"... to build (can't think of better word)..."
Label? Designate? Possibly "introduce"...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
And now? (Not the White Paper thread)
(693 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
wingpig - "introduce"
We'll have none of that nonsense round here. Thank you very much.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I'm sure Holyrood MSPs be queuing up to devolve further powers"
Well that's the thing.
None of the main parties has really taken much interest in 'devolving power to the people'. Labour did produce some devolved administration(s) - after a lot of work by 'civic' people (Constitutional Convention).
Post Referendum, David Cameron is rushing 'power' to English LAs (mostly large cities) and JM seems to have similar (and perhaps more ambitious) ideas. These could be good and might differentiate 'his' Party from the SNP. But I can't see it all being much of a vote winner for him in 2016.
However good a politician he might turn out to be, I think the chance of him persuading enough people to vote Labour - in less than six months time - to hold onto most Westminster seats, is remote.
He is now trying to attract LD and Tory No voters as least as much as (if not more than) Lab Yessers. So the UltraNew SLP will be 'all things to all people' - bit like the SNP is always accused of being!
So voters will have a choice (for simplicity's sake) - the SNP which for some people now is 'no contest', and others more 'hold your nose while voting' OR the LP, which, by then, will almost certainly look like a right of centre party, with not much recent track record of delivery.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I can't find the reference and don't fancy wading through the white paper thread but I'm sure I mentioned the FRB privatisation as one of the reasons we shouldn't trust SNP vote yes to save the NHS mantra.
If they were really an anti privatisation party they wouldn't be privatising so many non health assets.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Is it the bridge itself (i.e. the asset) that is being "privatised"? Or just the maintenance contract for it?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@acsimpson
It's hard to judge what the government of an independent Scotland would have done based on what a devolved assembly does. The constraints are very different.
If Smith is implemented, Holyrood will privatise. It will have no choice, regardless of which party is in power.
Posted 9 years ago # -
kaputnik - The SG will assume ownership of the bridge on the dissolution of FETA. At the same time they will privatise bridge maintenance.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"It's hard to judge what the government of an independent Scotland would have done based on what a devolved assembly does."
True, up to a point, although they did give us a 650 page clue of what they would have done.
The only mention of 'bridge' in the White Paper is a reference to nominating the rail bridge for World Heritage status.
Posted 9 years ago # -
FRB privatisation as one of the reasons we shouldn't trust SNP vote yes to save the NHS mantra.
Of course, it all depends on how you define "privatisation of the NHS". It can mean all things to all men...
The fact that the SG's favoured NPD procurement model isn't all that different from mature PFIs doesn't help, either. Yes, returns are capped at the back end, but you're still paying a mortgage-style 25/30 years of interest and capital to private funders.
If the SNP are cool with that, then that's fine - they need to fund these things like all other governments do, but it starts to make "no-privatisation" look a little bit like a smokescreen.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"The Millennium Commission gave sustrans a grant of £43.5m to build (can't think of better word) the first 10,000 miles of the NCN."
So, approximately 67 million squids in today's equivalent quantitatively eased cashola.
Quick back of the fag packet calculation indicates that the FRMC budget of 1.4 billionz squids would pay for around 209,000 miles of NCN equivalent "shared use" chicanery assault course adventure playground.
209,000 miles! A bit further than the Proclaimers promised to dedicate to active travel.
Posted 9 years ago # -
209,000 miles! A bit further than the Proclaimers promised to dedicate to active travel.
Never mind 209,000 miles of sustrans-approved uselessness; a starting point might be 500 miles of real infrastcure (Proclaimers Pedalways?) connecting major population centres where it might actually be of some use for leisure and commuting purposes. It's only 50 or so miles from Edinburgh to Glasgow, not outwith the abilities of 21st century engineering to properly connect the two through the most populous part of the land.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The SG will assume ownership of the bridge on the dissolution of FETA. At the same time they will privatise bridge maintenance
As I understand it, this passes to Transport Scotland and becomes a trunk BEAR pure dead brilliant moto-centric thang.
Or a merangue ?
Posted 9 years ago # -
What Insto said.
----
Nicola Sturgeon wants Scotland to be more competitive
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has set her team of economic advisers the task of making Scotland more competitive. But she also wants them to find ways of ending inequality.
