Posted by
Scottish Unionist
at 6:33 PM.
There are .
Bizarrely incoherent
drivel from the First Minister! (Feel free to suggest a suitable photo caption.)
“The objective through the smoke of this economic battlefield is not just to access the powers we have got. It is to provide the underplay, provide the backbone of prosperity and focus for the future. That has to be investment in human capital and a drive into areas of comparative advantage.”
Has the "backbone" of prosperity replaced the arc?
I don't know about underplay but His Eckness has certainly provided the underpants of a speech.
I can picture it now: " we have nothing to lose but our U-N-D-E-R-P-LLL-AAA--YYYYYYYY
Methinks Alex has been using this website.
Usual pontificanting politico nonsense...
Don't joke, Scotleag. Wardog will likely be along shortly to tell us what an elegant and economic use of the English language it was and how, in vivid blobs of expressionist colour, it encapsulates the SNP's vision and our lack thereof!
Its what is known as a 'Salmondism' and now Bush has gone Alex will provide incoherent words of wisdom.
At least Alex's visible. Where's the Gray man these days? Poor bloke, shunted into the sidings by his mate Jim. Really, if I could muster the energy, I would feel heartily sorry for him.
You be as verbose as you like Alex, most of the others can't string a basic sentence together. Hence the reason unionists have difficult understanding eloquence.
No doubt he will, SU, no doubt he will. But the cut-and-paste King of Buckie would be better attending to his own blog. I had a quick look at it and while it was difficult to make out the text given he uses blue on a brownish background, I did manage to see that he mentions "the United States, Australia, India and France amongst many other smaller nations."
I wouldn't like to know his definition of a big country if those are among the smaller ones.
Hmm... seems to me what Alec was saying when he meant "underplay" was...prudence.
Remember that particular catchphrase?
Or word rather, Gordon being mean with words.
Niko. Tsk tsk. Comparing one of the world's great leaders with an incompetent buffoon from Texas...
Looking at some of the phraseology I suspect Alex had his economist's hat on rather than his politician's.
Sounds like he has written the speech with Jim Mather.
Christine Grahame MSP writes a regular column in the Scots Independent which every month carries a different selection of 'Matherisms'. She is fascinated by his use of language and takes the p@ss out of him at every opportunity. In a nice way of course.
What Alex means is actually perfectly clear but he sure wouldn't win an award from the plain english society.
It was a gift, and very VERY naughty of the Hootsmon to print it as spoken.
The possibilities are endless:
Liberte, fraternite... underplay!
Underplay - it's like foreplay, but paid for by the SFT. So you don't actually get any.
Read the comments above then watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO5leiwEiTM
scotleag, is that the best you can do, very poor indeed.
I see you've got AM2 dressed in a rather tight cheerleader outfit cheering you on.... it's not very attractive....
Here's some of Alec's speech in context, can't recall a Brown or Gray speech that even touches it for vision.....
""The objective through the smoke of this economic battlefield is not just to access the powers we have got. It is to provide the underplay, provide the backbone of prosperity and focus for the future.
"That has to be investment in human capital and a drive into areas of comparative advantage.
"If we do both of these right, we will get through this recession and emerge tougher and stronger and more prosperous."
"In Scotland's economic climate we need borrowing powers," he added. "That would be a correct economic response to the times we are in."
"Let's lift our heads above the smoke of the recession battle and say, Where are we going to be positioned in 10, 20, 30 years time?
"What actually matters to this city, for Scotland, for this country, in terms of economic prosperity?"
"The challenge is to get behind what what we are all doing in terms of combating the economic downturn. Let's get on with it."
A well received speech by all accounts and a lively Q+A session afterwards.....
Wardog
Please read the comments policy. You're on thin ice with certain of your recent comments. We can disagree, as the saying goes, without being disagreeable.
Warning noted AM2, I trust you will giving the same attention to your other more aligned posters....
Interesting aside on the bridge debate......
Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly:
Statement of Funding Policy October 2007
7.3 Loans to the devolved administrations: each Secretary of State may lend the devolved administration sums required for meeting a temporary excess in expenditure over income or providing the devolved administration with a working balance.
The Treasury may issue to the Secretary of State such sums out of the National Loans Fund.
These loans should be repaid by the devolved administration to the Secretary of State at such times, methods and interest rates as the Treasury determines.
Sums received by the Secretary of State will be paid into the National Loans Fund.
The aggregate outstanding amount of principal loans made shall not exceed £500 million for the Scottish Executive and National Assembly for Wales and £250 million for the Northern Ireland Executive.
The Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, can substitute these statutory limits by order. These rules governing lending are laid out in Sections 66, 67, 68, 71 and 72 of the Scotland Act 1998, Sections 82 and 83 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and Sections 61 and 62 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
In addition there is a statutory limit of £2 billion for NLF borrowing by the Northern Ireland Executive.
".....THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE TREASURY, CAN SUBSTITUTE THESE STATUTORY LIMITS BY ORDER....."
So it's in the gift of Jim Murphy to access up to £500 MILLION funds BUT also more importantly he could with the Treasury 'substitute' that limit by order..........
In other words, they are choosing not to loan the money.
The policy applies uniformly. Be as opinionated as you wish, but I won't tolerate incivility.
"In other words, they are choosing not to loan the money."
Jesu H Christos,
they are doing so because either
a) the money counts against the (already ballooning) UK debt, or;
b) the rest of the UK has to forego said money.
Understandable reluctance.
Wardog - I don't think anyone has ever suggested that the UK Government could somehow legally not give Alex Salmond and Co. some extra cash. However, as you rightly observe, they don't want to - a good decision.
If the SNP choose to make ludicrous promises on public spending, then not even two years into their administration end up having to go cap in hand back to the very people they've spent the past decade of devolution taking the piss out of at every turn, quite frankly they ought to be told where the limits lie.
The budget given to the Scottish Parliament is massively generous as-is. It does not need to be inflated by extra loans or any other payments.
Smee / DG
What is your alternative to the SNP's proposal?
A form of public private finance will cost the UK Treasury dearer in the long run, it's still debt. that has to be guaranteed by the UK Government.
"...the rest of the UK has to forgoe said Money"
It's a loan smee, it's paid back WITH interest to HM Treasury. They don't 'lose' any money at all.
DG is obviously an English 'demcoact', why am I not surprised that he's attracted to AM2's erm....'site'
Flys and......
DG Every party, other than the Greens, supports a new Forth crossing for the simple reason that it is necessary.
I wonder if you realise your arguments and sm753's only strengthen the case for the Scottish Government to have borrowing powers to secure any long term capital investment.
Securing borrowing powers would of course bring us that wee bit closer to independence.
It's the complete intransigence of the UK establishment in matters like this which is one of the SNP's biggest assets.
If I was a unionist I would be saying the Treasury ought to be more flexible about this. That is how you could actually take the wind out of the SNP's sails. I suspect Jim Murphy thinks the same thing which is why he has offered to negotiate with the Treasury.
But that kind of thinking among unionists is still very much the exception rather than the rule.
As long as unionists continue to make their case by telling us what we are not allowed to do rather than what we can do within the UK framework independence draws ever nearer.
Wardog
Warning noted, you said. So why ignore it? You're both off-topic and borderline abusive. Strike 2.
Indy
Borrowing powers: "wind out of the SNP's sails" or "would of course bring us that wee bit closer to independence". So which is it? Can't be both!
Also, re. "independence draws ever nearer" - no, it doesn't. Just look at the opinion polls over the past year or two.
AM re: 'off topic".... please retract
My posts have been in direct response to other posters references to me or topics raised by others.
Is your comment's policy weighted towards unionist bias?
The policy is apolitical and your reference to flies round the proverbial was both off-topic and borderline abusive, which charge I note you don't refute.
AM2, you overactive imagination is working overtime again.... nowhere in my post did I mention 'the proverbial'......
I was referring to fly's behaviour where they tend congregate around rotten, stale and castigated food stuffs.......
I will try to be more specific in future to avoid confusion and your conflation.
It's Time
AM2, do you think a multiple question referendum will split any 'unionist' vote right down the middle between Devolution Max v the current status quo.
Given the opportunity to support such a position, I imagine that it would be incredibly difficult for the opposition parties not to support the referendum.
1. Negotiations towards Independence
2. Federal UK / Fiscal Autonomy (Lib Dems)
3. Calman Proposal (Labour/ maybe Tories)
Independence is the end goal of a process.
Along the way your notions of 'Britishness' will be severely tested.
Wardong
"It's a loan smee, it's paid back WITH interest to HM Treasury. They don't 'lose' any money at all."
Well I've got to give you credit Muttley, you are the FIRST cyberNat to admit that this would be a "loan".
Every other one so far has ranted that "it's oor money anyway".
Now, are you familiar with the concept of "cashflow"?
Despite the fact that the loanee is promising to pay the money back, the loaner has to actually find the cash and transfer it to the loanee in a lump.
Which means, in this case, that that cash is no longer available for the rest of the UK, or has had to be borrowed externally, adding to the UK debt.
Got that yet?
And then there is the point that I'm surprised no-one has raised.
The SNP want a loan beginning in 2011-ish and they they say they would pay it back over 20 years from 2013 or 2014-ish.
But their own stated policy is to SECEDE from the UK ASAP after a referendum in 2010.
So how, exactly, is the UK government expected to place any faith in promises of repayment?
Smeee
"...Which means, in this case, that that cash is no longer available for the rest of the UK, or has had to be borrowed externally, adding to the UK debt....."
£2BILLIOn for a once in a lifetime infrastructure project that is required fo safety reasons n the context of.........
£37-500BILLION Bank Bailout Package
£12BILLION VAT Cut
£9BILLION Olympic Games
£18 BILLION Fast tracked Spending in England
£10BILLION SME LOAN GUARANTEE
£75BILLION Trident
£6BILLION for Iraq & Afghanistan
£1.2BILLION to build new Prisons in England
The list goes on.....
I see that even Baron von Foulkes is now advocating and SFT approach by grouping together different councils to pay for the Bridge by BORROWING......
Guess who's they be BORROWING from?
Wardog
Aye, right!
sm753
Less of the "Wardong" and "Muttley", please. Cuts both ways.
Any views of a suitable method for funding this project AM2?
To anyone outside the parliament, the SNP's proposal appear like common sense and cost effective.
Do you think Foulkes is flying a kite for the anticipated Labour U-Turn on publicly funded projects?
They know that the NHS carparking issue and the theme of 'debt' is playing extremely badly for them right now.
Do you agree with my reading of the Scotland Act and Statement of Funding Policy re: The Scottish Secretary and Treasury have the power to make this loan happen. within the remit of the Scotland act without fear of setting a borrowing precedent. because of the unique nature of the project?
A wardong that cuts both ways?
I shudder to think.
The "wardo*g" was a genuine typo, SU.
Sorry.
"Muttley" wasn't, but I will henceforth reserve it for the Hootsmon.
Wardog
I'm surprised you(and Indy) can try to make hay about methods of funding the Forth replacement; wasn't this to be done via the Scottish Futures Trust, and the SNP only raised the question of UK Treasury funding when it became obvious that the SFT was a non-starter?
Thus it's a bit much to now claim that the SNP's current proposal is "common sense and cost effective" when it's clearly floundering around in a panic because of its ill-thought out proposal.
As for the discretionary lending powers that you outline, I suspect these are only intended to be used to bridge(!) a short-term funding gap, which is why they were never proposed for funding the bridge.
If you look closely at the grounds for granting such a loan in para 7.3 then it seems likely that these powers were granted with a view to funding large-scale infrastructure projects with a pay-back period of twenty years.
