Who ya gonna call? Sir Angus
Something troubling you? Bit of a disturbance in the political firmament? Who ya gonna call? The answer, it would seem, is Sir Angus Grossart.
Finance Secretary John Swinney is confident Sir Angus is the man to put steel into his Scottish Futures Trust, as the chair of the new organisation.
The trust will be tasked with finding and implementing alternative methods of funding capital projects like schools and hospitals.
Certainly, Sir Angus brings a few credentials to the table. He is an eminent Scottish business leader, perhaps offering reassurance to the private sector.
He is a prime mover in business circles. Put another way, he is a quintessential fixer, one who gets things done.
In addition, he has long evinced a public service ethos, working in particular with charities and arts organisations.
While working globally, he is proudly Scottish and was a notable business supporter of devolution.
He is a big name - with a big record. He likes a challenge and has been quoted as saying he would prefer to die of exhaustion rather than boredom.
So, from the perspective of ministers, a very good call indeed. And, at Holyrood, the oposition parties agreed this was a substantial appointment.
But what, precisely, is Sir Angus going to chair? his is no merchant bank, like the one he co-founded. his is not one of the conglomerates or firms he has served.
It's an intriguing, although by no means unprecedented, blend: a registered company, wholly owned by Scottish ministers; an entity serving the public interest which will operate at arms length from government.
Questions aplenty. What, says Labour, will the new trust do that is not already being done by civil servants in government tasked with co-ordinating investment effort across Scotland?
It will have no assets of its own, no direct borrowing powers. It is, says Labour, a costly quango.
What, say the Tories, will be the operating model? When can we expect evidential proof of the claimed gains? How, say the Liberal Democrats, will the trust fill the "black hole" which they claim has been dug in council finances?
Unison thought it a touch ironic that, in order to turn round costly PFI projects, one apparently required . . . a merchant banker.
Cosla's response was notably chilly. Representing councils, they said they had a "duty to consider" options that might benefit Scotland.
But they found the package "light on detail".
Patience, says Mr Swinney. And, indeed, Sir Angus who declared that, although he was keen to "get cracking", it wasn't a race.
The minister reckons the trust will provide "value for money" guidance on infrastructure projects; will roll out the non-profit distributing model (NPD) which caps profits; will develop plans for municipal bond issues (the Government has no borrowing powers of its own); and will act as a central catalyst to speed up projects and cut their cost.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~00~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Ill get the first word in lol .... well i hope it works, as PFI's are just a big rip off as many hospitals and schools are now finding out .
Complain about this comment
Wow! and now the poor law, lets put everything on a charitable status and those who invest can claim part ownership...
Bye-Bye to all things good.........
SFT like an injection without the needle...
Complain about this comment
Anyone else noticing a pattern here?
Article on Labour and we're provided with the reasons why we should take it all seriously = Labour's Holyrood leader.
Article on the SNP and out come the witty barbs and we're invited to doubt everything they say or do = Scottish Futures Trust.
It really isn't good enough.
Complain about this comment
http://news.scotsman.com/privatefinanceinitiative/Treasury-PFI-efficiency-claims-unfounded.3273702.jp Check that one out for starters
Complain about this comment
Why does it require another quango to do the job that should already be being done by the army of civil servants that grew up around Holyrood ? I assume a nett reduction in this wage bill will not be made to pay for the new quango. Why does Holyrood employ civil servants who are incapable of doing their job? Like local government executives they seem to be overpaid , underachieving and in general of no use in fulfilling their job descriptions. Our elected politicians also should consider finding new employment if they too are incapable ( with all the expertise availiable to them ) of making the correct decisions when spending taxpayers money. Indeed , it is time that polititians and government servants were made culpable in law for any wasting of public funds; this I'm sure would help to concentrate their minds.
Complain about this comment
Sir Angus Grossart is no stranger to wrangles over money, or indeed a good scrap. In the 60s, as a wet-behind-the-ears advocate, he locked horns with Hugh Morton, advocate, (whatever became of HIM?) in a week-long accounting action at Glasgow Sheriff Court.
The combatants were "cold-eyed" Johnny Caldwell, the Glasgow-based Irish boxer and Sammy Docherty, the Glasgow fight promoter and bookie. Basically Caldwell asked Docherty to account publicly for the money raised at the fights, as he felt he'd been cheated.
Jack Solomons, the legendary London promoter, appeared as a witness, and drew huge public and media interest.
Obsessed as we were with Caldwell, Docherty and Solomons, few in the court could see such a glittering future for the two young advocates, politely exchanging drab financial points. What did we know?
For the record, Docherty won - to the amazement of everyone in Glasgow. Caldwell, an Olympic medallist, went back to his old manual worker's job in Belfast, believing there was no justice. He was right.
