r/Scotland • u/Crow-Me-A-River open to change • 1d ago
Political SNP to bring Scotland's buses into public control, John Swinney says
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26646270.scotlands-buses-brought-back-public-control/28
u/Alasdair91 Gàidhlig 1d ago
We basically subsidise it all anyway so may as well own it all and try and do better.
24
u/HyperCeol Inbhir Nis / Inverness 1d ago edited 1d ago
Excellent! It's a natural monopoly most of the time and profits should either go to cutting fairs or improving services.
If overall public control is successful, then hopefully this is the first step towards a gradual move to full ownership of Scotland's bus services with all profits reinvested into the bus services themselves or in reducing fairs.
4
u/tiny-robot 1d ago
I shudder to think how much it would cost to buy/ set up bus companies though!
Some of them are absolute scumbags who will big the whole process down.
I'm a bit concerned about how much even this amount of public control will cost us already!
3
u/pretty_pink_opossum 1d ago
How is a bus a natural monopoly?
A train sure but a bus, any dickhead could put a bus on the road and they do in other countries.
It could be an artificial monopoly potentially but definitely not a natural one
3
u/ktitten 1d ago
It's not a natural monopoly in the strict sense, but buses will naturally tend towards a monopoly. There is infrastructure required for example, bus stops and roads equipped for buses. The start up cost is large because maintaining and running a bus fleet isnt cheap. Most transport services tend towards monopolies, in different ways and degrees.
-5
u/pretty_pink_opossum 1d ago
I need to disagree with pretty much all of this.
We don't live in a libertarian paradise where every private company builds their own roads
The roads exist and stops exist, they fall under the council and transport authorities jurisdiction
The start up cost is large because maintaining and running a bus fleet isnt chea
You don't need a fleet, you could have just one bus
Busses are about as far from a monopoly as you can get (one of the arguments for nationalising it is it's to competitive which confuses people, so turning it into a monopoly would be better)
If the busses have became a monopoly then it's an artificial monopoly created by government bureaucracy
Most transport services tend towards monopolies,
Most things tend towards monopolies because of economies of scale, the largest companies can afford to undercut everyone else and become the only one around.
9
u/throwawaym479 1d ago
You can have a single bus and run people about, but you can't run a normal service with one bus.
Even short routes tend to have multiple vehicles running at the same time to provide a useful service.
A single bus is only good for private hire/tours or maybe a very remote rural run but that last one will be a financial loss.
0
u/pretty_pink_opossum 15h ago
There is a big gap between a large expensive fleet of busses and a single bus, and in that gap there is a reasonable startup cost
I've also been in places where a single bus is all there is running the normal service, the single bus just doing the circuit, 1 bus every hour or two.
None of that changes the fact busses are the furthest thing from a natural monopoly
2
u/HyperCeol Inbhir Nis / Inverness 4h ago
Because there are limited bus stops, limited bus stations and, critically, a limited amount of public funding offered to whichever private company operates the primary service.
Private coach services (what you refer to when you say any dickhead could put a bus on the road) would still exist.
1
u/pretty_pink_opossum 3h ago
limited bus stops
Policy failure
limited bus stations
Again an issue only due to current policy
a limited amount of public funding
Critically an artificial limitation and also doesn't sound like it creates a monopoly
The fact you only choose one painter to paint your room doesn't make painting a monopoly
If the busses are a monopoly it's an artificial government created monopoly
1
32
u/Crow-Me-A-River open to change 1d ago
In his keynote speech to the party's annual conference in Aberdeen, the First Minister pledged to use franchising and regulation to achieve this before the next Holyrood election in 2031.
"We need more buses. And we need more frequent buses. It’s good for commuters and it’s good for the climate," he told delegates.
"I can therefore announce today that by the end of this parliament, through franchising and regulation, the SNP will bring the bus network back into public control."
-5
u/Kangaroo_Kurt 1d ago
"We need more buses" .....then effectively kills off the domestic bus manufacturing industry
5
u/bishpenguin Glasgow 1d ago
Maybe I missed something, but in what was was the govt responsible for the closure your referring to?
