Mr. Llama, opinion is divided. Ian Mortimer opines that Sir Roger Mortimer did not, in fact, kill Edward II and that he (Edward II) died during the reign of Edward III.
The economic consequences for central Scotland arising from this bridge closure are really quite hard to overestimate. Tens of thousands of Financial Service workers in the Gyle and elsewhere in Edinburgh live north of the Forth where housing is cheaper. They are going to find it incredibly difficult to get to work and will end up working shorter days.
Before the bridge shut some of the commuter trains from Fife were already not being allowed to open their doors at various stations because of the dangers of overcrowding. There is no spare capacity. The consequences for Edinburgh's shops in the run up to Christmas will be severe as well.
On Friday night the chaos went as far west as Stirling. I had a very difficult journey home and have booked additional accommodation in Edinburgh over the next few weeks. But not everyone can do that.
If maintenance was indeed cut back because of the abolition of the tolls that would be a major scandal. The story may prove to be more complex than that though.
The saviour of the UK economy - Services - is not doing so well in Scotland:
Dougie Adams, senior economic adviser to the EY Scottish ITEM Club, said: “Although Scotland has been impacted by the effects of lower oil prices on North Sea-related activity, weak growth in private services is a major cause of this year’s shortfall in comparison to UK growth.”
At the time of SindyRef there were claims (poo-pooed by the Nats) that uncertainty would lead to lack of or delayed investment - if that was the case, then stirring up continuing uncertainty might not be the smartest move.....
The north sea is a lot more than the rigs.
So much for the 'bonus'!
The other worrying thing in that Ernst & Young report was the reliance on Infrastructure projects - like the Queensferry Crossing:
Major public construction projects like the Forth Crossing, Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvements, as well as motorway upgrades made up 40 per cent of GDP in recent years but have created “lopsided growth” trend, according to the EY Scottish ITEM Club Forecast 2016.
It has questioned what will happen when these major public projects come to an end, and whether they will drive up Scotland’s productivity in the long term.
The 14.6 per cent growth in construction is described as “impressive” but potentially unsustainable and construction output is expected to pull back to just 3 per cent in 2016.
Now that the French have started voting for the Front National in droves, does that mean I'm now allowed to start saying rude things about the French again?
Has been a difficult few weeks, I've had to be nice to the French.
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
You just know Charles is going to choose a crap/trendy Regnal name.
I really worry (and I really do) if I will be able to sing the national anthem with conviction when he's King.
I mean, can you imagine the level of wince if he becomes something of an embarrassment and our countrymen laugh or joke when it's played at major international sporting events?
Each to their own - the words have always been irrelevant to me, it's just a patriotic ritual, so I don't think I'll have a problem.
Mr. Llama, opinion is divided. Ian Mortimer opines that Sir Roger Mortimer did not, in fact, kill Edward II and that he (Edward II) died during the reign of Edward III.
The survival of Edward II seems to be becoming the historical consensus.
Once the British army were great pontoon bridge builders, but then they had the men and the equipment. They could still manage to build one over the thames at Hamton Court - I hope - but the Firth of Forth would be beyond them today.
Am wondering if bridging a Cumbrian river or stream is beyond their capabilities.
I'm not sure if you're joking, but if you remember back to the last Cumbrian floods, the army wanted to build a bridge in Workington to partly replace the one that got swept away killing a policeman. ISTR politics and other concerns delayed them.
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
You just know Charles is going to choose a crap/trendy Regnal name.
I really worry (and I really do) if I will be able to sing the national anthem with conviction when he's King.
I mean, can you imagine the level of wince if he becomes something of an embarrassment and our countrymen laugh or joke when it's played at major international sporting events?
Each to their own - the words have always been irrelevant to me, it's just a patriotic ritual, so I don't think I'll have a problem.
Well Mohammed would accurately reflect the country he is King of.
My other suggestions would be Longshanks, Waterloo or Trafalgar
The closure of the Forth Road Bridge is clearly bad news for Scotland, but spare a thought for those who will be worst affected...
@MajorDMalpas: Whit? The Forth Road Bridge is shut? How will my people get to Edinburgh to look at my portrait? I blame Westminster https://t.co/M2AlcI0HxC
Mr. F, not well-read enough on that era to comment too much on consensus, but I found the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence Mortimer presented to be quite persuasive.
Mr. Llama, opinion is divided. Ian Mortimer opines that Sir Roger Mortimer did not, in fact, kill Edward II and that he (Edward II) died during the reign of Edward III.
Yes, yes, yes, I have read some of that stuff. Edward II lived out a life as a hermit/monk in Italy. Twaddle in my view but regardless of the manner and time of his death he was slung off the throne. He did not resign because he felt the job was too much for him.
P.S. That his son whilst still such a young man took glorious revenge on his mother's lover was just a hint of what a proper-bastard Edward III would become.
Plenty of precedent: Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, and Edward VIII.
Mr. F, I am not sure you can cite Edward II and Richard II as monarchs who stood aside because they felt they were not up to the job. Both of them were deposed and murdered. Henry VI was, probably, barking mad and was deposed, twice, and eventually also probably murdered.
Edward VIII didn't abdicate because he felt he was not up to the job but because he was unable to conform to the social standards of his day, he suffered from what we used to call Caprinosity - his bollocks were bigger than his brain.
In relation to Edward VIII one of the demands of the job was making a suitable marriage. The fact that he did not understand this was why he had to go.
In fact, other than the waving and being photographed and, in past times, leading your charger into the field, arguably the most important thing a monarch has to do is marry right and produce an heir and spare.
Monarchy is just selfish genes with better clothes and tiaras.
Far too "hot" an enviroment right now, I'd have thought the purge would come in the new year.
If he's smart he'll do it after the May elections. It's Corbyn's fork: if the results aren't too bad, it will show that voters are cool with a loony-left Labour Party. If the results are disastrous, it will be because the Blairites and other running-dogs in the Shadow Cabinet are damaging the party by their disloyalty and aren't working with the leader. Either way he has an excuse to boot them out.
Mr. F, not well-read enough on that era to comment too much on consensus, but I found the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence Mortimer presented to be quite persuasive.
I'd recommend this site to anyone interested in the period. I've spent hours reading Dr. Warner's articles. She's also just published a biography of Edward II, which I've ordered.
Build two new ones? Not that I recall. If you mean that they were going to use the old one for some traffic then yes. But you need to recall that some at least of the opposition parties decided that the SNP building the new bridge was an absurd vanity project which was unnecessary because the old bridge would do fine.
I'm trying to remember when the project got its goahead - 2009? Before the majority administration? In which case they would have, I think, struggled to get a bigger new bridge, especially with the Edinburgh tram disaster impacting the transport budgets.
I went into this with Dair last week. The report into alternatives for a new crossing was released a month into the SNP's minority government in 2007, showing that the Labour-led government were doing something. Unless people expected them to build a bridge without looking at the alternatives ?
I've consistently said for years that the original road bridge was not going to last long after the new bridge opens. Although less traffic means less maintenance, it's only a little less. The cost of keeping it open will be massive compared to the advantages you get from having it open, so it will be closed.
Which is also why the new bridge not having pedestrian/cycle paths was such a bad idea. It seems the decision not to have them was made by the SNP government in 2011 as a cost saving measure.
I see news today's news says that the old bridge might not reopen to heavy goods vehicles. I'm sticking with what I said last week: there's a good chance it may never reopen. I hope I'm wrong in that, though.
BTW, thanks for that link on that report on the Forth Road bridge. Very interesting.
Mr. Eagles, an appalling, ill-educated post from you.
You missed off Lionheart.
Lionheart was practically a Frenchman
Lionheart was a git. He spent very little of his life in England (probably no more than about six months in total), he did not speak English and he wanted to sell the city of London to finance his foreign adventures. He also wasn't very bright - strong but as thick as two short planks might be an accurate description
Victorian sentimentalism and myth-making is the only reason he has any sort of good reputation, but even that does not explain why, God's name, there is a statue to him outside the Palace of Westminster.
Mr. Llama, opinion is divided. Ian Mortimer opines that Sir Roger Mortimer did not, in fact, kill Edward II and that he (Edward II) died during the reign of Edward III.
Yes, yes, yes, I have read some of that stuff. Edward II lived out a life as a hermit/monk in Italy. Twaddle in my view but regardless of the manner and time of his death he was slung off the throne. He did not resign because he felt the job was too much for him.
P.S. That his son whilst still such a young man took glorious revenge on his mother's lover was just a hint of what a proper-bastard Edward III would become.
It was a brilliantly executed coup, but Mortimer was at least spared the full horrors of a traitor's death.
I've often thought if I were given the chance to be a fly on the wall at one point in history, it would be Edward III's first interview with his mother, after overthrowing Mortimer.
"Tell it true mother, did you have my father murdered, so you could marry your lover and put him on the Throne."
Er, didn't answer the question, or I didn't make it clear: what is the evidence for lack of maintenance?
If true, the link below indicates there might have been. Caveats are necessary though, and you'd need to find out why the strengthening scheme was cancelled:
Mr. F, it's highly rated on Amazon. Just begun a William Marshal biography, though.
Mr. Eagles, just because a man's born in a stable, it doesn't make him a horse.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Llama, from the little I've read, I must admit to preferring Philip Augustus. The Lionheart was brave and heroic, but being cocky got him killed, and we all know how rubbish King John was.
I stated yesterday that I wish BBC Panorama were doing hour long shows for stories that have a lot of meat. Given the 8.30pm start time I presumed tonights was a 30 mins episode, but apparently not. Sepp gets the full hour treatment.
Didn't all the well to do speak French? I read an article about etymology re love vs amorous, lamb vs mutton et al that reflects the dual languages use of the times
Mr. Eagles, an appalling, ill-educated post from you.
You missed off Lionheart.