And the point? None at all, but it's better than political diatribes, I think. But if I must.... Swinney has made a good choice.
Complain about this comment
Jeepers ..... has one of the mods died .... all my hair (whats left of it ) is going grey waiting to read this blog
Complain about this comment
SFT = PPP = PFI
or alternatively
SFT + PPP + PFI = public purse rip off.
Complain about this comment
5 Kaybraes .... i agree with you there .... look at all the consultants hired down in the south of Britain .... big bean counting companys seconding staff to the government.... same companys that are/were selling tax avoidance schemes to big business ... you couldnt make it up !
Complain about this comment
I'm posting from abroad (on a wifi connection so weak that it's difficult to keep even one page open.
However, the Brigadier will probably be along soon, asking financial questions.
Can I suggest to those responding to him, that you keep in mind that he's a subtle old bird, and likes to concatenate (that word again Rabbie!) two different financial scenarios - the current devolution settlement, and independence.
Make sure that your responses are quite clear. The financial base for the independence scenario should be easy to argue. The case under the current settlement is more difficult, and needs to be carefully analysed, costed, and the deficiencies of the current settlement analysed. Be precise, and don't yield to the temptation to give a quick response to an apparent weakness in one of his posts - he'll already have worked out the probable strategy, and his response.
There have been weak Unionist/status quo arguments on these threads, but seldom from the Brigadier.
The new Labour Leader(ette) may not be capable of giving worth-while challenges, but don't take the brigadier lightly!
I'll try to check in from time to time, but in the meantime (as Young Mr Grace would say) "You're all doing very well!
Have fun!
Complain about this comment
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7607066.stm
"Labour public services spokesman Andy Kerr said: 'We've established the Scottish Futures Trust is nothing more than an expensive and poorly-managed re-branding of PPP and it is clearly an attempt by this government to hoodwink the Scottish people.'"
It surely can't be any more expensive than PPP - which was nothing more than an expensive and poorly-managed re-branding of PFI and was clearly an attempt by the Westminster government to hoodwink the British people.
Complain about this comment
#6 Hi Brigadier - just saw your name appear.
Complain about this comment
I am ashamed to say that I actually supported PFI or PPP in it's inception. My reasoning went along the lines thaat property wasn't necessarily the core business of Health Service/Local Authorities/Government, so why not contract the function out. In short, I was a bit of an idiot.
The reality of it was that the private sector ran unbelievable rings around the ingenues in the civil service and Local government and we all got completely fleeced. I can't actually belive that their are people who still support it.
Not for profit led by an accute commercial mind will be really interesting. Both the Labour led Executive and now the SNP government have pumped millions into the development of the not for profit business sector with some laudable success. That success can be claimed by Labour, the Liberals and now the SNP. It was actually Tony Blair in his talk of "the age of the social entrepreneur" when he was first elected who promolgated this 3rd way.
What the SNP are doing is taking not for profit onto a serious business plane. It's an intelligent approach with the built in safeguard of a very, very serious business player.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat ... your making it sound like brigadierjohn is a Bond villain ... he's to smart for me so ill keep clear of any financial debates ... take care not to meet any of his scandinavian henchwomen out there !
Complain about this comment
1 million pound to fund 6 jobs in the SFT..
Are you's nats accepting that........
Salmond banks the budget, with a merchant banker.......
Complain about this comment
Labour no new ideas just rubbish the opposition..... 'Labour public services spokesman Andy Kerr said: "We've established the Scottish Futures Trust is nothing more than an expensive and poorly-managed re-branding of PPP and it is clearly an attempt by this government to hoodwink the Scottish people." ' best sort yerself oot min or you'll just toodle along and look like a numpty wi that attitude.
Complain about this comment
About 10 years ago as a distance learning student my theisis project for my QS Degree was based on PPP. I argued that this was an under investigated and poorly percieved idea, main problem was that investors were effectively going to produce a 'fit for purpose' building as required. This meant that they would take their high margins from the Taxpayer and at the end of the lease agreement leave a property of no real commercial value. My conclusion was that this was a bad idea. My lecturer explained that this was a risky argument as it was the in thing I argued against.
In subsequent conversations with my lecturer it has been proved that I was right.
I hope that the new ideas work and am not surprised that everyone is against it.
It was the same case at the outset of PPP. Nobody could see why anyone would be willing to risk their money on these projects. Well we now know who and why.
PPP like Nuclear is gambling on everyones future. I cannot agree with either.
Complain about this comment
An analysis of public discussion over new cunning vehicles for public sector finance over recent years reads like a Trotskyite conspiracy theory, but that does not mean that the conspiracy theories aint true.
Firstly we were told that "levering in" private capital into the public sector was, as the spoof textbook "1066 and all that might" put it, "a good thing".
