logo
£750 million spent on the ferries fiasco? Yes, and the rest...

£750 million spent on the ferries fiasco? Yes, and the rest...

Jim McColl bought the buildings and land at Ferguson's for £1.625m and put them into a separate company such that on the triumphant announcement of the nationalisation of the shipyard by the hapless Derek Mackay it did not own the land and buildings; all he had nationalised was a heap of scrap steel. The Scottish Government then had to set up a company to obfuscate the purchase of those assets and the cost is also hidden. I somehow think it was cost-plus, shall we guess £10m?
Then there is the cost of acquiring Ardrossan harbour for which CalMac continues to pay rent from Peel Ports, a company not known for its philanthropy. Ardrossan will then need to be upgraded. Total cost? I don't think £150m will be too far from realistic.
Then we add the additional rental and use of Troon Harbour owned by Associated British Ports, which spent £6m upgrading fendering and parking facilities. This charge will continue until Ardrossan Harbour is completed in, optimistically, five years. £5m per annum? Let's add £25m.
And of course the ubiquitous Alfred, the catamaran that performs economically and reliably and which the customers love despite CMAL's absolute denial of suitability as a form of marine transport. £1m per month, three years' rental awaiting the completion of the Glen Rosa, £36m, which is incidentally two and a half times her construction cost.
Then we can add the extra cost of fuel and wear and tear due to the increased route length of using Troon instead of Ardrossan and the reduced income due to the decreased number of passenger and vehicle journeys available over five years, shall we say £20m?
So add to the £750m, £31+10+150+36+20m and we have a real cost of £997m, not quite a billion but I am sure they will get there. Where did all this money go? No Scottish Government member seems interested.
But at least we are saved, as "the Scottish Government is currently doing due diligence over the further request for taxpayer backing". Well, that's OK then.
Peter Wright, West Kilbride.
Read more letters
Little sympathy for fishing sector
I used to have sympathy with Scottish fishermen who risked their lives to put food on our tables. However that has progressively diminished over the years. Revelations about quotas being deliberately ignored and black fish landed in order to maximise income together with rising instances of drug abuse amongst fishermen due to the money being made changed my view.
Now they are calling the deal with the EU which keeps quotas as they are for the next 12 years "a capitulation" ("Starmer hails new EU deal that 'turns page' on Brexit", The Herald, May 20). They demand annual negotiations instead. There appears to be an assumption that EU quotas will continue to be reduced annually and that this will eventually give them control of fishing in the UK waters. But a reduced EU quota simply means the rest of us have to suffer higher costs elsewhere as a consequence of their intransigence.
What really antagonises me however is to learn that nearly 20% of the catch from UK waters is not even landed in Scotland. Our fishermen can get better prices in Denmark and Norway so they go there. That means that we pay more for what fish is landed here whilst Scottish fish processing workers' jobs are put at risk as a direct consequence.
Whilst Scottish fishermen strongly supported Brexit they were the first to complain about being excluded from Norwegian waters as a consequence. That's because the EU had negotiated access for its member states in exchange for reducing tariffs on Norwegian exports. In other words they voted to make themselves worse off. So why are these same fishermen now getting £360 million of support from the taxpayer to help keep them in a job?
Last week the same fishermen's organisations were complaining that new visa restrictions just announced would further jeopardise their industry because they employ cheap foreign labour (31% of the fleet) who in many cases do not speak good English. In an industry as dangerous as fishing I would have thought that the ability to understand instructions was a prerequisite. But as always it appears money is the overriding criterion.
Last year a BBC documentary revealed that many of these foreign workers were being paid below the minimum wage and were working in dangerous and unsafe conditions. Yet no boat owner has ever been prosecuted.
To this can be added their opposition to marine protected areas whilst some indulge in illegal scallop dredging in those areas that are protected. Then there is the French discovery last week of steroid contamination in Scottish farmed salmon where pens are already damaging the environment and putting wild salmon stocks at risk. Perhaps you can therefore understand why my support for the fishing industry has almost completely evaporated.
Robert Menzies, Falkirk.
Submissive Starmer
Various words have been used to describe the supposed 'deal' that Sir Keir Starmer has negotiated with the EU such as 'humiliation' and 'capitulation". However one might add 'submissiveness' to that list.
Is it not somewhat ironic that in this 80th anniversary year of VE Day, he concedes to Europe (and in particular to France) on almost every aspect of the deal and in particular, the betrayal of our fishing industry? The Prime Minister lauds his 'deal' and yet cannot detail what the UK will pay to access the EU Defence Fund nor the costs nor the detail around how we align to the food standards system.
This country will fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in addition to the European Court of Human Rights. The UK will have absolutely no input into the laws and structures of such courts. Can one imagine the likes of the USA or Canada or Australia or Japan becoming subservient to foreign courts?
Whether one agreed with Brexit or not, there is little doubt that this deal undermines our sovereignty and our ability to control our own destiny. The likes of President Macron, Chancellor Merz and Ursula von der Leyen will have huge smiles, if not smirks, on their faces following this 'deal'.
Richard Allison, Edinburgh.
Keir Starmer with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Monday (Image: PA)
Now show some backbone
Keir Starmer's reset with the EU has been characterised by the usual suspects as a betrayal of Brexit.
If events were looked at dispassionately, it would be seen clearly that Brexit was the betrayal.
Boris Johnson's battle bus had emblazoned on its sides one of the major fibs about the fresh funding for the NHS awaiting it once we left the EU. That campaign with its clarion call to restore sovereignty and control to the UK Parliament turned the heads of a disaffected electorate.
That disaffection had been fuelled by the growth in inequality and the decline in smart regulation which left the general public clinging on to a raft of failing public services. It was no wonder they jumped to join the bandwagon only to find out too late, once our departure from the EU was done and dusted, that they were riding on tumbrels heading towards the economic guillotine.
Now the plain unvarnished truth is there for all to see and the Government is trying to find some way to bring us back down to earth to face the reality of what has transpired since 2016. Sadly it is making slow progress out of fear of an adverse political reaction which could seriously jeopardise its re-election prospects.
It is time the Government showed its backbone and declared that our future rests entirely on rejoining the EU where we will have strength in numbers and a strong voice in the decisions and development of the EU.
That is the vision the country needs – to see a government ready to face down its critics whose agenda is to achieve a small state with low taxation and services barely at the safety net level.
Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Should Europe wean itself off US tech?
Should Europe wean itself off US tech?