Lionheart was practically a Frenchman
Lionheart was a git. He spent very little of his life in England (probably no more than about six months in total), he did not speak English and he wanted to sell the city of London to finance his foreign adventures. He also wasn't very bright - strong but as thick as two short planks might be an accurate description
Victorian sentimentalism and myth-making is the only reason he has any sort of good reputation, but even that does not explain why, God's name, there is a statue to him outside the Palace of Westminster.
Mr. Eagles, an appalling, ill-educated post from you.
You missed off Lionheart.
Lionheart was practically a Frenchman
Lionheart was a git. He spent very little of his life in England (probably no more than about six months in total), he did not speak English and he wanted to sell the city of London to finance his foreign adventures. He also wasn't very bright - strong but as thick as two short planks might be an accurate description
Victorian sentimentalism and myth-making is the only reason he has any sort of good reputation, but even that does not explain why, God's name, there is a statue to him outside the Palace of Westminster.
Indeed, I reckon it was the Morris Dancers of the Victorian era that are responsible, such a poor grasp of history.
Plenty of precedent: Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, and Edward VIII.
Mr. F, I am not sure you can cite Edward II and Richard II as monarchs who stood aside because they felt they were not up to the job. Both of them were deposed and murdered. Henry VI was, probably, barking mad and was deposed, twice, and eventually also probably murdered.
Edward VIII didn't abdicate because he felt he was not up to the job but because he was unable to conform to the social standards of his day, he suffered from what we used to call Caprinosity - his bollocks were bigger than his brain.
In relation to Edward VIII one of the demands of the job was making a suitable marriage. The fact that he did not understand this was why he had to go.
In fact, other than the waving and being photographed and, in past times, leading your charger into the field, arguably the most important thing a monarch has to do is marry right and produce an heir and spare.
Monarchy is just selfish genes with better clothes and tiaras.
Fair enough, Mrs Free, but good monarchs in modern times can have influence. See George VI who could and did not only rein in Churchill but also set a national tone for the ordinary folk.
Maybe it is the institution, may be it is the individual, but the monarchy plays a much bigger role in our national life than waving and breeding.
Crazy to think all her brothers are now ahead of her. I mean, can you imagine King Edward IX?
I think monarchs should be female. Since we're unlikely to need another Henry V, Queens are the way to go. They fulfil the essential role of a monarch far better than men.
Even famously Republican France has a Marianne to represent it.
Hard to disagree with that. Who stands up next to both Elizabeths, and Victoria?
Maybe Edward I and Edward IV (for different reasons) and I think George VI was a hero too.
One of the unusual features (for its time) of 18th century Russia was that it was largely ruled by Tsarinas.
Catherine the Great had the sort of life that reads like a historical fantasy novel. In reality, the Romanov dynasty ended when she murdered her husband, and made her own illegitimate son the Crown Prince.
The Romanov dynasty had already ended before then. Peter III was and thought of himself as a Holsteiner who just got lucky in landing Russia's resources to his cause.
It's also probable (though we can't say more than that), that Paul was Peter's son, which may be one reason why Catherine never liked him: he resembled him both physically and in character.
But as with other monarchies, bloodline only counts for so much; continuity can be derived in other ways.
Mr. F, it's highly rated on Amazon. Just begun a William Marshal biography, though.
Mr. Eagles, just because a man's born in a stable, it doesn't make him a horse.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Llama, from the little I've read, I must admit to preferring Philip Augustus. The Lionheart was brave and heroic, but being cocky got him killed, and we all know how rubbish King John was.
King John was awesome, without him we would not have Magna Carta, which is possibly the most important things that this country has ever produced.
Er, didn't answer the question, or I didn't make it clear: what is the evidence for lack of maintenance?
If true, the link below indicates there might have been. Caveats are necessary though, and you'd need to find out why the strengthening scheme was cancelled:
This is the Tender - published May 2010 - and marked 'Cancelled':
The Forth Road Bridge was opened in 1964 and now carries over 24 million vehicles per annum.
Assessments of the suspended structure and the truss end connections have identified that several of the key elements forming these connections are overstressed.
A feasibility study has been undertaken and a preferred option identified to strengthen the existing truss end link connection.
The Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) wishes to appoint a suitably experienced consulting engineer to undertake the detailed design of the new truss end connections. The successful candidate will also be responsbile for the preparation of tender documentation and the supervision of the works on site.
His alter ego character in House of Cards was frighteningly spot on. I'm a monarchist here too.
He's unsuited to be King - he'll be a nightmare unless he totally changes tack and shuts up. Given the Royals considerable longevity gene wise, he'll be King for 40ishyrs if he doesn't stand aside.
There is potentially a parallel between Henry VIII's time and ours. The English no doubt thought they had a strong negotiating position given the upheavals through the Catholic Church at the time. But it transpired that Rome was preoccupied with much narrower politics and as a result a split that suited neither side came to pass.
Diarmuid McCulloch's book on the Reformation suggests that the split in the Catholic church and the rise of Protestantism came about for all sorts of reasons, of which Henry VIII's little local difficulties were way way down the list. As with much British commentary on European matters, the British overstate their importance and their role in much larger forces.
As for Charles and his "Defender of Faith" nonsense, he is an arse, neither apparently understanding the monarchy's history nor understanding that some faiths (most, in fact) are incompatible in their world views.
