Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


CBI chief: sell Scottish Water to pay for bridge

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 Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

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: 18 January 2009
SCOTTISH Water should be sold off to pay for the new Forth road bridge, one of Scotland's most prominent business leaders will claim today.


The controversial suggestion will be made by CBI Scotland director Iain McMillan in a speech to a transport conference in Edinburgh.

McMillan will say the sale or mutualisation of Scottish Water would solve a funding headache for the Scottish
Government by freeing up cash to help build the bridge using private finance.

The proposed £2.3bn Forth crossing is already the subject of a major funding row after the Treasury rejected an SNP bid to bring forward cash from future budgets to meet the bill.

With its land, assets and revenue from water charges, a sell off of Scottish Water could be worth around £2bn.

Mutalisation, on the other hand, would involve transferring the organisation to around 100 owners who would be banned from selling on their shares and run it in the public interest.

They would be allowed to borrow money to pay for repairs and investment, freeing £182m a year of taxpayers' money to pay for the new bridge.

McMillan will tell the conference: "This would be money that could be channelled into making a substantial contribution to paying for the vital new Forth crossing via a PPP-PFI model. Undoubtedly a win-win solution.

"This approach would mean no requirement for the Scottish Government to seek UK Treasury consent to borrow outside existing rules or possibly seek a much reduced level of borrowing.

"It would also ensure that there would be no forced cutbacks or delays in investment in other vital public sector projects such as transport, new schools and hospitals."

He will add: "I would urge the Scottish Government very strongly to reconsider their approach to funding as a matter of urgency. The current situation is not delivering what business and our economy needs and is unacceptable."

The Conservatives and the Lib Dems are in favour of mutualisation of Scottish Water. Yesterday Derek Brownlee, the Tory finance spokesman, said: "It would free up a lot of resources to the Scottish Government and that's something that should happen."

The Labour shadow transport secretary Des McNulty said:

"Scottish taxpayers and water charge payers have invested significant funds in Scottish Water and they should reap the benefits of it rather than it going to some bank."

The Labour UK Government's refusal to release the extra cash for the crossing has put it at loggerheads with the SNP at Holyrood.

Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy has asked Scottish ministers to attend talks this month, where he intends to raise concerns over their plans for a scaled-down crossing. Ministers opted last month to build a new bridge with only two lanes in each direction with a hard shoulder, rather than three.

John Swinney, the Finance Secretary, said: "The Scottish Government will build the new Forth crossing on time and on budget through traditional public procurement – giving the best possible value for money to taxpayers – as overwhelmingly endorsed only this week in a vote by the Scottish Parliament."





The full article contains 519 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

webwise,

Scotland 17/01/2009 22:32:52
The 'informative' poster calling himself sm753 writes:
""Practically punching the air" in delight!"

I believe I have seen the same phrase used before, but shan't say in what context (I'll leave it to others).

On the bridge funding, I believe that the most cost effective way of funding the bridge is the method suggested by Swinney, namely bringing forward the capital funding and paying it back over 20 years.

This is far less expensive than PFI, a method that will probably require payments over longer and at an increased cost.

The proposal to sell of one of the countries most critical utilities to fund the project is simply madness.
2

Rufus-T-Firefly,

17/01/2009 22:34:22
sm753

nicht voll ausspielen
3

Rufus-T-Firefly,

17/01/2009 22:35:10
webwise

Whats wrong with 'Good Old Fashioned Public Procurement'?
4

webwise,

Scotland 17/01/2009 22:44:40
Number 4:

I'm not sure which proposal (PFI or bringing forward capital funding) you are advocating, can you explain which one in your opinion is best? ... thanks.
5

Rufus-T-Firefly,

17/01/2009 22:50:58
Webwise you must know that, surely.

Here is the quote from your Glorious First Minster.

Mr Salmond said the biggest capital project in Scottish history would be built by "traditional public procurement".

"It is the only way that can deliver the Forth crossing on timetable and on budget - something this government is doing," he said.

If you want more help then read this,

http://www.ogc.gov.uk/documents/Introduction_to_Public_Procurement.pdf

I will be asking questions later.

6

webwise,

Scotland 17/01/2009 23:08:18
Rufus;

Thank you for your response, however it doesn't actually answer the question I posed.

I'm going to break off our 'debate' as I don't wish to ruin the thread by less than informative comments, there's all too much of that on this site.
7

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 18/01/2009 00:07:06
Warum nicht, Rufus@3? Er hat keine ahnung woruber das was du redest.
8

Wardog™,

wardogblog.blogspot.com 18/01/2009 00:08:45
Excerpt from the Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly: Statement of Funding Policy October 2007

".....7.3 Loans to the devolved administrations: each Secretary of State may lend the devolved administration sums required for meeting a temporary excess in expenditure over income or providing the devolved administration with a working balance.

The Treasury may issue to the Secretary of State such sums out of the National Loans Fund.

These loans should be repaid by the devolved administration to the Secretary of State at such times, methods and interest rates as the Treasury determines.

Sums received by the Secretary of State will be paid into the National Loans Fund.

The aggregate outstanding amount of principal loans made shall not exceed £500 million for the Scottish Executive and National Assembly for Wales and £250 million for the Northern Ireland Executive.

The Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, can substitute these statutory limits by order. These rules governing lending are laid out in Sections 66, 67, 68, 71 and 72 of the Scotland Act 1998, Sections 82 and 83 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and Sections 61 and 62 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

In addition there is a statutory limit of £2 billion for NLF borrowing by the Northern Ireland Executive..........."



".....THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE TREASURY, CAN SUBSTITUE THESE STATUTORY LIMITS BY ORDER....."

So it's in the gift of Jim Murphy to access up to £500 MILLION funds BUT also more importantly he could with the Treasury 'substitute' that limit by order..........



In other words, they are choosing not to loan the money for the crossing
9

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 18/01/2009 00:11:42
über
10

The Strategist,

18/01/2009 00:14:24
Nasty man McMillan... He'd happily lumber our children with as much debt as possible provided his chums in the private sector were doing OK out of it.
11

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 18/01/2009 00:14:46
If they sell off Scottish Water they wont need a bridge.
12

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 18/01/2009 00:16:16
If they sell off Scottish Water, Broon will nationalise it for "Britain".
13

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 00:22:50
No bloody way should we be selling off Scottish Water to fund infrastructure which we should be able to pay for through general taxation. What are we, beggars ? The Tories, and then Labour sold off and privatised far too much than was held in the common good. Ian McMillan is an asshole and should be told where to get off.
14

Wardog™,

wardogblog.blogspot.com 18/01/2009 00:26:12
The Labour shadow transport secretary Des McNulty gushed:

"Scottish taxpayers and water charge payers have invested significant funds in Scottish Water and they should reap the benefits of it rather than it going to some bank."

LABOUR = PRIVATISATION
15

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 00:27:31
9 Exactly Wardog - they want to push us down the road of PFI, or now selling off our assets so McMillan's chums can make a profit, rather than advance us our own money to build the bridge, which incidentally they are doing down South with accelerated spending left right and centre. Do they think we are mugs ?
16

Tricked into voting SNP, never again!,

18/01/2009 00:29:46
14 Observer

I quite agree with your sentiments, particularly the naughty one. Tssk tssk.

Water is the most essential resource to any civilisation. Scotland has an abundance of water, this can be used to generate electricity and to sustain our way of life. It is therefor essential we maintain this as common public property to ensure all benefits are preserved for the many and not the few.
17

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 00:33:02
17 err yes, I could have typed your post myself. However I confidently predict Mr McMillan will indeed be told where to get off, as this is something I think we can all agree on. Well, most of us anyway.
18

Wardog™,

wardogblog.blogspot.com 18/01/2009 00:36:57

Is it just or me or has MacMillan became extremely vocal over these last few weeks.

Does this coincide with Michael Crow joining the Tory PR Ranks.

I think the Tories smell an election coming or are feeling the pinch in the regions and constituencies where they've managed to get support.

19

,

18/01/2009 00:38:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
20

Conan the Librarian™,

18/01/2009 00:42:26
12
LOL

Choked on ma beer.

Made with pure Scottish water at Biggar.

Save Scottish Water, Save Scottish beer!
21

david,,

18/01/2009 00:52:58
For CBI chief read - Completely Clueless Individual!
Why not sell off Whitehall and number 10 to pay for the Olympics.
22

Wardog™,

wardogblog.blogspot.com 18/01/2009 00:58:40
Jwil, good point.

It simply shows just how badly written the Scotland Act is, a hotch potch of compromises to appease a federation of unionists.....

The pressure to allow some form of simple and equitable borrowing and repayment will become more and mroe important once PFI disappears up the drain hole from whence it came.

Macmillan's argument says it all really.

Privatise Scottish Water to pay excessive interest on private finance.

He doesn't mention tolls or indeed any cost whatsoever of a PFI deal.

Wishful Tory thinking.


23

subrosa,

18/01/2009 01:07:44
Oh aye, sell off one precious asset to build a bridge? Time you stopped attending these unionist meetings Mr McMillan.
24

subrosa,

18/01/2009 01:11:12
# 8

Ich kann ihn entweder nicht verstehen.
25

,

18/01/2009 01:13:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

subrosa,

18/01/2009 01:15:25
# 26

More like the family gold. The SNP cannot allow this to happen. They have to kill this one stone dead. I'm sure the majority of the population would be behind them, unless of course, Westminster started threatening if it wasn't done ... Nothing's beneath that bunch.
27

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 01:17:15
27 McMillan's flying a kite, not even Labour are daft enough to go for this one. I think.
28

Wardog™,

wardogblog.blogspot.com 18/01/2009 01:23:07


erm... doesn't Treasury rules explicitly state that the UK Government has the right to hold onto any money raised in this way?

Or would the rules be changed for this PFI option?

How much will the tolls be?
29

,

18/01/2009 01:36:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

,

18/01/2009 01:41:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

,

18/01/2009 01:48:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

,

18/01/2009 01:57:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

Jimmy Le Pie,

18/01/2009 02:02:20
I see Margret Beckett has an inside view of things,

From The Sunday Times

"THE housing minister, Margaret Beckett, claims there are signs of an “upturn” in the property market despite official figures showing prices plummeting at an unprecedented rate.

She disclosed the government was already worrying about the next housing boom, and was intervening to ensure any recovery in prices does not squeeze people out of the market."

Demented or what!!!!!!!

Drug test please for Mrs Beckett.

http://tiny.cc/5roHx
34

frank mcbride,

lusitania 18/01/2009 02:09:35
#33, Rufus.