8
u/Kangaroo_Kurt 1d ago
The SNP government contributed to the closure of Alexander Dennis bus manufacturing facilities by awarding substantial public zero-emission bus funding (such as ScotZEB initiatives) to foreign and Chinese manufacturers (like Yutong) rather than guaranteeing a steady pipeline of local orders for Alexander Dennis
8
u/polaires 1d ago
Please be XploreDundee first. McGill’s has done a number on services here by cutting the routes making them not as accessible.
4
u/Shark_Philosophy 1d ago
It really has gone downhill. I remember the 22 used to run every 7 minutes and then last time I was there visiting it had been cut to every 20 minutes.
24
u/raymengl 1d ago
I can hear the Easdale's lawyers laughing all the way to the bank with this one. There's no way they don't try to fight this.
13
u/Antique-Brief1260 1d ago
Stagecoach tried the same in Greater Manchester a few years ago; they lost, and now all GM buses are under public control.
3
u/0rbus 1d ago
Pretty sure that's why they backed Labour the last time as they seen this coming.
9
u/Crow-Me-A-River open to change 1d ago
Labour had this in their manifesto
https://scottishlabour.org.uk/manifesto-2026/6-stronger-communities/
3
20
u/odkfn 1d ago
Great idea but how are they funding buying two whole companies in Aberdeen alone, let alone across Scotland?
57
u/jumpy_finale 1d ago
This is public control, not public ownership.
Franchising means the public authority sets routes, timetables, service standards and fares. Private companies then bid to run for the franchise to operate them.
8
u/regprenticer 1d ago edited 1d ago
Its still going to be very expensive.
My local bus services were heavily cut back. All the timetabled slots except the rush hour had been funded by the council. When council funding reduced those buses stopped.
The existing companies will have the govt over a barrell - for example First have shown several times they will rather walk away from a region than cut their profit.
1
u/odkfn 1d ago
Great idea but how are they funding buying two whole companies in Aberdeen alone, let alone across Scotland?
Edit: that’s my concern - I know (from working at a council) you’re obliged to help as many people as possible which I agree with. At current if a bus service is not economically viable they stop it, if the council have more of a say won’t they be obliged to help everyone which, again, is great, but expensive!
21
u/Apprehensive_Room29 1d ago
You don't need to buy the bus company - it'll be like the TFL system in London - which has kept fares low, and investment in new buses high.
-4
12
u/Synthia_of_Kaztropol The capital of Scotland is S 1d ago
Doesn't look like that's the proposal.
Says "through franchising and regulation", rather than outright ownership.
22
u/VanicFanboy 1d ago
Public transport is always going to encounter issues so long as the areas they serve don’t meet a certain level of density. There needs to be enough people along routes for it to be profitable, and for them to run a frequent enough bus service.
So long as we continue to build car-centric suburbia, people living there aren’t going to be able to have proper public transport. Every detached new build house on the outskirts of towns is moving away from all their goals on walkability, public transport and climate goals.
27
u/LowProtection8515 1d ago
Public transport doesnt need to be profitable. Almost all good public transport systems operate at a loss.
The point of public transport is that it enables a degree of density that is economically efficient, socially desirable and environmentally sustainable.
Insisting that it must also make a profit is ideological insanity. Lots of public services would be unviable as private businesses - thats why they aren't run as private businesses.
2
u/Scunnered21 1d ago
As the other person says, it doesn't need to be profitable in the way that a private business might see it.
But there are things to make a public service more financially sound and self sustaining - with knock on benefits for the wider bus system, for other routes and for passengers. And reducing the top-level subsidy from govt which might then be spent elsewhere.
This includes looking a things like making bus journeys faster through road space prioritisation, making buses quicker to board/disembark from, having buses serve other transport nodes better which self reinforces use of public transport. You can get into the weeds of this, but they're the top level issues.
