UKH

My aunt has just visited Skye for the first time since the early 1990s and was horrified by the amount of tourists. She said the bridge should never have been built but I'm not convinced the long queues for ferries would be sustainable at todays visitor numbers.

Perhaps the toll booths should be brought back for non-residents to help fund local infrastructure, controversial but I reckon it would work.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Yes, it improves access and creates a tourist industry bringing money into the local area. 
 

These anti-tourist sentiments always seem silly

In reply to echo34:

Especially from tourists.

In reply to The New NickB:

Why? The tourists are all ruining it for each other. I hesitate to go to Skye in the summer now.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I'd hazard a guess the locals may even be pleased with it given the current fiasco with the CalMac ferries? I work with someone from South Uist who it can often take a day or 2 to get home now and often not by a direct ferry link.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Electric vehicles only, with an exemption for residents.

Plus a £5 fee.

I don't want this. But if crowd control is genuinely needed (due to what I assume is the intolerable stress on local infrastructure at the moment), then it's a double-win in the sense of cleaner air there, and some money for local improvements/maintenance.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Stuff the Skye bridge. Let’s bring back ALL the ferries. Ballachullish, Strome, Govan…..

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Tourists are often horrified by tourists (that said I don't know if your aunt was one). In my book though, what matters is what locals/ residents think and want

In reply to Graeme G:

Why stop there? The Tay. The Forth......   

In reply to profitofdoom:

I agree the wishes of the local residents should be paramount.

Equally, should they decide to implement measures to reduce tourism, then I would not expect to be subsidising their loss of income and jobs.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

It's getting a bit late to do it now.
Any chance I could start tomorrow? 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

We used the ferry last time, it saves a LOT of driving and wasn't too expensive.

Skye is now effectively part of the mainland. Good for increasing tourist numbers and giving locals better access to infrastructure, but inevitably also leading to overcrowding and loss of the island community.

In reply to Graeme G:

And Corran.

In reply to PaulW:

Why ?

Cropped up a few times recently on here. If the views of locals was paramount, very little would change. No locals would say ‘yes please, build that motorway/prison/petro-chemical plant next to me’. 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Someone that has visited Skye twice in 30 years decrees a permanent link to the mainland for residents should never have been built........

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Ah, another playground for the well off…

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

We could sneak across together in a 'small boat' 🤭

In reply to Graeme G:

And the Erskine Ferry. Remember going there and all the disabled WW2 veterans sitting outside.

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

That, presumably, is very appealing to many

On the other hand, it would be in the interest of quite a few to have a certain volume of visitors at least

In reply to Graeme G.

and the Kylesku.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Just don’t go to the fairy pools and old man and you’ll hardly see anyone. it will be out of fashion again in a few years and no doubt there’ll be a policy to encourage more tourists again…

 

 

The “instagram effect” is quite interesting, everyone sees the nice places with no one there online with an oversaturated filter and then get upset when it’s not actually like it. There are loads of lovely places with hardly any tourists.

 

Disagree with this, I don’t like the idea of restricting these areas. Just because you happen to live there shouldn’t give you preferential access (with the exception of certain parking perhaps on residential areas) similar opinions also crop up for the lakes and other places, it’s unacceptable to restrict access to those that can afford to buy houses there or just happen to live there before it was a popular place 

In reply to echo34:

I think many tick these, then ferry to Tarbert, beach photo, Callanish, then Stornoway to Ullapool ferry back into NC loop. It's not hard to avoid crowds. 

In reply to echo34:

They may be the worst, but other places are bad too. Neist, for instance. There was a burger van on the shores of Loch Slapin last time I was there FFS. Once I feel "part of the problem" in a place, I start feeling uneasy.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Bla Bla Bla.  
 

(that’s rubbish, I know).  

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

You speak it like a local. Amazing.  Is that near the bealach na bla?

In reply to Wainers44:

Total digression: was on the top of Bla Bheinn one winter and said to my mate ‘My heads buzzing. Seriously, my head and face is buzzing’. My mate, a geophysicist says ‘run, quick’. No chance of that, so I strolls my way out of the electricity that was making the wire of my jackets hood ‘hum’…. 

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

Now I can't get the thought out of my head that when that happened, you started singing "I got chills their multiplying, and I'm loosing control, cus of power....."

In reply to DizzyVizion:

You think Skye has a air quality issue? Really?

And you think Skye should only be open to the wealthy. 

What a silly opinion.

In reply to montyjohn:

Settle, pettle!

By your logic- if I suggested a pay increase for nurses, you'd accuse me of thinking they were homeless and starving. 

Enjoy your weekend, John

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

For ven's sake, stop it

(I picked up Boston MA traffic reports up there - no I was not navigating with the transistor radio this time - had it for the cricket).

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

The early 90s had crowded honeypots just the same.

The ferry was a pain in the backside, queuing for ages, then bursts of twenty cars at a time racing each other to Broadford and Sligacan.

Glen Brittle campsite was an overcrowded zoo with backed up toilets and people tripping over each others guy ropes. And there was always a queue of bagpipers, Munro completists and guided groups waiting to join the circus on the Inn Pinn.

Not sure what has changed. Different kind of tourist maybe?

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

What about a nuclear power station next to a national park? I reckon the locals in Egremont would want it...

In reply to alan moore:

I guess people think the whole world is interested now rather than quietly doing their thing!

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I take walking groups to Skye regularly as part of my work, so definitely part of the tourist "problem".

I say to the tour companies every year that I don't think we should go on July and August, there are plenty of other places in Scotland to go. But Skye is what sells the tours, it's what people want. 

When you walk up the destroyed mess of hillside above the Quiraing car park to walk along the top of the crags, the view back along the Trotternish ridge is now blighted with an almighty great car park clogged with campervans (not my van, we start elsewhere and take a quiet route up). It has ruined the view, but it was needed as the place was being trashed by people parking badly there before. 

The whole experience, for me, feels like a battle to beat crowds and find sneaky back routes. 

Personally, I'd only go to Skye for my own leisure in early spring or late autumn. I'd absolutely not want to live there. 

I guess though, it's been a tourist honeypot for long enough that presumably those residents who don't like it will have already left?

In reply to peppermill:

I think there are more people travelling more, but doing less. You hear of people doing the nc500 in 3 or 4 days, they must barely be out of their cars or vans, seeing very little beyond what is outside their windscreen. Long before it was a thing we did a version of it with our kids, adding in the isles, took nearly 3 weeks with the goal being never to drive more than 1-2hrs a day, using local b&b or hotels. I wouldn't do it now though with the masses. 

In reply to girlymonkey:

Like others have been visiting Skye for years & was shocked by erosion, visitor numbers & traffic on last visit.  In some National parks in the Pyrenees they manage this by making access by bus only in peak season. 

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Eh? You've confused me.

In reply to ExiledScot:

Agree. It seems the areas of NW Scotland that were Caithness, Sutherland, Assynt, Wester Ross now, for some, no longer exist, they have become the NC500, almost as if they did not exist until the NC500 was developed. We too have travelled the route, many years ago, and enjoyed it, taking on one occasion a day to go from Bettyhill to Durness.

Not every visitor, but some I think have no interest in the areas, would never have considered going to NW Scotland, behave appallingly and have only gone there because it has been given the label NC500.

Dave 

In reply to profitofdoom:

Yes. If the wishes of the residents are not put first then it opens the possibility for developers moving and creating a theme park, zip wires, and everywhere could become just like everywhere else, and the encouragement of more tourism is going to increase the problem.

Focussing on Increased tourism in local rural areas is easy for councils but a broader approach is needed. Basing a large amount of the local economy on one job area is not a good idea.

Dave

In reply to montyjohn:

I suggested allowing only electric vehicles onto Skye with an exemption for residents. Then mentioned the bonus of this policy being cleaner air.

And you said-

I never said or suggested Skye had an air quality issue. That would be stupid.

Yes, this policy would be prohibitive for the majority of the UK population (this includes me).

Have a nice weekend.

In reply to echo34:

I always think that tourism is a mixed blessing. Yes it brings money in but also sends prices skyrocketing, turns local housing into over priced holiday homes pricing out locals, congestion on local roads, additional costs to local authorities and the whole place shuts down out of season.

I don't know if this is the case in Skye but it is quite evident in other areas of the country.

In reply to montyjohn:

Possibly following the Bhutan model?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Capitalism

Maybe if the public here were accurately informed on matters relating to this problem so they could better decide at the ballot which party is acting in the best interest of their country, and not what's best for the worlds rich or, you know another country or just a single bloody city.

Pipedreams unfortunatley-

https://theferret.scot/ten-scottish-newspapers-owned-by-three-billionaires/

There's always X! Just as innaccurate. And 100% cheaper.

Jokes 

In reply to nufkin:

The Kenmore model? 

" In my book though, what matters is what locals/ residents think and want"

This in a nutshell is why the UK is so behind every other European country and plenty of others beside. Constant kowtowing to 'locals' who will never vote for anything that results in change. 

In reply to profitofdoom:

My aunt is definitely a tourist in this instance and probably oblivious to her being a part of the problem she's complaining about! 

In reply to peppermill:

Yep, it's partly why I posted. A tad silly.

