Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Swinney dismisses £1bn to help build new Forth bridge

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

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 March 2009
SCOTTISH ministers have dismissed a new £1 billion offer from the Treasury to help fund the replacement Forth road bridge as containing no new money.
Yvette Cooper, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, yesterday unveiled the package to John Swinney, the Scottish finance secretary, as she again rejected his plea to spread the cost of the £2.3 billion crossing over 20 years.

Ms Cooper's offer comprises £500 million as Scotland's share from the London Crossrail project, £300 million from projected Scottish underspending, which is normally returned to the Treasury, and £200 million from the sale of surplus government land and property.

However, she told Mr Swinney at talks in London that the door remained firmly closed on the Scottish Government's proposal to spread the cost of the bridge over a longer period.

Ms Cooper also rejected a new plan from Mr Swinney to achieve this by changing the funding of local authorities in Scotland so ministers could keep back more money for use on the bridge at Queensferry. A spokesman for the Treasury minister said: "We have to have responsible limits on borrowing which are fiscally sustainable. We specifically ruled out breaching UK borrowing limits."

The new crossing has been ordered by Scottish ministers because of fears that work to halt corrosion of the main cables on the Forth Road Bridge may not be successful, which could lead to traffic restrictions, such as a lorry ban, over the next decade.

Construction of the new crossing is due to start just west of the existing bridge in two years and be completed in 2016.

Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, who accompanied Ms Cooper at the meeting, described the £1 billion offer as a "lifeline" for the new crossing.

He said: "It (the new bridge] is hugely important for Scotland and everyone accepts it needs to be built to serve future generations. Our talks were held in a constructive spirit aimed at helping that to happen.

"The UK government put a £1 billion offer on the table, which was taken seriously by John Swinney. I welcome the approach he took to our discussions and the manner in which the UK government's efforts to find a way through the issue was welcomed.

"It's clear our offer will form an important part of the funding jigsaw required to build Scotland's most important infrastructure project in a generation. Officials on both sides will work together on the detail."

A spokesman for Mr Murphy said Ms Cooper had offered a total of £1.5 billion, but this would require the Scottish Government to increase its efficiency savings more than forecast.

A spokesman for Mr Swinney said the Scottish Government had already taken all the money in the new package into account when calling for the bridge cost to be spread. He said: "We are quite clear this is not new money."

The spokesman said the Crossrail cash, which comes to Scotland under the Barnett Formula, had already been anticipated. He also said that raising £230 million from government sales was not realistic as half of its assets comprised roads.

The Scottish Government has also already rejected using underspending to help fund the bridge, claiming that it would effectively amount to a cut in its budget.

Funding gap could hit other major transport projects

YESTERDAY'S talks were the latest attempt to plug a massive hole in the Scottish Government's budget created by the new Forth road bridge.

Ministers have eased their headache by halving the cost of the crossing by switching tram/bus lanes to the existing bridge, streamlining the new crossing's design and slimming down connecting roads.

However, they fear that unless they can spread the £2.3 billion cost of the five-year construction project over 20 years rather than as it is built, planned new schools, hospitals and other road and rail schemes will have to be delayed or cancelled. The SNP government has little room to manoeuvre after admitting its proposed Scottish Futures Trust, the bridge's planned funding method, had run into problems and could not be used for the project.

In addition, the Nationalists have set their face against the public-private partnership financing model used by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat administration.

It is thought that without extra funding or spreading the vast cost of the bridge over a long period, some £700 million a year would be taken out of its main capital budget for other schemes.

The Conservatives, who remain optimistic that they will replace Labour in government at Westminster, are anxious to help.

David Mundell, the shadow Scottish secretary, said a meeting had been arranged between Mr Swinney, the finance secretary, and Philip Hammond, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, to discuss the issue. He said: "In so doing, we are putting our mature and co-operative approach into action."


The full article contains 813 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 March 2009 10:06 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Forth Bridges
 
1

RufusT-Firefly,

04/03/2009 22:55:48
Unlike the SNP to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Every second week, the SNP has the begging bowl out demanding more cash from Westminster. Then when they get offered some, they refuse it.

Unbelievable.
2

Marian,

05/03/2009 00:08:26
This appears to be yet more smoke and mirrors stuff from New Labour.
3

,

05/03/2009 00:29:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

walter,

05/03/2009 00:29:58
Well of coarse the SNP refused this money, the last thing they want is for Westminster to give them money to do anything.
I mean how could they blame Westminster for not keeping to their promises if Westminster gave them the money to do so.
They knew fine well that Westminster would not agree the full amount that is why they asked for it so they could say look they won't let us do what we want.
5

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 05/03/2009 00:43:16
Now according to some reports, it's the the fact that it's 'new' money that has been dismissed and anyone reading even the Scotsman article can clearly see that this assertion is correct.
6

tartangladbach,

edinburgh 05/03/2009 00:48:57
tell them no thank you, we'll wait to your out of power in a year and talk to the next lot! labour done nothing about this problem for 10 years, so we'll wait another year! bye bye labour
7

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 05/03/2009 00:49:18
Perhaps a read of the article in the times is required by some before they post.

Naming no names, but a clue is they are unionists.
8

frank mcbride,

lusitania 05/03/2009 00:51:08
#1, Rumpus & #4, walter.

1. £500m: money already coming to Scotland; Crossrail consequential.

2. £230m: money already belonging to Scotland; NuLab/LD underspend in previous years.

3. £Remainder: service cuts imposed by Westminster.

Tell us!!! Where is the New money coming from???