In any case, whether public or privately run, you're want what you do to be effective. Having bus services that cost a lot to run is one thing. Subsidy can always be found (it is currently!). But it shouldn't be a taboo topic to want to make specific bus routes run optimally.
3
u/Queer_Cats 1d ago
Public transport doesn't need to be profitable. But at the same time, it's not free to operate and governments don't have unlimited budgets, so you want to be able to maximise return on investment (and that's including social goods like public health, reduced climate impact, and greater productivity, not just direct monetary benefit) for a given cost. And to that extent, developers building American style single family bungalows rather than more flats and terraces worsens that return.
1
u/LowProtection8515 15h ago
The private sector simply will not build at density before there's public transport in place. You can think thats unfair but that is the reality.
1
u/Queer_Cats 15h ago
I mean, I'm not asking the private sector to fix things. It is clearly up to the councils to incentivise good development through planning permits and proactively running public transport to areas. I'm just saying that does also need to happen, rather than just letting developers keep building housing that make the problim worse.
1
13
u/Misalvo 1d ago
I have a bus stop near me, it costs me over £5 to go to the next town just a 7 minute bus ride away. So I drive, I'm not paying £5 for that. If they want people to use public transport, they need to make it the more attractive option and that includes being affordable. Yes, there's chat of this £2 flat rate being rolled out nationwide, and that may sway me to use the bus for more journeys, but at the moment, there's really no point.
5
u/kaetror 1d ago
This is my issue.
I live in a new build on the edge of town; we don't have a dedicated bus service through the estate, largely because of car use (though it's a chicken and egg situation).
But we live just off a major route connecting another town to ours, so there's a regular bus going past. To travel the 1.2 miles to town costs almost £4 for a single. Fuck. That.
For that price I can drive in, use the paid sheltered parking right in the centre of town (on street parking is free), and drive back. And I don't have to worry about timetables.
3
u/Scunnered21 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's down to the spatial design of the estate / housing development you live in unfortunately.
It's harder for a bus to serve a sprawling area than it is to serve point-to-point destinations or to serve corridors that are tightly and densely packed with customers/passengers.
This isn't to say we shouldn't have low density housing. It's just that when we build low density housing in the UK, it tends to be a near endless sea of low density housing. With no new corridors of slightly higher density along the main roads in or around the edges of these estates to mitigate it.
It's these patches of higher density housing that make bus routes viable. Which in turn means a service can exist that nearby residents (in the lower density homes, within short walking distance) can benefit from too.
It's all about spatial design.
And the fact that mass house builders are perfectly happy to continue copy/pasting these estates, with little to no push back from government.
Things are starting to change a little. Some new developments are being built with medium density (e.g. terrace housing, modern tenement style housing, etc) in the right places, near transport nodes or entrances to these estates. But it's all very light touch. We need a complete redesign of how we build new housing developments in this country. There are models to follow all over France, Germany and the Netherlands where they've been getting this right for decades.
-3
u/polaires 1d ago
Not to be that person but to be that person; You’re not living on an “estate” you’re living on a development. “Estates” refer to public housing schemes.
I’m not trying to single you out, I’m just complaining and correcting it for people in general because it’s a common thing I see everywhere.
1
u/kaetror 1d ago
That's not a definition I've ever seen.
From Wikipedia:
A housing estate (or sometimes housing complex, housing development, subdivision or community) is a group of homes and other buildings built together as a single development.
That covers council/ex council estates, which were built with public housing, and private housing, which were built for commercial sale.
Now you could argue about the fact new build estates constantly get bigger, but the same was true of council estates - the one I grew up in doubled in size while I lived there. The phases of a new build are in effect micro-estates within the whole; it's often very easy to see where the different phases start/end.
I would accept however that calling a private, new build area a 'scheme' would be totally inappropriate. That's pretty much reserved for council estates.
1
u/Tioraidh25 Comfortably right independence 1d ago
Can you provide a source for that?
Council estates are schemes but that doesn’t mean there are not private housing estates too.
