Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Adviser knocks SNP's not-for-profit plans

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 The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Sign In
Register
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: 08 December 2008
ONE of the Scottish Government's own economic advisers has criticised the way ministers want to pay for building new infrastructure.
Professor John Kay, a member of the Council of Economic Advisors, said the not-for-profit-distribution (NPD) method dreamt up by the SNP was "PFI (private finance initiatives] with window dressing." The council has told the government that it needs to find alternatives to PFI.

John Swinney, the finance secretary, has admitted in the past that the NPD is part of the PFI family. A spokesman said: "The Scottish Government has not initiated any new PFI projects since May 2007."





The full article contains 108 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 December 2008 9:28 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 00:44:41
Further proof that the SNP and Swinney are numpties. Resign chaps. Leave the country. Dae us a favour.
2

Scunnert,

08/12/2008 00:50:48
I had been brought up to believe that when faced with an irreconcilable difference of opinion with one's employers the honourable thing to do was resign before making public one's opinion. So am I to understand Mr Kay is no longer an adviser to the Scottish Government?
3

subrosa,

08/12/2008 00:58:25
The government have to been given credit for trying to get the best deal for the taxpayers of Scotland. With all these top economists on the CEA, I would have thought they would have come up with something. Maybe they will but time's running out a bit.
4

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 00:59:53
2# Perhaps special branch should raid the Parliament and arrest him. Poor Scunnert you must be Scunnert with this brain dead SNP admin. But you will defend it to the last.
5

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 01:02:02
3# They have been sitting on their hands for 18 months. Time to go, resign. Incompetent bunch of wasters.
6

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 01:10:44
2# Maybe the Gov should resign and the man keeps his job. After all the man is right. Always a first.
7

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 01:42:52
Looks like the SNP numpties have deserted the sinking ship. No takers to defend the incompetence.
8

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 03:18:50
#4 why would the SNP use Labour party "convincing tactics?" , they have a loyal support that does not despise them for turning their back on their founding ethos.
9

Scunnert,

08/12/2008 03:45:52
4 Shamus,

"Poor Scunnert you must be Scunnert with this brain dead SNP admin."

I think they are making the best of a bad bargain. What else to do when presented with a wrecked economy - thank you Gordon. Caught between the need for employment and the certainty of generational debt it would be the lazy way out to indulge in PFI.

The Scottish Government's options are limited - thanks Westminster - yet they continue to seek a new way - one which will benefit Scotland rather than speculators, and for this they are to be applauded.

It is remarkable that, as a minority administration, they have lasted so long. This can only be attributed to the total lack of concern for Scotland's future demonstrated by the unionist parties who, due to a dearth of Scotocentric policies, hung on to the coat tails of UK parties.

Just look at Ian Gray's constituency. Taken over by London central because the yokels weren't towing the UK party line. Consider the Calman Commission's refusal to consider anything that would weaken the union - even if it strengthened Scotland. Consider the confusion of the Liberals as their Federal Kingdom of Britain is dismissed out of hand.

Scotland's future as a region - a hinterland - or as an independent nation - is in question. I welcome the referendum.
10

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 08/12/2008 03:56:38
"John Swinney, the finance secretary, has admitted in the past that the NPD is part of the PFI family."

So what's the problem, Shamus?
11

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 04:36:53
Shamus is trying to get some pyhric victory out of still thinking he is "Labour through and through"

Only if that involves scapegoating members of the community, Telling the owrld their to blame for the countries ills and goosestepping. Sounds familliar that.....Just not 1929 were heading too, 4 years later !
12

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 04:46:17
"Joseph Rowntree Foundation research shows Labour failed on banishing poverty
A decade after Tony Blair promised to halt the descent into deprivation, little has improved and much has worsened"


Aww Shamus has yer crawwing stopped?
13

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 05:27:09
Shamus appears to have gone that colour Labour supporters go these days , bright red with embarassment. just ask members down east lothian.
14

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 05:53:04
Everything has to be some sort of PFI initiative the solution is finding the most cost effective alternative for the taxpayer.

We all remember Labour's attempts at PFI in Scotland such as the Skye Bridge don't we and their Scottish Parliament affair?

The only thing Labour are good at financing (and they have made it into an art form) is their own members expenses claims!

15

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 06:12:10
#15 Nevsky

I think you will find that the Skye bridge funding deal was a working of the Conservative admin of the time, and the Skye bridge tolls were abolished by the previous Labour Scot exec - but don't let the facts get in the way of vitriol, Nevsky. Don't even bother checking them, as facts are irrelevant.

AS an alternative to commenting on the Scotsman, knitting is a creative hobby.
16

Alan Reid,

Viborg 08/12/2008 06:17:56
10, well said.
Shamus, go boil your head.
17

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 06:43:35
10 well said scunnert. I think the term your looking for is the goverment of Scotland has made a pretty fine purse out of the sows ear it was handed!
18

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 06:44:13
"Dae us a favour." ahhh the smell of fake scottishness.
19

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 06:54:06
16 Tin Man#

True the Tories started it but don't forget Labour did nothing for 7 years while they were in power and with Labour's record on PFI is a bit laughable for them to bleat about the SNPs' scheme!

Actually i had forgotton how long ago this bridge was built...1995!

20

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 08/12/2008 07:11:54
Haud on - is this not just a re-hash of something Kay said a few weeks ago?!

- journalism Scotsman style.

SHAMUS = RUFUS = BTO = The best that black ops at Labour HQ can muster = LOL
21

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 07:22:24
Can somebody enlighten me on how the "not-fo-profit" scheme is meant to work? Presumably contractors will be hired to build schools etc. Is it expected that these contractors will not make a profit out of their enterprises. If so, why would they bother to tender for the contract.
22

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 07:59:34
#23 sm753

Don't forget that the 'not for profit' mechanism is a misnomer, and is in fact a fixed-profit scheme, with costs being re-negociable depending on the fluctuating prices of raw materials / labour / etc, etc.

They are already in existence. Perhaps there have been no new infrastructure projects initiated in the last 6 months because of populist tax-cuts?
23

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 08:00:03
It works like this : SM753 logs in and posts, then along a little later comes AM2 agreeeing with SM753. That way they look like two seperate people despite being caught out many times answering for answering people back as the other.....
24

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 08:01:12
23 sm753#

What is a private sector rate of return? Labour's out of control PFI projects? Is that what you mean?

Yes, let's continue down that route!

25

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 08:02:07
#21 - the first squadron of own foot sharpshooters......
26

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 08:03:54
25 Juan#

You will notice that AM2 is an unlster unionist spreading his 'the union is a religion' type of debate while sm753 is a wrold renowned historian on...wait for it...some Ulsterman who joined the Royal Navy and became Rear-Admiral Pugwash or something!

Coincidence?
27

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 08:04:58
I THINK NOT!!!!!
28

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 08:06:42
Ack well it keeps him busy since the missus done a bunk. Probably looking over his shoulder while he was in SM753 mode (the out gay sailor who likes to call himself a priscilla...) and then thought, mind you he has been acting funny.....
29

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 08:08:44
If Am2 realised that in the 1980s everytime a southerner heard a northern irish voice they hid under a table. He doesnt realise just like Scots are still savages in some of their eyes so are norn oirishers. If he thinks his union treats him equally he's kidding himself the most.
30

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 08:09:16
30 Ju@n#

Yes he has, mind you the second-hand car trade can't be easy at the moment!
31

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 08:11:17
31#

I have sympayh for him..is he Irish, Northern Irish, Ulster Scot, British...i guess he just wished he was Irish and born in the Republic, would have made his life-long battle with his identity less of a chip on the shoulder!
32

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 08:13:51
26 Nevski
I am still trying to get some detail on how the proposed "not-for-profit" is meant to replace PFI.

If you decide you want a new school built then you would put that out to tender and the contractor with the best tender gets the contract - yes/no?

So if a PFI scheme is outrageously expensive, why did another contractor not put in a tender that was cheaper?

So what is going to be the crucial difference with the "not-for-profit" scheme. If contractors feel that they cannot make a profit they will not tender.

At some stage you invite tenders from contractors and chose the best option yes/no?

So where is the crucial difference?
33

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 08:19:03
28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Camels have long eye-lashes in order to protect their eyes from wind-blown sand.

34

Ju@n Kerr - the ex labour sheep,

08/12/2008 08:24:20
32 - Nevsky - Imagine the description on the phone or webpage and what actually arrives!

10000 miles on the clock in am2 land is 160,000 in the real world.
35

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 08:26:31
34 George#

I have no idea as i am not a contractor but it seems to me that these private companies profits are way in excess of normal profit margins!

Not only that but the government has let the whole scheme get out of control..they do not even know what will hapen when contractors go bust...that is the level of scrutiny the contracts have been put under???

Why should the government tender for whole contracts anyway, surely it is not beyond their collective wisdom to have a lot of the building under government control apart from the specialist contractors?
36

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 08:28:38
36 Ju@n#

I am sure he could find a quote stating that 160,000 miles on a Ford Sierra is really only 32,000..he could prove it with facts you know!
37

brownlie,

08/12/2008 08:37:21
23 sm753

Your post is no more relevant this time round. Ask HQ if you can develop a sense of humour.
38

drunken proffet,

Tassy 08/12/2008 08:38:13
Unfortunately since the future of the whole of the UK is pretty bleak you have Professors coming out of the woodwork and giving you their 100% guaranteed method of how it should or should not be done. Since Professor John Kay obviously got his qualifications from following the theories that got Scotland into the present condition of serious economic downturn, it would maybe better if he concentrated on the present problems and got his mind into gear.
39

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 08:53:33
34

What on earth are you babbling about?
Why should it have to go out to tender at all? dont local authorities not employ their own tradesmen anymore?
Your Tory privatisation of all things program loop obviously cant see any other options than the personal profit at the tax payers expence scenario.
Try not thinking as a self serving tory for once and see all kinds of possiblities and options which the rest of the world takes for granted.
Some people even refer to it as reality.
40

arc of insolvency,

08/12/2008 09:11:45
More SNP mismanagement, just waiting on them blaming Westiminster!
41

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 09:17:53
41 A True Scot
"What on earth are you babbling about?"

Did you actually read my post or have simply imagined what I said. I was asking what is the crucial difference between the two shemes.

At no stage did I suggest or promote any aspect of either of them. So why on earth do you rant about me and my "Tory privatisation of all things program loop"

Please respond to what is written - not what is in your imagination.

"dont local authorities not employ their own tradesmen anymore?"

Do you expect Health Boards who are building a new hospital to have architects, surveyors, project managers, steel erectors etc, etc. etc. on their payroll?

42

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 09:30:29
43 George#

I am sure the government does? You only outsource if the job is done cheaper as far as i know and PFI is certainly not the cheapest option.

You have a situation where three car parks at Scottish hospitals would cst £30 million or thereabouts to buy out.

You suggesting that a car park and maintenance could not be done and maintained for less than £10 million...some car park!

That's PFI!
43

,

08/12/2008 09:30:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

Alan B,

08/12/2008 09:34:34
#Ugly George

"Can somebody enlighten me on how the "not-fo-profit" scheme is meant to work? Presumably contractors will be hired to build schools etc. Is it expected that these contractors will not make a profit out of their enterprises. If so, why would they bother to tender for the contract."

From my understanding they are for profit but by a different name. The model as i understand is one used already by a council.

It is basiscally about removing excessive profits. PFI currently stands accused of profiteering. So i would say the model talked about is to allow companies a return on investment but not to make windfall profits.

ie it an attempt to repackage pfi but ensuring more value for the tax payers.
45

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 09:35:30
43

Really? so are you claiming you are not now or have ever defended PFI?
46

,

08/12/2008 09:36:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 09:36:36
#1 A numptie
48

Alan B,

08/12/2008 09:37:07
#UG

"So if a PFI scheme is outrageously expensive, why did another contractor not put in a tender that was cheaper?"

I think alot had to do with poor contract negotiations. Bad management of the contract. Also potentially the commericality clauses make it open to corruption.

49

,

08/12/2008 09:38:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
50

,

08/12/2008 09:40:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
51

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 09:41:19
"A spokesman said: "The Scottish Government has not initiated any new PFI projects since May 2007."

Hardly surprising. The SNP, quite rightly, do not believe in PFI.

Also, if the SFT is just PFI with window dressing, how come Labour et al are so dead against it?

Labour, your time has come and gone. Get over it !
52

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 09:42:58
48

No why would I mean that? that is just moronic.
Public sector competance management and efficiency is no better and in some cases is actually worse then public sector competance management and efficiency.
You only have to remember the fiasco surrounding the building of the Scottish parliament as a prime example.
53

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 09:44:29
52

No they probably arent any less corrupt but at least they are cheaper and more accountable to the public.
54

,

08/12/2008 09:45:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

Alan B,

08/12/2008 09:47:18
#Vincent-W

Sorry i think you are talking about something different. I was replaying to UG question regarding the snp alternative proprosal for financing projected.