BBC News

time16 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Should Europe wean itself off US tech?

Imagine if US President Donald Trump could flip a switch and turn off Europe's may sound far-fetched, crazy even. But it's a scenario that has been seriously discussed in tech industry and policy circles in recent months, as tensions with Washington have escalated, and concerns about the EU's reliance on American technology have come to the the root of these concerns is the fact just three US giants - Google, Microsoft and Amazon - provide 70% of Europe's cloud-computing infrastructure, the scaffolding on which many online services some question whether an unpredictable US leader would weaponize the situation if relations seriously deteriorated - for example, by ordering those companies to turn off their services in Europe."Critical data would become inaccessible, websites would go dark, and essential state services like hospital IT systems would be thrown into chaos," says Robin Berjon, a digital governance specialist who advises EU believes that concerns over a so called US "kill switch" should be taken seriously. "It's hard to say how much trouble we would be in." Microsoft, Google and Amazon all say they offer "sovereign" cloud computing solutions that safeguard EU clients' data, and would prevent such a scenario ever occurring. The BBC has contacted the US Treasury department for truth, there have always been concerns about the lack of "digital sovereignty" in Europe, where US firms not only dominate the cloud-computing market, but also hardware, satellite internet and now artificial the region's main mobile operating systems - Apple and Android - and payment networks - Mastercard and Visa - are fears became urgent in May when it emerged that Karim Khan, the top prosecutor at the Netherlands-based International Criminal Court (ICC), had lost access to his Microsoft Outlook email account after being sanctioned by the White ICC has issued arrest warrants for top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over their roles in the Israel-Gaza war - something Mr Trump called "illegitimate".Khan has since temporarily stepped aside until a sexual misconduct probe against him is says that "at no point" did it cease or suspend its services to the ICC, although it was in touch with the ICC "throughout the process that resulted in the disconnection". Since then digital sovereignty has shot up the agenda in Brussels, while some public bodies are already seeking alternatives to US is it realistic to think they could wean themselves off US technology?Digital sovereignty is loosely defined as the ability of a governing body to control the data and technology systems within its problem faced by those pursuing it is the lack of comparable does have its own providers, such as France's OVHCloud, or Germany's Germany's T-Systems or Delos, in cloud they account for a fraction of the market, and don't have the same scale or range of capabilities, says Dario Maisto, a senior analyst covering digital sovereignty at global business consultancy open-source alternatives are available for common software packages like Office and Windows, but while proponents say they are more transparent and accessible, none is as comprehensive or well known. But while moving to sovereign alternatives wouldn't "happen overnight", it's a "myth" to think it's not possible, says Mr notes that the German state of Schleswig-Holstein is currently in the process of phasing out Microsoft products like Office 365 and Windows in favour of open-source solutions such as LibreOffice and Linux. Denmark's Ministry for Digitalisation is piloting a similar scheme."We sometimes overvalue the role of proprietary software in our organisations," Mr Maisto says, pointing out that for key services like word processing and email, open-source solutions work just fine."The main reasons organisations don't use open source are a lack of awareness and misplaced fears about cyber security," he adds."Our prediction is in the next five to 10 years, there will be an accelerated shift [to these solutions] because of this wake-up call." Benjamin Revcolevschi, boss of OVHCloud, tells the BBC that firms like his are ready to answer the sovereignty needs of public and private organisations in Europe."Only European cloud providers, whose headquarters are in the EU and with European governance, are able to offer immunity to non-European laws, to protect sensitive and personal data," he Microsoft, Amazon and Google say they already offer solutions that address concerns about digital sovereignty, solutions which store data on severs in the clients' country or region, not in the tells the BBC that it also partners with trusted local EU suppliers like T-Systems, granting them control over the encryption of client data, and giving customers "a technical veto over their data". The German Army is one of its Microsoft president Brad Smith has promised the firm would take legal action in the "exceedingly unlikely" event the US government ordered it to suspend services, and that it would include a clause in European contracts to that effect."We will continue to look for new ways to ensure the European Commission and our European customers have the options and assurances they need to operate with confidence," a Microsoft spokesman told the BBC. Zach Meyers, from the Brussels-based Centre on Regulation in Europe (CERRE) think tank, says it might make sense for Europe to develop its own limited sovereign cloud to protect critical government he adds that it's unrealistic to try to "get Americans out of the supply chain, or to ensure that there's Europeans in the supply chain at each point".He points to Gaia X - a scheme launched in 2020 to create a European-based alternative to large, centralised cloud platforms, which has faced significant criticism and delays."A lot of these [tech] markets are winner takes all, so once you're the first mover it's really hard for anyone else to catch up."Instead, Mr Meyers thinks Europe should focus on areas of technology where it might gain an edge."It could be the industrial use of AI, because Europe already has a much bigger, stronger industrial base than the US has," he says. "Or the next generation of chipmaking equipment, because one of the few areas where Europe has foothold is in photolithography - the machines that make the really top-end chips." So where does the digital sovereignty agenda go from here?Some believe nothing will change unless Europe brings in new regulations that force regional organisations and governments to buy local technology. But according to Mr Berjon, the EU has been dragging its feet."There is definitely political interest, but it's a question of turning it into a shared strategy."Matthias Bauer, director at the European Centre for International Political Economy, thinks the goal should be building up Europe's technology sector so it can compete with the US and a report on EU competitiveness in 2024, Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank, noted Europe is "severely lagging behind" in new technologies, and that "only four of the world's top 50 tech companies are European"."It's currently much harder for a tech company based in the EU to scale across the bloc than it would be for the same company in the US," Mr Bauer says."You not only face different languages, but different contract law, labour market laws, tax laws, and also different sector-specific regulation."As for the theory that President Trump might flip a "kill switch" and turn off Europe's internet, he's highly sceptical."It would be a realistic scenario if we were close to a war, but I don't see that on the horizon."Yet Mr Maisto says organisations must take the risk seriously, however remote."Two years ago, we didn't think we would be talking about these topics in these terms in 2025. Now organisations want to get ready for what might happen."

STEPHEN DAISLEY: Arts venues that want to ban ideas they don't like forfeit any claim to public funds. Defund them. Let them close...
STEPHEN DAISLEY: Arts venues that want to ban ideas they don't like forfeit any claim to public funds. Defund them. Let them close...

