Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 4th July 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Scottish Parliament row over £20,000 sign



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 16 April 2008
SCOTTISH Parliament bosses are to spend more than £20,000 on a giant new sign outside the building to tell people what it is.
They decided on the move after a review of visitor services recommended signage at the public entrance should be improved.

The sign, measuring 5.9 metres by 1.1 metres and made of granite, is due to be installed within the next couple of weeks.

But today MSPs said they could not believe anyone needed a sign to tell them what the building was.

A new stainless steel display board, costing more than £5000, went up close to the main entrance earlier this week. It will give information on visiting the parliament and its public crèche.

The new granite sign, which will match the stone already used elsewhere in the £414 million building, is due to be installed before the end of the month.

Former Scottish Tory leader David McLetchie, MSP for Edinburgh Pentlands, described the new sign – which will also be lit up – as extravagant. He said: "The Scottish Parliament is one of the most unmistakable buildings in Scotland, seared into the consciousness of every Scottish taxpayer. I would not have thought you needed an 18ft sign to make it recognisable to visitors.

"A more modest notice would have sufficed." Independent Lothians MSP Margo MacDonald, who has long been a critic of the parliament project, said few visitors would have any trouble recognising the building.

She said: "It's unlikely they would think it was anything other than the Scottish Parliament.

"The tourist brochures will describe the Palace of Holyroodhouse as an attractive, beautifully proportioned building and they will know the other one is the parliament. I think they can figure it out – the building that doesn't look quite right."

A parliament spokesman said the total cost for the granite sign, including manufacturing, installation and lighting, is £20,157, excluding VAT. Manufacturing and installing the stainless steel sign would cost £5125, excluding VAT.

But he defended the cost, saying the parliament had to use quality materials because of its location in a World Heritage Site.

He said: "We've listened to visitor feedback and the display board is one of the steps we are taking to improve information for the public visiting Holyrood.

"It will include information on attending parliamentary business, the visitor services we provide and our free crèche facilities for members of the public.

"Our visitors' service review also suggested that the signage for the public entrance could be improved so we will be adding a more prominent sign later this month.

"We do recognise the costs involved, but given our location, we needed to make sure that the quality and appearance of the sign was appropriate for this World Heritage Site. The costs will be met from our existing budget."





The full article contains 475 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Bob 2,

16/04/2008 12:05:50
how much has this building, you hardly need a sign, you can't exactly miss this pluke of a building!!!
2

Shave,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 12:20:00
The Scottish Parliament.
Safeguarding the interests of Scottish Sign-makers.

For our next trick...an 80ft neon sign presenting "Edinburgh Castle". But first a team of 10 officials must each have 12 meetings to formalise a design concept to be passed to the review committee who must then repeat the process, conduct a brief public consultation and pass it on to the PR department who try and find a way to present the proposal without the public going absolutely ape$hit at the blatant waste of OUR money.

I hope it looks good. Very good.
3

Brian M,

edinburgh 16/04/2008 12:21:34
"SCOTTISH Parliament bosses .... decided"

Civil servants no doubt.
4

Ron S,

Edinburgh WHS 16/04/2008 12:51:02
Do these signs have planning consnt and the OK from SNH & EWHT - or is the parliament above the law??
5

Brian Ferrari,

16/04/2008 13:10:26
I'm all for listening to tourists, but when they come up with an idea that is slightly barmy, I would grin and nod a bit and then forget it. A £20,000 granite sign for chrisake!!

I can't quite see them following suit at Westminster.
6

Andrew D,

BNE 16/04/2008 13:10:48
Uh... are the opposition and people here *really* I mean *really* griping about 25k?