Of course, I meant that the powers were UNLIKELY to be used for infrastructure projects over twenty years!!!
Stuart Winton
Nope, when asked by commentators, SNP Ministers responded saying that the SFT could be a mechanism for funding not that it was ever the only choice. A whole analysis was undertaken based on getting a final scheme/cost and comparing funding methods.
Public Expenditure, like the £980M Southern General Hospital is the lowest cost method and for such a unique & iconic project, provides a high degree of quality and cost control.
Whether that is paid for over 3-4 years from the block grant or borrowed from the Treasury and paid back with interest over 20 years either through reduced grant or simple repayments after receiving the block grant is unrelated to the choice between SFT/Public Finance.
SFT as it stands is a means to lever in privat finance but in a much more efficient non-profit distributing way whilst also delivering efficiencies through being able to bring council's together on projects and pool their resources. Something that Lord George Foulkes of Cumnock has recently been floating in the Hootsman.
Obviously SFT, administering an oil or green enegery fund in the futre would be able to make such loans or grants directly in the public interest.
Public Interest is what Labour seemed to have entirely overlooks. There is absolutely no point in using PFI, it will simply increase the UK debt even further.
The ability of the Scottish Secretary of State to agree with the Treasury funding for such a project is extremely clear within the Scotland Act.
I suspect Jim Murphy realises this hence his intervention.
The Scotland Act allows for the Secretary to borrow for the purposes of "providing a working balance in the Fund...."
i.e. he could borrow funds as the project proceeds and as costs are encountered, the 2BILLION for the bridge won't be paid in one year, it will be spread and these loans would 'bridge' that spending gap, helping to avoid serious cuts to services.
i.e £500MILLION annually for four years 2010-2015
The repayment method is entirely in the gift of the treasury and secretary of state.
Whether it's 5,10,20 years
Read Yvette Cooper's letter and it will become apparent that it internal treasury rules that areapplied to departments that she is citing, not the cotland Act which should take precedence in this situation.
The Scottish Government, like the Welsh Administration is clearly not just a Whitehall department however hard unionists click their heals and wish for kansas.....
Wardog
"SFT as it stands is a means to lever in privat finance but in a much more efficient non-profit distributing way"
You've more or less cut-and-pasted that from the SFT consultation paper.
One question: how?
How do you "lever in private money" without paying the going rate for it?
Has no-one noticed that local authority bonds are about as common as hens' teeth and as popular as a f*rt in a spacesuit?
What happened to the "patriotic bonds" which were supposed to be sold to the general public?
"internal treasury rules"
We all know about the Scotland Act borrowing provisions. There are similar one for Wales and N Ireland.
The Treasury is the guardian of the *UK* finances. It has ensure equity across the entire UK. If one part of the UK thinks it has a particular special case for preferential treatment, then it has to make and sell that case.
Otherwise Wales, NI, London and Rutland all treat it as a precedent and demand "accelerated funding" too, and we end up with even more national debt than otherwise.
Has anyone even tried to make that special case? No. They should have been working on it since May 2007.
Wardog, I wasn't so much comparing competing methods of funding as underlining your chutzpah in trying to spin the issue - even a month ago the SNP's current proposal wasn't even on the table, despite the Forth replacement having been an issue for years, and it's clear that the SG had dug itself into a bit of a hole over funding and has had to go with a begging bowl to the UK Treasury.
So it's a bit rich to now make out that it's all the fault of London intransigence - the SNP knew the score when it took office, and it's only now that it has in effect admitted that its own proposed funding mechanism is dead in the water.
As for para 7.3, the phrase 'working balance' sounds a bit like working capital, thus it sounds like it was intended merely for short-term funding purposes, thus the antithesis of what you propose. If your argument is so obvious then why is it only now that we're hearing about it? Clutching at straws, perhaps?
I can't make any sense of some of your other comments; for example: "There is absolutely no point in using PFI, it will simply increase the UK debt even further."
