We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies
Comments
-
Transport Scotland -The national transport agency for Scotland, delivering the Scottish Government's vision for transport
Hmmmm
Leanne - 2010 was a time ago and in the meantime the relevant budget was cut. To be effective monitoring has to be frequent enough to keep pace with what is being measured.
It was a long time ago. This is in response to the graph Hamish posted.
Was monitoring decreased?
Given the reasons I posted about disruption & economic impact was the decision made, with hindsight being such a wonderful thing, the wrong one?0 -
-
Leanne1812 wrote: »It was a long time ago. This is in response to the graph Hamish posted.
Was monitoring decreased?
Given the reasons I posted about disruption & economic impact was the decision made, with hindsight being such a wonderful thing, the wrong one?
On the last point, I presume you mean decreasing the maintenance budget and not replacing that section, yes it would appear so. If planned the disruption would have been less - see Hannah's recent post.
Was monitoring decreased? --- it is clear that it was insufficient because additional structural monitoring has now prooved necessary; whether it was decreased is not known by me, but clearly a reduced maintenance budget makes that moot. Keeping fingers crossed is not a substitute for good management.Union, not Disunion
I have a Right Wing and a Left Wing.
It's the only way to fly straight.0 -
Leanne1812 wrote: »Given I posted the reasons why, valid reasons, I fail to see what is so funny.
Must be the best retort you've got
You're clutching at straws.0 -
Leanne1812 wrote: »The work that was being considered in 2010 was prompted by concern about another part of the truss end link, not the part that is now cracked.
But it would have replaced the part that is now cracked.
This was an avoidable failure.
Simple as that.
Works to replace this part had already gone to tender, the tender was cancelled because of budget cuts, those documents are public and have already been posted here.
Why try to deny the blindingly obvious?
SNP budget cuts have caused this crisis.
And the unplanned emergency nature of it at the worst time of year has made the consequences far worse than they would have been with a scheduled repair.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Why try to deny the blindingly obvious?
Because anything that the SNP does requires unquestioning support.0 -
You know Hamish has a point. I accept that a gamble was made that has turned out to be costly & extremely inconvenient. The timing is bad too but I still feel the reasons given are valid and acceptable.
The maintenance budget was decreased. I accept that. I suppose the question is why? Would it be to help fund the new bridge? I'm not sure.....maybe someone else can clarify.
It just seems unwarranted all this criticism.
I'll ask again, what should have been done differently? As far as I understand it the plan was to carry out the repairs next year when the new bridge would ease any problems.0 -
-
Leanne1812 wrote: »You know Hamish has a point. I accept that a gamble was made that has turned out to be costly & extremely inconvenient. The timing is bad too
I'll agree with all of that.The maintenance budget was decreased. I accept that. I suppose the question is why?
We don't (yet) know but at the rate documents are being leaked I rather suspect we will soon.
At the end of the day it all comes down to priorities.
Keeping vital transport infrastructure from failing should be pretty much at the top of any list of priorities for government. Clearly that was not the case here.It just seems unwarranted all this criticism.
SNP supporters have gone to extraordinary lengths to build a facade of 'competency' around the party in general but Sturgeon in particular.
Many of us would disagree.
And given Sturgeon was the minister in charge of infrastructure from 2012 to 2014 she would have been directly involved in some of these decisions.I'll ask again, what should have been done differently? .
Not cutting the budget for the repairs to replace the part that failed would have been a good start.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards