Comment posted Time for a serious rethink on concessionary travel by newsroom.
The government is entiteld to decide what is sufficient travel TO SUBSIDISE.
Re (C) – bit of a Doh moment here.
The more Scotland chooses to spend on the periphery of a dependancy culture, the less it will have the capacity to foster the enterprise that alone can lift the country into growth; and the less it will have the ability to maintain and develop the infrastructural efficiency that underpins a confident and confidence inducing economy.
At the moment the Scottish Government is taking every soft option so as to limit any negatives in play when we get to the independence referendum. This is irresponsible and will exact a price whichever way that vote goes.
newsroom also commented
- An interesting and valid point. This would mean a state service, though – which has value but is not what we have at the moment.
We do not think that it is defensible for the government to require private sector operators to carry concessionary travellers at a loss.
State services of any kind – like the NHS and like education – are a different matter and a different argument. - There is a good point here – which is that specifc needs related travel might best be delivered by the services to which folk need access – like the NHS.
- Not when it’s paid for below cost.
Recent comments by newsroom
- Institute of Fiscal Studies economist looks at fiscal context of independent Scotland
The link to Mr Emmerson’s presentation has been given in the article above from the outset.
And – in genuine puzzlement – what precisely do you see as ‘spin’? - Colonsay votes 60%-40% in favour of proposed Marine Harvest salmon farm
Freedom Foods is less and different than it seems.
This article is required reading for any understanding of this tricky situation:
http://forargyll.com/2013/01/rspca-compromised-by-freedom-food-certification-for-farmed-salmon/ - Institute of Fiscal Studies economist looks at fiscal context of independent Scotland
We would be be very happy to answer this question if we could.
But, as things stand, there is no substantive information and economic detail on exactly what economic strategy and its associated policies would be pursued for an independent Scotland.
The First Minister’s ‘Scotland’s Economy’ paper, recently launched, was profoundly disappointing in this respect and, in its lack of economic substance, replaced by ad-man puffery, was damaging to the campaign’s credibility.
We can assure you and anyone, that when such information becomes available – and we are sure it will because it must – we will not be prejudging it but will respond to it with open mind and goodwill and the necessary intelligent scrutiny.
We have WANTED and still want to see a coherent, joined up, strong, imaginative, challenging and achievable strategy and policies put forward for a specific future for Scotland – honestly described in unchallengeably accurate costs and benefits and carving out an identity for Scotland that is realistic and unique.
The extent to which all we are being offered is essentially the status quo with a new badge and a few costly goody bags to entice ‘Yes’ votes could not undermine the ‘independence’ prospectus more thoroughly.
No one can possibly believe that a change of this magnitude can be made without cost to all concerned.
It is necessary is to know the realistic costs, perceive the realistic benefits and decide if the price is worth paying.
We do not believe that the price need be too high or the benefits inconsequential – but as this campaign is being run, the price IS too high and the benefits insubstantial because, in any competent sense, the necessary thinking has not gone on.
What is being proposed is unrealistic, often unspecific and unproductively expensive into the future – and the easy answers are clearly both misleading and dishonest.
This won’t do and it won’t do it. - White smoke rises from Councillor Duncan MacIntyre’s chimney as two-man College of Cardinals settle a deal
Short and sweet for short and sweet: don’t be simplistic.
No one could defend Councillor Robb’s sudden swerve last Thursday, leaving his loyal colleagues like flotsam and jetsam.
But that does not mean that he did not deserve the support he was given by his colleagues when he was given it.
Life is not a simple business. - Russell to make parliamentary statement on rural schools today
In the circumstances of the destructions of the SNP councillors group in the last 12 months, you can hardly expect credibility elevating the importance of ‘collective’ action?
Being ‘collective’ when it suits one to harvest support from others it not what collectivity or collegiality is about.
And many in Argyll now know more than enough about your party, its councillors, its members, its structures and its wonderfully elastic ‘rules’.
powered by SEO Super Comments
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-politics/4668-snp-condemn-labours-scaremongering-over-concessionary-bus-travel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I disagree.. the money paid out on this concession saves the NHS a fortune. By encouraging the elderly to get out and about keeping them mobile means less imput from Doctors and other medical staff.
With day care service costs spiriling better to have people out and about as often as poosible this also encourages mental stimulation. The benefits far outway the costs. Tampering with this concession would be at any politicians cost ,just as we will not forget this latest budget.
I know for a fact that some bus companies are ripping the government off. Always check your ticket and look at the destination!!!!..If not correct send it to the SG Transport office….many have.
Many buses would run half empty without us, better get something than nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And what about the ‘seniors’ who need to travel daily to work or visit a relative/friend in hospital? I suppose that falls into the ‘obscenely exploitative’ category too.
There are far greater obscene and exploitative ways in which subsidies are used, especially by the wealthy (which includes ‘seniors’). FiTS for renewables for example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are surely two extremes – for example people in rural areas for whom the free bus is a lifeline to the nearest community, and at the opposite extreme people in Glasgow who are tempted to occupy their days swanning around the country at very considerable cost to this scheme.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Many chronically sick and disabled people who depended on transport from the NHS and Local Authority were told that the concessionary fares system was sufficient to their transport needs. both agencies reduced their transport fleets accordingly.It was negation on their part.
Yes there needs to be a concessionary re-think by the NHS and the 11 or 12 councils that operate the scheme in Strathclyde Region.
They must reinstate the fleets that was in place for therapeutically social and recreational activities.
