Edinburgh’s politicians have tough decision to make over congestion change – Steve Cardownie

The news that a congestion charge may be reconsidered for Edinburgh has met with a pretty hostile response which was predictable to say the least, says Steve Cardownie, who wonders whether it will happen.

Tucked away in amongst the range of measures in the council’s city centre transformation proposals is the somewhat low-key statement that the council may “explore the introduction of road user charging to manage demand” in other words a congestion charge to reduce the volume of traffic travelling in the city centre.

Such a proposal was put to the Edinburgh public in a referendum 14 years ago at a cost of £600,000 and, in a turnout of 61.7 per cent, it was rejected by 133,678 votes to 45,965.

The three options proposed by the council at that time were a two-cordon congestion charge, a one-cordon congestion charge, or do nothing. It was predicted at the time that the operation of a two-cordon congestion charge (one around the city by-pass and the other covering the city centre) would generate around £50 ­million per annum for the council. That ­proposal was not only intended to reduce traffic in the city but also to provide a cash cow, where the money generated would be earmarked for future traffic/road improvements. But the public was not impressed and voted overwhelmingly for the third option – do nothing.

If the lure of the ‘cash cow’ was removed and future proposals were limited to the city centre then it may secure public support and achieve the desired aim, as it was predicted back then that a city centre-only charge would remove 59,000 journeys whilst still generating a substantial income.

It would also negate the ­opposition from neighbouring councils, who objected to the boundary ­proposals as their citizens would be liable for the charge when commuting to the city. So, to stand any chance of ­success, any new scheme will have to be ­substantially altered if it is to attain public approval.

There is also no doubt that public opinion has moved on from 14 years ago. Faced with growing evidence about climate change and air ­pollution, it is more likely to embrace change and consider far-reaching ­proposals designed to meet the ­challenge with congestion charge ­proposals now standing a better chance of approval than ever before.

However, the electorate would expect to see any such proposals contained in local election manifestos and, given that it is of such import, it would be manifestly absurd if it was not referred to when political parties set out their agendas for the city.

Some will have to gauge whether public opinion has changed ­sufficiently to ensure that their electoral ­prospects are not ­diminished by the ­inclusion of a congestion charge in their manifesto, whilst ­others will seek to blaze an environmental trail and promote such a scheme whatever the consequences. The next round of local ­government elections is already ­shaping up to be an interesting contest. The status of our relationship with the rest of Europe will be known (surely?) and also perhaps Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK, so the city’s response and future plans will be of paramount importance. How the city responds to the dangers of climate change and air pollution will come under increased scrutiny, so brave decisions will have to be made.

A raft of new traffic measures are to be introduced and assessed before consideration is given to the introduction of any congestion charge, which means that it may be some time off.

But it will ultimately be the politicians and not council officials (whatever they say) who will determine its fate.

A milkshake is just wasted on Farage

Andy Warhol said in the programme for his 1969 Stockholm exhibition: “In the future everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.”

Another example of this was Monday’s drenching of Nigel Farage with a milkshake as he was walking through the streets of Newcastle. The perpetrator has no doubt demonstrated the wisdom of Warhol’s words, but his actions leave a lot to be desired.

I have nothing in common with Farage, other than we breathe the same air, but assaults such as this should not be seen as a legitimate way of registering a protest, particularly in a democratic society.

I said that it did our cause no favours when Jim Murphy, then Labour Scottish Secretary, was hit with an egg during the referendum campaign in 2014 and that it was also counter-productive as it evoked sympathy for the victim (Murphy was obviously of a similar view as he refused to change his shirt for the rest of the day).

So, instead of wasting money by throwing a milkshake at Farage give it to a homeless person or buy a decent newspaper and arm yourself with arguments against him rather than a junk-food missile.

Shock - Nicola still wants independence

IN response to a question from Andrew Marr last Sunday about whether or not she would remove the need for a referendum on Scottish independence if the UK remained in the European Union, Nicola Sturgeon replied “Not necessarily, no, because I think things are changing.”

This is against the backdrop of the Scottish Government’s intention to introduce a Referendum Bill setting out the rules to be applied to such a measure.

She went on to say, “I think after all the experience of the last three years, Scotland should have the opportunity to decide whether we want to become an independent European nation.”

Given that the SNP constitution says, “to be in the driving seat of our own destiny and to shape our future is a natural desire. It is what we all hope for ourselves and it is what the SNP believes is right for Scotland”, I am only surprised that some people are surprised by Nicola’s answer!