Parochial or partisan, which is it?
7

The Central Scutinizor,

16/04/2008 13:12:51
As far as the article says, the sign is a direct result of feedback from visitors who found it hard to determine where the entrance is..if you want to apportion blame then blame the stupidity of the general public and stop whingeing about the costs of the building - do you really think that local London papers have a story a day on costs of Westminster signage? I doubt it very much, stop whingeing.
8

Brian Ferrari,

16/04/2008 13:16:33
#7 Neither - It is stupid
9

FS,

Stirling 16/04/2008 13:32:46
#8 Is right

£25K is pretty small change if it means more tourists can find and enjoy our wonderful parliament
10

Edward,

16/04/2008 13:35:42
On first reading this I thought that having a 'sign' which cost '£20000' as a bit much
I suspect the the EEN has missed bits out about this 'sign' its only when you read thoroughly that you realise that its not just a sign but an information board providing further information and beacuse it will be in a heritage site it has to meet certain standards. So were not talking about your basic placard here
Its a pity that the EEN had not provided a picture of the proposed 'sign'
11

11+failed,

the pans 16/04/2008 13:45:45
Surely they could have got a cast iron elephant for less than £20k. A coat of white paint would have finished the job.
12

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

, Newington 16/04/2008 13:49:05
I'll pay for it so long as it says "Spendthrifts".
13

Iain Bhern,

16/04/2008 13:50:19
Do you require a degree in money wasting to be an MSP or to work for the Scottish Parliament. One way or another they all seem to be quite expert at it!
14

subrosa,

16/04/2008 14:04:49
I think the building needs a label. It's a dreadful design and I can understand why visitors don't know what it is as it looks so out of place in our landscape. Having visited several times I just can't get to grips with the contrasting internal designs. They go from tat to quality.

Hope the lighting is low voltage though. Wouldn't want money wasted would we.
15

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 14:08:44
Its this kind of rip off deal that really explains why our taxes get hiked every year. Anybody quoting for any kind of government contract can bid whatever they like and get it without argument.
20000 on something that will take 20 quid to manufacture.
I am surprised they didnt do this via a PFI project.
16

AntiEdinburghWhingers,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 14:26:59
First of all, Ian Swanson:
This isn't a 'row'. This is a pathetic excuse for so called 'political journalism'.

Second, this sign is not just to say what the building is (even though please bear in mind that thousands of people who come to Edinburgh have not read the mountains of negative spin that the Hootsmon Publications insist on spewing out, and hence don't actually know the building inside out), but points out the visitor entrance, like the spokesman says... The other sign tells people what's going on - isn't this exactly what the Parliament should be doing?

As for planning permission - look at the planning portal online no5, before you write silly comments.

The cost? Sounds like a bargain to me for a permanent sign made out of quality materials... Signs cost a lot of money - ask any shopkeeper!

Get a grip people!

As for getting quotes from McLetchie - how much did he spend on taxis? And Margo - well she's just a bitter old EEN Columnist who should spend more time representing her constituents than supplying ill-informed quotes to her (other) employer!
17

AntiEdinburghWhingers,

16/04/2008 14:30:22
Search for application reference 08/00150/ADV on the city council's planning portal if you want more information... See I found out more about this sign in five minutes than Ian Swanson can, and he's meant to be a proper journalist!
18

AndrewS,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 15:11:12
Does this not require planning permission, or does the parliament have an excemption ?
19

,

16/04/2008 15:25:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 16/04/2008 15:45:32
Actually, if this building was operating as a casino in Milton Keynes, it would be ok..
21

gorgie resident,

16/04/2008 16:36:14
What a disgrace £20.000 would have saved the Gorgie/Dalry Partnership from the Council Cuts Well done in yet another waste of public money
22

dido-bendigo,

Argyll 16/04/2008 16:51:54
You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear no matter how many 'quality' signs are put around it. Why didn't they just lay a path made of yellow brick leading to the door? Argyll and Bute roads are falling to bits around us and Holyrood requires a sign for visitors costing £20,000! Public money! A penny a bucket-full!
23

ARM,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 16:53:00
Where's the row? How many more sensational stories can Ian Swanson write about the Scottish Parliament buildng with a sarcastic comment from Margo. As for Mr McLetchie's comment, "seared into the consciousness of every Scottish taxpayer" yes but that of course ignores the 1,000s of tourists that visit every week.
Can we have fairer more positive reporting please?
24

Grumpy,

16/04/2008 17:16:43
If the current estimate is £20k, then we can be assured that, like the building itself, it'll end up costing £3.5m
25

MacKenzie,

Edinburgh 16/04/2008 22:32:42
Maybe they could site it in front of the ponds to stop people falling in!
26

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 16/04/2008 22:51:03
£20,000 ??