I think you are focusing on a different if important issue.

PFI is about financing the project and how that should be done.

You could easily have it financed by government borrowing and go to an external private builders to build the school or hospital. I do not think there is really an issue about using private building companies for building etc.

The real issue with pfi is value for money. Is it the cheapest form of finance. Abit like you do not buy a house with an overdraft if you can get a mortgage.

You also have to be aware of the fact that it is one government spending more than it can afford out of current budgets and hence commiting future governments to paying for its priorities and therefore having implications for future government priorities.

Personally i do not have a problem with pfi but it does seem that contracts were poor value for money. I would also reject the commerciality clauses that mean they can be hidden from public scrutiny.
56

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 09:47:33
55

Amazing how many morons forget the law of intended consequences.

Under the PFI arrangements a private company can tender x and then as a consequence claim Y where Y=10X when the job is done.
57

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 09:47:59
57

?????????????
58

,

08/12/2008 09:48:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 09:48:14
#22 George

Stop acting the daft laddie. You know exactly what the difference is.
60

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 09:49:55
61

Who says thats even true? do you have any examples to show us?
61

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 09:50:09
#23 smee

Your low self-esteem is showing again and its not a pretty sight !
62

,

08/12/2008 09:51:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
63

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 09:51:53
#51 Vincent

At least you managed to hit the nail on the head.

PFI / NFP cost over-runs are not a result of the existing funding mechanisms, but more a matter of inepitude of State employees involved with tendering and project administration.

#53 Connaughtboy

The difference between SFT and existing arrangements is:

1) SFT funding via bond issues. Now scrapped.
2) A new layer of contractual oversight - being put in place.

There isn't any other diference to existing funding mechanisms.

Get over it!
64

,

08/12/2008 09:52:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

ochone,

Sauchie, Clacks 08/12/2008 09:53:34
7,Dougie Douglas, yes your right, I see there is no date given as to when these comments were made and when they were made the first time, it was pointed out that these comments were taken out of context.

Funny the Scotsman forgot that!
66

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 09:54:33
67

Cant ever happen if they use your posts as the bench mark of idiocy.
67

Alan B,

08/12/2008 09:54:40
#sm753

I think there a few problems in scotland with pfi/ppp

1)labour slagged the tories for it and then adopted it. As such they helped associate the financing mechanism with poor value. They then did not do an adaquate job of explaining why they were wrong. The snp have done the same thing. It was all about playing to scotlands dislike of capitalism and profit. Much of that build up by labour against thatcherism.

2)confidentiality clauses means that we do not have openness and hence a lack of trust. Even labour admit poor pfi contracts in the early yrs but say they have improved them.

3)labour spending far to much money in general in the so called boom yrs and we see the deficits left now there is a downturn.

4)off balance sheet meant it was seen as an accounting dodge. International accounting changes will clamp down on this practice. I for one dislike Brown effectively lying about uk debt levels as he puts the debt off balance sheet.
68

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 09:56:04
#34 George

Stop being obtuse. A PFI tender is fundamentally different to a normal construction contract. Think about it.
69

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 09:57:01
66

They are a direct result of false under tendering and a flawed system that doesnt have any checks and balances in place to deal with it.
70

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 10:00:10
George

Just in case you genuinely dont understand (which I very much doubt), here are some pointers for you.

Under a PFI scheme, what is being bought and how is it paid for? Under a standard building contract same question. Once you find the answer to these questions you will have answered your own question.
71

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 10:00:54
On the website of The Official Journal of the European
Community(OJEC) under European and UK Procurement Regulations it states that Member States capital projects above a certain sum have to be advertised throughout the Union.

It lists several Scottish Parliament Statutory Instruments brought in by the previous Labour/Lib-Dem Executives.

The Nationalist Government has to ensure the its NPD method of funding capital projects is acceptable to
the EU before it can go ahead with the tendering process.

However, if it cannot cobble together some form of NPD the Scottish Government will simply revert to the previous PFI/PPP method.

Many critics seem to naively believe that because the Nationalist Government has not proceeded with any infrastructure projects that it is in trouble?

In every financial year, since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the previous Labour/Lib-Dem Executives were heavily criticised for massive underspends of hundreds of millions of pounds.
The Nationalist Government will probably be no different.

However, it doesn't have to use any of this money when there are civil engineering consortiums throughout Europe just waiting for the chance to tender for the design, build and management of new capital projects like the new cable stay Forth Crossing, or the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route.

Many member States have used the PPP/PFI to negotiate a share of the tolls to pay for other infrastructure, like approach roads to bridges.

The new Forth Crossing is bound to be a toll bridge and
for comparison purposes, the toll charge for a car using the Second Severn Crossing between Wales and England, costs £5.30.

It is a win, win situation for the Scottish Government!


72

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:06:18
#Vincent-W

"Let's not forget that years of non activity in the 70's, 80's and 90's left us all with poor and inadequate schools etc"

I am not sure if that is really true and does not give a full explanation.

If schools were in disrepair it was either due to poor building practices of the 60s or due to lack of maintenance.

But many building were not about poor buildings. eg edinburgh royal and victoria infirmary. They were good old style buildings. The question more is it better to have a new building build for purpose.

Lack of building in say the 70s and 80s was largely due to the sheer mess of the economy. The 70s we were in a shambles and in the 80s the mass unemployment of the shake out soaked up much of the money.

The 90s the tory government under major actually start spending alot more in terms of government expenditure. That was one of the critisms from the thatcherites of the party.

As i say i do not have a problem with pfi per se. I do think that labour rushed too many projects through and took on too much debt too quickly. In some ways it would be better to launch the building projects of the last 10yrs now that there is a downturn and the building industry in the doldrums. You would get much more cost effective projects. But the public expenditure was political.

The lack of openess has not helped as the media and such cannot scrutinise.

For me it is sometime just about looking at other aspects of labour expenditure. Say on doctors. They threw money at them for no reason. They were already well paid. And for no return. They would have been far better training more doctors and taking a longer term approach. While teachers warranted more money more than doctors the same thing occurred. The returns from mcrone never came. Many teachers saw it as the salary increases they should have had and the pay back in improvements failed to materialise. Do not blame teachers as it was more about imposing silly levels of beaucracy rather than im
73

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:06:40
..improving anything.


74

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 10:07:50
#55 smee

In your perfect little world, risk and reward are inextricably linked. Clearly you have some way to go before you understand how things work in the real world.

Incidently, I speak from experience.
75

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:09:56
#The Tin Man

"PFI / NFP cost over-runs are not a result of the existing funding mechanisms, but more a matter of inepitude of State employees involved with tendering and project administration"

I would suggest that is not necessarily so but is one of the reasons.

Much will depend on whether the contract is time and materials or fixed price. Fixed price contracts by there nature involve more risk on part of the contractor and hence will be more expensive. Time and materials is more likely to overrun but could initially seem cheaper.
76

Ugly George,

08/12/2008 10:11:11
73 connaughtboy
I understand the difference between a PFI scheme and a normal building contract. What I don't undersatnd is the difference a PFI scheme and the "not-for-profit" scheme. As I understand it both involve a contractor building the project and then being paid for the building and maintenance costs over a period of time.

In effect the contractor is letting out the building over 20/25 years. The only difference is that the "not-for-profit" scheme seems to imply that the contractors are not making a profit - in which case why will the co-operate.
77

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:12:08
78

Why arent all PFI contracts fixed price especially as they are paid for from the public purse?
78

Miss H,

08/12/2008 10:13:29
2 He is making a fair point.

As long as the Scottish Government has no borrowing powers it will be a case of tweaking the only options that are available. That is worth doing, of course it is, but it's not a long term solution.

We need independence or at least fiscal autonomy to really make a difference.

Of course the situation with PFI deals going onto the balance book in April next year means that it will become less attractive on a UK wide basis anyway.
79

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:17:38
At the end of the day there are 2 ways to fund a project.

1)private sector funding. it could be leasing the building, pfi, ppp.
2)government borrowing

PFI is on the face of it more expensive but allowed the government to keep the debt of balance sheet.

Government borrowing if too excessive can cause runs on the pound as we have seen with previous labour governments and is beign talked about now due to the levels of deficits and what that means for future borrowing levels.

Browns golden rule not to borrow over the economic cycle except for debt was a decent one. Except that he lied and broke his own rule. He would have been far better paying back much more of government debt when times were good rather than borrowing more. Government should ensure that borrowing for investment is paid back within a reasonable timescale eg 10yrs.
80

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:20:23
82

what happened to using local taxation I thought the massive increaces in local taxation was in part to cover the increaced cost of local building projects?
or is that just a lame excuse in order to justify massive local tax increaces?
81

Miss H,

08/12/2008 10:21:35
23 According to a document published by the House of Commons Library in September of this year, PFI projects in the UK have a combined capital value of £57 billion and future payments amount to £181 billion.

Do you seriously believe that £181 billion to pay for work valued at £57 billion is good value for the taxpayer?


82

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:22:58
82

What is it with you tories and the "only options are"
the same social group of the public has to fork out for everything? there are no other alternatives and certainly not any that involved shifting the burden of costs to those who can afford it or can afford to take less profits.
83

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:23:21
#A True Scot

You would have to ask someone with a better knowledge than me to get an accurate answer but some possibilities are:

1)time and materials method could be cheaper as there is less risk to the contractor and hence if brought in on budget better value for money
2)how do you cope with changes to specfications. We saw that with scottish parliament where changes pushed up the cost.
3)how do you work that out if you have different contractors on site. If one contractor delays then that knock the costs of the second. Obviously you can have penalty clauses.

But let other posters who have better knowledge of the inside working of fixed price and time and materials explain more accurately. I have just seen in in other areas not related to the building trade.
84

,

08/12/2008 10:24:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
85

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:24:22
84

I would suggest that that 181 billion figure is a false undervalued figure for a start.
86

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 10:25:58
#79 George

Why are you pretending that you think the Government expects contractors to undertake work at zero margin?

"Not for Profit" is a misnomer. You know that and I know that.

I also know that you are playing to the gallery (sm753).
87

JOHNW,

DUNFERMLINE 08/12/2008 10:26:57
Government spokesman says they have not signed a PFI deal since May 2007. They are about to ---The new hospital extension at Victoria Kirkcaldy much delayed and currently held up due to problems obtaining finance is due to be signed off in Jan 09. This contract seems to be beset with problems and the anti PFI brigade like me should carefully examine the details of this deal if and when they eventually sign up. Is this the last great screwing of the NHS in Scotland by the PFI providers?
88

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:26:59
86

Contractors require work orders onto their books in order to survive therefore they are not in the driving seat yet PFI seems to put them there.
PFI seems to be designed specifically to ensure private enterprise profits greatly from the public purse am I wrong?
89

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:28:38
#83/85 A True Scot

What are you on about? i support the snp.

"what happened to using local taxation I thought the massive increaces in local taxation was in part to cover the increaced cost of local building projects?"

It is like buying a house. We would use a mortgage. Government using pfi is similar. The question is it value for money.

The other alternatives and what the snp would like is to use borrowing powers eg issue government bonds. But are unable to do so due to the limitations of the devolution settlement.

As Miss H says with the new accounting rules coming in then government will not so readily use pfi to get the debt off balance sheet.

90

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:29:34
87

Scottish Parliament flaws a plenty still waiting to be dealt with. Contractors working within the building every single day since its opening up to the present time finishing off and repairing substandard work.
91

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:31:43
92

The point I am making is it these are not the only options available nor are they the best options available at least as far as the public purse is concerned. Yet you claim they are.
92

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 10:31:52
#80 True Scot

A PFI contract typically has a concession period of 25, even 30 years. The payments often are fixed. The problem is that (as George has realised) the building is effectively leased from the contractor. The attraction of keeping the debt off-balance sheet meant that the client (council, NHS etc) was willing to pay perhaps three times the price of a normal construction contract. This was justified by the claim that the private sector was taking a large slice of extra risk. In reality there wasn't any extra risk.
93

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:33:22
#91 A True Scot

"PFI seems to be designed specifically to ensure private enterprise profits greatly from the public purse am I wrong?"

I think it is about government getting debt off balance sheet.

Brown can come out and say uk debt levels are not too high but ommits that our debt will move from about 40% of gdp to over 60% with pfi type debt included.

Personally i do not have the knowledge to say whether a pfi type of contract is a better way of borrowing than government issuing bonds.

I believe government borrowing eg bonds is a cheaper method of finance.