Your posting, under your own moniker, is parody enough. No need for anything more.
35

frank mcbride,

lusitania 18/01/2009 02:14:03
#34, Jimmy.

This is NuLabTory code for "the recession is really a deep depression and we're going to pretend that we're fiscally prudent; no more boom and bust!".

You must really read His Lordship Mandelson's briefing book more closely.
36

frank mcbride,

lusitania 18/01/2009 02:19:21
The idea of selling the most precious, and necessary, element on the planet to a private company is insanity.

Or, is it just plain greed OR, more importantly, absolute control.
37

,

18/01/2009 02:19:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

,

18/01/2009 02:22:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

,

18/01/2009 02:22:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

,

18/01/2009 02:23:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

,

18/01/2009 02:23:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

,

18/01/2009 02:24:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

,

18/01/2009 02:25:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

,

18/01/2009 02:26:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

,

18/01/2009 02:27:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

,

18/01/2009 02:31:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

,

18/01/2009 02:34:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

,

18/01/2009 02:34:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

,

18/01/2009 02:35:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
50

,

18/01/2009 02:35:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
51

,

18/01/2009 02:36:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

,

18/01/2009 02:37:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
53

frank mcbride,

lusitania 18/01/2009 02:58:47
Aha Rufus, I see you're still in the loop!!!

Loopy is what Loopy does.

Good night, and don't forget to turn of the mains.
54

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 18/01/2009 03:26:54
Roll on Referendum day on Independence in 2010. The result will be that SCOTLAND will be attending the 2012 Olympic Games as an Independent Country in her own right. However england will not be attending due to the fact that she will be part of something called gb. That stands for Gordon Brown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
55

Scunnert,

18/01/2009 04:17:15
Extract From:

Scottish Water
The drift to privatisation and how democratisation could improve efficiency and lower costs Prof. Christine Cooper, Dr. William Dinan, Tommy Kane, Prof. David Miller and Shona Russell

Public Interest Research Network
www.publicinterest.ac.uk

University of Strathclyde

October 2006

The Campaign to privatise Scottish Water

The promotion of alternatives to the public service model under which Scottish Water
currently operates, especially mutualisation and privatisation, has been a feature of
recent debate about the water sector in Scotland. The current discourse and debate
pertaining to water services in Scotland is being dominated and framed by those who
advocate either privatisation or mutualisation. For instance, The Scotsman newspaper and the market fundamentalist think tank, the Policy Institute have both taken a pro privatisation stance. The Scotsman has regularly reported ‘bad’ news stories about Scottish Water, largely in the context of the necessity for privatisations.91. Professor Colin Robinson published a paper, through the policy institute, advocating the privatisation of Scottish Water92 as did Donald McKay (another board member of the PI) in a recent co-authored report.93 Another influential think tank on the Scottish scene, the Fraser of Allander also recommended a switch from the public sector model. In a widely reported intervention the economist, Jo Armstrong94, had a paper co-published by the Fraser Allander Institute and Scottish Council Foundation, which argued that Scottish Water was a drain on Scottish Executive resources and leached funds that could better be directed to what were termed 'essential services', This does beg the question as to what could be more essential than clean water? That said, it has been said by Jim Cuthbert amongst others that this argument is ‘nonsense’ and that
even if the block grant was cut Scottish Water would still be able to continue giving
56

Scunnert,

18/01/2009 04:19:46
Cont ...

That said, it has been said by Jim Cuthbert amongst others that this argument is ‘nonsense’ and that even if the block grant was cut Scottish Water would still be able to continue giving enough loans in order to meet their current investment plans.95
Other strands of Scottish life supportive of the privatisation of Scottish Water have
included the CBI,96, and other newspapers like the Daily Mail 97and the Sunday
Times98 A leading Scottish Corporate Financier, Frank Malcolm, unsurprisingly
enough, also called for the privatisation of Scottish Water in 2006 as did John
Blundell of the Institute of Economic Affairs.99 It is clear that the business lobby is circling around the guaranteed profits of the Scottish water industry. Perhaps the most concerning person and organisation advocating changes to the governance structures of Scottish Water is Sir Ian Byatt and the WIC. Byatt said he believes that Scottish Water should be turned into a mutual model, thus freeing it from state ownership. Moreover, he and Alan Sutherland have put in place a detailed blueprint for doing so.100 This intervention by Sir Ian Byatt was arguably way out of his remit, nonetheless it sparked much debate amongst leading Politicians in Scotland regarding the future governance of water in Scotland.
57

Scunnert,

18/01/2009 04:22:48
cont ...

The public agenda has tended to be dominated by those pressing for change to the
governance structures of Scottish Water, due to either its perceived ineffectiveness
or/and its inability to address developmental constraints. The framing of the debate in this way places water as a purely economic resource, rather than as a social resource, public good, or even a natural resource that needs to be sustained for future generations. In addition, there is little mention of successful community run and publicly owned models for the management of water resources. Throughout this debate there is little mention of the decrease in manpower within Scottish Water itself and the simultaneous increased involvement of the private sector in the provision of water services in Scotland today. The tenor of public debate about water in Scotland stands in marked contrast to experiences elsewhere: much of the evidence from other countries points to the failure of private models of water ownership and delivery. One is left to conclude that much of the public debate in Scotland relating to Scottish Water is based more on ideology and dogmatism than comparative evidence.
58

Scunnert,

18/01/2009 04:24:05
cont ...

