Hover Boots.

So Carnegie reads there is no lawful impediment why public cash cannot be used to run a hovercraft service between Fife and Edinburgh.

"PLANS FOR a permanent hovercraft service between Fife and Edinburgh have taken a positive step forward after a report confirmed there were no legal barriers to public funding being sought to ensure the project’s future. Transport company Stagecoach announced in February that it was putting its plans for the 18-minute journey between Kirkcaldy and Portobello on hold until it was established whether adequate public funding could be secured. The decision followed growing speculation about Stagecoach owner Brian Souter’s motives behind his pledge to invest £10.3 million in the hovercraft project, so long as a public sector subsidy of £3.3 million was found for the first three years."

Carnegie can however think of one very obvious reason why public cash shouldn't be spent, even if it can be. Simply, that if the project can't be run commercially by one of Scotland's richest men, without being subsidised by the public purse, why should Fife council tax payers cash be used to prop up something which doesn't even exist yet in preference to employing more teachers or not cutting services for the disabled or elderly? Answer: We shouldn't.

A lot less bovver.

So, "A SINGLE hovercraft service carrying passengers over the Forth, operating along the same lines as last year’s trial run, is unlikely to return before next year. Stagecoach had hoped to restore a one-craft service between Kirkcaldy and Portobello by the end of this year. But with work towards a permanent link between Kirkcaldy and Leith still going on, the company has confirmed that it will probably be next year before paying passengers can again make the 18-minute trip across the estuary. More than 32,000 passengers used the ForthFast hovercraft during the two-week trial last July, with organisers hailing the test as a “major operational success.”

Is it just Carnegie? But if the route can attract customers and make money, then Stagecoach should just get on with running it. There seems to be a concept creeping into public transport that everything should get a public subsidy even if the benefits of specific projects are unproven or difficult to quantify.

Why should the taxpayer pick up the cost for proiving subsidies to services when the private sector is itself not prepared to take the risk? Surely on a "nice to" project like this one we should let the market decide?