Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


A matter of Trust as plan to get rid of PPP backfires on government

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: 17 June 2009
THE SNP Government's flagship scheme for building schools and hospitals suffered another knockback yesterday when its chairman said it will use any form of funding – even the Public Private Partnership (PPP) model, which the Scottish Government opposes – if that provides the best value for money.
The Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) was set up by the Scottish Government in an attempt to prevent infrastructure projects from being built using the PPP model because SNP ministers believed that method was too expensive to the taxpayer in the long term
.

But Sir Angus Grossart, the chairman of the Scottish Futures Trust, told MSPs yesterday that he was not bound to any "ideology" and he would recommend any form of funding which worked, even if this meant PPP.

Sir Angus's comments represent the latest blow to the SFT scheme, which was initially planned to deliver big infrastructure projects by the sale of Scottish Government bonds, until that was found to be unworkable.

It was then designed to produce schools and hospitals using a not-for-profit model as a way of making sure the PPP method was phased out.

But, by accepting that the SFT will look at any funding methods, Sir Angus has revealed that the Scottish Futures Trust will be much more flexible than Scottish ministers had ever wanted it to be.

The SFT chairman told Holyrood's finance committee that he wanted to be ecumenical in his approach to this issue.

Asked whether he would recommend the use of the PPP model to ministers, Sir Angus replied: "It is possible, yes."

Asked whether he was "bound" to the not-for profit model, he replied: "We will look at all the options. We understand entirely all the political territory that is happening and we will give our recommendations based on our best advice.

"Our approach will be ecumenical."

All ministers have been under pressure over the delay in getting the Scottish Futures Trust started so that it could help build schools and hospitals.

But the Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop is expected to reveal significant new progress later today when she announces the Scottish Government's funding for school building in Scotland in a statement to parliament.

Ms Hyslop is expected to reveal which new schools will be built using the SFT, how the money will be raised to pay for them and the potential savings for the taxpayer.

Yesterday Labour seized on an Edinburgh University report to claim that the SFT was "sunk".

They claimed that Mark Hellowell, from Edinburgh University's Centre for International Public Health Policy, had exposed the SFT as a sham when he said there appeared to be little difference between the not-for profit model and the PPP scheme.

Andy Kerr, Labour's finance spokesman, said: "It is completely unacceptable that so many pupils are being taught in crumbling classrooms. If Labour had won the last election we would have stepped up our school building programme and delivered 250 new or refurbished buildings.

"Instead, we have had two years of SNP retreats, excuses and inaction to the point where the SFT is now dead in the water."

Mr Kerr added: "Their manifesto pledge of a not-for-profit trust was never deliverable and has now been nailed as the lie it always was."

A spokesman for Ms Hyslop rejected Labour's claims, insisting that 250 schools would be rebuilt or refurbished in the lifetime of this parliament.

He said: "The Scottish Futures Trust, which is now backed by CBI Scotland, is already supporting investment as part of the Scottish Government's massive £35 billion infrastructure programme for schools, hospitals, roads and other projects over the next decade.

"The SFT, which delivers increased value for taxpayers' money, has taken charge of the programme delivery for two community hub developments in the south-east and the north of Scotland to provide purpose built community services."

FROM BARRAS TO THE BOARD

THE Scottish Government needed a substantial figure from Scottish finance to head its controversial Scottish Futures Trust programme, and found it in Sir Angus Grossart.

The 72-year-old Scottish businessman went to Glasgow Academy and Glasgow University but honed his business skills selling toffee at a Barrowlands stall.

The chairman and executive director of Edinburgh-based merchant bank Noble Grossart, Sir Angus has held many high-profile positions including: vice-chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland; chairman of the board of trustees, National Galleries of Scotland, chairman of the Fine Art Society; and chairman of Lyon & Turnbull, auctioneers.

This is his first political appointment.





The full article contains 765 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 June 2009 10:33 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scottish National Party
 
1

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 17/06/2009 00:27:02
#1 Why were they illegal? And what do you think of Unison calling for an end to PFI because they think it is overly expensive and wasteful?
2

,

17/06/2009 00:28:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Edward,

17/06/2009 00:56:00
'Andy Kerr, Labour's finance spokesman, said: "It is completely unacceptable that so many pupils are being taught in crumbling classrooms'
Your right there Andy, why didnt Labour and the Libdems fix them when they were in power for the 10 years before the SNP, or has the Schools suddenly started to crumble in the last 2 years?
4

Edward,

17/06/2009 01:02:21
#4 Cynicus in Exile,
'It is not an opinion piece but fact-based report'
Proove it!
Just because its 'written' up by Labour's mouth piece Hamish MacDonnell and quotes idiots like Andy Kerr, does not make it completely true.
This is yet another piece of Labour rubbish reported by someone posing as a journalist
Fact is Unison are condeming PFI/PPP
Fact is the BMA are condeming PFI/PPP
Fact is the NHS in England are unhappy that they are being saddled with huge debt due to PFI/PPP
Fact is English Labour MP's are now against PFI/PPP
Fact is Labour are finished an these musing are the deah throws of a political party
5

Edward,

17/06/2009 01:20:58
#7 Cynicus in Exile
Are you that stupid to not realise, that I have actually read it and I know tha its been written by someone who is provided with breifings by the Labour party!
The 'views' if they are that by Angus Grossart are most like altered to fit the Labour arguement. They have done this in the past.
Wouldnt surprise me if you are also a Labour plant, they way you go on.
Its plain as the nose on your face that this story does not hold water
6

somerferg,

perth 17/06/2009 03:42:05
Oh Hambo - another piece of tripe reporting from a labourite mouthpiece.

Do you think maybe its being done to deflect attention away from ALL those nasty little fraudulent expense claims???

7

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 17/06/2009 06:11:23
Isn't the Westminster Treasury also giving English Councils funds to bail them out of PFI/PPP schemes.

I can't imagine Sir Angus recommending these to Sir Ek.

Why not consider them = just to highlight how expensive they are.
8

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 17/06/2009 06:15:50
The only thing that Angus Gossart has said is that he will look at all options. If he did not say this, no doubt he would be accused of not being independent and looking at all options. His comments in no way act as an endorsement of PPP.

Once he has looked at all the funding options he will no doubt realize, as everyone else has, that PPP is the most expensive.

The cheapest will in all likelihood be the Scottish Government issuing Bonds to fund the Infrastructure spending. Just like other countries do, Canada being a good example.

The only reason PPP was ever used was it allowed Governments to keep the debt off balance sheet. But now that the UK is implementing new accounting standards that will no longer be the case.

Face it, PPP is dead.
9

steve 1511,

aberdeen 17/06/2009 06:21:09
andy kerr another gibbbering eejit who works for his masters at westmidden,whilst the snp work for the people of scotland
STRAIGHT JACKET FOR KERR
10

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 17/06/2009 06:26:14
Another innocuous comment by someone turned into an anti-SNP headline by the Scotsman.

Damn!! That's another "body-blow" for the SNP, as their manifesto "backfires" in "tatters" as yet another bwoken pwomis they "siezed" from a "black hole", and "let down the electorate" by failing to keep.
11

Jerry Springer,

17/06/2009 06:47:45
The SNP has commissioned no new schools in 2 years.

What an absolute disgrace.

Salmond/Swinney/Hyslop should all hang their heads in shame.

SNP- Salmond's ego and Independence First.

The people of Scotland including school children a distant second.
12

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 06:58:13
Yikes, the tartan girners have spent years shooting their mouths off about the evils of using private money to fund public works and how if they were in power they'd do things so differently - you know, their plan would be 'not for profit'.
Guess what?
After two years of procrastination they've come up with this great plan which involves using private money to fund public works......I wonder where they are going to find free money?
13

Curley Bill,

17/06/2009 07:08:32
#15:
Free Money, is it? The best place to find free money would be in the accounts of all those firms getting paid for ever and a day because of PFI/PPP.
14

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 07:15:18
16
For ever and a day?
Is that how you think PFI/PPP works?
What is different about SFT? Actually, nothing - it delivers exactly the same profit margins as the hated PFI/PPP.
Whatever happened to the bonds that the SNP claimed they would introduce?
More SNP fibs?
15

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 17/06/2009 07:42:49
#17 Grahamski

"Whatever happened to the bonds that the SNP claimed they would introduce?"

Unfortunately that was not included in the Calman recommendations.

We will just have to wait for Calman II or the full fiscal autonomy that comes with Independence, whichever comes first.

16

mr broon,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 07:57:13
No wonder Labour are frustrated about the lack of capital investment in schools and hospitals.

Yet, the previous Labour/Lib-Dem administrations were heavily criticised for underspending hundreds of millions of pounds which it held in reserve.

Could the SNP government be sitting on large cash reserves which it had planned to launch the SFT?

The SFT proposal appears to have failed, so watch this cash being splashed at the next Holyrood Elections.
17

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 08:01:15
18
Hmmm...so the SNP can't actually deliver Scottish Bonds?
Why did they say they would in their manifesto?
18

The Busker in Exile,

Notts 17/06/2009 08:13:06
#20 Gramski

Maybe something to do with Maggie Broon bankrupting Britain. The UK Govt cant even sell its own Gilts
19

BIG EYE,

Paisley 17/06/2009 08:15:13
The SFT is certainly pretty formidable. Everyday this newspaper manufacturers a story against it yet manages to ignore the absolutely enormous debt created for generations to come by PFI/PPP.

Labour never delivered a single school, oh yes schools were built just not paid for. This building by Barclaycard has often more than quadrupled the actual cost of the buildings.

The fact that the sNP are desperate to end this charade is further evidence of good government.

Labour are finished live with it!
20

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 08:19:22
21
You blame Labour for SNP lies? I know you tartan girners are good at making excuses and blaming everybody but yourselves but this is elevating it to an art form!
21

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 17/06/2009 08:21:54
#20 Grahamski

They where told they could not deliver on Airguns, Speed Limits, Drunk Driving Limits or LIT.

The SNP pushed for control of Airguns, Calman recommended it be devolved.

The SNP pushed for control of Drunk Driving Limits, Calman recommended it be devolved.

The SNP pushed for control of Speed Limits, Calman recommended it be devolved.

The SNP pushed for changes to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit so they can bring in LIT, Calman recommended it be considered.

The SNP pushed for suitable borrowing powers, Calman recommended a fudge.

The whole Calman exercise has been a response to SNP demands, just because the Calman Commission has not gone far enough this time around don't blame the SNP.

I look forward to these mistakes being rectified in future Calmans, don't go to slow or the Scottish people might just decide on the quicker option of full fiscal autonomy through independence.

Whether it is slowly slowly through bi-annual Calman Commissions or quickly through a positive referendum on Independence we will eventually end up in the same place.

Because at the end of the day it is the only future that makes any sense.
22

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 08:27:55
22
The SFT is a way of funding public works via private finance - the profits made by private enterprise are exactly the same as the PFI/PPP model.
I just loved your view that SFT is 'formidable' - I would have thought Formaldehyde was more appropriate for such a dead duck policy.....
23

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 08:32:54
24
Aye, very good. What's that got to do with SNP manifesto claims they manifestly couldn't deliver?
The SNP said they would introduce Scottish Bonds.
They couldn't.
They lied.
24

buzzer,

Aberdeen 17/06/2009 08:41:50
Oh what a fun guy you are Gramahski ''tartan girners'' Do you really think we will be paying for schools hospitals etc for the next thirty years with the SNP. This has been tried and is now discredited as the NHS in England are pouring scorn on this financial model. You may detest the SNP but any party wanting to get better value for money desrve more than carping from th sides. Give us your ideas on how to fund the development of public infrastructure so we can get a real debate going.
Remember the SNP have only been in power 2 years and are a minority government yet the people of Scotland are right behind them

25

Auld Twa,

Edinurgh 17/06/2009 08:49:09
Mainly fo the benefit of Grahamski.
SNP and all other parties write their manifestos from the point of view of having a majority which would give them the power to implement their manifesto commitments.
The first eight years of the Scottish Parliament were under a Labour/LibDem alliance, where both parties compromised their manifesto commitments immediately after the elections.
We did not notice your cries of anguish about that state of affairs.
26

Toast,

17/06/2009 08:52:53
PFI gives contractors a licence to print money at the taxpayers expense,I would have though in the current economic climate that there would be firm who would be glad of the work at a reasonable price,unlike consort etc currently building Kirkaldy hospital and failing to deliver on the facilities promised to consultants,no surprises there,consort employees get private health care. !!!
27

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 08:58:37
27
Buzzer - get a real debate going? How can we when the SNP's SFT is PPP/PFI by another name? Both funding mechanisms cost the same, last the same length of time and result in the same profits for the private sector.
28
Auld Twa
So, you're claiming now that there would be Bonds but for the parliament? That's not what Mr Swinney is saying.
29
PFI pays exactly the same profits to the contractors as SFT.
28

