´óÏó´«Ã½

A guid New Year, this message widely and randomly dispersed. And a substantive political controversy to get us all going - how to fund the ?

And what has to give if the money comes from existing budgets?

As ever, the search is for the plain and simple truth. Equally as ever, the truth is rarely plain and never simple.

The Scottish Government consciously narrowed its options by abolishing tolls on existing estuarial crossings - and ruling out such charges for the future.

It further narrowed its spectrum of financial choices by taking against PPP/PFI.
There was bold talk that the new Scottish Futures Trust would generate innovative ways of funding such projects.

The SFT may well be working furiously behind the scenes but there is little sign yet of the brave new funding world that was promised.

Against that, Scottish Ministers point out that they took the decision to fund a new Crossing where others vacillated.

They reviewed it and produced a cut-price version. They have given a firm commitment to keep traffic flowing over the Forth.

Further, they say they produced a scheme to restructure capital investment. In essence, Scotland would get much more now in return for relative restraint down the line, spread over a twenty year period.

I was sceptical as to whether that would find favour with the Treasury - and said so on the day the plan was published in December.

Now we have confirmation - up with this the Treasury will not put. They say it amounts to advancing capital now on the basis of a promise to constrain distant budgets which have yet to be set for governments which have yet to be formed.

Indeed, the Chancellor went so far as to declare "we don't do that sort of thing."

A more wicked commentator might say that, until recently, the Treasury didn't do things like nationalise banks. But you won't find any of that glib insolence here.
More, Treasury Ministers say John Swinney's plan is different from the capital restructuring they have themselves undertaken which is measurable and limited to three years.

Scottish Ministers have now embarked on efforts to find a solution, in discussion with the Treasury. It was agreed today that there will be an early meeting.

Everyone acknowledges that a replacement crossing is required in order to relieve pressure on the existing bridge. Ferries don't quite cut it in the modern Scottish economy.

So options? The Treasury tentatively suggests PPP. But the tentative nature of that suggestion is intriguing, featuring as it does an acknowledgement that PPP "would not solve the budgeting problem if the scheme was classified as public spending."
Which, say SNP Ministers, it is - or will be under new European accounting rules.

Which, say the same Ministers, undermines any lingering support for PPP.

How about emulating Crossrail, the London transport project? But that partly involves borrowing against future revenue streams.

There ain't no such stream with a non-tolled bridge.

Other Treasury suggestions? Divert revenue to capital - or underspend on the capital budget for a few years, building up a bridge warchest.

Scottish Ministers don't fancy either option - arguing that they run counter to the objective of stimulating the economy with productive public expenditure.

Talks will examine these and other options.

But, in the absence of a grand new wheeze, we might end up with the following - the bridge goes ahead, funded from capital budgets, and other projects - transport, schools, hospitals - face possible delays.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?