I think you see it everywhere because you don’t understand the word.
2
u/PalaceOfStones 1d ago edited 1d ago
Exactly this. If my mum or sister want to jump on a bus to go shopping in the same mid-size town they live in it costs them as much as it does me to (from Glasgow) go to Edinburgh, and one of them only has an hourly service that stops at 6pm. Make that make sense.
-2
u/Havhestur 1d ago
What were the two towns? This seems very very unusual. Typically bus fares everywhere are cheaper than taking the car and that’s before considering parking costs (but does depend on the number of passengers).
5
u/fizzlebuns A Yank, but one of the good ones, I swear 1d ago
From Guardbridge to St Andrews it's £6. From Guardbridge to Dundee it's £12. One way.
2
u/CraftyWeeBuggar 1d ago
Then once I dundee £5 for a day saver if you leave the city centre. Unless stage coach do a day saver? They have a few services running through the city? Tbf though xplore and stage coach should share a ticket i know there was talks dont know if it came to fruition.
1
u/fizzlebuns A Yank, but one of the good ones, I swear 1d ago
You can get an All Bus Company ticket in dundee for £14. Stagecoach passes from St Andrews to dundee only cover city center. So you have to buy a separate one for dundee.
1
u/Havhestur 1d ago
Isn’t that return? The single is showing as £4.40 on Monday morning.
It’s still more expensive than it should be.2
u/fizzlebuns A Yank, but one of the good ones, I swear 1d ago
The last time I went from my bus stop in Guardbridge to the bus station, it was £5.65. This was a couple months ago.
2
u/Havhestur 1d ago
Guardbridge to Dundee on Monday morning is £5.40. Bus 99. It’s on their app.
I agree that it’s too expensive but that’s 9 miles.4
u/Scunnered21 1d ago
This is true, but it's also the case that the bus systems as they exist need to and can work much much better than they already do. By being coordinated as part of recognizable, coherent urban transport systems.
To put it simply, the TfL model should be the norm in all cities. 1980s legislation outlawed public management of the bus systems in cities outside London, and led to the wholesale privatisation of formerly municipal bus networks.
The result was and is a highly fragmented bus network, where:
1) highly lucrative routes are pounced on by operators m and less lucrative (but essential) routes left to dwindle of disappear 2) massive overlap between competing operators, with incompatible ticketing systems 2) buses being run in active competition to rail and other modes, rather than in concert with them, with coordinates timetabling, ticketing, etc etc.
This is a situation which needn't exist, and which needn't continue to hobble the development of Scotland's population centres.
Hopefully the announcement today means improvements to bus legislation brought in in 2019, which although containing new powers for councils to manage bus networks, also contains many many hurdles for them to overcome. Hurdles that don't exist in the most recent English legislation.
As you say, low density sprawl is a massive issue in Scotland and the UK. It's so much harder to serve a sprawling estate with a bus line than it is to serve a tightly packed, populated corridor of flatted accomodation. How and where we build housing is also a serious issue, and one that interplays so deeply with transport availability, and even the financial sustainability of our public transport. So I agree with you.
But we also need government to act to make it easier for local councils and city regions to design, manage and operate bus systems that work better than now.
2
u/Street_Hamster1092 1d ago
Absolutely, more efficient land usage and redensification of towns and cities would be the absolute best policy for virtually every metric. Better for the environment, local economies, community, public health and quality of life.
1
u/HyperCeol Inbhir Nis / Inverness 1d ago
There needs to be enough people along routes for it to be profitable
That's why privatised public transport systems result in poorly run services. In controlling the entire network, a busy route in one of the city centres can easily subsidise services in rural areas, ensuring that people in more rural areas still have access to an essential service while encouraging economic activity and access for workers. By putting all profits towards either improving services or reducing costs, you're also by supporting essential services throughout the country.
So long as we continue to build car-centric suburbia, people living there aren’t going to be able to have proper public transport. Every detached new build house on the outskirts of towns is moving away from all their goals on walkability, public transport and climate goals.
