From the BBC today:

"The majority of MSPs on the Waverley Railway Bill Committee support 
the case for re-establishing a route between Edinburgh and 
Galashiels....

It has been estimated that it would cost about 150m to get trains 
running on the track again, up by 20m on the previous projection."

Anyone like to join a sweepstake on the eventual cost if the route 
ever gets built? I'll buy a ticket for 320m.

Ian 
--

Ian Johnston wrote:

> From the BBC today:
>
> It has been estimated that it would cost about œ150m to get trains
> running on the track again, up by œ20m on the previous projection."


Ian, your post looks rather rum on my screen! A very peculiar dipthong
character has appeared, probably where you typed a currency symbol.

As I've seen the BBC report that you refer to, I can explain to any
baffled readers that the currency in question is pounds sterling rather
than euros, US dollars or Matobele gumbo beans. Conventionally of
course we express that on Usenet as GBP. (No, /not/ UKP - let's not go
down /that/ road again!)
-- 
Pat Ricroft, City of Salford, UK
================================

> "The majority of MSPs on the Waverley Railway Bill Committee support
> the case for re-establishing a route between Edinburgh and
> Galashiels....
>
> It has been estimated that it would cost about o150m to get trains
> running on the track again, up by o20m on the previous projection."
>
> Anyone like to join a sweepstake on the eventual cost if the route
> ever gets built? I'll buy a ticket for o320m.


All depends on which contractors appear in the running :-D

Ill go for an optimistic 250 million GBP

Of course the Executive could go for the give us your tender and thats all 
your getting paid for it approach to the contractors... might put all of 
them off though

Niall

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:31:09 UTC, "Niall Wallace" 
 wrote:

: > Anyone like to join a sweepstake on the eventual cost if the route
: > ever gets built? I'll buy a ticket for o320m.

: Of course the Executive could go for the give us your tender and thats all 
: your getting paid for it approach to the contractors... might put all of 
: them off though

Nah. They just take the money, overspend, threaten to go bankrupt just
before an election and get bailed out. Since when has "fixed price" 
ever been stuck to in public sector contracts?

Hmm. Thinks about it. Didn't the government quite rightly let Marconi 
crash and burn over the Nimrod contract...

Ian

"Ian Johnston"  wrote:


>From the BBC today:
>
>"The majority of MSPs on the Waverley Railway Bill Committee support 
>the case for re-establishing a route between Edinburgh and 
>Galashiels....
>
>It has been estimated that it would cost about 150m to get trains 
>running on the track again, up by 20m on the previous projection."
>
>Anyone like to join a sweepstake on the eventual cost if the route 
>ever gets built? I'll buy a ticket for 320m.




It will be another Scottish Parliament.

The costs will spiral out of control, and it will cost >10 times the
figure that the Scottish politicians say it will.  But no-one will bat
an eyelid because, as usual, England's taxpayers will foot the bill.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:54:58 UTC, Tony Polson  wrote:

: "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
:
: >Anyone like to join a sweepstake on the eventual cost if the route 
: >ever gets built? I'll buy a ticket for 320m.

: It will be another Scottish Parliament.
: 
: The costs will spiral out of control, and it will cost >10 times the
: figure that the Scottish politicians say it will.  But no-one will bat
: an eyelid because, as usual, England's taxpayers will foot the bill.

Keep your voice down, Polson. Or as we say north of the border, 
"sucker".

Ian

"Ian Johnston"  wrote:


>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:54:58 UTC, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
>: "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
>:
>: >Anyone like to join a sweepstake on the eventual cost if the route 
>: >ever gets built? I'll buy a ticket for 320m.
>
>: It will be another Scottish Parliament.
>: 
>: The costs will spiral out of control, and it will cost >10 times the
>: figure that the Scottish politicians say it will.  But no-one will bat
>: an eyelid because, as usual, England's taxpayers will foot the bill.
>
>Keep your voice down, Polson. Or as we say north of the border, 
>"sucker".



<giggle>

;-)

On 22 Jul 2005 13:13:09 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
 wrote:


>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:54:58 UTC, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
>: "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
>:
>: >Anyone like to join a sweepstake on the eventual cost if the route 
>: >ever gets built? I'll buy a ticket for 320m.
>
>: It will be another Scottish Parliament.
>: 
>: The costs will spiral out of control, and it will cost >10 times the
>: figure that the Scottish politicians say it will.  But no-one will bat
>: an eyelid because, as usual, England's taxpayers will foot the bill.
>
>Keep your voice down, Polson. Or as we say north of the border, 
>"sucker".
>
>Ian

Always said they never built Hadrians wall high enough.

If scotland has its own parliament now and runs its own affairs, it
should pay its own taxes not let us pay for them.  Why are so many now
sporting the St Georges flag on cars and windows etc these days,  the
Union flag seems to be almost disappearing

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:51:17 UTC, Martin WY  wrote:

: On 22 Jul 2005 13:13:09 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
:  wrote:

: >Keep your voice down, Polson. Or as we say north of the border, 
: >"sucker".

