´óÏó´«Ã½

Orange Tories giving Scottish assets to Westminster not in my lifetime laddie we've been stripped to the bone already.

AAAAhhhhhh, it's like buses.

The claims made by the Anti-Smoking lobby(economic and scientific) that brought about the Smoking Ban should be thoroughly investigated by whoever forms the next Government as suggested in this "legacy report"

"Post-legislative scrutiny and post-inquiry scrutiny

30. It is imperative that parliamentary committees be able to devote sufficient time to post-legislative scrutiny. Only by understanding how legislation passed by the Parliament has operated in practice can we hope to learn lessons and improve future legislative proposals.

31. There are a number of Acts of the Scottish Parliament that the Committee considers to be worthy of post-legislative scrutiny. These include—

Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003;

Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005;

Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007."

Mr Taylor,
You wrote:
"But would that money accrue to Scotland at all? Wouldn't the Treasury grab the lot, as rival parties assert?"

Of course the Treasury would take it all. You only have to lok at the sorry saga of the Oil Levy money to know that.

Furthermore the policy would be the thin end of the wedge that would lead to the sell off of Scottish Water and ALL of the money from that would go to the Treasury.

We do not want a 'one off' payment we want income from Scottish Water for the forseeable future and that can only hapen if we keep it in public ownership - Scottish public ownership that is.

The idea of selling-off £1.5 billion of SW's debt comes from Fantasy Island Finance (Purvis Branch).

SW's turnover over the past 5 years has averaged around £1.050 billion, their interest costs have been as high as £240 million in a single year; they have no Retained Earnings of substance.

And the FibDems think there will be interest in the City to take on £1.5 billion of SW debt!!

This is Fantasy Island Finance!

Severin Carroll wrote this in the Guardian earlier:

John Swinney, the Scottish finance secretary, has claimed the £1.5bn plan has been "sunk on the day of its launch" as the Treasury could claw back the cash by reducing Scotland's block grant.

He's quoted "The Treasury's Statement of Funding Policy, October 2010 Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly" which says if extra receipts arise from a major change to the management of capital assets funded by UK taxpayers, "Treasury Ministers reserve the right to reduce the grant to the devolved administration to reflect receipts".

I was going to watch Ian Grey's performance on the other channel but could stomach only the first two minutes of the interview, why? Because he lied as usual saying that Labour have led on policies , then had a dig at the SNP.
Does he himself actually believe the things he says? The man is a complete idiot, bit like Brown really, delusional and promoted way beyond his ability and intelligence.

Thanks to Reporting Scotland, I now know that its 100 years since George V became King of England.

They just can't help themselves. Its in their DNA.

More questions than answers I'm afraid.
The Lib-Dems want pensioners who get less than £10,000 to be exempt from paying Council Tax. How much would that cost?
Do they think a pensioner's £10,000 goes less far than a worker's £10,000.
Is this ageism? Isn't that illegal?
Why not make it that ANYONE earning less than £10,000 is exempt from paying the Council Tax? How much would that cost?
Does anyone know what the limit is just now anyhow?

Bannerman, Grimond and now John Farquhar Munro - ashamed of what has become of the old Liberal Party.
No wonder everyone is swinging behind the SNP!
Slainte Mhor

peteraberdeenshire @7

I lasted about 7 minutes but I was losing the will to live by that time. He never answered a single question during the time I watched. Is there anyone out there who watched the whole thing? Did he finally answer a question?

"The LibDems are adamant that there would be a windfall. And that it would provide a renewed momentum to the Scottish economy."

---

A nod and a wink from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, perhaps?

Events at Westminster since last May show just how much one can trust a LibDem promise - not at all!

#7 peteraberdeenshire, I take it that channel is not availible inn Central Scotland (Freeview)

11. At 19:06pm on 5th Apr 2011, dubbieside wrote:

peteraberdeenshire @7

"I lasted about 7 minutes but I was losing the will to live by that time. He never answered a single question during the time I watched. Is there anyone out there who watched the whole thing? Did he finally answer a question?"