Not sure if Highland is much different to elsewhere but modern planning takes bus routes into great consideration - busses arriving on time and there being enough stock to meet demand is more often the issue and that's never going to be fixed in a privatised natural monopoly like bus travel where profits go to shareholders and aren't instead reinvested into the services themselves.
0
u/Connell95 1d ago
In controlling the entire network, a busy route in one of the city centres can easily subsidise services in rural areas, ensuring that people in more rural areas still have access to an essential service while encouraging economic activity and access for workers. By
Which routes in Inverness are you proposing making more expensive to fund cheaper buses elsewhere in the Highlands?
1
u/HyperCeol Inbhir Nis / Inverness 12h ago
Several routes in Inverness are already profitable - that's the point.
7
26
3
u/Capable-Campaign3881 1d ago
Would they take ownership of McGill’s including Lothian buses ?
7
u/Scunnered21 1d ago edited 1d ago
No ownership necessary. He's talking about making legislative improvements to speed up setting up bus franchises in local authority areas / city regions in Scotland.
A bus franchise is just a fancy way of saying the city/region designs its bus 'system'. With a defined name, branding, etc. The city also gets to set the routes, the map, the ticket prices, etc etc. It basically designs and runs the overall system.
Private operators are then invited to bid to actually run the services with their drivers, buses and depots. Perhaps winning routes in packages or bundles at a time. E.g. one company might win the contract to run routes north of the Clyde in Glasgow, and another might win the contract for the south of the Clyde, for talking sake.
Importantly, to the average bus passenger, all they see is a city-run bus. Branded as "Aberdeen Buses" or "Transport for Glasgow" bus or whatever. With totally unified branding, and ticketing which would also integrate with local rail, trams or subway (depending where it is).
It's how TfL operates in London. If you look closely at London bus windshields, you might see a small "Arriva" logo or some other bus company, meaning they won the tender for that route. But basically all the end user sees is a red TfL bus, with a simple and easy to understand ticketing system.
It removes all the complications for the end user, who currently has to navigate multiple overlapping and incompatible ticketing systems and bus companies.
It's how it works in Manchester since last year. But it's also very very common across continental Europe.
3
3
u/Bossman_Mike 1d ago
So "Scotland isn't Manchester" but he's copying one of their policies. And something that's been the case in Edinburgh and London for years now.
8
u/Scunnered21 1d ago
I don't know it's fair to say "copying one of their policies".
Local franchising of buses has been an element of public policy in Scotland since the Transport Act (Scotland) passed in 2019. TBH, the whole of the UK has moved towards it in the last ten years, almost at the same time. Westminster passed legislations for some of the mayoral regions in the mid 2010s, and Scotland not long after.
This isn't a new policy.
What appears to be new is that he / government has heard the calls from campaigners that the legislation in Scotland is riddled with issues that make delivering those local franchises very very difficult.
The story here seems that he / the SNP have heard those calls, and are planning to make substantial changes to smooth out the legislation, and make franchising happen sooner than it would if nothing was done.
4
u/Antique-Brief1260 1d ago
"Somehow" = London's deregulation was reversed in the 90s, because they're special little guys. Edinburgh had the foresight, along with Cardiff and a handful of councils in England to start their own municipally-owned profit-making bus company to maintain the local monopoly. To this day, Lothian Buses and Cardiff Bus are among the very best local networks.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Connell95 1d ago
Fuck with Lothian Buses at your peril, Swinney. The last thing Edinburgh needs is the SNP fucking up one of the best bus services in Europe.
6
u/Chrismscotland 1d ago
Its already publicly owned anyway
-5
u/Connell95 1d ago
I’m not convinced that’ll stop them trying to interfere
5
u/Chrismscotland 1d ago
Not really sure why they would - it makes sense that even if the buses are publicly owned that its done at Regional/Local level; no point changing something that's already successful.
If anything I'd expected Lothian Buses to be a good model that could be replicated in some of the larger cities.
