I see Humza Yousaf has been promoted to Justice Secretary and Michael Matheson is now Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity. I’ve no idea what the implications of this will be for future electrification (if any). Does anyone know anything about him?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
New Scottish Transport Sec and implications for Electrification
- Thread starter clc
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
In politics in this country/U.K. No one stays in post for long so as to avoid any likely responsibility for failure . All parties in Government Do it. Transport is a brief Humza would be willing to pass the parcel on as his shift in the hot seat has passed. They are now shuffling a very limited pack of limited ability . Keith Brown has yet to find a job he can claim any real aptitude for , hence he has now no department . I would expect it will have limited pact on the railways tho.
He was a junior Minister and is now a cabinet secretary so it’s definitely a promotion.
Worth noting that Transport (or rather "Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity") is now a full cabinet secretary position, whereas Humza Yusaf was as you say a junior minister, so it is also a promotion for "Transport". Not that this is likely to actually mean anything!
Highland37
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 1,259
I disagree. The EGIP project, other electrification, HSTS, new rolling stock (delayed through no fault of anyone other than the manufacturer) and other things have left railways in Scotland in a better position than they have ever been. Overall, I think the opposite is true if we contrast with the huge cost overruns on GWEP, timetable shambles recently which the Minister was involved in directly and fiasco with the East Coast franchises. I'll take "limited ability" over that any day.
Thats a low aspiration for our political class if your content with that standard . Regardless of party there is not a wealth of talent to be found in Scottish politics , hence its a juggling of jobs to keep the show on the road . Westminster no better mind you .
What would be medium/high aspiration and should taxes go up to pay for it? I think spending £0.5bn on electrifying Glasgow/Edinburgh/Stirling/Alloa/Shotts etc, 70 new electric trains, refurbed HST, improvements to Aberdeen/Inverness, and 20-25% more seats across the network, plus a new Queen St station etc is pretty impressive. You could argue it should have been done before by previous governments, but at least this one is actually doing it.
People complain about the A9 upgrade taking until 2030 to complete but again this government is doing it. The Queensferry Crossing was a branded an "SNP vanity project" by opposition parties and by most of the media. You just can't win!
I believe that if you compare the capital spend by Transport Scotland and that of the department of transport (or whatever it's called down south), a higher proportion of the Scottish spend goes on road projects. It's not just the A9. Successive Scottish governments have loved their grand projets.
They needed doing though. We’ve been playing catch-up in Scotland due to our trunk road network not being fit for purpose for a long time.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Did the A82 ever get upgraded?
Could that be partly driven by a relatively small population spread over a large area (compared with south of the border) resulting in more miles of road per head of population? I might be wrong. Personally I think the A9 has been a horribly dangerous road and the need for upgrade is well deserved given the number of fatalities over many long years and the knock-on effect in terms of long delays. The large amount of money spent on the Queensferry Crossing was needed too even if people didn't realise it at the time, otherwise there would be gridlock and significant damage to the economy.
I'm not banging the drum for roads but any government will struggle to balance the needs of road versus rail. I would hope though that we will see more rail improvements in the next CP to build upon the good work already underway and near completion.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
For goodness' sake.
Marginal constituencies are pretty much irrelevant in the Scottish Parliament. Any minor losses of a marginal constituency are immediately rectified by the Additional Member System. Unless something very strange happens, it normally just means the same set of politicians swap between constituency and regional list seats. A viable candidate for any seat is almost certain to be at the top of the party's regional list and so be first in line for the top-ups, which are deliberately designed to re-balance away from the party which wins constituencies.
A statement like this demonstrates you don't understand what you're talking about, or that you don't care. This isn't about politics, it's about the mechanisms of the electoral system. I'm sure this has been brought up before by the same group of people on this forum.
Highland37
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 1,259
Big deal? There is less of the country, by land mass, with a railway line. Using your "logic", the massively higher level of expenditure on ferries in Scotland than the Dft would be grounds for criticism of the latter body but the world is much more complex than simple comparisons designed to show one party in a bad light.
- Status