I laughed and smirked the whole way through and thought that Montenegro will plot an invasion if he becomes FM.

We are ill-served by this mince.

What about investigating Glasgow Labour ?

In the interest of fairness I forced myself to watch the rest of Ian Grey, he just cannot help talking about the SNP did this or did not do this. The man is devoid of inspiration and positive ideas for Scotland, not a single reason why voting for Labour would make Scotland better.
On GARL he claimed that Glasgow our biggest city deserves it, why? Aberdeen is a major part of the Scottish economy whereas Glasgow already has more per head of population spending than the rest of Scotland. Does this mean that Labour are going to focus most of their spending on Glasgow and their core voters, to do what, continue to keep their citizens in poverty and ill health?
I want Scotland to move forward and grow as a nation, to use it's resources be it the natural resources we are blessed with or indeed the people themselves to improve the lot of everyone in Scotland. The choice is simple, vote SNP to move Scotland forward and send the message to London that enough is enough or vote Labour to apologise to Westminster for daring to have some abition last time and voting SNP.

Re Scottish water, Brian stated :According to Mr Purvis, that would provide a one-off windfall of £1.5bn to the Scottish Government, with a further sum going to the Treasury.
----------------------------------------
I take it the Treasury claw-back which is not mentioned would be £5 billion, with Scotland, as usual getting the left overs.!

GARL would have turned into another Edinburgh trams project with labour councillors on committees filling their pockets through the tendering process, to provide a giant train set for Glasgow labour mps to get to westMonster to feed at the westMonster trough.

The rail line goes within 100 yards of the end of the runway, a small station with a tunnel connecting to an internally run and privately paid for connection is all that is required.

Why should Scotland pay for Glasgow's transport wet dreams.

Ok folks, its's time to give credit where it is due so come on now.

YES, Ian Gray did indeed answer a question....after being pressed a few times.....he admitted - to sniggers - that Scots could have been paying more council tax under a labour government these past few years. Does a "perhaps" count as an answer...

That said, credit to the presenter who refused to let any leader slip off from answering the question asked.

Another manifesto that seems to be built on sand or to be more accurate on sort of selling off Scottish Water even though we are not sure how much if any we would be allowed to keep.
Over on STV Iain Gray heavily trailed Labours manifesto (again), it is well worth the view. Mind this was a one to one interview broadcast live on the web and even in this Mr Gray did not look at all comfortable. Credit to Ponsonby he asked him some very penetrating questions which Mr Gray did not deal with well. In summary, carry a knife go to jail, avoided answering questions about how much it would cost, how many extra prison places would be required, Ponsonby pressed him on this and he dodged. Promises of extra spending were made for various things, to his credit Ponsonby pursued him on this as well. Sum total was they would invest the savings of merging police, merging Fire, reducing NHS boards and creating the National Care Service. Now to my mind this was either cloud cuckoo finances or it was a deliberate lie. There has never been a reorganisation that did not cost money, they all promise savings but if there are any savings they are many years down the line. It was noteworthy that STVs news at 6 had his interview as main item. Reporting Scotland used interesting language " Iain Gray forced to defend knife policy" as did todays Daily Record. It seemed to me like being damned with faint praise. As even staunch supports seem to be no more than luke warm.

If an MSP takes 3 months to avoid answering questions their credibility is ZERO.

Brian, If you get the chance, please ask a passing Libdem the following;
Several things really, all related.

Overall, what percentage gain did the lib-dem's acquire because of the student vote at the last election? ( They should know this).

How many seats were won because of this vote? ( They do know this).

The second thing. If the above demographic, who were first-time voters, feel betrayed by the lib-dem broken pledges, what do you recommend they do?

If a signed election pledge is broken, and the signatories ( signa-tories, geddit?!) abandon their promises in such a way, are Libdems surprised that young people turn to civil disobedience and worse?