In reality we were told by self confident middle aged men with posh accents that two and two really totalled eight. Because they were posh men in front of television cameras interviewed by journalists who after all were just journalists their assertions went unchallenged.
An example of forget history as it was 19th century Tories who actually invented what was the precursor of the public works loan board which gave us'
Publicly owned energy utilities
Publicly owned transportation (trams)
Publicly owned lighting
Publicly owned public buildings (I invite readers to consider the structural integrity, for instance, of late 19th century Govan school board buildings still in use, and the short life aircraft hangars passing off as schools)
PPP is a great con, with the advantages and the disadvantages of the credit card. Of course such simple though accurate analogies are unacceptable because how could anything so complex be so simple!
As for The Scottish Futures Trust, it uses the framework of PPP and has many of its faults.
Best summarised, I think, in an article some time ago in the Scots Independent when PPP was described as one school for the price of two and the SFT as one school for the price of one and three quarters.
This means that in a relative sense it is, an unassailable fact that it is better than PPP.
Not quite the rational public Works Loan Board that One Nation Conservativeism built, buts that what you get when you don’t have control of a real Treasury, something that we can only have with Independence.
Complain about this comment
15 Hey Derek key thing with us is we have faith in our leader ... Labour seems to be struggling with that concept .... like a nest of vipers is the labour party . You have to pay top people good money to do a job... Alex knows this too
obviously.
Complain about this comment
Any Socialists who still exist might want to consider why Socialist Unity should consider posting this on their blog - other than the suggestion I made on some previous thread that England is going through that dreadful phase that Scotland was in 30 years ago - defining idenity through sport.
I look forward to the time when they have re-established their identity, and sport is no longer the centre of their being (1966 might thenno longer be a significant date for them!)
Complain about this comment
Hi, I'm a bit of a lurker. Sorry to ask a silly question but could someone explain "PPP".
No hidden agenda - just don't know what it is.
Complain about this comment
#20 oldnat
Gordon Brown backs a bid to host the World Cup in England in 2018 (although he won't be in charge by then!)
England were hosts when they won it in 1966. Being hosts gives immediate entry into the last 32 and the enormous strategic advantage of playing in home stadiums.
If England's football team can't win despite all those advantages you might see them "defining their identity through sport" for a while yet. If they do win, they'll be defining their identity through sport until 2118.
Complain about this comment
Once more we see the SNP wrong foot the opposition.
Once more we see BBC Scotland indulge in SNP bashing.
Some things will never change.
Complain about this comment
#20 oldnat
If we're talking about "defining identity through sport" let's have a quick look at some facts.
Just for fun, let's take the official performance measure for success on the football field (the FIFA World Rankings) and adjust them based on the population size of the top 16 countries.
Population size is undeniably a major determining factor in football success because those countries with larger populations have a bigger pool of talent to choose from.
Here are the population-adjusted FIFA World Rankings (population in millions):
1 Croatia (4.5)
2 Scotland (5)
3 Czech Republic (10.5)
4 Portugal (10.6)
5 Netherlands (16)
6 Cameroon (18)
7 Romania (22)
8 Argentina (40)
9 Spain (45)
10 England (50)
11 Italy (59)
12 France (64.5)
13 Turkey (70.5)
14 Germany (82)
15 Russia (142)
16 Brazil (187)
Makes you think, eh? Bear in mind that, in Scotland's case, we're talking about a "small country that couldn't possibly stand on its own two feet" (if we are stupid enough to believe the Unionist doom-mongers on here).
Comparing countries using a fair measure of relative performance, as I have done here, you can see that Scotland has a lot to be proud of. Their football players could be likened to bantamweight boxers taking on heavyweights and giving as good as they get.
Complain about this comment
24. How can Italy, the World Champions, be below England even though both have similar populations?
Complain about this comment
#25 Reluctant-Expat
Since England has 50 million people and Italy has 59 million people, Italy are below England for the purposes of a comparison which takes account of population as one of the resources necessary for success that each team has available.
This table answers the question: "of the top 16 best-performing football teams in the world which are using their available resources most efficiently (i.e. achieving the best results out of whatever resources they have)?
The teams that have achieved top 16 status with the least available resources are Croatia, Scotland and the Czech Republic. Croatia achieved independence in 1991, but they are the fifth best performing team in the world right now with less people than Scotland.
This is hardly difficult to understand, but if you don't understand it, it explains a lot about why you hold some of the views you put up on this board.
Complain about this comment
snowthistle wrote:
"Hi, I'm a bit of a lurker. Sorry to ask a silly question but could someone explain "PPP".
No hidden agenda - just don't know what it is."