If pfi profits are excessive that is due to the poor contracts. But i still think even if the contracts were better government finance via borrowing is better value.
94

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:33:42
92

I know you support the SNP but that doesnt mean your not a Conservative with your views.
I support the SNP and my views are inclined towards socialism. We have a common purpose with regards to supporting Scottish independence but on some other issues I dont see common ground.
95

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 10:35:20
84 Miss H
Surely it depends how you look at it. If you buy a house for £100,000 you can get a mortgage over 25 years. If you have to pay 6% interest you will end up paying 25 x 6 = £150,000. You then still have to clear the mortgage so you end up paying £150,000 + £100,000 = £250,000.

How much would you pay for redecoration, maintenance, repairs, rewiring, new kitchen fittings etc over 25 years (how many new houses have windows that will last 25 years) say an average of £2,000 per year to give £50,000

So in total you have paid £300,000 over 25 years and the house is now yours. So you have spent altogether 3 times the initial cost.

That is exactly the same as the figures you quoted.
96

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:35:26
96

"I think it is about government getting debt off balance sheet."

True but its a Conservative policy and construct designed to favour private inititative at the expense of public funding am I wrong?
97

Miss H,

08/12/2008 10:35:41
88 yes I think it probably is.

98

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 10:36:14
#87 Vincent

What on earth are you trying to say? Totally inpenitrable !
99

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:36:55
96

I havent mentioned borrowing at all I am talking about using our already heavy tax burden. Surely the massive tax burden we bear should cover the costs of public buildings?
100

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:38:00
#94 A True Scot

"The point I am making is it these are not the only options available nor are they the best options available at least as far as the public purse is concerned. Yet you claim they are."

Sorry you have lost me.

There are 2 broad ways of financing government projects.

1)government borrowing (included all levels of government) and pay via the tax system directly. (u could have not borrowing and just out of tax but that is not really feasible for large capital projects).
2)private sector debt eg pfi/ppp or some other rehased mechanism.

What other alternatives are there?
101

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:42:27
103

"There are 2 broad ways of financing government projects."

Yes but these are not the "ONLY" broad ways of financing government projects these are only the right wing conservative options of financing government projects.

Why cant it be paid from taxation already taken.
What are the Government spending our taxes on if it isnt public infrastructure I thought that was the whole point of taxation in the first place?
Why are our hospitals being paid for through PFI when the Government keeps claiming its funding the NHS with billions from the public purse?
102

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 10:42:41
#92 Alan

I must disagree with you on your "mortgage" analogy.

When you take out a mortgage you actually own the house. Under a pfi scheme you are leasing a building which you may never own (if you do eventually own it, it will be at the end of the contract).

Anyone who tells you that pfi is value for money is either lying or simply does not understand the issues.
103

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:42:44
#99 A True Scot

"True but its a Conservative policy and construct designed to favour private inititative at the expense of public funding am I wrong?"

It was a tory policy and then expanded over the last decade by labour.

It was used to get debt of the balance sheet. As i said i do not know if it is a value for money approach or not. I do think many projects have been poor value. I disagree with the commercial confidentiality clauses that mean we the public cannot see the details of these contracts to truely make up our minds on how good they are.

I personally would suggest government borrowing is a better way along with a more steady replacement and upgrade of buildings rather than little and then a big splurge.
104

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:44:38
106

Dont you think we already pay enough in taxation to pay for public infrastructure? and if not where is our taxation going?
105

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:48:59
Alan

I am starting to get the impression that you are showing us capitalism doesnt really work for the public sector at all but is a system designed specifically for private profit.
106

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 10:49:08
84 Miss H
Oops - sorry error in my calculations : 3 x 57 =171 not 181.

But the illustration is essentially the same - the interest rate on the mortgage would have to be about 6.2% - a pretty low rate if you consider average mortgage rates over the past 25 years.
107

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:49:13
#connaughtboy

I think some pfi means the government own the building. As such it is a mortgage. One of my earlier critisms was about lease arrangements. Previous posters had pointed out to me that this was not generally the case. I disagree with the concept of a lease agreement. As such i take your point.

I think for value for money we have to see options openly and government should be required to outline the different financial options at the start of a project.

I am not particularly pro pfi but do not have any idealogical objections if they are value for money. But that brings me back to openess about the options for each project.

Sometimes in scotland have done it hear are too anti the private sector and profit and end up like the snp rebranding a pfi scheme as not for profit when it is using the private sector and is for profit but rehashed. I recognise that is due to the limitations of the sp powers though.

At the end of the day if you have government borrowing it is about government selling debt to the private sector. If you have pfi or some rehash it is about debt held by the private sector.

As such it is all private sector debt but take different forms. And we need to seek the best value for money.
108

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:52:35
98

How many people keep their house for the full term of a 25 year mortgage without selling it on for profit and buying a bigger house or a comparible house using the spare cash as a large deposit and therefore living under a much smaller mortgage?
109

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 10:53:39
109

Why dont you take the average mortgage rates over the last 50 or 100 years?
110

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:54:00
#107 A True Scot

Whether you like or not governments spend more than they have been taking in in tax. Most government borrow. Brown claimed he would run a tighter ship by not borrowing other than for investment with his golden rule but broke that rule.

Most government borrow and most have debts in relation to their gdp of between 40 and 60%.

I think funding all capital investement out of one yrs government budget is unreasonable. It is almost like do you want 10shools build now and pay off over 10yrs or 1 school a yr build for 10yrs.
111

Miss H,

08/12/2008 10:56:15
109 Are you putting that forward as an argument in favour of PFI - or against it?

112

Alan B,

08/12/2008 10:59:35
#104 A True Scot

"Yes but these are not the "ONLY" broad ways of financing government projects these are only the right wing conservative options of financing government projects."

Government borrow is done by all government but more government borrowing is generally associated with "left" wing governments.

"What are the Government spending our taxes on if it isnt public infrastructure I thought that was the whole point of taxation in the first place?"

Everything is financed by our taxes. Government could limited their expenditure to only the amount they take in, in taxes. Tradition right wing view. ie classical economics.

Modern governments of all colours borrow by issuing bonds. The snp would like the powers to issue bonds for capital projects like the forth road bridge etc.

PFI is the alternative that allowed government to push the debt off balance sheet. And it seems a more costly alternative.
113

Ugly George,

08/12/2008 10:59:54
105 connaughtboy
"Anyone who tells you that pfi is value for money is either lying or simply does not understand the issues."

Surely that depends on the terms of the PFI contract. If you read my post 98 (and my correction post 109) in reply to the figures in post 84 it appears that the overall cost is similar to buying a house over 25 years with a mortgage rate of a little over 6%. Over the last 25 years most people have been paying mortgage rates much higher than this. Indeed, I was surprised that the comparison came out with such a low equivalent - I would have expected it to be nearer 8/9%.

If a PFI deal can be negotiated which is the equivalent of a reasonable 25 year loan rate than surely there is no inherent reason why it should not be reasonable value for money.
114

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:01:06
113

Yes that is true but we have specific taxation methods in place for specific public spending initiatives do we not? I.E National insurance for pensions and welfare. Local taxation for local spending initiatives including public buildings and services.
Income taxation for public funding of the NHS the armed forces national government etc etc
Its all supposed to be earmarked for public spending one way or another. Dont tell me we are not paying enough in taxation to cover our public costs when the average tax payer is forking out over 75% of their overall incomes into the public purse in one form or another including VAT, road tax, inheretance tax etc etc etc etc.
115

Ugly George,

08/12/2008 11:01:20
109 Miss H
Neither - I am just interested in how it or possible alternatives might work?
116

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:02:36
113

In other words for the vast majority of people living under a capitalist system it simply doesnt work does it? if it did there would be no need for borrowing at all.
117

Miss H,

08/12/2008 11:03:17
110 It won't be private sector debt after April 2009 when PFI goes onto the balance book.

There have already been stories down south about health boards trying to establish hospitals as independent charitable trusts so that they do not have to take the liability onto their books.

It was always going to be a major headache adding PFI debt to the public debt but in today's climate it is a nightmare. I would assume the Treasury are lookimg for ways round it.

Would also clarify that the SNP has not said no PFI ever. It is up to local authorities/health boards and other public bodies to decide how to finance capital projects. But the Tories and Labour made sure that PFI was the only game in town. The SNP is now trying to widen options but with no real financial powers that is obviously tricky.

I would not say that all PFI deals are automatically bad though some have been horrendous. However there is far too much secrecy, all contracts should be made open to public perusal as it is the public paying for them. Labour will fight that tooth and nail however.
118

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:04:18
115

Yes left wing governments trying to cope with a capitalist system and not a socialist one.
119

Miss H,

08/12/2008 11:05:23
118 The alternative is traditional methods of procurent, issuing infrastructuere bonds or the non profit making model. As the first 2 options are debarred to the Scottish Government they have to use the 3rd.
120

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:06:02
116

Reasonable value for money relative to what?
Name one single PFI project that has given the public purse reasonable value for money George just one.
121

Ugly George,

08/12/2008 11:06:31
111 A true Scot
Yes many do but that does not alter the comparison.

The reason that sell up and make a profit is that house price inflation allows them to do so.

Similarly, a school may cost £10million to build now but in ten years time it will, no doubt, cost more.
122

Alan B,

08/12/2008 11:07:01
#A True Scot

If you are trying to suggest government waste alot of our money you may have a point.

I find it strange that you argue as if you are left wing but advocate in no government borrowing a very right wing view.

But i think you are not dealing with the real point. Governments spend more than they take in in taxes then they have to borrow the difference. They may be wasting alot as you suggest. If a government was not to borrow (and interest payments on government debt is somethign like £30billion to just service official debt) then it would either have to raise taxation or cut government expenditure.

The real point regarding capital expenditure is too allow governemtn to spread the payments over more than one yr.

123

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:07:11
122

Infrastructure bonds? what are they and how do they work? and they publically funded?
124

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 11:09:49
123 A True Scot
I do not know enough about any specific PFI projects to comment in that respect. What I was doing was using the figures quoted for the total PFI costs and comparing them to the cost of buying a house on a 25 year mortgage.

Look at the analysis yourself and decide for yourself if it is reasonable value for money.
125

Miss H,

08/12/2008 11:11:36
Update to this story - the UK Government's Pre Budget Report now shows that the UK's PFI liability has increased to £216bn.

Obviously we don't know what share of that belongs to Scotland but it would be nice to find out.

There could be a silver lining in that some of this money may be owed to banks which have been bailed out by the Treasury. It should give an opportunity to reduce the debt otherwise taxpayers are going to end up paying twice as I see it. Once to bail out the banks and then to service the debts.
126

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:12:12
125

I appreciate you are dealing in reality. Yes thats what our governments do they spend more than they squeeze from the public and then squeeze them some more. My point is you seem to accept this as the way it should be just because it is.
You post statements like this is the only way and the only options are etc etc.
The point is PFI PPP or borrowing are options only because of the incompetance and corruption of the overall system of capitalism employed by our society.
Just because its todays reality doesnt mean it has to be accepted and acknowledged as the only working methods. In fact you prove very eloquently that it doesnt work in your own posts.
127

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:14:04
127

Reasonable for who George? maybe for the contractor but not for the public purse how can it be? when cheaper alternatives are available such as public sector workers doing the job directly for the local authorities with the cost being salary and materials only.
128

Miss H,

08/12/2008 11:14:13
126 They are basically a way of financing infrastructure projects, used by national governments - or in the USA by individual states as well.

Would be the ideal way to finance the new Forth crossing I would have thought.
129

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 11:15:30
129 A True Scot
"The point is PFI PPP or borrowing are options only because of the incompetance and corruption of the overall system of capitalism employed by our society."

What alternative system of financing the building of schools/ hospitals would you envisage?
130

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:15:55
131

How does it work?
131

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:17:10
132

Existing taxation have I not made that plain enough already? That funding which has already been earmarked for public expenditure so why isnt it being used?
132

Ugly George,

08/12/2008 11:18:10
130 A true Scot
Do you therefore envisage every local authority and every health board having the specialists needed in these fields permanently on their payrolls.
133

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:19:53
135

Why not anything wrong in training folk to do the jobs necessary? didnt we once have an enviable apprentice system and publically run education system which was the envy of the world?
134

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 11:21:25
134 A true Scot
"Existing taxation have I not made that plain enough already? That funding which has already been earmarked for public expenditure so why isnt it being used?"

Where are these funds that are available for capital expenditure projects? Are the Scottish govt sitting on hundreds of millions of unspent funds?
135

,

08/12/2008 11:22:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
136

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 11:23:25
136 Properly funded and trained DLO's can compete with any other building firm on a level playing field and win. They also have apprenticeships, unionised working conditions, and superior health and safety policies.