In parallel to this public discourse there has been considerable behind the scenes
lobbying on behalf of two of the main stakeholders, Scottish Water and the WIC. It is as yet unclear what the precise purpose of this activity might be as details of the
relationships between Scottish Water, the WIC and their retained commercial
lobbying firms might be. It is however legitimate to question if this is a worthy use of public money.101

Political Context

Aside from the Conservatives no political party has openly declared itself in favour of the full privatisation of Scotland’s water industry. In fact the major parties said little in relation to water in their manifestos for the last Scottish election in 2003. Yet the two coalition parties in the Scottish Executive, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, introduced the Water Services (Scotland) Act in 2004 without signalling their intention to do so during the election. When one considers that this legislation effectively transferred power over the budgetary process to the WIC it is perhaps surprising that this was not put to the electorate during the previous years Scottish Election. Despite the volume of recent water legislation in Scotland the pressure for more changes to the governance structures of Scottish Water continues. Whether this will be legitimated by an electoral test or referendum remains to be seen. If the water industry in Scotland is privatised 'by the back door', or moved away from the public sector through some form of mutualisation, then serious questions about the nature of devolved decision making and the sharing of power between the people and
Parliament must be raised.
59

Scunnert,

18/01/2009 04:25:28
cont ...

Ross Finnie Minister for the Environment and Rural Development refused to discount
the possibility of mutualisation in the future, arguing that it would be a 'foolish
politician who ruled out change'102. This was despite his assurances during the
Holyrood debate in 2004 over the Water Services bill that the Executive 'would
defend public sector water provision in Scotland'103. Finnie has recently insisted that 'there are no plans to privatise Scottish Water '104. However, many people involved in the water sector divine an increasing role for the private sector in Scotland's water, through the ongoing use of PPPs and joint ventures with private industry in delivering water infrastructure and the persistent floating of mutualisation as a new model for Scottish Water.

As mentioned above, the Chairman of the WIC, Sir Ian Byatt, sparked some debate in
the Labour Party by advocating a new ownership and control model for Scottish
Water. This prompted First Minister Jack McConnell to claim 'There are no current
plans to change our position' though he failed to rule out proposals from MSPs linked to the Co-op movement which recommended a mutual model should be considered. There has been some confusion over the exact model of mutualisation being
proposed.

McConnell said: 'I am sure there will be a debate within the Labour Party over the
next 12 months as we consider our manifesto for the next Scottish election, and views
on both sides will be expressed.'105 While clearly not embracing the WIC's model of
mutualisation, the First Minister expressly did not discount it. There has also been
speculation that the UK Treasury is considering selling off Scottish Water. 106 If this was proved to be the case then this would provoke questions relating to the devolution settlement itself, given that water in Scotland and its governance is a devolved matter.
60

Jimmy Le Pie,

18/01/2009 04:45:28
Another nice story of New Labour Sleaze at the trough!!

From the Mail On Sunday



"Ministers have been condemned for throwing a £3,000-a-head dinner party - to discuss the economic slump.
Culture Secretary Andy Burnham ran up the £60,000 bill so he could discuss the effect of the credit crunch on 'creative industries' with 20 guests, including BBC Director General Mark Thompson and Channel 4 chief executive Andy Duncan."

http://tiny.cc/T8sfS
61

Jimmy Le Pie,

18/01/2009 04:46:16
Some more sleaze from the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption trough


From the Mail on Sunday again

"A Minister is at the centre of a sleaze row after failing to disclose to Westminster officials that she uses taxpayers' money to employ her partner as her researcher.
Jane Kennedy, Minister of State for Agriculture, Farming and Recycling, lists Peter Dowling on her constituency website as a member of her office staff responsible for research and parliamentary affairs.
But she failed to mention him on the Register of Members' Interests - despite new rules making it compulsory from last August, following the scandal surrounding Tory MP Derek Conway's employment of his sons and wife."

http://tiny.cc/WHz6R
62

Jimmy Le Pie,

18/01/2009 04:47:00
Looks like democracy is withering and dying under New Labour Sleaze and Corruption.

Whatever next??
A state of emergency??
Troops on the streets??
State control of the media?? (they've got that already!)

From the Sunday Times

"THE GOVERNMENT has quietly adopted powers enabling it to introduce national pay-as-you-throw rubbish taxes of up to £100 without a vote in parliament.

The move, which was confirmed this weekend by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), will allow councils across the country to impose extra charges on householders who leave out too much non-recyclable waste.

The fact that ministers have adopted powers to impose the taxes on millions of households without a vote in the Commons will shock MPs. They always believed they would be able to veto the unpopular move following trials in five pilot areas.

Last week the government also sidelined parliament to move ahead with plans to introduce a controversial third runway at Heathrow airport."


http://tiny.cc/INJzD
63

Mikey,

18/01/2009 08:06:33
Why doesn't wee Eck just raise taxes by 3p in the pound for those earning more than £75k p.a.? The bridge would be paid for and McMillan would be happy that he did his bit for the country?
64

gus1940,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 08:24:35
Is McMillan expressing CBI Scotland policy or is he pursuing his own unionist political agenda?
65

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 08:27:35
This could be a problem for the Labour Party in Scotland as one of its main commitments in past Scottish Parliament Elections has always been that Scottish Water should remain in public hands?

