Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

Mawah ha ha ha ha ha ... see no Scotland, hear no Scotland , speak no Scotland .... you just cannae make this stuff up

Another own goal there JC

Rinoa

Another fine mess the SNP have got themselves into.

A tender for supplying water and sewerage to many Scottish public bodies has been won, horror of horrors, by English company Anglian water.

The current supplier is a subsidiary company of state owned Scottish Water. But the SNP don't like privately owned utility companies so they continue to delay giving Anglian the contract.

Wonderful stuff.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/01/scottish-ministers-delay-awarding-water-contract-english-company

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Another fine mess the SNP have got themselves into.

A tender for supplying water and sewerage to many Scottish public bodies has been won, horror of horrors, by English company Anglian water.

The current supplier is a subsidiary company of state owned Scottish Water. But the SNP don't like privately owned utility companies so they continue to delay giving Anglian the contract.

Wonderful stuff.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/01/scottish-ministers-delay-awarding-water-contract-english-company

The comments below shed a little more light.

As someone who has family supplied by Anglian Water down south, I can safely say that I am sure their bid is the cheapest.
And it's cheap for a reason. Which isn't to do with efficiency, reliability or good customer service.

And this explains it all in detail. http://sceptical.scot/2015/05/scottish-government-muddies-water-on-privatisation/
However, Jackie Baillie commenting in the article...sadly, usually means an instant dismiss for any interested Scots reader. Especially when she's spouting nonsense about privatisation a la Corbyn. Scottish Water is still publicly owned.

Nicola Sturgeon ‏@NicolaSturgeon 40 mins40 minutes ago .@theSNP has won 6 of yesterday's 7 by-elections (7th still independent). Congrats to our teams & thanks to voters for putting trust in us

And the Tories were 2nd in two of them. I wonder if this is No voters starting to amass behind them due to Corbyn's election as Labour leader. Rather than any Corbyn 'bounce' taking place ? Will be an interesting few months in the lead up to May 16... I hope they drop the 'don't mention Scotland' stance though lol !

Labour MPs told: don't mention "Scotland", talk about Scottish towns and cities instead

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13798664.Labour_MPs_told__don_t_mention__Scotland___talk_about_Scottish_towns_and_cities_instead/

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The comments below shed a little more light.

And this explains it all in detail. http://sceptical.scot/2015/05/scottish-government-muddies-water-on-privatisation/
However, Jackie Baillie commenting in the article...sadly, usually means an instant dismiss for any interested Scots reader. Especially when she's spouting nonsense about privatisation a la Corbyn. Scottish Water is still publicly owned.

And the Tories were 2nd in two of them. I wonder if this is No voters starting to amass behind them due to Corbyn's election as Labour leader. Rather than any Corbyn 'bounce' taking place ? Will be an interesting few months in the lead up to May 16... I hope they drop the 'don't mention Scotland' stance though lol !

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13798664.Labour_MPs_told__don_t_mention__Scotland___talk_about_Scottish_towns_and_cities_instead/

I'm not sure why you reply to posts with information completely irrelevant to the issue. Anyway, I'm sure Nicola will find a way to not select Anglian.

I just wonder what the SNP response would be if Westminster tried to block a Scottish company from an English contract. I think Alex Salmond would explode.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

I'm not sure why you reply to posts with information completely irrelevant to the issue. Anyway, I'm sure Nicola will find a way to not select Anglian.

I just wonder what the SNP response would be if Westminster tried to block a Scottish company from an English contract. I think Alex Salmond would explode.

Because I'm afraid you haven't read past the headline. So I provided you with further information for your perusal. Information which details the entire story from 2005 until now. Since you're obviously deeply interested and keen enough to post articles about this issue on Scottish based threads. I thought you might like more info.

Of course, I understand that may suit your personal narrative and perspective better ( and the Guardian's Severin Campbell ) to boil down complex issues/EU constraints and laws into 'Waaaaah looook the SNP are anti-English, waaaaah'...and if that's the way you like to debate then that's just fine. But I won't be bothering with any hysterics back at you..

This is what newspapers commonly do and it's called 'spin'. It relies on people like yourself not reading things through or finding out the facts for themselves. And then jumping to misinformed conclusions and passing them on to others. You provided a classic example with your Anti-English post.

The SNP aren't worried about Anglican and its nothing to do with if their English or not. At the moment they're sensitive to tenders full stop. Most especially given the air time devoted to Cal Mac and people like Corbyn accusing them of 'privatisation of public companies. And they're right to be sensitive about it, given the amount of column inches Jackie Baillie gets to talk total guff unchallenged.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Because I'm afraid you haven't read past the headline. So I provided you with further information for your perusal. Information which details the entire story from 2005 until now.

Hmmm. Your 'further information' referred to an article in 'The National' a pro SNP newspaper. Their headline was:

"£350m Scottish water deal could go to English supplier accused of tax avoidance."