Ms Sturgeon's aims were outlined in a speech she made at the Glasgow offices of Scottish and Southern Energy, one of Scotland's biggest firms. She told the audience: "Equality and prosperity should not be seen as enemies of each other, but as partners. One reinforces the other."
---
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Scotland's former chief medical officer Sir Harry Burns would be a new adviser looking at the issue of inequality.
"
That's a good appointment. Wonder how much he will be able to influence 'economy stupid' people.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Equality and prosperity should not be seen as enemies of each other, but as partners."
And I think the history capitalism bears testimony to the truth of those words.
Harry Burns is a great appointment. He did such a great job on the health inequalities when he was chief medical officer.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
He has previously said that health inequality was the biggest issue facing Scotland.
"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28390734
Posted 9 years ago # -
If he's said something as profound and earth shattering as that I withdraw my sarcasm.
He reads like one of those people for whom there is no question to which "independence" is not the answer.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"He reads like one of those people for whom there is no question to which "independence" is not the answer."
That was before the Ref.
Now he (and the rest) have to deal the continuation.
He knows the questions, and maybe some of the answers and why things didn't happen when he was 'in charge'.
Now there's a new boss who isn't (entirely) the same as the old boss.
[+] Embed the video | Video Download Get the Flash Video .
Posted 9 years ago # -
I think you're being sarcastic there Insto, but it's a tad subtle so can't be sure. If so, then I think I agree.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I love the assertion that SSE is one of Scotland's biggest companies. What with its registered office being in Reading. Still, I'm sure while Nicola was at their Glasgow office she might have tried to convince their Chairman to move the registered office north. After all, I understand that Lord Smith of Kelvin has been looking into such matters recently...
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
But, according to this new book, Mr Brown, whose passionate interventions in the campaign were widely acknowledged to have played a key part in the Unionist victory, believed that the former Scottish Secretary “had ingratiated himself with BT to the extent that he is taking it over.”
The book, by Alan Cochrane, the Telegraph’s Scottish editor, also states that Alistair Darling was “very disparaging” about Mr Murphy’s abilities and did not think he was “up to much”.
"
Of course there will be lots of books along soon (just in time for Christmas) about how the SNP/Yes campaign was 'just about' Alex Salmond, and exposing all the pro and anti Nicola factions.
I'm not an SNP supporter/insider so I don't how it manages to keep things together better than other parties or if/how long that will last (especially with the massive influx of new members).
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Harry Burns is a great appointment. He did such a great job on the health inequalities when he was chief medical officer."
I wonder if there's a danger of our blurring the distinction between healthcare and health there? I'd have thought that putting people's health first means turning our present society pretty much upside down, which is outside the remit of the chief adviser to the SG.
Is there something specific that he could have done but didn't?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"which is outside the remit of the chief adviser to the SG"
That depends...
Presumably his name wasn't just selected as 'great'n'good'/retired/SNP supporter.
I would suggest that he is 'serious' about 'public health' and is well aware of constraints/contradictions - whether that is commercial (eg food industry) or government(s)' policies.
I'm sure he will have a lot to say. Whether he is listened to by his new fellows or NS remains to be seen.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The Peat Worrier in fine, though melancholic form;
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-pooling-and-sharing-unions-last.html
Posted 9 years ago # -
So this is interesting;
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0046/00464887.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30297930
We can expect some very well oiled squealing.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Is there something specific that he could have done but didn't?"
In both roles he was/is merely an advisor to Ministers so it's they who would have been doing. So, either he wasn't advising or they weren't taking his advice. Who knows, maybe he'll do better in equalities.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Instography
If you could issue one absolute diktat to the Scottish Government to improve our health, what would it be?
It's a tricky choice, but I think I might ban the use of mechanical diggers in urban areas. Or maybe I'd make all primary kids spend every afternoon outdoors?
Posted 9 years ago # -
If was only interested in health and not in the least interested in individual freedoms, choices or its impact on the economy, I'd probably introduce rationing.
This seems to be the natural instinct of public health professionals anyway and it's probably extremely irritating to them that people will insist on using their choices badly, forcing professionals, in people's best interests of course, to come up with other more or less subtle forms of coercion.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Instography
Interesting. I think I did suggest just that when the SG consulted on alcohol pricing. The Labour Party argued for rationing to continue during the 1950 general election campaign. The only thing that's rationed now that I can think of is certain tax breaks, like the ISA allowance.
It would be a truly radical change.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