Labour took this stance because the Scots Tory Party pledged it would sell off Scottish Water IF it won at Holyrood.
66

Richard M,

Scottish Raj 18/01/2009 08:41:31
They're dying to get their hands on the water industry, because experience in England and Wales has shown that it's a licence to print money and rip consumers off, before cashing in their share options and selling out at a huge profit to some foreign (usually French) outfit.

As the current situation shows, many of our esteemed business leaders, especially in the banking and financial services industry, haven't got the skills to run a whelk stall right now
67

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 08:47:06
Er, who's got the money to buy Scottish Water anyway? The government should stop cutting off its nose to spite its face and borrow (if it can) using future revenue from TOLLS as collatoral to pay it back, like they did to build the original road bridge.
68

ddmc,

18/01/2009 09:29:05
Water is the only commodity we have left, Oil revenue props up the Welfare state, the last thing we need or should allow is the loss of our water to a private consortium. We have an abundance of water & should be selling it to Spain & other countries who have a lack of water, brings in much needed cash.

sm webwise rufus, splilt personalities !
69

eric,

18/01/2009 09:38:15
My mate down south got £112 a fortnight on dole,payed £36 gas and electric a fortnight and £14 water a fortnight ,he used to go 2 days without food to make it to his next payment and walk to interviews and back .His neighbour with family only paid £5 a mnth and they worked.
70

,

18/01/2009 09:47:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
71

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 09:58:30
Who exactly is this MacMillan guy?

Which business does he lead and how many people does he employ?

Why does anyone believe his views are of any value or interest?
72

noswod,

Honestas 18/01/2009 10:24:58
Theres nay free Bridge how do we pay for it. The answer is to vote Labour back in who will do a deal wi Broon and we will have a full bridge nae half a SNP bridge. Unfortunately us Scotties will have to pay frae it at a £1 a throw tae gang O'er the brig. When will it sink in there is no such thing as a free bridge, we are on such a good thing awayway with Whiteha an extra £1,600 pa for each public expenditure spend. The other alternative is to raise the Basic Tax rate by 2%. There can be no public expenditure without taxation this is a concept not grasped by Scottish politicals.
73

The Strategist,

18/01/2009 10:32:43
Once it's gone it's gone. Privatise Scottish Water and it will end up in foreign hands.
74

,

18/01/2009 10:57:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
75

BillyC,

Paisley 18/01/2009 11:16:36
The simple solution is to let Scotland keep and spend all the taxes and money raised in Scotland and England can keep all the taxes and money raised in England etc. Very simple really so what is the problem?Scotland is a country so why is its parliament not allowed to borrow?
http://www.paisleyexpressions.blogspot.com
76

Queen D,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 11:18:22
Bully wee, he was a banker and part of the SQA before moving into the CBI and making a lot of noise on the unionist cabal / commission/ review/revue cobbled together by wee Wendy.
So he left the "real" world some time ago!

HANDS OFF our water MR McMillan!
It is a Scottish asset and as such must remain in the hands of the people, unlike the other asset stripping that has gone on over the years.
77

donald,

glasgow 18/01/2009 11:28:06
There has been enough of Scotland sold off already
Time for Independence!
78

alanh,

ek 18/01/2009 11:43:41
why did the "journalist" not bother to ask the opinion of any of the party in power about this stupid story?
Instaed they just recycled a quote from JS about the bridge?

So now the CBI want to sell off our water as well as opposing fair local taxation and keep the hated council tax?
And we should listen to him/them why exactly????????
79

Stan Butler,

18/01/2009 11:46:53

I don't know why the gnats are getting so worked up about this proposal.

Did their very own Mike Russell not advocate privatisation of the water supply in his Grasping the Thistle?

That's the same Mike Russell who wants to sell off Scotland's forests to the private sector.
80

watcher,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 12:40:04
The tight nats will be the first to moan when they get billed for water. Of course that is what Salmond and the Scots Tories want, that way they wont have to deduct it from the 3% income tax that will be forced on us.
81

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 12:44:12
#82 Queen D

So, “one of Scotland's most prominent business leaders” has never ran a business, has never employed anyone, has never been endorsed by the electorate, opposed the very concept of a Scottish Parliament but still feels qualified to lecture the Government on matters of policy?

His views have no more validity than those of the guy who cleans my wheelie bin.

At least he runs his own business.
82

Ewan Randall,

18/01/2009 13:05:01
Why sell off an industry like Scottish water, when it will become a greater asset to Scotland than the oil industry ever could?
83

Stan Butler,

18/01/2009 13:15:05


#90 You ask 'Why sell off an industry like Scottish water, when it will become a greater asset to Scotland than the oil industry ever could?'

The rather obvious answer is 'to raise money'.

Why does the SNP's Mike Russell want to do this?

Perhaps one of the cyber gnats could tell us.
84

Ewan Randall,

18/01/2009 13:23:43
(#80) – (famous 15) – Is it not true that the SNP have not just to stay strong to oppose the Unionists, but to increase their strength if they are to have any chance to win any referendum on independence?

Are the Unionists actually trying to sell Scotland down the river, or are they following the example of their English compatriots seeking investments?

