It�s known as �the irresistible force paradox�. What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
It's known as "the irresistible force paradox". What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? It comes to mind in the context of the current stushie between Westminster and Holyrood over the new Forth road bridge, a row that could cost Scottish travellers and businesses dear unless it is resolved quickly.
The SNP-led administration at Holyrood proposes to pay for its slimmed-down bridge by borrowing from future capital allocations in order to spread the £2bn cost over the next 20 years. Unsurprisingly, Yvette Cooper, chief secretary to the Treasury, has refused, telling the Nationalist government that it should pay for the crossing by building up a large underspend or using a Public Private Partnership (PPP), a policy to which the SNP is ideologically opposed. Yesterday, the Scottish Government said it was "not taking no for an answer".
Despite appearances to the contrary, this stand-off has more to do with politics than principle. Though Scottish ministers are coy about it now, this project was originally meant to be funded by the Scottish Futures Trust, the Nationalists' original replacement for PPP, which has been radically reconstituted after the inconvenient discovery that Holyrood does not have the power to issue bonds. The pragmatic solution would have been for Finance Secretary John Swinney to contact the Treasury at that point to work out how this unique project is to be funded. As both sides agree, this is a huge once-in-a-generation piece of infrastructure on which the Scottish economy and Scottish public are critically dependent. And construction cannot be delayed because corrosion of the current suspension bridge means it could be closed to commercial traffic as early as 2013.
Instead, Mr Swinney delayed contacting the Treasury until two weeks before announcing that the Scottish Government proposed to finance the project by using a previously unheard-of form of the never never: borrowing from as-yet-unallocated capital budgets up to two decades hence. So, in 2030, a Scottish Government could be denied capital funding on the basis that Mr Swinney had spent it in 2010. The delay enabled the SNP to announce an attractive transport spending programme, including dualling the A9, upgrading the A82 and electrifying the Glasgow to Edinburgh rail line. And, to deflect blame on to Westminster, Mr Swinney threatened to cut funding for schools and hospitals if money for the Forth crossing was not forthcoming. This is bad politics, not good government.
This saga illustrates the urgency of reconsidering the Scottish Government's borrowing powers. Politically, that would limit a Scottish Government's ability to blame all ills on Westminster. But that is for the future. What needs to happen now is for Mr Swinney and Ms Cooper to come to an accommodation about funding a vital link in Britain's transport infrastructure. The necessary compromise should involve an enhanced capital allocation or some form of PPP, though international public finance conventions now accepted by the Treasury will reverse the practice of keeping such liabilities off the balance sheet.
The solution to the classic paradox is that at the end of the day there is no such thing as either an irresistible force or an immovable object.
