Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

3 hours ago, alta-pete said:

Hmm. Not keen too keen on your debating tactics or the language tbf, but to explain in easier to understand terms: 

Prestwick racked up £38M in losses which it wouldn’t have done if there was a viable operator. It would have shut without a £1 buyer. (A side  joke but remember them, Rangers fans?? Eh??) 

It then needs £40M SG support to sustain a proven unviable business.

Much like Bifab, my original point stands. Why support a patently unsustainable business with ££££££millions when plenty Scots are  going hungry and are reliant on foodbanks? 

I agree it’s a simplistic choice but where would you prefer to better spend the public money @Baxter Parp? 
 

There are strategic and non commercial reasons that make it important to have Prestwick open. In terms of aviation security etc it is one of the only airports (the other being stanstead) equipped with the necessary infrastructure to be a ‘designated airport’. 

[Baxter Parp]

3 hours ago, alta-pete said:

Hmm. Not keen too keen on your debating tactics or the language tbf, but to explain in easier to understand terms: 

Prestwick racked up £38M in losses which it wouldn’t have done if there was a viable operator. It would have shut without a £1 buyer. (A side  joke but remember them, Rangers fans?? Eh??) 

It then needs £40M SG support to sustain a proven unviable business.

Much like Bifab, my original point stands. Why support a patently unsustainable business with ££££££millions when plenty Scots are  going hungry and are reliant on foodbanks? 

I agree it’s a simplistic choice but where would you prefer to better spend the public money @Baxter Parp? 
 

How does an unviable business make a profit of £3m? And if you don't like my language, f**k off.

[Baxter Parp]

https://www.tes.com/news/scottish-pupils-among-top-performers-new-pisa-test

Scottish pupils among top performers in new Pisa test

[alta-pete]

4 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

How does an unviable business make a profit of £3m? And if you don't like my language, f**k off.

Well that’s me telt! . 
Go and lend me £40 Baxter? I’ve a business idea and if it all goes to plan I might get you £3 of your initial investment back in six or so years. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

8 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

Well that’s me telt! . 
Go and lend me £40 Baxter? I’ve a business idea and if it all goes to plan I might get you £3 of your initial investment back in six or so years. 

As @Inanimate Carbon Rod points out, there are other reasons for not allowing Prestwick to bite the dust. Let's not also forgot the massive impact on both 1000 employees and the local economy of those people being laid off. 

[alta-pete]

5 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

There are strategic and non commercial reasons that make it important to have Prestwick open. In terms of aviation security etc it is one of the only airports (the other being stanstead) equipped with the necessary infrastructure to be a ‘designated airport’. 

 

12 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

As @Inanimate Carbon Rod points out, there are other reasons for not allowing Prestwick to bite the dust. Let's not also forgot the massive impact on both 1000 employees and the local economy of those people being laid off. 

It’s a perfectly fair point and I get that. The value for money aspect is the bit I was quibbling with. It was a simplistic back up to original point I was trying to make about sinking public money into Bifab when it was plainly unviable - and incapable of becoming so, even with Govt help - in the first place.  

[Baxter Parp]

Well that’s me telt! [emoji23]. 
Go and lend me £40 Baxter? I’ve a business idea and if it all goes to plan I might get you £3 of your initial investment back in six or so years. 

But you're just some schmuck on the Internet, not a long-term investment into an important element of national infrastructure. Do you not see the difference?

[GiGi]

1 hour ago, alta-pete said:

It’s a perfectly fair point and I get that. The value for money aspect is the bit I was quibbling with. It was a simplistic back up to original point I was trying to make about sinking public money into Bifab when it was plainly unviable - and incapable of becoming so, even with Govt help - in the first place.  

If it takes 15 or 20 years to 'break even' on the government loan will it have been value for money or not? Does it need to?

[strichener]

12 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Long before we could borrow the money to invest in such a project.  Fascinating.

£281m budget underspend in 2005/06.  Not so fascinating that there was money available to spend.

[strichener]

23 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

The SNP should spend money because a different party and different government had money it should have but didn't spend?

