Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Because the Yes campaign built their economic argument around the taxes that they claimed were going to be collected from oil. They lied to the Scottish people in an attempt to trick people into voting Yes.

If Yes has carried the day, Scotland would be independent in 4 months and broke.

Where's the 'roll eyes' smiley when you need one eh.

On the bright side, at least all those onshore fracking licences won't be needed anytime soon. It seems like only yesterday ( ie just weeks before the referendum ) Ian Wood was all over the papers predicting oil was about to run out. And 'lied' is too strong a word.
Salmond got the oil forecast wrong.. I'll accept that as so did everyone else. But I wouldn't call it 'lying' unless you're going to accuse the OBR of 'lying' about it too ?

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Careful, you get put on the naughty step and made to wear a big pointy hat with SNPBaaad printed on it, whlie being forced to repeat certain passages from the Wee Blue Book, for stating the obvious up here in Natland.

Meanwhile Derek MacKay has this morning accused Labour of trying to make political capital out of the Forth Road Bridge problem, as reported by BBC. My dog choked on his breakfast when he heard that.

MacKay is quite correct. Alex Rowley was terrible on the radio this morning when pressed. Scottish Labour aren't used to scrutiny any more. It sure shows when they get asked questions on their claims. The FRB 'issue' has been debunked and shown as such online over the last few days. Just goes to show what happens when media pick up on these things and actually ask Labour to show prove what they're saying ie 'cough, cough, splutter... well I don't actually have that email in front of me'.... No of course not Mr Rowley. But that hasn't stopped you and others from your party having apoplexy over said email, so you should actually know what's in it.

It was Alex Rowley who was choking this morning.

Repeatedly challenged by @BBCGaryR over the Barry Colford email, Labour's Alex Rowley can't say which part of it contains a "warning".

How many stories in the press about the Forth Bridge mention that the Scot Gov only took direct responsibility for the bridge on 01/06/2015?

Why the media focus on Derek MacKay responsible for FRB from 06/2015 rather than FETA Convenors Wheeler, Martin & Hinds, 07/2009 - 05/2015?

Graham_Devon

The focus on the bridge maintenance and the SNP is interesting.

There have been several transport issues over the last 5 years. Anyone remember the main line in Devon hanging from the see wall? That took months to repair, far longer than the bridge.

The same scenario was in place there too. Budgets were cut and re-routing the track wasn't seen as a good investment - until it practically fell into the see.

No one was jumping up and down at the tories.

But it's exactly the same situation. Budget cuts led to a massive transport failure

If the tories can do it and no one mentions it apart from local Councillors, howcome when the SNP do it all hell lets loose?

Seems to me as if people are a little more desperate to attach tags to the SNP than they maybe are to any other party. If the tories had been in charge at the time the bridge was shut you can bet your bottom dollar we wouldn't have the same reaction.

Though I do find this notion that political parties are making all these decision's quite humbling. Afterall, we all know it will be independent engineers offering their advice to the government. The government cannot possibly be going through every single spending requirement the country has ticking individual things off.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The focus on the bridge maintenance and the SNP is interesting.

There have been several transport issues over the last 5 years. Anyone remember the main line in Devon hanging from the see wall? That took months to repair, far longer than the bridge.

The same scenario was in place there too. Budgets were cut and re-routing the track wasn't seen as a good investment - until it practically fell into the see.

No one was jumping up and down at the tories.

But it's exactly the same situation. Budget cuts led to a massive transport failure

If the tories can do it and no one mentions it apart from local Councillors, howcome when the SNP do it all hell lets loose?

Seems to me as if people are a little more desperate to attach tags to the SNP than they maybe are to any other party. If the tories had been in charge at the time the bridge was shut you can bet your bottom dollar we wouldn't have the same reaction.

Though I do find this notion that political parties are making all these decision's quite humbling. Afterall, we all know it will be independent engineers offering their advice to the government. The government cannot possibly be going through every single spending requirement the country has ticking individual things off.

No idea about the rights and wrongs of the budget forth the bridge;

but I agree the government is not responsible for anything.
How can they possibly be held accountable for cutting the flood defense budget: obviously unfair.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I do find this notion that political parties are making all these decision's quite humbling.

The government cannot possibly be going through every single spending requirement the country has ticking individual things off.

In general terms...

- All governments have a pot of cash and from that they have to allocate funding priorities.

- Given the serious political and economic ramifications of such a vital bridge failing, and also that it's been flagged for many years as being at risk, you can bet decisions about funding it's maintenance would have reached the higher levels of govt.

- We pay the people in government to manage risk on the nations behalf - Risk can be objectively measured as the probability of an event happening combined with the impact of that event happening. The higher the probability and the higher the impact then the higher the total risk - so the higher a priority item it becomes.

- A vital bridge failing under normal circumstances is low probability but high impact. A vital bridge failing when it is old and has known structural issues becomes a materially higher probability and high impact. That is not the sort of thing a responsible government should be cutting maintenance budgets for...

.string.

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 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.

Perhaps this "transport" analogy will help.

If you decide to buy a new car because the old one is wearing out, you don't cancel the insurance on the old one until you are able to drive the new one - just in case there is an accident. Nor would it be advisable to cease servicing the old car if you knew the brakes were going and needed replacement and might cause an accident. However, if you did decide to stop servicing, you would only have had yourself to blame when it became too dangerous to drive and you could not use it.