I think it stands for Public Private Partnership and is a means of financing the building of schools, hospitals and other buildings. Basically, the supposed fiancial risk lies with the private sector financing the build costs and retaining ownership whilst the public sector then rents the building for an agreed term. The public sector also is contracted to use the private company for the provision of ancillary services such as building maintenance for the period.
It's led to some difficulties:
- at the end of the period the private sector still owns the building
- the out of hours hire costs of, for example, school playing fields are very high
- parking charges at hospitals are also very high
- and finally, the public sector end up paying about 5 times the costs of building themselves without any eventual ownership.
PPP was simply a Labour re-hash of the Tory Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Hopefully, the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) will be more successful.
Key question you might want to as is why government simply doesn't borrow to build its own buildings. It's all to do with eventually joining the euro. The UK has to keep its public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR) under certain limits to eventually qualify of Euro membership.
Never mind Trotsyist conpiracies....PFI/PPP was actually a pro-EU conspiracy....oh dear.........
Complain about this comment
Amazing how quick some of our rabid nats want to veer off the subject of the blog if the subject matter doesn't suit.
Personally I hope the SFT works, I have experience of PFI and don't particulalry like it. However it is not as bad as the press it is given, some schemes are good and have delivered where no other funding route was ever going to deliver.
If Sir Angus wants a good starting point then note todays news on the JOb Centre Plus scheme, a massive project bigger than anything the SFT will have to tackle and delivered on time and under budget with an exemplary, ground breaking safety record. Quite a succes story.
Also this was started of with a clear brief and a clear set of deliverables, the basis of any good project. I don't see that teh SFT has either. Again an appearance of doing something radical while just shuffling the same cards
Perhaps the SNP could have looked at this UK success story and we could have been spared more expense, but then what does money matter! £1m is a small addition to the SNP pile of unexplained expenditure.
Complain about this comment
A masterstroke from Mr Swinney, as has been widely recognized.
Sir Angus Grossart has explained the essence of the project which the Scottish Government has chosen him to take charge of as follows:
"I have been asked to help deliver the Scottish Futures Trust as an effective operating body, to improve the major infrastructure procurement of Scotland. I have accepted the challenge: it is to achieve a better deployment of the talents available in Scotland, from the public and private sectors, to secure greater efficiency and additional financial benefits from a massive infrastructure programme, with investment of circa £35 billion planned over the next 10 years."
Who can doubt that the SNP government is right to undertake a massive revitalizing infrastructure programme for Scotland? The country is crying out for it. Who can doubt that it is wise to acknowledge the scale of ambition and challenge involved in this? Who can doubt the wisdom of going about this in the most professional way possible in the circumstances? Who can doubt the wisdom of securing the services of Sir Angus Grossart to that end?
As the SNP MP Angus Robertson has stated, the infrastructure programme involves "a capital investment programme in Scotland of some £12 billion over the next 3 years, and £35 billion over the next 10 years – on schools, roads, hospitals, prisons.
"The £150 million is the increased investment in infrastructure that we can secure each year under the SFT compared to the PFI rip-off – through greater partnership, improved preparation and handling of projects, and better value finance, including the non-profit distribution model."
The Finance Secretary: "With an infrastructure investment programme of some £35 billion over the next 10 years, SFT will be central to this Government's purpose of increasing sustainable, economic growth."
Professor John Kay, a Fellow of St John's College, Oxford, Visiting Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, and a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, said:
"PFI is well past its sell by date. The Scottish Futures Trust can achieve its three objectives of cheaper finance, better project management and the operation of infrastructure projects for the benefit of the people of Scotland."
This SNP government continues to demonstrate that it knows what it is about and how to go about it in ambitious and innovative ways. In contrast to this, the less imaginative and frequently numbskull opposition tactics of Scottish Labour, which are an embarrassment even to its adversaries, do not show it in a very favourable light or reveal it to be a political force from which Scotland can expect much more than pathetic negativity and passive compliance with the requirements of powerful interests elsewhere.
It will be interesting to see how far the SFT model can be progressed within the relatively hostile political environment with which a pro-independence government has to cope as a minority facing a unionist majority in its own legislature as well as a resentful and doomed administration in London.
As neveraboot seems to suggest at #18, the lack of a real Treasury, which Scotland can only have with independence, is what is least satisfactory about the Scottish Government's efforts to develop the Scottish economy and further our essential interests. Fortunately for us, the party in power in Edinburgh is dedicated to remedying that defect.
Complain about this comment
As my earlier post has been somewhat mangled by this site peculiar aversion to the pound sign, here it is again, tidied up.
A masterstroke from Mr Swinney, as has been widely recognized.