In reply to Tringa:

A zip wire from the end of the spur of Sgurr Dearg down to the Glenbrittle memorial hut would greatly increase the throughput, processing and departures of Inpinn aspirants by the local guides.  Could be done as a production line with some guides staying in situ at the Pin while others escort aspirants on shorter legs of the journey and supervise the zip, on a daily rotation.  Quids Inn.

why is that a bad thing?

In reply to Graeme G:

There does seem to be a big blind spot in Scotland for some of the major routes though. A82 by Loch Lomond north of Target, A83 at rest and be thankful, A890 at Stromeferry.

All have plans proposed but little in the way of progress. Other European countries would have had these vital links improved years ago.

In reply to wercat:

Actually Quids Inn could be a highland theme pub on the campsite to entertain the personnel carrier crews

in fact what about a Highland/NC500 franchise chain of Quids Inns?

In reply to spidermonkey09:

How did you arrive at this conclusion? And on what scale of measurement?

Is change necessarily a good thing though? I'm not saying we shouldn't have change but locals should have a voice in things that affect them.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

On every scale. We haven't built a new solar or wind farm for years because applications can be sunk by a single objection. Nuclear power stations are subject to enormous delays due to locals protesting. Our infrastructure is light years behind every other developed country; trains are ancient, big cities like Leeds go without a functioning transport network. There aren't enough new houses being built due to locals complaining every time a proposal goes in. Its a joke; nimbyism in the UK is completely out of control and the government (and opposition to a lesser extent) is terrified of calling it out for fear of losing votes.

Locals have had a voice for years and its a big reason we're in the mess we're in. I'd be fully in favour of ignoring them for the forseeable. 

In reply to spidermonkey09:

1. Everyone would object to a nuclear risk being constructed near where they live.

2. Privatisation of the transport network has been a core Conservative government policy for decades. Take it up with them.

3. Another failed (but to them successful) Conservative government policy- selling off council homes. Wealthy landlords purchased these to lease back to the poor at inflated prices. Me and all the other non-tory donors eventually have pay for this via taxation used to pay for the housing element of universal credit. It doesn't even get paid to the universal credit claimant though. It gets paid directly to the landlords bank account. If this stock had been retained by the government, the housing crisis would likely not be so bad.

4. Not the nimbyism. The mumptyism! Of past, present, and future Conservative voters.

5. The illusion of a having voice is not the same as actually having one- unless of course you are referring to this kind of local-

https://www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/heritage/family-devastated-as-s...

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Who is "Everyone"? I wouldn't object as the risk is tiny. There's a huge steelworks 7 miles away from me that produces enormous amounts of pollution. If they proposed to build a nuclear power station there instead then it'd be great - the only objections I'd have would be to the loss of jobs and steelmaking capability rather than any nuclear risks. 

In reply to spidermonkey09:

Interesting. So you would you say we are better or worse than Greece, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, Moldovia, even Spain?

Observation rather suggests we are middling to nearer the top.

As for ignoring locals well absolutely. It worked for America back in the 1800's

In reply to DizzyVizion:

1- no, they wouldn't because nuclear power is a big part of net zero. I've got no problem with nuclear whatsoever. Objection to Sizewell C in Suffolk is nothing to do with concerns about safety but instead transparently self interested concerns over 'green space,' 'traffic' and 'spoiling the view.'

2- whats your point? Nobody mentioned privatisation. I'm talking about updating and building new infrastructure.

3- Yes, I am aware of the council house selloff. But even if you keep existing stock, you still have to build new ones and as you acknowledge, that hasn't happened even to the level that would have been needed if the selloff hadn't happened.

4- Nimbyism is absolutely not driven entirely by conservative voters and it is seriously lazy to propose it is. The Green Party are some of the worst offenders, objecting to absolutely everything while proposing nothing, the Lib Dems not far behind and the Labour council where I live has cynically blocked housebuilding to pacify 'local concerns.'

5- there are innumerable examples of solar and wind farms being blocked by a single complaint. Locals who know their way around the planning system and are schooled in activism wield extraordinary power over whether developments happen.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

This is such an obvious straw man it doesn't even merit a reply!

Even amidst the current war Ukraine's trains run on time. Spain's public transport system is very good, infrastructure gets built, small towns have leisure centres etc. 

In reply to spidermonkey09:

Everybody is a nimby, without exception, depending on what is being proposed for their back yard.

In reply to spidermonkey09:

I forgot to say nice rant by the way I enjoyed.

But quite clearly the UK is far from the worst in Europe in "every measure", as most statistics show. However I agree there are areas where we figure poorly. We are one of the most nature depleted countries in europe (according to reports) and clearly public transport in the UK is poor but I hardly put that down to nimbyism, more on poor investment overall.

I used America as an extreme example admittedly (I thought we were going for hyperbole) but nevertheless it illustrates the consequences of ignoring local people. Do you call it a strawman because it calls into question your argument for ignoring the views of local people? I accept that local views may not be in the best interests of the country but by the same token neither are developers views necessarily good either. Is it not better to take a balanced approach?

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I hope she realised the irony in that.

The bridge was and still is a good idea.

Yes.

There are other options for tourist taxes to support local infrastructure too and I've said before that I'd be solidly behind something of that nature. 

In reply to spidermonkey09:

Some examples would be nice.

Maybe they were blocked for good reasons

Before we get carried away however I want to say I am not anti-developement. There are clear benefits to wind farms and solar farms and they have the potential to be more wild life diverse than traditional crop planting. Cornwall has plenty of them and though the work on the A30 is annoying at present it will improve congestion in the long run.

All I am saying is that peoples concerns should be taken into consideration in any developement. That is only right, else we may as well let the state do what it likes.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Only Spain is anything like a peer country to the U.K., the others absolutely are not. Why stop at Moldovia? Why not compare our infrastructure to India, or even South Sudan? Because they are idiotic comparisons that ignore history and economics. Compared to its peers the U.K. is lacking. The UK’s closest international comparator in terms of wealth, geography and history is France and their infrastructure is vastly better than ours. 
 

In reply to spidermonkey09:

As I’m sure you know (but other posters may not) the FT’s data reporter John Burn-Murdoch is the go to guy for information on this kind of issue. 
 

Here’s a good Twitter thread on the U.K.’s dismal transport infrastructure:

https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1695034745871032609?s=20

In reply to girlymonkey:

Accepting that increased tourism in the UK is inevitable, it seems to me that the problem is the apparent lack of will to provide proper infrastructure. Local councils benefit from the income, but in turn should be investing in quality infrastructure to deal with the problems it creates. 
Ambleside is a perfect example. Has needed a tunnel bypass and underground parking for decades. Instead cars queue up from Staveley, then drive around town looking for a parking spot, creating congestion and pollution. There are dozens of similar places - Ogwen valley and Peak District parking sound like a nightmare. Alpine areas sorted this kind of thing out years ago. 

In reply to Jonathan Lagoe - UKC:

True, but local councils simply don’t have the funds to do major infrastructure projects like this (especially since their budgets were slashed post-2010). It needs central government funding. For the last ten years we’ve been in a situation where borrowing was so cheap that at times lenders have been actually paying governments to take their cash. Obviously we could have used this period of super low rates (which is now probably gone forever) to fund investments of the sort you suggest, but we decided not to. That was the very clear message from the U.K. voters for many years. 
 

In reply to seankenny:

https://twitter.com/Sam_Dumitriu

This guy's twitter also worth a read, especially the pinned thread at the top which I only came across today.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCLHfjNTldQ&ab_channel=DrLawrenceNewpor...

This is worth a watch.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Compared to comparable countries, we are very much at the bottom end or the worst. As Sean has pointed out, Moldova is not an appropriate comparison. 

I maintain that using settler colonialism as an example of why we shouldn't ignore local people is total bollocks, sorry, they are completely different discussions, so I'm not even going down that road. I'm not averse to a balanced approach but thats so far from what is happening at the moment a pretty massive course correction is needed.

In reply to spidermonkey09:

 

There’s also the small matter of settler colonialism being basically a 16th - 19th century phenomenon in the New World. Outside of those times and places it’s an irrelevant issue when thinking about this kind of development. Especially when we can easily compare what other developed counties are doing in the early 21st century as they are all democracies with literate populations, similar levels of income, etc etc. 

In reply to spidermonkey09:

It does appear to be the case that infrastructure building is hugely expensive in the UK, and that the need for local consultation has been suggested as one of a number of reasons why. But there are plenty of other reasons for this

This is from an old Government report but I don't imagine much has changed:

There is no single overriding factor driving higher costs. However, the investigation has identified that higher costs are mainly generated in the early project formulation and pre-construction phases and provided evidence of a number of contributing factors including:

stop-start investment programmes and the lack of a visible and continuous pipeline of forward work;

lack of clarity and direction, particularly in the public sector, over key decisions at inception and during design. Projects are started before the design is sufficiently complete. The roles of client, funder and delivery agent become blurred in many public sector governance structures;

the management of large infrastructure projects and programmes within a quoted budget, rather than aiming at lowest cost for the required performance. If the budget includes contingencies, the higher total becomes the available budget;

over-specification and the tendency, more prevalent in some sectors than others, to apply unnecessary standards, and use bespoke solutions when off-the-shelf designs would suffice;

interpretation and use of competition processes not always being effective in producing lowest outturn costs, with public sector clients in particular being more risk averse to the cost and time implications of potential legal challenges;

companies in the supply chain typically investing tactically for the next project, rather than strategically for the market as a whole; and

lack of targeted investment by industry in key skills and capability limiting the drive to improve productivity performance.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

In reply to Andy Hardy:

They do!