Is it coming as a consequential for NuLab bailing out failed PPP/PFI schemes??? NO!!! That only applies to failed NuLab rip-offs.
9

antp,

UK 05/03/2009 01:06:58
6, you must be a Tory voter, cos if labour get voted out they are the only other lot likely to get in. if that happens then no bridge, no country no nothing, bye bye all of us.
10

Nevsky;,

Moscow 05/03/2009 01:10:21
This is not 'new money' and it is not a 'lifeline'...it is Scotland's money offered back to the country on the proviso that Scotland cuts it's spending.

Swinney is right to refuse it out of hand....how about the London Olympics cutting it's cloth or the PFI contracts bailed out by the Government or the billions wasted on worthless bank shares.

Scotland it seems is not entitled to it's own money and nor is it entitled to borrow or pay for the bridge in the medium term.

This country needs more power to govern and to plan effectively and not to be at the mercy of the Westminster Treasury!
11

TheScotsman,

Scottish Borders 05/03/2009 02:35:51
I would rather see Bernie Madoff in charge of my money than John Swinney.
12

redcliffe62,

05/03/2009 03:53:00
dalton, another tragic piece of journalism.
how much of the 1 billion is new money and not already part of the budget. darling may count things twice and put them in the wrong column, swinney does not.
fact is the heading should be. "london says agree to cuts or more monies owed and belonging to scotland will be witheld."
but i guess your editor would choke on the truth eh?
get a job, a real one. as you are only pretendy as a journalist. take it the press release said 1 billion from labour so you had to use the nice round figure.
that spud calls it a 1 billion pound offer tells us all we need to know.
and why on earth does spud get so much coverage in this paper? is he sleeping with anyone important at johnston press, or is it genuinely through the paper's admiration for all things spuddy?
13

redcliffe62,

05/03/2009 03:54:52
and the level of noise from liberal mp's in fife about the bridge is err,,,, nothing as usual?
14

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 05/03/2009 03:55:05
#11 TheScotsman (sic) -

Would you like to give an intelligent reason for your puerile statement or are you just having a childish tantrum?
15

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 05/03/2009 05:17:19
Well, we already know that Yvette is a liar and very vocal with her anti-SNP rhetoric.

Yesterday she was bailing out failed PFI projects, while at the same time complaining that the SNP weren't starting more.

#2
I disagree with you. It's not smoke and mirrors - it's just plain lies.
16

donald anderson it's me,

g 05/03/2009 05:28:52
'Murphy Writes Northbritishperson Headlines'.
17

tartangladbach,

edinburgh 05/03/2009 05:48:46
18 dick turpin is in charge
18

walter,

05/03/2009 06:08:29
Maybe the SNP should have made sure the funding was in place before promising to build the bridge.
Bu no, it was typical SNP making grand promises and then looking for the money to deliver their promises.
Then when they cannot find the money blame others for not being able to deliver.
19

Gillie,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 06:15:41
Roofarse/Walter mitty, love to meet you pair of cerebrals in the pub one night,you come across as really thick on these threads, be nice to see if you are allowed out alone in the real world without your carers, but that needs confidence in yourself, obviously something you two are lacking.
20

gus1940,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 06:30:41
UK borrowing limits?

That will refer to the billions of new borrowing announced on an almost daily basis over the last few months and still continuing.
21

Otis B. Driftwood,

, Abroad 05/03/2009 06:45:39
"We have to have responsible limits on borrowing which are fiscally sustainable. We specifically ruled out breaching UK borrowing limits."
Oh aye. Fair enough then ;-)
22

Grahamski,

Falkirk 05/03/2009 07:04:53
So, the nats have been offered more than a billion pounds and they say no? Scotland deserve better than this bunch of wreckers, only happy when they are shouting from the rooftops how much they love Scotland and hate England. Pathetic.
23

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 07:10:44
"SCOTTISH ministers have dismissed a new £1 billion offer from the Treasury to help fund the replacement Forth road bridge as containing no new money."

What is "new money". This is a novel concept. It conjures up the image that money can be suddenly produced out of thin air. In reality any public spending has to come from taxation or borrowing or from a transfer from another budget.
24

RufusT-Firefly,

05/03/2009 07:11:40
#15, 20th Century Boy

I have absolutely nothing against the gay community. Why would I?

Just because you, 20th Century Boy are in denial, it does not change my viewpoint.

You posted that you fancy Alex Salmond. You said Salmond was "sooooo handsome".

It was only fair for me to question your standards.
25

DaveK,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 08:15:38
Interestingly enough the SNP manifesto is being taken off the non fiction shelves in most libraries and put into the fiction section.
It is getting quite tedious now that the SNP mouth off without actually thinking things through and then blame Westminster for everything under the sun. The SNP diehards of course will not see it this way, but more and more voters are staring to think that a government cannot work under the premise - us good, everyone else bad and if we screw up, it was them down south that done it. You can go on about past administrations all you like, but the SNP are the one's who say "yes" we can, but more often than not have to back track because no they "can't".
26

Ken Mac,

Glasgow 05/03/2009 08:25:42
This is a quote from the Times article.

'Indeed, UK government officials went further and said that the meeting amounted to a “breakthrough” and paid tribute to the “good chemistry” between Mr Swinney and Mr Murphy, who has been keen since he took on his role to defuse tensions between the two administrations.'

Unbelievable. Murphys sole job is to denigrate the Scottish government at every opportunity. A task he has been fulfilling extremely well greatly aided and abetted by this rag.