Once upon a time, they could have honourably said; 'Turn to the ballot box,' but they have undermined this reality for a generation. Yes they have.

Shame on them.

I was a lib-dem tactical voter, but they have forced me to vote for another party.

I will never return

#11
did the grayfella finaly answer a question
yes one! he said on cuts, if i were first minister the first thing i would do is cut my own wages and all msp , it was a dull uninformative and uninspiring interview.
in otherwards right on track for elmer!

Two cheers for blogging on the L-D manifesto, Brian, which can't be much fun when you've resigned yourself to emulating Basil Fawlty with a "don't mention John Farquhar Munro" strategy.

Two cheers also to the Scotland [sic] politics web team in having rediscovered the curiously named Scotland Elections sub-site which once again shows the constituencies and both plurality and list candidates together with notional 2007 results for the Scottish general election, as defined in the Scotland Act 1998. Perhaps you would be so kind as to mention the existence of the site to the GMS team to obviate some of the mis-speaks in their Voter views series of reports.

A pity, though that the sub-site isn't quite up to the standard of STV's sub-site, with their bios of the candidates and profiles of the places, many of them written by Ponsonby himself, who has been a busy man of late, what with doing a great job of moderating the first and doing a only today. His unwillingess to accept evasive answers is a model ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland could do worse than emulate.

But should you find time, Brian, perhaps you could have a word with some of your website team and try to get them to emulate some of your own excellent use of English. I really can't see you giving the caption "Votes focus on police and carers" to a story where voters are not even mentioned, let alone votes themselves. Parties focus on police and carers would have had the merit of not being untrue.

Regards calls for Brian to blog on John F Munro, only the briefest of references made.

I heard Brian on Radio Scotland this morning. Brian seemed to downplay the impact of Munro's support for Salmond to be FM, he said it was merely an individual's stance. And Brian said that Munro was "enticed" into making the statement. And no mention at all on how it impacts Labour.

Interesting.

Poor Brian. You have to feel sorry for him. It took some wiggling to manage not to mention Munro, who was "enticed, no doubt, as he has a reputation as such a weak-minded person...

Right?

He's never been known to speak his own mind or go his own way, so if he said he supports Salmond, he couldn't possibly have meant it.*cough*

He's never been known as a maverick who does and says whatever he pleases. Actually, I doubt it will directly impact Labour. Who is will impact, I strongly suspect, is a lot of LibDem voters who are deciding who they are going to vote for while pulling the knife out of their back that their own party stuck there.

And people wonder why I find Scottish politics so amusing to watch.

25. At 20:55pm on 5th Apr 2011, AMJHAJ wrote:
Regards calls for Brian to blog on John F Munro, only the briefest of references made.

----------------------------------------------

all part of the subliminal message from ebc labour

They're desperate to get hold of our water assets, there ain't much left to steal after Maggie flogged what I owned in the 1980s off and pocketed the cash for herself.

nigel farge,s UKIP ENTER SCOTLAND not a peep?

Yet another endorsement.

Cheesed_off, it makes a change hearing ian grey talking some sense.

GARL seems to be one of those ideas that Labour have painted themselves into a corner over. I am from Paisley and now live in Glasgow and i have never met anyone who insists this railway link must go ahead or we are all going to struggle to get to the airport or visitors will end up trudging along the M8 trying to hail a taxi. Most people think it would be a good idea but dont really care. There was a big local problem in Paisley when it was possibly going to go ahead with how they will replace the public football pitches that are used by thousands every year. A much better idea by whatever party is in power would be to create a mono-rail link between central station and queen street. I have seen this in Sydney Australia and it is a sight to behold, trains silently travelling 40ft above your head.The benefit from this type of link would be fantastic to all who use our rail network. I suppose a link to the airport at a later stage could be part of a rolling program but for my money a mono-rail between the two main Glasgow stations should be priority.
Then again we could use trams to replace buses that replaced the trams!

