a rabid unionist propaganda merchant working for a blatently bias media outlet?
60

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 07:53:55
61

If this story highlights anything its the fact that Scotland as a nation needs full fiscal autonomy as does every nation on the planet. A country cant function as a country without full control of its own fiscal revenues and incomes.
61

david team,

edinburgh 05/01/2009 08:00:19
if i use something , i should expect to pay / contribute for it. can anyone really explain why this should not be the case re the new bridge ?
62

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 08:11:11
67

"You can not, ethically, take money away from medical or education for capital projects."

As a nation you shouldnt have to the fact that we are run as a region of another nation having to give up our income for the "greater good" else where is hardly a moral outcome either is it?
63

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 08:12:03
68

How does PFI work? and for who?
64

fair scunnered,

edinburgh 05/01/2009 08:12:52
if we live in an united kingdom,and its made up of 4 so called equal parts,then how come 3 quarters get far less each than than the english part?
we are always being toldwe are 1 country and are expected to pay our taxes etc
so why does one part hog the lions share of revenue?
equal?,aye ma baws
65

fair scunnered,

edinburgh 05/01/2009 08:14:41
1:london gets £8,404 per head for year/scotland gets£8,623 per head/irish get£9,385 per citizen a year
2 londons civil service jobs,are not counted by westminster as gov spending in london ,that includes mod dept of culture,foriegn office etc
3 museums institutions that are classed as national resources arent counted as gov spending in london
national gallery gets £26 million a year
£45 million a year to natural history museum
£45 million goes to british museum
national museum of scotland which the gov doesnt count as its classed as being only for scotland gets £15 million a year (oh what a surprise there eh)
4 BBC annual budget is £4 billion a year almost half the sum spent on health in scotland
bbc report states that they made 44,234 hours of tv in london compared to 2,495 hours in scotland ,they spent,a tiny £106million in scotland out of just £505 million outside london that leaves a hell of a lot in london and it was a scotsman who invented the tv
5 olympics the millenium dome cost £789 million roughly twice what it cost to build the scottish parliament
lottery is now ready to fund london with the olympics which have been estimated at a cost of £5billion this in 1 city alone
6 london underground new tube line cost £3.5 billion thats 3.5 times what the cost of a new bridge over the forth in scotland
scotlands entire transport budget is £2.3 billion and covers one third of the land mass of the uk

so we see who really are the subsidy junkies yes westminster feeds billions into london and sod the rest of the uk citizens
no wonder scots are wanting away when all our tax money and oil revenue seems to be proping up england,and to add insult bank of england was established by a scot bet hes spinning in his grave
so before you whine about scots again remember we gave the world the tv the phone tarred your roads,bicycles,etc etc
well pay us the royalties on tv and phone alone i wonder just how rich we would be
66

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 08:19:43
73

An important communications structure for decades as opposed to an entertainment venue for a fortnight.
Thats some moral compass you have there.
67

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 08:22:52
75

It doesnt come to Scotland. Money within the union only flows in one direction
68

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 08:27:15
74

Didnt tax money from Scotland go to help pay for the Channal tunnel?
69

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 08:27:37
Sorry that should be channel tunnel.
70

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 08:28:45
In fact isnt it our national taxation which goes towards the maintenance of said channel tunnel?
71

gus1940,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 08:31:37
On the same day that Westminster refuses the Scottish Government's funding request for the new bridge Brown announces his plans for massive government investment in public works along the lines of Roosevelt's 1930's New Deal.

Is the new bridge not a public work and in fact an urgent requirement?

Is this a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing or an example of Brown's stated intent to scupper the move to Scottish Independence using 'whatever means are necessary'?

I wonder what Governor General Murphy will have to say about this.

Naturally this New Deal will include throwing many more billions at SE England infrastructure further bleeding wealth and jobs from Scotland, Wales and the English provinces.
72

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 08:32:46
In fact isnt a British national structure not the responsiblity of a British government? Is this bridge project actually a devolved responsibility? and if so why isnt the maintenance of the channel tunnel?
73

McMillar,

Fife 05/01/2009 08:34:02
New Year – same old sensationalist drivel. Funding options a re under discussion and let’s see where it goes. ZZZzzz. Only concern is the typical infighting from Government areas (from all sides and north + south) where they have no concept of delivery.
74

eric,

lothian 05/01/2009 09:13:17
Whats more important,tram line to knowhere or bridge.
75

Phil C,

05/01/2009 09:14:04
Though not the biggest issue around, the funding of the new bridge is now a huge signal that Scotland must look after her own finances.

All parties (ex Greens) recognise the need for a new crossing but Westminster is sticking a big stick in the spokes of Scotland's wheels. They should be funding the bridge, full stop. Labour approve of massive future debts using PPP. They are against the potentially better, but untried, Scottish Futures Trust for political reasons, but won't approve this project using affordable public finance. They are for higher taxes but won't give revenue back to Scotland for this relatively straighforward project. Olympics 3 Scotland 0!

The onionists gleefully stir up propaganda driven sludge to muddy the waters. Let's get on with the main issue of the day- making Scotland a nation again, in control of it's own finances, funded by our bountiful natural and human resources. Let's stop being sidetracked by Labour's incompetence.

76

Edward,

05/01/2009 09:28:18
It just had to be Hamish writing, sorry copying this story. Its yet another Labour spin story, they already have another attacking Burns as a racist and we have this one which is a regurgitation of the story that was put out by Labour over the weekend
Ths is , rather was a serious paper, with serious journalists that actually wrote pieces that they investigated, now its just copy from Labour press breifings - how sad
77

The Strategist,

05/01/2009 09:38:27
Brown is only interested in saving the City of London and its institutions which include RBS, HBOS and Lloyds.
78

Edward,

05/01/2009 09:38:28
So Brown / Darling are allocating Billions for capital projects in England (which under the Barnett consequentials,Scotland should receive a proportion of any extra ordinary spending in England)But reject through their lapdog Yvette Cooper (you know the one thats married to Ed Balls)not to advance Scotland any money for Capital projects, obviously dont want to upset middle England by giving the Scots some of their own money back! Never mind we can appreciate the fact that Brown will be unvailing a painting of Thatcher (which know ones admitting financing) in the new Thatcher room in Downing Street, wonder if any former Fife miners are invited to the unveiling?
79

boudica,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 09:44:16
True to form Wee Eck and The Shariah Natz Party are posturing " I wont take No for an answer " he and the rest of his cohorts knew the answer long before before they came out with all their usual Hollow Policies and once again they go into the old Natz act of " It is all the fault of Westminster " this is old hat and getting boring we only see Wee Eck when there are by-elections he disapears for a while and pops up to do his blame westminster act and has McSwindle handed over that £250 mil he swiped to the Councils yet
80

Darien,

Panama 05/01/2009 09:48:56
#93 Edward: "under the Barnett consequentials,Scotland should receive a proportion of any extra ordinary spending in England)"

Excellent point. Scotland as usual is being stitched up by Brown's Perfidious Albion. I hope the voters in Fife appreciate their man is nothing but a big untrustworthy Quisling.

"the Treasury was "happy to work with the Scottish Government, to co-operate and find a solution".

Thats very rich. Perfidious Albion at her best. Westminster is again blocking the Scottish Government's sensible proposals. Brown is claiming to fast track public spending in England and Wales, to "create" (he means "prevent the added loss of") 100,000 jobs down south - but obviously is ignoring Scotland. His anti-Scots belligerence knows no bounds. Brown is the man now holding back Fife's new bridge - how well does that go down amongst the commuters of Kirkcaldy and elsewhere in Brown's Kingdom? What say the red rosette wearing New Labour lackies in Glenrothes now!

Great stuff for the SNP Government. This exposes Brown for whe he is - a British Nationalist willing to do anything and everything to stir it with an SNP Scottish Government. Had it been Wendy's best wee gang in charge they would have already signed up to a more expensive £4bn bridge on a more expensive never-never PFI deal - well, Wendy does live in Never Never Land!
81

eric,

lothian 05/01/2009 09:52:58
Even Blackpool victoria hospital got an early xmas pressy from broon.£50million ,
82

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 05/01/2009 09:53:44
Here's a question do the PFI/PPP consortia borrow the initial capital at a higher rate of interest yes or no?
83

Phil C,

05/01/2009 09:55:06
#91 sm753

It is a supposed improvement on Labour's inefficient, and potentially corrupt Public Private Partnership.

Whilst similar to PPP, the Scottish Futures Trust aims to provide better value for tax payers, through increased investment and lower costs, by chanelling funds through one body.

Critically it is set up on a non-profit basis with any extra funds being distributed for reinvestment or in the interests of the community.

Sounds good but at the moment it's a non-starter because of lack of support, particularly from Labour.

If you want more, do your own research! I'm not sure about it myself, preferring direct tax money but with Westminster holding the purse strings, Scotland have no hope.
84

Jimmy Le Pie,

05/01/2009 09:55:58
Boudica

Could you try and explain the following quote from your post at #94.

"and has McSwindle handed over that £250 mil he swiped to the Councils yet"

Try as I can, I cannot fathom out your rambling, incoherent posting. If you could explain it in English I would be much obliged.
85

Darien,

Panama 05/01/2009 09:56:49
Article headline should have been:

"UK Treasury's finance ruling delays Forth Bridge"

Hootsman as usual has its New Labour British Nationalism bias to the fore, following Propaganda Minister Mandelson's instructions.
86

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:01:48
85

Oh ok so the UK government has absolutely no responsibility for the upkeep of the channel tunnel nor any of the lines leading into it then? and of course they arent being maintained with "UK" tax money?
87

57vintage,

Bridge of Don 05/01/2009 10:02:32
#72, your analysis of who the real subsidy junkies are is one which many of us have subscribed to for a long time, but if "the millenium dome cost £789 million", I didn't pay a penny of the cost in that it wasn't taken from my taxes and I don't play the Lottery (from whose funds the Dome was financed).

Your further comment at 77 about the Channel Tunnel seems to imply that it is of no benefut to Scots hauliers, businessmen or tourists heading for the continent. It is of great benefit to many people I know who need to coinduct business on the continent.
88

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:02:46
84

It wouldnt be too expensive if Scotland had full fiscal autonomy though.
89

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:03:56
83

Or alternatively it could insist on keeping all Scottish revenue in Scotland to pay for necessary Scottish projects.
90

AJ Fife,

05/01/2009 10:04:01
Another round of Westminster v the People of Scotland - my money is on Scotland's finest ever Statesman to win the day for the SNP govt.
91

David MacVicar,

web 05/01/2009 10:05:21
The Scotsman should correct the title of the article, as it is a row about critical infrastructure funding not a row about a bridge.

This situation is a disgrace and highlights a problem that is already well evident – there is a 2 speed UK. The UK will not cough up to invest in Scotland under any circumstances, especially not with vanity projects around London to deliver on time and over budget. The UK gets all revenues centrally and prioritises the South. Scotland sends all revenues to London and gets run and financed like a regional council. Scotlands actual revenues and spendings are classified with the ‘visible’ elements obfuscated. Never fear we do get a budget to spend on health and stuff, forget about National projects but if we have the audacity to do so then we can just take it from health and Schools. Scotlands regional council needs to know its place afterall.

Will Scotands infrastructure ever receive UK funding that it merits and needs? Why have we had no full stretch of motorway until well into the 21st century? The difference in spending and quality of infrastructure between the North and the South is glaring. This discrepancy was not corrected under any British government while the UK was booming so it certainly won’t be tackled now or ever. As a leading Labour MP stated during Scottish Questions ‘Who cares?’

Nevermind who needs 1st world health and infrastructure, when instead we get a seat at the top table (to drive South Englands interests) while letting us maintain 3rd world infra, and poverty levels + a parish council?


Major investment Scotland has received and primary Reason for investment -
Hydro and Grid infra: Further UK Nuclear and heavy water research.
Grid updates and Nuclear power: More UK research for Militray purposes and side benefit of electricity for Central Scotland and North England.
Oil industry – UK Government revenue and International low cost loans, bailing out UK economy in 70s and 80s, finance recover
92

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:05:55
91

Well its been nearly 2 hours so lets try again.



How does PFI work? and for who?
93

David MacVicar,

contd. 05/01/2009 10:06:17
Oil industry – UK Government revenue and International low cost loans, bailing out UK economy in 70s and 80s, finance recovery and infra of South East.

94

watcher,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 10:07:06
Typical Salmond, blundering through life and blaming everyone else for his mistakes. The ordinary non Political guy in the street like me, knows that we can`t afford Bridges and the maintenance that goes with them. We can`t afford to maintain the ones we have without tolls.
95

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:11:46
108

Who said it wont pay a private sector return?
If a private sector company cant make a profit in business then it shouldnt be in business.
The obvious and blatent difference between PFI and the Scottish futures trust is how much of the private sector profit comes from the public purse. But you knew that already just another sh*t stirring idiotic post. One which you have posted several times and has been answered already several times by various posters.
Get some new material or better still get some of your own material to post instead of the spoon fed garbarge which has become your personal trade mark.
BTW have you made up your own mind yet with regards to what new powers should be allocated to the Scottish Parliament?
96

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 05/01/2009 10:12:51
I had a bout of insomnia last couple of nights and found myself watching the parliament channel and the pre-budget report, amid the chancellors risible comments about debt. An interesting passage when he spoke about bringing forward capital spending for the next three years.

There was a nodding head of one yvette cooper beside him, why do they they play such silly games?

Maybe Sm753 can tell me what the bond rating is for the consortia that provide the SPV?
97

Miss H,

05/01/2009 10:14:05
111 What are you talking about? The ordinary guy knows that we can't afford bridges and the maintenance that goes with them without tolls?