Phil C,

17/06/2009 09:02:34
".......if that provides the best value for money"

More common sense. We should always be able to use the best value source of funding for important projects. What it's called is neither here nor there.
29

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 09:04:45
31
Absolutely - you can call it SFT, PPP/PFI or whatever takes your fancy...just a thought, why have the SNP been faffing about for the last two years?
30

Phil C,

17/06/2009 09:18:37
#32 Grahamskijump

For once I agree with you. I don't think the SNP have been faffing though. They have (in the disastrous environment caused by 'Brownsian economics') been trying to put together a funding method for public projects. They have not had the support of parliament or anyone else in the banking sector!
31

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 09:36:33
33
"in the disastrous environment caused by 'Brownsian economics'"

Again you guys with the blame game!

Actually, the SNP put forward a funding model which hadn't actually been thought through. It is becoming evermore apparent that the 2007 SNP Election Manifesto was not designed as a serious programme of government but as a series of cheap shots at the administration of the time. Again the SNP demonstrate that it's easier to snipe than govern......
32

Marian,

17/06/2009 09:37:13
Scottish Labour have recently taken to frequently claiming that the SNP has broken most of its manifesto pledges as their pre-election strategy even though the SNP as a minority government in its first 2 years in government have actually delivered 60% of their manifesto commitments so far and still have 2 more years to go!

Not bad going considering some of the pledges that were dropped were forced upon them by the Unionist parties ganging up to vote them down as a tactic to try and whittle down the SNP manifesto to one major policy - namely Independence.

It would appear that the Unionist parties chief arguments against the Scottish Government's policies tend to be "I'm sure there's a law against that somewhere";

For example:-

The SNP bring in plans to combat the country's alcohol problem, but it's ruled illegal by the UK Government.

The SNP bring in plans to issue bonds to raise funds for the Scottish Futures Trust, but it's ruled illegal by the UK Government.

The SNP bring in plans to implement Local Income Tax, but it's ruled illegal by HMR&C.

The SNP bring in plans to cut class sizes to 18, but it's judged to be illegal by the Tories.

Nevertheless the SNP has delivered 60% of its manifesto pledges in the first 2 years of minority government.

Who knows how much more they could have delivered for Scotland had they been able to form a coalition majority government.
33

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 09:42:22
Many objectives of the Scottish Government will remain illegal as long as we are a "pocket money" economy within the UK.
Only autonomous governments decide what is to be classed as legal in their own country.
34

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 09:46:17
Marian
"..first 2 years in government have actually delivered 60% of their manifesto commitments so far.."
Actually, whgen challenged, Mr Salmond couldn't substantiate that boast.
It was a lie when Mr Salmond claimed it and it hasn't got any more true with every subsequent cybernat repeat...
35

watcher,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 09:47:18
Marian, the Nats haven`t broken most of their manifesto pledges, they have broken all of them.
36

,

17/06/2009 09:50:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

Phil C,

17/06/2009 09:50:44
#34

Graham, so you think that the environment for raising public funding is the same as before? The Scottish Parliament doesn't have the public funds. The strings are still held by Labour at Sleazeminster.

The country is no longer awash with private financiers looking to make a killing. Labour's finance projects (and Brown's disastrous time at the helm) will continue to drag this country down for many years to come. The SNP are simply looking for a better alternative in very, very difficult times.
38

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 09:53:20
36
Who said anything about 'objectives'? It is incumbent on any political party to make sure they can actually deliver their promises. The SNP made a series of promises without adding the caveat that they can't actually deliver them within current legislation - that is tantamount to lying....
39

Phil C,

17/06/2009 10:01:30
41 Grahamskijump

With the support of Parliament they could and would have delivered every manifesto commitment already! Unlike Labour, they can't make up their own numbers. Another election now and I think you would find a much stronger SNP contingent in Holyrood. Now that's democracy!

Unfortunately that only happens if Labour allow it! End of democracy! They, and you, know they're washed up and hanging on for their own selfish reasons.
40

,

17/06/2009 10:10:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

Mèths,

17/06/2009 10:11:16
2003

"In key areas such as health, education, justice, transport and the environment and enterprise, the Scottish executive has broken almost 50% of its pledges."
42

Mèths,

17/06/2009 10:11:54
contd

"The survey, which covered pledges made in the 1999 coalition agreement and the key parts of Labour’s 1999 election manifesto, revealed that out of 50 promises in five most important areas, 20 had been broken."
43

Mèths,

17/06/2009 10:13:45
Watcher

"Marian, the Nats haven`t broken most of their manifesto pledges, they have broken all of them."