In reply to seankenny:

I refer you back to the OP's claim that the UK was the worst in Europe. Plainly it isn't but obviously others are better

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I’m sure he meant Western Europe, or possibly at a stretch West and Central Europe. It simply doesn’t make much sense to compare the western part of the continent to the eastern or south eastern parts given their hugely divergent histories and patterns of development. When we were busy creating and ruling an empire the Greeks were still in one! 
 

As a rule of thumb, if someone is comparing the U.K. to Greece as part of an argument, they are probably trying to pull a fast one. 

In reply to spidermonkey09:

compared to the likes of Germany, France etc I would agree. I refer to your comment:

"This in a nutshell is why the UK is so behind every other European country and plenty of others beside."

Last I looked Moldovia was a European country.

Fair enough, but do you think there should be consultation on loss of SSSI's, Impacts on local ecconomies, housing etc? Or should we just bulldoze through local opinion? Would you be happy to have your home compulsory purchased or something to impact negatively on your area?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

People are often biased towards the status quo and so discount its costs. There was an FT piece this week saying that many NIMBY campaigners later found the thing the had been campaigning against was actually fine.
 

The costs of poor infrastructure are very high - low productivity, expensive housing, over priced power, etc etc. This is absolutely well known by policy wonks but I suspect rather under-appreciated by much of the public - so it’s hard for people to make a balanced assessment. 

In reply to seankenny:

I definitely think we are behind the likes of Germany etc. but I wouldn't necessarily say we are the worst. It depends one what is being measured. I certainly wouldn't say it is down to allowing a people a say in what happens in their locality.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Okay, prove it with some numbers. 

In reply to seankenny:

I agree.

I agree it is hard but to make a balanced assessment, which is why people should be given all the facts. However they rarely are. Take HS2 is it a vital infrastructure up date or a white elephant? Will it enhance local ecconomies or drain money down to London? In the meantime you lose your village, your ancient woodland, your home etc. As I said earlier I am not against change but not giving people a say in things that affect them is not really fair. may be when all is said and done things will still go aheaded (as they are with HS2 seemingly) but if we value ourselves as a democracy then peoples opinions matter.

In reply to seankenny:

Fair enough.

Infrastructure: We are 11th above Belgium, Italy and a few others surprisingly. 2019 but I didn't find any later statistics

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264753/ranking-of-countries-according-t...

2021 but it is more peoples opinions.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-10/Global-...

Healthcare: at 10 below belgium this time but still above several others.

https://www.numbeo.com/health-care/rankings_by_country.jsp?title=2021®i...

GDP: Pretty high it seems

https://www.statista.com/statistics/685925/gdp-of-european-countries/

Happiness: I know this is a bit vague, I mean how do you measure it accurately but... still in there at 12 above Spain, Italy, Belgium (what is it with Belgium?) etc.

If you have other statistics it would be interesting to see.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:
 

If you think money “drains” to London then I’m afraid you basically don’t understand how the U.K. economy works. London is by far the most productive city in the U.K. and that productivity is what the rest of the U.K. relies upon to keep its living standards as they are. Rather than complaining about London, provincial cities should be seeking to copy it: more density, way better public transport, focus on high productivity jobs. Done right this would mean a lot of disruption in the short term, for long term positive outcomes. 

This is hyperbole but there’s a grain of truth here. However, it’s missing the fact that the challenges facing us are of a much greater scale than the destruction or otherwise of a small number of trees.

This piece by journalist James O’Malley is good on the conflict green types don’t really acknowledge:

“We need a world where more people choose to take public transport and ride bikes than use private vehicles. We need to replace the cars, vans and lorries that remain with ones that run on battery power. We need better insulated homes. And we need to generate renewable electricity. And so on.

“But if we want these things, we have to actually build them.

“And whether we’re building railway lines or factories to produce batteries, we will inevitably have to chop down some trees, tarmac over some fields and generate some upfront carbon emissions in the process. A net-zero Britain is not a green and pleasant land, it’s an industrial estate in Slough without any chimneys, and an eight-lane motorway packed with battery-powered heavy goods vehicles.”

https://takes.jamesomalley.co.uk/p/the-green-party-is-being-bad-at-being?ut...

 

NIMBYs are perfectly happy with vetoing things which would be positive for children and generations yet to be born, people who certainly don’t have a say in the decisions that affect them. 

In reply to seankenny:

Well I guess we will just have to differ.

Personally I am glad where I live is not like London. Its cheap, its not crowded, I can get a NHS dentist,housing is cheap and life is less pressured. I would happily bequeath that to future generations

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

This about sums up why the UK including Skye is well and truly doomed-

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at 10 Downing Street. One is from up North another is from Poland, and the third is a Tory Party Donor. All three go with a Tory Party official to examine the fence.

The contractor from up north takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about £9000. £4000 for materials, £4000 for my crew, and £1000 profit for me."

The Polish contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for £7000. £3000 for materials, £3000 for my crew, and £1000 profit for me."

The Tory party donor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the Tory Party official and whispers, "£27,000."

The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"

The Tory Donor whispers back, "£10,000 for me, £10,000 for you, and we hire the guy from Poland to fix the fence."

"Done!" replies the Tory party official.

And that, my friends, is how the Tory Party works these days.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

These are not measures of any of the things spidermonkey was discussing (apart from the aggregated infrastructure metric). You should be using GDP per capita that’s been adjusted for something called “purchasing power parity” but even so that doesn’t measure quality of infrastructure. California is very rich but it’s a nightmare to get around and housing is insanely expensive; simply having many of the world’s largest companies there offsets this to some extent. 
 

Without seeing the methodology for the infrastructure stat you used it’s hard to see what it’s actually measuring, but it seems to cover things like air and shipping convectively. Heathrow is a pretty good airport and incredibly busy, you can fly anywhere from it. Greater London, the UK’s major economic zone, has very good public transport. I’m sure the fact that I can leave my London flat and take a train to LHR in 20 minutes, then fly to anywhere on any day of the week is great news for the residents of Stoke…

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

You only get the public services you’ve got thanks to more productive parts of the country. And those parts are being held back, as are people in places that could be more productive, but currently aren’t. 

There will always be small towns with a slow pace of life. The problem in the U.K. is that many of its big cities - which are the driver of living standards for everyone - are underperforming.

In reply to seankenny:

😂 That is priceless!

What does London 'produce' that no other place in the UK can't?

Just because parts of the economy are based in London doesn't mean they can't be based in Sunderland. Or Frankfurt. Or Bognor Regis!

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Services. And you can’t just replicate service industries elsewhere very easily as they are very complex. Frankfurt obviously already has much of that services infrastructure in place so it can easily expand by taking business from London, but Sunderland or Bognor absolutely cannot. London has institutional memory, a huge workforce, excellent transport links, world class universities. Most parts of the U.K. do not have those things, and if they do, not to the same extent. This has been the case in the U.K. since the 1600s if not before - ie it’s a state of affairs that actually predates the country itself. 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I went to Skye in the summer (June), for the very first time, because I was taking a friend from Brussels who wanted to go, as part of a visit to other areas in Scotland.
I'm glad I went, to see the tourist hell (I recommend everyone that takes foreign holidays should go to Torremolinos to see the legacy of what 'tourism' has created that was the "destination" in the 1960s/1970s)

On the plus side: stunning scenery, huge skies, peace and quiet after 6pm
Downside: traffic, queues, crowds, exploitative prices for second rate accommodation, potholes

There are plenty of places in Scotland with scenery that just about rivals what's on Skye (No I'm not saying where I think that is before it too becomes a tourist honey pot) but apparently everyone thinks they have to go to Skye and it's just becomes another night/day on the tourist/bus-trip itinerary. I'm afraid it's past it's "best before" date in many respects.

As to the "locals" (whatever that qualification is): there are no doubt some that are sadened by the onslaught of tourists but also there are those that are very happy to take their money.

I understand the bridge has benefits for islands beyond Skye that get to the mainland via Skye which would previously have been two boat trips.

In terms of promoting areas for "tourism": I feel sorry for the National Parks (which are supposed to be for everyone's quiet enjoyment) who are tasked with increasing visitor numbers.  A recent case in point (near where I happen to live): Malham in the Yorkshire Dales (no doubt familiar to many on here for reasons other than it's just a nice place to visit as a day trip) seems to be struggling with the tourist payload e.g. https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/23702256.dales-village-over-run-visitor... but I think the pubs will be coining it in

I'd suggest putting a toll on the Skye Bridge (payment system similar to the Runcorn Bridge, which seems to work) with the funds used to repair roads on the island, but that's a pipedream (that the money from tolls would actually ever get put into the roads on the island...)

I think I'll go back to Skye in the off season and do some of the walking.

In reply to seankenny:

You've basically explained that London protectionism has eff'd the rest of us.

Lovely.

Time to reverse that trend- it's well overdue!

Also, name a service in London that can't be provided in Cardiff?