What are you suggesting - that we introduce tolls on every bridge in Scotland?

98

Miss H,

05/01/2009 10:15:04
113

A GOVERNMENT attempt to create or protect up to 100,000 jobs by bringing forward public projects was welcomed by unions yesterday but derided by the Conservatives.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, hailed the initiative as he sought to counter fears that unemployment could soar beyond three million this year as the recession bites.

He believes speeding up school, transport, technology and environmental projects will help offset the effects.

But only if the UK Government does it obviously!
99

Phil C,

05/01/2009 10:15:22
#108 sm753

It exists on paper, but is a non-starter at the moment becausae of political shenanigans, perticularly from the sulking Labour party.

It would offer a fair return to investors. In these days of projected slower growth etc it may attract plenty investment.

I still prefer direct funding though, but under Scotland's own properly-funded control and without the Westminster handcuffs.
100

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 05/01/2009 10:20:09
True Scot @ 109 I'll have a quick go, the major reason for the use of PFI/PPP was to enable Brown to be able to claim that infrastructure improvements were being made without an increase in government debt levels, the famous off balance sheet reporting.

PFI/PPP is paid through long term taxation, now the cost and liability is still borne by the taxpayer this does not change.

Because the costs of the finance for the bonds for these consortia is more expensive than upfront government debt. It is more expensive than traditional borrowing, the extra expense is put into the FM charges and spread over the lifetime of the contract.
101

Miss H,

05/01/2009 10:25:22
116 sm753 is a unionist but not a Labourite, probably a Tory.

What is really fascinating about this debate is that Labour's core supporters - including the unions - are the biggest opponents of PFI/PPP.

So what Labour is doing politically, by positioning itself as the party of PFI/PPP, is an act of madness. They are playing right into the SNP's hands.
102

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 05/01/2009 10:26:10
True Scot is a very good income stream for the consortia as the UK government I think I am right in saying have never missed a bond repayment.

So the consortia members Banks, lawyers and accountants have a very nice income stream for 30 years or so. So for them it's great.

It's not great for the taxpayer or democracy generally.
103

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 10:28:18
The cost of the new bridge using PPP ?
No idea at all, but it cost several times the cost of the Skye Bridge to buy out what was left on that PPP contract.
Even worse, at present we can't afford to buy out the contracts on the car parks at the three PPP hospitals.
Just goes to show how deadly is PPP, thirty year contracts, locking in future generations to pay for this Labour government's quick fixes and fiddles.
104

Hugh Roscombe,

05/01/2009 10:35:55
111 Watcher

How many bridges in Scotland?
105

Phil C,

05/01/2009 10:35:57
#118 Miss H

I don't care what sm753 is!

Like many others he derides the things I do care about though. He focuses on relatively small issues and misses the big picture.

Onionists belittle Scotland and have no faith in the people of Scotland. They prefer the shittus quo under foreign rule. I despise their views.
106

Shredder,

05/01/2009 10:37:14
Well done, Nats: the Scottish Futures Trust is as big an unworkable nonsense as the anti nuclear strategy, poll tax 2 and the real biggy...the separation policy!

All in all, the obese one's all the Nats have going for them!
107

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:39:39
117

It was first introduced by John Majors government and yes thats right the full payment is deferred to the tax payer years hence and wont be laid at the door of the present Government.
A serious major political scam which benefits government and private investors at the expense of the tax payer. Very very Tory and very anti social.
108

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:42:28
122

He she or it doesnt have a personal view its simply a keyboard with no function other than to post party political garbage and to stir the blog. Keep that in mind. It does help however to focus your own views and gives the oportunity for you to express them.
109

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 05/01/2009 10:44:44
124 indeed, is it not curious that Labour opposed it in opposition, then used it on full afterburner. Gordon Brown sacrificed the long term balance sheet for his political benefit.
110

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:44:50
118

Not if it isnt reported doing so by the government run media though eh? how is the average Sun reader going to know this government keeps pushing extreme Tory policies if the media keeps lying about it?
111

Jimbo2,

05/01/2009 10:45:31
Yesterday, Alistair Darling, the British Chancellor stated: "What you can't do is bring forward spending 15 or 20 years out, in budgets that haven't been allocated."

Darling needs to step out of the London bubble and pay some heed and awareness of what is happening in the country that nurtured him.

Note to darling: Try to show that you are not totally incompetent, even if you are. The new Forth bridge is not a project designated to begin 15 - 20 years from now. It is scheduled for completion in 2116.




112

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:46:48
126

What a very trollish post. Obviously not a poster to be taken seriously just another Scotsman account used by the staff for sh*t stirring.
113

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:48:18
127

Yep ZanuLiebour the left wing socialist party in opposition but an extreme right wing tory party in power.
114

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 10:48:49
108 Smee

"....The genesis of SFT rests in a concept whereby the Scottish Government would raise additional funding through the issue of public sector bonds, via a trust structured, securing funding at rates cheaper than PFI or PPP. Overall, this was intended to allow the delivery of more infrastructure per available resources....."

SNP Manifesto 2007




The above is exactly what is happening but by means of JOINT local authority bonds because the Scottish Government under the current Scotland Act's provisions can't release bonds UNILATERALLY....... that will certainly change under independence but would also likely change through fiscal reform within devolution also......

It's a widely used model in every other developed nation, PFI isn't.

When the power to borrow or indeed issue unilateral bonds is transferred to the Scottish Government, then the fund will grow further and in a way which is controlled and planned for long term infrastructure. and through linking it to an oil/green energy fund......

These first steps will release between £100-150M ANNUALLY which would otherwise be spent on PPP repayments and instead can be spent on infrastructure.


That's could equate to around 30 New Schools ANNUALLY

or

around 15 new Hospitals ANNUALLY

or

around 100 New Sports Facilities ANNUALLY


That's ADDITIONAL NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, over and above what has already been committed.

Hardly a 'tiny amount of change' ....... that's rather a lot of spare 'change' from what is only the initial step to get rid of PFI/PPP as we know it.


--------------------------------------------

Now can you explain to us all how mjuch more expensive a PPP Forth Road Bridge will be and why we as taxpayers should be paying this higher price?

What will it cost Smee?

115

T-bone,

05/01/2009 10:49:55
The current bridge is wearing out fast and a suitable modern crossing between Fife & the Lothians is required and must be constructed. However, the shortsightedness of toll abolition means that more non-essential crossings by single occupant vehicles means accelerated wear and tear on the existing bridge.

For the new bridge why not reintroduce tolls (automated where possible), per return crossing:-

Emergency Service Vehicles - Free
Public Service Buses - Free
Motor Cycles £2
Motor Cars & Small Vans £5
Private Buses £10
Lorries £10

The proviso is that tolling could only acceptable where the revenue generated is entirely spent on maintenance of both new and old bridges, with the remainder going to pay off the capital borrowed for the new bridge construction. And, for those who think that £5 per return crossing is excessive, try crossing either the new or old Severn bridges (which I shall be doing later today) and you'll find that it costs £5.30 per car per return crossing (and strangely enough traffic moves very smoothly)!

Of course had the greedy, self-serving politicians from all parties not allowed the disgusting £1/2bn Leith talking shop to be constructed, and built a perfectly adequate building at 1/10th of the cost instead, then about 25% of the total required revenue for the new bridge would already be in place!

116

Phil C,

05/01/2009 10:50:31
#126

No! There are 5 million other reasons.
117

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 10:55:01


We all know why the Tories are wedded to PFI/PPP, it pays there fat cat friends in industry but why has Labour developed this ideological association with such a inefficient means of funding projects.

Why do they want to hand over BILLIONS to private business for our PUBLIC services?

It's a sure sign of just HOW FAR TO THE RIGHT the new Labour Party have travelled that they now cling to PPP getting buffeted about in the credit storm.....

I wonder which bank is going to lend the £2Billion to build the bridge.

At say 15% interest over 30 years plus a maintenance contract running at say 5% (these are low figures based on the revised PPP model), that would Scots would be paying atleast an ADDITIONAL plus Inflation.......

EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR 30 YEARS!

That's £15BILLION for a FORTH ROAD CROSSING

PPP, you got to love it.



118

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:55:15
133

The prices your charging are way excessive for the cost of the maintenance for a start.
If a bridge needs that kind of maintenance then no traffic should be allowed onto it in the first place.
Maybe we should be investing much more into our education institutions.
119

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 10:56:49

133. Why not introduce toll's on all our roads?

Road users should be paying for their upkeep, not tax payers.

Or ofcourse you could just publicly fund it by the means set out by the SNP and not pay anymore for it.....
120

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 10:58:22
135

Yep remain within the union and we get permanant Tory government and policies. Its why the voting numbers are way down and will continue to fall as more and more people realise they cant vote for change anymore at least at Westminster. We however can leave this pitiful lack of choice if more people would stop believing the garbage put out by the state run media.
121

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:01:48
137

Road users are already paying for the road structures with their road taxes, VAT and insurance.
There is enough revenue already available without having to go into other taxation funding.
The problem is the amount raised but how its managed.
We badly need more competance in government and less corruption. Not to mention the diversion of taxation funding on corrupt foreign policy which is badly draining our resources.
122

Shave,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 11:02:27
#133 T-bone - "The current bridge is wearing out fast..."

It may only have another 80 years left!

The case for an additional bridge has yet to be made by the politicians. It reeks of an SNP/Labour vanity project.
123

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:02:47
That should read "The problem is not the amount raised"
124

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:03:54
140

Yes the SNP and ZanuLiebour are well known for their vain cooperation.
125

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:05:29
142

Sensibly repaired? how? how do you "repair" corrosion in metal? Do they keep welding bits onto it?
126

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:07:32
142

A plan for seperation? maybe we can use the American model? or the Austrailian model? or Canadian model? or Indian model? or Irish Model? or maybe any model used by any independent nation on the planet perhaps?
127

T-bone,

05/01/2009 11:07:33
#137. Wardog, I've no problem with the SNP's SFT proposal for funding the new bridge, in fact it seems to be the most logical choice at the moment. My viewpoint is simply that tolling could help provide some revenue to bring forward the new schools and hospitals that will have been delayed due to the construction of the new bridge.
128

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:11:21
147

Again just for the illiterate.

There is enough money raised already with taxation the problem lies with the management and competance regarding the spending and allocation of it not to mention the cost of having a self serving corrupt political system in place.
129

Shave,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 11:12:22
#144 A True Straw Man
Only you mentioned cooperation.
130

T-bone,

05/01/2009 11:15:23
#140 ..."It may only have another 80 years left!"...

According to ALL parties and surveys done so far, the bridge has about 10 years of safe operation at current traffic levels. Who knows, it may survive slightly longer maybe, but the case has already been made!
131

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:15:54
149

Linking the "SNP/Labour" in such a manner doesnt imply cooperation then?
I see another troll poster claiming to be from Edinburgh which means either its posting from London or is indeed in Edinburgh posting from the Offices on the bridges.
132

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:19:59
150

And is there any reason why a local authority cant issue national bonds? in fact wont all national bonds be issued in the area where they are going to be used as funding? or do you think national bonds can only be issued for one location?
Or are you simply an idiot? dont you even question the points youre being asked to post?
133

Phil C,

05/01/2009 11:20:38
#142 robber

I refer you to #146 for a plan.

I passionately believe that the whole population of Scotland would benefit from independence, even you if you live here. The fact that not everyone votes for it is down to fear of change, bigoted old loyalties and downright ignorance.

The sooner more are persuaded to take this chance to run our own affairs the better. Hopefully one day there will be a small rump of onionists left, rather than the huge festering sore we have at present!

134

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:21:53
153

Spanners? isnt that up to you and youre cabal within the office then? I am surprised you havent banned me Traquair and the rest of the nat posters already as per the usual censorship policy within this democratic free media country.
135

GB's Dairy,

05/01/2009 11:22:08
142 danielrober

Quite right, Danny boy, how dare the SNP stand up for the rights of Scots. They would be far better to adopt your own attitude and touch the forelock and doff the cap as you're getting dragged into illegal invasions and spending money on nuclear weapons that will never be used.

I can depend on people of your ilk to keep me and my gang in our life of expense- fuelled luxury. By the by, enjoy paying the extra taxes which you'll be paying for under my PFI/PPP scams.

Cheers, mate, as we say in England!
136

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:23:23
155

It certainly isnt because there are any persuasive arguments in favour of the union thats for sure.
137

T-bone,

05/01/2009 11:23:36
#148 ..'illiterate'...

You should get your specs on and read carefully True-Scot! I didn't say that the money was not already there, what I said is that the payback for this essential project could be greatly hastened by tolling. You appear to want to delay other very urgent projects just to satisfy your petty "..SNP's right, Labour's wrong.." argument. How about taking the blinkers off and putting Scotland first for a change??
138

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 05/01/2009 11:29:49
True Scott wrote:

"Again just for the illiterate.

There is enough money raised already with taxation the problem lies with the management and competance regarding the spending and allocation of it not to mention the cost of having a self serving corrupt political system in place."

You often make this comment, and it seems a core belief with you, namely no borrowing is needed but that taxation is enough. Have you any proof at all for this belief of yours?

You seem to believe that there is a mixture of corruption (proof?) and incompetence (spending on wrong things). What would you reduce spending on?
139

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:30:13
159

There is no justification for tolling at all as there is no justification on putting any more pressure on the tax payers who are already taxed to the hilt. I cant stand morons who post on these blogs advocating for more revenue to be raised for this and that when there is more than enough money available already or would be if it wasnt being squandered by incompetance and corruption. We should be encouraging our governments to stop wasting our money instead of encouraging them to squeeze more from us.
How much more revenue will be enough? when is the limit going to be reached? why dont we just work for nothing and give everything to the treasury? would that be enough do you think?
140

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 11:35:17
150. Smee

I'm waiting for your estimate on the cost of a PPP Forth Road Bridge, any ideas?