Sir Angus Grossart has explained the essence of the project which the Scottish Government has chosen him to take charge of as follows:
"I have been asked to help deliver the Scottish Futures Trust as an effective operating body, to improve the major infrastructure procurement of Scotland. I have accepted the challenge: it is to achieve a better deployment of the talents available in Scotland, from the public and private sectors, to secure greater efficiency and additional financial benefits from a massive infrastructure programme, with investment of circa 35 billion pounds planned over the next 10 years."
Who can doubt that the SNP government is right to undertake a massive revitalizing infrastructure programme for Scotland? The country is crying out for it. Who can doubt that it is wise to acknowledge the scale of ambition and challenge involved in this? Who can doubt the wisdom of going about this in the most professional way possible in the circumstances? Who can doubt the wisdom of securing the services of Sir Angus Grossart to that end?
As the SNP MP Angus Robertson has stated, the infrastructure programme involves "a capital investment programme in Scotland of some 12 billion pounds over the next 3 years, and 35 billion pounds over the next 10 years - on schools, roads, hospitals, prisons.
"The 150 million pounds is the increased investment in infrastructure that we can secure each year under the SFT compared to the PFI rip-off - through greater partnership, improved preparation and handling of projects, and better value finance, including the non-profit distribution model."
The Finance Secretary: "With an infrastructure investment programme of some 35 billion poinds over the next 10 years, SFT will be central to this Government's purpose of increasing sustainable, economic growth."
Professor John Kay, a Fellow of St John's College, Oxford, Visiting Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, and a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, said:
"PFI is well past its sell by date. The Scottish Futures Trust can achieve its three objectives of cheaper finance, better project management and the operation of infrastructure projects for the benefit of the people of Scotland."
This SNP government continues to demonstrate that it knows what it is about and how to go about it in ambitious and innovative ways. In contrast to this, the less imaginative and frequently numbskull opposition tactics of Scottish Labour, which are an embarrassment even to its adversaries, do not show it in a very favourable light or reveal it to be a political force from which Scotland can expect much more than pathetic negativity and passive compliance with the requirements of powerful interests elsewhere.
It will be interesting to see how far the SFT model can be progressed within the relatively hostile political environment with which a pro-independence government has to cope as a minority facing a unionist majority in its own legislature as well as a resentful and doomed administration in London.
As neveraboot seems to suggest at #18, the lack of a real Treasury, which Scotland can only have with independence, is what is least satisfactory about the Scottish Government's efforts to develop the Scottish economy and further our essential interests. Fortunately for us, the party in power in Edinburgh is dedicated to remedying that defect.
Complain about this comment
The SNP Government is doing the best it can with the tools at its disposal which are hugely limited by the devolved status we find Scotland in.
An independent Scotland will I'm sure revert as soon as possible to funding out of affordable public revenues.
Quite frankly I don't think we should be building anything we can't afford to pay for up front by traditional funding mechanisms.
And I believe our people are more than capable of understanding and accepting that.
Tough - but what we are doing now is the economics of the madhouse.
And Westminster is making it almost impossible to do anything any other way.
We have bunch of politicians preening themselves in front of new schools etc the accumulated debt on which will cripple the ambitions of our next generation.
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn #6
Just out of idle curiosity, which side was young Grossart acting for in that long forgotten case; Docherty or Caldwell?
Complain about this comment
#10 oldnat: Hi there! I'm gobsmacked, halfway between flattered and amused. I always suspected you were wired differently from our fellow bloggers.
You don't really believe that anyone would need advice about responding to me? A. I'm not smart at all (compared to yourself or Ed Iglehart or Slaintmha or Banginonabout for example). And B., the evidence would suggest that my detractors "get tore in" with complete disregard for anything I might post.
I seem to provide a safe outlet for their inner hatreds, and I often consider asking where it might be directed if Independence were achieved. Immigrants perhaps? Maybe there will be a Simon Weisenthal figure, tirelessly hunting down old Unionists?
#14 Rabbiehippo: If you know any Scandinavian women, "hench" or otherwise, I'd be pleased with an introduction. I once knew this Danish girl, Helle, ah, but there were soooooo many!
#26: Sadly, World Cups are not contested on a handicap basis. Croatia 1, England 4; upset the form book and the handicapper!
Macedonia? Let's not go there!
I know it's just for fun, as you say, but the per capita ratio to date of Independence equation doesn't alter the price of a loaf.
However, everything you say is correct in its context and I undertand it perfectly.
Complain about this comment
Yes #3, I can see a pattern developing here...
...the minute there is a blog even slightly critical of the SNP, up go the cries of "bias"
"stop or be stopped"........now what DID you mean by that?
Complain about this comment
Irn Bru
Thats prety much right.
Instead of Government borrowing at preferred rates they initiate PPP agreements.
eg £1m to build
20 Year life of building (sometimes stays in Private Ownership)
Government pays (rental) to the developer at high commercial interest rates. Developer gets to control who manages the building during its life (anti competitive) at its own set costs. There is no benifit for the local community (free or subsidised use of facilities) How is this paid for? Well usually an increace to your Council Tax.