Shakethedisease

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The focus on the bridge maintenance and the SNP is interesting.

There have been several transport issues over the last 5 years. Anyone remember the main line in Devon hanging from the see wall? That took months to repair, far longer than the bridge.

The same scenario was in place there too. Budgets were cut and re-routing the track wasn't seen as a good investment - until it practically fell into the see.

No one was jumping up and down at the tories.

But it's exactly the same situation. Budget cuts led to a massive transport failure

If the tories can do it and no one mentions it apart from local Councillors, howcome when the SNP do it all hell lets loose?

Seems to me as if people are a little more desperate to attach tags to the SNP than they maybe are to any other party. If the tories had been in charge at the time the bridge was shut you can bet your bottom dollar we wouldn't have the same reaction.

Though I do find this notion that political parties are making all these decision's quite humbling. Afterall, we all know it will be independent engineers offering their advice to the government. The government cannot possibly be going through every single spending requirement the country has ticking individual things off.

A complete breakdown of the issues leading up to this point can be found on WingsoverScotland. While I know there are a lot who will simply dismiss the information due to where it comes from... He's pretty much backed everything with reports and figures throughout the last few years.

Replacement of one complete section of the bridge was avoided because it would have entailed closure of the bridge and major disruption, which FETA hoped could be avoided until the new crossing was operational. These factors – NOT any budget shortfall – were the reason behind the decision, according to FETA convenor and Liberal Democrat councillor Tony Martin:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-forth-road-bridge-faq/#more-79864



It's Scottish Labour getting really desperate basically. They're on course to lose almost every single constituency seat next May. Even the Leader and deputy are having to go for list seats.

However, in Scotland, the media is mainly Labour leaning. So rather than accord the Scottish Govt with any slight degree of credibility ( well it is the SNP after all ).. Most newspapers tend to pump out Scottish Labour press releases as 'news'. Headlines titled 'pressure mounting on SNP to' ( usually mean Scottish Labour ) then Scottish political tv programs then pick those up as the main issues of the day...and so on...

It's a very strange place these days news and headline wise. You'd never know that the SNP have been in power for 8 years at Holyrood, or that there are 54(6) MP's and only 1 Labour one. You'll get a lot of people here saying things like 'oh no one is ever allowed to say anything derogatory about the SNP'.. When in actual fact people in Scotland very rarely hear anything else politically. As evidenced by the OTT Forth Road bridge headlines and the way it's been placed at the SNP's door directly. They'll move on in a few days to a new NHS 'crisis' or similar.. and the budget is on Wednesday so Swinney will be all over the papers for doing the wrong thing. In fact it will be the worst budget since history began more than likely. Very predictable. And very out of step with ordinary voter's lives and experiences.

.string.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The focus on the bridge maintenance and the SNP is interesting.

There have been several transport issues over the last 5 years. Anyone remember the main line in Devon hanging from the see wall? That took months to repair, far longer than the bridge.

The same scenario was in place there too. Budgets were cut and re-routing the track wasn't seen as a good investment - until it practically fell into the see.

No one was jumping up and down at the tories.

But it's exactly the same situation. Budget cuts led to a massive transport failure

If the tories can do it and no one mentions it apart from local Councillors, howcome when the SNP do it all hell lets loose?

Seems to me as if people are a little more desperate to attach tags to the SNP than they maybe are to any other party. If the tories had been in charge at the time the bridge was shut you can bet your bottom dollar we wouldn't have the same reaction.

Though I do find this notion that political parties are making all these decision's quite humbling. Afterall, we all know it will be independent engineers offering their advice to the government. The government cannot possibly be going through every single spending requirement the country has ticking individual things off.

1. The Devon thing was due to a storm, not maintenance. You can't equate the two situations.

2. People enjoy hassling the government and Tories are certainly not exempt

3. Some people advise, others decide and the buck stops with the decision makers.

.string.

I still wait for an apology from Sturgeon.

To check that I had not missed it a Googled "Sturgeon apologises" .

Over 1 year ago there were a number of entries (check it out), - some recognitions of today?

Up to 1 year ago there were four entries concerning 2 subjects

Up to 1 month ago there were no entries

Like I said a little while ago, politicians get to think they are perfect after a while.

Mind you maybe she is perfection, one would have to look up the word in the SNP New Dictionary.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There have been several transport issues over the last 5 years. Anyone remember the main line in Devon hanging from the see wall? That took months to repair, far longer than the bridge.

My recollection is Network Rail thought the sea wall was robust but were simply wrong rather than skipping maintenance to spend on personalised helicopters.

Eric Pickles apologised on behalf of the government during the Somerset floods because it was apparent that the cutting of maintenance impacted on the severity of the floods. Like a good politician he did try and pass some of the buck to the EA blaming their poor prioritisation skills and, of course, Gordon Brown.

I wouldn't say people are any more willing, in general, to attach blame to the SNP as opposed to any other political group - it's just more fun to watch the SNP supporters tying themselves up in knots trying to keep the tiniest buck moving. It's like a cross between Twister and Pass the Parcel.