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Not at all - there was a point (can’t remember when but from memory maybe mid 1950s?) when the West Midlands had higher incomes than London. And certainly this was not the case in the 19th century. 

I mean, the causes and effects of the UK’s deindustrialistion are complex, but I strongly suspect you aren’t too interested in that complexity.

So how does that work? Do you just build a new world class university in Middlesbrough and force the entire U.K. financial sector to Sunderland at gunpoint? I know you think this is simple, but it really really isn’t. 

You can’t, for example, provide a top level international law firm’s services in Cardiff because the people you need aren’t there. 
 

In reply to nufkin:

"Possibly following the Bhutan model?"

They used to have a sort of charge for visiting the place. Trouble is it rather disproportionately hammered the locals. At least the inhabitants of Bhutan do not pay the tourist charge

In reply to seankenny:

Sorry but the problem isn't going away by ignoring or making excuses for it.

You've got highly educated professionals from Edinburgh, Sheffield, Leeds etc working for these huge corporate London-based entities doing three-fifths of their working week dressed in their pyjamas with their feet up on the sofa.

Time to stop with the excuses.

London absolutely drains the rUK. 

In reply to DizzyVizion:

I’m explaining why things are the way they are, that’s all. 

I’m sorry I don’t quite get what you’re saying here. Is it that in reality working for a large service oriented firm is actually pretty easy and could be done somewhere else very easily? 

Except of course that London and the SE are the only net contributors to the public purse. 

In reply to seankenny:

You're explaining your viewpoint on why things are the way they are. What you're failing to do is recognise that the way things are is very broken, and a new long-overdue and uncomfortable and awkward approach is required to fix it. A stitch in time would have saved nine decades ago.   

✔️

Of course this is a manufactured situation. Levelling up, anyone?

In reply to DizzyVizion:

I’ve literally been explaining upthread about the need to overhaul our planning system to help increase the UK’s income. I also believe that the idea that this is a zero sum game, in which London must be damaged in order fo improve the rest of the country, is deeply misguided and wrong. 

I’m afraid you’re just wrong on this. It is really very difficult to get hundreds of very smart and committed people together to provide very complex services like law, finance or media. 

Well, no one manufactured the largest river estuary close to the country’s largest foreign market. Nor did they manufacture the climatic advantages that made southern England richer than the north centuries before the Industrial Revolution. 

In reply to seankenny:

It's not. Obfuscation as a tool for London has been well and truly blunted in this golden age of information. Times up.

I'm not. And it's not.

It happens all day, every day- in bedrooms, kitchens, basements, in towns, villages, and converted vans, in all four corners of the globe.

See the point above. This is 2023, not 1923. 

London is, and for the sake of the continued existence of the UK, toast!

In reply to seankenny:

Another quick point on this.

The entire UK is overcharged for energy. For housing. For public transportation. For public and private services. And all those excess profits go where?

London

Time to end this manipulative relationship.

Sayonara, Sunak et al!

In reply to DizzyVizion: 

For a start, the idea that major U.K. companies are all being run from spare rooms in Dorset and beach bungalows in Thailand is a complete fantasy. Yes, working remotely happens, but people still go into offices regularly. Office occupancy and tube use are down a bit, but not to the extent that your ideas would imply. 

More broadly, have you heard of the idea of path dependency? What we can do is deeply constrained by what went before, over time institutional know-how develops, networks of skilled people grow, and it becomes very hard to replicate or transplant those ecosystems elsewhere. The idea that we can just smash things up and spread them around a bit is very enticing to the teenage revolutionary but it fundamentally doesn’t work.

 

In reply to seankenny:

More obfuscation.

London steals from the rUK and gives to the disgustingly rich in London. It's not a big mystery. And it's not difficult to work out.

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Of course it does dear. Have a lovely evening. 

In reply to seankenny:

You too honey!

;  )

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Are you totally naive?

Us plebs have been shafted from day one since when money was invented. Doesn't matter whether it's London, Moscow, Washington, Beijing, Edinburgh......them in power will look after themselves with a crocodile smile on their faces.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Someone O know with signicant links to the creative community tells me hat on the last few years (ie well after the bridge) there has been a change in tourist spending  perhaps moving towards a NC500 type model. People stay for shorter periods and engage less with local arts etc, spending less. (This is for the more expensive stuff obv...). (And staying in bans, which don't seem to be easy to monetise).

Obv this is a subjective view but sort of makes ense.

In reply to Maggot:

Did you deliberately not mention Oslo?

https://www.nbim.no/

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Is toil leam Drochaidh an Eilean Sgiathanach!

In reply to seankenny:

More than any measures anyone else has produced. i have not seen anything that proves UK is the worst. From what you say it seems it is impossible to prove

In reply to seankenny:

Do you have any figures to back that? How does production in London (Say) affect the public services in Northallerton?

In what sense?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

This 2016 report by the Centre for Cities suggests London pays around 28% of the total tax from the productive economy in the U.K.: 

https://www.centreforcities.org/press/london-generating-30-uk-economy-taxes...

Bear in mind that the city is around 14% of the population and contributes around 22% of GDP (think of that as a measure of what the country produces each year), so it’s absolutely the mainstay of the U.K. economy. 

Public services are paid for by the government, and although in the short term it’s not particularly constrained by the amount of tax raised, in the long run it really is. The government can and does borrow lots of money for huge emergencies like that pandemic or the financial crisis, but in the long run it probably shouldn’t run a huge deficit (note that what constitutes the long run or huge are very much up for debate). So the public services we get depend on the taxes we pay, and the services in the poorer and older parts of the country are absolutely dependent on those taxes paid by firms and employees in the capital. 
 

Productivity matters because it’s vital for economic growth. It’s possible to grow by improving the quality of labour and capital, but what really improves output is combining that labour and capital in ever more productively. Workers using steam power could produce far more cotton than the previous cottage industry set up, and using electricity in factories allowed for even more output per worker. We require that productivity to increase if we are to grow richer (which yes, we do want). But productivity in this country has stopped growing, this is literally the largest problem we face as a nation and a huge crisis - bigger than the economic crises of the 1970s. 
 

Quite why this is isn’t really well understood but there are plenty of suspects. It’s hard for workers to move around, either because transport is poor or because housing is so expensive that they can’t live where the jobs are. Matching the right worker to the right job is important, and we aren’t doing it well enough. Britain’s provincial cities are under-productive compared to the smaller cities of France or the Netherlands. They just produce less of value per person. Fewer goods, fewer services. This is perhaps because of lower density and poorer transport links. Energy is expensive - whilst the French built a lot of nuclear power stations, we dithered. Labour supply is constrained. Brexit is a permanent foot on the brake of the U.K. economy because it limits labour and makes trade more difficult, as well as negatively impacting science, tourism, the arts, etc (all important to our services based economy). 

This is not an obvious crises with easy symbolism, like striking miners or a bank run, but it is a huge crisis nevertheless. We have to start building the stuff we need if we are to remain one of the world’s richer nations - otherwise the fate for our children and grandchildren will be watching the rest of the world create the future whilst we struggle to keep up. That’s a future in which your grandkids will be desperate to emigrate if they have any ambition, because poor countries offer their children precious little hope. 

In reply to seankenny:

"Expenditure in the UK on a per head basis was £16,580 in FYE March 2021. London had the highest expenditure per person with £19,230, an increase of £4,510 compared with the previous year, followed by Scotland. Comparatively, the East Midlands and the East of England both saw the lowest expenditure per head with £15,000 and £15,300 respectively."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorf....

Not entirely outlandish to expect us provincials to up our per capita GDP if we were getting the extra 5K a head of public money Londoners currently enjoy.

In reply to Jonathan Lagoe - UKC:

What Ambleside actually needs is fewer cars and the infrastructure to support alternative travel options. Local authorities have limited option to support this, with most of the levers in the hands of National government. Do you really thing that the Councils bankrupting themselves to accommodate more cars is really the answer?

In reply to seankenny:

Focusing public expenditure on London, because London has higher productivity, is hugely damaging to the UK economy. A recent study by Cambridge Econometrics estimated that if public investment in the north of England was brought up to London levels it would increase productivity by £130bn in real terms by 2050.

In reply to The New NickB:

Is this the report you mean? 
https://www.camecon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Core-Cities-Final-Report... ?

If so, then the exec summary says something slightly different:

“If the Core Cities had grown at the same rate as London between 1992-2015, they would have contributed at least an additional £120bn to the national economy. There is an incontrovertible argument, therefore, that national policy initiatives, whether infrastructural investment, industrial support, technology spending, or other measures, should be explicitly targeted far more on the Core Cities’ economies.”

They say this requires local revenue raising powers - sounds sensible to me - but even so I’m not entirely convinced that would give northern cities a similar growth rate to London, which the report notes was essentially a result of the growth in financial services (if I’m reading it correctly).

They also say:

“A key point for policy is that nine decades of regional and urban policies designed to promote growth in northern cities and regions and enable them to ‘catch up’ with London have had minimal success. Put another way, the gap in economic performance between the Core Cities and London is not some new development, but a long-standing, systemic one. This is a key conclusion suggested by our analysis.”