Or are you afraid to admit that?

As for LIT, 0ver 80% of local authority revenue is already central grant, LIT will technically increase that due it's to central collection but is will also save around £40M a year in collection costs.

Again, why do you wan tto waste tax Payers money so much?

Yes, Local Authority Bonds have been around since the Local Govenrment Act but they havenm't been used because both Tories and Labour have an ideological preference for private financace initiatives which cost us the taxpayer dear.

Any estimates how much the PFI debt will be in April?

£200 BIllion?

£300 Billion?


Any estimates how much the UK will be in Debt?

80% GDP?

85% GDP?

90% GDP?



141

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:36:22
161

Yes based on the fact that it doesnt matter how much is raised its never enough therefore the problem lies with the spending and not the raising of revenue or dont you understand the meaning of the word logic?
Or maybe you can tell us all exactly how much would be enough? How much should we borrow? how much is too much and how much is not enough?
142

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:37:50
163

Try 400% GDP the latest untainted estimate.
143

Embra Don,

05/01/2009 11:38:07
#7 Bill_on_a_boat

He's a Scotsman staffer (note that he comments before the site is publically available) so is paid through them. A professional Troll employed to destroy any debate that the Labour may lose. Please ignore him.
144

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 11:38:47
154 True Scot

A very good point.

We may yet see the bridge funded by both Edinburgh City, Fife and Perth & Kinross through the SFT.

The first multi unitary NHS hub projects are anticipated in March this year.

Publicly Funded, cheaper financing by working together and no PFI Debt.

145

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 11:39:52
166 True Scot

Aye, the unionists don't seem to be very interested in the ailing pound sterling and the colossal debt that we've taken on.

We're right up there with Italy, Japan, USA in the obese debt league.

146

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:40:50
165

Why would employers be forced to check up on where their employees live? why wouldnt they already know?
147

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 11:41:45
165 Smee

How is that any different to what is currently undertaken for income tax?

What are the additional costs you allude too?


Unanswered questions Smee

q. What is the cost of a PPP Forth Road Bridge?

a. ????
148

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 11:42:38
Did we not have this debate yesterday ? I thought Sunday's one was more erudite myself.
149

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:43:26
169

No they are only interested in maintaining lies. The corruption which is this union is showing itself more and more and the truth of it is getting harder to hide even within the state run media.
150

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 11:44:54

172, Aye, the unionists are once again being slaughtered metaphorically with a toall inability to explain their ideological marriage to Private finance insitiatives that waste public money, taxpayers money, OUR money.

Smee is on a hiding to nothing as usual



151

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 11:45:52

175 Do you think Scotland is a batter place after devolution daniel?

152

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:46:10
172

Oh yes and quite a few times before. That glove puppet posting as SM regurgitates the same arguments on nearly every blog irrespective of how many times his spoon fed arguments are countered.
Like I said its only a keyboard with no personal conviction or points of view.
153

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 05/01/2009 11:46:48
True Scot wrote:

"Yes based on the fact that it doesnt matter how much is raised its never enough therefore the problem lies with the spending and not the raising of revenue or dont you understand the meaning of the word logic?"

Yes I understand perfectly the meaning of the word logic thank you.

You haven't provided any proof of this core belief of yours however. Your above statement isn't any kind of proof or even legitimate reason. For instance taxation needs to go up if spending goes up. Yes?

So the reason for increased borrowing is too much spending. Now you are claiming that this high spending is due to corruption (proof?) and incompetence (which I presume is spending on unnecessary things).

So how would you reduce spending so our present taxation is adequate? It seems a simple enough question.

BTW I'm not saying you are wrong, perhaps our taxation is enough to provide everything, but what would you reduce spending on then?
154

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:50:13
175

Full fiscal autonomy, Full international recognition as a nation in respect of international trading.
137 billion GDP kept in Scotland and not given to London.
No more Scottish soldiers dying in illegal wars for outdated empirical policies or on the orders of foreign governments.
No useless Nuclear weapons which will never be used for anything other than to contaminate.

Thats part of the basic plan now what plan does the union have for Scotlands future?
155

Shave,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 11:52:27
#151 T-bone

Reports by FETA state that the results of the cable drying are "encouraging". This may still result in the closure for HGVs only in 10 years if that is all that is done. But they have other options, and the rail bridge has spare capacity.

It could be kept in full operation by augmentation or replacement of the cables (without shutting the bridge) allowing it to operate for its full 121 year lifespan (a further 80 years).

Maybe an additional crossing will be needed but the other options (such as a tunnel) have not been explored sufficiently.
156

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 11:55:57

180 sm753

Your getting flustered Smee, that's because your being rid like a horse today as always.

Income Tax Codes are obviously UK based, however, there are many many codes relating to all sorts of things including part-time work, other earnings, benefits etc.

An additional Code to determine Scottish residence is negligible. and well within the ability of HMRC.


"...I'll lie to ensure that poorer people pay for me...."

Afraid of paying your fair share Smee....... the nasty party lives on ..............






" An imaginary line...."

Just like that one that defines the UK from Europe?

157

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 11:57:56
183 Daniel

I'm glad you feel that it has improved, I agree

I also agree with your interesting point re: cornwall.

I'm guessing your for a federal state with maximum autonomy to the regions but still within a UK framework?

As a gradualist, I'd happily see that state of affairs and give it a fair go.

In the end however, until fiscal autonomy is gotten, we will continue to have imbeciles on these pages doing Scotland down.

158

Miss H,

05/01/2009 11:58:03




175 What do you mean – publish the plan? The plan for what?

Independence isn’t a plan – it’s a state of being.

It’s saying that Scotland can either have a future with the same economic and political powers as every other EU state or not have that future. We can become self governing and have the same powers and responsibilities as our neighbours and competitors or we can choose not to do that and continue as we are.

The argument that somehow we can produce a blueprint for independence setting out in detail every single thing that will happen is daft. No-one can do that for independence – and no-one can do it in the context of the Union either. Who planned the credit crunch? Gordon Brown?

The debate is not about who has a better plan. It is simply about whether we will be better off with the Scottish Parliament taking the decisions and managing the economy or if we are better off leaving the job to Westminster.

If you are happy with Westminster’s management of the Scottish economy and other reserved issues like defence and foreign policy then OK, you don’t think the Scottish Parliament could make a better job of it. That’s a point of view - but it’s not a plan either.
159

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 11:59:29
178

What proof would you have? A link to a parallel universe perhaps? how about just common sense and logic? how about the fact that the present system doesnt work? how about answering the questions I have posed and prove what I say is false?

We could reduce spending by not following corrupt foreign policies for a start i.e illegal wars, supporting despotic governments etc.
pretending we are still the centre of empire i.e funding a redundant "commonwealth".
How about getting rid of the trappings of a monarchy?
How about saving 78 billion on not upgrading to trident?
How about getting rid of PFI and PPP?
How about nationalising the public utilities?
How about nationalising the transport networks?
British Telecomm?
Dental treatment?

Just a few ideas I will add as the day goes on if you like.
160

alanh,

05/01/2009 11:59:48
#165 Sm753,
"How does forcing employers to check up on where their employees live "save costs"?"

is it not just simple good practise for employers to know where there employees live? I cant think of ANY employer who would not have the details of all their employeees current home addresses or any reason why they wouldn't?
why do you think that would add any extra cost to any employer?
161

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 12:01:17
188

So have you a plan for Scotland future within the union?
162

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:02:01

184. Smee

Where is Gordon brown getting £500 Billion from to bail out the banks?

SFT is simply the way that many nations fund their infrastructure, everywhere from Norway, Sweden to New York City all do it by bonds not PFI.

SFT is anticipated to deliver it;s first projects in March, NHS Hubs with various councils. It is the vehicle for this cross boundary working.

In time SFT will become the oil/green energy fund., already setup, organised and motivated to plan for Scotland's Future.





Labour ARE wedded to PPP, Ian Gray has advocated it at every First minister Question for the last three months,, Yvette Cooper makes it clear in her letter, it's PPP or else cuts to services, Darling acknolwedges that the bridge MUST be built.

So which is it PPP or Cuts?

How much will a PPP Bridge cost?




163

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:04:36
188. I belive that your looking for the National Conversation document.

It clearly sets out the vision for Independence.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/08/13103747/12
164

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:05:16
188.

Choosing Scotland's Future: A National Conversation: Independence and Responsibility in the Modern World
165

Embra Don,

05/01/2009 12:07:04
#133 T-bone
Why should a toll apply to the FRB in particular? There would be logic to the argument if all new roads were toll roads or in fact ALL roads - to cover maintenance costs.
166

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:08:48

188.

"...Write it, reference it, publish it, print it and i'll buy it to read. Then we can all chat...."

Did they have it all 'written' down in 1707?
167

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:10:42

The SFT Model: A NOT-FOR-PROFIT BOND PROGRAM

www.nycedc.com/Web/FinancingIncentives/Financing/NotForProfitBondProg/NotforProfitBondProgram.htm
168

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:14:29

197. Smee

"...All they need is a way of contacting you; you can give a PO box if you like....."

Ok ok, those working for MI6 might be a little put out but FFS Smee.

I have never met anyone who didn't give their employer their home contact details.



169

T-bone,

05/01/2009 12:14:43
#189 .."True Scot"..my @rse!

I must confess to a spontaneous guffaw at how your ramblings have degenerated into those of a rabid dog foaming at the mouth! You really do need to keep taking the tablets. It's the 5th of January and your local GP surgery should be open!

Talking of open, you could do with keeping an open mind as well by not resorting to insults of those who simply hold a different opinion. Last thing I want to do, being Scottish through and through, is live in an isolated Scotland with people as small-minded and bigoted as you!!

"True Scot"..my @rse!!
170

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:15:50
199. Smee

The Acts of Union....... a statutory legislation.

Where exactly does that document set out the future of Scotland?

Your really struggling today Smee



171

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 12:15:56
197 You are hilarious you really are, I don't know of anyone who can give their employer a PO address. Are you as libertarian abour other issues then ? What about ID cards, 42 day detentions, searching people's houses and offices under anti terrorist legislation without a warrant ? Or is it just employees you think should be able to use libertarianism as a shield so you can criticise local income tax ?
172

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 12:16:44
197

LIT "forces" employers to nose into where their employees live? so when yer boss asks you where you live you would give him a PO box number is that right?

potential employees no longer fill in a questionaire including their personal details when applying for jobs is that right? or if they do they fill in their address with a PO box number is that right again?

What planet do you normally post from?
173

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:17:47
Smee

You've got a lot of unanswered and important questions today.

Are you going to answer any of them or can I log off now?
174

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:19:06

203. I suspect Smee is already swindling the public out of revenue and that LIT really really scares him/her......

How much would a PPP Forth Road Bridge Cost then?
175

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 12:20:58
199

The act of union document was not produced until after the fact of union idiot boy.
And there is nothing in it to indicate any future plan.
176

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:21:08
204 True Scot

Keep going my friend, they are rattled today
177

Alan Reid,

London 05/01/2009 12:24:24
Smee p!ssing in the wind again, like all braindead unionists.
178

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 12:27:01
201

You dont have different opinions in fact you dont have any opinions at all. All you morons post is the latest spoon fed garbage. I dont debate with worthless prats like you I just shoot you down.
It wouldnt be so easy if you actually believed anything you posted or held the conviction of your own points of view. You cant sustain somebody elses arguments and it shows all too clearly on these blogs.
179

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 12:28:54
210

Do you think the union was instantainious or spontainious then?
180

Justy,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 12:31:03
Why should taxpayers outside Scotland pay towards the building of a new bridge? Scotland does have its own Government or is it just a hothouse after all?

Justy.
181

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:31:17

210. Daniel

"...The current SNP plans though are not gradual, they are generational....."

It's a fair enough point Daniel, I sincerely more debate will ensue and meaningful debate at that. The issue isn't economic, that battle is finished, the issue is about whether people want to be independent in the modern world or not.

It will take tim, I think Salmond actually frames it quite well as 'positive action v status quo', the parties advocating developing devolution aren't conveying that message very well at all.

Labour is attracting little Englanders and staunch NI unionists.

The Tory;'s are playing a very quiet game and in their heart of hearts I think they ir liberal ideology see's the merits of responsibility and fiscal autonomy.

The liberal's are saying one thing but backing away form it, there is a lot of ground between what Mike Rumbles advocates and what Tavish is willing to support.

The SNP is also in two camps, gradualist v fundamentalist (although the idea of overnight independence isn't a realist option in my own view).

it will take generations to achieve this project fully.

The road to Independence will be a process not an event.





182

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 12:32:00
207 Well smee did state in a previous post that he would lie Wardog. Enough said methinks.
183

GB's Dairy,

05/01/2009 12:34:04
201 T-bone

Is there any significance in the fact that you, as the arbiter of good taste on this site, should ignore your friend Sm753's reference to someone as a "cretin" but castigate some-one of a different political opinion for being insulting?
184

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:34:31


215. The SNP is asking for an advance of the Scottish Block grant., that's Scotland's money.

If your saying that England subsidises Scotland then why the hell are these eejits on here day in day out trying to keep this begger nation in the fold.

If we cost you so dearly, why is every political party fighting to keep Scotland in the union?

It doesn't make ANY sense, unless you accept that Scotland with Oil is a NET contributor to UK Plc.





185

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 12:37:49
215

It has its own government but not its own revenue. Our revenue goes to London.
186

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 12:37:55
215 Your post gets silliest post on the thread award (so far) well done.
187

frank mcbride,

lusitania 05/01/2009 12:38:18
#183, danielrober.