The trend in recent years has been against the public sector. It has been set up to fail. Hopefully the SNP are getting away from that ideological nonsense.
137

Alan B,

08/12/2008 11:23:31
#129 A True Scot

As i said i am not particularly in favour of pfi but not ideololgically against it if value for money. But with confidentiality clauses we do not know and it is difficult for someone from the outside looking in to really compare this method of financing.

When i say these are the option, i am talking about how governments can fund these capital projects via borrowing. Yes you can do what you are suggesting and not borrow at all. Fund every project within the financial yr. But some would say rather than fund say a new forth bridge crossing out of one yrs moneys you are better spreading the cost over a period or even the life time of the bridge.

Personally as you may have seen, i am critical of government spending more than they take in in taxes. That is part of the problem with Browns economic management.

However i do not advocate the right wing classical economics of balance the budget each yr and tax revenues go up and down with the economic cycle. And hence would support a balancing of the budget over the economic cycle.
138

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 11:23:56
Vincent has a pathological hatred of the public sector.
139

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 11:23:57
136 A true Scot
How often does a health board build a new hospital - once every 5, 10 years or whatever. So the health board has to employ architects, surveyors, steel erectors for one project every few years. What do they do for the rest of the time?
140

antifa,

08/12/2008 11:24:56
NPD is a form of PFI. That is the point that SNP adviser John Kay is making. So those who are attacking PFI and proposing NPD are getting confused.

By the way Scotsman - the model is called "non-profit distributing" not "not-for-profit". This type of misreporting just adds to the confusion.

The difference between NPD and traditional PFI is that, in the former, the private sector makes money through returns on debt only, whereas in the latter, there are also returns on equity.

Early evidence suggests NPD might be a bit cheaper, but that depends to a large extent on the market's response.
141

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:24:58
137

Damn good question George where does all of our taxation go to?
They seem to have spent it on other things such as WMDs, illegal wars, proping up despotic governments, foreign policy, and god knows what else not kept by public record.
We should all be asking exactly on what and where our taxation is spent.
142

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:26:42
139

Exactly we have to get away from this tory privatisation of everything mentality. The money is there already it just has to be managed properly.
143

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:28:14
142

No a Local authority takes care of that by having a public works force in place already just for these public projects. Duh!!
144

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:29:15
142

Whatever they like what do you do when your not blogging?
145

Alan B,

08/12/2008 11:29:27
#A True Scot

I did a quick google and this is a breakdown of government expenditure in 2000 with a graph and a table. gives you an idea of the breakdown

http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/economy/policy/tools/government/gexpex.htm
146

Alan B,

08/12/2008 11:31:09
#A True Scot - table for 2000 pasted in

Department Expenditure (£bn)
Social security £109
Health £72
Housing and environment £18
Defence £24
Education £50
Law and order £23
Transport £10
Industry, Agriculture and employment £16
Debt interest £23
Other £49
147

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:32:36
148

Come on Alan its all a bit general and can hide a multitude of sins. What is required is very specific project by project accounting.
148

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:33:10
149

Is that in the billions?
149

,

08/12/2008 11:33:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
150

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:33:58
149

How do we know for example that our government actually does spends 109 whatever on social security for example?
151

,

08/12/2008 11:35:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
152

Alan B,

08/12/2008 11:35:39
#A True Scot

Yes billions.

I am not saying it is not general. But it gives you a break down in general terms where the money goes ie what department. I would like if the government would publish some easy to read graph of expenditure breakdowns and tax raised and then be able to click to see further breakdowns.
153

,

08/12/2008 11:35:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
154

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:36:05
154

Do you ever post properly?
155

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:37:16
149

Cant see any accountablity in that very broad based table Alan can you?
156

,

08/12/2008 11:37:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
157

antifa,

08/12/2008 11:38:14
153 - there's a thing called the national audit office.

You're getting side-tracked.

The thread is about NPD versus PFI, and the point is that they are almost exactly the same thing.

NPD financial structure: 90% bank debt; 10% shareholder debt.
PFI financial structure: 90% bank debt; 9% shareholder debt; 1% shareholder equity.

This 1% difference in the form of financing is what is being contested between the parties.
158

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:38:20
159

So he did and yet I cant get excited about it how did you manage?
159

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 11:38:24
139 Observer 1
"Properly funded and trained DLO's can compete with any other building firm on a level playing field and win."

As I implied in post 142, we are not just talking about joiners and electricians for these construction projects. We are talking about specialists in piling, steel erection, crane operation etc.

How is it feasible for a local authority to keep all of these specialists on their payrolls for the occasional job that comes along?
160

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:38:45
161

Who runs the national audit office?
161

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:40:26
163

If highly trained professional such as Doctors surgeons and specific medical specialist can lower their standards to work for the NHS then why cant other professionals not work for the civil service?
Oh wait they already do.
162

Observer. 1,

Gl;asgow 08/12/2008 11:42:05
152 well sorry if I have misjudged you, but the posts I have read of yours always seem to be slagging the public sector off and idealising the private sector, especially in schooling.

But there is an issue with profit and the public sector. People pay taxes to obtain services, not to line bankers pockets. Therefore, we should use procurement and management methods which provide the best value for money, ie put as much money into actual bricks and mortar and service provision as possible.
163

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:42:34
155

I think we would all appreciate that I believe half the problem with the incompetant and lets face it corrupt spending of successive governments is due to the lack of accountablity and measurement of national spending.
164

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 11:43:55
160 Yes I do think the banks which the state owns should be run by the state. But that's not an ideological position, as I have said to you before. That's to make sure they work.
165

Alan B,

08/12/2008 11:44:58
#153 A True Scot

"How do we know for example that our government actually does spends 109 whatever on social security for example?"

Couple of things. Yes if you think the whole thing is a conspiracy and all parties have agreed to it then you can take that line. You would also have say that is what the other european countries do a most will spend generally speaking in line with what the rest do proportionally.

But with regard to the social security budget you could probably work it out roughly yourself and google for most stats.

For instance take the number claiming benefit mutliplied by the amount they get and add it to, other figures like state pension, invalidity benefit. Labour have pushed the stats to 2.7 million now on invalidity benefit. Not sure if housing benefit is under housing or social security. Then add in child benefit etc.

Think you could come up with some rought cross verfication of the figures.
166

,

08/12/2008 11:45:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
167

Ugly George,

08/12/2008 11:45:31
166 A true scot
What are you saying - that we have steel erectors and crane operators working as civil servants.
168

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 11:45:57
163 - shared services. There is no need for any local authority or health board to operate completely independently. They could share procurement and delivery teams. Not difficult to organise if you wanted to.
169

Ugly George,

08/12/2008 11:46:50
171 Vincent-W
precisely. That is the question I have been asking.
170

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 11:47:24
166 it's perfectly possible to provide all the services you need by using the shared services approach as I said in post 173.
171

,

08/12/2008 11:48:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
172

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 11:48:49
171 it depends on the size of the Council. Glasgow does. Smaller ones don't. But they could combine, it makes perfect sense.
173

Alan B,

08/12/2008 11:48:50
#165 Professor MacBonacord

What are you talking about?
174

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:49:17
Privatisation doesnt work for society in general it works for individuals at the expense of society.
Generally speaking nationalisation of public services is a must for a society.
I have only ever seen one argument put forward to justify privatisation and that is one of competition keeping costs down. Well we have all found out to our cost that this is false. Private competition does not keep costs down fear of public reaction keeps costs down.
175

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:50:25
171

Why not?
176

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:52:27
172

We have manual workers and skilled workers such as architects project managers etc working within the civil service pay bands or didnt you know that?
177

Alan B,

08/12/2008 11:53:05
Just remember the mechanisms of financing a capital project and who carries out the work are not necessarily related.

The government could finance the work out of tax and borrowing and get either the private sector or public sector to do the work.

178

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:53:14
181

Put simply it is corrupt. But then so is the whole concept of the UK.
179

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 11:53:15
176 Vincent PFI is driven by a profit motive. Not service delivery, but hard nosed profit. And all objective analysis, including the National Audit Office, says it doesn't provide value for money compared with traditional procurement. That's why people don't like it.
180

antifa,

08/12/2008 11:53:40
True Scot - the NAO is accountable to Parliament, but is operationally independent.

It seems to me you are assuming there is no accountability without doing any research into what information is available. For example, you could look at the NAO reports on departmental finances. You could look at the Audit Commission's work on specific policies and projects. Or you could read the Treasury's Budget and Pre-Budget full reports. You will find several thousand pages detailing public spending. The UK actually has quite an open government, relatively speaking. It could be better, but at the moment it's pretty good.

By the way, if everyone blithely assumes that all government is corrupt, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, then what is the incentive for governments to behave decently?
181

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:55:59
George

Who trains these skilled specialists? they certainly arent trained by private companies they are recruited by private companies because they have gained their experiance in the public sector.
You try getting a professional job without experiance ask any student.
182

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:56:51
186

"True Scot - the NAO is accountable to Parliament, but is operationally independent."

Yes of course it is just as all government quangos are.

183

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 11:58:12
186

Yes you could do all of that and you could take all of my posts at face value also so why dont you?
184

,

08/12/2008 11:58:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
185

antifa,

08/12/2008 11:58:38
181 - I agree with almost everything you say. However, the point remains that Swinney is lying to us by presenting NPD as something new, when actually he's just carrying on with a dressed up form of PFI/PPP. Remember that NPD was introduced by Andy Kerr, for heaven's sake.
186

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:01:17
190

Bunkum - now we are at the nub of your dogma driven drivel! Private companies benefit us all!

Yes of course all private companies start out dreaming of the day when they can serve the public sector at the cost to their profits. Its what motivates them.
187

,

08/12/2008 12:01:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
188

,

08/12/2008 12:02:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
189

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 12:02:49
173 Observer 1
This comes to one of the nubs of the problem and why councils often like to use contractors. If you had a shared public service of building specialists - as I said crane operators, steel erectors etc. you would have to decide on appropriate levels of employment. You would have to ensure that you had enough to cope with construction projects at a reasonable pace.

What happens when councils/govt find (as they often do) that they are operating under financial constraints and have to cut spending in some areas or delay projects (consider Aberdeen council). One reaches a situation where there is no work for some of these specialists but councils/govts do not like to make people redundant as it is bad news politically.

Private contractors, however will make workers redundant if there is no work for them. So councils are often happy to let the contractors take the responsibility.
190

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:03:22
194

It certainly is for those making it but not for those paying for it.
191

,

08/12/2008 12:04:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
192

antifa,

08/12/2008 12:05:31
"Privatisation doesnt work for society in general it works for individuals at the expense of society."

Well, privatisation benefits certain parts of society - i.e. the richer parts. Shareholders did well out of it, as did some well-paid managers. Regular workers and consumers have done much well.

There have been some benefits to liberalisation, combined with a stronger regulatory structure since 1997 - but from a micro-economic point of view (i.e. aggregate social welfare), privatisation in the UK has been a failure.
193

,

08/12/2008 12:05:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
194

,

08/12/2008 12:06:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
195

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:08:41
195

That is a problem for not only public sector employment but also private sector employment.
There is no difference between public sector employment problems and private sector employment problems.
There is however a massive advantage to public sector employment and that is training and training costs.
The private sector doesnt offer training courses as a rule they prefer to directly employ experianced personal who hit the ground running.
Public sector workers however can and do go through multiple training schemes.
This means the public sector will employ straight from college and university whereas in the vast majority of cases the private sector wont.
196

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:09:41
199

Ok So how much benefit have you received from BPs massive profits lately for example?
197

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:10:58
200

Nothing I dont have either the resouces nor the need to do it. Why would anybody want to train somebody they have no need for?
198

Alan B,

08/12/2008 12:12:12
#196 A True Scot

When we all go to work we do so for a profit ie salary. Is there really a difference between say employing a self employed joiner, electrician, plumber than putting that person on the books a a permanent employee.

One will make their profit via salary and the other will make his salary via charging for the work done.

Will the person who is permi and is difficult to sack and to some extend control be necessarily better than the self employed tradesman who will only get repeat work if he performs.

Part of the reason for the inefficiency of the public sector in many areas is the difficulty to control staff, sack them if they are bad, reward the better performers. Unionisation does not help with that regard.

I cannot see the problem with giving a maintenance contract to a local plumbers or joiners to service a school on a needs basis.

In truth there is no right and wrong way and much depends on the management. To some extent the public sector due to the political nature is the most difficult to get right. eg if you have maintence contract for schools with a private company if they do not deliever and meet the terms of the contract you boot them out. If the public sector equivelent does not come up to scratch for political reason little is done.