So we’ve tried lots of things and nothing’s worked very well. Sure, we haven’t tried decentralising power structures (we should) but I think reorienting deindustrialised cities is a really hard problem; there are no guarantees it would work to the extent we would like it to work. That’s not an argument for not trying, but it is an argument for not simply diverting money away from the capital and into provincial cities, as the former still needs public spending if it’s to remain competitive and powering the U.K. economy. I am not entirely convinced that many U.K. taxpayers would be on board with the extra taxation that this would require.

It’s worth pointing out that for the last decade Londoners in general have not voted Conservative and therefore not for austerity and probably for slightly more taxation and spending. Inevitability much of this would have have been spent outside the capital. Londoners also did not in aggregate vote for Brexit, which also has hugely damaged the regions more than the capital. The problem for Manchester is the choices of Cheshire and Surrey, not the left-wing social democrats of Islington or Ealing. 
 

As to Stichplate’s point, he seems to have forgotten that in the past I’ve unfortunately found him so unpleasant as to wish to have no more interactions with him for the sake of enjoying UKC forums.

In reply to seankenny:

Don't forget 7 odd million waiting for NHS treatment. There's nothing like investing in the workforce is there?

In reply to Siward:

Covered when I wrote “Labour supply is constrained,” though I appreciate that was perhaps a little terse… but yes, current health policy is absolutely part of the crisis. 

In reply to seankenny:

Hmm, if I recall correctly, we had an exchange where I felt you came across as self important and condescending. I responded with a bit of mild piss taking.

Ho hum

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

My brother in law works and lives in Skye. He works with a local as a stone mason and he has large areas of land (passed down the family), and he’s gutted with himself for selling land to people who then build a holiday home that looks out of place, whilst only coming up for 6 weeks of the year. 

Tourism definitely is a mixed blessing. Has huge pros but huge cons at times.

In reply to Stichtplate:

No. I remember that, and while you're right about how Sean came across (imo), he's right about how you did.

In reply to seankenny:

If you don't want to interact you should - y'know - not interact.  He's fully entitled to reply to your posts within the site rules, you're not in any way obliged to respond to his.  That's how a forum works.

In reply to deepsoup:

I want to remind him not to waste his time. Of course he can reply, but why ask me a question when it’s not going to get a reply. 

As for what prompted my choice, it was unpleasant behaviour on several occasions rather than just one. Had SP been interesting, insightful or amusing it might  be worth interacting with him, but as it stands, it’s not. 

In reply to seankenny:

I don’t ask you a question and I’m quite content not getting a reply 👍🏻

In reply to seankenny:

No, that report is 5 years old. This one was just for the North Of England and 4 of the 10 Core Cities are not in the North of England.

It’s not an argument for diverting money, it is an argument for investing money. The increased revenue spend by 2050 would be around £700bn, the increased tax take in the same period would be around £800bn and beyond 2050 the increased tax intake would be several multiples of the increased revenue.

In reply to Bottom Clinger:

Tbh I was kind of thinking of the opposite.

Locals need xyz to make a living, visitors kick up a fuss that their occasional playground is being changed.

In reply to The New NickB:

How about just providing a link so we can all read it if we want? 

The thing is, without a sustained increase in taxes, it does mean diverting money - with the obvious risk that the money provides less return than if it were spent in London and the one well-functioning part of the economy is degraded. I think we need to invest in both the non-London urban centres *and* London and the SE. The former out of simple equity if nothing else, and the later because we need to keep up with our competitors (if business leaves London it will be for Paris, Amsterdam, etc, not Leeds). 

My reading of the British public is that in general they are simply not interested in having a realistic conversation about what rebalancing the U.K. economy would require - which is making a long term choice to shift resources from consumption to investment. 

In reply to The New NickB:

OK fair enough. Can you describe an alternative transport system that would solve Ambleside traffic problems? I’m genuinely interested. Let’s assume finance is available.
Bear in mind it’s a through route to many places used by locals and tourists alike. 
I was a lakes resident for 47 years and commuted daily through the town.

In reply to Jonathan Lagoe - UKC:

Had to laugh at the thought of the planning application for either of these two ideas . It would take 20 years.

Better to look at the national infrastructure Oman for more realistic proposals.  I doubt Ambleside even figures. 

In reply to seankenny:

Nay nay and thrice nay, your suggestion is by far the worst on here!

Waste MORE money on Gordon Gecko City? Absolutely not!

Invest elsewhere. There's no better way forward. The pain will be real, and almost certainly bitterness in London will wreak havoc for decades with reprisal attacks. But f'k 'em! The rest of us can come out the other side together, healthier and happier for lancing the cancerous growth of London. The current situation makes me sick to my stomach! 

Seankenny, you are not grasping the gravity of the situation in the rUK. The existence of the UK itself is at stake, literally! Investing in London will fracture relationship between Scotland and London and by association, the UK, beyond repair. You think it's okay to just allow London to continue taking the pi$$ out of the rest of us forever? 

No more working hard just to get the slap in the face of seeing London get grotesquely richer. It's out of control! And the rUK are done with it!

I would much rather Paris, Amsterdam, literally anywhere- and I do mean anywhere, get richer than London. It deserves that humiliation!

Sorry seankenny, but this the way it is.

Quoting figures, studies, projections does nothing but show contempt for the rUK.

The rUK deserves some dignity ffs.

Invest in Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Aberdeen, Leeds, ANYWHERE ELSE in the UK.

In reply to DizzyVizion:>

Aka we don’t need experts. And look how well that went. 

In reply to seankenny:

Replace the word 'experts' with 'con-artists'.

And yes, look how well Brexit went. 

We in the rUK need to be about the long-game now. Working today for tomorrows future. For future generations. 

Time to continue to work hard and suffer the hardships, but not for a guaranteed return for bloody London!

But for the chance of a return for our grandchildren outside of London. 

Life will be lived with a bit of dignity.

Levelling-up and Brexit are the 2 biggest London cons of our age!

You take us all for a bunch of muppets.

Re-nationalise the rail network, the energy supply- those 2 actions ALONE will make a huge improvement to life in the rUK.

London is a dirty, greedy, sticky fingered, moral-less thiefdom!- an undeniable fact in the year 2023. 

Would you go up to the guy who just stole your car and then hand them your iPhone too? 

...rant over (sorry everyone).

In reply to peppermill:

You’re right. I think we are both right: when ‘the thing’ benefits locals then they will want it (Skye Bridge, Sellafield as mentioned up thread), but if the main benefit lies elsewhere, then they won’t. 

In reply to seankenny:

Plenty of experts disagree with you. Plenty of experts point out that the UK is one of the most geographically unbalanced OECD countries. Plenty of experts reckon the last 40 years pursuit of Londoncentric policies and the resultant over emphasis of the financial sector has cost the rest of the country big time.

In reply to Stichtplate:

The wider issue is that a lot of people just do not want the critical infrastructure improvements ( or even housing) necessary in their own area. If central govt came up with the money there would be so much local opposition that they would never get off the ground. 

In reply to neilh:

You live my way, how did that work out with HS2? As an example, how popular do you reckon a tram line running from Warrington into Manchester would be? I'd bet on massively popular as well as hugely beneficial. 

People don't want stuff on their doorstep if they aren't going to see the benefits on their doorstep too. London's profited from decades of direct investment in public transport, arts and high paying government jobs at a rate far exceeding the rest of the country. Look at how taking just a tiny slice of that investment away from London rejuvenated Salford when a fraction of the BBC was moved to media city.

In reply to neilh:

This is clearly a massive problem. Deep scepticism and dislike for building almost anything seems endemic in the U.K. As Duncan said above “I like living in somewhere that’s quiet and not like London” and I suspect that’s a fairly common sentiment. 

I also have to say the idea that “we have to take funding from London/SE and put it into Manchester et al” is depressingly short sighted. We need to:

- fund London well so it can function effectively. This is a very good deal for the rest of the UK given the weakness of the rest of the economy for the foreseeable future. London and the SE provide a surplus of public funds (an annoying fact that the bashers simply ignore) and if the U.K. screws that up then everyone will suffer. 

- fund vital infrastructure in the UK’s other cities so they can have a chance to become more productive. (Posters who think I’m not arguing for this simply reveal their poor comprehension skills.)

But… this inevitably requires more taxation which will be unpopular given that any returns to the later will be many years away. 

At the same time, we need to massively increase house building which will almost certainly be unpopular.

In short, these much needed improvements will be politically poisonous so we will probably do them very half heartedly and ineffectively and get some quite underwhelming results. 

In reply to seankenny:

The point you're ignoring is that London isn't just well funded, it's funded far, far better than the rest of the UK and that's just looking at per capita public spending.

Factor in that a ridiculous number of National bodies, institutions, galleries and museums are sited in the capital and that London is home to a full 21% of the country's civil servants (accruing an extra half a billion in annual London weighting salary alone) and no doubt further skewing policy in favour of the capital. 

Hardly surprising London is doing comparatively well economically speaking.

Defending this status quo on the grounds that it ultimately benefits the wider UK is just trickle down economics writ large and no one, outside of rabid rightwing libertarians, is swallowing that bollocks anymore.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I think it was appalling that the HS2 link was killed dead in its tracks by  Brady. So shortsighted.  

The Liverpool Leeds links need sorting , but people would be opposed to it if it was a new line. 
 