Cretin. Show us yer list.
44

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 10:14:28
42

"With the support of Parliament they could and would have delivered every manifesto commitment already!"

Phil,
That is quite frankly just jaw-droppingly naive. Are you seriously suggesting that the reason the SNP administration dropped cancelling student debt was because the parliament said no?
45

Phil C,

17/06/2009 10:18:19
#47 I'm not an expert, but they were going down the right lines! So, yes. Young people should not be burdened with debt for studying.
46

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 10:19:01
43
Aye, OK, you don't like Labour. What's that got to do with he SNP misleading the people of Scotland?
47

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 10:20:01
48
Agree completely. Unfortunately the SNP promised young folk that they'd cancel student debt. They didn't.
48

Phil C,

17/06/2009 10:21:32
#50 Wait and see!
49

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 10:28:48
51
Wait and see what? Do you think playing coy is going to do the SNP any favours? The commitment was unequivical, they've let down the students who trusted them with their votes....
50

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

17/06/2009 10:32:51
To:

Frank McBride - Lusitania
The Displaced Glaswegian
et al

Thank-you very much for answering my query yesterday over on the 'Calman Confounds Critics' story. They were well-written and informative.

I agree that the Government View of this Land of ours is indeed London-Centric and is not just injurious to Scotland. When you look at some of the extreme edges of England you can see which areas lie furthest from Government Thinking. Especially the Ex-Industrial heartlands, now that they're no longer of benefit to the country . . . .

As for the SNP manifesto, I doubt very much whether our local Library will have a copy. The events of the Scottish Parliament are very rarely reported in this neck of the woods - Kent, possibly 5 - 10 items per year AT MOST and that's being generous.

Do you think then that, Post-Independence (2010/11/12), the SNP having done the Deed the Scottish Electorate will return to their old voting habits i.e Lib Dem & Labour?

Finally, I Apologise Unreservedly for any smear, perceived or actual, that I may have posted in my trying to 'rattle the cage. It was not my intent to cause offence and I am sorry that it took semi-abuse to get information which, as I state, is generally unavailable here - I will check our Library and peruse it if possible.

Thank-you once again,

Neal
51

Phil C,

17/06/2009 10:50:20
#52 Manifestos are a series of commitments made to voters about the policies of a party were they to form an administration.

It is clear that the SNP intended to enact all their commitments, but they are bound by the constraints of being head of a minority government without proper powers for financing projects.

It is also clear that public finances are still controlled by Labour at Sleazeminster, and there is little room for manoeuvre. The economy is at it's lowest ebb thanks to Brown and the global crisis.

For these reasons patience is required and nit-picking of individual 'failures to deliver' is damaging and a waste of time. Some commitments will take longer than others. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day and the SNP's policies remain intact.

With a bit more help from the electorate, the SNP can deliver all their pledges. Most agree that the extra help is coming and that's why we are denied a general election. That's why we are denied a referendum.

52

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 11:07:33
54
Phil,
"they are bound by the constraints of being head of a minority government without proper powers for financing projects."
Why didn't they explain that in their manifesto?

"that's why we are denied a general election."

Err, there will be a genberal electon in the next ten months.....

"That's why we are denied a referendum"

The reason there will be no referendum is because the majority of the Scottish people voted for parties against a referendum. When the majority of Scots give their support to a party advocarting a referendum, we'll get one. It's called parliamentary democracy.
53

Phil C,

17/06/2009 11:40:56
#55 Grahamskijump

OK then. To set the agenda once and for all, for everyone's benefit. A date should set NOW for a referendum in May 2012, a year after the next Scottish election. The SNP can get on with 'governing' without being distracted by The Question and the unionists' Calman's proposals can be tested.

That gives everyone a fair chance to prepare without surprises. No rush jobs, no false challenges. One question:- INDEPENDENCE, YES OR NO? The highest vote wins. Those who can't be bothered voting don't count. No fudges. No trickery.

The SNP can be judged on a proper track record in government. If they improve their position in 2011 then things will be interesting. If they don't then the unionists will have won the argument in any case!

