There will now be a pause within
parliamentary circles, both up here and doon there, to allow the politicians to
draw breath before going on the verbal rampage once again, after weeks of
squabbling and downright unsavoury rammies.
If ever there was a reason to
abandon adversarial politics this was it. Politicians of all parties tend to
forget that it was the entire British electorate who put each and every one of
them in the House. On that basis they should all work together for the
common good, not just gang up on the one party who has the majority.
Democracy is not all it's cracked up to be, eh?
I digress, but based on past
experience the matters that concern US will be pushed further down their
'easily-overlooked' to-do list as other more important matters of state take
priority.
When eventually our professional
politicians, elected by us and salaried by us (Oops, I'm getting all cynical
again), finally get round to OUR very small matter of getting back on the roads
of Mull and the Borders there will be the usual delays and costs.
So why does it take so long for a
Bill to go through the House, and why does it cost so much? This is a
democracy, so why should it cost anything at all?
That brings us back to the
guys/guyesses who got us in to this mess in the first place, although
admittedly they were unaware at the time of the possible repercussions of their
ill-considered 'Compensation Clause' in the original 1990 Bill. Mind you, the
lawyers can't take all the blame, they write up the drafts, but the politicos
read them, debate them and approve them - or not.
The preparation of an initial
Draft Bill requires a legal team to write it up, but they will be advised by
consultants and other professionals who will also require a fee. For instance,
if you are preparing a Bill to build a third Forth Crossing (cos they'll bluidy
need it soon!) then architects, engineers and construction firms will have to
be consulted about timescales and costs. Studies will have to be conducted on
the impact on local residents and subsequent traffic flows and that comes after
a case has been prepared and accepted that such a bridge is needed. And then of
course there is the 'environmental' study. In such a big project these costs
alone will be in millions.
At a more modest level where a
current Act merely requires a change of wording or a new Bill adopted in its
place then this will need to be considered and approved before the legislative
process will start all over again.
That will take months, sometimes
years, for such a Bill to make its way through Parliament, and only then if
there are no objections and re-writes. In theory it could happen within one
session, but there are some right old windbags ensconced in their ivory towers
who can pontificate for hours even when they have nothing to say.
Some rally/motor sports fans
believe that the new 'English' legislation will enable a wholesale introduction
of closed road events of all types across the country, and if adopted up here,
ease the path to many more events. That will not happen. For three reasons,
such a process will still be costly and affordable only by the bigger
competitions and sponsored events. So who will fund this? The MSA? Scottish
Motor Sports? The Scottish Sport Council? Us?
Secondly, think of the
implications of the required Safety Plan and the restrictions which will be imposed
on such events by Police and Local Authorities, and thirdly, volunteer
manpower. There is already a shortage of Marshals to run what we have.
Is there any good news? John Lamont has overnight become the new MP for
Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk and he is a known supporter of the Jim
Clark Rally while the MSP for Argyll & Bute Michael Russell at least seems
receptive to Mull's endeavours.
Could Mull get back on the roads this October? Given all that, highly
unlikely. Even if there were no objections, the process itself would take too
much time. Wonder if the MPs/MSPs are up for a bung, eh?