So what method of funding WON'T increase UK debt?
SU - if you read what I said again I was making the point that if the Treasury agreed to be flexible about the financing for the new Forth crossing that would take the wind out of the SNP's sails - maybe that did not come over clearly.
Every party realises that there is a problem with the funding, it can't simply be done by PPP any more if that also counts as public borrowing. And the incorporation of the international financial reporting standards means that almost all infrastructure projects, including private finance initiative and PPP schemes, will come on balance sheet. Yvette Cooper acknowledged that.
In that situation if you say a) there can be no flexibility about funding arrangements for what is the biggest capital project for decades in Scotland and b) the Scottish Government can't borrow any money either you end up with a pretty big problem.
Derek Brownlee summed up the situation in the Scottish Parly debate on the 15 Jan. Derek Brownlee - a Tory and a unionist. You see much as some folk may wish to characterise the issue as the SNP picking a fight with Westminster/going to London cap in hand/not budgeting properly it's not that simple.
Something has to give. If the Treasury will not give, then the other political parties will have to give and take on the argument for the Scottish Government to have borrowing powers. After all in theory they could end up in government themselves in 2011 so they need to think about that.
smee
The SFT setup only uses a Non Profit Distributing Mechanism ONLY (yes, there are some PPP modles for this too), profit is still sought, but profit is reinvested in services or business growth rather than being distributed to shareholders....
On top of that the first SFT project on the ground is a clear demonstration of a number of different local authorities working together to deliver investment effectively.
This in itself is an innovation and a demonstration of joined up thinking which minimises wastage through unitary doubling up. The pilot projects for NHS Hubs are in NE Scotland and SW Scotland.
Another potential route is bonds as you and funnily enough your hero George Foulkes have suggested for the Forth Road Bridge, these are essentially Local Authority borrowing from the NLF.
Now that PFI will be oj the books, I'd expect to see these pickup in the coming years. The PFI mechanism actively discourages there use, that ability to hide debt will no longer be there making PFI unattractive for LA spending.
".....What happened to the "patriotic bonds" which were supposed to be sold to the general public?...."
These may yet come in some form, under the Scotland Act as it stands these can't be undertaken in the fashion used by many other nation states.
As for the Scotland Act's levers for borrowing, my posts above clearly demonstrate how the act DOES allow through the secretary of state and treasury for Scotland to pay for unique infrastructure projects.
Remember, this project isn't a choice, a new bridge IS REQUIRED FOR SAFETY REASONS.
It is a MAJOR part of UK infastructure, I'm frankly astonished that unionists don't seem to see that and fail to explain why other projects in the Uk that have 'emergency status' have recevied special funding but this can't.
£1.2BILLION emergency spend on prison building in England and £9BILLIOn East London regeneration otherwise known as the Olympics announced with no Barnet consequential for the devolved regions.
It cuts both ways Smee.
"..The Treasury is the guardian of the *UK* finances...."
Indeed, looking at the above examples, it would appear that their guardianship is weighted towards political ends and from the national picture they are completely floundering with £12BILLION VAT Cuts (funded from where?) which has benefits the rich buying plasma TV's and new cars.
No precedent need be set with the accelerated funding, this is a very unique project which can be paid back over a 10-15 year period including interest.
The Treasury is actually making a NET saving over traditional PPP/30years.
There is absolutely no logic in their decision, simply obstructive to thwart the SNP.
"...They should have been working on it since May 2007...."
They have been, the last executive has been 'working on it' since 2001! and still failed to explain how it would be funded.
The first SNP budget was passed in January 2008, a redesign following reappraisal of the existing bridge and in the light of carbon reduction was undertaken dn 12 months on, the SNP made a firm commitment to fund the bridge using PUBLIC MONEY, whether paid over 4 or 15 years.
Unfortunately you fundamentalist unionist beliefs are colouring what is common sense......
Try taking off the hanky on your head and look at this from a cost-effectiveness and deliverability perspective.
All it requries is a little co-operation from brown's Treasury.
Jim Murphy's sudden involvement is because he's realised their intransigence isn't playing very well amongst the public whilst at the same time they fritter public money on failed pet initiatives.
Stuart
The current bridge proposal is the conclusion of a recent review undertaken once the SNP took office, if you have a look on Transport Scotland's website you will see a n entirely new design has been progressed in the 12 months since the SNP's first budget.
The SNP's 'chosen method of payment' is PUBLIC FINANCE, not SFT, PPP or PFI. Whether that is paid for over 4 years or 20 years is the question that the Treasury was asked and to which it recommdneded PFI.
My points about PFI were directed at Smee, all the methods bar upfront publci spending based on immediate reduced spending over the next four years involve debt.
Some involve MORE debt than others.
Surely, since PFI is coming ON balance sheet in April, the UK Government should be looking to make cost effective decisions.
Why the Treasury is still advocating PFI is a mystery indeed.
Indy
An excellent point Indy, it really is in every parties interest to have the treasury work constructively with the secretary of Scotland on this.
Yes, there is a funding problem that has to be addressed, and perhaps it would be a good idea if the UK Treasury dug the SNP out of its hole, but the point is that Indy and Wardog are trying to deflect attention from the fact that the SNP cocked-up with the funding question and are in effect asking the Labour Govt to bail it out at the eleventh hour - if you could at least acknowledge that then this would leave the way open to resolve the funding question.
Not that we'll be resolving it on here, but the point is that the politicians who are directly involved in these things are similarly unable to admit to frailty, which perhaps explains the current impasse, and is also relevant to the wider question of lack of public confidence in politicians - if they could admit they're less than perfect then perhaps the public would have MORE respect for them rather than less.
Wardog wrote:
"Another potential route is bonds as you and funnily enough your hero George Foulkes have suggested for the Forth Road Bridge, these are essentially Local Authority borrowing from the NLF.
"Now that PFI will be oj the books, I'd expect to see these pickup in the coming years. The PFI mechanism actively discourages there use, that ability to hide debt will no longer be there making PFI unattractive for LA spending."
I can't really see that balance sheet disclosure makes a whole lot of difference - the substance of the contract/transaction remains the same - it's just a change in disclosure requirments, which may make the public finances a bit more transparent, but it makes no substantive difference to the financial efficacy of the contract.
As for bonds, of course it should go without saying that they'll be on balance sheet as well.
Stuart
Acknowlegde what?
Steart Stevenson announced that the bridge will be Publicly Funded. This will happen whether it takes 4 years of cost savings or 20 years of repayments.
IT IS STILL PUBLICLY PROCURED.
Your inability to 'acknowledge' this is blinkering your analysis and the progress of this thread.
Paying for it by PPP is estimated to cost around £1.7BILLION more and probably will require tolls.
Do you have another alternative ay to fund this or are you simply posturing?
Do you ever wonder why the Labour/Liberal Executive never got round to stating it's funding mechanism?
Stuart - the funding issue would have to be addressed no matter who was in power. Labour are using the SFT issue to deflect attention from that.
There is an issue with the SFT and launching it in the middle of a global recession wins the nae luck award for John Swinney but it is not the central issue here.
Labour are using the tactic of asking endless questions because they themselves have no answers.
Andy Kerr specifically said that 'we have not advocated PPP for the Forth Road crossing' in the Scottish Parly debate. I think if we were to go back and hunt down everything Labour MSPs/MPs have said on the issue we could probably make a case that he was misleading Parliament there but who cares really, the point is they have no alternative, assuming we discount George Foulkes' suggestion that local authorities could borrow the money. The new accounting rules which will no longer allow PPP/PFI debt to be kept off the balance book will also apply to local authorities.
So unless the Tresury gives, all roads lead to a cross-party demand for the Scottish Government to be given borrowing powers.
