Interesting What is SG doing about this or is inaction another weapon in their war on cyclists/pedestrians?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Good news, but what about Scotland?
(8 posts)-
Posted 8 years ago #
-
If SG have even thought about this, then I suspect the idea has been shelved because:
a - No to Westminster rule. Idea comes from Westminster, therefore rejected.
5) - Don't frighten the horses. The push for IndyRef2 is paramount, no need to upset the core Yes vote by being Nasty to them and punishing them.
ix: Who in heck cares if a few peds and cyclists are killed or maimed? Roads are for cars, everyone knows that!
[12.1.2] We can hardly push Scotland's image as the motorists' friend by building trunk roads and motorways galore if we then go around telling motorists how bad they've been and banning them from driving.
Appendix Z: - Public transport is so underfunded there will be no capacity to take all the disqualified drivers if we go ahead with this.
Addendum, errata - Any other excuses we can come up with? Refer memo back to Police Scotland to be filed under foundation stone of new HQ building.Posted 8 years ago # -
SG's "war on cyclists"??? I'm unaware of any such thing. I think that one's made up.
"Core Yes vote" .... given the Greens' wholehearted support for Scottish Independence, I suspect cyclists are far, far closer as a group to any such "core Yes vote" than any collection of Farage/Davidson/Grayling/May type frothers in their cars.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Core Yes vote" .... given the Greens' wholehearted support for Scottish Independence, I suspect cyclists are far, far closer as a group to any such "core Yes vote" than any collection of Farage/Davidson/Grayling/May type frothers in their cars.
Dodgy logic there. Some people may support the Green Party because they think the future of the planet is more important than the question of Independence. Just because you vote for a party it doesn't mean you support all of its policiesPosted 8 years ago # -
@stiltskin .... maybe. But I'd suggest the "dodgy logic" is closer to the mark than the 2 previous posts.
Posted 8 years ago # -
"the Greens' wholehearted support for Scottish Independence"
Hmm. AFAIK (and I'm a party member) Green support for independence is more on the basis of a means to an end, in contrast to A.N. Other party's obsession with sovereignty, Scotland's Oil, etc. Think "small is beautiful", "subsidiarity", "local solutions to global problems" etc.
"I suspect cyclists are far, far closer as a group to any such "core Yes vote" than any collection of Farage/Davidson/Grayling/May type frothers in their cars."
Dunno about that. Plenty of Yes bumper sticker types around. SNP of course the party of "dual carriageways for the regions".
Posted 8 years ago # -
From the Scottish Greens;
"In that referendum [indyref2] the Scottish Greens will campaign for independence to secure the powers needed for a socially just and sustainable Scotland."Socially just ... that's the principle message I hear from the SNP (and I'm a member).
No-one will pretend to have the same standards of "sustainability" which I admire, so I wouldn't be so daft as to claim equal ground there.
Sovereignty? Rarely mentioned by the SNP. However, fanciful rants about the SNP's evil plans for the monarchy can always found in those fake newspapers, the Daily Mail or the Daily Express. Personally, I'd get rid, because no-one is born better than anyone else. But unfortunately, that's not going to happen in my lifetime.
Scotland's Oil? These days, that's usually a dismissive unionist phrase used to imply the SNP is all about "jealousy" of Scotland's asset. But what are the SNP meant to do? Not make an economic case for independence?
Dual-carriageways for the regions? Err ... the A9 and the A96? Is that so bad? I'd agree that far more should be spent on railways and cycling infra-structure, but that's hardly rolling out "dual carriageways for the regions".
Posted 8 years ago # -
"Dual-carriageways for the regions? Err ... the A9 and the A96? Is that so bad? "
Quoting Morningsider of this parish from another thread (my emphasis):
"Transport Scotland love roads, but even they couldn't justify full dualling of the A96 or A9. The Strategic Transport Projects Review (now under revision) only proposed A96 dualling between Inverness and Nairn and A9 dualling between Perth and Blair Atholl. The decision to go for full dualling was purely political - a decision that costs in the region of three or four billion quid.
If the Transport Minister ever says they can't afford cycling improvements, just remember this. Also worth asking where the business cases are for dualling the A9 and A96 - every penny spent on cycling goes through the wringer, but billions get spent on roads with almost no scrutiny."
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