What about it? We've agreed on lots today!
54

dude,

wishaw 17/06/2009 12:14:42
North Lanarkshire are building 3 new schools at a cost of £50 million, all cash coming from council funds.

Now if we were still being run by Labour/libdems this would have been wrapped up in PFI/PPP and would no doubt have cost 10 times as much with poorer buildings and the not too trivial fact that they still belong to the contracter who built them.

I think this is the sort of project that SFT has been aiming at, granted they may have no input but Scottish Government policy is being implemented.

If westminster had allowed the SG to issue bonds instead of the treasury saying 'get to F' we would be in a much better position, but Britain does not want to see Scotland getting better its plain to see.

55

Observer,,

Glasgow 17/06/2009 12:22:37
I see Grahamski and his Tory pal Smee bumping their gums again about the SFT's failure to get off the ground - like the biggest global recession since '29 had nothing to do with it. Gordon Brown had to pump 1.3 trillion into the banking system to keep it afloat but the SNP are supposed to be able to access money like me taking it out of the cashline on pay day.

Why does anyone bother answering them ?

It has been conclusively proved that being ''positively public'' is not only the most ethnical of ways to fund public services it is also the most cost efficient. I would like to see the SNP campaigning for full borrowing powers like many other devolved adminstrations and as called for by UNISON the public sector union in its report ''At what cost'.

Funny how Grahamski appears to be siding with the CBI on this one.
56

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 12:40:55
58
Good afternoon Observer,
I merely point out the hypocrisy (again) of an SNP who in opposition are against the funding of public works by private finance but who when in power advocate that self-same policy.
As it happens we agree on the ideal way public works should be funded.
57

Observer,,

Glasgow 17/06/2009 12:43:15
Agreed. None of the mainstream parties have got it right.
58

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 12:45:27
56
"OK then. To set the agenda once and for all, for everyone's benefit. A date should set NOW for a referendum in May 2012,"

You've missed one crucial point. There is no democratic mandate for a referendum. The majority of Scots voted for parties AGAINST a referendum.
Now I believe in respecting the wishes of the Scottish people, why don't the nats?
The referendum will happen when the majority of Scots vote for a party or parties who advocate a referendum.
59

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 12:46:10
60
Right, well that'll be that then.....this agreeing lark, boring isn't it?
60

Observer,,

Glasgow 17/06/2009 12:58:32
62 Salmond has kind of outsmarted the unionist parties on the refeendum issue by inviting them to agree to Calman - v - independence. It's kind of hard to see how Westminster can make changes to the constitutional settlement without asking the electorate and without securing agreement from the Scottish government. Appears a trifle high handed and dare I say it colonial.

Still that's on another thread.....
61

Arfur,

17/06/2009 12:59:41
#61 Gee it a rest Grahamski. Even a good deal of unionist party voters support independance. A great deal more will support a referendum. According to you lot people wont vote for independance - so what are you caking your panies about?
62

Arfur,

17/06/2009 13:00:06
panies = panties
63

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 13:05:53
63
Observer,
It seems to me that the majority of our elected representatives support the Calman proposals. Only the unrepresentative rump that is the SNP administration has chosen to go in the huff....
If you see going along with the majority view as colonial then you've got a strange notion of colonialism.....
64

Time to Show Courage,

17/06/2009 13:06:15
#55 Comradski

""they are bound by the constraints of being head of a minority government without proper powers for financing projects."
Why didn't they explain that in their manifesto?
"
You are so dim. Its because they didn't know they would have to form a minority government, and be Shanghaied at every turn by the opposition. Thopposition parties have have gone way beyond their duties in simply holding the current government to account. They have actively put obstacles in their way at every opportunity. So much for a new style of poitics in Scotland. The Westminster parties have quashed the opportunity of collaboarative government because they fear the wrath of their gods and masters in London.

"why have the SNP been faffing about for the last two years?"

Bricks and mortar have mysteriously started to crumble only in the last two years? A new form of dry-rot perhaps, the advent of which coincided exactly with the SNP's take-over, (albeit in a minority capacity), of Holyrood. Talk sense. The schools are crumbling because of gross underfunding and mismanagement of funds by the Labour / LibDem partnership. Too busy cooking their expenses to pay attention to Scotlands school children. The SNP are right to examine all avenues to find a more cost effective method of funding these projects. Even if that does result in a delay. PPP/PFI are discredited.