Couldn’t it be argued that the Scottish media you are talking about, who are aligned with Unionist parties, represent the majority of the Scottish electorate at this present time, and are trying to safeguard their own interests?
85

frank mcbride,

lusitania 18/01/2009 13:28:48
#88, Watcher.

What a perfect Andykerresque statement.

Based on nothing, with the intention of spreading fear and alarm.

Do you really want to be classed alongside Mr. Kerr; one of the worst political failures Scotland has ever seen?
86

Calum10,

18/01/2009 13:31:26
Labour now look foolish after backing themselves into a corner of funding the new Forth Road Bridge.

They have rejected bridge tolls.
They have rejected PPP/PFI becaue that now comes onto the government's accounts.
They have rejected paying for this bridge over the long term.
They now reject the sale of public assets.

So what are Labour's proposals to fund this bridge?

Well, they don't know!
87

frank mcbride,

lusitania 18/01/2009 13:33:59
#91, Stan Butler.

Maybe because he believes that is the right way to go?

But, more important is the fact that he can have this opinion, and is allowed to express it.
88

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 13:35:37
I don't think Mike Russell posts on here Stan, why don't you e mail him and ask him. Anyway, it's not SNP policy to privatise anything, that's the Labour Party you are thinking of.
89

frank mcbride,

lusitania 18/01/2009 13:38:41
#94, Ewan Randall.

If the circulation figures of the Scotsman and the Herald are anything to go by, I think that rather than protecting their own interest, they are alienating the people who keep them in business with their editorial stance.
90

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 13:40:45
99 that is a matter of debate Smee, however I think you will find that most of us who support independence would be prepared to cut out coats according to our cloth, as long as we were weilding the scissors.

But no doubt you will receive a number of posts explaining why you are wrong to assume that independence would lead to fewer resources, I will leave you to it.
91

frank mcbride,

lusitania 18/01/2009 13:46:57
#99, sm753.

Is that because we'd still be paying for:

1. An illegal war?

2. Trident?

3. Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley?

4. The Olympics?

5. London Crossrail?

6. Whitehall?

To list but a few.

sm753, don't compare apples with pears!!!

The only question to be resolved is Independence, with full control over our own governance, or an Incorporating Union with the same constraints as at present.
92

Stan Butler,

18/01/2009 13:53:52

#98 'it's not SNP policy to privatise anything, that's the Labour Party you are thinking'

Russell is in the process of privatising (in all but name) the Scottish forestry industry.

Surely you are aware of that?
93

Rasco,

18/01/2009 13:58:05
Off topic but has anyone seen the new BBC Scotland TV show ,watched it today at lunch time its called "The Anti SNP,Salmond Politic Show" Presented by a certain GC.
94

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 14:06:03
104 It's open to consultation Stan needless to say I oppose it, I don't think privatisation of our forests will happen, unlike the mass privatisation we saw under Labour.
95

Bill_on_a_boat,

Docked for the weekend 18/01/2009 14:06:23
Ah - the Firefly & Smee "Punching the air" & "questions later".

Would not constructive acts be better than punching air (bit of a waste of energy there) and solutions now be better than questions later....

Unionists all seem to believe in delay and decry - the solution is rather simple.

DO NOT SELL OFF NATIONAL ASSETTS.

Let a private consortium picked by the government build the bridge - WITHOUT public money.
The bridge has a net value as part of Scotlands road infrastructure - allocate that % of road tax to be paid to the consortium - it's their gravy.
Now let them figure out a way to make money from the bridge for the next 30 years (without charging tolls to bridge users) - they keep what they earn.

YES - it can be done - it just takes a wee bit of the "Out of the box thinking" that we Scots are famous for.

We're betting that bridge could show a net profit of at least a hundred million a year if handled properly..

Smee - Ruffled - Any ideas on how this could be done - to the benefit of all Scots - or just negativity/silence on this.

This is an approach to the unionists to throw in some constructive ideas - even prove you might have some?
What do you say?
96

Wardog™,

wardogblog.blogspot.com 18/01/2009 14:09:47


99. Why is that a 'problem' smee.

Surely a unionist should be wanting the best for the whole of the UK, if the Scots are indeed getting more than they put in, isn\t it time that this was addressed and equality brought to bear on those hard suffering Northern English counties.

Don't tell me that you now arguing for Scotland to receive more than others who are equally needy.



97

Wardog™,

wardogblog.blogspot.com 18/01/2009 14:13:23

104. Your characterisation of the 'privatisation' of areas of Scottish forestry is very misleading.

Firstly, it is a consultation which is open for all to contribute to.

Secondaly, the commercialisation of more areas of Scotland's land is a common policy of both the Labour and SNP, it is essential if we are going to move towards low carbon heating for homes using biomass woodfuel chp and enhance our timber exports.

90% of new houses in scotland is currently built using Scandinavian timber, this could b Scottish timber.

I suggest people interested in this read the consultation fully to understand the issues at hand, it's wider than the 'privatisation' tag attributed by the poster above.


98

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 14:26:01
#105
Are you aware that George Foulkes has complained that BBC Scotland suffers from an “institutional” bias towards the SNP?

He must be able to see programmes denied to the rest of us.
99

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 18/01/2009 14:29:20
Businessmen should stick to what they are good at and leave public administration and services to those qualified to run them.