There is only 1 winner in this situation and it isnt me and you my friends.
Complain about this comment
#32 Caledionian54: I was hoping nobody noticed the omission! Ouch! I think he was for Docherty, but I can find nothing online about it. Sorry, it was a loooooong time ago.
Complain about this comment
#33
You may have considered an other option, something like, has the old one got delusions of grandeur( maybe not) does he consider himself a cut above (probably so) then again; is it just a simple case.. that oldnat has a suspicious mind..... "YES" thats it, hes just a lonely old negative fool..
Complain about this comment
#29, of course the country is crying out for infrastructure investment....
...the SNPs manifesto promised to "match brick for brick current plans for improvement in our schools and hospitals"
How many new projects have been approved since they came to power??
Complain about this comment
Irn Bru, Bramblebikes,
Thanks. I understand things a little better now.
Complain about this comment
#33 brigadierjohn
"World Cups are not contested on a handicap basis."
Automatic entry to the last 32 is a handicapping factor that bestows a major advantage to the host nation. I accept they're not giving one team a goal or two of a start in individual matches - but it would be an revealing table if they did.
My post merely illustrates that, for example, Scotland, with a proportionately smaller pool of talent than England, is nevertheless currently only one place lower on the official rating of on-the-field performance.
England, with ten times more people and a much larger pool of talent, is clearly not using their available resources as well as Scotland.
Alternatively, Scotland, with ten times less people and a much smaller pool of talent, is using their available resources much better than England.
Individual match results, such as the Croatia-England game last night, or Scotland's loss against Macedonia, don't tell you much about the long-term use of available resources, which was the actual point of my post.
Not surprised to see that Scotland's Macedonia loss springs to your mind much more readily than their hard-fought win against Iceland.
That subconscious preference exposes the mindset of the typical Unionist who never misses an opportunity to ignore exclusively Scottish success whenever and wherever it occurs. The sad result of decades of psychological conditioning.
Complain about this comment
#40: Thanks for explaining, again, your impeccable logic. I meant it when I said I understood it first time.
Your final paragraph distresses me. You introduced a fun digression from the thread and I responded in kind.
My point about Scotland was simply this: We were expected to beat Iceland, on form and world standing, and duly did. Of course the team deserves recognition and praise for this. However, the Macedonia result was a reversal of known standings and expectations, which illustrated my contention that standings and comparisons don't count for much when the whistle blows.
It certainly was not a "subconscious preference" or anything at all to do with Unionism or any other type of politics.
That you should seek to introduce a rather nasty comment to a harmless post is perhaps the sad result of decades of Nationalist conditioning.
But that, at least, goes in accord with the form book.
Complain about this comment
30. SNP says "PFI is well past its sell-by date".
That's a very strange claim to make when both PFI and PPP schemes are in use in a great many countries in Europe and around the world.
I'd suggest that the SNP's determination to stick to old-fashioned pay-as-you-go projects where the taxpayer takes on all risk and debt is contrary to modern methods of financing used by an increasing number of countries as well as the overwhelming majority of corporations!
(Or is this entire scheme favoured by the SNP solely because it's different from current UK Govt policy?)
Complain about this comment
I hope SNP get the SFT to work at least until Holyrood can Borrow money or raise bonds like any other Parliament.
At least long enough to get to the referendum then we can have total control of our finances.
I did not know that the Scottish Parliament could not borrow money.
Every day I find another reason why I will never vote for Labour again.
Complain about this comment
27/35. A slightly partisan description of PPP there, gents.
Final cost is 5 times actual cost under PPP? Really?
No eventual ownership? Really?
As you teachers no doubt say to you on a regualr basis, "Go and try again."
Complain about this comment
40 Bighullabaloo
I try to stay out these things these days as I have recognised that the contributors to Brian's blogs would fit into a small room and appear to be the retired or the under-employed trying to get something off their chests. I confine myself now to sticking the odd sharpened stick into Nat hubris, or responding to the casual racism that dogs this blog.
Was it you earlier who decried the fact that Scotland had got over defining itself through sport and that particular malaise was now English? You've now used up acres of cyberspace, in blog about McPFI, to deploy pub-type sports statistics (and we all know that 87.5% of those are made up on the spot!) to describe Scotland as the second most succesful football team in the world!!! Presumably if those pesky Croats had remained under the Yugoslav yoke, Scotland would be top dog!
Is this how you are defining yourselves now? Is it really a step up from shortbread and bagpipes? If success was related to player/population base alone then China or the US would have won the World Cup many times. Or if you were to say "but they're not footballing nations" how about Nigeria, South Africa, Russia, Turkey etc etc.