199

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:16:03
205

No Alan some people actually go to work in order to survive not to profit.
Its a shame your only experiance with life is one of a sheltered existance. Thats probably the problem with most of our politicians.
200

Alan B,

08/12/2008 12:16:04
#A True Scot

"The private sector doesnt offer training courses as a rule they prefer to directly employ experianced personal who hit the ground running."

From my experience the private sector do offer training and are generally good. Again from what i have seen the level of competence is better in the private sector that the public but that is obviously a generalisation.

Yes the private sector would like to have a trained persons but much comes down to taking younger inexerience people on and training them up. They want a spectrum of experience and costs within their staff. Obviously some companies are better than others.

201

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 12:17:12
201 A true scot
"This means the public sector will employ straight from college and university whereas in the vast majority of cases the private sector wont."

What leads you to that statement. Private companies go round universities seeking out students in their final years and actively try to recruit them. I know that many of my friends were recruited by private companies straight from uni.
202

Alan B,

08/12/2008 12:17:17
#206 A True Scot

So you do not go to work to get paid? You would do it for free. Absolutely rubbish. People go to work to get paid. That by definition is profit.
203

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:18:42
207

Yes Alan some do but relatively very very few. Dont use the very very few who do as a general example. they are the exception to the rule.
204

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:20:12
209

No Alan it isnt people work get paid and then have to hand over every penney they have just to buy the necessities to survive i.e food and shelter there is nothing left over as "profit"
205

Alan B,

08/12/2008 12:21:14
#210 A True Scot

I am only talking for companies i worked for. And most have been good when it comes to training. In fact most have been very good.

I obviously cannot talk for companies i have not worked for but the true is same for most poeple i know within the sector i work.

Are you saying very few because that is your experience?
206

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:23:40
212

I am talking about the many many companies who use employment agencies to recruit their staff. Try getting registered with one of these recruitment agencies without a relevant C.V.
207

Alan B,

08/12/2008 12:24:15
#211 A True Scot

Please lets not be daft. I have tried not to take our chat down that route.

If you get paid it is effectively profit. Just like if a self employed person does the same job.

We sell our labour for a return. Depending on our skills etc that return can better better or worse than others.

That we spend that profit/wages on food and rent etc is nothing to do with whether the wages or self employed profit we get is money we earned and effectively profit.

208

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:26:16
214

"If you get paid it is effectively profit"

How is it profit if its earned? isnt the definition of profit something gained for nothing?

209

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 12:27:36
#172 George

Why the sudden fascination with steel erections?
210

,

08/12/2008 12:27:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
211

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/12/2008 12:28:58
I notice the complete apathy towards the "Steamie"
212

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 12:29:13
211 A true scot
Oh dear - so millions upon millions are working just to survive with the "necessities" of food and shelter.

How come there are over 20 million private cars in the UK and how many millions go on at least one foreign holiday a year etc. etc etc.
213

Alan B,

08/12/2008 12:29:31
#213 A True Scot

Like most things it is about mapping a course for yourself. One of the reasons i support the snp is due to the lack of opportunities in scotland. And as such i went down to london.

You are correct getting on the job ladder can be difficult. But when you are on, in my sector atleast, companies tend to spend alot on training.

But most of the best training actually comes from being on a job. And self learning.

Much of the training the private sector send people on is wasted if you do not then get exposure to these areas in your job soon after.

Companies tend to train if there is skills gaps in the market. Or if recruiting skilled staff is too expensive.

The best skilling comes from working with good people.
214

Alan B,

08/12/2008 12:32:25
#216 A True Scot

"How is it profit if its earned? isnt the definition of profit something gained for nothing?"

Technically profit is the difference between your income and expenditure.

So if you are a painter and decorator and charge £300 for a job. And the paint and wallpaper cost £200 then your profit would be £100.

I would say the painter and decorator earned the money and it is not money for nothing.

215

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 12:33:13
217 connaughtboy
Merely an example of one of the skills required in construction. I could have mentioned the piles reqired to support a major structure but that might have been misconstrued.

Are you implying metallic Freudian aspect of my psyche?
216

,

08/12/2008 12:34:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
217

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 12:37:14
So, there is very little difference between SFT and the existing systems.

223 comments without any better ideas.

At least 'A True Scot' :-)) is good value, though. Someone please ask him more about profits, salaries etc...
218

,

08/12/2008 12:39:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
219

brownlie,

08/12/2008 12:47:16
220 George

According to the government's own figures over one million are on the minimum wage in Britain. There will be many more working for under the minimum wage.

So quite a few must be working solely to provide the bare necessities.

220

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:47:55
222

So if your paid x for Labour Y where is the profit Z?
221

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:49:14
222

Wouldnt that 100 pound not be the charge for labour costs and time?
222

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:52:18
220

OH ok George nobody works to survive everybody makes more than enough to not only get by but to afford luxuries as well. Poverty is a myth therefore the governments claims of reducing poverty must also be a myth.
223

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:55:56
197

Well then lets just agree to disagree.
224

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 12:56:35
227# You would prefer we did not have a minimum wage. Something more for the looney lefties to moan about. Scottish Nationalists and lefties are eternal moaners. It is little wonder that we will struggle to get inward investment. You all detest hard working people. Welfare spongers all of you.
225

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:57:18
225

Why dont you? oh sorry you already have under various names and accounts already.
226

Alan B,

08/12/2008 12:57:46
#228 A True Scot

Not sure what you are asking. I thought my painter and decorator example was quite clear.

Profit is technically total income minus any expenses.

As such i said your wages are effectively profit. You are selling your labour/services for money.

My initial point was to point to the difference between a self employed joiner or other tradesman and someone under a contract of employment.

They are both working for money and income minus expenses if any is the profit. The only difference is their employment status.

While another example you could look at it the same way regarding an agency nurse etc as they are not on a permanent employment contract.
227

,

08/12/2008 12:57:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
228

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 12:59:01
222

It obviously isnt profit either is it?
229

,

08/12/2008 12:59:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
230

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 13:01:25
#228

Do you get a good view of passing satellites up there?
231

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:03:10
#229 A True Scot

"Wouldnt that 100 pound not be the charge for labour costs and time?"

No.

However from an accountancy point of view you could account for the 100pounds as technically wages and then have not any profit. Or as a one man business you could take it all as profit and not wages.

But the person is getting the same money at the end of the day. That is why i said effectively profit in regard to wages as my definition of profit regard the painter and decorator is technically profit from an accounting point of view.

Profit in any business large or small is the difference between income and expenses.

232

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:03:13
235

Did he manage to bring up a family on it? pay a mortgage? pay for public transport? public services? etc etc?

How can the harvest for a crop be profit if its paid for in labour and time? and the crop itself is the cost of the return on it in cash? that isnt profit.
233

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:05:09
#236 A True Scot

"It obviously isnt profit either is it?"

It is profit. That is the definition of profit.
234

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:06:26
240

what do you mean no why not? 300 pounds agreed before hand for a job and 300 pound given for the job i.e time labour and materials. There is no profit there only and exchange of cost. A profit would have been made if the client had passed over an extra hundred as a bonus.
235

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:07:00
#A True Scot

I think part of your problem is you are arguing against profit but do not understand what it actually means.

236

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:07:35
242

No it isnt its an exchange of cost. Time effort and material for cash.
237

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:09:40
244

You wish.
You put 100 pounds into a bank the bank pays interest at x amount that x amount less the tax is profit.
Why because your original 100 still belongs to you it hasnt been exchanged for anything.
238

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:11:30
#243 A True Scot

Profit is the difference between income ie the £300 and the expenses £200 and hence equals £100. (in my simple example)

That is profit.

That is was agreed at the start of the contract is irrevelent. Most deal in business are made at the outset. If i asked for painter and decorator to redo a room in my house i confirm the price at the outset.

That person has to ensure when he quotes for the work that it is profitable. ie the costs will not exceed the money he will be paid for the job.

239

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:14:00
247

No it isnt and you know bloody fine it isnt the 100 pounds is the cost of time and effort on somebody elses behalf.
What if the client asks you to use materials they themselves have bought what would the charge be for then?
240

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:15:52
#246 A True Scot

You are trying to define profit as something it is not.

Profit is simply taking the costs £200 from the income £300. And hence the profit is £100.

With regard to tax. Gross profit is before tax and net profit after taking off tax.

I did abit of accounting (higher at school) and abit in my degree so i know the rough theory of what is technically profit.

I suggest you do some research regarding what profit is and then it be more clear.
241

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:16:07
248

What are you slavering about troll? havent you got anybody to accuse of anti semitism to annoy?
242

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 13:17:56
Perhaps A. T. Scot was trained by Comecon and is looking forward to the Union of Scottish Socialist Local Authorities and the 5-year turnip production plan.
243

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:18:33
250

Profit is simply taking the costs £200 from the income £300. And hence the profit is £100.

Not in the example you provided it isnt.

If you take the 200 put it in a bank and get 300 back then that is a profit. If you take on a job for 300 pounds spend 200 on materials and charge 100 for labour and time then that is an exchange of cost not a profit and you know it.
244

,

08/12/2008 13:19:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
245

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:20:05
252

What do you look forward to? the latest thing in keyboards perhaps?
246

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:20:43
254

So the minimum wage is not the means in which to raise a family then?
247

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:21:35
#A True Scot

I thought my example was clear.

You are a painter and decorator. You charge your customer £300 for a job. ie that will be your income. You pay out £200 on materials eg wall paper and paint to say B&Q. The difference is £100 profit.

I cannot make it any clearer.
248

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:25:32
257

If the cost of the labour and time is in the 200 why did they charge 300?
249

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 13:26:18
244# True Scot is indeed a true Scot. Miserable and wants something for nothing. Sadly it is part of our culture. The building and construction industry is not all that complicated. They do require to make a profit to pay wages. You fix a price with a bit put aside for an overun. You do not give the industry carte blanche like we did with the builders of the Scottish Parliament building. Labour were to blame for that. You just learn some lessons from your mistakes. The SNP have had plenty of time to get their act together.
250

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:27:46
259

So when does a profit become a rip off?
251

,

08/12/2008 13:29:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
252

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:32:31
261

Given up on debate eh? looking to provoke?
The pattern never changes on here does it?
253

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 13:32:32
#257 Alan B

I don't think you are not on to a winner, there. It is quite fun if you try GDP, though.... (eeeek!).
254

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:34:01
#258 A True Scot

I have not mentioned labour and time in the orignal example as it is irrelevent to my example.


You are going to charge a customer £300. That is what you think the customer will pay and will cover your costs (£200 for paint and wall paper), and gives you an adaquate return.

The £100 gross profit minus tax is your take home money.

Income £300
Expense
-paint and wallpapper £200
profit £100

However you could from an accountancy point of view all account for it as

Income £300
Expense
-paint and wallpapper £200
- wages £100
profit £0


The money you take home is the same. You could have any different split between what is tehcnically wages and profit you want. However most business would probably account for the vast majority of it as profit.

For instance say you do the job and the costs are actually higher you ruin some wall paper or use more paint and your costs are £350 then you would make a £50 loss. If you were accounting for the £100 as wages and not profit from an technical standpiont then your loss would be £150.


255

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:34:54
264

Hold on Time and labour are irrelevant to a job of work are you serious?
256

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 13:35:48
#262 A. T. Scot

By what means would you like the our government to fund large infrastructure projects (building roads, schools, hospitals, etc)?
257

,

08/12/2008 13:36:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
258

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:37:43
264

Why are you arguing like AM2? dont tell me you work for the Scotsman as well? is this some kind of take both sides of the argument troll from the Scotsman staff? I suppose it a weird way it makes sense you keep the arguments going form both sides.
259

,

08/12/2008 13:38:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
260

brownlie,

08/12/2008 13:38:49
235 Vincent

Did you read my posting? Nowhere did I say that I despised the minimum wage. My posting was in answer to George's "never had it so good" posting regarding cars and foreign holiday which is not generally available to minimum wage-earners unless they happen to live at home.

The minimum wage, which was forced onto labour by their trade union pay-masters, is one of the few positive things that Labour have managed to introduce over the last decade.
261

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:38:50
267

Its not within my power to stop people referring to me as a moron. Moron.
262

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 13:38:54
Thank you Alan and Vincent for demonstrating what is wrong with PFI - profit. Profit is an excess gained from a business transaction which is for the benefit of the business - not the client or the product.

People don't want to pay taxes so that private companies can derive an excess profit from providing public services.

Also people are not generally fond of paying their taxes to subsidise organisations which would use self employed tradesmen rather than permanent workers,. because they have no rights and can be sacked at the drop of a hat.