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

STEPHEN DAISLEY: Arts venues that want to ban ideas they don't like forfeit any claim to public funds. Defund them. Let them close...

When it announced its ban on Kate Forbes, which it now says isn't a ban, Summerhall Arts promised 'robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that prevent this from happening again'. The happening in question was an on-stage chinwag with the Deputy First Minister during the Edinburgh Fringe. Summerhall explained that it was concerned about 'attracting those who share Kate Forbes's views'. I thought the Edinburgh Fringe was nothing but people who share Forbes's views, but Summerhall was not talking about the Highlands MSP's support for the national impoverishment plan more commonly known as 'independence'. No, they were referring to her gender-critical views. Summerhall said: 'We do not believe LGBTQ + rights, nor their existence, is up for debate.' It cited concerns for 'the safety and wellbeing of LGBTQ+ artists, staff and audiences' and said 'a designated relaxed space' would be available for anyone affected. Anyone affected by Kate Forbes? Are we talking about the same Kate Forbes? 5ft 2in? Likes the Bible? So young she makes Ross Greer look middle-aged? It's hard to imagine a functioning adult who would require a safe space to protect them from Forbes. Summerhall was going on like it was hosting Hannibal Lecter rather than the most senior woman in Scottish politics. This is the sort of fankle you get into when you believe, or pretend to believe, that political speech – and mainstream political speech at that – is violence and oppression and literally genocide. There are people who feared Scotland would become McGilead if Forbes, a practising Christian, was elected First Minister, who also think women should be shunned for wilful disbelief in the doctrine of self-identification. That is what this is ultimately about: heresy. Forbes does not accept that the material reality of sex is transformed by the assertion of an invisible inner essence called gender identity. For that, anathema is pronounced upon her and she is to be excommunicated from polite society. Kate Forbes is not the fundamentalist here. One would have thought even that clanjamfrie of self-regarding midwits, the Edinburgh arts world, would have learned its lesson from the Joanna Cherry incident. Two years ago, the Stand Comedy Club tried to cancel a Fringe event featuring the former Nationalist MP, blaming staff disquiet over her views on women's sex-based rights. Cherry, an advocate of some standing, gently suggested the club seek some legal advice since what it was proposing amounted to unlawful discrimination. The Stand duly consulted a Rumpole or two, only to be told Cherry was right. The ferret not only reversed but did so while reading a grovelling letter of apology. Talk of cowards who would rather placate crybully censors than stand up for free expression brings us inevitably to Amina Shah, the chief executive of the National Library of Scotland (NLS). NLS was originally intending to include The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht in its 'Dear Library' exhibition. Edited by journalist Susan Dalgety and civil service insider Lucy Hunter Blackburn, it's a collection of essays penned by the women who fought against Nicola Sturgeon's Gender Recognition Reform Bill. The authors include people with sharply contrasting political views. If you want the definitive, behind-the-scenes account of what the Scottish Government tried to do and how they were stopped, The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht is it. I heartily recommend it. Amina Shah seems less enamoured. Upon learning the book would be part of the exhibition, some LGBT+ activists on the NLS staff allegedly demanded it be removed as it contained 'hate speech' and its display would pose 'severe harm' to library employees. We have library employees in Scotland who are afraid books might hurt them. Every day, it becomes less and less baffling that we burned so many witches in this country. Rather than suggest these people seek help, or at least alternative employment, Shah dropped the book from the exhibition. It's not so much that Scotland's chief librarian caved into censors, it's that she did so with a book whose authors risked everything rather than shut up when they were told to. You can't always judge a book by its cover, but when the cover reads 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht', you can probably judge the authors. They kicked up a fuss – rightly so – and Shah has been hit with criticism and, it is said, a donor boycott. That these women were bolshie is commendable but what matters above all else is that they were right. The most powerful people in every sector of public life, enterprise, academia and the arts insisted they were wrong, and not just wrong but cruel, and not just cruel but bigoted. Their meetings were disrupted, their events cancelled, their jobs threatened, and their reputations tarnished on social media. They were exaggerating and misrepresenting. They didn't understand the law and should be disregarded. But they were right. The Supreme Court ruling in favour of For Women Scotland didn't make them right, it merely confirmed they had been all along. I happen to broadly agree with the book's authors, but even if I didn't – and especially if I didn't – I would want to learn exactly what they believe, and how they went about turning those beliefs into one of the most successful political campaigns in modern British history. Instead, there is a pronounced incuriosity, not only an intolerance towards ideas but a total indifference. Ideas are interactive; that's the point of them. One idea meets another and you take the best from both to form an even better idea. Not any more. Now, there are good ideas and bad ideas, and the bad ideas should not be considered. In fact they must be suppressed, because they have the power to harm and to corrupt. Orthodoxy is back, baby. Only it's no longer forbidding clerics or moral crusaders demanding filthy, dirty books be put on high shelves, it's people who imagine themselves to be enlightened and rational and liberal. For dark comedy, nothing at the Fringe can compete with the spectacle of social progressives inadvertently forming a Mary Whitehouse tribute act. Summerhall Arts relies heavily, and the National Library almost exclusively, on taxpayer subvention. Arts funding can be controversial. Some think it subsidises the cultural pursuits of affluent and otherwise privileged people. The search for truth, beauty and humanity should not belong to any one class or sector. It is the hallmark of a liberal society, a society in which liberty is used not only for transient gratification but to better understand the human, the ideal and the transcendental. Unfortunately, our cultural sector seems to be overrun with leaders who believe themselves already in possession of the truth, and uninterested, if not instinctively opposed, to the exploration of other ideas. An arts sector so ideologically prescriptive that it will not countenance wrongthink in its venues or on its bookshelves is one that has forfeited any claim to public funds. Institutions like Summerhall Arts and the National Library of Scotland should not benefit from the spoils of liberal society while having at its load-bearing walls with doctrinal sledgehammers. Defund them, let them close, and invest in new institutions that value free minds and free expression.

Anger as SNP spend £520m on dualling 11 miles of killer A9
Anger as SNP spend £520m on dualling 11 miles of killer A9

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Anger as SNP spend £520m on dualling 11 miles of killer A9

Dualling just 11 miles of Scotland's most dangerous road has so far cost taxpayers more than half a billion pounds, it has emerged. And work on the next six-mile stretch of the A9 is expected to cost at least £300million – pushing the combined bill to more than £800million by spring 2027. The SNP vowed in 2011 to upgrade 88 miles of single carriageway between Perth and Inverness by this year. But ministers failed to fund the commitment and finally admitted two years ago that the timetable had become 'unachievable' – pushing back the completion date to 2035. Only two of the 11 sections have been fully dualled so far – the five miles from Kincraig to Dalraddy, near Aviemore, and six miles from Luncarty to Pass of Birnam, north of Perth. The next section set to be completed, the six miles from Tomatin to Moy, outside Inverness, was recently delayed from 2027 to 2028. Construction has yet to start on the other eight stretches, with the final cost forecast to be around £3.7billion. Figures released to the Tories under freedom of information show the SNP spent £520million on dualling the road between 2012 and June this year. This includes design, land acquisition, demolition and preparatory works, procurement of contractors and the cost of the construction works themselves. Another £300million of spending is planned by April 2027, taking the total to £820million for the completion of 17 miles. Scottish Tory transport spokesman Sue Webber called for emergency legislation to cut bureaucracy and 'get the job done'. 'The SNP's ongoing failure to dual the A9 is Scotland's national shame,' she said. 'They've managed to squander £800million of taxpayers' money and still not even a third of the A9 is dualled. 'As costs soar and progress stalls, more and more lives are being lost on the A9. Unlike the SNP, we would make dualling the A9 a top priority.' Despite being the key transport artery to the Highlands, the A9 has long been a notorious accident blackspot, with many fatalities where the route switches between single and dual carriageway. There have been 320 'injury collisions' on the road in the last four years, including 135 classed as serious and 28 fatalities. The deadliest recent year was 2022-23, when 13 people were killed, followed by 2024-25, when there were seven fatalities. Among the recent casualties was mother-of-two Ashleigh Watson, 31, who was pronounced dead at the scene after a single-vehicle crash just before Christmas last year near Inshes, Inverness. A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'The A9 is an essential route in Scotland. It must be safe, reliable and resilient, and that is what this Government will deliver.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store