Just viewed this for the first time.
Something that the top Unionist MPs seem to have in common


Do the voters of the West of Scotland not see how much the Labour Party has changed?
The candidates are not from the ranks of the proletariat.
Where are the ex-miners, union delegates, 'workers'?

UK is still definite ruled by an elite. Andrew Neil demonstrates that it's hard to become a cabinet minister if not from a 'Public' school. Cameron, I believe, is the 19th Prime Minister from Eton.

Yet because George Galloway feels he has more in common with a worker in say Cornwall - he believes in continues rule by these ‘toffs’ in Westminister. Really George!

32. At 00:22am on 6th Apr 2011, Laugh-or-cry

Didn't shanks have some ponies somewhere?

31. At 23:57pm on 5th Apr 2011, A_Scottish_Voice wrote:

Cheesed_off, it makes a change hearing ian grey talking some sense.

Blue moons do appear sometimes!

Independent economists trash the LD proposals on Scottish Water



For a irreverent review of the LD Manifesto look in "another place". The author picks out this wonderful piece of nonsense

Lib Dems want to:

Incentivise public sector procurement which grows the local economy and develops social capital. We will encourage greater use of community benefit clauses and social impact bonds.

I presume "social impact bonds" are a new super adhesive that will secure Tavish Scott to the ceiling, well away from society.

I think that you really have to feel sorry for the traditional Scottish Liberal.
They had an important historic role and even in "recent" past, they had politicians of national stature - Bannerman and Grimond.
However, the sad reality is that they were taken over by carpetbaggers, the precursors of New Labour. They must regret the day that David Steele sold his Party to Dr David Owen.
Still, they are both in the House of Lords now - and just joined by Lord Nicol Stephen.
What percentage of Scottish Liberals endorse the Westminster LibDems current policies on Nuclear expansion etc.
There is a much more credible future for Scottish Liberalism and Radicalism after Independence.
You know John Farquhar Munro makes sense - Vote for Alex Salmond for a Better Scotland.
Slainte Mhor

#36 reincarnation
"Independent economists trash the LD proposals on Scottish Water..."

Thanks for that link. Another cunning plan destined to fail, it seems, and being entirely subject to the say of HM Treasury it was always going to be pretty unlikely.

I'm not a regular reader of the Hootsmon nowadays, but whilst on their site I noticed another article very relevant to this thread in John McTernan's advising Mr Scott to make the most of the L-D's federal structure and to avow that "Clegg's writ does not run to north of the Border".

He goes on to suggest that:
"So, Tavish needs to make clear that he is in charge. The best way to do this is also the messiest - a massive row. It's time for a major speech from Scott in which he denounces all the coalition policies he disagrees with. And I mean everything. From benefit cuts to defence cuts, from slashing funding to the Scottish parliament to letting bankers off the hook. He needs to throw absolutely everything at the coalition."

Not bad advice, one might think, until one considers who's giving it. From 2007 until the 2010 UK general election, Mr McTernan was a SPAD in the Scotland Office for the last Labour viceroy, having returned from the antipodes after working on their Labor [sic] party's general election campaign.

Why, one wonders, would a Labour party hack want to inject some sense into the Scottish L-D campaign? Can it be because Lab fear that L-D votes are haemorrhaging primarily to the SNP, especially after John Farquhar Munro's announcement?

Brian,

Something entirely missing from ´óÏó´«Ã½ reportage on the L-D manifesto is questioning regarding their plans for Scotland's fuel levy funds, mentioned en passant on page 43 of their full manifesto in relation to the "Green Investment Bank".

When questioning the nabobs of the aforementioned party, you could do worse than to seek answers to some of the questions put to them by an Edinburgher in a letter in today's Hootsmon:

Two questions stand out in particular:
"So did the two Lib Dem MPs [Alexander & Moore] consult on the decision to impose an additional £2bn tax on Scotland's most productive industry? And if they did, as Scotland's only permanent members of the Cabinet did they discuss using the Lib Dems' vaunted bargaining power in the coalition to try to extract some remotely proportionate compensation for Scotland, such as the release of the £200 million fossil fuel levy or a commitment to basing the UK's first Green Bank in Scotland?"