I am pleased that you believe in participative democracy.
I am also pleased to see that you accept the fact that government - even in a very, very limited sense, closer to the people, is more responsive.

What does concern me, though, is your willing acceptance of a UK government which, by its very composition, is discriminatory, in particular, towards the Greater London area.
It further seems very strange, coming from one who advocates your position, that you ae prepared to give your sanction to an "elected dictatorship" in which a single party, any party, can have absolute control with less than 50% popular support, far less than 50% support of the actual electorate.

You would appear to be a victim of your own flawed reasoning.
188

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 05/01/2009 12:39:27
True Scot wrote:

"We could reduce spending by not following corrupt foreign policies for a start i.e illegal wars, supporting despotic governments etc.
pretending we are still the centre of empire i.e funding a redundant "commonwealth".
How about getting rid of the trappings of a monarchy?
How about saving 78 billion on not upgrading to trident?
How about getting rid of PFI and PPP?
How about nationalising the public utilities?
How about nationalising the transport networks?
British Telecomm?
Dental treatment?

Just a few ideas I will add as the day goes on if you like."

I think the Iraq war will cost the UK £9 billion altogether - over all the years there. (That is one estimate I've heard). Certainly this would be a saving, but £9 billion over quite a few years isn't a massive saving.

Monarchy costs very little - its replacement (presidency etc) might have higher costs.

I'm not sure how nationalising rail etc would save money.

Trident is a good point. The £78 billion isn't a yearly cost however, but a one-off, which would last for quite a few years. So the cost per year would be £78 billion divided by the number of years (interest not withstanding).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_budget

gives a pie chart regarding yearly public spending (the year 2007-8 in point).

Health (18%) stands at £111 billion for that year. This alone dwarfs the Iraq war and Trident which are costed over several years (in Trident's case decades).

I fail to see how your suggestions (except Trident) would put much of a dent in how much money we are spending. Your suggestions scratch the surface only.

[Interesting is the graph underneath the pie chart. It shows spending (in real terms) rising from £400 billion in 2001-2 to just under £700 billion in 2007-8]

189

Bob 2,

05/01/2009 12:41:07
amazing plenty of Money for transport Projects down south.

Only the other day the BBC News was telling us Mr Brown was going spend money on Roads and other Public projects to help the current economic problems!
190

Luke Skywalker,

Tram Land 05/01/2009 12:45:44
195. Spot on. Bring in congestion charging (probably under another name) A and M road tolls and dramatically reduce the duty on petrol. That way the user pays. I live and work in Edinburgh and am fed up subsidising those who choose to live in Fife, for example, but commute to Edinburgh to work where they pay no form of local taxation to upkeep roads which they use.
191

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:47:15
225. Bob

£18BILLION infact

£37 Billion on banks Bailout

£6 BILLION on IRaq & Afghanistan (and 300+ soldiers lives)

£10 BILLION on Olympics

£16 BILLION on London Crossrail




And apparently nothing for the Forth Road Bridge

192

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 12:49:06
224
" think the Iraq war will cost the UK £9 billion altogether - over all the years there. (That is one estimate I've heard). Certainly this would be a saving, but £9 billion over quite a few years isn't a massive saving."

GTF ya moron the staging of the invasion alone cost over 10 billion on its own and that was just for the second gulf war have you any idea how much gulf war 1 cost us? not to mention the cost of imposing sanctions over 10 years.

Monarchy cost very little ? relative to what? as opposed to costing nothing you mean?

I'm not sure how nationalising rail etc would save money.

It must save money because our taxation burden went up after it was privatised. As was the case with British telecomm and the utility companies.
So the obvious direct link between national services and taxation is its cheaper to have them in the public domain.
In fact the logic suggests that the national service companies dont actually cost the tax payer anything at all otherwise we should have seen a drastic decrease in taxation when they were privatised is that not so? or does this indicate a measure of incompetance or even corruption somewhere?

The funding of the NHS actually reinforces my point regarding the competance level of spending as opposed to the raising of the revenue for it. Why does the NHS costs more and more while the service itself deteriorates and more and more people switch to private health insurance?

Get your facts right regarding the costs of BOTH GULF WARS AND DONT FORGET AFGANISTAN and KOSOVO.

193

ricky40,

05/01/2009 12:50:06
224 Cauchy Rieman

So the estimated £9 billion spent on the Iraqi invasion would not have been a "massive saving". It sounds as if you feel it was a price worth paying and of no real consequence. I wonder if those who mourn loved ones in Iraq would agree with you?

Would it pay for a really super bridge, do you think??
194

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 12:51:05


What is very clear now is why the last executive were so terrified of this project and were unable to commit to it.

The difference now is that we have a Government that will deliver., not sulk into the corner and accept it;s lot from the UK Government.



195

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 12:53:02
228

What debate moron? there was no debate there was intimidation and bribery on the part of Westminster and even then the outcome was not a dead cert so no document could be produced until after the vote was called idiot boy.
196

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 12:55:22
228

How about compared to the year 2000? or 2001 or 2002 have you any sources not tainted by the corruption of Westminster?
197

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 12:57:23
225 that's where the treasury don't have a leg to stand on. They are drawing forward their own capital spending (a sensible thing to do) but are refusing the same facility to Scotland. It's very simple really : some animals are more equal than other animals.
198

frank mcbride,

lusitania 05/01/2009 13:01:01
#199, sm753.

Acts (Treaty) of Union?

That was the definitive, unbreakable agreement between England and Scotland for the future functioning of GB??

It states cleary and unequivocally all the terms, conditions, rights, responsibilities and the benefits to accrue from said Union???

199

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 05/01/2009 13:05:30
The thing that will scupper plans for new schools etc is a SNP led executive that kids people into thinking they have the capacity to give out a never ending stream of "freebies" - we all know there is no such thing as a "free lunch" so whenever they offer toll-free crossings, free prescriptions etc somewhere somehow these have to be paid for out of some other budget.

Once the harsh reality of having to now make the harder choices in life then we will see the nationalists in their true Tartan Tory (or is it now Salmondesque socialist?) colours - still confused?

Just mark my words!
200

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 13:06:49
224

Here ya lying moron is an idea of the true cost which may even be underestimated as the cost is not final.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece
201

Westfield Bairns,

falkirk 05/01/2009 13:08:14
The Nulabour party don't even hide the fact they are an anti-Scottish party now, however goes down well in the south of England. Independence can't come quick enough
202

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 13:09:59
238

We are paying for it by being part of a corrupt union which takes away our national income and doesnt allow local fiscal responsiblity. That is the harsh reality and the choice is not hard but easy. Gain Independence and have the resources to fund and plan ahead or stay in the union and bleed.
203

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 05/01/2009 13:22:40

If the bridge is directly financed, grants of up to 50% of the cost are available from the EU.

If it is financed through private venture, no Euromoney is available.

Incredibly, it seems that no-one has learned anything from the Skye Bridge debacle.

204

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 13:24:55
242 It is a hopelessly illogical position that capital spend can be front loaded down South but not here. It's crazy. That's why the unionists are avoiding it completely and wittering on about the Acts of Union etc instead.
205

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

05/01/2009 13:34:59
#235 Hoy Prof MacBoondangle, what happened to the anonymous posting facility on your blawg? I was about to wax lyrical about the demise of woolies, only to find I'm expected to make an effort, with the passwords and remembering and stuff!

206

Miss H,

05/01/2009 13:36:16
242 The UK Government’s tactics are simple.

1) They want to thwart the SNP Government. 2) They want to make the SNP Government look stupid by questioning their understanding of public finance and other matters - hence capital spending south of the border can be brought forward but not anything under the control of the SNP - and 3) They want to goad SNP ministers into losing their tempers by patronising them.


207

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 13:36:23
243

"The opinions of some suggest that the ‘unionist’ parties are building a foundation on anti-Scottish principles. I don’t believe this, but do agree that some people who do not wish Scotland well are becoming invoked in this argument - on both sides"

You dont believe it eh? based on what evidence? which one of the many policies advocated by the UK government can be described as pro Scottish?

How about the one reducing the funding via the Barnett formula?
How about the reduction of Westminster representation from 72 to 59?
How about introducing the poll tax into Scotland a year before England ignoring the protests and only scrapping it when England protests?
How about the introduction of devolution as a tool to subvert and divert away the growing calls for independence?
How about the government ignoring its own quango's recommedations for giving more powers to the Scottish parliament?

which one of these would you call Pro Scottish then? or maybe you have some of your own to back up your "belief"?
208

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 13:39:30
243

The bridge is just another example of picking a fight with Westminster?

So its not in fact the Scottish government asking for an advance on Scottish funding in order to start the project before the existing bridge actually collapses into the firth?
And you wouldnt describe any of the above mentioned policies in my post 249 as Westminster picking a fight with Scotland then?
209

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 13:41:20
251

I wouldnt go so far as to call them morons just corrupt and crooked. What they do they do deliberately even when its incompetant and illegal.
210

Miss H,

05/01/2009 13:42:29
244 The Scottish Government is front loading European structural funding. They can do that but they can't front load Westminster funding. It would be nothing new to miss out on EU funding because of lack of cooperation from Westminster, that has happened before.
211

Miss H,

05/01/2009 13:50:09
243 I honestly do not understand your thinking.

The Scottish Government has not 'picked a fight' on the bridge - Westminster has.

Labour for some bizarre reason known only to themselves is trying to force the SNP Government into financing a new Forth crossing through PFI/PPP. They are saying that the SNP's objection to PFI/PPP is purely ideological.

It's not, it is purely on cost grounds. Building a new Forth crossing with PFI/PPP would be much more expensive than doing it with traditional procurement. The SNP is thinking about saving the taxpayer money.

If that is ideological government let's have more of it.

And while we are at it let's have all the details of all the PFI/PPP projects that we are currently paying for so we can all assess them for ourselves.
212

Miss H,

05/01/2009 13:51:43
251 Which government? Which civil service?
213

Miss H,

05/01/2009 13:54:33
238 Liberals have never been very good at understanding the difference between capital and revenue.
214

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 14:00:12
243

Some in the SNP are finding allies, against the UK government, but just because they are anti-British does not mean they are pro-Scotland. A poor or rushed separation will provide many opportunities for competitors to push Scotland/UK companies out of many areas of business.

You obviously make this sh*te up as you go along without any thought or foundation to base it on.

What sort of competitor or competition for that matter is going to manifest itself because of a country regaining its national independence? and what form will this competion or competitor take?
and will it happen here on Earth? in this universe or the one you float around in?
215

Ginger Ale,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 14:00:23
We pay our rates and taxes so the government can provide for us,and we pay the people in charge their salaries to do things properly. They have a duty of care towards us and they, once again, have let us down. They will complain about a lack of funding, blame Westminster and as per usual not themselves, while it will be all of us that suffers.

They will moan on about budgets but at the end of the day money is money and it doesn't matter where it is allocated,or where it is used it is still money. Why can't we have people in charge that have some idea of how a business works and how to run a business instead of stumbling around making the same mistakes and never being accountable? Anyone with any common business sense knows that if funds are lacking in one area then funds from other areas can be moved in to compensate.

I don't care if the money for the Edinburgh tram system is in a different budget, ring fenced, part of Edinburgh Councils budget and not the parliaments or whatever - hundreds of millions of pounds is still hundreds of millions of pounds! It is money and it should be used for the greater good of the country i.e why not transfer it for the bridge? No one wants the trams, work done so far could easily be put on hold or stopped and everyone in the country would benefit by getting better hospitals and new schools.

It's just plain common sense but that is something severely lacking in Government.
216

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 14:01:45
259

There have never been more than 3 or 4 at most posting from the same office if not from the same PC.
217

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 14:05:11
#259

I think you will find that they long ago gave up the fight against the illiterate, yobbish and ignorant separatists that infest these pages. Life becomes not worth living if you read too much of their drivel.
218

,

05/01/2009 14:05:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
219

Miss H,

05/01/2009 14:07:43
262 Suggest you take a quick lesson in how devolution and democracy works.

You don't understand the first thing about how anything works.
220

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 14:15:15
264

Seperatists? would you describe Ukrainians, Latvians, and Estonians as seperatists then?
221

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 14:16:48
265

You dont believe that garbage surely? AM2 is no other than Hamish McDonnell always has been.
222

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 05/01/2009 14:19:40
True Scot:

I guess its impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with an effeminate little runt with a double digit IQ like yourself True Scot.

You call others 'moron' for simply pointing out why your religious beliefs re: taxation simply aren't tenable.

Live in la-la land and believe what fairy tales you wish. Why don't you get a job and stop scrounging off the state, and earn a living pathetic weasel.
223

Jimmy Le Pie,

05/01/2009 14:25:08
Has anyone on this site heard how our former Dear Leader, Comrade Bliar, is getting on with his peace making role in the Middle East??

With the latest outbreak of violence, is it safe to assume Comrade Bliar is in Beirut, Tel Aviv, Amman or Cairo???

Perhaps he's in The Hague(no, he might get arrested!) or New York at the UN??

If anyone knows his whereabouts, please let me know.
224

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 14:28:16
271

I call folk morons because they post moronic statements not because I may be effeminate or little or in fact have a double digit IQ any such is just coincidental honestly.

And if I believed in fairy tales you would be a figment of my imagination and not a pathetic grubby cyber reality I have to taint perfectly good posting space responding to.
Now phuqqe off in all your guises you worthless heap of posting space.
225

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 14:30:59
272

He certainly seems to be doing an excellent job as peace envoy and is worth every penny of his salary for sure. He is certainly showing more worth in this job than his last effort.
226

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 05/01/2009 14:40:16
The Scottish Government will just have to admit that its Scottish Futures Trust is a non-runner and accept a tender for a PFI design, build, and manage scheme for the new Forth Crossing.