You can argue over the repayment period but the idea of bringing forward capital spending for such an important project is exactly the kind of thing the economy needs. The UK government would do this in England in a heartbeat. They can find tens or hundreds of billions to bail out banks but can't advance £2bn for this project. If Labour was in power in Scotland this would be done and dusted. This is pure politicking and typical of Labour. The presentation is pure spin to make it look like the SNP are picking a fight when the exact opposite is the case. It is obvious to everyone except the unionist idiots on this board that the Treasury are offering nothing new at all.
27

RogueTrooper,

Nu-Earth 05/03/2009 08:35:49
£1 billion is easily enough to build an Immersed Tube Tunnel of this length.

....if properly project managed, that is - i.e. not by the council / civil servants.
28

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 08:36:23
The hundreds of millions outstanding on the SNP approved tram project would be a useful contribution to a new crossing.

The crossing is essential for our economy, SNP should scrap the vanity project and focus on core needs.
29

AJM,

05/03/2009 08:43:51
No I am sure that you will all remind if I am wrong but did not the SNP say they were going to build this bridge using SFT. They then back tracked on that pledge and said that it was only meant for minor projects.

Mark two scheme now was to get the UK government to refuse them a loan that they knew they would never get. Phew thats the SNP off the hook.

UK government has now come up with a comprimise that would work. Wow, a proposal that could work, now are the SNP going to refuse it?

I am not so sure, as they are very weak on this issue, think they will try and spin it out so that they can be seen to be trying. And then refuse when the timing suits them.
30

57vintage,

Keith 05/03/2009 08:48:14
#26 "What is "new money". This is a novel concept. It conjures up the image that money can be suddenly produced out of thin air"

Quantitative easing, old fellow, surely you've heard of it?

Will Souter be asked for a further donation to help maintain The Stagecoach Forth Road Bridge from 2016?

31

kennyy,

05/03/2009 08:50:18
Graham H. check your facts. The SNP were against the tram project and the unionist parties pushed it through to prove a point against the SNP, again at the cost of scottish public!!
32

salmondella,

UK 05/03/2009 08:56:01
Swinney is a lightweight and he's been told off by Westminster. The SNP will get nowhere with the bridge -and those disaffected Labour supporters who put their trust in the SNP will return to their roots en masse.
33

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 08:58:30
25 Graham

Is it not time you got up off your knees?
34

Finnzz,

05/03/2009 09:18:36
A spokesman for the Treasury minister said: "We have to have responsible limits on borrowing which are fiscally sustainable. We specifically ruled out breaching UK borrowing limits."

Well that is a complete load of kak for a start.

Looks like Labour are now trying to defend the indefensible, i.e. their own fiscal incompetance.

35

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinbugrh 05/03/2009 09:21:56
the headline to this 'story' is a disgrace. It is entirely misguided and suggests something totally bizarre.
Surely we should expect our "quality" newspapers to leave scaring the numpties to the tabloids? (Or do the Scotsman editors think their readers are numpties? The unionists on here have obviously bought into it...)
36

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 05/03/2009 09:28:27
Why is it that the present bridge cost less than £20 MILLION in 1964 - which included 7 miles of approach roads, 7 miles of other roads as well as 24 bridges:

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/queensferry/forthroadbridge/index.html

"Construction of the first Forth Road Bridge began in 1958. When it was opened in 1964 it was the longest suspension bridge in Europe and the fourth longest in the world. The central span is 3300ft long, and is flanked by side spans each 1340ft long. The total length between abutments, counting the viaducts at each end, is 8259ft. The bridge cost some £19.5m to build, though this figure included the cost of 13km of dual carriageway, 13km of other roads and 24 minor bridges."

So why has the price of a bridge gone from about £15 million pounds in 1964, just 44 years ago, to the absurd projected cost of £2,000,000,000 today?

According to that - we could build somthing like ONE HUNDRED bridges for that price. I know that the pound has been devalued in real terms, and engineers and architects fees are much higher than they were in the year the Beatles brought out 'Love me Do' - but the price of steel, concrete and tarmac has NOT increased by a factor of 200 since those days? Something is very rotten in the state of Scotland.
37

AJM,

05/03/2009 09:29:36
#41 TDG tend to agree with you, cannot see where it is quoted that they have refused the offer. They will continue to negogiate. This is because the SNP has no alternative as their own initiative was ill thought out and would have probably never worked, but even the slim chance that it would, has been scuppered by the resession.
38

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 05/03/2009 09:29:59
"Something is very rotten in the state of Scotland." Tweedmouth

Yeah, it's called Labour.
39

FLUB,

a rocky outcrop in eastern central Scotland 05/03/2009 09:33:12
Maybe it wsn't such a good idea to do away with the tolls.
40

AJ Fife,

05/03/2009 09:34:53
The interview I heard John Swinney -on BBC Radio Scotland- give yesterday, said the talks had been very productive and useful, plus he said he looked forward to further talks at a later date.

As per usual the Scotsamn puts it's nasty little spin on things!
41

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 09:37:57
42 That argument is so "yesterday".

Find something interesting to say or keep quiet.
42

bill-alba,

fife 05/03/2009 09:49:09
walter and your fellow treachourous british... What would happen if the cross rail work was only given 10% of the money to do the work with..
Westminster and yourselves have gone into a little hissy and resort to the usual misinformation to try and put your point it hasnt worked so far and won't work in the future.
43

Melly,

Dunblane 05/03/2009 09:50:04
Isn`t it interesting how the Scotsman will always find and anti Scottish/SNP spin on a story. The Times has entirely different slant on this - "SNP welcomes `constructive` Westminster deal" Of course this sort of headline wouldn`t suit the Scotsman agenda. Pathetic.
44

Miss H,

05/03/2009 09:52:25
1 It’s not a gift horse Rufus, it is our own money to begin with!