Whenever business people speak on these matters, they always say trite things like this or that there are too many people etc, then they run public services under contract and fail. Trains cost more, water costs more (in England at least) and more has to be spent on administration to prevent cheating and inappropriate 'bonus' payments.
100

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

18/01/2009 14:39:15
More unadulterated hogwash from the Calman Commission's Iain McMillan, does he not realise that the sale or mutualisation of Scottish Water to help pay for the new Forth crossing is a complete non-starter. The Westminster Treasury rules mean that the UK Government has first dibs on any funds raised in Scotland.

#104 Stan, please explain how leasing out 25% of the forestry is privatisation? You are aware that the Union's are actually proposing SELLING some parts of the commercial forest estate?
101

frank mcbride,

lusitania 18/01/2009 15:45:45
#116, sm753.

I see you refer to GERS as proof that Scotland is a net recipient of UK Treasury largesse, but do not acknowledge that GERS is accepted as being a flawed document as it does not make a full accounting of all income and expenditure.

I still await your considered response to my #@103, over an hour ago.
102

BillyC,

Paisley 18/01/2009 17:41:22
Oh dear! What a load of mince by #99 SM753

It is people like yourself that have the English people up in arms over the fact that they believe that they are subsidising Scotland. This is a huge growing problem amongst the people of England. If we are such a huge drain on the English then we both should live off our own money, especially now that England is in such a stste financially.
Then again why is the English government so eager to spend money they don't have on continuing to "as they say" subsidise Scotland when they could be spending it on their own people? That is what the English people want to know!
103

Stan Butler,

18/01/2009 18:04:04

Do the cyber gnats accept that Mike Russell wants to sell off Scottish Water?
104

MaryW,

Perth 18/01/2009 18:12:08
How dare Mcmillan call for Scottish Water to be sold to pay for this bridge!!!!!
105

Ewan Randall,

18/01/2009 18:18:43
(#91) – (Stan Butler) – Why do you believe the answer to be obvious, even though the article is about selling Scottish water to help and pay off the building of the bridge?

Do you believe it is necessary to sell off Scottish water to pay £2bn of the £2.3bn needed for the new forth bridge?

Are you aware that this next Scottish budget has designated £2.5bn as development money for Scottish water?

Do you realize that the £2.5bn of Scottish water development money could pay for the new £2.3bn forth bridge, and pay the £50M on those three hospital car parks too, leaving £150M?

Why do you believe Mike Russell still wishes to do so?
106

Indy Evolution,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 18:23:20
Slightly off topic but did Scotland on Sunday cover this story today:

http://tinylink.com/?Ewv3KvPHx2

(...or will the scotsman cover it tomorrow?)



Iceland hits back at Scots jibes

The Icelandic prime minister claims his country will bounce back
The Icelandic prime minister has hit back at Scottish critics who used the collapse of its banking-based economy to promote an anti-independence stance.

Prime Minister Geir Haarde said Scots should not make a final judgement yet and insisted Iceland could recover more quickly than bigger countries.

He said he was still considering court action against the UK after it used terror laws to freeze Icelandic assets.

Mr Haarde accused Britain of behaving like a bully against a small country.

First Minister Alex Salmond had looked to Iceland and other small independent countries in Northern Europe, such as Ireland and Norway, as examples Scotland could follow.

But after most of these countries found themselves badly hit by the financial crisis, Mr Salmond's so-called "arc of prosperity" was dubbed by some opposition politicians as the "arc of insolvency".

They said it proved the case for Scotland as an independent country was on shaky ground.

Independence debate

In an interview with BBC Scotland, Mr Haarde hit back at the comments.

He said: "Because of the smallness of the Icelandic nation and because of the inherent strength which independence and our own political institutions give us, there is an enormous force in this country for rebuilding and restructuring the economy as soon as possible.

"I think those in Scotland who want to utilise the difficulties in Norway, Iceland or Ireland in the internal debate about the future of Scotland should first of all look at the difficulties in London, and in England and in the United Kingdom as a whole as well as a number of other countries on the continent and the United States.

"And secondly, wait two or three years and see
107

Indy Evolution,

18/01/2009 18:24:31
"And secondly, wait two or three years and see what will be the relative position of these countries vis-a-vis Britain as a whole, Germany, France, the United States or others."

Mr Haarde said discussions were ongoing with the European Union, including Britain, on how to help savers caught up in the country's banking collapse.

Though he said those who had put their funds into accounts with higher returns would have known there were greater risks.

He said other countries had overlooked that the people and institutions of Iceland had also been badly affected by the crisis, and he claimed they had been treated unfairly by the UK Government.

"In all fairness we would have large claims of compensation against the British government although the law in Britain is written in such a way it might be difficult for us to get it back," he said.

"There again, we come to this embarrassing notion: was Britain behaving in this way because it was dealing with a small country.

"It was being a bully against a small country because I am absolutely certain that if it was the case of France and Germany, the British government would not have acted in the same way - absolutely not."

Mr Haarde insisted there was "goodwill and determination" among Icelandic people to do their best in resolving the issue, but he said Iceland should not be asked to compensate Britain, Germany, and other countries to a larger extent than its own people.

Eight Scottish councils had a total of £46m in Icelandic banks before they fell victim to the global money crisis.

Strathclyde Fire Board, several charities and about 30,000 domestic savers also had money frozen.