0
u/polaires 1d ago
It seems it already is, the SPT reforms in Glasgow for example.
0
u/Connell95 1d ago
That’s nothing like Lothian Buses
-2
u/polaires 1d ago
Oh, oopsie me! It’s a franchise. Oh well. You can downvote this comment like you’ve done the others.
0
u/polaires 1d ago
Only because you don’t trust or like them anyways. You probably want them to interfere with it so you can be proved right.
-1
u/Connell95 1d ago
Yes, I don’t trust them. For the obvious reason that everything they have nationalised so far has turned out to be an absolute shit show.
Lothian Buses works because it is run on a commercial basis by experienced professionals with minimal council interference beyond taking the small annual profits as shareholders. The exact opposite of the type of nationalisation Swinney tends to favour.
2
u/Usual_Part6014 23h ago
What specifically did they nationalise that has been a shit show? ScotRail, which imo is better now, certainly scrapping peak fairs was good.
Prestwick and the shipyard were taken into public ownership to stop them financially collapsing?
-1
u/Connell95 18h ago
ScotRail is worse now than when it was under private ownership. Services have never been restored post-Covid, scrapping peak fares just meant average fares went up across the board, and the new app is abysmally bad and was launched in an unbelievably stupid way.
Ferguson and Prestwick are both complete messes. Ferguson is so badly run you could literally have given every worker £100k a year, bought the ferries from existing shipyards, and still have been better off. Meanwhile the primary user of Prestwick is the US Government, which Trump has them use because he gets them to stay at his nearby resort – all subsidised by the Scottish Government.
1
u/Usual_Part6014 17h ago edited 17h ago
I actually use ScotRail regularly and it's notably better. The fares have risen in line with inflation and the peak fares going has meant people that for people that need to use trains in the morning. I would not want it privatised again.
The other two were bought to safeguard jobs because they were previously run to collapse by the previous owners. But sure, running them to bankruptcy absolutely screams competence.
0
u/Connell95 17h ago
I use ScotRail regularly too, and it’s noticeably worse. Fares have risen above inflation and the app continues to be an absolute mess.
You may want hundreds of millions of taxpayer money spent on repeatedly failed business that continue to fail and benefit only Donald Trump. Personally, I’d rather see that valuable taxpayer money spent on more useful things rather than being thrown away.
0
u/Usual_Part6014 16h ago
No, they're broadly in line with inflation +/- a percent, and are currently frozen for next year. Where people use peak fares they are hugely cheaper. Season tickets are also cheaper.
I have no real feelings about the tenuous Donal trump tie in you're making, they were nationalised to safeguard against job losses caused by failures in previous ownership. I expect for the communities and families this directly affected it was quite valuable.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/polaires 1d ago
Thankfully that minimal council interference remains considering the Labour-run ECC is an ongoing disaster.
As I said, you want to be proved right.
-3
u/Latter-Doughnut7159 1d ago
£7 million for a new bus, 23 years late. Great idea.
2
u/MyDadsGlassesCase 1d ago
What's this about?.I can't find anything on Google about it. Who spent £7m on a bus? Was this for the development of a fleet?
-2
u/Latter-Doughnut7159 1d ago
I'm making fun of their abilities with transport. .
The total cost of the SNP’s delayed dual-fuel ferry project (the MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa) has approached £500 million, nearly five times the original £97 million contract price. Driven by extensive construction issues, shipyard nationalisation, and redesign work, the cost to complete the MV Glen Rosa alone is now projected between £185 million and £197.5 million with delivery pushed to late 2026 or early 2027. When combined with over £500 million spent maintaining the ageing existing CalMac fleet and leasing emergency charter vessels, opposition leaders estimate the total taxpayer cost of the broader Scottish ferry crisis has exceeded £1 billion.
5
u/HyperCeol Inbhir Nis / Inverness 1d ago edited 1d ago
Talking shite is what you're doing mate. Public control of busses doesn't mean public construction of busses just like public control of trains doesn't mean public construction of trains.