Surely even you can see that.

She’s offering the Scottish Government money they are fully entitled to anyway.
45

Miss H,

05/03/2009 09:53:39
4 They have not 'refused' the money. It is money that is coming to the government anyway, money which they are entitled to get as a department of the UK Government.
46

,

05/03/2009 09:54:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

Publius,

London 05/03/2009 09:56:05
If more money is needed, tolls should be restored on the existing bridge and imposed on the new one from the start. Virtually every similar bridge in Europe has tolls. Why not the Forth Road bridge?

Also why should Scottish - or UK - taxpayers subsidise people who commute from Fife to Edinburgh?
48

Miss H,

05/03/2009 09:56:33
21 The funding is in place to build the bridge. The only issue is whether it is spread out over 20 years or 4. One day you may actually familiarise yourself with the details of the stories you comment on. It will vastly improve the content of your contribution.
49

Miss H,

05/03/2009 10:08:11
25 It's not new money, it's coming to Scotland anyway. In reality the Treasury have offered Scotland absolutely no flexibility to support the biggest infrastructure project in Scotland in decades, while at the same time making £13 billion available to bail out FAILED PFI projects south of the border. Even you must recognise Labour are following a kamikaze course on this one.
50

Miss H,

05/03/2009 10:10:55
26 New money simply means additional money. The story is presented in such a way that someone reading it could think that the Treasury was offering the Scottish Government £1 billion towards the cost of the Forth Road replacement. They are not. All of the money that is being 'offered' belongs to the Scottish Government anyway and is coming to the Scottish Government anyway as part of its allocation.
51

noswod,

Honestas 05/03/2009 10:11:08
Hey jimmy can we hae a free brig! When will we realise theres no such thing as a free new Forth Road bridge. The bridge should be paid for by tolls we canny afford it any other way unless the SNP abolishes all the other free things it has given away without developing Scotlands economic base to be able to pay for these freebies, Student fees, perscription fees, car parking at Hospitals, Free Health care at home etc etc etc. There can be only wan set aw giveaways ! so its nae bridge sorry you will just have to swim tae Fife. If we want a bridge to cost £1bn call the French they built the bridge at Millua for euros 500m, they will also probadly fund it and give at least 60% of the jobs to the Scots in its construction, much more that is planned with the existing bloated budget. Do not give the bridge contract to the bunch of rip off merchants who suck billions out of Scotlands infrastructure budget each year, get wise Jimmy
52

Miss H,

05/03/2009 10:11:53
26 Incidentally I think you will find that money can be produced out of thin air. Quantative easing I think they call it!
53

Miss H,

05/03/2009 10:14:54
30 I don't think you really believe that.
54

Miss H,

05/03/2009 10:17:33
34 Yes. SFT is dead in the water however. As is PFI. No-one is lending money. That's why the UK Government is printing more money to bail out all the failed PFI projects down south.

If you want to blame the SNP Government for the recession then go ahead but I don't think many people will believe you.
55

Miss H,

05/03/2009 10:27:46
53 More money is not needed. There is political agreement across all the parties other than the Greens about building the crossing and about funding it. The issue is whether it has to be funded on a 3/4 year basis or whether the cost can be spread out over 20 years. The Treasury is saying that it cannot be spread out because the Scottish Government is not allowed to do that. They are suggesting that the SNP uses £1 billion of funds to put towards the bridge. This is happening at the same time as the UK Government is making available £13 billion of money to bail out PFI infrastructure projects which have failed down south. So if the SNP had decided to use PFI to build the new crossing but the scheme had failed they would be able to get money from the Treasury but because they have not used PFI (because it would have failed) the Treasury is refusing to advance capital spending.

It's a clear lesson - reward failure, punish prudence.
56

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 05/03/2009 10:52:33
47 Connaught Boy:
"42 That argument is so "yesterday".
Find something interesting to say or keep quiet."

I didn't make an argument - I gave a historical analysis and asked a very pertinent question. Your pig-ignorant response shows that you evidently have no interest or answer.
57

Russell339,

05/03/2009 10:56:28
This funding problem is entirely the SNP's fault. The new bridge should be funded with tolls, as is the norm in the rest of Europe.

The shortsighted Scottish Government removed tolls from the existing bridge, which defies all existing transport policy, and disbanded this valuable revenue stream which paid for bridge and approach route maintenance, and also the new M9 spur.

Why should all of Scotland pay for a bridge which many may never use, and all have alternative travel modes such as by bus or train. The SNP have landed the taxpayer with the maintenace cost of an ageing and crumbling structure, and have now produced the begging bowl for money for a new one. Tolls are the only fair way to finance this. Perhaps a premium charge on peak time users, and then free during the interpeak and offpeak periods, with monies collected used to maintain and pay for the stuctures, and any additional revenue invested in public transport improvements.
58

Rob,

05/03/2009 11:16:40
#63. Here here. Even when the UK Govt is effectively dishing out the dosh, Thicky Swinney is trying to pick a fight as he polishes his begging bowl.