I'm sure we'd all be interested in the answers.

Another endorsement of the SNP this morning!
Looks as though Brian Cox - a very long-standing Labour backer - has come out in favour of the SNP's policies.
Can poor, poor Ian Grey take any more?
I (almost) feel sorry for Westminster supporters - whether they be Tories, New Labour or Libs.
Slainte Mhor

I've just watched Newsnight with J Purvis being put through the mill by the Brewmaster. If you ever wanted a visual definition of 'ducking and diving, bobbing and weaving' then you now have it!

G Brewer concentrated his questioning on the FibDems having approval from G Osborne and the Treasury, but it was abundantly clear that such approval does not exist.

There is also an article in the Hootsmon which cast serious doubt on the ability to make this happen without consequential action by HM Treasury on the Scottish budget.

Beyond that, I'd like to know just how the FibDems have assessed the likely appetite in the City of London to be investors in the SW debt being 'sold' on??

From what JPurvis said, the successor entity to SW will have no shareholders, it will not be profit-making (i.e. run at no loss for the 'benefit' of the people of Scotland), so it will not be building up reserves or retained earnings.

Any potential City investor will not be attracted by those most unusual aspects, so will want to look for a) a discount on the bond - as in we buy £1.5 billion for £1 billion, so there's a shortfall of £500 million. Then b) without shareholders, the City investors will seek a guarantee from the Scottish Government for the full amount of debt they bought i.e. £1.5 billion.

Do the sums, this is a net cash out proposal, not cash in!!

Fantasy Island finance by the FibDems, indeed!!

Not that I'm a great fan of "celebrity endorsements" in politics, but Brian Cox supporting SNP????

That's like hearing that Sean Connery was backing Labour!

40. At 10:14am on 6th Apr 2011, spagan wrote:
Another endorsement of the SNP this morning!
Looks as though Brian Cox - a very long-standing Labour backer - has come out in favour of the SNP's policies.
Can poor, poor Ian Grey take any more?
I (almost) feel sorry for Westminster supporters - whether they be Tories, New Labour or Libs.
Slainte Mhor

And you can add David Hayman to that switch as well!!

Brian,

Knowing your commitment to everything Dundonian, can we expect a thread on Brian Cox?

The red tops are splashing the story, but STV have a more restrained , telling us that: The Dundee-born film legend believes Alex Salmond has a "vision" and that only his party will defend free education. Cox, who shot to fame as the original Hannibal Lector in Maneater, said: "I am happy to endorse Alex and hope to see him re-elected in May."

Can't seem to locate the Cox position on football teams, though. I'm sure we'd all like to know where his loyalties lie there.

I was persuaded in the General Election to vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out and I like many others feel totally betrayed by them. Now they want investment in Scottish Water by the people they have let down and expect support for their ill thought out idea. The money raised is in my view another method of getting already cash strapped voters to pay a back door tax and it is likely that part if not all of the money will go to the UK Treasury.

I can't remember the Lib Dem guy's name on Scottish Newsnight last night and try as he might Gordon Bruar could not get him to give straight answer to the question of where the Scottish Water cash would end up. He skirted round the subject and in the end Gordon gave up.

How on earth are we supposed to trust a party that when asked to form a Coalition Government in Westmister tore up their Manifesto and betrayed their supporters all for the sake of a share of power. You can say anything in a Manifesto knowing full well that it is highly unlikely you will be in Government but as has been proved the voters expected some of the Lib Dem policies they voted for to be implemented. So far we have seen nothing efrom them except paying lip service to their supporters.

The Lib Dems have done themselves no favours and have as a consequence of going along with the Tories become unelectable in Scotland. I would imagine their efforts will be wasted on the people of England who also go to the polls on 5 May. The result will not be a shot across the Lib Dems bows but will be a clear message of how let down people feel. Danny Alexander is in his own words proud of thinking up the 2bn tax on the oil companies and I wonder if he will be proud if the probable job losses this will create.