"Again the SNP demonstrate that it's easier to snipe than govern"

Another example of your own twisted opinion. Besides, it would be rich if the opposition parties accused the SNP parties of sniping. Watch every First Ministers Questions. All of that notwithstanding, why don't see what the people of Scotland think about the SNP's attempts at government at the earliest opportunity. Let's get a true picture of what the Scottish people want. Now. Let's have a referendum on the Calman pocket money proposals and at the same time ask the people their opinion on independence.....

Or are the unionist trough fee
65

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 13:09:28
64
Arfur,
This is dead easy.
The majority of Scots voted for parties AGAINST a referendum. So there is no democratic mandate.
The time for a referendum is when there is a democratic mandate - when a majority of MSPs are elected who advocate a referendum.
66

Phil C,

17/06/2009 13:13:14
"You've missed one crucial point. There is no democratic mandate for a referendum."

I think there is. Without having a referendum about having a referendum we'll never know. The truth is that unionists fear the outcome of any democratic referendum, even though they are clear favourites to win.

I repeat 'One question:- INDEPENDENCE, YES OR NO? The highest vote wins. Those who can't be bothered voting don't count. No fudges. No trickery.'

Bring it on! (in May 2012)
67

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 13:21:08
69
Phil,
"I think there is. Without having a referendum about having a referendum we'll never know. "
We did have a referendum about a referendum - it was the 2007 Holyrood election where the overwhelming majority of Scots voted for parties who declared their opposition to a referendum.
Let the SNP make a referendum a central tenet of their election manifesto for the 2011 election. If they get a majority then they can claim they have a mandate but not before....
68

Observer,,

Glasgow 17/06/2009 13:34:05
66 Grahamski they are proposing changes to the constitutional settlement without forming the government and without having stood for election on that basis.

If you don't think that's a tad high handed then how would you describe it ?

69

Observer,,

Glasgow 17/06/2009 13:35:54
70 there was no referendum on the Calman commission. Nobody voted for it. It was set up by the unionist parties after the SNP formed the Scottish government. It doesn't have a mandate. Before we tinker about with the constitutional settlement the electorate should have a say.
70

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 13:36:39
71
The democratically-elected majority of our parliament?
71

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 13:38:51
72
It has a mandate - it is the will of the majority Scottish people's representatives. The only unrepresentative grouping here is the minority SNP.
72

Observer,,

Glasgow 17/06/2009 13:51:37
74 You are hilarious. On the one hand you are castigating the SNP for failing to meet manifesto commitments (as if they are the only ones) but on the other hand it is OK for the unionist parties to make constitutional changes that weren't in any of their manifestos and which nobody voted for ? I know it's a representative democracy but that's taking it a bit too far.
73

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 17/06/2009 13:52:56
74 The three of them may have the majority in parliament, however they did not form the government or stood on a platform to introduce Calman.

And remember this is not westminster the people are soverign not the parliament, the parliament is the major focal point and delivery vehicle.

Politicans must first be mandated to enact major changes such as Calman, the referendum in 97 set the precedent.

We all know why the three of them and yourself don't want it.

Oh and yesterday you called me a liar about Calman claiming that NS revenues were "Risky" and "Fluctuating", you produced no evidence to the refute that. I will wait with patience lad.
74

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 13:57:55
75
"I know it's a representative democracy but that's taking it a bit too far. "
The beauty of our democracy is that we don't have to wait too long to exercise our democratic right and vote for our representatives. If the majority of Scots are as desperate for a referendum as you seem to suggest I'm sure they will show that desire in their votes...
75

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 13:59:46
76
"...the people are soverign not the parliament.."
What does that mean?
76

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 17/06/2009 14:05:49
78 If you don't know what that means you are a complete numpty!
77

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 14:09:48
79
Hey, that explains it, thanks!
78

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 17/06/2009 14:24:35
80 In the best tradition of the unwritten UK constitution Parliament at Westminister is Soverign.

The claim of right in 1988 and the SCC said the Scottish people were soverign not the parliament.
79

Grahamski,

Falkirk 17/06/2009 14:47:42
81
OK, so the sovereign people of Scotland have chosen representatives who oppose a referendum. What now?
80

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 17/06/2009 14:52:23
82 Any major constitutional change must be granted by the people BEFORE you wish to implement that change.