59

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 11:18:42
Let us look at the SNPs approach and responses to the new Forth Bridge

You can build it under PFI - no we don't like PFI

You can have £1bn to help - no that is not new money (whatever new money is)

You can help fund it with tolls - no we don't like tolls

What are they saying - we want a loan from you and we will pay it back over 20 years so we can have another 20 years of petulant moaning about what a bad deal we are getting in the allocation of funding.
60

Derick fae Yell,

The Hoose 05/03/2009 11:25:18
PFI is a stupid waste of public money, even if the private funding could be found in the current climate. Silly boy.

I hope that the Tories are as good as their word, and do work constructivly with the Scottish Government when they are, as is now inevitable, in power in Westminster after the next election. Stranger things have happened.
61

frank mcbride,

lusitania 05/03/2009 11:32:52
#65, UG.

When you have to resort to this type of commentary, you have obviously conceded the argument.

1. PPP/PFI is, and has been, a costly failure - £13bn UK Government bail-out, with how much more to come???

2. The £1bn is already accounted-for money which will come to Scotland regardless of the New Bridge - unless, of course, Westminster has a hissy fit.

3. Tolls. Why should people be taxed, again, for something that they have already funded???
62

AJM,

05/03/2009 11:33:23
#60 Miss H, thank you for your kind suggestion of arguing that the SNP brought about this recession. However I think that leave it for now, there are more logical things to have a go at the SNP about.

Are you arguing that the SNP should have swallowed its pride earlier and gone for PFI? Surely what is one persons failure is another persons oppurtunity.
63

frank mcbride,

lusitania 05/03/2009 11:36:13
#66, Derick.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the only co-operation that, will be required from the next Westminster Government, will be in negotiations on Independence.
64

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 05/03/2009 11:37:14
Why should there be a new Forth bridge when Inverness can't even get the tiny sum of cash to build a much-needed wee by-pass?
65

ecosseman,

facts not propaganda 05/03/2009 11:43:26
53*
TOLLS ARE OLD HAT,THEY CAUSE HOLD UPS=TIME=MONEY LOST.
TOLLS CAUSE HOLD UPS=HIGH CARBON EMISSIONS AND LOWER MPG.
AS WE NOW KNOW,OUR LEADERS IN HOLYROOD ARE OFFERING NEW IDEAS ON ALL SORTS OF MODERN PROBLEMS.
JUST LISTEN TO THE LATEST STORIES VIA THE BBC AND ITV NEWS ON THE DRINK PROBLEMS,THEY SAY SCOTLANDS DOING THIS AND DOING THAT.ALL TO BE COPIED LATER BY LONDON.
THE PUBLIC AND BUSINESS ROAD USERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THE QUICKEST AND CHEAPEST OPTION AVAILABLE,NOT THE OLD PFI RIP OFF PRICES.
STICK TO YOUR GUNS JOHN,YOU ARE DOING A GREAT JOB FOR SCOTLAND.
ROLL ON THE ELECTION!
66

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 11:45:46
65 George

A silly post full of inaccuracies.
67

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 11:48:47
67 frank
"3. Tolls. Why should people be taxed, again, for something that they have already funded???"

Please explain how the new bridge has already been funded?
68

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 11:49:53
62 No-one asked for a cut and paste history lesson.
69

Derick fae Yell,

The Hoose 05/03/2009 11:49:59
69 Frank - Independence in the next 5 years is possible but I think still unlikely. Suspect Liebore with the help of propaganda sheets like the Hootsmon will fool enough of the people, enough of the time to 'lower the exectations of the Scottish people', and generally hold the nation back for a wee while yet. Then again, who knows how the second Great Depression (actually the third if you count 1873-1880 - google The Real Great Depression)will affect Titanic UK?

70 Miko - funding for 'non-bridge' projects is precisely what the current debate with Westminster is about. As stated by Stewart Stevenson on Newsnicht yesterday - might be on the BBC Iplayer


70

Miss H,

05/03/2009 11:50:06
65 OK.

1. PFI - no we can't use PFI. PFI is dead. No-one is lending any money which is why the Treasury has assumed responsibility for PFI infrastructure projects.


Even if private sector finance was available, which it isn’t, as of April it has to be declared as public borrowing. So the same rules would apply – the Scottish Government would not be allowed to draw down money to fund the bridge under PFI any more than they would be allowed to draw down money to fund it through conventional capital procurement. Yvette Cooper has already confirmed this in a letter. PFI is a complete red herring here. All it would mean is that the Scottish Government would have to find £4 billion to fund the bridge (the PFI cost) out of one budget cycle rather than £2.3 billion (the conventional procurement cost).

2. We can have £1 billion to help. Actually what you mean is we can use £1 billion of money that is already ours, that is already coming to Scotland, in order to fund the bridge. Well gee thanks.

3. Tolls would have to be set at £26. That is why tolls have been ruled out by Labour as well as the SNP.

4. A loan? It is not a loan. What the Scottish Government has decided - and what is supported by every party other than the Greens - is to fund the project out of the capital spending budget of the Scottish Government. There is no question of borrowing money - the Scottish Government has NO BOROWING POWERS. That is why this situation exists. Therefore the only option if we want to spread the £2.3 billion cost over 20 years is for the Treasury to enable the Scottish Government to advance that capital spending. That means to draw down the 2.3 billion now. There would be an advantage to that not only in financial terms because it is possibly the only thing which at this point can save construction jobs in that part of the country.