True Scot - a valiant effort but I fear you are wasting your time.
263

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:39:38
#265 A True Scot

Read my example in 264 again.
264

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:40:13
269

Oh dont go please no wait I will reform I do so love reading troll tripe.
265

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 13:40:45
258# The SNP complained about PFI years ago. They said they would replace it. So they had all those years to construct an alternative. They have been in office 18 months. Still no plan forthcoming. That adds up to failure and incompetence both in and out of office. Forget about Martin resigning. The SNP should resign enmass and let Labour get on with running the country.
266

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:40:56
273

Why has it been modified?
267

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:42:09
#Observer. 1

If you are on the same wave length as "A True Scot" maybe you could explain what a profit in a one man business is.

Particularly regards the example i am trying to explain about a one man band painter and decorator.

268

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:42:13
266

Read the blog paying particular attention to my posts the answer is out there.
269

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 13:44:07
275 Seamus#

Spelling mistake..you mean Labour 'ruining' and not 'running' the country i think?

We all understand though.
270

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:45:23
#276 A True Scot

No i just do not think you understood or responded to what the core of what i was saying.

But at the end of the day i know what profit and how it is defined. I seem unable to explain to you and you seem to want to make up your own definition.

As i suggested earlier google and do some research on what profit actually is (unless you are really on a wind up) rather than what you want the definition of profit to be.



271

Nevsky,

Moscow 08/12/2008 13:45:45
George is off his head, there are more children in poverty in the UK now than ever before.

Read the Rowntree report in the papers today George!
272

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 13:46:42
#269 Vincent

The comments would not be worth reading without the dimwit / mentalist / troll contributions.

#272 Observer

Almost all State spending is funded by 'profit' accumulated by the private sector. Are you arguing in favour of a cashless economy based on advanced bartering?
273

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:46:45
277

Let me.
Take your example.
If you had stated at the begining that the cost of the materials labour and time was 200 but the worker charged 300 then the worker would have made a profit of 100 but you didnt. you said the job COST 300 meaning the overall cost of materials time and labour was 300 and what was charged was 300 hence zero profit.
He exchanged time effort and material for cash.
He didnt exchange time effort and material for cash plus profit in your example.
274

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:47:48
#The Tin Man

Want all governments capital expenditure to come out of current yrs public expenditure. ie run a balance budget every yr.

In effect he is arguing for a right wing classical economic fiscal policy.
275

,

08/12/2008 13:48:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
276

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:48:28
281

If somebody worked for 12 hours and was paid 10 pounds who would profit?
277

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:48:39
#Tin Man

sorry 286 was about the position of True Scot regarding public expenditure.
278

Observer. 1,

08/12/2008 13:48:52
277 I am not remotely interested in a one man painting and decorating company. It's got nothing to do with the subject matter on this thread, which is PFI generating excess profits for private business from tax payers money which should be invested in front line services, not lining the private sectors pockets.
279

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 13:50:35
#280 Peter

I'll say this once, and I'll say it again.
I'll say this once, and I'll say it again.
I'll say this once, and I'll say it again.
I'll say this once, and I'll say it again.
280

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:51:16
283

No it isnt.
You on the other hand have no previous you are currently posting as AM2, Duncan, Rufus, Vincent, Tinman, Ugly George, Saxon Yoke, Shamus and every other idiot troll on here.
281

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 13:52:03
287 I can only assume that you are purposefully misunderstanding me.
282

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 13:53:26
287

Youre an idiot companies have to make a profit in order to keep going they dont however have to make excessive rip off profits assisted by public officials. I bet my grannies dog understands the difference.
283

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 13:55:19
#286 Alan B

...But at the same time he claims to be an unreconstructed old-school socialist....

I think he is just out on a trolling leg-pull - people really aren't that stupid.
284

Alan B,

08/12/2008 13:56:08
#A True Scot

"If somebody worked for 12 hours and was paid 10 pounds who would profit?"

I think you are using the term profit in a different semantical way here.

Profit as we are talking about is simply the difference between what you take in in Income and what goes out in Expenses. If expenses is greater than Income you have a loss.

285

Scunnert,

08/12/2008 14:00:12
Labour's New Slogan:

Arbeit Macht Frei
286

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:02:52
#296 The Tin Man

I would not be surprised if he was just on a wind up.
287

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:03:29
297

No actually the answer is the employer would make the profit simply because 12 hours of somebodies life has got to be worth more than a tenner wouldnt you agree?
288

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 14:04:37
#288 Peter

If someone lives in a house, has more than a change of clothes, a high-calory diet, a cooker, heating, a bed, furniture, and probably a TV, it stretches my imagination to call that person 'poor', or even 'uncomfortable', for that matter
289

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:05:23
301

How about if he had all of that on credit would you call him poor then?
290

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 14:05:43
Alan/Vincent/Tin Man

Read this:

http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/B1062.pdf

Then apologise.
291

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:05:46
#300 A True Scot

Now I think you are on wind up. We are talking about what the definition of profit is. Not whether that profit was adaquate and not who makes the most profit. And not about slave labour.



292

,

08/12/2008 14:06:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
293

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 14:06:54
#300 A. T. Scot

Unfortunately, your statement does not apply to the majority of humanity - life tends to be a bit cheaper than that.
294

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:08:16
304

Thats right we are and you think of profit only in cash terms and not by definition. There are many ways to profit and getting somebody to do something profitable for you in return for babbles or beads or pennies is certainly one way wouldnt you agree
295

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:08:19
#Observer. 1

While I was having a chat with True Scot. What point are you making to me directly and exactly what are you asking me to apologise for.

Can you also point to the post that you are referring to so that i can understand what you are talking about and referring to.
296

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 14:09:29
#303 Observer

What manner of funding mechanism are you proposing?
297

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:09:51
306

Only approx 8% of the worlds population lives in what is termed as 1st world standards the rest live in 2nd and 3rd world standards so no you are wrong.
298

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 14:10:34
I am asking you to read the document that I posted. I would like you to apologise for the very patronising posts you have been making, but that is only an observation.
299

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:11:06
#307 A True Scot

I am talking about what constitutes profit. I have given you basic examples. I have suggested you do some research as you do not understand the basics of what constitutes profit. Not what you would like the definition to be.

Now if you simple do not accept my examples and the definition i am giving to you that is why i said google or get yourself a book on basic accounting and it will explain it to you.
300

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 14:11:32
#302 A. T. Scot

No.
301

Miss H,

08/12/2008 14:12:17
There seems to be an issue about profit here.

Public services are not run for profit. They are not businesses, they are public services paid for out of taxation.

Equally clearly, the public sector these days does not do everything itself. It does not build hospitals and so on, that work is contracted out and companies can bid for it.

But PFI is not simply a case of private companies bidding to get public sector contracts. PFI contracts are not public sector contracts. The projects are not part of the public sector. They are paid for by taxpayers but not owned by them. And as taxpayers we are not even allowed to see the details of the contracts we are paying for.

In short, from a taxpayers point of view PFI is a scam.

What will hopefully happen after April of next year is that all these contracts will be published and we will all be able to see what is what. Some of them might be OK. Only complete ideologues would say that PFI is wrong in every single case.
Equally only complete ideologues would say that PFI is always right.

It should be looked at as one financial option out of a range of options – but instead every local authority, every health board has been pushed down the road of using the most expensive option of PFI to fund capital spending because they have not been allowed other options.

That has been the problem.


302

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 14:12:53
309 We need to have borrowing powers. Without them, any form of financing is going to be a ''less bad'' form of PFI.
303

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:12:53
313

Then you are either dishonest or an idiot.
304

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:14:55
#Observer. 1

I will have a look at your link but can you explain to True Scot what the definition of profit is and refer to my very simple example of a painter and decorator.

You may think my post patronising by i have simply been trying to explain a very simply concept that True Scot seems unable to understand.

Will your link show a definition of profit as per my chat we True Scot?

Or are you wanting to discuss and challenge my earlier posts regarding PFI. If so which ones and exactly what?

305

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:15:12
314

"Public services are not run for profit. They are not businesses, they are public services paid for out of taxation"

Well that statement alone shoots down Alans definition straight away. Surely public services work on the principle of income and expenditure? so they work on income and expenditure without profit?
I coudnt agree more.
306

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 14:16:00
#311 Observer 1

The document you provided criticises certain PFI schemes, and I am sure it rightly criticises those schemes. It fails to sugest any alternative funding mechanism.

What do you suggest?
307

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:17:04
317

You are being patronising and very dishonest in fact very AM2. You are another fake Alan. Posting as a NAT isnt going to hide it anymore.
308

,

08/12/2008 14:17:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
309

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:17:57
319

Existing taxation how many more times does that have to be explained to you?
310

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:19:28
321

So you agree Alan is wrong in his definition of profit then?
311

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 14:19:35
#315 Observer

Now you are getting somewhere.

Where is the money borrowed from, and who performs the work?
312

Observer. 1,

08/12/2008 14:19:43
317 Sorry Alan I don't actually have any more time, just do me a favour and read up on PFI in terms of EXCESS profit. I know what profit is, and I also know when it's excessive - and that's money that should have been spent on the public.
313

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:20:48
#320 A True Scot

Ok we can leave it there. My intention was not to be partonising but it is difficult when someone cannot grasp basic concepts. I hardly think trying to explain to someone what the defintion of profit is, is dishonest.

But there is no point in persuing this blind alley any longer.
314

Miss H,

08/12/2008 14:20:59
319 For goodness sake. There are 3 basic options.

1. Government borrowing.
2. Bond issue.
3. Public/private partnerships (PFI).

The third option is the most expensive. But it has been the model of choice because PPP/PFI was off balance so did not count as part of national debt.

That position is now changing as the UK has to comply with international accounting rules.

That fact in itself will reduce the attractiveness of PPP/PFI as it is the most expensive way of doing things. Now that the costs cannot be hidden so easily people will be looking at other options.

Problem for Scotland is that options 1 and 2 are not available because Scottish Government does not have powers to do either.
315

,

08/12/2008 14:22:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
316

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:25:57
326

Your intention is to keep folk on the blog and to pretend there is more interest on here than there really is for the sake of your advertisers by using various accounts to keep the blogs flowing.
So dont post to me about dishonesty.
317

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:26:12
#Observer. 1

I am not suggesting for that you do not understand profit. That was a silly and irrelvent discussion that i ended up having with True Scott.

So what is your point regarding what i have posted in relation to pfi? I have not argued for PFI if you look at my posts earlier in this threat. As such i suggest you look at my posts regarding PFI.

So come apologies why should i apologise for something i have not argued for and then be insulted by yourself accusing my of saying stuff i have not without being clear about what you are actually saying.

Go read my posts and then challenge what you disagree with rather than generalised stuff and seems irrelevent to my posts.
318

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:29:00
#Miss H

A bond issue is a method of government borrowing. Government bonds are governement borrowing ie they raise capital by issuing government bonds/debt.

Or are you meaning something else by bonds?
319

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:29:07
328

Yes a country full of Labour and Tory councils will have that effect right enough.
320

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:33:18
328

At the end of the day what is needed is accountablity of existing money without it any new money will be squandered in exactly the same way. PFI is not accountable it is wasteful it encourages only greed and excessive profit taking from the public purse.
Alan/AM2 etc rightly pointed out the Government can use this tool to hide public expenditure figures and does.
321

Miss H,

08/12/2008 14:35:19
331 Yes I know bonds are a form of government borrowing but infrastructure bonds elsewhere are tied to major projects and would seem to me the most sensible way to fund something like the new Forth crossing for example.
322

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 14:35:38
#327 Miss

All three are different forms of borrowing. Whether the tax-payer gets fleeced, or not, depends on the contract for the individual project.
323

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:35:48
333

Loads of people hate their work loads more hate aspects of their work. I have forgotton how many times I have said the same thing about some of the aspects of my job. You obviously dont work for a living which explains your ability to spend so much time on here.
324

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 14:37:37
304

Hold on sunshine what is slave labour if it isnt a form of extreme profit?
325

Miss H,

08/12/2008 14:41:05
336 You don't really believe that, do you?

I agree that the nature of the contract is important - but under PFI the people paying for the contract are not allowed to know anything about it!!
326

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 14:42:03
#335 Miss H

Bonds are secured by our taxes. Now the banks are also secured by our taxes, does it make a difference?
327

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:43:38
#Miss H

Not disagreeing was just not sure why the artificial divide between government borrowing and bonds since both are government borrowing. Did not know if you had something else in mind.

As you know i support full fiscal autonomy so that scotland can decide the best mechanism for financing capital projects and while i have not ideological problem with pfi if value for money do tend to think like yourself normal government borrowing would be the best way of financing government capital projects.

I do think it would be interesting to see the cost laid out for different projects using the different mechanisms.

ie what would be the cost using bonds ie government borrowing compared to a pfi type project.

The options seem to me to be
1)government borrowing (eg bonds) - with the public
sector doing the contruction
2)government borrowing (eg bonds) - with the private
companies doing the work. eg building and engineering companies.
3)private finance mortgage style - with the private sector doing the construction.