Personally I will be voting SNP and hope they get a majority in the Scottish Parliament and that Alex Salmond carries Scotland forward to independence.

Brian,

Noting that the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Janet & John version of the L-D manifesto contains precisely four mentions of the word "alcohol" but nothing on the minimum pricing they rejected at Holyrood unless you count "[s]upport UK-wide measures to tackle the sale of alcohol at unacceptably low cost", was it not serendipity that as they were announcing their policies in the borders, Lothian and Borders Chief Constable David Strang "backed minimum pricing, adding that alcohol is a key component in most violent crime", as reported in STV's ?

I should also have said in my post #45 if Alex Salmond is good enough for Lib Dem support he's good enough for me.

Interesting times we are living in!!

The closing sentence of the STV report shows Cox in Hannibal Lector mode:
"Although Labour insist they will keep university education free in Scotland if they triumph in the May 5 poll, Cox does not believe them."

brian cox. adds to the list with windy alexander as an abstainer.how many more.
open the flood gates brian, let us through

You would have thought that since one of Scotland's best actors and a rector of one of our universities has endorsed Salmond and the SNP that the Daily Record would at least feel duty bound to mention it on their website.

#50 softrain
"You would have thought that since one of Scotland's best actors and a rector of one of our universities has endorsed Salmond and the SNP that the Daily Record would at least feel duty bound to mention it on their website."

Agreed, especially when the STV article I link to in my #44 originally reported it as Cox having confided his apostasy to the Record, although they've now corrected it to the "Scottish Sun", perhaps after complaints from the Record.

My own thoughts on the Lib Dem and Tory manifestos can be found here:-

In a lot of cases anouncements such as the one Brian Cox, from the so called luvvy brigade, has just made can be treated with a bit of disdane from those that it does not suit. From my own point of view ,having listened to Brian's input on various matters and having watched him decimate Starkey the Historian bully on question time a few months ago (only person I have seen manage to do so to date)I don't think the normal rational applies here!!!

Regards Tom

devolution was set up by scottish based parties for the purpose of promoting
scottish business, and devolved affairs relavant to scotland. i would like to know if
UKIP has a valid right to set up business under devolution rules. if so the quicker we have an independance refurendum the better, and it invalidates the case for AV in scotland as far as i,m concerned.

I agree with the sentiments of Ziggyboy (45).

Here in North East Fife the Liberal Democrats are guilty of blatant double standards in their campaigning for the Scottish Parliament elections.

The latest Lib Dem leaflet to come through people’s doors tries to take credit for changes in taxation by reminding voters that the UK Government is a Tory / Lib Dem coalition. The changes in question were introduced by George Osborne in his recent budget and Iain Smith (LibDem MSP for NE Fife) seems happy in this case to be associated with the Conservatives in London.

Right next to the article on taxation however, is one about the threat to RAF Leuchars and posits Mr. Smith as champion of the campaign to save the airbase. Nowhere does this article recognise that it is the Lib Dem / Tory coalition that threatens Scottish defence facilities, not least RAF Leuchars.

It would appear from this leaflet that North East Fife Liberal Democrats are up to their old tricks of facing in two directions at once. When Iain Smith likes the actions of the London coalition he claims credit for his party. When it comes to RAF Leuchars he pretends that he has nothing to do with Nick Clegg and the actions of the London Government. The Lib Dems are deeply implicated in these defence cuts and no amount of photographs of Iain Smith standing grim faced outside the gates at RAF Leuchars can change that.

#'s 16, 18 & 32.

GARL would be a massive waste of money. Glasgow already has an airport with a rail link, it's called Prestwick, but the BAA monopoly in central Scotland has seen it struggle to get real traffic despite the fact it has one of the longest runways in Europe and is open during almost every bad weather event that sees both Glasgow and Edinburgh grind to a halt.