The three unionist parties have not sought permission from the Scottish people to implement these proposals.
81

Phil C,

17/06/2009 15:34:23
#70 Grahamskijump

"We did have a referendum about a referendum - it was the 2007 Holyrood election where the overwhelming majority of Scots voted for parties who declared their opposition to a referendum."

You do talk the biggest load of twaddle. The Holyrood election was about the governance of Scotland's talking shop, not a referendum, nor a vote on independence or any other single issue.

I repeat that the only way to treat all sides fairly is to plan a referendum in the not too distant future (say 2012). Whatever you say, and whatever fanciful arguments you make, there is a groundswell of opinion for a referendum.

Feardy unionists are the only ones who don't seem to want to put the question directly to the people: INDEPENDENCE, YES OR NO? The highest vote wins. Those who can't be bothered voting don't count. No fudges. No trickery.
82

Herry Oaksters,

17/06/2009 15:54:35
I see the useless waste of space andy clueless kerr gets his usual anti SNP tripe in.
Is there anyone more ignorant than kerr in the labour party of sleaze and corruption?
83

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 17/06/2009 15:58:22
61 grahamski

Flawed logic. Many people who vote for Labour, Tory or Libdem support independence. The question is, how many?

A referendum is the only way to find out.
84

Mikey,

17/06/2009 15:59:06
You know, when I read all the piffle emanating from naysayers like Grahamski, it makes me feel sorry for my fellow men!

Here is a person, Grahamski, whose only aim in life is to undermine his country in favour of a bunch of thieving criminals from Westminster. Yes Grahamski, you a real example to all of us! Fagin in a kilt! How long beofre you actually start to recommend theft as a positive thing?

Also, while you're busy slagging the National Party, perhaps you could let us know of any alternative policies put forward by the Westminster criminals?

Can't think of any? Well, isn't that just the thing, eh?

Perhaps you should join Rufus and Smee in the Quisling house, eh?
85

Miss H,

17/06/2009 18:06:06
4 You surely don't get your facts from the Scotsman?

The session can be viewed here:

http://www.holyrood.tv/library.aspiPid=3§ion=8&title=Finance

86

Miss H,

17/06/2009 18:10:37
25 Grahamski says: 'The SFT is a way of funding public works via private finance - the profits made by private enterprise are exactly the same as the PFI/PPP model.'

No it is not.

Underthe SFT model surplus money will be re-cycled for further investment and community benefit under Non-Profit Distributing (NPD) principles.

That's a basic difference that everyone can understand.

87

hoblar,

17/06/2009 22:56:45
A lone voice forced to pepper the comments with inane dream-like statements reckoned;

"The beauty of our democracy is that we don't have to wait too long to exercise our democratic right and vote for our representatives."

Tell that to the people in Livi wondering why JIM devine hasn't resigned immediately so they can cast their vote.

The same load of guff was proposed in this sentence:

"If the majority of Scots are as desperate for a referendum as you seem to suggest I'm sure they will show that desire in their votes..."

You mean like in the Euro elections where the SNP gained 10% on their previous votes and new labour dumped down to a level where they are on a par with the equally dreaded Tories?

Ot he fact that the Scottish Government is SNP and that their share of the votes will increase in both Holyrood and Westminster parliaments?

Even those alleging to be union supporting punters making genuine comments on this political site are forced to make three dozen comments per every hundred by the humans, to make up for the shortfall in labour support in Scotland and demonstrating just how unpopular labour are.

there is no grassroots labour movement in Scotland now, it has been deservedly reduced to a level that is becoming as obviously low as the tory support.

Scottish politics are far different from the meagre choice of those labourtory non choice that faces poor confused England, a great thing as far as voting choice is concerned if you are an inhabitant of Scotland.
88

Brianwci,

18/06/2009 01:33:29
OIL AND GAS: £20BILLION SHORTFALL

Marvellous what you can do with numbers. Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc can be transformed from desert economies (i.e. have to build a modern civilisation from scratch....goats the main resource)but Scotland, above all other countries in the world discovers Oil and gas and yet somehow or other would not have enough to live on for most of the years Oil has been flowing!

Many words spring to mind, none of them printable.

The sooner the Independence debate gets going so we can nail this sh*te into the ground the better. This is absolutely lunacy.

No, worse, it's downright LIES!!!

I comment here because we are not allowed to challenge this 'filth' in the original article.



89

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 18/06/2009 15:06:39
Backfired? How?

 

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.