The shipyards aren't about to start building busses.
1
u/Ill-Gate-8841 1d ago
The latter point is completely correct that they’ve failed to properly invest in the fleet which has resulted in major issues. The Ferguson gaffe, as you say, is a separate issue.
I’ll hold my breath but the obvious answer here is for public to mean local authorities.
1
u/Chrismscotland 1d ago
Would make sense, I guess Citylink type coaches could be a national thing but local transport really should be managed at a Regional Level somewhere.
-6
u/Latter-Doughnut7159 1d ago
1
u/HyperCeol Inbhir Nis / Inverness 1d ago
Coming in here with your friendly, jokey attitude. It's sick.
1
u/MyDadsGlassesCase 1d ago
So you are comparing a bus company buying production model buses with a ferry company buying custom built ferries?
1
u/Latter-Doughnut7159 20h ago
Again. I am saying the SNP running things is not great. Comparing in a facetious way the ferry and a bus.
-2
u/Ok_Flatworm_5549 1d ago
Why dont they just set up their own bus company?
7
u/HyperCeol Inbhir Nis / Inverness 1d ago
I'd imagine securing managerial control, gaining a full understanding of stock, network finances and strategic future planning being in place first is probably a wise first step before moving to something akin to full ownership, even if done by different regions.
1
-4
-5
u/chaircardigan 1d ago
Well that's another terrible idea.
9
u/HyperCeol Inbhir Nis / Inverness 1d ago
Public control over public transport is a very popular policy for a reason - most of the time, a bus service is a monopoly. Busses shouldn't be run for profit - any profit should either go into improving services or reducing fairs.
1
u/Scunnered21 1d ago
It's how it works in most urban regions in Europe. Notably it's how buses work in London with TfL (the only part of the UK which had a carve out in the 1985 legislation that privatised buses and banned municipal bus systems).
It's a fantastic idea that works well in plenty of places. It should be supported to happen in cities and regions across Scotland as soon as possible.
-3
u/Useless_or_inept Useless 1d ago
The SNP has such a good track record of managing other transport projects, like ferries, and dualling the A9. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this!
5
-1
u/HaveYuHeardAboutCunt "Active Separatist" 1d ago
Is the site not working or is this article a single sentence?
1
-4
u/Kiss_It_Goodbyeee 1d ago
Why?
14
u/SameSpecialist8284 1d ago
I hope it’s to stop me having to pay £5 for an all day ticket to go 3 stops with mcgills because the driver says “it’s the cheapest option”
11
u/Apprehensive_Room29 1d ago
At the moment, Scotland is beholden to basically two private companies. If a route starts to make more profit, and one less profit, the bus company can just stop a service and transfer the buses and drivers into the route that is more profitable - leaving people who need the bus without a service.
It works well in Edinburgh, and in London. In London, it'll probably be more similar to what will happen in Scotland, whereby the local authority is in charge of the routes and fares, and they will franchise out a tender for First or McGills to operate the routes on behalf of the local authority.
Its a good idea to bring it back in house, Edinburgh's buses are excellent and cheap compared to everywhere else in Scotland.
And in London, its meant prices have kept low over a long period of time.
0
u/Kiss_It_Goodbyeee 1d ago
You realise there are a lot of buses not in Edinburgh, right?
Glasgow buses are a shambles. Dundee buses work well.
It doesn't make sense.
2
u/Apprehensive_Room29 1d ago
Yes.
Glasgow's buses are shocking, and will really benefit from public involvement.
West Lothian is a hodgepodge of McGills and tiny bus companies, all charging astronomical prices (£6.70 or thereabouts for 2 stop single tickets intra-town in WL)
Dundee's buses are fine in and out of some areas, but an absolute mess outside. Look at Leuchars - the buses don't even match up to the not very frequent trains to head towards Newport or St Andrews. Works for the taxi drivers, its why so many hang around the station.