Come to think of it, your statistical approach bears many similarities to PFI...it just doesn't add up. Good luck to Sir Angus in his search for alternative funding for projects from backers who will be happy to accept lower rates of return than elsewhere in the UK...just because it's Scotland! I think that what it basically boils down to. Let's hope that there are just few hard-nosed businessmen out there with a taste for shortbread!
PS: Using the famous 1967 "Scotland are now World Champions" logic, as England walloped Croatia 1- 4 last night etc etc etc.
Complain about this comment
44 Reluctant Expat
A good point. For the flat-earthers out there this approach is also used extensively in the private sector for the construction of large, long-lived capital assets such as power stations. This is sometimes called Build, Operate, Transfer or BOT in which the provider builds the facilities for the owner, operates it on behalf of the owner and finally transfers the operations to the owner after a period of time.
The alternative is BOOT i.e build, own, operate, transfer. In this case the investor also builds the facilities at its own expense and effectively "sells" its services back to the users before finally transferring the facilities to the ownership of the Users after a given period of time. This is of course easy if you are selling electricity but much harder if you are selling say...healthcare or an education!
Is it beneficial? In absolute terms it looks expensive if you tot up the costs over the years. If you use a "time value of money" approach it's beneficial to the User, reducing capital expenditure and making "money of the day" go further...very handy when you have the inevitable constraints of a fiscal base. Anyway, I dare say that it will shortly be coming to a nuclear power station near you!
It will be interesting to see if McPFI can work any differently.
Complain about this comment
43. I strongly advise you to conduct your own research and NOT to rely on the increasingly shrill and ridiculous claims that eminate from the nationalist contingent.
Posts 27 and 35 are two classic examples of the incomplete and ill-informed perception of your average nat.
Complain about this comment
#41 brigadierjohn
"However, the Macedonia result was a reversal of known standings and expectations, which illustrated my contention that standings and comparisons don't count for much when the whistle blows."
Your "contention" against what? Certainly not against anything I'd written, because I didn't say anything about the standings having a bearing on the outcomes of individual matches. Nothing at all.
This is typical of what you and others try to do on this blog. You read what other people say, identify something you don't like based on your Unionist prejudices, then argue a "point of contention" against it.
The problem is no one claimed the rankings have any bearing on individual matches in the first place!
You clearly have a tendency to talk down Scottish success. It's proven by what you've written in your post. It's a typical example of how people like you fixate on the negatives of everything that happens, and selectively ignore anything that portrays Scotland in a favourable light.
You choose to talk up an English football win and contrast it with a Scottish loss, but as a Scot I find it more logical to focus on the success of my own country's team rather than contrasting it unfavourably with some other country's team.
You can deny it all you like - but what you've done is try to invalidate Scotland's success. At some level you know that's true and that's why you've angrily denied it when I pointed it out.
Complain about this comment
........England walloped Croatia 1- 4 last night etc etc etc.
I don't care what England did last night. I am not English and I am not anti English. I just don't care and it has nothing to do with the current debate.
Complain about this comment
#45 Anglophone
"Was it you earlier who decried the fact that Scotland had got over defining itself through sport and that particular malaise was now English?"
No it wasn't. If you're going to attack what I say then do me the courtesy of checking whether it was me that said it.
As to discussing football, I was merely responding to oldnat's #20. In any case, football is often brought into the discussion here by the owner of the blog himself, who in recent weeks has had blogs entitled: "Politics as football" and "Should there really be a GB FC"? So don't tell me what I can and can't bring up.
What you are claiming "doesn't add up" in my posts are all easily verifiable facts: The populations of nations, the top 16 most successful football clubs in the FIFA world rankings. Which of these facts are you disputing exactly?
If you'd even bothered to read what I wrote I didn't "describe Scotland as the second most succesful football team in the world!!!" I described then as the second most successful users of their available pool of footballing talent in the world.
If you think about really hard then maybe even you will see that these are not the same thing, and not at all diffcult to understand.
Complain about this comment
Can we move the football debate to the 606 forums please? I don't see them speaking about SFT.
Good moderation on show here. Keeping things nicely on topic.
Complain about this comment
#42 Reluctant-Expat
Try reading post 30 again. The part you referred to is actually a quote not from the SNP but from a distinguished academic:
"Professor John Kay, a Fellow of St John's College, Oxford, Visiting Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, and a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, said:
"PFI is well past its sell by date. The Scottish Futures Trust can achieve its three objectives of cheaper finance, better project management and the operation of infrastructure projects for the benefit of the people of Scotland.""
Complain about this comment
49 Sneckedagain
Don't look at me, I didn't start the football talk. The Croatia thing was just a wee joke at the expense of Bigpedanticfellow's detour into cod-statistics.