: Always said they never built Hadrians wall high enough.

Well, that's effete southerners for you. 
 
: If scotland has its own parliament now and runs its own affairs, it
: should pay its own taxes not let us pay for them. 

Sounds fair to me. Now, about that oil ...

Ian

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:54:58 +0100 someone who may be Tony Polson
 wrote this:-


>The costs will spiral out of control, and it will cost >10 times the
>figure that the Scottish politicians say it will.


Time will tell whether your claim is correct or not.


>But no-one will bat
>an eyelid because, as usual, England's taxpayers will foot the bill.


The record seems to be stuck.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:51:17 GMT, Martin WY  wrote:


>On 22 Jul 2005 13:13:09 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:54:58 UTC, Tony Polson  wrote:
>>
>>: "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
>>:
>>: >Anyone like to join a sweepstake on the eventual cost if the route 
>>: >ever gets built? I'll buy a ticket for 320m.
>>
>>: It will be another Scottish Parliament.
>>: 
>>: The costs will spiral out of control, and it will cost >10 times the
>>: figure that the Scottish politicians say it will.  But no-one will bat
>>: an eyelid because, as usual, England's taxpayers will foot the bill.
>>
>>Keep your voice down, Polson. Or as we say north of the border, 
>>"sucker".
>>
>>Ian
>Always said they never built Hadrians wall high enough.
>
>If scotland has its own parliament now and runs its own affairs, it
>should pay its own taxes not let us pay for them.  Why are so many now
>sporting the St Georges flag on cars and windows etc these days,  the
>Union flag seems to be almost disappearing

Also, there are a lot on here now who dont know how to use their
newsreaders properly.  There is one thread started, then someone
doenst know how to carry on to reply to it so starts his own thread,
and you end up with 5 to 8 threads all on the same subject, with
others then adding their own. -  what is there to reply to??

I do whish a lot would take notice of the FAQs issued monthly by Joyce
Whitchurch on the correct replying and use of newsgroups.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:08:49 GMT, Martin WY  wrote:


>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:51:17 GMT, Martin WY  wrote:
>
>>On 22 Jul 2005 13:13:09 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:54:58 UTC, Tony Polson  wrote:
>>>
>>>: "Ian Johnston"  wrote:
>>>:
>>>: >Anyone like to join a sweepstake on the eventual cost if the route 
>>>: >ever gets built? I'll buy a ticket for 320m.
>>>
>>>: It will be another Scottish Parliament.
>>>: 
>>>: The costs will spiral out of control, and it will cost >10 times the
>>>: figure that the Scottish politicians say it will.  But no-one will bat
>>>: an eyelid because, as usual, England's taxpayers will foot the bill.
>>>
>>>Keep your voice down, Polson. Or as we say north of the border, 
>>>"sucker".
>>>
>>>Ian
>>Always said they never built Hadrians wall high enough.
>>
>>If scotland has its own parliament now and runs its own affairs, it
>>should pay its own taxes not let us pay for them.  Why are so many now
>>sporting the St Georges flag on cars and windows etc these days,  the
>>Union flag seems to be almost disappearing
>Also, there are a lot on here now who dont know how to use their
>newsreaders properly.  There is one thread started, then someone
>doenst know how to carry on to reply to it so starts his own thread,
>and you end up with 5 to 8 threads all on the same subject, with
>others then adding their own. -  what is there to reply to??
>
>I do whish a lot would take notice of the FAQs issued monthly by Joyce
>Whitchurch on the correct replying and use of newsgroups.
>

Oi !!! Wrong thread!! 
Hadrian's Wall should really have been built round Yorkshire.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:51:17 GMT, Martin WY wrote:


> If scotland has its own parliament now and runs its own affairs, it
> should pay its own taxes not let us pay for them. 


If they've abolished taxpaying in Scotland, nobody has told me, or my
employers  - who keep taking PAYE of me.


> Why are so many now
> sporting the St Georges flag on cars and windows etc these days,  the
> Union flag seems to be almost disappearing


That's because of people who think like you and don't realise that this is
still a United Kingdom.

How would you people in England like to pay for new railway to St Andrews
whilst  you're at it - it could do with one.

-- 
Best Regards
Richard

yyOn 22 Jul 2005 02:26:32 -0700, "Pat Ricroft"
 wrote:


>Ian Johnston wrote:
>> From the BBC today:
>>
>> It has been estimated that it would cost about 150m to get trains
>> running on the track again, up by 20m on the previous projection."
>
>Ian, your post looks rather rum on my screen! A very peculiar dipthong
>character has appeared, probably where you typed a currency symbol.
>
>As I've seen the BBC report that you refer to, I can explain to any
>baffled readers that the currency in question is pounds sterling rather
>than euros, US dollars or Matobele gumbo beans. Conventionally of
>course we express that on Usenet as GBP. (No, /not/ UKP - let's not go
>down /that/ road again!)


Wossamarrer ? Has Northern Ireland stopped using Sterling ?
;-)

yyOn Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:54:58 +0100, Tony Polson 
wrote:


>"Ian Johnston"  wrote:
>
>>From the BBC today:
>>
>>"The majority of MSPs on the Waverley Railway Bill Committee support 
>>the case for re-establishing a route between Edinburgh and 
>>Galashiels....
>>
>>It has been estimated that it would cost about 150m to get trains 
>>running on the track again, up by 20m on the previous projection."
>>
>>Anyone like to join a sweepstake on the eventual cost if the route 
>>ever gets built? I'll buy a ticket for 320m.
>
>
>It will be another Scottish Parliament.
>
>The costs will spiral out of control, and it will cost >10 times the
>figure that the Scottish politicians say it will.  But no-one will bat
>an eyelid because, as usual, England's taxpayers will foot the bill.
>

That will be the Scottish Parliament building ordered by a department
of the Westminster government, won't it ?

Charles Ellson wrote:

> yyOn 22 Jul 2005 02:26:32 -0700, "Pat Ricroft"
>  wrote:
> 
>>As I've seen the BBC report that you refer to, I can explain to any
>>baffled readers that the currency in question is pounds sterling rather
>>than euros, US dollars or Matobele gumbo beans. Conventionally of
>>course we express that on Usenet as GBP. (No, /not/ UKP - let's not go
>>down /that/ road again!)
> 
> Wossamarrer ? Has Northern Ireland stopped using Sterling ?


I believe someone nicked it all ;)

-- 
<><|"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
....|   -- President Merkin Muffley
ScR|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail/
Pix|http://photos.eatnet.org.uk/MacCookie <- further adventures

Richard Lucas  wrote:


>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:51:17 GMT, Martin WY wrote:
>
>> If scotland has its own parliament now and runs its own affairs, it
>> should pay its own taxes not let us pay for them. 
>
>If they've abolished taxpaying in Scotland, nobody has told me, or my
>employers  - who keep taking PAYE of me.



Perhaps you can explain why public spending per head of population in
Scotland runs at twice the average for the whole of the UK.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:vko2e1hof0vjabfr167vbv64fin8ctq704@4ax.com...

> Richard Lucas  wrote:
>
> Perhaps you can explain why public spending per head of population in
> Scotland runs at twice the average for the whole of the UK.
>


Perhaps you could explain why Scotland has umpteen of the UK's
worst areas for housing, health and depravation and successive
Westminster governments have done hee-fucking-haw about it?



James H

yyOn Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:19:20 +0100, Tony Polson 
wrote:


>Richard Lucas  wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:51:17 GMT, Martin WY wrote:
>>
>>> If scotland has its own parliament now and runs its own affairs, it
>>> should pay its own taxes not let us pay for them. 
>>
>>If they've abolished taxpaying in Scotland, nobody has told me, or my
>>employers  - who keep taking PAYE of me.
>
>
>Perhaps you can explain why public spending per head of population in
>Scotland runs at twice the average for the whole of the UK.
>

Possibly because privatisation and the consequent figure-fiddling of
not counting as "public expenditure" the money paid by the same public
for allegedly the same services to private providers has not been
allowed to happen to the same extent as in England.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:19:20 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:


> Richard Lucas  wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:51:17 GMT, Martin WY wrote:
>>
>>> If scotland has its own parliament now and runs its own affairs, it
>>> should pay its own taxes not let us pay for them. 
>>
>>If they've abolished taxpaying in Scotland, nobody has told me, or my
>>employers  - who keep taking PAYE of me.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why public spending per head of population in
> Scotland runs at twice the average for the whole of the UK.


Perhaps you provide a source for this statistic.
-- 
Best Regards
Richard

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:19:20 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:


> 
> Perhaps you can explain why public spending per head of population in
> Scotland runs at twice the average for the whole of the UK.


It appears that you are ill-informed.  For many years under the Barnett
formula, Scotland with 10% of UK population, received 12% of total public
spending.  In recent years the effect of Barnett has been to reduce the
differential in spending, and the Scottish spend has become closer to the
UK average.  If you know otherwise, I'd be pleased to see your sources of
information.

It's argued that the England enjoys compensatory benefits, such as the fact
that Government jobs are disproportionately located in England, and
especially the South East, so giving an invisible boost to public spending
in England.

If you're still unhappy, why not move north!
-- 
Best Regards
Richard

"J Houston"  wrote:


>
>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
>news:vko2e1hof0vjabfr167vbv64fin8ctq704@4ax.com...
>> Richard Lucas  wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps you can explain why public spending per head of population in
>> Scotland runs at twice the average for the whole of the UK.
>>
>
>Perhaps you could explain why Scotland has umpteen of the UK's
>worst areas for housing, health and depravation 



Because Scottish politicians squander money on grandiose projects such
as the Parliament rather than the things people actually need?

Because teachers in Scotland are paid 25% more than those in England?

You tell me!  Given the high level of public spending in Scotland,
what you say is surely a national disgrace.  

Where is all the money going?

Richard Lucas  wrote:

>
>If you're still unhappy, why not move north!



Because I don't like the people there?

(only joking!)

;-)