The Second Severn Crossing was built by this means and
tolls for cars are currently £5.30 and £15.90 for buses and HGV's.

It follows that even higher tolls will be charged when the new Forth Bridge is open for traffic next decade!
227

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 14:46:25
272 He's in Jerusalem, or he was at the week end.
228

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

05/01/2009 14:49:51
#270 Och who really knows? I suspect there might be the odd hootsman journalist who occasionally dips their toes in here and then runs off at the ferocity of the dribbling response. Certainly the evidence against the Hamilton resident is quite strong, from quite a few separate sources.

This is the first I've noticed your posts Mr or Mrs True Scot, and I have to say I'm warming to your aggressive tone, it seems to have rattled our more tinfoil clad dependence junkies. More power to your elbow.
229

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 05/01/2009 14:51:28
True Scot

I'm going nowhere. What's moronic about pointing out that the UK spends £ 111 billion on health in one year and that far surpasses the toal cost the UK has spent on the Iraq war over many years? (Not that I support the Iraq war based on lies)

BTW the link you posted about '3 trillion' was referring to the US - NOT the UK spending

Are you so illiterate as well you can't even read the article you posted an URL to??????

According to this article
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/uk-war-cost-in-iraq-afghanistan-to-soar-to-33-billion-pounds_10026340.html
the UK has spent only a few billion. The figure of £9 billion I quoted was an estimate for the whole thing.

£9 billion over several years is peanuts compared to £111 billion each year.

Got it yet?

Again I'm not justifying the Iraq war - I'm merely pointing out that your religious belief that we just cut out some spending here and 'hey presto', we have all the money we need is just FANTASY.

To reiterate: I fail to see why I'm being called a 'lying moron' for pointing out that the Iraq war (uk cost ~ £9 billion over several years, is peanuts compared to £111 per year on health.

Or is it you who are the 'lying moron' for trying to claim the Uk is spending trillions in Iraq?

Why not engage what you have of a brain before posting.
230

TWC,

05/01/2009 14:58:40
264 Margaret L
I've got to agree with the Nats, Brown said he was encouraging the Fiscal Stimulus but he has pointedly avoided giving any extra money to Holyrood.
We are now being held to ransom so I hope all party and non party supporters are watching how much Fiscal Stimulus comes to Scotland.

231

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:03:13
Not long until Spanners gets banned again it would seem.
232

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:04:17
280 Richard,West Lothian 05/01/2009 14:56:40

Mr. Lachie Todd,
Edinburgh

Why should the Scottish Government just lie down and accept this?

The U.K. Government is there to govern the whole U.K.
===================================================

Scotland does not have a Government.
233

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:07:11
Bill_on_a_boat,Still Docked 05/01/2009 00:20:36
Rufus T Barfly - one wonders what you get paid by Nu Lab to sit here so much and support them?
=====================================================

More in a week than you earn in a year.
234

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

05/01/2009 15:07:14
# 282 What's that like Rufus?

As a relatively fresh faced, rosy cheeked poster in these here parts I'm intrigued that you seem to have been banned several times yet always come back with a subtle variation on your name.
235

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 15:10:09
283. Denial

Even Jim Murphy concedes that it is the Scottish Government.

I wonder if any party in future will revert to 'executive' - it's soooooo New Labour.
236

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:11:25
25 Scott.Webb,05/01/2009 03:03:43
Comment@7 Hi Bill_on_a_boat , on the one or two occasions i have engaged Rufus-T-Firefly he has avoided me completely.
=====================================================

You should be used to that type of behaviour.
237

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:13:07
285 Gussie Fink-Nottle,05/01/2009 15:07:14
# 282 What's that like Rufus?

As a relatively fresh faced, rosy cheeked poster in these here parts I'm intrigued that you seem to have been banned several times yet always come back with a subtle variation on your name.
=====================================================

Really?

How do you know that?
238

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 15:13:23

Rufus

How much will a PPP Forth Road Bridge cost?
Why are New Labour wedded to PPP?

What makes you Proud to be Scottish?

What makes you Proud to be British?

239

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

05/01/2009 15:14:38
#288 It's written on the walls of the wee boys room in the club des hoos poos
240

frank mcbride,

lusitania 05/01/2009 15:15:03
#283, Rufus.

Are we in agreement for once?

The UK government doesn't give any concern to the good governance of Scotland.

You are coming to reality, slowly.
241

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 15:17:36
Rufus how many of the capital spend projects being brought forward down south by reprofiling the budget can you ignore at the one time ? Whilst claiming that Scotland shouldn't be allowed to do the same ?
242

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:18:05
286 Wardog™,05/01/2009 15:10:09
283. Denial

Even Jim Murphy concedes that it is the Scottish Government.
==================================================

So all of a sudden we should take note of what the knowledgable Jim Murphy says?
243

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:20:13
290 Gussie Fink-Nottle,05/01/2009 15:14:38
#288 It's written on the walls of the wee boys room in the club des hoos poos
===================================================
Yes I thought it was you.
244

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:21:48
291 frank mcbride,lusitania 05/01/2009 15:15:03
#283, Rufus.

Are we in agreement for once?

The UK government doesn't give any concern to the good governance of Scotland.
====================================================

Yes thats why they let RBS and HBOS go bankrupt.
245

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 15:24:03
293. Denial

www.scotland.gov.uk

246

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 15:27:20


Not many answers today from the unionists.

Brown's own goal has got them severely rattled.

Not one of them can tell you how much a PPP Forth Road Bridge will cost yet they are all advocating it.

Not one can explain why Labour are so wedded to the Tory model of private finance, even when the world opts for bond issue as it;s preferred mechanism

Not one of them well estimate how much the UK will be in debt once PFI come son the books, 80%GDP, 85% GDP?

Not one of them can tell you what makes them proud about being Scottish, because they don't believe in Scotland, it's just a postcode lottery right?



247

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 15:28:22


rufus, are you afraid of scotland?
248

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:31:28
296 Wardog™,05/01/2009 15:24:03
293. Denial
www.scotland.gov.uk

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

A dog born in a barn is still a dog.
249

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:33:11
299 Wardog™,05/01/2009 15:28:22


rufus, are you afraid of scotland?
==============================================

I think you will need to elucidate your question.
250

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:34:59
301 Richard,West Lothian 05/01/2009 15:31:33
Rufus, why don't you just f.off you raging moronic bore?

It's not funny, it's not clever and it really is a pain.
================================================

TUT TUT.

Yes, especially for you I will never post here ever again.
251

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 15:35:45
279

Oh I see not a real post at all then just another sh*t stir. Your link goes nowhere and nobody believes the total cost of the Iraq fiasco over both wars amounts to little more than 9 billion let alone the cost of both Iraq wars and the Afgan war.
There are enough links including the one I gave you which shows the costs to the UK soaring way over 20 billion just for the second Iraq war on its own and even that is conservative.

I didnt say the cost to the UK of the Iraq war was in the trillions the cost to the US is in the trillions the cost to the UK is in the double Billions as was stated in the link I provided.
It doesnt matter what account you post under its the same lying sh*t stirring garbage that gives it away everytime.
252

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:36:33
301 Richard,West Lothian 05/01/2009 15:31:33
Rufus, why don't you just f.off you raging moronic bore?

It's not funny, it's not clever and it really is a pain.
===================================================

BAD NEWS for you Dick. I changed my mind.
253

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 15:40:52
279

Here is the significant part you chose to ignore from the link I gave you.

From the beginning, the United Kingdom has played a pivotal role - strategic, military, and political - in the Iraq conflict. Militarily, the UK contributed 46,000 troops, 10 per cent of the total. Unsurprisingly, then, the British experience in Iraq has paralleled that of America: rising casualties, increasing operating costs, poor transparency over where the money is going, overstretched military resources, and scandals over the squalid conditions and inadequate medical care for some severely wounded veterans.

Before the war, Gordon Brown set aside £1 billion for war spending. As of late 2007, the UK had spent an estimated £7 billion in direct operating expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan (76 per cent of it in Iraq). This includes money from a supplemental “special reserve”, plus additional spending from the Ministry of Defence.

The special reserve comes on top of the UK's regular defence budget. The British system is particularly opaque: funds from the special reserve are “drawn down” by the Ministry of Defence when required, without specific approval by Parliament. As a result, British citizens have little clarity about how much is actually being spent.

In addition, the social costs in the UK are similar to those in the US - families who leave jobs to care for wounded soldiers, and diminished quality of life for those thousands left with disabilities.

By the same token, there are macroeconomic costs to the UK as there have been to America, though the long-term costs may be less, for two reasons. First, Britain did not have the same policy of fiscal profligacy; and second, until 2005, the United Kingdom was a net oil exporter.

We have assumed that British forces in Iraq are reduced to 2,500 this year and remain at that level until 2010. We expect that British forces in Afghanistan will increase slightly, from 7,000 to 8,000 in 2008, and remain stable for thre
254

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 15:41:49




no answers
255

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 15:43:27
279 Contd from 306

We have assumed that British forces in Iraq are reduced to 2,500 this year and remain at that level until 2010. We expect that British forces in Afghanistan will increase slightly, from 7,000 to 8,000 in 2008, and remain stable for three years. The House of Commons Defence Committee has recently found that despite the cut in troop levels, Iraq war costs will increase by 2 per cent this year and personnel costs will decrease by only 5 per cent. Meanwhile, the cost of military operations in Afghanistan is due to rise by 39 per cent. The estimates in our model may be significantly too low if these patterns continue.

Based on assumptions set out in our book, the budgetary cost to the UK of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2010 will total more than £18 billion. If we include the social costs, the total impact on the UK will exceed £20 billion.

© Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, 2008. Extracted from The Three Trillion Dollar War, to be published by Allen Lane on February 28 (£20). Copies can be ordered for £18 with free delivery from The Times BooksFirst 0870 1608080.

Joseph Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank and won the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics in 2001. Linda Bilmes is a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University

256

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 15:47:45
279

Here it is again moron:

Based on assumptions set out in our book, the budgetary cost to the UK of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2010 will total more than £18 billion. If we include the social costs, the total impact on the UK will exceed £20 billion.

THAT IS THE TOTAL COST OVER THE YEAR 2010 OF 20 BILLION.
A bit different to your claim of 9 billion in total for both wars over 15 years or so idiot boy.
It matches the claims you make regarding north sea oil revenue using government figures under your SM and ugly george accounts.



257

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 05/01/2009 15:50:56
True Scot

The link works fine for me - but I guess the link covering several lines - well its a bit difficult for you to figure out how to enter it.

I've only talked about the Iraq war - and yes it cost the UK a few billion - google it yourself if its beyond your ability to figure out how to get to a link.

So why am I being called a lying moron by you of all people (LOL the irony is so delicious!) for pointing out that the Iraq war costing a few billion is peanuts compared to £111 billion per year on health?

What exactly is moronic or untrue about that remark?

Lets face it True Scot - you are remarkably stupid, got it all wrong and now can't admit it.

As to accounts I post under. I only post under this account - or is that too much for your limited intelligence? You have to imagine & concoct some conspiracy because someone exposes the ridiculousness of your religious beliefs? O boy are you fragile!
258

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 15:52:11
279 Moron

You should pay particular attention to this part.

The special reserve comes on top of the UK's regular defence budget. The British system is particularly opaque: funds from the special reserve are “drawn down” by the Ministry of Defence when required, without specific approval by Parliament. As a result, British citizens have little clarity about how much is actually being spent.

Not like this government to hide true figures and data at all is it?
259

TWC,

05/01/2009 15:53:00
Wardog Rufus is Scared that Ne Labour are going down the stank in Scotland. Big Gordo is losing it and Scots can see the inequality in his policy claims for England versus those for Scotland.
260

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:53:23
310 Cauchy Riemann,Wales 05/01/2009 15:50:56
The link works fine for me - but I guess the link covering several lines - well its a bit difficult for you to figure out how to enter it.
===================================================

Yes the link worked for me as well.

I would suggest that only a total moron would not be able to get it to work.
261

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 15:54:46
310

A few billion? 20 billion for 2010 alone.
Youre being called a liar because you stated clearly the cost of the Iraq fiasco was no more than 9 billion in total and now your lying again about why your being called a lying moron you lying moron.

262

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 15:54:51
312 TWC,05/01/2009 15:53:00
Wardog Rufus is Scared that Ne Labour are going down the stank in Scotland.
===================================================

I have never been so scared.

Cant sleep at night due to worrying about it.
263

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

05/01/2009 15:55:03
#294 Rufus-T-Firefly

"Yes I thought it was you."

Thought it was who?
264

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 15:55:16
313

Yes well it is your link after all isnt it.
265

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 15:57:53
Troll

I didnt say your link didnt work I said it went nowhere and it doesnt.
266

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 15:59:51
319

Oh god its posting to itself again is there no a help line this poor sod can use?
267

Miss H,

05/01/2009 16:00:20



279 It’s not as simple as you are making out.

The vast majority of public spending cannot be cut without destroying public services. Unless you want to abolish the NHS for example you can’t make huge cuts to its budget, though you can make a certain amount in efficiency savings.

So if you accept that most public spending is committed to maintaining public services at their current levels, it means that governments do not have a lot of money left over for new priorities.

In that sense the three billion pounds a year that goes to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is actually more important than the 111 billion pounds that goes to support the health service even though it is a much smaller amount.

Because the Government cannot really touch most of that 111 billion pounds unless they decide to scrap the NHS. The money is already committed to paying for the staff and the cost of treatment and infrastructure. Since these are recurring costs, there is very little room for manoeuvre.