Now, they could have referred to Anglian as a 'private supplier', fair enough if you prefer state owned suppliers. Or it they could have referred to Anglian as a supplier accused of tax avoidance, again fair enough. But no, the SNP supporting newspaper just couldn't resist mentioning that the company was English.

You either see it or you don't.

Shakethedisease

Rinoa wrote: »

Hmmm. Your 'further information' referred to an article in 'The National' a pro SNP newspaper. Their headline was:

"£350m Scottish water deal could go to English supplier accused of tax avoidance."

Now, they could have referred to Anglian as a 'private supplier', fair enough if you prefer state owned suppliers. Or it they could have referred to Anglian as a supplier accused of tax avoidance, again fair enough. But no, the SNP supporting newspaper just couldn't resist mentioning that the company was English.

You either see it or you don't.

The article I referred you to wasn't written by anyone defending the SNP. In fact it was very critical of the SNP and the way they've handled things. Which is why I linked you to it. It provides a more balanced all round picture of events. Certainly in a bit more depth than 'waaaaah anti-english'.

And you'll notice perhaps that it was a Green MSP, not an SNP one, and a Unison rep that provided and were quoted in 'the National' article ?

Under a headline neatly encapsulating objectors’ views, £350m Scottish Water deal could go to English supplier accused of tax avoidance, ......... Alison Johnstone, Scottish Green MSP, said that “any profits will flow out of the Scottish economy.” Referring back to 1994, Dave Watson, Scottish organiser at Unison, said: “Scots voted for a public water service. They didn’t vote for it to be managed by a private water company in East Anglia.”

http://sceptical.scot/2015/05/scottish-government-muddies-water-on-privatisation/

There are no quotes whatsoever from the SNP mentioning anything about anything English or Anglican. The National is a pro-independence newspaper. Many Green's ( not all ) and other groups are pro-independence too. You've seen what you want to see.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And the Tories were 2nd in two of them. I wonder if this is No voters starting to amass behind them due to Corbyn's election as Labour leader. Rather than any Corbyn 'bounce' taking place ? Will be an interesting few months in the lead up to May 16...

When I commented earlier in the year that I knew several life long Labour voters, who intended on voting Conservative in 2016, you suggested I was making it up. lol. Corbyn may galvanise some momentume for more to shift, but this change I saw, started long before he came on the scene.

Seems to be a common SNP mindset, to view voters in restrictive behaviour profiles. I've even noticed it in a couple of friends who are new SNP supporters recently. Maybe it's the effect of SNP neuro linguistic programming, at SNP group meetings and general spin.

Which if correct , might also explain why you tend to comment in imperious terms ( can't remember the exact word but imperious gives an idea of what I mean) of SNP will, SNP think, SNP aren't worried, Labour voters aren't, etc .

Sort of like a Borg phenomena has taken root. Really odd.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The article I referred you to wasn't written by anyone defending the SNP. In fact it was very critical of the SNP and the way they've handled things. Which is why I linked you to it. It provides a more balanced all round picture of events. Certainly in a bit more depth than 'waaaaah anti-english'.

/

Yes. The basis of the article appears to be that a state owned Scottish Company can't compete with a privately run company from England and the effect that has on SNP credibility. Easy to see why they continue to stall.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

And you'll notice perhaps that it was a Green MSP, not an SNP one, and a Unison rep that provided and were quoted in 'the National' article ? http://sceptical.scot/2015/05/scottish-government-muddies-water-on-privatisation/

Indeed. But the greens didn't produce the article, nor did they write the headline which chose to highlight the English connection.

.string.

skintmacflint wrote: »

When I commented earlier in the year that I knew several life long Labour voters, who intended on voting Conservative in 2016, you suggested I was making it up. lol. Corbyn may galvanise some momentume for more to shift, but this change I saw, started long before he came on the scene.

Seems to be a common SNP mindset, to view voters in restrictive behaviour profiles. I've even noticed it in a couple of friends who are new SNP supporters recently. Maybe it's the effect of SNP neuro linguistic programming, at SNP group meetings and general spin.

Which if correct , might also explain why you tend to comment in imperious terms ( can't remember the exact word but imperious gives an idea of what I mean) of SNP will, SNP think, SNP aren't worried, Labour voters aren't, etc .

Sort of like a Borg phenomena has taken root. Really odd.

Yes I remember you mentioning increased support for Conservative votes. It is good that the major UK Unionist Parties are nibbling away at the SNP.

Re the word you are missing --- I think "supercilious" was the word you were looking for; it's a word I've thought of using a number of times but your subconscious beat me to it!


@Shakey In your reply above about there being no anti-Semitism bias in the selection of a company and the presentation of that bias, or not, in the article. Your point is lampooned by the last two words of the quote which are "East Anglia", there for all to see and read.