 

In reply to neilh:

 > The Liverpool Leeds links need sorting , but people would be opposed to it if it was a new line. 

You're ignoring my point that people don't like stuff disrupting their lives if it doesn't directly benefit them.

Round here, HS2 was going to disrupt peoples lives (high speed line cutting across communities with no local stops and a negative impact on house prices) and was consequently very unpopular. A Warrington-Manchester tramline would benefit people directly (slash congestion and commute times and raise house prices) and would consequently be much more popular.

Also helps if you're not ripping up big chunks of green belt.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I’m not sure a Warrington - Manchester tram is the answer to anything. The tram is too slow for that kind of journey. An improved heavy rail service is certainly part of the answer.

East / West connectivity improvement will have a much bigger impact on productivity than HS2, but of course, they would not start in London, so less of a priority.

In reply to The New NickB:

The current metro link expansion plans include a proposal for a tram-train link from Warrington. As for a pure tram solution being too slow, I live 14 miles outside Manchester on the Warrington side and driving in at rush hour takes an hour plus and then you've got to find parking. As a result, many regular commuters currently drive 20 minutes into Altrincham, park up and take the 30 minute tram in.

In reply to The New NickB:

The idea that we have to choose between a high quality rail connection between a major city and the capital or between a major city and its neighbour is a prime example of the “cheems mindset”:

https://normielisation.substack.com/p/cheems-mindset

Could we not… have both? Would this not be… better? Could we not have some ambition for our country?

In reply to seankenny:

Nobody suggested an either or choice. That's a prime example of poor comprehension.

In reply to Stichtplate:

We now have the Ordsall chord, beautiful bit of railway engineering that it is, but, I think I read recently, it barely gets used because of the two track bottle neck from Picc past UMIST to Deansgate.

The price of 2 ferries would sort that problem out 🤣

In reply to Maggot:

Total cost of metro link is currently just under £1.5 billion... imagine the quality of service provision if it'd had just a little more cash chucked at it?

Meanwhile, down in that there London, they spaffed £19 billion on Crossrail alone.

In reply to seankenny:

The plan is both. The problem is, all the resources are getting sucked in to one which is the least effective solution and massively delaying the best solution, with the fear being that it won’t happen at all.

In reply to Maggot:

The problem is capacity at Manchester Oxford Road, which won’t be fixed, because HS2.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Altrincham to Manchester is less than half the distance of Warrington to Manchester, it is probably towards the limit of the reasonable use case of the Metrolink. Tram-Train is a different beast, one in early development, which is about linking existing heavy rail infrastructure.

Proposals were for three tram-train routes, Warrington, Atherton and linking Bury and Oldham to the Calder Valley line at Castleton. Only the latter has any money attached to it.

I’m a similar distance from Manchester as Altrincham, but on the other side. I have a choice of heavy rail at 12-20 minutes depending on the service, or Metrolink which takes or an hour following an indirect route of around 14 miles. I think you can probably guess which I take.

In reply to seankenny:

London has been over-funded and the rUK under-funded for decades! 

Time is well overdue to reverse this nonsense.

De-fund London. Today.

In reply to The New NickB:

Does not really solve the Liverpool to Manchester link anyway. It’s a typical half measure.  

In reply to Stichtplate:

It’s disrupting people’s lives everywhere( have you seen the mess around Euston etc). But that does not mean we should stop upgrading to the 21/‘st century. That is why overall there is a U.K. productivity gap which impacts us all.  

In reply to Stichtplate:

Cross rail is superb and was desperately needed. Yes it’s expensive when you have to tunnel underground. 

In reply to neilh:

And it’s now the busiest rail line in the country and plenty of users are people who would otherwise have taken the car. It opens up the super productive jobs of London to more people living outside the capital, good for them and good for the country as a whole. It’s good for tourism, which is a good earner for the U.K. 

In short, an excellent use of public money. 

In reply to neilh:

I’m getting several months of terrible traffic in my area thanks to HS2 and I never even travel to Birmingham. I should hate it. 

In reply to The New NickB:

If it was me I would start by creating one unitary authority for Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester to try and emulate a Greater London area with more political clout than the fragmented borough approach. That should be the starting point. 
 

Of course it will never happen. 

In reply to neilh:

  

It was under one unitary authority until the Tories buggered it in1974.

In reply to Stichtplate:

I do not remember Trafford being in that .

In reply to neilh:

Where did you mention Trafford?

In reply to seankenny:

If by super productive you mean working harder, well that's obviously a lie.

But if by super productive you mean a company headquarted in London but whose profits are generated outside of London- then the productivity isn't happening in London, is it. Only the greed is happening in London, isn't it. 

Greed does not equate to productivity.

Greed equates to inequality.

Work-rate equates to productivity.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, and?

That burger van is run by the person who used to run a small cafe in her nearby croft. 

A small cafe in croft in Torrin FFS. A local making money, terrible.

In reply to twentytwoangrymen:

I wouldn't blame an individual trying to make money. I just see it as symptomatic of mass tourism hand in hand with commercialisation encroaching in to spoiling the places which people came to see in the first place.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Does anyone know the proportion of Skye residents who rely on local tourism to survive, as opposed to those with wealth enough to keep their nails clean?

Therein lies the crux.

Are soltuions required to support and increase tourism? Or are measures required to reduce it?

Also, does anyone know the proportion of Skye residents who are native to the west-coast of Scotland? As the attitudes and desires between a barrister from London and a farm labourer from Portree might not chime with eachother 100%.

In reply to seankenny:

Thank you for the full reply.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

A great piece by the Financial Times about the financial reality of London- Enjoy!

youtube.com/watch?v=gyk12Wf_TeQ&

In reply to DizzyVizion:

very interesting

In reply to seankenny:

You didn’t need to tell us that. 

In reply to The New NickB:

Because I don’t know anyone there, you daft sod. Regularly visit the north as I’ve family and friends there, but it won’t be by HS2 as no eastern branch. I guess I should hate it then, but it still seems like a good idea to me.

In reply to DizzyVizion:

If they live there and not just a holiday home,  then surely it doesn't matter where they originate from as their views are just as valid, or is Scotland not as welcoming as some try to make out?

In reply to Glug:

Sure pal, whatever you say-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2743250/Highland-Kin...

And no, people in Scotland are not as welcoming to greed- at least not like down there with all their Russians and Saudis and the rest of them.

In reply to DizzyVizion:

I think it was you saying outsiders views didn't matter, I was just checking, as all the talk from up there is about how you need more migration but people aren't coming, with narrow minded views like yours it's not surprising people aren't moving there,you sound like a rabid brexiteer.

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Now you're in fantasy land, Dizz. Remember Fred the Shred?

In reply to DizzyVizion:

That article you’ve referenced literally has the local councillor saying how well regarded he is in the community. Sounds pretty welcoming to me…

In reply to Skiddly1987:

Article from 2014, not so highly regarded now having forcibly kidnapped two of his own children, one from the UK and subjected his latest wife to coercive control.

In reply to alan moore:

Just possible the OP's aunt has a case of 'rose tinted spectacles'?

In reply to Pedro50:

Indeed. A good example of how shady rich foreign billionaires owning large areas of land isn’t just exclusive to London. And how the sweeping generalisations by some on here about entire nations of people, aren’t particularly helpful or true. 

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I think we need to hear directly from this aunt. Bring her on!

In reply to DizzyVizion:

What a load of cobblers having local connections to the area, the welcome was varied, as it would have been anywhere, Some took advantage by offering goods and services to his immediate family or entourage gaining significantly.  Some cleaned and prayed he didn’t turn up as they were paid whether he decided his holiday was in Scotland, London or NY. He sometimes decided just before.  Others in the area of his estate didn’t like his further acquisition of land and property, or just objected to his presence/wealth.

In reply to Skiddly1987:

I made reference to giving consideration to the opinions of a local farm hand.

I wouldn't put a local farm hand and a councillor in the same bracket myself, but each to their own.

In reply to DizzyVizion:

When I used to drive through Skye 30 years ago the island was littered with ruined buildings and crofts and gardens that looked like scrap yards. Now most houses have been renovated, rebuilt or converted. The crofts and gardens mostly look neat and tidy, ie semi prosperous. So I would guess that a lot of Skye residents rely on tourism, and in addition a huge number benefit from it. 

I would imagine that the majority of people who don't in one way or another either rely or benefit from tourism are retired. 

In reply to Skiddly1987:

Are we as a group of nations so morally corrupt that we applaud the acquisition of land and property here by the world's biggest criminals while simultaneously being proud of the need for foodbanks which are, in a sense, a UN food drop on our own doorstep.

And down down down we go

In reply to Glug:

Unfortunately there are many people on the islands and further afield who are narrow minded and will disagree with that. In my experience trying to convince them otherwise is like convincing an anti-vaxer that they should get a jab.

Can I also add that with holiday homes there are many, many people who have renovated the old croft, cabin, static caravan or whatever in their gardens and rent these out as holiday homes. The owners still live in their houses and are not depriving anyone of accommodation, this is sustainable and benefits all concerned. 

There are also some people living on the islands who own another house or two and rent these out as self catering. This is more contentious but still provides them with an income and also provides local restaurants, shops, visitor attractions etc with an income from guests.