It’s a different matter when you look at the cost of the Middle East wars. There is no actual need to spend that money on that purpose if you see what I mean. It’s not necessary in the way that most of us would see spending on the NHS to be necessary. It may look like peanuts in comparison to the cost of the entire NHS but 3 billion a year could make quite a difference to the UK’s domestic economy if, for example, they decided to spend it all on affordable housing.
268

frank mcbride,

lusitania 05/01/2009 16:00:47
#295, Rufus.

He supported RBS through a difficult period.

However, with regard to HBOS this was not the case. The UK Govt. set aside its own competition rules on condition that there would be a LTSB/HBOS super bank - this was the condition for the support. A support that was not available to any other interested party!!! Why was that I wonder???

Could HBOS not been supported in the same way as NR or B&B? Would that not have been better for competition? Would it not have left considerable HO functions in Scotland?

Rufus, you remind me of Justice Jibber-jabber in Boston Legal in your absurdity. Even, when presented with the video you fail to recognise your own inanity.
269

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 05/01/2009 16:01:58
LOL you mean someone estimates £20 billion even though the cost to date is a lot less than that. Hey he might be right. The estimate I read just over a year ago now was £9 billion. Perhaps that is right.

Why is someone a lying moron for pointing out an ESTIMATE of £9 billion when someone else points out an ESTIMATE of £20 billion. You do know what estimates are, right? You do know that estimates over several years have a habit of varying by over 100% sometimes (only look at some PFI's)

So £20 billion is a worst case ESTIMATE right? I'm happy with that figure. So over 7 years that is just under £3 billion a year right?

Lets start again: £3 billion is peanuts compared with one sector of public spending (Health as an eample) of £111 billion.

That's why I said that even a dumb decision like Iraq is merely Scratching the surface of why public spending is out of control.

This seems against your fantasy religious belief so that's why you have to call me a 'lying moron'.

Well you want to call people names I'll reply in like.

The difference is that reading your posts its pretty obvious what your intelligence is and precisely who the moron really is.

270

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:02:14
321

eh that would be 20 billion a year at least not 3 billion.
271

,

05/01/2009 16:05:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
272

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 16:05:32
I don't actually pay taxes in the epectation of funding illegal wars. I expect them to be spent on health, defence (not aggression), infrastructure, (like bridges), education etc, a penny spent in Iraq or Afghanistan is a penny too much.
273

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:06:19
323

Who estimated 9 billion you still havent provided a real link to any evidence only a link going nowhere.

And the point of how much is spent on illegal wars with regards to how much is spent on the NHS is irrelevant to the point that the spending on illegal wars is unnecessary expeniture and is due to corruption bad management and criminal intent by our Government so why your pointing out the difference between the spending commitments is idiotic and doesnt deal with the point under discussion which is obviously why youre making the comparrison.
274

Miss H,

05/01/2009 16:07:05
323 Don't really get your argument on public spending if you are using the NHS as an example.

The UK actually spends a much smaller proportion of its GDP on healthcare than other countries without a national health service - the USA for example spends twice as much only it is mainly on private healthcare.

Reducing spending on the NHS would not therefore save us, as individual taxpayers, any money. In fact we would end up spending more on healthcare because we (or our employers) would have to fork out for private health insurance.
275

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 05/01/2009 16:07:47
Miss H wrote: 'It’s not as simple as you are making out.'

Too true! The post in context was trying to discover what suggestions True Scot had to support the contention he has made before that we don't need to borrow, we can live within our taxation - including the funding of capital projects.

I can't see how we can do that but I was genuinely interested if he had some radical ways in cutting our spending burden. Getting rid of the monarchy, the Iraq war is simply scratching the surface and wouldn't support his contention. I admitted Trident scrapping would be a good saving.

Of course I'm not interested now. Someone who starts calling people 'lying morons' for daring to disagree with his position makes me uninterested.
276

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:09:09
326

Exactly like I said enough revenue is being raised in this country to deal with the necessities already its the fact that consecutive UK governments choose to spend our taxes on criminal foreign policies instead is why our taxes have to be raised every year in spite of massive cuts in services and the selling off of national service industries.
277

Miss H,

05/01/2009 16:09:54
328 What a stupid post. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel suggesting that we could pay for the Forth Road crossing by reintroducing prescription charges.

I expect someone called 'Liberal for Life' not to understand the difference between capital and revenue spending but you have always pretended to be a bit of a clever clogs.
278

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:10:06
329

Neither does he. He is making it up as he goes along.
279

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

05/01/2009 16:12:47
The following is an extract from Des McNulty's interview on Good Morning Scotland on 10 December 2008 where he finally admitted Labour "would look at all – all possible options" – which includes tolling.

DES McNULTY: Well I think there's a variety of methods that could be looked at, you know, there have been similar bridges built through conventional procurement methods. There have been bridges built through the PPP methodology…

GARY ROBERTSON: Presumably you wouldn't just want to see a situation as we saw on the Skye Bridge, for instance.

DES McNULTY: Well, no, I don't think that – that would be the best approach, although I think the government, in taking the approach they did to removing the tolls from the existing Forth Bridge has actually taken away a particular funding model that has been used in the past, so…

GARY ROBERTSON: …So would Labour restore those tolls?

DES McNULTY: No, I'm not saying that, but I think what the SNP government has done is, it's narrowed its options, and one of the things that emerged –

GARY ROBERTSON: …Well, your options would be narrowed as well if you're not committed to returning them, wouldn't they?

DES McNULTY: Well, I think either the SNP has actually restricted its options – its policy approach… I mean, what's paradoxical –

GARY ROBERTSON: Not to keep your options open? To be clear, to keep your options open, you would keep the option of returning the tolls, then.

DES McNULTY: No, what I said is we would look at all – all possible options.
280

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 16:15:12
Smee - England has dropped PFI like a hot potato. Prudential borrowing is the only game in town for them. Why should we be lumbered with PFI because the Treasury won't allow a level playing field ? You are craven to the point of embarrassment.
281

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:15:20
332

Since when has this idiot ever come across as anything other than a sh*t stirring lying troll?
282

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:17:31
334

or "every year to 2010".

Yes I agree it does mean the year 2010 alone which is obvious to anybody but a compulsive lying git.

283

Miss H,

05/01/2009 16:18:58
336 Because we are a province.

Seriously. That is how they see us.
284

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 16:22:09
328

".... I'm advocating a bridge. Paid for the best way feasible....."

The best way that is feasible is for the spending profile of the Scottish Block Grant to be adapted in agreement between the Uk and Scottish Govenrment's so that it's less in future and we use the money now........

It's sustainable publi spending without slashing spending, exactly what HM Govenrment are doing in England for their big projects.

Why is Scotland any different? - Because the Treasury are choosing to treat the Scottish Government as a 'department' and enforce rules on them, i.e. they are making it as difficult as possible.

They didn't seem to have any difficulty setting aside their rules to allow the HBOS Takeover..... or indeed to bring forward £18Billion of spending on English only infrastructure.

I think you know it doesn't stack up Smee


"...the Treasury for the cash and saying "Honest, I'll pay it back later" was never going to fly....."

The SNP have asked for Scottish Block Grant money to be brought forward, that means that it';s within the gift of the Treasury to ensure that it is paid in future grant allocations...... it's not a loan Smee.....

"....There's plenty of time - as Ms Cooper said, "save up for it". Make a few less things "free"....."

So you ARE advocating CUTS, well name them and stand by it.

What do you want to cut and how much will it raise?

Free School meals - £40M annual
Free Prescriptions - £16M annual
Scrapping Tolls - £40M annual (?estimate?)
Freezing Council Tax - £70M annual

We seem to be short £400M each year SMee

What are you proposing?

Which Schools, which roads, which public transport projects?

285

Faux Cul,

05/01/2009 16:24:30
I,ve said it on many occasions.

Brown is mad and needs to be sectioned.

Now this view is being voiced, albeit only on certain bloggs, yet.

t is time to bring the question out into the open: is the Prime Minister of sane mind?

Going right back to the Blair charge that he was "psychologically flawed" this question has periodically arisen. Whereas in the past people made a joke of it, now the issue is becoming a genuine concern. Labour MPs discuss it semi-openly and political journalists report evidence of hysterical rants, the rages, the odd behaviour. The question comes up in private conversations all the time. Guido has heard it seriously suggested that Gordon suffers from "high functioning Aspergers".

It is becoming harder to cover it up whatever it is - some interviews border on totally loony - the repetitive mantras, the uncorrelated bizarre smiles, the complete inability to empathise. When Kay Burley asked him this week would he still have the PM's job at Christmas his reply was "Of course, because we have got to get on with the job... We have got to get on with the job. People want us to get on with the job. Getting on with the job is the most important thing at the moment." He snapped at the Mail on Sunday "I’m happy to talk to you because you are here... I have given you special time. That is very good of me. You are very fortunate."

He told smirking political correspondents on the flight to Beijing that he was going to win the next election, he tells confidantes that he believes the economy will turn around in a few months. We are told to expect an economic plan to turn things around - a plan which the Treasury is openly briefing it knows nothing about. He is clearly becoming increasingly disconnected from reality.

It is low politics to hurl cheap abuse at opponents, but this is not borne of malice towards Brown, Guido feels like the boy who pointed at the naked emperor and said what everyone was too embarrassed to say. The head of gover
286

Warden An' All, Reborn,

05/01/2009 16:25:43
What accomplishes respect does only good.

What invokes life lives.

Cheat and lament longingly.

Manage empathy.

Talk righteously and find friendship in contentment.

When all rhetoric dances end negativity.

Be yourself.

Make indivisible division, negativity inanimate, good health tangible.
287

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:26:14
341

You just cant help it can you? its this compulsive nature of yours which keeps you on these blogs 24/7 using god knows how many accounts in order to fulfill a need. I honestly do hope youre a group of folk working shifts from the same office for a salary the alternative just doesnt bare thinking about.
288

Faux Cul,

05/01/2009 16:26:20


It is low politics to hurl cheap abuse at opponents, but this is not borne of malice towards Brown, Guido feels like the boy who pointed at the naked emperor and said what everyone was too embarrassed to say. The head of government is clearly at the very least deluded and unable to function under the pressure. The worst is frightening to contemplate, for his party and the country.


From Guido

www.order-order.com
289

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 16:28:21
325 Quisling Gogs,05/01/2009 16:05:18
rufus-t-dung beetle, AKA baffled.

You're stookied on here, Dung, since you cannot cut and paste like you could on the Herald.
======================================================

Never posted on the Herald in my life.

Shows how much you know eh?
290

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:29:24
343

Because Scotland is not a region of England but is supposed to be an equal partner within a union of kingdoms idiot boy. It generates a GDP of 137 billion a year so more than pays for itself and can afford to pay for its needs on its own. the fact that we have to subsidise the corrupt policies of a foreign power is why we have to ask for our own money back moron.
Its a state of affairs referred to as the union idiot.
291

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 05/01/2009 16:31:18
Err... the £20 billion estimate is the total estimate this guy has come up with True Scot - not the cost per year. Again, calling someone a 'lying git' for telling the truth on this demonstrates what level you are on.

"Before the war, Gordon Brown set aside £1 billion for war spending. As of late 2007, the UK had spent an estimated £7 billion in direct operating expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan (76 per cent of it in Iraq). This includes money from a supplemental “special reserve”, plus additional spending from the Ministry of Defence.

The special reserve comes on top of the UK's regular defence budget. The British system is particularly opaque: funds from the special reserve are “drawn down” by the Ministry of Defence when required, without specific approval by Parliament. As a result, British citizens have little clarity about how much is actually being spent.

In addition, the social costs in the UK are similar to those in the US - families who leave jobs to care for wounded soldiers, and diminished quality of life for those thousands left with disabilities.

By the same token, there are macroeconomic costs to the UK as there have been to America, though the long-term costs may be less, for two reasons. First, Britain did not have the same policy of fiscal profligacy; and second, until 2005, the United Kingdom was a net oil exporter.

We have assumed that British forces in Iraq are reduced to 2,500 this year and remain at that level until 2010. We expect that British forces in Afghanistan will increase slightly, from 7,000 to 8,000 in 2008, and remain stable for three years. The House of Commons Defence Committee has recently found that despite the cut in troop levels, Iraq war costs will increase by 2 per cent this year and personnel costs will decrease by only 5 per cent. Meanwhile, the cost of military operations in Afghanistan is due to rise by 39 per cent. The estimates in our model may be significantly too low if these patterns continue.

292

Faux Cul,

05/01/2009 16:32:18
It has been coming for sometime now.

Monday, July 28, 2008
Prime Mentalist's Psychiatric Questions Go Mainstream

Is Bruce Anderson the first mainstream pundit to question Gordon's psychiatric state? Here he is in the Indy this morning:

The stories are seeping out from No. 10. The other day, Gordon Brown was convinced that Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary, had made such a strong attack on 42-day detention as to impugn his commitment to national security. Although Downing Street advisers trawled and Googled, they could not find the quote. Their boss expressed gratitude for their efforts in the way that a sergeant-major would thank a recruit for a speck of dust on his rifle. Mr Brown then stationed himself at a terminal. For the next four hours, he sat there unavailingly, emanating gloom and rage. The non-psychiatric interpretation of his behaviour is termed "the playing politics with national security syndrome".

Shortly afterwards, John Prescott was in No. 10, showing around some children. "What's he doing in this building?" exploded Mr Brown. "Get him out of here." (He surely cannot regard Mr Prescott as a potential leadership challenger – otherwise, things are truly desperate).

Embarrassed aides explained that, you know, Mr Prescott had been Deputy Prime Minister until last year, and what harm could there be in showing kids around? Gordon Brown's response was to shut himself in the Cabinet Room for the next two hours, talking to no-one.