I did actually write a reasonably sensible contribution on PFI at the same time.
I just wish you guys would stop going on about 1967;-)
Complain about this comment
#51 StroszekBassist
If you're going to post do you think you could say something on topic?
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
50 Bigfussaboutnothing
Perish the thought that I should tell you what to and what not to post on, what you apparantly see, as your own personal forum...plus of course a few like-minded mates.
Just look on my presence here as an demonstration of how the West Lothian issue feels when you're on the receiving end. Except of course I don't have the powers to abitrarily affect your life in quite the same way.
You haven't responded though on how McPFI is going to attract investment by offering lower rates of return than elsewhere in the world for the same service...because that is the only way you can reduce the overall cost to the taxpayer.
Complain about this comment
#55 Anglophone
I lost interest when you started talking rubbish about what I'd written.
I've moved on to the next blog article.
Complain about this comment
47.
I don't take my facts from here they actually came from a BBC programme when the debate on SFT was taking place.
I am not a member of any party but I am persuaded that Scotland should run it's own affairs totally.
I mean FULL Fiscal Autonomy or Independence if necessary.
Surely that removes all arguement about who sibsidises whom.
England can get on with it's own affairs too.
I don't want to fall out with anybody just have some control over my destiny.
Off Topic I asked my SNP MSP to look at Ferry fares for Bikes; they will be removed on Millport ferry on 10 October -- too easy.
Complain about this comment
re56
Was that a typo. did you really mean " lost interest when you started talkong about the rubbish you'd written?
Complain about this comment
PFI introduced by the Conservative government.
PPP re-branded PFI brought to us coutesy of New Labour.
SFT is PFI/PPP in its' latest reincarnation via the SNP.
The Lib Dems might use a different TLA but it will amount to the same.
Why?
Because EU public sector spending restrictions limit member countries right to borrow. It came about as a consequence of the Maastricht Treaty. "Borrowing" via the private sector does not rate as PSBR and is therefore "allowed".
An "independent" Scotland would have to adhere to the same rules if it was a member of the EU. It's about enriching big business at the expense of the public. We're all being ripped off and none of the main parties even talk about the issue far less purport to do anything about it.
Complain about this comment
Hi Reluctant-Expat
Thanks for pointing out my shrill and redicolous claims.
The Government eventually had to buy iself out of the contract because it was taking so much profit. Even with the early closure of the contract the average return on investment per year for investors in the Skye Road Bridge was 18.4%
Do you really think that is a fair system when people cant even get an inflation matching yearly pay rise.
Even the Accounts Commision couldnt support it.
http://www.notolls.org.uk/skat/pac1.htm
Fortunately this has been recognised and the Governmet realises it needs to do better. Im 100% behind the government as you probably guessed.
Complain about this comment
44. Reluctant-Expat wrote:
27/35.
"A slightly partisan description of PPP there, gents.
Final cost is 5 times actual cost under PPP? Really?
No eventual ownership? Really?
As you teachers no doubt say to you on a regualr basis, "Go and try again.""
Just a couple of points reluctant expat:
It's 26 years since I had a teacher (I'm 43 and a half!)so, I don't think even PFI was invented, lol.
If you'd read my previous post on this topic you'd see that I supported PPP when it started. I was in the property business and frankly thought that the build and management of property was better off in specialist hands. Through bitter experience and a very hefty bill to the tax payers I was convinced otherwise.
In answer to your specific points,
- the overall price to the taxpayer of PFI/PPP are at least 5 times that of a state built and run project
- there is categorically no state ownership at the end of the rental, the ownership stays with the private sector unless it is bought out.
I'm happy to have a good debate, but don't assume that I am (a) a spotty kid, or (b) an SNP hack.
Complain about this comment
Chaps, I actually operate a number of PFI's
It is clear from these ill informed and largely rabid comments that this is the excited politically babble of the chattering wanabes.
PPP\PFI simply transfers the risk of supplying a building and its services for a fixed price for a period of up to 30 years.
Nothing else
What causes the problems is the perception of risk transfer and the penalties if it does not deliver.
Example for you:-
Wee Johnny smashes a school classroom up - teacher leaves the room - not safe to be there.
Class room is not available for use - the PPP is penalised and also picks up the cost of the repair, think that’s fair ?
Compounded that with - Wee Johnny having repeated this half a dozen times - the PPP suggests civil recovery - School run a mile and claim child can't be identified - breech of human rights.
Why is PPP so expensive - because the trusts and authorities off loaded all the risks for a fixed price for a period of thirty years and the contractors priced accordingly
Also to correct another misconception most PPP's have a hand-back with a five year minimal life clause built in.
And yet another misconception - quite a number are under water and losing money heavilly.
So Brian what would Mr Mair do with that one.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS