Dear old lady of the Forth must go, says MSP
Callum Johnstone
28 February 2003
Dear old lady of the Forth must go, says MSP
Call to demolish bridge horrifies tourist chiefs
IAIN WILSON
IT is one of Scotland's greatest emblems and painting its 113-year-old
structure has become a metaphor for a job that never ends.
However, the distinctive colour of the Forth Bridge has helped send
maintenance costs soaring and now Helen Eadie, an influential MSP on
transport strategy, has suggested it be replaced because of its high
upkeep.
The call comes as the maintenance bill for the bridge is expected to
soar to £280m over the next 14 years - around £20m a year.
Mrs Eadie's proposal has been greeted with horror, especially since it
was put personally to Richard Bowker, chairman of the Strategic Rail
Authority which is seeking "cost efficiencies" across the UK network.
Mrs Eadie, who represents Dunfermline East, is convener of the
Scottish Parliament's cross-party group on strategic rail services.
At a meeting with Mr Bowker, she asked if it is now time to replace
the bridge, because of the soaring upkeep costs.
Yesterday, she argued there is no difference in dismantling the
113-year-old bridge and old oil rigs, and further argued for a
low-maintenance substitute.
Mrs Eadie said: "We need to separate out issues of sentiment and
emotion from issues of pragmatism. If you were told four years ago
that repairs and maintenance would cost £40m, would you not start to
ask serious questions about the economic benefit?"
Critics ridiculed her views, with tourism sources suggesting they were
"mad" given the bridge's iconic status, let alone issues such as where
a new bridge would go and what would happen to the old one.
Kenny MacAskill, the SNP transport spokesman, said of the proposal:
"It's not so much blue sky thinking as off the wall thinking."
The bridge, known as the scarlet lady, is recognised worldwide as a
Scottish landmark and engineering marvel, and is also the UK's largest
A-listed structure and is synonymous with its needs for never-ending
painting.
A spokesman for VisitScotland, at a show at Earl's Court, London,
where the tourism stand features pictures of the bridge, said: "We
rank it as one of the most immediately identifiable icons of Scotland.
"It is used on lots of promotional material, and stands alongside
tartan, Loch Ness, golf, and Edinburgh Castle as absolutely
identifiable with Scotland."
Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board said: "It's an enduring and
visible icon of Scottish engineering excellence, a spectacular
monument which never fails to turn visitors' heads."
Kate Downie, the artist whose 14-year study of the bridge culminated
with Span, a stunning lithograph to mark the millennium, said: "You
would be destroying a symbol worth far more than the bridge itself."
She added: "It's a monument to big ideas and the philosophy of
endeavour, a design so unique, so special, that its removal would also
remove the guts of Scotland's defining engineering capabilities."
Speaking about demolition, Mrs Eadie pointed to repeated delays in
repairs and facelift despite concerns the bridge was deteriorating.
She added: "I would not want it to happen, but do want questions asked
as to why rigging was put up, then taken down only to go back up. It's
an outrage."
Full details of a new maintenance contract are expected soon, with a
likely price tag of £280m - a soaring cost echoing those of the
Scottish Parliament, up from an estimated £40m before the 1999
election to £338m now.
Mrs Eadie dismissed any suggestion the Holyrood building should also
be replaced with lower-cost model, arguing: "It came under enormous
scrutiny, unlike the bridge.
"If everyone agrees that money goes into the bridge, that's fine.
"All I'm saying is questions asked, otherwise we are funding a black
hole."
It would appear Network Rail, responsible for the bridge, would not be
adverse to losing control, but yesterday said only a new refurbishment
contract has been awarded. Mr Bowker told the cross-party rail group
he had been "choked" to read about the £280m bridge bill, although it
reflected health and safety requirements while working on the 6325ft
long, 351ft tall structure with track some123ft above high water.
The SRA did not return calls aimed at determining if it supports moves
to replace the bridge.
Robert Peffers
"Callum Johnstone" <callumj...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e82bab9.03022...@posting.google.com...
Seems Helen Eadie has made the usual NuLab mistake of opening her mouth
before engaging her brain. The owners of the Forth Bridge, Network Rail,
have counter claimed that there is no plans to demolish the bridge and their
correct figures for the maintenance cost are actually £10m p.a. This is just
a tad lower than the good lady's claimed figures. Perhaps she hoped she
could get away with the same kind of accounting as Henry McLeish, of
Officegate fame, or Jack McConnell, of Lobbygate fame.
Now I will tell you about another little Fife fact I found out today. I
became worried about an ecological matter involving a local proposed
building project. This involved building on land used industrially for
hundreds of years. One processes was a gas works.
On asking Environmental Health if the,* probably*, contaminated land was
mentioned on the statutory , *Contaminated Land List*, all local Councils
must hold I was told no. They maintain such a list but the list is empty.
Now I ask you? Can anyone believe a County like Fife, a large coal field for
hundreds of years with more than its fair share of Industrial sites. has no
contaminated land. They have pulled down asbestos prefabs. demolished old
lino works and had have such things as Aluminium works, paper works and who
knows what else and they have not one single area of contamination? I smell
a very potent, and very dead, rat.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),,
frae Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
In Kelty, *Kingdom Of Fife*,
Scotland, (UK).
b...@peffersspecs50.freeserve.co.uk
(Remove specs to make reply).
*The Eck's Files*, Web Site is http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
---
Aa ootgannin mail free frae wee beasties..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 18/02/03
Fox1
>Kenny MacAskill, the SNP transport spokesman, said of the proposal:
>"It's not so much blue sky thinking as off the wall thinking."
One of the Seven wonders of the modern world is worth £20M preserving surely.?
Robert Peffers
"Fox1" <fo...@NOSPAMedinburghairport.org.uk> wrote in message
news:nmp06vonln36r3556...@4ax.com...
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
It is the silly season for MSPs just now. They have an election pending.
Seems they need the publicity. However the owners of the Forth Rail Bridge
give a figure of £10M as their annual maintenance bill. Seems the good lady
either has double yoked eggs or she did her sums wrong. Mind you this is
from a politician I wrote to for some help a couple of years ago and I am
still awaiting a reply. Fife Labour do not do replies it seems for I also
wrote to several a couple of weeks ago. I had one acknowledgement of receipt
of a letter and utter silence from the rest ever since. I wonder if they do
anything at all?
Callum Johnstone
> One of the Seven wonders of the modern world is worth Ł20M preserving
surely.?
A worldwide symbol of Scotland. Something we have to preserve, no matter the
cost! An irrational, emotional viewpoint, perhaps, but some things are too
important!
However, I'm extremely amused that Miss New Labour MSP's views on waste of
public money do not extend to the Holyrood White Elephant. The Forth Bridge,
apart from being a great symbol of the engineering history of Scotland,
provides an invaluable service to thousands of rail commuters, and draws the
tourists also. I wonder what value for money the Holyrood Parliament
building will bring? :-)
Robert Peffers
>
> "Fox1" <fo...@NOSPAMedinburghairport.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:nmp06vonln36r3556...@4ax.com...
>
> surely.?
>
> A worldwide symbol of Scotland. Something we have to preserve, no matter
the
> cost! An irrational, emotional viewpoint, perhaps, but some things are too
> important!
>
> However, I'm extremely amused that Miss New Labour MSP's views on waste of
> public money do not extend to the Holyrood White Elephant. The Forth
Bridge,
> apart from being a great symbol of the engineering history of Scotland,
> provides an invaluable service to thousands of rail commuters, and draws
the
> tourists also. I wonder what value for money the Holyrood Parliament
> building will bring? :-)
>
>
The trouble with politics in Scotland in general is that the vision seen by
Donald Dewar died with Donald Dewar. Donald, like everyone else, had his
faults and one oh his was his fear and hate of the SNP that clouded his
normally clear vision. He it was who counted out the Old Royal High School
Building which sat there ready to be moved into. No other real motive can be
found for not using that building. If it was not big enough they could have
done something about that. The reason was nothing more than NuLab saw it as
too much of an icon for those who sought total Independence.
Other than that Donald saw Scottish politics as the politics of consensus
with everyone in the new Parliament doing what they saw as being best for
Scotland. Indeed in those early days it looked as if this was how things
would go. After Donald died we were landed with Henry McLeish who was the
old NuLab party hack with dyed in the wool Westminster attitudes. Even worse
he was more loyal to Westminster than he was to Holyrood. The London party
thus tightened its grip on the Scottish Parliament. The party infighting
started together with London and the UK taking first place in Scottish
Labour Party priorities. After Officegate, when Henry caught with his
fingers in the till, we were landed with Jack McConnell, who already had the
stale smell of Lobbygate hanging round his shoulders, and the inter-party
shooting matches became much worse, Westminster's grip tightened, and the
various suspicious Labour Party financial wheeling and dealing has never
left the parliament ever since. It makes me sick to the pit of my stomach
when I watch the live broadcasts from Holyrood and McConnell is asked any
question and his first reaction is to look for some way to run down the SNP
and other parties rather than give the answer to the question. I did not
vote for MSPs to fight the creaking old Westminster party Ya! Boo! fight but
to do what is best for my country. Scottish Labour will never be any good
until they cut that cord that binds them to Westminster.
There is no politics of consensus, No Scottish Labour and no trust in the
financial dealings of the Scottish Labour Party left. The leaked document
that branded the Scottish Labour Party's Lib/Dem bedfellows as unreliable
probably sounded the death knell of the Scottish Labour Party as we know it.
Is it any wonder that they are now so desperate for something to make a
cause from that they make such daft claims as the demolition of something
that instantly conjures up a picture of Scotland to the whole World. That
bridge is as much a part of the World's view of Scotland as tartan, pipes,
haggis and Hieland coos. No one could buy such a World famous icon of their
country.
scotbitz
"Robert Peffers" <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b3qlos$4m4$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Very true .
' It's not what your country can do for you,but what you can do for your
country'.
I don't think most MSPs have heard that or know what's meant. Too busy
making themselves comfortable, physically and financially.
Donald Dewar has a lot to answer for, because due to him ,Scotland is
saddled with another white elephant......and still rising. All for
self-gratification.
Robert Peffers
"scotbitz" <scotbit...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:9l68a.712$p17...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
snip
> > snip>
>
> Very true .
> ' It's not what your country can do for you,but what you can do for your
> country'.
>
> I don't think most MSPs have heard that or know what's meant. Too busy
> making themselves comfortable, physically and financially.
> Donald Dewar has a lot to answer for, because due to him ,Scotland is
> saddled with another white elephant......and still rising. All for
> self-gratification.
>
>
For what it is worth, I think Dewar was a great man with a great vision.
Like many of his kind, though, he had a blind spot. His was about, *The
Scottish Nationalists*. It was that which clouded his vision. It is my firm
belief, that had he lived, the Scottish Parliament, (Institution that is,
not the building), would have taken a different road. Dewar's actual
thinking was far closer to most nationalists than he thought. Most SNP
people do not want to break up the United Kingdom or indeed the Alliance
that is Great Britain & Northern Ireland. The UK being the institution that
is headed by the Monarch. Many want shot of the Royalty bit but would be
please to see the special relationship between, Scotland, England, Wales and
Northern Ireland go on. We are like any other family in that we will fight
among ourselves but let an outsider stick their oar in and --- --- ---.
Contrary to what the English trolls would have everyone believe the vast
majority of Scots value their friendship with England very highly. While we
don't much like the system of government that means England dominates
everyone else by sheer weight of numbers in the Westminster Parliament we do
love our closest neighbours, (we just don't want them keeping the purse
strings and saying how we run our own country). What is obvious from that is
that we don't want to run theirs for them either.
So most people see the whole picture as each home country running their own
affairs in their own parliament with some sort of meeting of the four
countries to look after such things as defence, foreign embassies and so on.
Even with defence the fair way to handle that is for each country to have
their own forces but with an overall command system. It seems to work well
enough for the likes of NATO and the EU.
n
I think, if Dewar had still been around, he would have prevented the
Scottish Parliament slipping into the Ya! Boo! little copy of Westminster
that it is at present. From the voters point of view we don't care what
party comes up with a good idea or who votes for it in Parliament but we
would like to see them voting for the idea on its merit and not voting
against it as a matter of course for no better reason than scoring party
points over some other party. Even worse is the thought that much
legislation is voted on by members who have no interest in whatever it
happens to be but who were pulled through the lobby by the party whips.
Uncle Anorak
> The Herald
> 28 February 2003
<snip>
> Mrs Eadie's proposal has been greeted with horror, especially since it
> was put personally to Richard Bowker, chairman of the Strategic Rail
> Authority which is seeking "cost efficiencies" across the UK network.
And how much revenue would be lost due to the impact on tourism of it no
longer being there????
> Mrs Eadie, who represents Dunfermline East, is convener of the
> Scottish Parliament's cross-party group on strategic rail services.
>
> At a meeting with Mr Bowker, she asked if it is now time to replace
> the bridge, because of the soaring upkeep costs.
>
> Yesterday, she argued there is no difference in dismantling the
> 113-year-old bridge and old oil rigs, and further argued for a
> low-maintenance substitute.
Surely this should be a decision of the people of Scotland...why couldn't it
go to a referendum?....
> Mrs Eadie said: "We need to separate out issues of sentiment and
> emotion from issues of pragmatism. If you were told four years ago
> that repairs and maintenance would cost £40m, would you not start to
> ask serious questions about the economic benefit?"
Hmmm....while we're at it, why don't we level Edinburgh Castle, that would
give plenty of land in the middle of Edinburgh for some half million pound
townhouses.
> Critics ridiculed her views, with tourism sources suggesting they were
> "mad" given the bridge's iconic status, let alone issues such as where
> a new bridge would go and what would happen to the old one.
>
> Kenny MacAskill, the SNP transport spokesman, said of the proposal:
> "It's not so much blue sky thinking as off the wall thinking."
Had she been on the Bridge painting it and got a little too much of the
fumes before she came up with the little nugget of a suggestion?
<snip>
> Speaking about demolition, Mrs Eadie pointed to repeated delays in
> repairs and facelift despite concerns the bridge was deteriorating.
>
> She added: "I would not want it to happen, but do want questions asked
> as to why rigging was put up, then taken down only to go back up. It's
> an outrage."
Hello???....I've got another radical idea...why don't the government find
that out?...
Also...hang on...I've got another great idea....why don't we have a group of
people to look into the strategy and maintenance of transportation in
Scotland???
> Full details of a new maintenance contract are expected soon, with a
> likely price tag of £280m - a soaring cost echoing those of the
> Scottish Parliament, up from an estimated £40m before the 1999
> election to £338m now.
>
> Mrs Eadie dismissed any suggestion the Holyrood building should also
> be replaced with lower-cost model, arguing: "It came under enormous
> scrutiny, unlike the bridge.
>
> "If everyone agrees that money goes into the bridge, that's fine.
>
> "All I'm saying is questions asked, otherwise we are funding a black
> hole."
One eejits black hole = a whole nation's symbol.
> The SRA did not return calls aimed at determining if it supports moves
> to replace the bridge.
As they were too busy snorting their tea down their nose in laughter at the
suggestion probably.
I can't wait to see what the chocolate fireguard proposal is like.
Allegedly the project's name will be 1D-10T
Surfing Bird
Surfing Bird