In emails and conversations people say that they think tw@t-watch and the Prime Mentalist tag are very amusing. Guido is deadly serious, we have a head of government who is not in touch with reality and dangerously malevolent. He has surrounded himself with second-rate yes men who don't stand up to him and cowed the cabinet with his angry vindictiveness. That is why we have such dysfunctional government. Ministers and MPs were too scared to hold a contested election for leader, they are by and
293

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:33:10
Can anybody name another country in the world with a GDP of 137 billion which cannot afford to budget for a bridge construction cost of 2 billion?
294

Faux Cul,

05/01/2009 16:33:14
That is why we have such dysfunctional government. Ministers and MPs were too scared to hold a contested election for leader, they are by and large too scared to openly tell him to go, so the curtain won't come down on the disaster show...
295

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 16:33:45
sm753, can I borrow £5K from you?

I promise I will pay it back sometime in the next 10 years.

What do you say?

Remember, I wont take 'no' for an answer.
296

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 16:34:52
343 are you that daft ? Read the bleedin' papers. The Treasury are bringing forward capital spend with reprofiled budgets and they are not using PFI to do it. That is what most of us a talking about - their unreasonable veto on us doing the same.
297

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 16:36:35
351 Bird of Prey will pan what you say,embra 05/01/2009 16:30:24
Hoi Rufus T balls up, whats with all this ==== under each cut n paste ? does this turn you on ?
======================================================

==== === === =====
298

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 16:38:04
350

£18 Billion Boost to Infrastructure, Jobs, Schoola nd Renewanbales

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article5447305.ece


No, it's not like a department Smee, not so long ago you were citing the 'Act of Union' or indeed the Scotland Act, can you point out where that defines the Scot's as a 'department'...... Scotland is subject directly to the Barnet formula unlike UK Government Departments.


"...If Swinney can't find the money, he can use his existing powers to put up income tax. And he may find he can then borrow against that, as he will have an independent external revenue stream....."

So it's ok for the UK Government to borrow for English only spending but the devolved Government's have to raise taxes......

Do you think that is sustainable Smee?

What is Scotland's Barnet consequential of £18 BILLION?
299

Hugh Roscombe,

05/01/2009 16:38:05
351

"Hoi Rufus T balls up, whats with all this ==== under each cut n paste?"

It's a bridge.

||==================||


300

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 16:40:20
Hugh, Alex Salmon?

...................><((((o>
301

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 16:40:25


Any estimates yet form the Unionists about how much a 30 year PPP Deal for the Forth Road Bridge will cost, you all seem to have went very quiet on the matter?

£9 Billion?

£18 Billion?


You must so happy to be wasting tax payers money, I do hope you include this on your election materials - I'm sure the SNP will!
302

Faux Cul,

05/01/2009 16:40:39
Evening Obs

Having fun with SM 753 are we, again.

You might as well talk to a rubber wall, which come to think of it is from where he may be posting; 4 of them.

He is a suicide Troll of the most ineducable type; a Titanic Union Flag draped Empire Loyalist.

Good luck to you, I say!

ps Brown is mad and needs to be sectioned.
303

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 16:42:27


Has Jim Murphy put a Saltire on his website yet?

Is there a link to Homecoming 2009?

304

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 16:44:22
365 Bird of Prey will pan what you say,embra 05/01/2009 16:41:01
356 Rufus T balls up

Everyone in the UK thanks to labour has inadvertently borrowed £50,000 so your little £5,000 is pocket money.
=====================================================

Peanuts
305

Faux Cul,

05/01/2009 16:45:38
Indications from the exchange rates is that a further reduction on interest rate has been ruled out.

That would guarantee a sub € £

tick tock, it is coming anyway.

Political Betting.com seems to weight a general election in May or June, before the house falls in.

Don't bet on it, Brown is an mental indecisive snot gobbler and will paint himself into corner rather than take a decision.

306

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

05/01/2009 16:45:59
#361 Hola hombre que paso?
307

Hugh Roscombe,

05/01/2009 16:46:19
(_8^(|)

308

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 16:46:28
Bird of Prey.

I just read your blog.

It took 2 seconds.

The website is worthy of you.
309

Hugh Roscombe,

05/01/2009 16:47:16
369

Hicººº
310

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 16:47:27
364 Afternoon, yes Brown is sectionable, so was Blair before him. He's in Jersalem sorting out Gaza - God help them. At least this is only a bridge. Too far 'though, let's hope so.
311

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 16:50:46
370 Hugh Roscombe,

Hola hombre el paso.

Holy Guacamole.
312

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 16:51:03

CAMERON is advocating abolishing tax on savings temporarily until interests rates rise again.

Why hasn't brown already done this?

313

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 16:52:35

Smee

Who seem to have been rid silly again today

Why do you bother.

Are you any closer to answering my questions?

314

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

05/01/2009 16:55:07
#356

"sm753, can I borrow £5K from you?

I promise I will pay it back sometime in the next 10 years.

What do you say?

Remember, I wont take 'no' for an answer."

Alternatively, don't give me the money and I'll borrow it from my friendly Labour Loan Shark, whom I'll pay back over the next thirty years at £3,000 pa plus the vig.
315

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:55:44
374

I noticed nobody has explained why my interpretation is wrong either

You want the link to the GDP for the third time? how many times do you have to see it? does it help the Scotsmans advertising figures if we keep posting the same links over again?
316

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 16:56:06
380 Bird of Prey will pan what you say,embra

I don't have a website you nit, i have a blog you ignoramus
=====================================================

Are you spanners in disguise?
317

Faux Cul,

05/01/2009 16:56:32
Wardug

You don't suppose that SM753 is the famous ex Herald cooncilor from Paisley or was it Ayrshire.

Same dogged forward gear movement, albeit with just one speed and direction.
318

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 16:57:29
378

Ah yes the Barnett formula and do you think it generates more income than Scotlands entire revenue?
319

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 16:59:05
382 I think most people are now skipping past 374's posts. Reading them saps your will to live.
320

JCA REID,

Annan 05/01/2009 16:59:59
Honestly you wouldn't put this lot in charge of a chimps' tea party! The Oresund Bridge that links Denmark with Sweden cost approx. £3.75billion & that involved putting in tunnels, rail-lines underneath the roadbridge, BOTH electrical & water fire safety systems, as both countries use different settings & an artificial island! It was done on time & on budget to the last cent!!
& what are we doing? THe only good thing we do is form committees so they can wrack up expenses to write off to the tax payer, or tag onto the final bill for a project!
321

Miss H,

05/01/2009 17:00:42
363 Ah but this is where it becomes interesting.

Because if you take what the Treasury says at face value it will be impossible to finance the new Forth crossing full stop – even if it is done with thirty year PFI/PPP deal.

Because PFI/PPP projects are going to be added to the balance books to meet new international reporting rules.

That means that they will form part of the public finances.

The Treasury’s argument is that the Scottish Government cannot enter into a twenty year funding arrangement because it’s not the done thing old chap. A thirty year PFI/PPP funding arrangement would only have been the solution if it was all off balance.

But very soon it won’t be.

Hope this makes some kind of sense. My brain is a bit scrambled today.
322

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 05/01/2009 17:01:14
I see the favourite tactic of not engaging in debate is being used by our unionists friends today.

quote:- "The treasury rejected this plan, telling Scottish ministers it was impossible to take that sort of decision on budgets so many years in the future.

What is PFI/PPP then? Is this not a deferred payment without a future set budget. I mean do we know what the future capital budget of the English health department will be in 2015?
323

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 17:01:36
388

It certainly saps your sense of reality. A suspension of normality and reality is required to get to the end of his posts.
324

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 17:02:18
388 Observer,,Glasgow 05/01/2009 16:59:05
382 I think most people are now skipping past 374's posts. Reading them saps your will to live.
====================================================

Please keep reading them then.
325

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 17:03:28
393

I dont believe he is this cretin comes across as being younger by at least a decade maybe 2. This idiot is no more than 22 and may even be in his late teens. I believe that AM2 is none other than that other idiot Hamish McDonnell himsell.
326

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 17:05:17
396 A True Scot.,05/01/2009 17:03:28
393

I dont believe he is this cretin comes across as being younger by at least a decade maybe 2. This idiot is no more than 22 and may even be in his late teens. I believe that AM2 is none other than that other idiot Hamish McDonnell himsell.
======================================================

Must be hard for you spanners having a teenager run rings around you on a daily basis.
327

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 17:05:37
390 It makes perfect sense if you can't frontload your budget for projects based on future revenue, you can't actually do anything major, ergo the Parliament is made to look useless. It's not exactly hard to work the tactics out.
328

Warden An' All, Reborn,

05/01/2009 17:05:40
This nastyonallist administration, and their cronies such as wardog, are so keen on local Scottish taxation benefitting scotland, right?
Then why not have a Scottish road tax in a similar fashion to the LIT, and a percentage of the money raised by parking tickets and fines incurred from other traffic offences all going towards this bridge project?
It is a road bridge after all.
Or will salmond lead scotland onto the road to rack and ruin.
329

The Tin Man,

05/01/2009 17:05:51
....And so endeth the construction industry in Scotland...

Looks like 2009 will be full of tedious debates about budget cuts, because nothing else will be happening in Holyroood apart from nose-picking.

SFT: no.
LIT: no.
Referendum: no.
Budget cuts: yes.

Another year like 20008 will make the previous exec. look good.
330

Miss H,

05/01/2009 17:06:25
389 I don't think you really understand what this is about - it's about money not the bridge.

The UK Treasury says the Scottish Govt cannot advance capital spending by committing to a 20 year funding plan. The main alternative being punted is a PFI/PPP deal however that would also be verboten under new reporting rules which make PFI/PPP projects appear on the balance sheet for the first time.

So the choices are to cut capital spending in other areas and try and float a bit of revenue spending in as well or not build the new crossing at all or for the Treasury to allow the Scottish Government to do what it is doing itself by front loading capital investment.
331

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 17:06:25

378 DEL

Under the current devolution settlement, the Scottish Government does not have the authority to raise extra resource by borrowing or sanctioning borrowing.

Expenditure allocated to Scotland includes expenditure by the Scottish Government, expenditure by Scottish local authorities, expenditure by public corporations for Scotland AND expenditure by the UK Government on goods and services for the benefit of Scotland.....

Yes, Scottish Government spending programmes fall into two categories: those within the Scottish Departmental Expenditure Limit ( DEL) and those within Annually Managed Expenditure ( AME).

For programmes within DEL, Scotland (like the other devolved administrations) receives a grant from the UK government.

Programmes outside the Scottish Government's DEL are mainly those where expenditure cannot be planned far ahead and has to be adjusted annually; for example, expenditure on the capital costs relating to motorways, trunk roads and FORTH ROAD BRIDGES.

The UK Government is able to borrow to fund public sector expenditure across the UK, including the Scottish Government block grant.

It is choosing not to do so on this occasion in prefernece to cutting public spending or PPP.

Now given we're in a recession that would seem to suggets that the Treasury want us to use PPP>



I repeat, what is the cost of a PPP Forth Road Bridge?









332

TWC,

05/01/2009 17:08:07
343 sm753, SMEE

Holyrood does not have financial control over its own money, it gets pocket money from Westminster and has no facility to create real Fiscal Stimulus ergo when the head banger Brown releases extra cash from the Treasury he should give Scotland a similar share which is then assigned by the Scottish Parliament.
We do not have Fiscal Autonomy and we cannot borrow so Brown cannot have his cake and eat it.
Give scotland the requisite consequential payments or give us Fiscal Autonomy.
But Fiscal Autonomy would not be conducive to the Union Why ? because Scotland would be miles better off.
333

Miss H,

05/01/2009 17:08:59
401 a stupid and pointless post. If you want to masquerade as someone with an interest in politics you should take an interest in politics.
334

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 17:09:36
404 TWC

Salmond can raise income tax by 3 pence.

Why does he not do it?
335

The Tin Man,

05/01/2009 17:09:58
#403 Wardog

Have you ever had a morgage? If so, what percentage extra did you pay on the original price of the house?
336

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 17:10:58

384 Faux Cu

You mean....(gasp).... not 'BAFFLED'

Shurely not...... but then again isn't it miraculous how nearly all of the so called unionist disappeared from the Herald overnight, could be that there were only ever one or two with multiple identifies....

Say it ain't so


Let's hope exiled Aussie never logs on to this site.....

337

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 17:11:53

400. Warden Hodges

Cronie?

How very dare you!
338

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 17:12:15
408 Bird of Prey will pan what you say,05/01/2009 17:09:50
398 Rufus T balls up
I tell you what Rufus, i would love to boot your ring for you.
====================================================
I am sure you would.

Spooks has told me all about you down CC Blooms.

As you can imagine though, I am not interested.
339

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 17:13:07

409. Why would you pay interest if you own the bank?

340

The Tin Man,

05/01/2009 17:15:42
~405 Miss H

Unfortunately, it is not me that is starting to make Holyrood look pointless. Why does the latest minority Scottish exec have a remarkable inability to come to a consensus with the other parties on individual issues?

They couldn't even get an uncontroversial act through parliament on the internal workings of a Scottish arts organisation, through incompetence from Linda Fabiani. What chance of anything major?
341

,

05/01/2009 17:17:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
342

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 17:18:17
415

Funny how they managed to get a whole annual budget through though eh? funny how they are going to get LIT through as well with consensus politics not to mention all of the other approved policies so far.
343

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 17:19:58

PPP Forth Road Bridge
Warsdog's Book.


1/5 £18 BILLION
1/10 £12 BILLION
1/15 £9 BILLION
1/20 £7 BILLION



Good odds on Labour being wiped out In Midlothian and Fife.