Second homes don't really benefit anyone apart from the second home owner. However there are relatively few of these, despite the hype in the press, so it's a minor problem in my view.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Scottish limited partnerships are also very popular amongst the Russians and others who want to quietly launder some money.

In reply to twentytwoangrymen:

What if they also rent it out when not there themselves. Both for the direct cash benefit and also better tax rules?

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I tried to post earlier but my browser went askew.

It’s a shame this discussion has degraded into something different.  I’ve found reading above really interesting and think there are some really interesting points here: the balance between green(er) energy and preserving/protecting landscapes; the role that identity and ‘place’ play in how we perceive others and incomers; possibly the differing views from many of us who love the hills vs. The realities of existence in rural areas for some people. 
 

and to comments up thread on Scotland being welcoming - some people are, some people aren’t (like anywhere) - and it’s complicated.  Remote and rural locations are a harder place to eke out a living, young people often leave for more urban areas, property prices increase due to people from elsewhere buying up, but this brings benefits too.  And that is all seen through the prism of individual identity and belonging.  There are no  definitives! 

In reply to J72:

The shitty tenth-rate nationalism on display by people who say 'Scotland good, England bad' just disgusts me. It gets nobody (apart from self-serving members of the political class) anywhere at all.

As you note, things are indeed a little more complicated than that ...

In reply to DizzyVizion:

No applause from me, I agree with you there. I just don’t agree with your assertion that Scotland is more or less open to greed and corruption than anywhere else.

As an example vast swathes of the highlands are owned by the same oligarchs that own half of London, while a load of English people in England have recently fought and successfully won the right to access land on Dartmoor. 
 

But as has already been pointed out, nuance doesn’t fit into the X country = bad, Y country = good narrative. 
 

EDIT - Probably not just English people fighting for Dartmoor to be fair

In reply to mondite:

I know 2 people who do just that. Both used to live in the properties and have moved away from the area. Both rent out for 10-11 months a year. Again, no problem with that.

In reply to Skiddly1987:

I only asserted that London is more open to corruption, what's wrong with that?

The proof is in the pudding. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Calling out London is nationalism?

Away and boil yir heed!

In reply to J72:

The border signs disagree

England - England

Scotland - Welcome to Scotland

In reply to DizzyVizion:

This is what you wrote:

"And no, people in Scotland are not as welcoming to greed- at least not like down there with all their Russians and Saudis and the rest of them."

That is just stupid nationalist bigotry - which will get you nowhere.

In reply to DizzyVizion:

It would be a mistake to conflate politics and people - the risk we take when we call out a country I suppose.

In reply to Graeme G:

M6
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xkpcvdoU1Rdz2cMy8

In reply to Graeme G:

It would be a mistake to conflate road traffic signs and people!  (See my previous comment).

But factually, I defer to your point which is correct! 

In reply to Maggot:

Aye but they’ve hidden it behind a lorry which is not really welcoming is it 

In reply to J72:

An important couple of corrections here (apologies)- when we call out a city.

And, conflate people with corrupt establishment.

I'd live in the Peak District no problem. Lovely people. Lovely place.

Is it a country?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

London is famous for Saudis and Russians.

The lake District for example, is not.

Imagine calling Morningside in Edinburgh a haven for junkies all because you read there are loads of them in Easterhouse in Glasgow. That's the principle of guilt by association you just used to call me a nationalist.

In reply to Maggot:

I stand corrected. Clearly you’re not as welcome in England  if you come via the A1 

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Not everyone in London is a multi billionaire with sources of dubious wealth.  Not all people from Saudi Arabia (or other countries in the Middle East) are super wealthy, nor are all people of wealth somehow dodgy.  And I’ve known many Russian people who are lovely and not at all representative of the cliche and slightly xenophobic descriptions used in this thread.

humans are mostly shades of grey, concepts are complicated, there is no binary good/bad.  
 

In an attempt to get this back on track!!! -

does anyone know of any public attitudes work on people who live on Skye and whether they feel they have benefited, or not, from the bridge being built?  That is surely a good measure of its success (or otherwise)? 

In reply to DizzyVizion:

I'm just responding to what you wrote. But - have it your way.

By the way, I lived in the Peak District for twenty years. There are some lovely people there. And there are some utter bastards. Same as anywhere, really.

I don't think your wide and over-general categorizations make any sense.

In reply to DizzyVizion:.

Wholly underwhelming IMO. But each to his own.

In reply to Graeme G:

That’s fair tbh - try and keep out the riff raff like me driving down from Tranent, prestonpans, Dunbar and Eyemouth 

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Keswick (or rather Under Skiddaw is known for for Russians, even an oligarch!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underscar_Manor

plus in the late 80s  the Scandal of the Swiss Bankers and leisure complexes

In reply to J72:

I know plenty of Sgiathanachs. They all are more than happy to have a a bridge - particularly since the tolls went. I bet the good folk  who live between Ardgour and Ardnamurchan would be more than pleased with one at the moment!

Having said that I have fond memories of the old ferries - Ballachulish etc. From my first forays into the Highlands in the late 60s / early 70,s. Still remember an old Oban Times court report about skipper of the Ballachulish ferry being hauled up for being drunk in charge!

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Is it really? I can think of plenty of other things, but Russians and and Saudis do not feature on that list.I am sure that most people would not even bother listing them.

The anti corruption organisation Transparency International identifed about £1.5 billion that was " very dodgy" back in March 2022 from Russia.

There is alot of hot air about Russian money and so on. Its not that big in the overall scheme of things compared with the rest.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Lot of London bashing on this thread so thought  would go for some balance.

Moved down to London from Yorkshire 40 years ago. I wanted a job that would let me provide for my family and there wasn't much where we were.

Wasn't all positive obviously, tiny house in one of the poorest areas, but so many benefits, so much entertainment and nightlife, all the bands play London on a tour. Major thing was that the kids grew up in a multi racial environment, we regularly had half a dozen different ethnic groups round after school. As a result none of my kids have a racist thought in their heads.

I lived and worked in London for 30 years, loved it but moved away when I retired, I wanted a slower pace of life. Would certainly recommend it to any young person moaning there are no jobs up here.

In reply to PaulW:

Did you read the bits about decades of Londoncentric policies leaving the country massively economically unbalanced? Leading to stuff like... oh, I don't know, people being forced to move to London to get a job and provide for their families?

In reply to Stichtplate:

Happens in every country and even happens with migration. People move. 

In reply to neilh:

The Economist doesn't think so.

"Why Britain is more geographically unequal than any other rich country"

https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/07/30/why-britain-is-more-geographic...

In reply to PaulW:

That is a real shame.

Like many other rural areas, Yorkshire was shafted by the London-centric policies of the 70's and 80's. Closing down rural industries, channeling funds instead to the London financial district.

Of course this is well known, but a point worth stressing here. 

You moved out of necessity. And through this you would have improved the economy in London a bit. And Yorkshire would have lost out a bit.

People from Yorkshire have a lovely reputation- very proud, very hard working- and there's nowt wrong about that.

My brother is an engineer and he worked in London for quite a few years. He hated it. Dirty, smelly, expensive af- all the things you would naturally find in any other major western city. Stick him in Paris and he would dislike it about the same.

As for Skye, you have the opposite with people wanting to escape London and settle in tranquil beauty. But all it takes is one person with too much money and too much influence- you see where I'm going here.

Unchecked, unbalanced wealth and influence (and where do you find the vast majority of people in the UK fitting that description?) and the next thing you know, the people of Skye have been priced out of their existence- their kids can't afford a place of their own on the island, etc etc. Boo hoo, I know.

Some are eager to label a person a nationalist for calling out London. The problem is they only do it to people from Scotland.

That's their issue, not mine.

In reply to Stichtplate:

There have been some interesting pieces inthe economist about U.K. productivity also pointing out that they should concentrate on the development of the golden triangle for economic growth , scrapping green belt and also how the blitz kick started London as an economic powerhouse.  All good stuff. 

In reply to neilh:

"In 2017 The Economist pointed out that the gap between gdp per person in the richest and poorest parts of Britain is larger than in other rich countries. That remains true; indeed, it has grown. The richest bit (Camden and the City of London) is now 30 times richer than the poorest (Ards and North Down in Northern Ireland)."

While the stats in the article are indeed shocking, bombing the North to kick start the economy is unlikely to be very popular. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

We’ll, outside of that ‘orrible London at least…

In reply to Stichtplate:

There are some incredibly deprived areas in London. It’s a complicated picture and there are no quick fix simple solutions. 

In reply to neilh:

I think london is a little unique, every capital city draws in people, I've known people rent tiny flats in places like Paris and Madrid, but love it for the social life when young. The uk draw is bigger because of the English language being universal, talented foreign youngsters don't want to move to random northern cities, they want to be in the thick of it in the capital. So that's where the most investment flows. Edinburgh has a little draw too, but nothing on the same scale. Or even Manchester, just because they know the name from football. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Australia- Melbourne, Sydney

Canada- Toronto, Montreal, Calgary

The United States of America - New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco

Each of these countries pi$$ on the UK for nationwide quality of life.

I've named famous cities in each of them- well enough supported by their governments and not considered economically left behind.