Eh? I was replying specifically to the insinuation that there was no money 15 years ago to invest in renewables.  Why does every post have to be relating to the SNP?  If we want to look at subsequent years then it wasn't until 2011/12 that the underspend fell below £200,000,000.  So yes the SNP should have spent more money in this area just as the Labour/Liberal coalition before them should have done.

Edited October 23, 2020 by strichener

[Gordon EF]

22 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

The SNP should spend money because a different party and different government had money it should have but didn't spend?

Sturgeon must condemn!!!

[Baxter Parp]

£281m budget underspend in 2005/06.  Not so fascinating that there was money available to spend.

Carried over and spent next year and, as you pointed out, the underspend was lower then. There will be an underspend every year because ScotGov can't overspend. Do you honestly think that money could have created the manufacturing capability you describe in any case? I don't.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

I just mean a publicly owned company would have advantages over the likes of Utility Warehouse who I am with just now. 
If anyone has a recommendation to switch to let me know. 

I've been very pleased with my switch to Octopus [emoji223]

Sent from my MotoG3 using Pie and Bovril mobile app

[strichener]

4 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

7 hours ago, strichener said:

£281m budget underspend in 2005/06.  Not so fascinating that there was money available to spend.

Carried over and spent next year and, as you pointed out, the underspend was lower then. There will be an underspend every year because ScotGov can't overspend. Do you honestly think that money could have created the manufacturing capability you describe in any case? I don't.

So we are agreed that there was money available even without borrowing powers. 

However you are incorrect on the underspend - It was not carried over and spent the following year at that point, it was handed back to the UK Treasury.  In fact when the SNP came to power, they actually reached agreement with the UK to receive prior years underspend back.  This equates to an extra £655m in 2007/8, £300m in 2008/9, £400m in 2009/10, £174m in 2010/11.  

In total over £1.5bln which I do think could have created not just the manufacturing but also the other complimentary skill required for renewables.

[Baxter Parp]

1 minute ago, strichener said:

So we are agreed that there was money available even without borrowing powers. 

However you are incorrect on the underspend - It was not carried over and spent the following year at that point, it was handed back to the UK Treasury.  In fact when the SNP came to power, they actually reached agreement with the UK to receive prior years underspend back.  This equates to an extra £655m in 2007/8, £300m in 2008/9, £400m in 2009/10, £174m in 2010/11.  

In total over £1.5bln which I do think could have created not just the manufacturing but also the other complimentary skill required for renewables.

So what wouldn't have got £1.5 Bn spent on it and why is it not important?

[strichener]

29 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

So what wouldn't have got £1.5 Bn spent on it and why is it not important?

Just checking that I have you right here - Firstly there wasn't any money and the government couldn't borrow to secondly there was money but it wasn't enough to now there was money, it was substantial but it shouldn't have been spent on renewables.  Quite the journey.

It is down to the governement to make spending decisions based on their own prorities and pet projects but let's not claim that there wasn't money available when there quite clearly was.  It therefore comes back to my earlier post that they should have been investing in renewables 15 years ago.

Edited October 23, 2020 by strichener

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, strichener said:

Just checking that I have you right here - Firstly there wasn't any money and the government couldn't borrow to secondly there was money but it wasn't enough to now there was money,

No, it was always there was money but it's been spent. I don't where you're going but I haven't moved.

[strichener]

8 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

10 hours ago, strichener said:

£281m budget underspend in 2005/06.  Not so fascinating that there was money available to spend.

Carried over and spent next year and, as you pointed out, the underspend was lower then. There will be an underspend every year because ScotGov can't overspend. Do you honestly think that money could have created the manufacturing capability you describe in any case? I don't.

 

23 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Long before we could borrow the money to invest in such a project.  Fascinating.

Quote

No, it was always there was money but it's been spent. I don't where you're going but I haven't moved.

 

Ok.

Edited October 23, 2020 by strichener

[Baxter Parp]

20 minutes ago, strichener said:

Ok.

Ok, what has the overspend being eventually spent got to do with not being able to borrow money to create a production chain for wind turbines? Which, by the way, we could not do under EU rules in the first fucking place. You keep thinking you're being clever but you haven't managed it yet.  As ever.

[Baxter Parp]

Day job.