1/5 Gordon brown loses his Seat in 2010.




344

The Tin Man,

05/01/2009 17:20:01
#414 Bird

I would disagree - I think this is a major failing on the part of the Scot exec. They are a minority admin that has to win friends and get the opposition on-board in order to pass legislation - something they are failing to do.

As an SNP supporter surely you should be recognising the warning signs and wanting some changes in the modus operandii?
345

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 17:20:01
398

I wouldnt know but I will tell you first when it ever happens.
346

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 17:20:01
415 What does that have to do with the UK Treasury treating Scots completely differently from everyone else ? You, in common with others, don't seem to get that.
347

Miss H,

05/01/2009 17:20:57
415 More daftness. Do you actually pay any attention to what happens in the Scottish Parliament - or to what the government does?

Or do you just read the Scotsman?

The Scotsman have no interest in politics either.
348

TWC,

05/01/2009 17:21:28
406 Rufus-T-Firefly,
We've already paid our taxes and are entitled to our share of any extra expenditure from the treasury.
Anyway it is not about Salmond it is about Scotland's funding whoever is in Government, or are you already conceding defeat in all future elctions?

With Fiscal Autonomy Scotland could cut Income tax.


BTW I pay my taxes in Southampton today
349

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 17:23:43
421 Wardog™,05/01/2009 17:19:58
Good odds on Labour being wiped out In Midlothian and Fife.
1/5 Gordon brown loses his Seat in 2010.
======================================================
Put £50 on it.

If it comes up you will get back your losing tenner from Glenrothes.
350

Miss H,

05/01/2009 17:24:28
422 Oh My God.

If they could not get other MSPs on board they would not be the Government you dunderheid. Everything they have done they have sought support on.

The only party which has consistently opposed the Scottish Government without offering any kind of alternative is Labour.
351

The Tin Man,

05/01/2009 17:26:17
#425 Miss H

I don't have the time, but if you give two whits about Holyrood, go to their website and look at what legislation was actually passed in 2008.

Anyway, a Happy New Year to you.
352

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 17:27:26
426 TWC,05/01/2009 17:21:28
With Fiscal Autonomy Scotland could cut Income tax.

========================================================
Yes Thats true.

They could also raise it.

I wonder which option would be plumped for first.
353

The Tin Man,

05/01/2009 17:28:02
#428 Dunderheid

"Everything they have done they have sought support on."

Exactly. Have a look at what they have actually done.
354

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 17:28:23


Rufus, your not , you know..... the thing that cannot be spoken?

Proud to be Scottish?
Hamish McKrotpkin?
Baffled?


Bill Forbes...... no way!
355

Miss H,

05/01/2009 17:30:35
429 Oh if it is LEGISLATION you want then you are definitely a Labour man.

Legislation was their thing and I see they are keeping up the fine tradition with Jackie Baillie's 'Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill'.

Because that is obviously the way to deal with people misusing disabled peoples parking places - pass a law about it to add to all the other laws Labour passed.
356

Faux Cul,

05/01/2009 17:30:52
#410
Wardog™,
05/01/2009 17:10:58

Naw

They don't take The Scotsman in his "home" so he probably does not know about the website.


I am still sure that Baffled is out there, somwhere in the ether waiting to materialise.

On the other hand he may have been cloned.

He really was a faulty strip of DNA
357

The Tin Man,

05/01/2009 17:31:56
#431 Bird

You want the legislation for a referendum to get passed, nevermind actually voting in a referendum? Well, the Scot exec has to build the political consensus to pass the bill in Hollyrood. I though you would be champing at the bit for that, but maybe not.

358

Westfield Bairns,

falkirk 05/01/2009 17:32:21
Rufus-T-Firefly
I see nursey must have forgot to lock the special room after administering your meds. However always nice to have some informed debate from one of Broons spawn, not, oooh roll on 2010 Scottish Independence awaits.

Scottish - Scottish
English - English/British
Scottish Unionist - held in contempt by both of the above, deary me more meds for Rufarse
359

Rufus-T-Firefly,

05/01/2009 17:33:14
Rufus, your not , you know..... the thing that cannot be spoken?

Proud to be Scottish?
Hamish McKrotpkin?
Baffled?


Bill Forbes...... no way!
==================================================

No idea what you are talking about.

I presume these are monikers previously used on here?
360

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 17:36:29
430

So the choice is go for independence and a possible higher or lower income tax or remain within the union and deal with a certain massive rise in income tax.
Stark choice indeed.
361

Faux Cul,

05/01/2009 17:39:13
#435
Fur foulkes sake,
05/01/2009 17:30:01

Lard FFSake,

My point was actually genuine.

I know that Prime Ministers, Presidents and other High Office Bearers have their physical health monitored, just as all MDs etc of large businesses.

Why then should the PM etc not have a mental health check; confidential of course but "shared" with a panel of Privy Councillors?

Harold Wilson, I believe recognised within him some of the symptoms of Alzheimers.

Joking aside, I believe that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan probably were displaying some forms of instability.

In Brown's case I think the man has started from a high baseline regarding personality disorders.

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Euripides
362

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 17:40:42


Smee

Have you run away again without answering any questions?

Thene again it can be complicated to figure out all the PPP scams there are before you find out what the final cost of the bridge might be.

You've taken a right pasting these last few days along with warden hodge.

Riddin like a couple of beach donkey's

Hee Haw

363

TWC,

05/01/2009 17:41:26
Rufus,
You are back to posting tripe, i made some valid debating points to you and they were points not driven by the Nats and you come back with daft comments.
364

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 17:41:28
440. Yes. phantom unionists much like your goodself.

Just how much does a PPP Forth Road Bridge cost?

365

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 17:44:55
446 Smee, I'd thought you'd ran away.

How about answering some questions?

How much does a PPP Forth Road Bridge cost?

What makes you proud to be Scottish?

What makes you proud to be British?

Which spending pledged should we cut to pay for the Bridge?

366

Ginger Ale,

05/01/2009 17:47:57
441

Yep. Stuffed either way.
367

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 17:50:18
446

Yes you stated I was wrong but failed to explain why as usual.

doesnt surprise me in the least youre well known for ignoring the obvious when it shoots down your moronic posts.
368

TWC,

05/01/2009 17:51:17
448 sm753,Behave Smee.

You are a long way from removing SNP. None of the paties has even the hint of a policy that will threaten them after the Calman let down.
369

TWC,

05/01/2009 17:51:49
I Meant Parties
370

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 17:54:04
448 And thus we see the unionist tactic. If the SG can't front load projects based on future revenue it will never be able to deliver a capital project like this Bridge.

That's what they want to happen, for petty, parochial, narrow minded reasons.

So we can see English projects front loaded left right and centre - the Treasury have demanded it as a recessionary fighting tool. But not here.

Pathetic isn't it.



371

Miss H,

05/01/2009 17:55:59
448 Let's be clear about this. You are seriously arguing that the SNP Government cannot enter into a 20 year funding arrangement for the new Forth Road Bridge because it cannot commit future governments to meet the payments.

That's very interesting as it suggests that the SNP may not be liable to meet PFI/PPP payments entered into by previous executives. Well in one sense obviously they are not liable as the contracts were signed by local authorities or health boards but since they are funded by government it amounts to the same thing.

But you're just talking bolloz aren;t you really?
372

Observer,,

Glasgow 05/01/2009 17:56:43
456 Well try the schools programme, try social housing, try reading a paper dear.
373

Darien,

Panama 05/01/2009 17:57:06
#sm 753:

Remember the thus far unanswered Scot-British Nationalist conundrum from a few days back?

"I am Brit/Scot that is fact"

So you are a British (national) and Scottish (what exactly?) ?
374

Miss H,

05/01/2009 17:57:52
432 OK let’s look at it

Frozen council tax, slashed business rates, scrapped tuition fees, ended bridge tolls on Forth and Tay bridges, increased police numbers, increased NHS frontline staff – more doctors, nurses and dentists than ever before, sorted out free personal and nursing care payments, saved accident and emergency departments, increased support for council housing, delivered second stage transfers, started M74 completion, started to sort out the planning system, introduced Saltire Prize, delivered a new drugs strategy – that’s all off the top of my head. And all delivered in consensus with other parties. Just not the Labour Party.

And you say what have they done? Tell me – what did Labour and the Lib Dems do in their first 18 months? I dare say you can point to lots of bills they put forward – but what did they actually do?

375

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 18:00:44
446

Actually your quite right to question the 137 billion figure its out of date the latest estimate of Scotland GDP from 2008 is in fact 287,142,573,975 pounds give or take a few grand here or there.
The source being of course the world bank.

htto:/lsitE}!:Q&9U~.$.W9r1.P'Qa9k,~Q{QAT ASTATISTICSlRe~l,tr~~~lrC,Rs!f
Unfortunately Scotland is not included separately, However, ON.s produce statistics on GVA per head
for the regiQns within the UK. This finds that in 2005 Scottish GV A per head was 96% of the UK level.
Therefore, as a rough approximation we can find comparable figures for Scotland based on the figures
for the UK.
The World Bank find that ONI per capita for the UK is $40,180. Therefore, Scotland wiU have a ONI
per capita of approximately $38,573 and so will rank as 19th in the World Bank tables
376

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 18:02:29
446

The calculations are based on todays population figures and the latest per head capita figures from 2008.
Now what are your estimates?
377

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 18:04:19
460

He hasnt claimed to be a Scot has he? youre not serious? where does it claim its from exactly? let me guess Edinburgh its the favourite choice of all the lying trolls to date.
378

,

05/01/2009 18:05:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
379

,

05/01/2009 18:07:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
380

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 18:15:23

Smee

You've categorically failed to answer a single question put whilst receiving numerous links to information refuting your claims. Your debating skills are lacklustre and that's a compliment.

It's patently obvious that despite you having been rid raw by many other posters today and over the last few days, you are no clsoer to realising your follly.

That is unfortunate, much like your life story.

Isn't it time you logged off and watched from the sidelines whilst the discussion progresses amongst the grown ups., your contributions thus far have been less than worthless.


381

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 18:17:49
466.. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

An impressive legislative programme indeed

;-)
382

,

05/01/2009 18:20:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
383

,

05/01/2009 18:20:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
384

,

05/01/2009 18:23:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
385

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 05/01/2009 18:23:50
True Scot wrote:

"446

Yes you stated I was wrong but failed to explain why as usual.

doesnt surprise me in the least youre well known for ignoring the obvious when it shoots down your moronic posts."

-------------------------------------------

You are STILL claiming the article claims an estimate of £20 billion per year?????!!!!!

I'm sorry that you have problems with simple literacy; either that or you simply can't accept that you made a mistake. Either way sounds very, very sad.

First I was irritated at being called a 'lying moron' out of the blue, but now I realise that is the only level you are capable of and can only jump up and down crying out 'moron' when things aren't going your way.

I now actually feel sorry for you. [BTW just checked the link and it works fine for me.]
386

Warden An' All, Reborn,

05/01/2009 18:32:31
A scots-British national
387

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 18:32:56


"...Very disappointing...."

Oh dear Smee, you really are

388

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 18:33:33
475

What is that makes you proud to be a Scots-British national?

Simple enough question
389

,

05/01/2009 18:36:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
390

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 18:43:02
473

Whether the war costs 20 billion a year or a day is irrelevant to the original point which was the cost irrespective of how much, is an unncecessary cost due to corrupt and criminal government and its these costs and other foreign policy costs which cause our tax burdens to increace annually in spite of massive cuts to services and public service institutes becomming privatised. Like I pointed out originally its not the amount of revenue raised in this country but the incompetant and criminal way it is managed. A point which you have obviously ignored in order to argue about war costs and the comparrisons to NHS costs.
391

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 18:46:05
479

Not me the claim comes from figures derived by the world bank unlike you nobody actually tells me what to post. I am not spoon fed bullsh.t figures and stats to post.
392

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 18:47:48
480 Smee

Oh come on Smee, not even a guess, assume 30 years and a typical HM Treasury PPP Recommended Profit Margin/%.....


393

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 18:49:06
479

Where did I say I trusted the ONS? you asked for links so I give you links make of them what you will. Its funny though how you only take UK government figures at face value in fact as gospel and nobody elses.
BTW have you made up your own mind yet with regards to what new powers should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament? as an ordinary hard working scottish voter of course?
394

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 18:50:59
479

Scotland 2007 GVA = £98.5bn

which of course excludes N S oil and gas revenues and VAT which is considered a UK tax.
395

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 18:51:48
479

Why not give it its true figure of 95%.
396

A True Scot.,

05/01/2009 18:52:35
479

Ah yes the gospel according to the UK government again eh?
397

Faux Cul,

05/01/2009 18:53:26
#478
Traquir , Alba,
05/01/2009 18:36:32

wrote

"I understand that Broon is still upset from
not even being able to get a wax work dummy
of himself installed in Madame Tussauds."

When I saw the snot gobbler on TV on Sunday I thought that he was a waxworks figure borrowed from Madame Tussauds
398

Wardog™,

05/01/2009 18:55:52


Anyone willing to guess how much Hairmyres Hospital (Capital Cost £67,5M) will cost us over 30 years?

Equity of just £100 invested in rebuilding the historic Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride is projected to earn £89 million in dividends for private firms over 30 years.

Guess who's bright idea this deal was?

Half a million pounds equity in the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary is expected to win dividends of £168 million.

PPP merchants make the great train robbers look like amateurs who stole from a collection plate in a small church

Come the publication of the PFI debt, Brown will reap the whirlwind....

The profit from more than 60 completed PFI/PPPI projects in Scotland - including around 200 schools, 12 waste projects, nine hospitals, three roads and two prisons - could rise to over £5 billion.