I dread the day Charles becomes King.
And I say that as one of the most fervent monarchists in the land.
Well, it's a feature not a bug of monarchy that you get crap kings.
You get crap queens too: Marys I, II and of Scots, Anne, Matilda, plus numerous foreign duffers.
If you think there are too many council officials in the UK that act like jumped up little Hitlers, imagine what the ISIS "government" officials are/will be like.
There are too many Council officials full stop. Parish, town, district/borough, county, if the govt is serious about reducing the state it would save a fortune by halving the system.
Didn't all the well to do speak French? I read an article about etymology re love vs amorous, lamb vs mutton et al that reflects the dual languages use of the times
Mr. Eagles, an appalling, ill-educated post from you.
You missed off Lionheart.
Lionheart was practically a Frenchman
Lionheart was a git. He spent very little of his life in England (probably no more than about six months in total), he did not speak English and he wanted to sell the city of London to finance his foreign adventures. He also wasn't very bright - strong but as thick as two short planks might be an accurate description
Victorian sentimentalism and myth-making is the only reason he has any sort of good reputation, but even that does not explain why, God's name, there is a statue to him outside the Palace of Westminster.
French generally was the preferred language of the upper classes till the mid 14th century, and of the Court till the end of the century. And, until well into the 16th century, legal cases had to conducted in a weird mix of Norman French and Latin.
Mr. Eagles, an appalling, ill-educated post from you.
You missed off Lionheart.
Lionheart was practically a Frenchman
Lionheart was a git. He spent very little of his life in England (probably no more than about six months in total), he did not speak English and he wanted to sell the city of London to finance his foreign adventures. He also wasn't very bright - strong but as thick as two short planks might be an accurate description
Victorian sentimentalism and myth-making is the only reason he has any sort of good reputation, but even that does not explain why, God's name, there is a statue to him outside the Palace of Westminster.
Victorian sentimentalism yes but also the fact that John was such a weak king and so has been cast by history - starting with the Tudors - as a bad king. By comparison Richard has been built up to be more than he was.
Mr. Llama, opinion is divided. Ian Mortimer opines that Sir Roger Mortimer did not, in fact, kill Edward II and that he (Edward II) died during the reign of Edward III.
Yes, yes, yes, I have read some of that stuff. Edward II lived out a life as a hermit/monk in Italy. Twaddle in my view but regardless of the manner and time of his death he was slung off the throne. He did not resign because he felt the job was too much for him.
P.S. That his son whilst still such a young man took glorious revenge on his mother's lover was just a hint of what a proper-bastard Edward III would become.
It was a brilliantly executed coup, but Mortimer was at least spared the full horrors of a traitor's death.
I've often thought if I were given the chance to be a fly on the wall at one point in history, it would be Edward III's first interview with his mother, after overthrowing Mortimer.
"Tell it true mother, did you have my father murdered, so you could marry your lover and put him on the Throne."
Sounds like most families to me. Especially around Christmas time.
FYI, right now there is a man (or me ) running round Abingdon wielding knives. At least one badly injured. According to my mate something about Syria was yelled.
Mr. Eagles, he also lost us land and almost got the kingdom conquered by the French.
He was nicknamed "softsword", showing that contemporaries thought he was a disaster.
It was probably good for the development of this country that ultimately our Kings did lose their lands in France, but it wouldn't have seemed like it at the time.
Plenty of precedent: Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, and Edward VIII.
Mr. F, I am not sure you can cite Edward II and Richard II as monarchs who stood aside because they felt they were not up to the job. Both of them were deposed and murdered. Henry VI was, probably, barking mad and was deposed, twice, and eventually also probably murdered.
Edward VIII didn't abdicate because he felt he was not up to the job but because he was unable to conform to the social standards of his day, he suffered from what we used to call Caprinosity - his bollocks were bigger than his brain.
In relation to Edward VIII one of the demands of the job was making a suitable marriage. The fact that he did not understand this was why he had to go.
In fact, other than the waving and being photographed and, in past times, leading your charger into the field, arguably the most important thing a monarch has to do is marry right and produce an heir and spare.
Monarchy is just selfish genes with better clothes and tiaras.
Fair enough, Mrs Free, but good monarchs in modern times can have influence. See George VI who could and did not only rein in Churchill but also set a national tone for the ordinary folk.
Maybe it is the institution, may be it is the individual, but the monarchy plays a much bigger role in our national life than waving and breeding.
Er, didn't answer the question, or I didn't make it clear: what is the evidence for lack of maintenance?
If true, the link below indicates there might have been. Caveats are necessary though, and you'd need to find out why the strengthening scheme was cancelled:
This is the Tender - published May 2010 - and marked 'Cancelled':
The Forth Road Bridge was opened in 1964 and now carries over 24 million vehicles per annum.
Assessments of the suspended structure and the truss end connections have identified that several of the key elements forming these connections are overstressed.
A feasibility study has been undertaken and a preferred option identified to strengthen the existing truss end link connection.
The Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) wishes to appoint a suitably experienced consulting engineer to undertake the detailed design of the new truss end connections. The successful candidate will also be responsbile for the preparation of tender documentation and the supervision of the works on site.
Thanks. So we need to know why this project was cancelled.
It certainly doesn't look good.
Having said that: the members that have failed are apparently not the ones the contract mentions as being overly stressed. however, the design work, or on site non-destructive testing to do with the work, might have uncovered the problem.
I have heard persistent rumours in Scotland that the current problems with the bridge were caused by what (if true) seems some remarkably sloppy engineering work. Apparently a routine inspection found some microscopic tears in one of the trusses. The response was to close that side of the bridge completely for further investigation putting all of the traffic on the northbound carriageway (that bit at least is true). This, it is alleged, caused a significant distortion in the bridge with all of the weight on the north bound side which caused the mcuh more serious tear which has now closed the bridge.
I must say one problem with this theory is that it is far from unique for one side of the bridge to be closed although they obviously try to do this outwith peak times when the weight load would be less. I would be interested in the views of those better qualified to comment.
FYI, right now there is a man (or me ) running round Abingdon wielding knives. At least one badly injured. According to my mate something about Syria was yelled.
There are two types of campaign that will be run before the referendum: one of hope, and one of fear. It is becoming ever clearer that the ‘In’ campaigns will try to scare people into voting to remain in the EU. Whereas we will set out an optimistic vision of how the UK can thrive if we Vote Leave.
Please share this email with 5 friends and ask them to help us combat the scaremongering tactics of the pro-EU campaigns. The most important thing you can do to help is to encourage your friends and family to join our fast growing list of supporters. If you’ve been forwarded this email, click here to sign up.
Project Fear
Since the dreadful Paris attacks both the pro-EU BSE campaign and Labour In For Britain have claimed that leaving the EU would threaten the UK’s national security.
A report by another pro-EU group - British Influence - which is published today carries on in the same vein. It talks about ‘shock & awe’ if we leave and claims that it could also undermine the Northern Irish peace process.
Unfortunately for In campaigners, Lord Rose, the chairman of the BSE campaign, blew apart this strategy when he admitted that ‘nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years, probably. There will be absolutely no change.’
The UK can do better
We want to put across a positive message of how the UK could thrive outside of the EU. The UK has the fifth largest economy in the world - imagine the influence we would have on global trade bodies once we regain our own seat from the EU. Imagine if we could spend the £350 million we send each week to Brussels on our priorities like the NHS.
Since 2010, UK businesses have had to comply with over 3,500 new EU laws, yet only 5% export to the EU. Imagine if entrepreneurs could focus on creating jobs and supporting the economy rather than reading through reams of regulations from Brussels.
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
Will my immigrant friend be entitled (He is an EU citizen who is doing some post doc work at a Finnish uni) ?
There are two types of campaign that will be run before the referendum: one of hope, and one of fear. It is becoming ever clearer that the ‘In’ campaigns blahh blahh....
Project Fear
Since the dreadful Paris attacks both the pro-EU BSE campaign and Labour In For Britain have claimed that leaving the EU would threaten the UK’s national security.
blah blah....
The UK can do better
blah blah....
Wonderful - thank you for peddling propaganda on PB.
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Build two new ones? Not that I recall. If you mean that they were going to use the old one for some traffic then yes. But you need to recall that some at least of the opposition parties decided that the SNP building the new bridge was an absurd vanity project which was unnecessary because the old bridge would do fine.
I'm trying to remember when the project got its goahead - 2009? Before the majority administration? In which case they would have, I think, struggled to get a bigger new bridge, especially with the Edinburgh tram disaster impacting the transport budgets.
I went into this with Dair last week. The report into alternatives for a new crossing was released a month into the SNP's minority government in 2007, showing that the Labour-led government were doing something. Unless people expected them to build a bridge without looking at the alternatives ?
I've consistently said for years that the original road bridge was not going to last long after the new bridge opens. Although less traffic means less maintenance, it's only a little less. The cost of keeping it open will be massive compared to the advantages you get from having it open, so it will be closed.
Which is also why the new bridge not having pedestrian/cycle paths was such a bad idea. It seems the decision not to have them was made by the SNP government in 2011 as a cost saving measure.
I see news today's news says that the old bridge might not reopen to heavy goods vehicles. I'm sticking with what I said last week: there's a good chance it may never reopen. I hope I'm wrong in that, though.
BTW, thanks for that link on that report on the Forth Road bridge. Very interesting.
Thanks for dealing with this when I was just out!
Likewise they saved on the Borders line to some extent - not futureproofing the bridges etc for completing the single line to double as and when it is needed.
On the other hand, a lot better than nothing ...
Re the discussion of maintenance, wasn't it the job of the local authorities under the Forth Estuary Transport Authority till earlier this year when it was transferred to the Scottish Gmt? I had thought this was a Gmt agency, but on checking, it wasn't - it was a local authority one, following on from the local authority joint board that ran the bridge before.
I think UBI is a great idea, but it should only be available to British citizens. Immigration and EU laws are the big point concern regarding it. Like universal credit on steroids I think.