Option 2 would seem the best way to me but i would like openess so we can see the different approaches.

I would also like more explanation of the exact costs of putting debt on balance sheet. The reason the governmetn like off balance sheet debt is due to the effect debt on balance sheet will have for rates, a countries credit worthiness and the level of the currency.

328

Miss H,

08/12/2008 14:43:57
340 It could make a difference.

Like I said earlier a lot of PFI debt will be owed by banks which have been bailed out by the taxpayer. That should provide the opportunity to renegotiate terms I would hope.

Otherwise we will end up paying twice - both for the bail out and to service the debt.
329

Miss H,

08/12/2008 14:47:37
341 When I said govt borrwing I meant the traditional way of capital procurement, as in the way the new Southern General Hospital will be funded for example. The Govt pays for it over a period of time.

I can understand that this method of finance is not enough in itself so I would see big infrastructure projects (such as new bridges) as requiring something additional but preferably not PFI as the track record is not good.

330

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 14:50:55
#339 Miss H

How would a different funding mechanism change contractual law? You are still not going to get the school cleaning contract published on the internet (the publishers would be liable for prosecution).
331

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:53:29
#343 Miss H

I agree. But I would like if pfi contracts were open and not hidden behind confidentiality clauses.

It makes it hard for the person looking in to know who good or bad they have been, whether it is some or all that have been too expensive.

In many ways government should have to do a full cost analysis of the different funding mechanisms and publish the results so we know exactly what the advantages and disadvantages are.

In many ways at the moment it is all about government saying trust me.
332

Alan B,

08/12/2008 14:54:44
#The Tin Man

All public sector contracts should be published. That should be the terms of the contract.
333

The Tin Man,

08/12/2008 15:27:58
#347 Peter

Saying that we will always be stuck with PFI funding as long as Scotland remains part of the union is a bizare argument to make.

You also argue that there would be no changes of legislation if the BNP were elected. I also find this a bizare argument.

Should I follow your logic and say that nothing will change if Scotland is independent?
334

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 08/12/2008 15:52:41
Whilst the Westminster and Scottish Governments are agonising about how to raise peanuts for infrastructure projects, it has been announced by the President-Elect Barack Obama of the United States of America, the world's only true superpower, that a start will be made in January on a 4 year US infrastructure programme costing $136 BILLION(£95 billion)!

Part of this funding will be used to construct New US Inter-state motorways, upgrade existing motorways, along with various other transportation projects, including a number of other multi-billion dollar road bridges and tunnels which had previously been deferred by the Bush administration.
335

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 16:27:06
315# You still in there defending Swinney and Co. And you a Socialist.
336

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 08/12/2008 16:28:48
Great thread guys. Very entertaining - LOL a few times.

True Scot wrote: "Existing taxation how many more times does that have to be explained to you?"

The only way to pay for things by existing taxation, without borrowing, is to severely cut public spending. Spend things only on necessary things.

A strange viewpoint from a socialist. What public spending would you suggest cutting back?
337

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 16:39:00
351 No, I'm having a go at PFI making money out of building schools and hospitals actually. Feel free to join in.
338

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 16:41:26
352

"The only way to pay for things by existing taxation, without borrowing, is to severely cut public spending. Spend things only on necessary things."

Bullsh.t that is the perpetual government lie to cover for the incompetant and corrupt management of national taxation and income. Its their get out of jail free card and lame excuse for raising taxation way above the rates of inflation and pay increaces.
When does government ever appear to have enough for their spending commitments? arent they supposed to work out their spending commitments based on projected income instead of the other way around?
339

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 16:47:19
349, now now Cynicus you know that state run enterprises have hardly been a roaring success (then again neither has privatisation, but that's another story).

What I am meaning is that, to quote the ubiquitous Iain Macwhirter,

''rather than use public money to cereate an anti-competetive oligopy, perhaps we should now accept that the financial sector should remain largely state-controlled. It couldn't be much worse than the old system.

What we need is a proper debate about how to manage the collective capital of society. In the past we have placed this collective wealth in the hands of private bankers. Unklike real business, banks don't make anything or generate value - they just manage the wealth of others. They have shown themselves to be irresponsible guardians.''

There is no reason why banks could not be run by the state, we have to shift to a much more regulated and prudent system anyway.

340

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 16:49:22
353#354# Have you SNP moderates made your advanced planning to have us extreme Unionists removed. Maybe Souter will get the contract. We will require the tattoo on the arm. Will we still be allowed to collect our pensions that we worked hard for. Be fair now give us some warning.
341

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 08/12/2008 16:49:45
True Scot:
Governments borrow because taxation doesn't cover all the outgoings.

So I ask again: What public spending areas would you cut? All these taxes are going somewhere, so what do suggest is done? What don't we spend taxes on? How can we have enough money in order to finance these projects?
342

Miss H,

08/12/2008 16:59:57

344 It won’t change contractual law.

I agree with AlanB that all details of all public sector contracts should be published. But as things stand we know practically nothing about many PFI contracts although we are the funders. It is a ridiculous situation.

The argument is often heard that public sector projects have gone over budget – such as the Holyrood Project as an obvious example – and PFI somehow offers greater protection. But that’s rubbish and the real point is that we know what happened with the Holyrood Project. We know what went wrong and who was to blame.

But take any of the well publicised PFI over spends – the new Hairmyres Hospital for example which was supposed to cost £82.9 but will now cost the health board £428 million. Why? We do not know and have no right to find out.That is just wrong, it’s corrupt basically. If you and I as taxpayers are paying for anything we have a right to know how the money is spent.
343

Miss H,

08/12/2008 17:02:21
357 Bizzarely enough it could be that a state run banking sector is the only way to bring back proper competition on the high street.

344

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 17:07:26
361 - I am not flying the red flag here (perhaps to Cynicus' disappointment). It's a pragmatic suggestion.
345

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 17:10:24
355# I would rather the job got done. The schools the hospitals,clinics,roads etc are built. The contractors will always make money. The Gov have to get the best deal. That does not mean the SNP sit about waiting for the imposssible. You and I benefitted from the struggle of our ancestors. We should not be sitting about haggling about a few million when billions are involved. The SNP CANNOT OPEN lABOUR PROJECTS AND PRETEND IT WAS THEM. As I said earlier the SNP have been whinging for years about PFI. They should have had their plans in place when they came to power and implemented immediately.
346

Miss H,

08/12/2008 17:14:20
195 You don't necessarily get the idea of shared services, it means potentially shared across all 32 local authorities i.e. nationally.
347

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 17:19:41
Graham, you posted ''The gov have to get the best deal'' aye, they do, and PFI doesn't match that specification. All the Scottish government need to get started is permission to borrow. If Westminster won't allow that it is Westminster's fault that things aren't getting done.

Westminster say PFI is the only game in town, and think that means that we have to use it. If someone gives you a gun you don't need to shoot yourself with it do you ? That is what you are expecting the SNP to do.

God knows the final bill for PFI is going to bankrupt this country, and we're nearly there already. It would be morally wrong for the SNP to give up their principles on this one.
348

Miss H,

08/12/2008 17:26:18
365 But the Government don't get the best deal dunderheid - in many cases they got the most expemsive deal.

The main attraction of PFI is that it was off the balance book and did not have to be part of public sector borrowing. Now PFI debt will have to be declared the incentive to use PFI for as many projects as it has been used for is going.

Therefore irrespective of what you think of the SNP they are completely right to look at ways to trim back the excess profit.
349

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 17:29:38
The Spook in Leith # 353

You are the extremist. You are compiling a database of individuals here who make posts against the SNP. To do this you are abusing the linguistic facilities of the School of Management and Languages at Heriot Watt University.
Does Heriot Watt University know why you are abusing their facilities and to whom in the SNP hierarchy is your sinister database available. It is clear that your database will be abused, in time, by the SNP to victimise those opposed to the SNP.
Now what do think of the tendering process proposed by Swinney?
350

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 17:37:57
The Spook in Leith # 371

Is that a denial?
You are compiling a database of individuals posting here and comparing various logins. Does Heriot Watt know that you are abusing their facilities, someone should ask them.
351

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 17:46:36
The Spook in Leith, # 375

Why don't you notify the police of peoples whereabouts, you are the one with the database? You could get some tips from Angus Macneil MP SNP about making reports to the police

Incidentally, have you registered your database with the Information Commissioner's Office?
352

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 17:54:23
368. Morality and principles do not feed the bairns. They are only words. Action is required. Swinney, Salmond and Co are not going without. I do know a SCHOOL in Shawlands that requires refurbishment. It is a Primary school. The refurbishment is being held up because of principles. The only problem is the kids do not have a say. Just those with principles. Those of course that attended good schools and University and are raking in taxpayers money.
353

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 17:56:09
sm753 # 378

This "Spook in Leith" accuses others of being extremist, look at his last few posts, his is foaming at the mouth, fulminating and attempting his pathetic smears.
The article above is about PFI and the relative benefits of the Swinney's ideas and he goes off on one about extremism. Maybe it is some kind of drug induced paranoia, whatever it is he needs treatment.
354

AM2,

Scotland,UK 08/12/2008 17:59:58
#362 #364 Spook

What bizarre posts! Why exactly do you think of Shamus, SM753 and I as “extremists”? And do you think that implying that we have no "right" to criticise the SNP is itself moderate?
355

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 18:00:18
382 Oh yes Graham ? What Primary. Langside, Shawlands ? Glasgow is a LABOUR Council you idiot.
356

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 18:09:00
The Spook in Leith # Fake Post 384

The compilation of a secret database and your hitherto hidden proclivites could get you barred from the US, or at least taken into custody on your arrival on US soil. You will not know until you arrive at US Immigration.
Is the Spook IN Leith to much of a risk for US authorities to allow into the US in light of his extreme posts on various websites?
357

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 18:09:08
Come on Graham answer me. Because to the best of my knowledge the Primaries I mentioned have been refurbished. I take it you don't mean St Brides ? That isn't really in Shawlands and I can't imagine you having a connection with it. But I think that's been refurbished as well.

So where is this mythical school in a Labour run council that John Swinney is vicitmising then ?



358

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 18:10:31
1 There are two Churchills here. One has a dot after the moniker.

2 I find it hard to believe that AM2 comes on at post #385 for the first time and questions another poster. It's a bit weird.

3 Maybe it's not AM2 though. Our AM2 wouldn't make a gross grammatical error in his post.

(Why exactly do you think of Shamus, SM753 and I as “extremists”? I - should be "me").
359

AM2,

Scotland,UK 08/12/2008 18:12:00
#389 Spook

There seems to be a "Churchill W." and a troll "Churchill W" (no dot).
360

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 18:12:20
393 Observer

Maybe he - like someone else - is confusing Glasgow East with Glasgow South.
361

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 18:12:58
394

Are you the real deal AM2?
Tut tut for the grammar faux pas.
362

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 18:14:17
The Spook in Leith, # 389

You are the troll. You are sleazy. You should not be allowed to post here. Decent people do not want you urinating on them, even if they are on fire.
You are not funny or smart, you are wee chancer who has abused the hospitality shown to you wherever you go. You should do the decent thing and absent yourself, permanently, from this site. Stick to your toytown blog where you can commune with people who share your low mentality.
363

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 18:14:30
Hamilton were a tad unlucky at the week-end.
1 penalty, 5 off-sides and a breakaway.
364

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 18:17:27
386# Is that really you Ob. Glasgow council depends on money from Holyrood. Holyrood and Glasgow council trying to emulate the Tories have frozen Council Tax. YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU WANT. The school I refer to is on a hill opposite the Old Swan INN. I was connected to a good school in Glasgow East End. Strange how in the real days of poverty schools could be built and heated properly. Even got a spray bath wance a week.
365

AM2,

Scotland,UK 08/12/2008 18:19:25
#393 Hugh

2. Why? I quite often Ctrl-F these pages for "AM2", just for a giggle.
3. I'm fallible; did you imagine otherwise? ;-)
366

AM2,

Scotland,UK 08/12/2008 18:20:45
#402 Spook

It's only politics. I don't understand: why would you want to "hate" someone (with or without a passion) who simply doesn't agree with you?
367

AM2,

Scotland,UK 08/12/2008 18:22:32
#397 Hugh

"Tut tut" is getting off lightly. Self-imposed bed of nails for that one!
368

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 18:23:55
404 Me old mate AM2

"2. Why? I quite often Ctrl-F these pages for "AM2", just for a giggle.
3. I'm fallible; did you imagine otherwise? ;-)"

Fallible? Rarely - then again - where's #1 in 404?

