Professor John Robertson OBA
From the Independent last week:
Ferries which connect island communities to mainland Britain are in decline, an MP has warned in his push to bring boats more in line with buses and trains. Joe Robertson said the Isle of Wight’s 140,400 residents have little say over how ferries are run across the Solent to Hampshire.
He has tabled the Ferry Services (Integration and Regulation) Bill which, if agreed, would set up a framework for regulating boat routes throughout the country.
Bus and train operators must follow several laws, such as the new Bus Services Act this month, which gives councils the power to guard “socially necessary” routes from sudden cuts.
But there is “no accountability or control over pricing or any aspect of the way” ferries are run, Mr Robertson told the PA news agency. “But there is no obligation they have to anyone, so that means we’ve got prices like £400 return to bring a car back and forth on peak weekends.”
We’ve highlighted these disparities and the generosity of CalMac prices several times but just last week we had:
In July 2025, a medium size car with four passengers, Portsmouth to Fishbourne with Wightlink Ferries, would cost you between £210 and £300, depending time of sailing. From Southampton to East Cowes with Red Funnel would be between £200 and £288. It’s a 12 mile, 45 minute journey.1, 2
The Oban to Mull crossing is similar at 15 miles and 45 minutes but costs only £76 to £98, a third of the cost.3
Sources:
- https://www.wightlink.co.uk/tickets/vehicle-tickets
- https://www.redfunnel.co.uk/isle-of-wight-ferry/plan/fares
- https://www.directferries.co.uk/oban_craignure_ferry.htm
How has this been achieved in Scotland?
In October 2008, Transport Scotland introduced the Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) fares policy as a pilot on routes to the Outer Hebrides, Coll and Tiree (and made permanent in 2012). The principle of RET is that ferry fares should be set on the basis of travelling an equivalent distance by road plus a fixed fare element aimed at cost recovery. RET was intended to reduce the cost disadvantage faced by island communities and promote the islands as places to live, work, visit, invest and conduct business. In 2012, the policy was extended to cover Colonsay, Gigha and Islay. It was then further extended to the two Arran routes and Campbelltown in 2014. Finally, in October 2015, RET was rolled-out to all remaining routes, including the high-volume routes of Oban – Craignure, Wemyss Bay – Rothesay and Largs – Cumbrae.
What has the RET achieved?
Increase demand for ferry services by making ferry travel more affordable and accessible. Increase tourism and supporting existing tourism markets. Enhance local economies and the wider national economy.
Do the so-called representatives of the islanders ever recognise this?
Nope.
As well as this subsidy in the form of lost tax revenue, the Scottish Government directly subsidises CalMac, by £3.7 billion over ten years.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
This is not so good for the islanders if the additional demand cannot be met by the provider and islanders find themselves unable to get a booking. This is a regular occurence on some routes in the summer!
LikeLike
O/T apologies
The BBC website Scottish Politics page.
“Sarwar refuses to comment on UK tax hike speculation“
Really ?
Yet he, Sarwar, is not slow in commentating upon and also speculating upon so many other things that he says the SNP are currently doing wrong and that they , the SNP, will also do wrong if they win again next year, where as he says that he and his party will apparently do far far better if they win in Scotland next year. (Big if)
The BBC article states that “the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has refused to be drawn on speculation that Chancellor Rachel Reeves will raise UK income tax“.
Indeed I bet he does, as he knows only too well the negative financial impact this will have upon Scotland , though when he was interviewed by Colin Mackay on Scotland Tonight, Sarwar used the same weak excuse that he would not speculate and also that income tax was set in Scotland…..
Colin Mackay pursued Sarwar on this and Mackay said that he was not asking him, Sarwar, to speculate but he was asking him whether he would lobby the Labour Chancellor upon this, as an increase by the Labour Chancellor would have a significant negative impact upon the Scottish block grant – Sarwar knows this but he , yet again, was trying to deflect the blame of any potential negative impact upon the Scottish government.
MSM Monitor posted this:
“Anas Sarwar has said he won’t ask Rachel Reeves not to increase income tax by 2p because it would be “inappropriate” to do so, even if it results in a £1bn cut to the Scottish block grant. Well done Colin Mackay for pressing motormouth charlatan“
“Motormouth” is a very apt description of Anas Sarwar , because yet again , when being interviewed upon something that made him, Sarwar, uncomfortable and also clearly exposed him for the “charlatan” that he truly is, then Sarwar did what he always does – and that was to keep talking over the interviewer , this time it was Colin Mackay, to then stop viewers hearing what Colin was saying to him. (and also the fact that Sarwar was clearly trying to avoid answering the question being put him – and a very valid question it was too).
