Anglican Water Contract

[snooky]

What's going on? This video is worth a view.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/10/09/water-torture/

[Beefster]

It won't be the SNPs fault. Every time the SNP do something that could attract criticism, they blame the UK government/previous Labour Scottish government/the public/quislings etc etc.

PS I don't actually care whether they are privatising it or not.

[xyz23jc]

[QUOTE=Beefster;4480195]It won't be the SNPs fault. Every time the SNP do something that could attract criticism, they blame the UK government/previous Labour Scottish government/the public/quislings etc etc.

Years of watching Liebour and Tories will have that effect on you.:agree:

[Jack]

It won't be the SNPs fault. Every time the SNP do something that could attract criticism, they blame the UK government/previous Labour Scottish government/the public/quislings etc etc.

PS I don't actually care whether they are privatising it or not.

You forgot to mention EU Regulations, if you had you would have been right :-)

[lucky]

You forgot to mention EU Regulations, if you had you would have been right :-)

Or they could have put conditions in which restrict the ability of private companies to make big profits on contracts or just tell the truth they are happy to part privatise Scottish water. But if we follow your argument through then the SNP will be campaigning to get out the EU as it restricts the Scottish govt as much as the baddies at Westminster

[RyeSloan]

That the service was put out to tender and the most cost efficient service chosen is a bad thing?!?

Oh I forgot it's all about public and privately owned...I'm forever amazed at why people get so uptight about such things. I'd rather we had the best service at the most efficient cost, quite who provides that and how that company is structured or owned really doesn't matter too much does it? And if it does why only in a few specific areas?

Much ado about nothing I would say but classic SNP in that their rhetoric yet again fails to match their deeds.

[Geo_1875]

What do the SNP have to do with where the CofE get their water?

[Colr]

What's going on? This video is worth a view.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/10/09/water-torture/

Anglican? Is this for supplying holy water?

[Sylar]

Step 1 in the plan for mass transit networks being established to transfer vast quantities of water south during times of stress if this is true.

As a hydrologist, I find the article a little simplistic and over-reliant on heartfelt and whimsical ideas. Charging for water isn't 'charging for the rain that falls from the sky'. What you pay for is the stringent testing, treatment, supply network provisions, maintenance of all of the above...the notion that the water we get from the tap should remain 'free' because of it's natural origin is idealistic at best.

The infrastructure and cost required to build the reservoirs that retain our water is expensive. The infrastructure that pumps that water to treatment plants pre-distribution is expensive. To ensure the highest possible quality of drinking water and ensure its safety requires an extensive treatment process, which is expensive. To pump the water into our homes via an extensive infrastructure network around the clock, without fail, is expensive. The monitoring equipment needed to ensure the continuity of that supply is expensive. The man-hours to get people out to detect and repair faults is expensive...

It wouldn't surprise me one iota if the Scottish Government no longer wanted to foot this bill as it must be considerable.

[snooky]

That the service was put out to tender and the most cost efficient service chosen is a bad thing?!?

Oh I forgot it's all about public and privately owned...I'm forever amazed at why people get so uptight about such things. I'd rather we had the best service at the most efficient cost, quite who provides that and how that company is structured or owned really doesn't matter too much does it? And if it does why only in a few specific areas?

Much ado about nothing I would say but classic SNP in that their rhetoric yet again fails to match their deeds.

Tbh, off the top of my head, I can't think of any privatisation that improved services for Joe Public in the long term (unless Joe was a shareholder in the company)

[Peevemor]

There's not much the SNP could do about it (I know WoS can often be pretty biased, this sticks pretty much to the facts).

http://wingsoverscotland.com/thicker-than-water/

[RyeSloan]

Tbh, off the top of my head, I can't think of any privatisation that improved services for Joe Public in the long term (unless Joe was a shareholder in the company)

What services are you thinking about and how do you know that the service has not improved compared to what a publicly owned entity would have done?

As I said I'm not really bothered who owns what, it's the value and cost of the service provided that counts. There seems to be some sort of assumption that a publicly owned entity must be better value as the profits don't go to shareholders and stop there without ever questioning what the costs maybe in having a centrally owned and controlled state alternative.

I think in the end of the day I struggle to get my head around why the state would think it is better at running complex businesses than the industries themselves.

[Geo_1875]

What services are you thinking about and how do you know that the service has not improved compared to what a publicly owned entity would have done?

As I said I'm not really bothered who owns what, it's the value and cost of the service provided that counts. There seems to be some sort of assumption that a publicly owned entity must be better value as the profits don't go to shareholders and stop there without ever questioning what the costs maybe in having a centrally owned and controlled state alternative.

I think in the end of the day I struggle to get my head around why the state would think it is better at running complex businesses than the industries themselves.

You've got to include the social cost of private ownership. If a private company wants to provide a service at lowest possible cost the first hit is workforce. When they get rid of bodies or cut wages the government bear the brunt through payment of benefits. Next they charge more and citizens struggle to pay. That's fine if your producing cars or fridges but when it's necessities like water and power the social impact is immense. Sure, the old nationalised industries weren't perfect but they were ours.

[RyeSloan]

You've got to include the social cost of private ownership. If a private company wants to provide a service at lowest possible cost the first hit is workforce. When they get rid of bodies or cut wages the government bear the brunt through payment of benefits. Next they charge more and citizens struggle to pay. That's fine if your producing cars or fridges but when it's necessities like water and power the social impact is immense. Sure, the old nationalised industries weren't perfect but they were ours.


Your argument is an odd one though so what you are saying is that push come to shove (cut costs to lower prices or keep prices high to support higher costs) nationalised industries should maintain higher costs to the user to support a higher workforce. All to keep people in a job that actually could be done without them, how inefficient a model is that? Would it not be better for those people to be working elsewhere where they are actually needed so they can add value to be economy there rather than me paying more than would really be required to keep them in a job?

Is that not the same argument that would still have hundreds of thousands of people mining hugely expensive coal and making over priced steel? There has to be a better argument for nationalisation than that surely?

[johnbc70]

Tbh, off the top of my head, I can't think of any privatisation that improved services for Joe Public in the long term (unless Joe was a shareholder in the company)

British Airways seems to have done OK, most would happily travel on a BA flight over and above the competition?

[marinello59]

There's not much the SNP could do about it (I know WoS can often be pretty biased, this sticks pretty much to the facts).

http://wingsoverscotland.com/thicker-than-water/

Pretty biased? :faf:

[lucky]

If the SNP came out and said WE chose to part privatise Scottish water and Scotrail as we have got value for money then at least we could have an honest debate around the merits of privatisation. But they always blame someone else for making them do it then again they appointed Michelle Thompson as their business spokesperson so clearly don't care about social justice