There are two types of campaign that will be run before the referendum: one of hope, and one of fear. It is becoming ever clearer that the ‘In’ campaigns blahh blahh....
Project Fear
Since the dreadful Paris attacks both the pro-EU BSE campaign and Labour In For Britain have claimed that leaving the EU would threaten the UK’s national security.
blah blah....
The UK can do better
blah blah....
Wonderful - thank you for peddling propaganda on PB.
There are two types of campaign that will be run before the referendum: one of hope, and one of fear. It is becoming ever clearer that the ‘In’ campaigns blahh blahh....
Project Fear
Since the dreadful Paris attacks both the pro-EU BSE campaign and Labour In For Britain have claimed that leaving the EU would threaten the UK’s national security.
blah blah....
The UK can do better
blah blah....
Wonderful - thank you for peddling propaganda on PB.
I'm sure you'll be able to dissect and refute the claims one by one.
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Good morning all. I think the argument is it means there absolutely zero special processing required. Once you have exceptions, means testing and so forth, you start developing a bureaucracy to administer the system, the costs of which outweigh the savings.
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Good morning all. I think the argument is it means there absolutely zero special processing required. Once you have exceptions, means testing and so forth, you start developing a bureaucracy to administer the system, the costs of which outweigh the savings.
Yes I get that, but taxing people on one hand and giving them money with the other is a nonsense, just don't tax them.
Didn't all the well to do speak French? I read an article about etymology re love vs amorous, lamb vs mutton et al that reflects the dual languages use of the times
Mr. Eagles, an appalling, ill-educated post from you.
You missed off Lionheart.
Lionheart was practically a Frenchman
Lionheart was a git. He spent very little of his life in England (probably no more than about six months in total), he did not speak English and he wanted to sell the city of London to finance his foreign adventures. He also wasn't very bright - strong but as thick as two short planks might be an accurate description
Victorian sentimentalism and myth-making is the only reason he has any sort of good reputation, but even that does not explain why, God's name, there is a statue to him outside the Palace of Westminster.
French generally was the preferred language of the upper classes till the mid 14th century, and of the Court till the end of the century. And, until well into the 16th century, legal cases had to conducted in a weird mix of Norman French and Latin.
Henry IV was the first King to have no French; his predecessors were bilingual, though it's likely that Edward II was the first to have French as his second, rather than first, language.
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Good morning all. I think the argument is it means there absolutely zero special processing required. Once you have exceptions, means testing and so forth, you start developing a bureaucracy to administer the system, the costs of which outweigh the savings.
That's pretty much what is found in Scotland re free prescriptions - so many people (poor, OAP etc) are entitled to them that separating the poor sheep from the Bransonian goats isn't worth the hassle. There's also the argument that those who pay tax should share in the benefit. Not important for Mr B but it is for middle class tax payers.
Mr. Eagles, an appalling, ill-educated post from you.
You missed off Lionheart.
Lionheart was practically a Frenchman
Lionheart was a git. He spent very little of his life in England (probably no more than about six months in total), he did not speak English and he wanted to sell the city of London to finance his foreign adventures. He also wasn't very bright - strong but as thick as two short planks might be an accurate description
Victorian sentimentalism and myth-making is the only reason he has any sort of good reputation, but even that does not explain why, God's name, there is a statue to him outside the Palace of Westminster.
Didn't he rebel against his father as well? Not unusual in medieval times of course, and to be a good king you often had to be a bit of a bastard in any case (to be an effective one at any rate), but I've never understood why John gets so much crap for in story trying to usurp his brother when they were all at it back then.
Mr. Eagles, he also lost us land and almost got the kingdom conquered by the French.
A price worth paying for Magna Carta
As you are a legal man Mr. Eagles, I find that statement astonishing. Which bits of Magna Carta do you find so important and, more especially, extant?
Lord Denning put it better than I ever could when he said of Magna Carta,
"the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot"
Thank you for telling me what Denning said of Magna Carta, I had hoped to find out your views. Perhaps, like many who talk about the Great Charter, you have never actually read it.
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Good morning all. I think the argument is it means there absolutely zero special processing required. Once you have exceptions, means testing and so forth, you start developing a bureaucracy to administer the system, the costs of which outweigh the savings.
Yes I get that, but taxing people on one hand and giving them money with the other is a nonsense, just don't tax them.
I appreciate that it's a particularly profound concept, but even though I share your dislike of giving with one hand while taking with the other, it's still simpler - I can think back on my own life with periods of high income, low income, unemployment, travelling time (via a sabbatical) and now my current situation with a tiny pension (on which I pay almost no tax) topped up with episodic drawing from my investments. People's lives are complex .
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Good morning all. I think the argument is it means there absolutely zero special processing required. Once you have exceptions, means testing and so forth, you start developing a bureaucracy to administer the system, the costs of which outweigh the savings.
Yes I get that, but taxing people on one hand and giving them money with the other is a nonsense, just don't tax them.
Because it costs more to implement the system of means testing etc. it works in combination with a flat tax and eliminating other transfers and allowances.
There are two types of campaign that will be run before the referendum: one of hope, and one of fear. It is becoming ever clearer that the ‘In’ campaigns blahh blahh....
Project Fear
Since the dreadful Paris attacks both the pro-EU BSE campaign and Labour In For Britain have claimed that leaving the EU would threaten the UK’s national security.
blah blah....
The UK can do better
blah blah....
Wonderful - thank you for peddling propaganda on PB.
Says the PB resident Euroloon.
Says PB resident anti-Euroloon.
Is PB to become a place filled by people loyally passing on propaganda emails?
The Universal Basic Income - from an economics point of view - is not a stupid idea.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
It's the bit about every citizen getting the money that puzzles me, don't see why we should give Richard Branson 200 euros a week.
Good morning all. I think the argument is it means there absolutely zero special processing required. Once you have exceptions, means testing and so forth, you start developing a bureaucracy to administer the system, the costs of which outweigh the savings.
Yes I get that, but taxing people on one hand and giving them money with the other is a nonsense, just don't tax them.
I appreciate that it's a particularly profound concept, but even though I share your dislike of giving with one hand while taking with the other, it's still simpler - I can think back on my own life with periods of high income, low income, unemployment, travelling time (via a sabbatical) and now my current situation with a tiny pension (on which I pay almost no tax) topped up with episodic drawing from my investments. People's lives are complex .
Yes it's complex but we have to move away from this free money concept prevalent in society. AFAIK every party believes the welfare bill and our approach to welfare must change, I don't see how giving £200pw to everybody helps that. And inflation will go through the roof which means that as usual the poorest won't benefit.
It always comes round to the same thing, govt in general is useless.
Comments
The other worrying thing in that Ernst & Young report was the reliance on Infrastructure projects - like the Queensferry Crossing:
Major public construction projects like the Forth Crossing, Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvements, as well as motorway upgrades made up 40 per cent of GDP in recent years but have created “lopsided growth” trend, according to the EY Scottish ITEM Club Forecast 2016.
It has questioned what will happen when these major public projects come to an end, and whether they will drive up Scotland’s productivity in the long term.
The 14.6 per cent growth in construction is described as “impressive” but potentially unsustainable and construction output is expected to pull back to just 3 per cent in 2016.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-economy-now-lagging-behind-rest-of-uk-1-3968214
I fear its going to get worse before it gets better.....'
Has been a difficult few weeks, I've had to be nice to the French.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_Crossing
And the type of bridge used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabey_Logistic_Support_Bridge
My other suggestions would be Longshanks, Waterloo or Trafalgar
I assume he is also barred from voting in the Lords ?
@MajorDMalpas: Whit? The Forth Road Bridge is shut? How will my people get to Edinburgh to look at my portrait? I blame Westminster https://t.co/M2AlcI0HxC
For those interested, my reviews on the relevant books:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/review-greatest-traitor-life-of-sir.html
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/review-perfect-king-life-of-edward-iii.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/06/france_mulls_tighter_noose_around_crypto/
I thought Charles has said he will take the regnal name George.
You missed off Lionheart.
P.S. That his son whilst still such a young man took glorious revenge on his mother's lover was just a hint of what a proper-bastard Edward III would become.
In fact, other than the waving and being photographed and, in past times, leading your charger into the field, arguably the most important thing a monarch has to do is marry right and produce an heir and spare.
Monarchy is just selfish genes with better clothes and tiaras.
You can't apply modern borders to historical lands.
That's like the Greeks pretending Alexander was one of them, when his first war was on Greece to re-establish Macedonian hegemony.
Mr. Llama, was Edward III bad? Wasn't the impression I got.
Also, his mother's lover was almost certainly going to try and usurp the throne.
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.co.uk/
And the epithet Lionheart is from his French epithet, Cœur de Lion
He's French.
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/road/forth-replacement-crossing/forth-replacement-crossing-study-2007
I've consistently said for years that the original road bridge was not going to last long after the new bridge opens. Although less traffic means less maintenance, it's only a little less. The cost of keeping it open will be massive compared to the advantages you get from having it open, so it will be closed.
Which is also why the new bridge not having pedestrian/cycle paths was such a bad idea. It seems the decision not to have them was made by the SNP government in 2011 as a cost saving measure.
I see news today's news says that the old bridge might not reopen to heavy goods vehicles. I'm sticking with what I said last week: there's a good chance it may never reopen. I hope I'm wrong in that, though.
BTW, thanks for that link on that report on the Forth Road bridge. Very interesting.
Victorian sentimentalism and myth-making is the only reason he has any sort of good reputation, but even that does not explain why, God's name, there is a statue to him outside the Palace of Westminster.
I've often thought if I were given the chance to be a fly on the wall at one point in history, it would be Edward III's first interview with his mother, after overthrowing Mortimer.
"Tell it true mother, did you have my father murdered, so you could marry your lover and put him on the Throne."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/key-forth-road-bridge-work-cancelled-5-years-ago-1-3968212
Mr. Eagles, just because a man's born in a stable, it doesn't make him a horse.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Llama, from the little I've read, I must admit to preferring Philip Augustus. The Lionheart was brave and heroic, but being cocky got him killed, and we all know how rubbish King John was.
Big bucket of popcorn ready to go....
Maybe it is the institution, may be it is the individual, but the monarchy plays a much bigger role in our national life than waving and breeding.
It's also probable (though we can't say more than that), that Paul was Peter's son, which may be one reason why Catherine never liked him: he resembled him both physically and in character.
But as with other monarchies, bloodline only counts for so much; continuity can be derived in other ways.
Huzzah for King John's rubbishness.
The Forth Road Bridge was opened in 1964 and now carries over 24 million vehicles per annum.
Assessments of the suspended structure and the truss end connections have identified that several of the key elements forming these connections are overstressed.
A feasibility study has been undertaken and a preferred option identified to strengthen the existing truss end link connection.
The Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) wishes to appoint a suitably experienced consulting engineer to undertake the detailed design of the new truss end connections. The successful candidate will also be responsbile for the preparation of tender documentation and the supervision of the works on site.
https://archive.is/UKJ82
It would be a massive vote winner too.
https://savethelink.org/
It was probably good for the development of this country that ultimately our Kings did lose their lands in France, but it wouldn't have seemed like it at the time.
It certainly doesn't look good.
Having said that: the members that have failed are apparently not the ones the contract mentions as being overly stressed. however, the design work, or on site non-destructive testing to do with the work, might have uncovered the problem.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-plans-to-give-every-citizen-800-euros-a-month-and-scrap-benefits-a6762226.html
According to Twitter someone was stabbed in Poundland.
I must say one problem with this theory is that it is far from unique for one side of the bridge to be closed although they obviously try to do this outwith peak times when the weight load would be less. I would be interested in the views of those better qualified to comment.
http://www.scottishconservatives.com/2015/12/ruth-davidson-scottish-conservatives-offer-a-genuine-scottish-alternative/
There are two types of campaign that will be run before the referendum: one of hope, and one of fear. It is becoming ever clearer that the ‘In’ campaigns will try to scare people into voting to remain in the EU. Whereas we will set out an optimistic vision of how the UK can thrive if we Vote Leave.
Please share this email with 5 friends and ask them to help us combat the scaremongering tactics of the pro-EU campaigns. The most important thing you can do to help is to encourage your friends and family to join our fast growing list of supporters. If you’ve been forwarded this email, click here to sign up.
Project Fear
Since the dreadful Paris attacks both the pro-EU BSE campaign and Labour In For Britain have claimed that leaving the EU would threaten the UK’s national security.
A report by another pro-EU group - British Influence - which is published today carries on in the same vein. It talks about ‘shock & awe’ if we leave and claims that it could also undermine the Northern Irish peace process.
Unfortunately for In campaigners, Lord Rose, the chairman of the BSE campaign, blew apart this strategy when he admitted that ‘nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five years, probably. There will be absolutely no change.’
The UK can do better
We want to put across a positive message of how the UK could thrive outside of the EU. The UK has the fifth largest economy in the world - imagine the influence we would have on global trade bodies once we regain our own seat from the EU. Imagine if we could spend the £350 million we send each week to Brussels on our priorities like the NHS.
Since 2010, UK businesses have had to comply with over 3,500 new EU laws, yet only 5% export to the EU. Imagine if entrepreneurs could focus on creating jobs and supporting the economy rather than reading through reams of regulations from Brussels.
It can massively simplify the whole tax and benefits system. All income is taxed at - say - 30%, and everyone gets €800 from the state. You would then remove absolutely all other government payments.
The result of this is that your marginal tax rate is *always* 30%. The collection and disbursement methods are incredibly simple. It also avoids the problem we currently have where the government distorts market behaviour.
If you want to have a benefit system, it's very hard to think of one that is better than a CBI
http://www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=MAY077389
"the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot"
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14128666.BREAKING__Arrest_made_after_reports_of_man_wielding_knife_in_Abingdon_Poundland/
Thanks for dealing with this when I was just out!
Likewise they saved on the Borders line to some extent - not futureproofing the bridges etc for completing the single line to double as and when it is needed.
On the other hand, a lot better than nothing ...
Re the discussion of maintenance, wasn't it the job of the local authorities under the Forth Estuary Transport Authority till earlier this year when it was transferred to the Scottish Gmt? I had thought this was a Gmt agency, but on checking, it wasn't - it was a local authority one, following on from the local authority joint board that ran the bridge before.
Like universal credit on steroids I think.
Totally agree, we need a safe space where contrary opinions aren't allowed. Why should University students get all the perks?
Very odd that. When do they become old enough to face the real world?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-150309.pdf
AFAIK though no students from the school were harmed.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/11/30/the-middle-east-as-it-will-be/
http://order-order.com/2015/12/07/14-times-stop-the-war-did-not-call-it-right/
mhhhh, anyone think he is suitable as a future pm? anyone?
Is PB to become a place filled by people loyally passing on propaganda emails?
It always comes round to the same thing, govt in general is useless.