In my mind, having two major cities only 40 miles apart served by two separate airports is madness. If we really wanted to improve infrastructure, we'd build a new airport just north of the M8 in the Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling triangle and establish high speed express rail links (proper ones that go like the clappers) to all 3 cities.

AT LAST!!
An EXCELLENT proposal in New Labour's Manifesto for us Northern Brits!
QUOTE on Page 68 - "Scottish Labour will abolish the failed Scottish Labour".
What is it about the LIBDEMs and New Labour? Is "Foot-Shooting" their sport of choice? Or is it "Mouth-Footing"?
Makes a change from Flip-Flopping!
Slainte Mhor

It feels like time for a Crossword clue (this one from yesterday’s Times) …

2 Down (for words) … ‘Does all this AV sh*t make him a dull boy ???’ (6)

And whilst we’re on the subject, is Jeremy Purvis the illegitimate twin of Oliver Letwin (the world’s most punchable man) ??? …

And hasn’t Brian Cox enough to do dribbling childishly about the wonders of the universe (Zzzzz) ??? …

And anyway, what is a wonder of the universe; and are there seven of them ??? …

D-ream on ...

#57 spagan
Are you reading a printed copy? as the online copy does not say that

"Dundonian and life-long Labour supporter switches allegiance because he trusts Alex Salmond."


stop laughing at the back, it could've been.....

59 Soos
As if I'd waste my time!
I did that back in 1997 and look where that got us!
I read it on a "´óÏó´«Ã½ Tweet from the Labour Launch" - but it may be that only twits tweet - or it may be that the on-line version was corrected?
Clearly it was a "TYPO" - a bit like their run of political typos - past, present and future. I think that they had a "typo" in 2003 that said that they would build GARL before 2007..............
Slainte Mhor

Beeb Radio just reported that Denis Canavan has come out in favour of the Eckmeister and will be voting SNP in his constituency!!

The weegreyman car crash is now well underway.

@ 16, 18 ,32 & 56

Must disagree with your slamming of GARL, while 32 is right people down here are by no means desperate for but it would boost the economy locally and nationally and given Glasgow is Scotland’s busiest airport the affect will be felt nationwide. Again @ 32 a link between central and queen street seems to me like that would become a trams mark II and is also totally unnecessary given how close the 2 station are. 16 you talked about spending the money in Aberdeen instead, though didn’t identify what on, I assume you weren’t suggesting a rail link to Aberdeen airport as on this point GARL verses a Dice ARL, its clear building the GARL would have more of positive impact on Scotland as whole. If however you here to suggest (and I admit I’m out on a limb here) an Aberdeen city bypass and continuing the dual carriageway North to Peterhead then it would be a very tough call to say which would benefit the country most, though I can say with almost 100% certainty that both would have been better option than the Trams which Iain Grey green lighted as transport minister.

Brian,

So now we have reached the stage where we privatise debt.

The Lib Dems must be out of their tiny minds or think we are out of ours.

is my coment#54 about UKIP TOTALY IRELAVANT or has it gone down a worm hole
1 opnion please .before it closes!

#63 Isn't edinburgh now Scotland's busiest airport?

John

#58 Wrong brian Cox

#67 Yeeeeeees ...

64. At 15:13pm on 6th Apr 2011, Sheneval wrote:
Brian,

So now we have reached the stage where we privatise debt.

The Lib Dems must be out of their tiny minds or think we are out of ours.

Sheneval,

Here's a bit of reading for your edification!

This is a PWCoopers report which is large on interesting facts about the SW financial position:



There are many financial positions of interest. Here's a few:

* FibDems want to sell $1.5 million of debt on a basic turnover of c £1 billion.