If you are against that, fine. If you don't live in Fife or Edimburgh it is capital spending in your area which will
71

Miss H,

05/03/2009 11:51:16
65 opt 2 - it is capital spending in your part of the country which will be cut to pay for the bridge in one budget cycle. Please do not moan about that!
72

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 11:51:43
73 George

You know perfectly well that the SNP have promised to fund the bridge if Westminster carry on with their blocking tactics. Public money.
73

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 11:52:57
72 connaughtboy
I realise that my post was frivolous and facetious. However the reason I resorted to these underhand techniques was to highlight a concern that the Scottish govt are using the new bridge project more as a means of furthering their own arguments than out of a real desire to see the best possible infrastructure.

Now I am not being frivolous but serious.
74

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 11:56:47
78 connaughtboy
Yes by allocation from future budgets which, they have emphasised, will mean cutting funding from other things (as yet unspecified as far as I can tell)

That is not the same as saying it is already funded.
75

Miss H,

05/03/2009 12:00:03
79 That is a stupid point. Every party other than the Greens agrees that this crossing requires to be built and requires to be started now.
76

Tris,

05/03/2009 12:00:21
"We have to have responsible limits on borrowing which are fiscally sustainable. We specifically ruled out breaching UK borrowing limits."
=======================================

OMG!
77

frank mcbride,

lusitania 05/03/2009 12:02:48
#73, UG.

Major infrastructure projects are paid for out of General Taxation, are they not?

Or do you know something no-one else knows?
78

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 12:05:04
83 frank
Of course they are but taxation is not an infinite pool of money. If you spend it on one thing you deny another. So what other items of expenditure should be cut back so that you can have a bridge without tolls.
79

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 12:07:31
79 George

I see things slightly differently. It is clear that Brown has a personality disorder and that he cannot bear to have the SNP in power. He hates Salmond and has clearly told his people to block the SNP wherever possible. I see no flexibility coming out of Westminster on this or any other issue.

Brown is too blinded by his hatred that he just makes himself look bad in the eyes of the electorate.

And I am being deadly serious !
80

Miss H,

05/03/2009 12:09:15
80 Another stupid point. The vast majority of spending by the Scottish Government is pre-allocated. That is why the big Budget debates are about 100 million here or 50 million there. Everything else is already allocated. That's not generally a problem because things can be paid out of one budget cycle e.g. M74 extension to be paid over next 3 years or things like rail improvements can be done in a staged way, a bit this budget, a bit the next. You cant build a bridge like that. We'll build half a bridge in this budget cycle and half a bridge the next.

Thea argument that you can't commit the budget of future administrations is nonsense. You might have a point if there was any possibility of a future Scottish Government deciding that they do not want to proceed with the bridge. But unless you think the Greens will form a majority administration that is not going to happen.
81

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 12:14:00
81 Miss H
Do you travel over the bridge much. If you do you will see that the existing two lane bridge is frequently congested with very few buses.

In these circumstances why build another two lane bridge which will be equally congested and keep the other (expensively maintained) bridge for the odd bus every 20 minutes or so.

If money for the original 3 lane plan was short why not introduce tolls to make up the difference and produce a proper bridge that would do the job rather than the pigs ear of a compromise that we have just now. The only reason I can see is that the Scottish govt says they do not like tolls even though this method of payment for this type of structure is commonplace throughout the world.

So the SNPs (some have said gimmicky) manifesto pledge is standing in the way of a proper infrastructure solution. I think you should redirect your "stupid" insult to a more suitable recipient.
82

Ugly George,

05/03/2009 12:21:37
86 Miss H
Why are you responding to points I have not made.

"Thea argument that you can't commit the budget of future administrations is nonsense"

I didn't say or even imply that. What I said was that you cannot say it is funded until you have specified, in detail, the budget for those years. Until that is done any commitment can only be a promise as opposed to actual funding allocation.

Please read what is said rather than what you imagine is said before you resort to insults.
83

Miss H,

05/03/2009 12:23:21
OK so now you are saying that another bridge is not required. That’s a different argument.

What we have been discussing here is whether offering the Scottish Government £1billion of its own money (instead of agreeing to advance capital spending on a project which has cross-party agreement) is helpful.

Incidentally this is not about the SNP. No party supports tolls. No party supports paying for the bridge in one budget cycle.
84

Miss H,

05/03/2009 12:26:18
89 I don't get your point. The Parliament has already agreed to this. All of the Government's capital spending priorities are published.

The only question is whether the £2.3 billion comes out of one budget cycle or is spread over 20 years. If it comes out of one budget cycle then other capital projects which have been identified as priorities will have to wait.

85

Sumlogic,

Nice Headline 05/03/2009 13:38:46
Bit of a presupposition though...is it really ‘1bn help’ or just more of Gordon Browns simmering of the books?

Look its obvious that the Labour Party will stop at nothing to oust SNP so by starving them of cash by forcing them to pay off the whole project instead of over a longer period they hope cuts in services will need to be found, over and above the ones desired to make up for Gordon’s banking fiasco, causing voters to switch their allegiance.

Playing politics with lives, the country and business...that’s NULABORE for you! More chance of getting money out of them to build something in Iraq or Afghanistan!

Don’t fall for their tricks!
86

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 14:07:02
The solution is easy. Give Holyrood full fiscal autonomy and then borrow the money to build the bridge. Problem solved.
87

Miss H,

05/03/2009 14:14:36
92 It won't be cuts in servics. Transport Scotland published the Strategic Transport Projects Review which sets out the projects to be funded over a 20 year period from 2012. It is work carried forward by this administration from the previous Lab/Lib Exec. It's basically a list of the transport projects to be completed over the next 20 years. http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stpr

Parliament approved it. If it happens that the new Forth Crossing has to be built within one budget cycle then that is what will happen. The consequence will be that all other projects will be pushed back. It will not have any consequences for services but it would mean that projects like road improvements, rtelief roads, further electrification of railways etc will be put on hold.