Politically, going into a general election, the SNP wins either way - it is either proof that a vote for the SNP will make London listen (I can see the slogan now) or it is proof that the current constitutional settlement is inadequate and the Scottish Parliament needs more powers.
So who's trying to defend the Labour/LibDem Executive? Certainly not me!
Who's trying to defend PPP/PPI? Certainly not me!
The point is that the SNP thought they'd come up with a shiny new funding mechanism for public infrastructure projects that would be all things to all men, but it's transpired to be the dog that hasn't barked and just another idealistic manifesto-type pledge which doesn't quite pass muster back in the real world.
But instead of acknowledging that and getting on with finding an alternative funding mechanism, the politicians are too proud to admit the truth, thus in effect their arrogance merely prolongs the issue and makes it more difficult to resolve, and your own stance on here also demonstrates a similar lack of candour.
Indy, as I said to Wardog, I'm not trying to defend Labour/PPP.
You may be right that the SNP will gain some kudos out of this, but however much you try to deflect attention from the issue, the fact is that the public will at least party view this as an SNP policy failure.
Stuart Winton
Check out my blog for an update on the SFT's progress, pilot projects are in progress and more and more councils are srating to work together on shared serice provision and infrastructure.
This isn't solely due to the SFT but it provides a solid foundation for this type of work and in chairing the agreements necessary between different local authorities.
Shared borrowing is more efficient both in capital expenditure and service provision.
No-one in the SNP has said that the bridge would be constructed using SFT.
Fo the last time, public investment is seen as the best route for this particular project for the reasons given by Swinney in parliament and dare I say it AGREED by Parliament.
"...and your own stance on here also demonstrates a similar lack of candour....."
I'm afraid it;s you Stuart you seem incapable of grasping some very simple concepts here.,,,,,
Wardog
What "simple concept is it that I fail to grasp"?
My basic point is that SFT was considered a serious option for funding the bridge until a month or so ago, and it was never ruled out.
On the other hand, the Treasury funding alternative only surfaced when the SFT option was finally ruled out at the eleventh hour.
I've even done a blog post about it - enjoy!
Wardog
"Check out my blog for an update on the SFT's progress"
I have.
You have cut and pasted the SFT consultation paper again.
You give no details, no specific projects, no named councils. Of course, neither does the consultation paper.
This seems to be some strange use of the word "update" with which I was not previously familiar.
Stuart
SFT, along with PPP and NPD were considered alognside PUBLIC FINANCE.
PUBLIC FINANCE is deemed to be the most cost effective, manageable and desirable for this particular project. Which aprt of that don't you understand?
The request for the Treasury to re-profile the Publici Expenditure is unrelated to the decision for paying for the bridge and merely relates to making the payment more manageable with less impact on other capital projects.
It will be built by Public Finance.
I read your blog post, it's rotten I'm afraid. Full of half truths and emphasis which wasn't there in the quotes you choose.
Smee smee smee
There are no specific projects because these are pilot HUBs designed to deliver a multitude of indjvidual projects locally, over £30 million's worth in the north and south east Scotland.
It involves both Local Authorities , NHS Boards and other bodies in thos tow regions.
You really don't get it do you, I feel sorry fro your male 'aid de companion.'
I'm afraid pigging out on your shares gleaned from PFI deals is over Smee.
Best get your considerable snout out of the trough....... have you declared that income?
Wardog wrote:
"I read your blog post, it's rotten I'm afraid. Full of half truths and emphasis which wasn't there in the quotes you choose."
Ouch!
I know the emphasis wasn't in the quotes I used - that's why I appended "emphasis added" in brackets!!!
Wardug
"There are no specific projects because these are pilot HUBs designed to deliver a multitude of indjvidual projects locally, over £30 million's worth in the north and south east Scotland.
It involves both Local Authorities , NHS Boards and other bodies in thos tow regions."
OK:
Which LAs, Health Boards and "other bodies"?
And you are claiming £30 million has been invested but not against any specific projects?
What is going on?