Can anyone see another pattern in them that makes the London-centric policy stand out as being 'not in the best interests of a nation'?

In reply to DizzyVizion:

None of them are the seat of government, royal family, or the capital of international corruption. 

London is bad for the rUK.

So very, very bad.

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Prove to me that USA quality of life is better than UK  

As a a starter from me, we live longer in the U.K. 

In reply to neilh:

Speaking of deprivation, the article points out that in England as a whole 25% of 18 year olds from deprived backgrounds go on to higher education. The figure for London is 41%

Perhaps London's 18 year olds are spurred on into academia by generational fear of the blitz?

In reply to Stichtplate:

I did read the bits you mention but that was, and is, the reality. No one forced me to move, I could have stayed where I was and moaned about it.

In reply to PaulW:

I take it you’re happy that the country is hugely economically unbalanced? 

One of the things the posted article points out is that, unlike 40 years ago, only the exceptionally well paid can now afford to move to the capital to raise a family. Average rent for a one bed, 400 sq ft flat in Brixton is now around £1500 a month. Happy with that too?

In reply to DizzyVizion:

It’s worth pointing out that London’s population actually decreased throughout the 70s and barely rose in the 80s. 

If the “rural industries” (like, er, steel working or car manufacturing?) were closed, where did the funds come from that were “channelled to London”? If there are no industries then where is the money coming from that is being taken?

So there’s a lot of misunderstanding in this statement. Sure, we can think of separate regional economies but London and Yorkshire are also within the same national economy. There is a constant exchange of workers, government spending and financial flows between the two. I think - though it’s not clear - that you’re implying a worker is a worker wherever. That’s not true, workers can become more productive if they move, even with the same level of skills. For example, they may move from an inefficient, badly managed firm to a well managed one. In that case then there’s a gain for the worker, for the firm but also for the country - we have a worker being more productive (so there’s more output from them) and they are paying more tax. This is an unadulterated win for the U.K. - and hence for Yorkshire. Remember that despite more public money being spent in London, the city is nevertheless a net contributor to the Treasury. Yorkshire is a net beneficiary - so it needs people in those high productivity jobs so its residents can have the same level of public services. 

Now obviously the labour force in Yorkshire is smaller if someone moves to London, but that’s a reflection of there not being so many good jobs. Ultimately it’s far better for everyone if each employee is in as “good” a job as they can get. Unless it’s the case that regional pride means insisting people’s skills and abilities are under-utilised, but that sounds like damaging the country and individuals to me. Remember, people can move back to Yorkshire  if the jobs are there. They aren’t gone forever!

There’s a lot of talk on this thread about how this situation will be reversed if only there is more public spending outside London. I absolutely think there should be, but I’m fairly sceptical about its effect; I’m sure it would improve the quality of life for a lot of people (reason enough to do it in my view) but it would not stop the country being centred on London nor would it mean that other cities could rival the capital in economic clout. The state can do a lot but I’m not sure it can build a rival financial or legal centre a couple of hours up the road.

Nick quoted above a report suggesting roughly a 4% increase in GDP after a quarter of a century of vastly increased public spending. This would be excellent, but probably not even enough to reverse the damage caused by Brexit and it would require large and sustained levels of public spending. Politically that’s probably pretty tricky, as is actually building the stuff required. NIMBYism is a powerful force in this country. And of course there may be places where that public money could be better spent that would give a bigger return to the U.K. (I’m actually thinking Oxford and Cambridge here). 

It’s worth noting that in the late 1600s around one on five or six English people spent part or all of their working lives in the capital. The country has been skewed towards London for a very long time, and I suspect the years after the Industrial Revolution were an exception to that rather than a permanent rebalancing. 

In reply to neilh:

Big enough to buy undue influence in the UK Govt and a seat in the House of Lords against the advice of the security services.

In reply to DizzyVizion:

That might be more to do with national policies, taxation etc.. plus I wouldn't confuse with what you see on holiday and how the average person lives.

You're are joking right, I'd suggest you visit, hire a car and ask the staff if there are any areas best avoided. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

Didn't say I was happy about it at all. I did say that was the reality and I dealt with it as best I could.

My late wife's family were all coal miners so I totally understand the devastation caused by the decline in heavy industry. There was a lack of anything approaching an alternative on offer and a traditional male dominated working culture died.

In reply to ExiledScot:

That's a strange form of admission.

Agreed. I wouldn't want to live in the USA. But Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland- all comparable in many respects culturally, and all doing better, and all don't have a lopsided approach to wealth distribution like our nationalists have taken in the south east.

Yep. South east nationalism. We can play dirty tricks here 😉👌

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Define doing better, the uk has loads of problems and the last 13 years haven't improved anything, everything is worse, by every metric. But don't think everything is great elsewhere, most have challenges, Ireland for example was only recently bailed out and now it's going to have to increase corporation tax, many of those who offshored there (Rees Mogg for one) might leave. 

In reply to DizzyVizion:

You can apply the same to any capital, cardiff and mid wales, edinburgh and anywhere north west etc..capital cities draw in company HQs, which in turn draw in support services and on it goes. The fact London is the nearest large city to the closest link to the rest of europe has pretty much guaranteed it's position for centuries, it's been while since Winchester was the capital. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

You're talking about a port. 

That's no excuse for the gross financial imbalances between one single city- London, and literally 4 whole countries.

The EU was a threat to Londons criminal attracting setup. Hence Brexit.

And the rUK has yet again been sacrificed for the sheikhs and oligarchs and lords.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

TL;DR

UKH/UKC thinks the Skye bridge is good.

Dizzyvision dislikes London.

In reply to J72:

😁👍

I should add that I do like Londoners- an important distinction

In reply to DizzyVizion:

The City of London, meaning 'the' independent Borough or City (square mile) became what it is partly through historical investment over centuries and then the digitisation of trading in the 80s. If the uk hadn't done it, trading centres in Paris or Frankfurt would have taken the lions share in this time zone. Even as a jock I'll note that the square mile has generated more tax revenue for the exchequer than the uk's entire oil and gas industry. While people speculate that the uk could have had a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund, the city of London has been helping keep the wheels on the wagon. 

London coastal port, exactly, look at the hundreds of now converted wharfs, it's trade of goods across a short hop to several countries(france, Belgium, Netherlands) which grew it disproportionately. Nothing to do with biased policy.

In reply to DizzyVizion:

What? All of them?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Only the real ones, me ol' china!

In reply to DizzyVizion:

Like Alf Garnett?

In reply to DizzyVizion:

What's a 'real' Londoner?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Somebody really from London

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

A 'cockney' instead of a 'mockney'

In reply to Maggot:

A god amongst us mere mortals 😂

In reply to J72:

Yes and yes. I speak to many people on Skye through my work and although almost all have a dig at the traffic and how busy the supermarket is, I have never heard anyone who who says they haven't benefited from the bridge. Post tolls that is. 

In reply to seankenny:

I do think that last sentence misses the point.

The Industrial Revolution defined this country and still does. New major population centres rapidly grew and we still have them. Given that, a heavily centralised economy was never going to serve the whole country well, and it doesn't (and I include London in that which has some major problems).

As a nation we've massively fecked up post-industrialisastion and most of what you say is basically pointing out the symptoms of that.

In reply to girlymonkey:

I imagine most people who live in Skye wouldn't want to live where you do, so it's swings and roundabouts.

It's busy in the honeypots yes, but there are miles and miles of not only tourist free, but people free places in Skye 12 months a year. There are just 4 very busy walking areas in Skye, totalling a few linear miles. Other walks like the Borreraig loop, Ben na whatsit above Broadford, the other Ben na whatsit above Kylerhea, Ben na Cro, Torrin to Luib circuit, all of the Trotternish ridge apart from 2 areas, etc etc and hundreds more. You can walk from Kinloch to Kylerhea along a spectacular coastal walk and see no one. It just needs a bit of imagination.

I mean, who on earth would want to live in Skye?

https://www.onthemarket.com/details/13398017/

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

If I was a professional politician (any political party)... Of course I would build it.

I'd negotiate an unnecessary complex and expensive PPI finance deal that looks great now but will cost hand over fist later and personally claim all the credit for anything I can get away with, all the time making sure, discreetly of course, some old school friends get to "work" (consultants) on the project on some kind of ongoing forever basis.

It'd be a great example of how Conservatives/Labour/SNP/Lib Dem (or whoever I was allied to) really help real people in the community, totally altruistically of course

Ker-ching!!!

In reply to CantClimbTom:

You are forgetting the bit about preaching about competition and free market while making the bridge a monopoly by removing the ferry and incompetently messing up the legislation to make the charging lawful, and then the apparent presentation of fake documents by the Procurator Fiscal/Crown Office to the sheriff to cover that up.

And further back in time nobbling the consultation survey to show islanders were in support.

In reply to Kalna_kaza:

London has been exceptionally manipulative and abusive in its relationship with the rUK, and Brexit has only made it worse.

There, I've said my piece.

I'll now leave you all in peace.

(some of us still have to pay taxes around here 😉)

In reply to DizzyVizion:

What?! Is that all you've got, Dizz?! Why don't you tell us what you really think?

In reply to DizzyVizion:

FTFY.

In reply to J72:

It's certainly not where I expected the thread to go, but interesting none the less.