The difficulty with this is that people in the west of Scotland for example will say why are transport improvements here being shelved until the new Forth Road bridge is built. The only answer to that is that the SG has no other option. You can't stage the building of a bridge in the way that you can upgrade roads or rail links bit by bit. And since the cost can't be spread it all has to be paid for upfront and not out of successive budgets.
88

dave yae fife,

05/03/2009 15:27:54
danielrober 95

Your sugestion is idiotic can you imagine the havoc caused and the disrupution to business. What will happen is the bridge will be repaired after a new bridge is built.
89

,

05/03/2009 15:32:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
90

Miss H,

05/03/2009 15:41:36
95 According to John Swinney this is the situation - if he is wrong you'll need to take it up with me.

'The Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) are working to protect the integrity of the bridge by putting in place measures to dry out the main cables.

We will not know whether these have been successful until 2012, which, when set against previous announcements by FETA that the crossing may have to close to HGV in 2013 and all vehicles by 2019, is impossibly late to begin thinking about this problem.

Doing nothing is not an option. Work is required now to protect this crucial link in Scotland's transport network and to minimise the risk from the existing bridge not being available, either altogether or closed for considerable periods of time to allow the cables to be replaced if that proves possible.'

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/This-Week/Speeches/Weathier-and-Fairer/forthcrossing

91

Miss H,

05/03/2009 15:43:10
99+ Sorry I meant to say DONT take it up with me - take it up with him.
92

Westfield Bairns,

SNP SCOTLANDS PARTY 05/03/2009 15:45:37
Typical Nulabour sleaze party. Lets invite the Scottish Finance Minister down to London and pretend we're giving them more money for their bridge. We're actually giving them nothing however The Scotsman our OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE PARTNER will spin it out and the Unionist posters are, well, a bit thick and not very good at arithmetic so they will like it, oh and the two posters always on are always vigilant as their always at their computer due to their lack of spine/mobility problem.
I think that about sums up this meeting
93

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

05/03/2009 15:51:13
Can't they just build it as a toll bridge?
94

dave yae fife,

05/03/2009 15:52:21
danielrober

Did I miss the bridge being declared unsafe I am sure I have seen shipping plying there trade on the river forth.

95

European Scot,

05/03/2009 15:52:37
All Politics aside, what are the estimates for the construction of a tunnel ?
Assuming that a new bridge is constructed, what is its life-span before another has to be built ?
What is the life-span of a tunnel ?
I would have thought that a double tunnel, where it would be possible to close one half down, whilst conducting necessary maintenance and repairs, and yet maintaining two way traffic flow, would be the best bet.
Obviously in the short term, it would be a more expensive project, but over the longer term, assuming its life expectancy is much greater, surely that would be the cheaper option.
How many decommissioned bridges are there going to be over the Forth, before somebody considers putting this crossing underground ?
A major capital engineering project such as this, involving many jobs, is surely worth considering during these times when you need to be providing employment on a large scale.
96

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 15:55:03
98 daniel

Where are you getting all this nonsense from?
97

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 15:56:39
104 The tunnel actually does not go underground, but lies on the river bed like a giant pipe.
98

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 16:06:13
108 daniel

Vessels are sailing under the bridge every day. Most, if not all of them are insured. The bridge is not falling down. What do you mean when you say "declared threatened bridge"?
99

St.George,

05/03/2009 16:07:06
Why should westminster try and help the snp when they have no intentions of helping the people of Scotland.
100

Fairfax,

05/03/2009 16:25:43
Tweedmouth (42): "So why has the price of a bridge gone from about £15 million pounds in 1964, just 44 years ago, to the absurd projected cost of £2,000,000,000 today?

Looking at UK GDP history

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

we see that British GDP in the mid-1960s was roughly £30 billion, compared to today's £1200 billion, i.e. a 40-fold increase, including inflation and real growth. If we (fairly naively) apply the same multiplication factor to the £15 million mid-1960s cost, then we get £600 million. If we accept that relative labour costs have changed since the 1960s (i.e. construction is better paid), then we're looking at a cost of roughly £1 billion.

"According to that - we could build somthing like ONE HUNDRED bridges for that price."

Well, no, but it's still on the high side: roughly 2-3 times too high.

101

gus1940,

Edinburgh 05/03/2009 16:29:23
Given the amount of the toll charged to pay off a bridge that cost £20,000,000 how much do those who advocatng paying for the new bridge by toll imagine the toll charge would be for a bridge costing
£2,000,000,000?
102

European Scot,

05/03/2009 16:29:39
106 connaughtboy

"The tunnel actually does not go underground, but lies on the river bed like a giant pipe."

I assumed that the tunnel would be underground as per the cross Channel version.
Are we talking here of problems with drilling the harder rock in Scotland, unlike the softer version under the Channel ?
103

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 16:39:45
112 Fairfax

I suspect the Health & Safety regulations would add considerable cost relative to the much lower standards of the 1960's

104

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 16:41:22
114 Nothing to do with the rock. I read that it was a quicker and cheaper method of constructing a "tunnel". They exist elsewhere but I can't remember which country.
105

European Scot,

05/03/2009 16:49:58
116 connaughtboy

" Nothing to do with the rock. I read that it was a quicker and cheaper method of constructing a "tunnel". They exist elsewhere but I can't remember which country."