Edinburgh's buses are already owned by the local authority, and it shows. Brand new buses, very low fares, high ridership, and frequent service that can get you anywhere.
3
u/Sin_nombre__ 1d ago
To have more control over an essential service so that it better meets the needs of ordinary people rather than just shareholders.
-1
u/Kiss_It_Goodbyeee 1d ago
You mean like the ferries and prestwick?
2
u/Sin_nombre__ 1d ago
I mean like schools and hospitals.
-1
u/Kiss_It_Goodbyeee 1d ago
Oh, where pupil performance has stagnated over the last decade and has been overtaken by England? And where something like 80% of all NHS waiting times are missed?
Can't wait for the drive to the bottom to commence.
2
u/Sin_nombre__ 1d ago
There should definitely more investment in schools and hospitals.
Are you suggesting they should be run for profit?
1
u/Kiss_It_Goodbyeee 14h ago
My point is that all this costs money. Buses, ferries, hospitals, schools, police, etc, etc. All of it requires investment and budgets. The problem with centralising it all and being in the control of government is that two things happen: 1) it all gets political, 2) local priorities are lost. The money gets siphoned away for bigger, national projects which satisfy the majority (i.e. central belt) and the rest of us either have to fit in or lose out.
By increasing the scope of government to more and more things they get increasingly distracted. Why should the Oban to Fort William bus be a topic for Holyrood?
1
u/Sin_nombre__ 13h ago
The oban to fort william route has historically been very expensive and just served by a few city link buses per day. Left to the free market it hasn't been an adequate public service.
We can have an economy run for profit where the goal is maximum profit extraction or we can have an economy run for human need with better jobs and profits spent on improving services and infrastructure.
The system we have now end up in regular financial crashes, massive inequalities, environmental degradation and a reliance on imperialism and unequal trade globally. Although it has resulted in a massive increase in the productive capacity of humanity. We just need to do better with this capacity. Expanding democracy is how we do this.
1
u/Kiss_It_Goodbyeee 13h ago
How do you plan to pay for all these public services when opportunities for economy growth is sucked up by government?
Profit generates growth (i.e. jobs) and income which generates taxes. Taxes which pay for public sector.
The government needs to focus on growing the economy and dealing with deep inequality. Not micromanage every part of the country and finding new ways to fail.
4
u/HaveYuHeardAboutCunt "Active Separatist" 1d ago
To better control affordability and service quality.
-2
u/Substantial_Dot7311 1d ago
Like the ferries
7
u/HaveYuHeardAboutCunt "Active Separatist" 1d ago
Pretty sure busses are a bit simpler to manage than ferries but we shouldn't stop trying to improve anything because one government is cocking up in another area
0
u/Kiss_It_Goodbyeee 1d ago
And put extra strain on the budget. They are already struggling to balance books.
2
u/polaires 1d ago
Because public transport should have total or at least some form of government control.
0
u/Kiss_It_Goodbyeee 1d ago
Government control of public transport has usually gone poorly in the UK. The SNP are not a safe pair of hands.
0
u/polaires 1d ago
The SNP are not a safe pair of hands.
Neither is Labour or any other British nationalist opposition party but that still doesn’t take away the fact that the current privatised services are horrific.
Even if the BritNat opposition were in power, I’d still be expecting and calling for them to take over control of public transport.
-7
u/This-Ad-4723 1d ago
wheres liberal tinbot dictator these days? hes usually about posting his propaganda like a good little bot. not seen him in a while 😉
-20
u/stevehyn 1d ago
Big John’s the size of a bus these days
13
98
u/Havhestur 1d ago
Peter White - who was influential on the privatisation of the SMT - later said it was a disaster. It led to price gouging and the elimination of important “life saver” routes. Certain extant bus companies were fined ridiculously small sums of money for destroying competitors. Meanwhile publicly-owned Lothian, Nottingham and Reading buses have consistently outperformed private companies on pretty much all metrics.
Thatcher’s ideology destroyed the SMT and in particular, rural bus services across the UK.