The BBC article continues in stating that “While an increase would not apply in Scotland – which has distinct bands and rates – it would lead to a cut in the Holyrood budget under devolved funding arrangements, known as the fiscal framework”
“Sarwar declined to explain how he would plug the budget gap if he became first minister following the Holyrood election in May”.
Again…..I bet he did.
However he, Sarwar, will not decline to speak up when any such potential tax increase is made by Reeves that then negatively impacts Scotland’s block grant. However Sarwar will not speak up for Scotland though……
But what Sarwar will do is wait until the Scottish government has to make hard choices , which will then be the time when Sarwar will not be so reluctant , as in reticent, to express his partisan opinion where he will lay 100% of the blame solely upon the SNP as the Scottish government.
This potential tax increase made by the Labour Chancellor and the then negative consequence for Scotland’s budget is an extremely valid question that he , Sarwar, must at some point be made to address in his election campaign, as it will present a real dilemma for Scotland if Reeves does indeed decide to increase taxes that then potentially results in a £1bn cut to the Scottish block grant.
Sarwar cannot continue to avoid explaining how he will overcome this obstacle for Scotland’s finances that was caused by a UK government consequence when it comes to him campaigning next year for his party in the Scottish elections……..
Mind you remember what Sarwar pledged last year before the UK GE to the people who worked at Grangemouth Refinery…and then what actually happened after the UK GE…..as in the opposite of what Sarwar had promised them.
The BBC’s article also states “The Scottish Labour leader said that if he became first minister he wanted to “reduce the tax burden on our country and go hell for leather for growth“.
The more astute voters will remember how once Sarwar was promoting that Tax in Scotland should be increased as in Sarwar’s 2021 leadership campaign he, Sarwar, suggested that Scottish Income tax should be increased, with Sarwar supporting a 5% increase for the highest tax band and a 2% increase for people earning over £100,000 .
(Sarwar’s nomination/endorsement list for that leadership campaign included Jack McConnell, Gordon Brown and the now disgraced Frank McAveety.….and also , as a Trade Union, the GMB Trade Union whose various representatives in Scotland often supports Sarwar and the Labour party politically over the SNP…….one example, of many, being the Bin Strike in Glasgow during COP26 with a photo op of Sarwar and a GMB representative standing beside overflowing rubbish bins……a rubbish politician standing beside a rubbish Trade Union representative both standing beside rubbish….how very apt).
Anyway I digress, but interestingly the BBC article states that Sarwar’s way of “reducing the tax burden” and increasing “growth” in Scotland was “through measures like city mayors, and more co-operation with Westminster and speeding up the planning system“
City Mayors , does he mean just like those various Mayors in England, which then for Scotland is also a way for a Labour UK government to take both powers and money away from the devolved Scottish government. (just like the former Tory UK government also intended to do as well) .
Also could Sarwar be any more co-operative with WM as he is now , where he is reduced to being uber subservient to Labour HQ as the new WM UK government, and as to the speeding up of planning services…..would that be for new Nuclear power stations to then have a potential Sarwar FM’s permission for them to be built in Scotland, well NO Thanks…..Scotland does not want more Nuclear imposed upon it by a UK government.
Honestly surely no one will vote for a Labour party next year that has Sarwar as their branch office manager……….whose only task in his fake role , as the Labour branch office manager within Scotland, is to always grant any Labour UK government complete carte blanche to do whatever they want to do to Scotland in Scotland……….and that is not a “New Direction” but it is the same wrong direction as Labour HQ, that Sarwar and his Labour party intend to pursue if they win next year in Scotland. (again a big if).
They should not win though next year in Scotland…..as more voters here in Scotland can now clearly see that they, Labour, are political ‘Dead Ducks’…….and that is on them, Labour, and them alone.
Liz S
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said liz. I wish I could be as confident about very few voting Labour next year. I again go back to what we were told on the doorsteps in 2015. “Never again. Labour lied to us”. And last year? I just hope you are correct, and the electorate see them for what they are, liars.
LikeLiked by 2 people