369

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 18:25:24
The Spook in Leith # 399

Funny how you are the only one that noticed that!
The fakir is you, have the decency to admit it, for once.
370

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 18:25:46
Speech By Alec MacSALMUND AFTER THROWING COPIUS AMMOUNTS OF BEER AND SCOTCH PIES DOON HIS NECK,and collecting his two or three salaries. Even if we Scots have tae suffer poverty for a hunner or so years it will be worth it for our freedom. Of course forgetting that most Scots have actually left Scotland to give our wisdom tae the free world. The three stooges, Salmund, Swinney and Sturgeon. They all start with S SO does keech.
371

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 18:26:08
403 why wouldn't it be me ?

That's Pollokshaws, not Shawlands.

Anyway, refurbishment of schools is capital investment, they wouldn't do that with grant or revenue budgets, you fund capital by borrowing. You can borrow hideously expensively through PFI, or you can do it the traditional way.


I think they should do it the traditional way.
372

AM2,

Scotland,UK 08/12/2008 18:29:07
#408 Hugh

The numbering matched your #393. Your first point was the same as my #394.
373

AM2,

Scotland,UK 08/12/2008 18:31:14
#412 Spook

I haven't read the thread. If he was insulting then that's reprehensible, but I fail to see how you can hate someone in an online context but not in real life.
374

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 18:32:14
The Spook in Leith # 405

The only time I could be wound up by you is if I heard you had passed away. Then, I wouldn't be able to give you the good kicking that you deserve on a daily basis.
Why Alec Salmond puts up with you I will never know? He maybe sees his young, immature, impetuous, arrogant etc. self, in you.
Anyway, you never said what financing arrangement you preferred for Scottish capital projects.
375

AM2,

Scotland,UK 08/12/2008 18:33:12
Anyway Spook, are you going to explain your "extremists" post? Why do you think that unionists have no "right" to criticise the SNP?
376

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 18:35:21
410

Yer a maddie.
377

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 18:40:18
AM2 # 417

He's bugged out. Give him a break, he's only a boy posting what he has been told to post to divert the thread from the article above; the incompetence of the SNP.
The SNP criticised PFI frequently when they were sitting on the sidelines, yet when they came to power they had no alternative that could be implemented. They came to power on a false prospectus!
378

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 18:42:40
359

"Governments borrow because taxation doesn't cover all the outgoings."

No Governments "have" to borrow because they incompetantly handle the national finances. They obviously dont plan properly with their projected incomes relative to their spending plans.
If Government where made more accountable for their spending then there would be no needs for cuts in any services or maybe you can be the first on here to explain why services are cut in spite of massive increaces in taxation? for example why are health service cuts still happening in spite of all of the highly publicised several billion pound injection claims made by the UK government?


379

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 18:48:25
416. nice one Churchill! The only excitement I get is on this website, so I like when it gets heated! Hey, did you see I got the first post on two threads today!
380

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 18:49:26
417

They neither have the talent nor the ammo for it.
381

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 18:49:56
Sometimes I get quite bored just waiting to get the first post in, but when it gets near 11 o'clock the excitement builds!
382

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 18:51:27
321

I noticed that. I also noticed your first post was 4 hours before the 2nd poster.

(ahem)
383

Ugly George,

Edinurgh 08/12/2008 18:52:10
420 A true scot
That is a rather strange and contradictory comment from you. You have been saying all along that we should trust in the public sector.

Now you are saying that governments "incompetently handle the nation's finances"

How can you reconcile your blatantly obvious contrdictions.
384

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 18:52:36
Should have said 421 - should have checked the fake too. Oh well.
385

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 18:52:43
424. I know, I was thrilled!
386

Shamus,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 18:54:35
411# Ok tell your tartan tory pals to get it started the traditional way. Just get the joab done and stop the moaning hard done tae stories. Are you sure about the boundary, must be close its near Shawlands Stn. I am an east end workin class Labour numpty that knows nothing about Clyde Navigation. I will bow to your superior knowledge.
387

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 18:54:41
425

When did I ever say anything about trusting the public sector?
besides the Government isnt the public sector and the public sector isnt the government is it?
388

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 18:57:40
428. Oooh, Tartan Tory! Nice one..... I like New Labours approach to Trident, Iraq, cutting inheritance tax and abolishing the 10p lower rate of tax.

I didn't consider voting Labour until Lady Thatcher was quoted, in answer to the question "What is your greatest achievement" and she said "New Labour"
389

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 18:58:27
moral___su­periority_, # 421

Such outrage in one so young!
No wonder he flails about. It must have been traumatic for him to have been moved from Millport to LEITH, when so young.
But, Millport's loss...
390

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 19:00:05
431. Hey, was only joking you kn-b, I thought your post was the usual neanderthal, knuckle-trailing, barely literate, embarrassing garbage you always come out with.

Get lost you spanner and don't write to me again.
391

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 19:03:48
I used to get chilblains but I don't now.
392

A True Scot.,

08/12/2008 19:03:48
432

Now thats what I call moral superiority keep it up.
393

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 19:06:55
moral___su­periority_, # 432

I knew you would fall for it, the straight bat always exposes the self important, the arrogant, those who are "thrilled" when able to post earliest.
You are a toenail biter!
394

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 19:07:57
434. Jeez, talking about morals, did you see Churchill W's blog - entitled "Churchill W and my boys" - was totally sickening. Who would have thought a diminutive but grotesquely obese, spotty, rancid old alcoholic from Paisely like Churchill W would have had the energy to rebuild Sodom in Paisely Foxbar?

395

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 19:10:19
435. Yes, yes, Churchill you knob, you are feeling embarrassed because you snuffled, supine, whimpering and pathetic to the first post that agreed with you, looking for attention, and now you are affronted that not even I can stand you. Now you claim you knew I thought you were a pathetic spanner the whole time? Jeez, do you know how pathetically, excruciatingly thick you look trying to cover your mistake this way?
396

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 19:11:40
435. Hey, whats wrong with me getting my jollies by posting first? From one sad loser to another Chruchill W, I say leave me some minor enjoyment in my otherwise dull life!
397

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 19:12:51
moral___su­periority_,/Ayrshire Scot #436

Your homophobia is typical; of you!
Remember Ayrshires shame?
398

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 19:15:10
Vegetables are good for you.
399

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 19:15:56
439. Pete, must you out yourself so obviously you moron?
400

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 19:16:37
440. Vegetables are posting on here - check Churchill.
401

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 19:20:05
442

In which case vegetables are bad for you.
402

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/12/2008 19:21:20
'A spokesman said: "The Scottish Government has not initiated any new PFI projects since May 2007." '

Perhaps someone could correct me if I am wrong but I could have sworn that the Government was quoted as having said that PFI schemes were still availabe to local authorities to apply for.

They haven't applied because they want to wait and see if a cheaper option becomes available. If that is the case, then it is the local authorities who, in the case of schools at least, are dragging their feet.

Another interesting thing about the schools is how one contractor managed to secure so many school deals in one local authority area. Each with a deal for the demolished old school grounds to be turned into housing by contractor (under a different name - in partnership with an unheard of company). Hmmmm?

Now that housing is in a downturn......


403

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 19:22:48
moral___su­periority_ # 441

Who is "Pete?" Your paramour?
404

,

08/12/2008 19:25:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
405

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 19:27:46
moral___su­periority_, # 446

If that is the best you can do, I hope the two of you are happy!
406

,

08/12/2008 19:28:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
407

,

08/12/2008 19:31:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
408

,

08/12/2008 19:33:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
409

,

08/12/2008 19:34:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
410

,

08/12/2008 19:35:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
411

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 08/12/2008 19:37:01
Note that the stage names are hanging around, waiting for the nod from the editorial staff to enable the first posts on tomorow's edition.

TV is much better these days.
412

,

08/12/2008 19:40:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
413

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 19:41:52
454. Oh dear, Churchill W/ Petey has a wee melt-down and has another moniker deleted. Cheerio, cheerio
414

,

08/12/2008 19:43:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
415

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 19:44:23
457

Maybe it's the return of the Maltese Falcon ....
416

,

08/12/2008 19:45:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
417

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 19:48:36
The Spook in Leith, # 457

You are the only one who has a personal fixation with you. Did you bolt down your "dinner" so that you could run back here to defend your ego?
418

Hugh Roscombe,

08/12/2008 19:51:06
Hard lines at the week-end Spook.
419

,

08/12/2008 19:59:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
420

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 20:21:03
The Spook in Leith # 468

The feared Spook is going to do a blog on a blog; the world waits with baited breath for the innauguration of Barack Obama and another incoherent Spook blog. Amazing what makes the world turn nowadays.

Listen Spooky, you have delusions of adequacy, but, that will not be enough in the real world. A Spartan attitude is not enough, you need the power to achieve your ambitions; you do not have that. I know your mummy has told you that numerous times.

Now, when are you going to engage on the article above? The Scotsman moderators have been very indulgent with you, as usual, allowing you to post your vitriol and not commenting on the article. Are they afraid of you? I can assure them, that if they are afraid of you, they are afraid of the wrong people. So, they can stop allowing your drivel to proceed un-moderated. Because it is self-indulgent, bitter, nonsense.
421

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 08/12/2008 20:21:59
Accountancy and the SNP together simply don't add up. So no surprise their alternative "policies/pledges" are now coming apart at the seams.
422

moral___superiority_,

08/12/2008 20:31:20
Churchill, the posts above are from some weirdo fakey.

Certainly not from me.
423

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 20:33:22
#s 472, 473

The Spook once again demonstrates his ability to fake posts on this site.
Apologies to those abused by the ace abuser, Spook, in my name. The boy has learned enough at Heriot Watt University to do damage, but, no good. He has abused the education given to him at Heriot Watt University.
424

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 20:35:19
The Spook In Leith # 478

Nice one Spook, clarifies your attitudes on a lot of matters!
425

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 20:41:16
The Spook in Leith, # 472

What achievements have you? You are a mouthpiece for the SNP, that is not an achievement; there are dozens above just like you. Nobody has heard of you. You are not even able to comment on the article above because you are too stupid. Watching "footie" is the limit of your achievement, hardly unique though, is it?
426

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 20:52:10
The Spook in Leith # 483

You are a liar. You are faking my posts here, it is obvious to anyone observing. Lampoon Spook and the accusations begin, night and day.
Incidentally, it is easy to get posts on a website where football is concerned. What is the URL for your blogsite, I will reply to your stupidity, unless you are into the censorship that you say you disavow here.
427

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 21:04:06
428 Graham you dunderheid - Glasgow City Council are responsible for capital investment in refurbishing schools, it's got hee haw to do with the Scottish Government. Councils don't use grant or revenue income to fund capital projects. And anyway they haven't banned any local authority from using PFI, the LA's have woken up to the smell of coffee themselves.

BTW it is in Pollokshaws, not Shawlands, but you weren't to know I went to Shawlands Academy myself, that was just your bad luck.

428

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 21:09:51
Churchill I couldn't help noticing in passing that you haven't made any substantive comment on this article either, despite lambasting other posters for this ommission. That's pot kettle black stuff isn't it.
429

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 21:17:17
The Spook in Leith # 488

I accept what you say. It is a pity that there are people here who shame Scotland with the things that they post.
I am probably not as old as you think. I have three kids under 17. I like your spirit though, you could temper it "de temps en temps."
We will cross swords again though; if I find myself on fire I will roll around in the traditional manner and extinguish the flames, please do not feel the need to evacuate your bladder in my direction, in my assisstance!
430

Churchill W.,

08/12/2008 21:19:50
Observer. 1 # 491

You are right in that. I felt the need to defend the right of posters here not to be defined as "extremists."
431

,

08/12/2008 21:21:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
432

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 21:26:07
495. What a typical selfish, nimby, Nat.

What sort of Tartan Tory objects to social housing? What do you want to happen to the old and disabled? You make me puke
433

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 21:28:50
495 You know the real shocker is that the Tartan Tories will stop any new social housing being built from being sold off by suspending the right to buy. Dreadful isn't it, they intend to keep it in the public sector. Whatever next.
434

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 21:31:17
497. Disgusting, what sort of sick, selfish individual would object to social housing?

What sort of Tartan Tory would try to stop the disabled and infirm having a place to live, because it might obstruct their view?

Is typical sick SNP behaviour to object to social housing, while sitting in a big house/
435

,

08/12/2008 21:33:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
436

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 08/12/2008 21:35:03
499 I agree - if only Labour were still in power, they wanted to abolish Council housing and keep the right to buy. These pesky Tartan Tories have put a stop to that.
437

,

08/12/2008 21:39:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
438

moral___su­periority_,

08/12/2008 21:40:18
500. you are disgusting, you blab about aspiration and looking after the vulnerable, but first chance you get you oppose the chance of housing someone les