Perhaps it would be best to make the links explicit. I.e. Have Oxford manage RAL, Liverpool + Manchester + Lancaster run DL and Edinburgh (+ SUPA?) run ATC. Then each would be independent and bid for funds on an equal basis. The biggest difficulty i can see is that the money to run facilities needs some sort of ring fence. Also running facilities doesn’t sit at all with the RAE judged allocation of funds. Many technicians are required to build and run “big bits of kit”. They can’t all write peer-reviewed publications – it isn’t their job.
The US labs seem to manage though.

Paranoid?! Absolutely not. Let’s look at the facts:

1. Diamond – Designed at Daresbury using SRS experience under the assumption it would be built at Daresbury, the only natural site. Diamond IS over budget (the original Daresbury budget). This is because staff costs are 15% higher at RAL (cost of living) and Daresbury is much more geologically stable. Tens of millions extra were spent on piles because Thames Valley clay is softer than Cheshire Ridge sandstone. The original siting report concluded Daresbury was by far the best choice. This report was then systematically suppressed by CLRC management at RAL and never published. They commissioned another report and put placemen on the panel to ensure that they got the desired answer the second time, i.e. site at RAL. This is not paranoia, it is fact.
2. 4GLS – The world’s most ambitious light source proposal. Designed by Daresbury under very close international peer review. These peers successfully circumvented by STFC in the so-called “Light Source Review”. This was a cabal of 4 placemen who are not experts in FEL based light sources. These are the people Chattopadhyay meant when he said that “the reviewers were of a lower standing than the people they reviewed” (Phil Willis then reminded him about our wonderful libel laws… so democratic, eh). This review was then used to cancel 4GLS, which was according to a senior RAL person “seen as a sop to Daresbury”.
3. Next Light Source Project – A “fresh start”, drawing a line under 4GLS. But the proposal must be ready for submission to LFCF in 15 months! The new project leader says himself it must therefore be heavily based on the work done for 4GLS. But the Daresbury management have been jettisoned and replaced with Diamond and CLF people.
4. Manipulation of SRS redundancies – 110 has been the number since 2005. Then, last month this has mysteriously increased to 180. Ostensibly, nothing to do with the CSR.
5. Colin Whitehouse – the man who is “supposed” to be look after Daresbury’s interests. Last week he tells an influential parliamentary committee that his vision of Government science facilities is of a “one stop shop”. Where is that one stop, Edinburgh, Daresbury? Every other country rejects such a policy, why, because they see the benefits of spreading the economic benefits.

So, are you all ready for the almighty bunfight after tomorrow’s announcement. That’s when it will get really nasty.
Andy, you’re not the only one who’s pig sick of this farce. Maybe I should take Keith’s advice and go and be a stockbroker instead.