* SW has current cash balances, but these will be severely strained, before any FiBDem deal, as per this:

'The approved Scottish Water budget for the period 2010-2015 which includes the regulated business
activities only is summarised below:
£³¾¾±±ô±ô¾±´Ç²Ô
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Total turnover 1,061 1,035 1,051 1,067 1,083
Surplus after Tax 99 65 67 66 66
The 2011 – 2015 forecasts incorporate a number of particular challenges, including:
ï‚· The challenging Price Determination will create significant revenue pressure throughout the full
duration of the forthcoming regulatory period
ï‚· The economic downturn may lead to a deterioration in collection rates or an increase in discounts and
benefits
ï‚· The Final Determination assumes costs will rise by the RPI rate each year. However, recent
evidence suggests that certain of Scottish Water’s actual costs have been rising faster than the RPI
rate
 In 2009/10, total capital expenditure (both Q&S and non-Q&S work) was £648 million. Net borrowing
of £218.8 million was required to achieve this level of capital expenditure. However, future borrowing
limits set by the Scottish Government have reduced borrowing to £140 million per annum for the next
five year regulatory period
The restrictions on income and borrowing, taken with likely cost pressures, confirm that Scottish Water
will require to reduce costs and utilise cash balances to meet key WIC targets.'

Note the summary lines - already under cash resource pressure.

* Then there is this beauty:

'Large Balances Containing Judgements by Management
The financial statements contain a number of sizeable balances which required an element of judgement
by management, including a Household Bad Debt Provision of £296.9 million, a Household Credit Note
Provision of £21.1 million and a Restructuring Provision of £7.9 million for Scottish Water (£8.3 million at
Group level).
For each of these balances, we have examined the judgements that management has applied to arrive at
the figure included in the 2009/10 financial statements. In each case, we are satisfied that management
has applied reasonable judgements that reflect prevailing economic circumstances'

£297 million of Household Bad Debt and the FibDems think this can be privatised??

* Finally, note that though SW pays substantial interest each year, a bond issue via the City would require principal to be repaid on an amortised basis.

THERE IS NO CAPACITY WITHIN SW TO DO THAT!!

#68 TCOM

You're being too subtle for me....

there are two brian Cox's of relevance to this conversation. One is a Scottish actor who just backed Alex salmond after a lifetime of supporting labour (and was the labour voice of their 2007 PPBs). the other is professor brian cox, ex D-ream musician, who now hosts an entertaining program about the wonders of the universe.

I suspect that you were making a point relevant to either (or both) but it is lost on me...

John

John; thanks ... I am aware of both and was simply (though obviously unsuccessfully) trying to be funny ... Accepting endorsements from slebs and wannabes is a risky business; how would the supporters of the react if, say, the Chuckle Brothers announced their support ??? ... Or the generally toxic, like (say) Brian Souter ??? ...

#22

To answer your questions

Overall, what percentage gain did the lib-dem's acquire because of the student vote at the last election? ( They should know this).

A= Cant answer for students but 18-24 year old break down was Con 31% Lab 30% LD 30%. LD got 7 million votes in total at 2010 election roughly 800,000 were from 18-24 year olds. This does mean that 61% of young people voted for parties who wanted universities to charge unlimited tuition fees.

How many seats were won because of this vote? ( They do know this).

A= Lib Dems won 4 seats in constituencies dominated by Universities

The second thing. If the above demographic, who were first-time voters, feel betrayed by the lib-dem broken pledges, what do you recommend they do?

A= The problem is all political parties (inc SNP) have broken their promises to students and young people which i think will be a huge problem in getting young people to vote at all

If a signed election pledge is broken, and the signatories ( signa-tories, geddit?!) abandon their promises in such a way, are Libdems surprised that young people turn to civil disobedience and worse?

A= The people causing violence are those that like causing violence and hijack any protest to commit their violence and intimidation. The people who demonstrated against Tuition Fees, EMA and the cuts did so in a powerful and peaceful way without resorting to violence.

Once upon a time, they could have honourably said; 'Turn to the ballot box,' but they have undermined this reality for a generation. Yes they have.

A= See above statement all parties have broken their promise to young people, All political parties are going to have to work hard to win back their trust.