Well as long as we can guarantee that no Nuclear subs are allowed in the area !
Wouldn't want a 'tride'nt' tested tunnel !
106

Fairfax,

05/03/2009 16:53:21
connaughtboy (115): "I suspect the Health & Safety regulations would add considerable cost relative to the much lower standards of the 1960's"

Agreed. Still, my estimate of a 40-fold increase still implies £2 billion is on the high side, while £1 billion might be about right.
107

Publius,

London 05/03/2009 17:05:06
#91 Miss H

Are you the same Miss H who told us that Swinney had done his sums right over LIT? If so, we won't have to wait long for a U-turn over bridge tolls.
108

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 17:08:35
119 see 106. So your little joke falls flat.
109

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 17:10:03
117 European Scot

Here's the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6499617.stm
110

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 17:11:42
And another:

http://www.howeweb.talktalk.net/tag/tunnels.htm
111

European Scot,

05/03/2009 18:08:31
122/123 connaughtboy

Thanks for the links. I remember seeing television footage of the Swedish project.
I still like the idea of the twin tunnel example shown, and the costs don't look as high as one might have expected.
The low maintenance costs, and longevity consideration should really be favouring a tunnel.
This reminds me of the futility of trying to argue for replacing the entire bus fleets of Glasgow and Edinburgh with clean hybrid buses, as against one tram line for a single route.
Whatever did happen to good old fashioned Scottish common sense ?
112

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 05/03/2009 18:17:36
124 ES

I agree. The twin tunnel had my vote. I suspect the MSPs wanted something more dramatic (like a bridge) but the extra costs cannot be justified.
113

yoric,

05/03/2009 22:09:53
Good that the Westminster Government can find £1billion to build a bridge in Scotland but cant find any money to pay for Prescriptions in England, leaving the English the only people in the UK that still pay Precriptions.
Perhaps this is why.
114

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 05/03/2009 22:42:02
Scotland's 'share of crossrail', I am puzzled - no one mentioned if we in Kent were getting a share of the money the executive is putting into the M74 in Glasgow.

they will have to stop scots residents using crossrail when it is built.
115

famous 15,

Edinburgh 06/03/2009 00:47:54
Scotland is once again being railroaded. Lets just vote on Independence and see who we trust with the future of Scotland. Vote denied...you cannot be trusted to vote the RIGHT way!
116

cabrach loon,

Inverness 06/03/2009 09:26:39
The cost estimates are unbelievable when compared with other recent major structures, Millau was not more than €0.5B including roadworks etc.and it is notable that OAP in their submission ignored reference to Cowiconsult who have the technical expertise for cable stay structures, the lead consultants in the feasibility report do not appear to have the requisite skills at all!

Get in the experts Scotland!
117

cabrach loon,

inverness 06/03/2009 10:11:27
Compare this :- Rion-Antirion Cable-Stayed Bridge, Greece

key facts
Key Data
Type of bridge
Cable-stayed suspension
Location
Gulf of Corinth, Greece
Cost
€800m
Number of spans
5
Number of pylons
4
Length of deck
2,252m
Bridge reference span
560m
Full specifications

The Rion-Antirion Bridge in Greece, which was first opened to traffic in August 2004, was the product of a seven-year construction project from 1998 to 2004 (including a two year preparation period 1998–1999 and a five-year building period 2000–2004) and resulted in the world's longest cable-stayed bridge.
"The Rion-Antirion bridge has significantly reduced the crossing time of the Gulf of Corinth to around five minutes."

With a suspended deck of 2,252m, the Rion-Antirion Bridge features four pylons (where there are usually two) and has a reference span of 560m. Located in the western end of the Gulf of Corinth in Greece, the Rion-Antirion Bridge links the Peloponnese (southern Greece) to the Greek mainland.

The bridge also unites two major roads: the intersection of the Patras–Athens–Thessaloniki motorway (which forms part of the European motorway) and the western axis of the Kalamata–Patras–Igoumenitsa road.

The five-spanned bridge was completed in May 2004 and after its opening the bridge has significantly reduced the crossing time of the Gulf of Corinth to around five minutes from 45 minutes (previously by ferry). Currently 10,000 vehicles cross on a daily basis.
RION-ANTIRION BRIDGE STRUCTURE

The Rion-Antirion Bridge's pylons are made from reinforced concrete and pylon legs range from 25m to 45m above sea level. The pylon heads reach a total of 160m above sea level. Because of the high seismic activity of the area, the Rion-Antirion Bridge required seabed reinforcement via 200 hollow steel pipes (for each pier) driven into the seabed and topped with gravel.

A 27.2m-wide deck contains two traffic lanes plus a safety lane and pedestrian walkway in both directions.
118

Kerry,

EDINBURGH 06/03/2009 10:44:55
Can someone please explan why the bridge couldn't be built a few miles further up or down. And has anyone confirmed that the existing bridge will be dismantled or are the people of South Queensferry expected to live in the middle of spaghettie junction :(
119

Stewart_in_Oz,

Alexandra Hills 06/03/2009 11:47:33
The Ferries used to be quite a relaxing way of crossing versus driving in to Perth and back out again.
What happened to the money collected from the tolls to use the bridge?
120

BennyB,

Paris 13/03/2009 12:46:46
None of this would have been a problem if the Tolls had been kept and the money collected before they were scrapped (and that which would have been collected had they been kept) had not been spent on something else. Again, some extreme short sightedness by some politicians who were looking for votes!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.