logo
   Web Issue 3191 July 4 2008   
spacer
The SNP’s big test



Alex Salmond is no different from any other incoming government leader in that he has a gap to bridge between policy intent and policy delivery. His is the first minority administration in devolution's short history. This makes bridging the gap all the more difficult to achieve as the SNP and its Green supporters at Holyrood lack a majority to push policy through. Indeed, the opposition parties could form a majority with the potential to bring the executive down. That would leave Mr Salmond staring into a chasm no bridge could cross.

Therefore, the First Minister must take as many MSPs with him, of whatever hue, on the journey to delivering his vision for Scotland. How he intends to do so became a little clearer yesterday when he set out his government's early priorities. The lack of detail afforded Jack McConnell, the Labour leader, the opportunity to criticise Mr Salmond for promising a wind of change but delivering hot air. Point scored. Whether it has any lasting impact will depend on how promptly the SNP can make a mark and in what areas.

The First Minister is not in a position to propose a raft of detailed measures that carry his party's discrete stamp. The arithmetic at Holyrood militates against that strategy bearing policy fruit. Instead, he opted for a pick-and-mix approach to deliver his priority of making Scotland wealthier, smarter, greener, cleaner and safer. If he wants to stay in power, while also making a mark, he has little option but to seek common cause with different parties on different policies. The two Greens are, generally, on board. The Liberal Democrats could be allies in the Holyrood chamber on local income tax. The Conservatives could be on drug courts, drug rehabilitation and police recruitment. Labour could be on education.

Mr Salmond recognised one of the risks in this approach when averring that the "mushy ground of false consensus" was not part of the plan. The right to be voted back into government is not earned by pursuing power for power's sake, at any price. There are other risks. The other parties are not stupid and will be wary of their policies and their support delivering for the SNP, not just in this parliament but potentially into a second term when independence would probably creep up the agenda.

But that is a very long way off. First, the SNP must prove itself in government. None of Mr Salmond's slimmed down cabinet has been in power, even in local government. His team of ministers is small but their portfolios are big, especially that of John Swinney. The learning curve is steep. Putting policy into practice will be the test of negotiating successfully that curve. Manifestos take on a different hue, and are rightly subject to intense scrutiny, when a party is in government. How will the SNP square a high-profile green agenda with abolishing bridge tolls when that is likely to mean greater congestion and worsening carbon emissions? How sustainable is a renewable energy policy when there is an ambivalence towards windfarms? For the SNP, the hard work has only just begun.


© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Posted by: subrosa, Perth on 11:55pm Wed 23 May 07
What makes so many people think that abolishing bridge tolls will result in further congestion? I don't know the figures but I expect it's a small amount of traffic that travels to Edinburgh via the Kincardine Bridge and they would possibly continue to do so. Part of the problem is the A8000 and that should be addressed to provide a flow of traffic. It's a nightmare for everyone at any time of the day or night.
Posted by: Ron, Just down the road on 1:19am Thu 24 May 07
Near where I live, which is a holiday destination where the road infrastructure is barely able to handle the summer traffic, there was a badly adjusted set of traffic lights giving access to a major road. In summer there were occassions when the hold-up time at these light was as much as 45 minute, or maybe, on occasion, more. One set of lights. Think of the potential for congestion build -up at toll barriers in comparison. Or more simply, has the abolition of tolls on the Erskine Bridge caused extra congestion?
Posted by: Carlo, Fort William on 7:13am Thu 24 May 07
As a regular traveller from the central belt on the A82 I can only give you my experience......at peak rush hour times and through the extra summer loads, crossing the Erskine bridge was a joy ....instead of the normal 20min+ wait motorists just sail through now......drop the tolls on the FRB and TB immediately......
Posted by: Vronsky, This Planet on 9:24am Thu 24 May 07
“How will the SNP square a high-profile green agenda with abolishing bridge tolls when that is likely to mean greater congestion and worsening carbon emissions?“

It’s a simple matter to investigate if removing tolls on the Erskine Bridge led to greater congestion. It didn’t, as one poster has alread pointed out. Why didn’t you check this?

Indeed the polluter must pay, if that is the argument this leader is trying to make, but it’s important in a small, sparsely-populated country like Scotland that specific regions are not discriminated against by tolls and other charges. You could have made an interesting leader from the more general question of communication costs in Scotland, whether road, telephone, broadband or whatever. Ask any businessman trying to make things happen in a rural area.

“How sustainable is a renewable energy policy when there is an ambivalence towards windfarms?”

Perfectly sustainable: wind farms are a really lousy idea. There is a hint here of Nicol Stephen’s false dichotomy– you can’t be against both nuclear and wind. There are of course many other options. Nuclear is unsafe and expensive, and has sensibly been ruled out. Wind has a role to play, but has been massively over-developed and over-subsidised to the detriment of more promising technologies.

Overall this is extremely lazy comment. Why don’t you do some reading before you write?

Posted by: Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 10:19am Thu 24 May 07
I have to agree with the comments above and I'm becoming more and more concerned by slipping standards in the Herald.

Failure to mention the Erskine Bridge was woeful. And Jack MConnell, point scored? Seriously?
Posted by: bridge builder, Glasgow on 10:38am Thu 24 May 07
Since the tolls were removed from the Erskine Bridge I have not had to wait in any traffic queue at all. I use the bridge frequently.
Posted by: Guy Wersh, Eccy Byde on 11:16am Thu 24 May 07
None of Mr Salmond's slimmed down cabinet has been in power, even in local government.

Probably a good thing!

As to carbon and other emissions, they will have been greatly reduced by the removal of the tolls.

You can now roll over the Erskine bridge in top gear instead of all that stop-start, high consumption ( I get around 10mpg from a gentle standing start !) business.
Posted by: Alex Cox, Bearsden on 11:42am Thu 24 May 07
Jack McConnell, the Labour leader,.............
....... Point scored


The only way Jack McConnell will score points in the next four years is if he has a ping-pong bat in his hand.
Posted by: Archie, Aberdeen on 12:52pm Thu 24 May 07
What makes so many people think that abolishing bridge tolls will result in further congestion?


Abolishing bridge tolls makes it about £250 per year cheaper to commute from Fife into Edinburgh (or vice versa) by car. When you make things cheaper, demand goes up. In this case, some people who would have commuted by bus or train or car-sharing may switch to driving. Some people may choose to live in FIfe and work in Edinburgh (or vice versa) who would previously have been put off by the tolls. Some people may use the bridge who previously went via Kincardine or the A9/M9.

That's the theory anyway. In practice, I think the major factor that puts people off driving over the Forth Bridge regularly is the congestion itself, not the tolls, so any effect of abolishing tolls on increasing traffic will be minimal.

Posted by: Neil 9% Growth, glasgow on 4:15pm Thu 24 May 07
The act of abolishing tolls also reduces some congestion since there are no queues to pay tolls. In general tolls are a way of making people pay for the individual service they use but if road building programmes were properly decided giving full concern to the amount of traffic expected then they would not be needed. A big if since it requires not only that road planners correctly guess how much traffic there will be but politicians act on it - rather than deciding, as the last lot did, that 70% of the transport budget be spent on railways which have 3% of transport
Add your comment
Please note: to publish your comment you must be registered on this site. If you are already registered, please enter your details below.
Email:
Password:
spacer
 IN YOUR AREA
 
Herald Appointments - Every Friday
Travel Shop
Airport Parking
Travel Insurance
Copyright © 2008 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved   
Sitemap :: Circulation :: Syndication :: Advertising :: About Us :: Terms of Use