Scottish Unionist politicians are an embarrasment. They've picked fights with Iceland, Ireland and Norway recently. I want them to build bridges with our neighbours not keep lashing out at them.
108

Wardog™,

wardogblog.blogspot.com 18/01/2009 18:33:36

131. What a crock of.....
109

Ewan Randall,

18/01/2009 18:36:38
(#100) – (frank mcbride) – Do you actually believe the Scotsman and the Herald as the only Unionist newspapers?
Do you believe nationalist readers of the unionist newspapers are in greater number than the unionist ones?

If the Unionist newspapers are alienating readers by their stance what does that say for those who are alienated and don’t opt for alternative publications to put pressure on the newspapers to change their stance?
110

BillyC,

Paisley 18/01/2009 18:58:05
Oh dear more mince by #131 SM753

London subsidising th rest of the country Ha Ha! With what....non-existant money, banking and financial scams. In just how many other countries are there numpties like yourself urging their people to give up their sovereignty and resources to London so that they can be in Scotland's position. Answer = none!

The Financial/Banking scam is over, even Labour has noticed today, so who is going to subsidise London? Things are hotting up financially. www.paisleyexpressions.blogspot.com
111

e-sterka,

18/01/2009 19:16:01
Maybe some problems with connection? So once again my answer:

#126
Because I have seen his eyes.
Because he was sitting beside me and I have seen his eyes.
That is why I believe him.
Because his eyes said, he needs me.
He can buy anything. He can has every girl.
But he wanted me. I believe that he had a reason.

That is why I believe him. And that is why he should believe me.
I will do it, Scotty. If you still want me.
Tell me, please!
112

BillyC,

Paisley 18/01/2009 19:22:03
Oh dear! Even more mince from #136 SM753

Big difference in the US and EU they keep their resources and pay an amount of money to the Central government. Funny how England does not want to be in the same position as Scotland is with regard to Europe. Funny how they want a referendum on Europe so that they can say no to giving up their sovereignty and being in the same position as Scotland is within the UK. Funny how there are numpties in Scotland that know this and are happy for their country to be run by a country that does not want to be in the same position itself - Thickos or Quislings?
www.paisleyexpressions.blogspot.com
113

radge dug,

18/01/2009 19:47:58
WHY? Why sell a public body?

Why not stop spending money on Trident? Even the military think it's useless and a waste of money. HOw many bridges with the cost of Trident?
114

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 18/01/2009 20:19:15
140 peter
What is the source of your info as it is woefully inaccurate? Manufacturing is nowhere near 80% of the Scottish economy as everyone knows.

The public sector alone is very large in Scotland with 23/24% of the workforce. For your figure to be anywhere near accurate we would have to assume that nobody in Scotland works in banking, retail, sport/leisure, hotels/restaurants, media etc. etc. etc.

Please try to be more aware of what is going on before you comment.
115

Alan B,

18/01/2009 20:20:04
Bit of a daft idea.

The money for the new bridge should have been set aside over the last decade when the economy was booming albeit based on weak fundamentals and debt.

Waiting until the economy dives into a recession before looking for money for such a project is daft.

Fiscal autonomy is the best way to sort out the mess of devolution.
116

Tris,

18/01/2009 20:33:36
145:

I totally agree. I know there are people in England who share bath water, only wash dishes once a day, only flush the toilet when there are solids, and stack their washing machines full to overflowing because they simply cannot afford to pay for the water that they used to use. All so water company bosses can give themsleves great big fat rises and bonuses.

And it's not like there's any competition. If you live in London you can't ask Yorkshire to provide your water!

Let's just have the money for the bridge. Did anyone ever hear of an oil rich country that couldn't afford to build a bridge just outside its capital city for the want of £4 billion? Scandal.

Wouldn't it be embarrassing for Brown if a Saudi prince made a gift of it out of his pocket money.
117

zuza,

18/01/2009 20:37:52
He is very busy so let me excuse him. He will be available asap...
118

The Strategist,

18/01/2009 20:53:22
#131 sm753

Dear oh dear. I have lived and worked in France, worked in Norway and been to Germany and the USA on business on numerous occassions.

Tell someone in Marseille that Paris subsidises the rest of the country and they'll laugh in your face. France and indeed most other countries are much more economically diverse and more integrated. Only here would we set up a financial system that deliberately isolates itself from the rest of the economy and refuses to support it.
119

Observer,,

Glasgow 18/01/2009 21:11:22
148 Aye well said George, there's been next to no coverage of what's happening to the guys at city building, why is that ? Because the trail leads right back to Wendy, who is sitting pretty whilst others may lose their livelihoods as a direct result of her stupidity.
120

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 19/01/2009 10:30:26
I still think that a much longer privately owned and funded bridge from the east side of Edinburgh (say, Port Seton) to Burntisland is the most logical answer and would free up a lot of Edinburgh's congestion.
121

Otis B. Driftwood,

19/01/2009 13:25:05
I think we should sell Scottish water, but only if we get 1.50 a bottle.
122

TWC,

20/01/2009 10:43:17
The Tories have been after Scottish Water for years. It is like Manna from heaven. We can sell it and no matter where in the world they buy it it comes right back to Scotland.

Otis is right the only way we should sell Scottish water is a bottle at a time.

Rufus surely you do not support selling off Scottish Water to the private sector!!!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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