The result of taxing personal incomes for free universal transport could be the last straw for the uncaring Westminster playboys and playgirls
I do understand the anger if free universal transport for pensioners and the chronically sick ends up being another tax hike by central government. We should have a voice in order to influence the decision makers of the SPTG
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is a good point here – which is that specifc needs related travel might best be delivered by the services to which folk need access – like the NHS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I found the whole article quite baffling.
Some questions . . .
a) Who decides what is sufficient travel and what is excessive? Surely the need to travel is intimately linked to personal circumstances.
b) Who exactly are these ‘endlessly travelling seniors’ using their bus passes in an ‘obscenely exploitative’ manner, and how many of them are there in relation to the total number of bus passes issued?
c) How exactly is this issue related to the alleged stifling of enterprise in Scotland?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The government is entiteld to decide what is sufficient travel TO SUBSIDISE.
Re (C) – bit of a Doh moment here.
The more Scotland chooses to spend on the periphery of a dependancy culture, the less it will have the capacity to foster the enterprise that alone can lift the country into growth; and the less it will have the ability to maintain and develop the infrastructural efficiency that underpins a confident and confidence inducing economy.
At the moment the Scottish Government is taking every soft option so as to limit any negatives in play when we get to the independence referendum. This is irresponsible and will exact a price whichever way that vote goes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Reading the Newsroom article, anyone might think that special buses are laid on for the seniors to ‘obscenely exploit’. Like all bus travellers, they are using scheduled services that have fixed costs.
We should be celebrating the fact that our seniors remain active in society, not downgrade them to indulgent sterotypes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another slow news day for ForArgyll. Without hard facts this Article’s a rant.
Haven’t ForArgyll run recent favourable articles on West Coast Motors. So did they check their facts with them then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not sure how the free travel scheme works, but I presume the bus companies get a fixed amount from the government each time someone uses the service.
In which case, isn’t the scheme helping to subsidise rural transport and keep services viable, as well as providing older people with free transport?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not when it’s paid for below cost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I could suggest one economy – stop issuing bus passes and ferry cards to second home owners. If you can afford 2 houses when others have none you can afford to pay the full wack. Don’t be mislead into thinking the wealthy do not make full use of them either when it suits them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For the last eight years I have used my bus pass EXCLUSIVELY for the 25 mile return journey from Barcaldine to Oban and back by scheduled bus service whenever possible. Translate that total distance into CARBON FOOTPRINT via a Transit van. Surely NOT to provide free transport at the point of use is the ‘obscenity’. Actually, if you are serious about global warming etc then ALL public transport should be free to users. Grr
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An interesting and valid point. This would mean a state service, though – which has value but is not what we have at the moment.
We do not think that it is defensible for the government to require private sector operators to carry concessionary travellers at a loss.
State services of any kind – like the NHS and like education – are a different matter and a different argument.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why shouldn’t bus operators make a social contribution? Surely we are ‘all in this together’. And let us not forget that Transport Scotland provides an annual subsidy of £66.5 million to the bus industry, the aim of which is to keep fares at affordable levels and enable bus operators to run services that might not otherwise be commercially viable.
And let’s face it, how much does it actually cost the bus company in reality to have an extra bum on that empty seat? If that seat would otherwise be empty then it is surely better to fill it at a lower fare – something the airlines have understood for many years.
In fact, prior to the introduction of electronic ticketing machines bus companies have been doing very well out of this, being able to present estimates of numbers and fares to the government for remuneration. According to Scottish Executive’s review of the scheme there were £700,000 of inaccurate claims last year and two firms were charged with fraud.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are other considerations. The Gov puts a lot of money into public health initiatives and preventative measures to keep seniors engaged, fit and active. This can be viewed as one of the more cost effective of those kinds of measures. Mental health and wellbeing is greatly enhanced by planning to go out, getting out and about etc
The other aspect is the increased footfall in tourist destinations in rural Scotland that you get from more people travelling – not to be sniffed out for fragile rural economies. I know of many seniors who travel because of this who would not be and supplying that extra little bit of income in the place they go to, multiple it a few times and it can make the unsustainable sustainable.
I could go on,,,,,,,,,,,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well said Lorna.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I also do not agree with the view of Forargyll.com and it is obvious that the editor is not nearly 60 years of age. The bus companies currently get 67% of a single full fare. Surely it is better that there are 10 concession card holders on a bus than 1 person paying a single full fare of £2. The bus company would recive £13.40 instead of £2.
Recently on a visit to Dundee I travelled on the Travel Dundee local city bus service. The dearest single fare is £2.10 which is the fare I paid. If I was old enough to have a bus pass Travel Dundee would receive £1.41 (to the nearest penny) from the Scottish Government.
I also noticed an advert on the bus advertising a 10 journey ticket at £14.40 which equates to £1.44 per journey.
If the bus companies are struggling financially they should all stop selling cheap tickets and charge everyone the full fare.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m the only one who thinks that the current scheme is just far too complicated and thus open to abuse? The additional cost involved in actually conveying a passenger will be minuscule compared with the fixed cost of the bus (capital and maintenance) and the driver’s salary. Why does the Government not just negotiate a flat rate with the various bus companies, annually adjusted for inflation, that allows all card carrying seniors to travel free?
Just the initial negotiation, then a monthly doling out of the subsidy. It will save lots of civil servants’ time, administrative overheads at the bus companies and, not to mention, faster passenger boarding times.
Or is this all just too simple?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0