"Still waiting to hear what we will do when a government fobs you off."
It's not binary - 'meet all our demands at once or we've failed'
"@wee folding bike - I think we have to keep protesting."
I'm sure the people involved in PoP (and all the people coming on the ride) aren't expecting (or even wanting) a Government 'cave-in'. Also the "Manifesto" can change to allow for circumstances.
The Motions in parliament show that things have already changed.
SNP MSPs are keen to support PoP - they can't support the financial bits that aren't in their manifesto/budget and/or don't agree with.
It's like poker or chess or negotiation. (I assume) PoP isn't rigid about the 10% spending figure.
It's a headline, a goal, a talking point. If there were fewer cars there would be less need for more roads/repairs (though it's not cars that cause most of the damage/wear) so the '10% of transport budget for cycling' might be too much - or not enough - depending how the costings were done.
Of course it's important not to ignore the fact that the Government isn't directly responsible for local path networks and things like the KB corridor.
As wfb says "if you leave them a path which they can claim is part of the carbon dioxide emission reductions then you might have something".
That's one area where it can be shown that more cycling is in line with existing Government aims/targets. Other areas could involve health or education.
it really shouldn't be difficult to show how cycling could/would/should fit in with all of these - http://www.snp.org/vision