I think that got the Westminster Speaker a new kitchen and bathroom, and his wife a few taxis. Much better use of public money I would say.

After spending all that money on a quality building, I think it deserves a cheap, craap plastic sign.
27

dig dig,

16/04/2008 23:32:22
Well at least with this new sign the so called MSP's will know the place they are supposed to go to work in.
28

Hickory,

US 16/04/2008 23:36:46
dig dig - Aye, they need'a sign. The flyin' monks canna find the way home. It should read "Flappin' Phonies Land Here". Of course ye could forgo the sign and just nail a few quid on the door. That'll bring'em in.
29

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 16/04/2008 23:45:59
29 Hickory Dickory Dock

They need a sign 'cos visitors from all over the world - including good ol' USofA didn't know what the building was.

Maybe we should fill the reception area with Arran knitwear and kilts, and they'll all come running in.
30

subrosa,

17/04/2008 00:49:48
# 39

Isn't it sad though that visitors don't know what it is? Just goes to show the building does not fit in with its Scottish surroundings. The whole structure is an architectural calamity and nothing to be proud of unfortunately.
31

Hickory,

US 17/04/2008 02:33:08
#30 Randy Andy

Aye, if'n I showed up in me kilt they would be a askin' to see me undies. It's common ye know. The place reminds me of someplace where they had to manage with used timbers. Maybe a bit o' commercialism would make it like what they call the flea markets over here.
32

George Mackay,

Dundee 17/04/2008 10:29:49
Won't the £5000 stainless steel sign need round the clock security? Everything made of metal is being nicked and melted down. The Chinese need the metals.
I suggest 5 full time security guards to allow for weekends, holidays and sickies.
33

Buttress,

17/04/2008 20:10:09

"We do recognise the costs involved, but given our location, we needed to make sure that the quality and appearance of the sign was appropriate for this World Heritage Site. The costs will be met from our existing budget."


So how come they passed the Caltongate development? That's in the WHS too...

www.eh8.org.uk

If you are a developer you can build inappropriate and ugly stuff?



34

Lance Boyle,

Linlithgow 20/05/2008 10:38:08
It is time to disband this white elephant.
35

WKKB,

20/05/2008 13:44:36
and THESE are the men and women who would be in control if we had an independant Scotland... Very Scary... if this is the way they spend our tax money. That £25k may seem small to some people but it would pay a years wage to a good teacher or pay for school lunches for children who may not have lunch otherwise. I can think of dozens of ways in which that £25k wouldn't seem so small.

Also... with the cost of energy going up daily WHY would they opt to spend money on something that will require payment on a regular basis to a power company.
I'll tell you why... because they simply don't care about the people, it's all about appearance, how do they look??? Think about it... every single visitor leaflet, every single tour bus and anyone on the street can tell a visitor where the parliment building is if they happen to miss it. BUT... if someone is actually looking for it a sign certainly isn't needed to tell them they've found it. No One can miss it! Like a huge spot on the nose... you just can't miss it!!!
36

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 21/05/2008 10:51:23
Aye, aye. Yer bawbies are safe wi' SNP. Not.
37

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 21/05/2008 10:52:12
Aye, aye. Yer bawbies are safe wi' SNP. Not.
38

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 21/05/2008 10:53:08
Jings. Ahm suffrin frae perseverashun.
39

Buttress,

11/06/2008 11:48:15
*Please enter your comment*

World Heritage Site status has no legal standing - the council seems to ignore the management plan (which they signed up to) when it suits, so clearly this is just a a total waste of public cash and WHS status is just an excuse.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.