OnePlus 5 review
I know everyone here loves to hear about politicians spending money on themselves with no concern about the wider economy so I thought you'd be interested to hear that £141,000 per month is being spent on maintenance of the Scottish parliament building.
One critic has said that by 2020 it would be cheaper to pull it down and rebuild rather than keep throwing money at dealing with its inbuilt flaws.
And people wonder why I opposed devolution.
Go to most big cities, and there is a likely chance that you might find old Victorian buildings still serving their original purpose in life.
Yet how many 'new builds' are in need of urgent repair after a short time, due to flaws in design or materials?.
This may even apply to supposedly 'purpose built' blocks, that are deemed 'not suitable for purpose' after a very short time, and in some cases have never even been occupied, yet rents and maintenance is still being provided.
No doubt that Br$$els will force the english to pay the polish to do the work if that is the case.!!
Wales doesn't appear to come cheap either how many offices do the Welsh have.
Edinburgh seems to be getting a reputation for problems with building projects eg the tramway.
I'm not one of those who complains about the failure to meet the original budget for this building. I know that all public projects cost much more than they were estimated at. If the Scottish Parliament building had cost £50m rather the estimated £10m that would be understandable. But it didn't. It cost £414m (as best as can be estimated).
And then, almost as soon as it opened, it began to fall down. It continues to fall down and I find it appalling that it is even possible to make a case for saving money by demolishing it.
I'm surprised that Quickbeam thinks condemning wasteful spending is controversial.
I doubt politicians are so wasteful with their own money.
What really gets me about things like this is the fact that there hardly ever seems to be any accountability in terms of people being sacked for incompetence.
There must have been people who signed off on this building at various stages in its design and construction - structural engineers for instance. They have to check that the proposed structure will bear the loads that are likely to be imposed on it. Local authority building control officers also inspect the building at various stages, and of course there are the architects who designed it.
I notice that a spokesperson for the Scottish parliament (an official) said "Our annual maintenance cost reflects that Holyrood is an iconic, award-wining building that welcomes more than 400,000 visitors a year. All maintenance costs are met from within the parliament’s overall budget provision, which we have reduced by 11 per cent over four years.”
So that's OK then.
One wonders what the award was for, and whether it should be taken back.
I may sound biased but if Glasgow ...it's miles better ... had been given the task of constructing the new Scottish parliament building [from scratch] instead of those 'arty-farty' folk in Edinburgh then it would not have come to this sorry state of affairs.
This is only my opinion, folks!
PS. If Scotland gets independance, later this year then I say we have another referendum:-
" Should Glasgow be the new capital city of Scotland? "
Why? Edinburgh has been the capital since Dunfermline was sometime in the 15th century.
On that line of thinking, maybe it's now Doncaster's turn to be the capital of England...
Good idea, it seems to work with the EU when they transfer or transport their working establishments across boundaries, hence the critics name of travelling circus?.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.