PFI: To pay or not to pay?

Recently I had to make a trip to the local vet to help our poor pussycat Jaffa, yes for the curious among you, he too, like the eponymous orange, is also seedless. The sad mog was constipated and had a compacted one and half pound turd blocking up his bunghole. One deftly administered enema from an overly friendly glove wearing vet and a doxe of cat laxative paste later and he's shitting like a pedigree pooper. So far so icky, the reason I open with this particular scatalogical gambit is that whilst waiting for the vet to probe the cats innards, I met a recently retired former chief executive of a local authority not a million miles from where I live, who was visiting to get his pit bulls nails clipped. 

Having met him professionally on and off over the last dozen or so years, pleasantries were exchanged and mutual friends asked after, all over the cacophany of mewling, barking, squawking and soon to be shitting. Conversation in these instances usually runs dry and before you know it you're discussing weather and holiday destinations. So being a fully signed up member of the awkward bugger squad, I brought up the question of PFI and the local authorities slavish devotion to it during his tenure. Thinking that in his golden years he might be less circumspect in his answers, I mentioned some farcical examples of cost, poor service, delays and the fact that the councils PFI debt was the target for specialist PFI companies keen on the profits that can be garnered from the PFI subordinated debts, Cf passim. These work out at some £20 million per year for the next 31 years, until 2041/42...

Lo and behold there was a grudging acceptance from my fellow vet visitor that PFI had not been the most cost effective method of building or renovating the crumbling schools or leisure centre. In his defence, he uttered the immortal line, 'PFI was the only game in town and there was a lot of pressure from Holyrood to use it'.  

Chummy left his job in 2008, he'd been chief exec through most of devolution and was referring to a Holyrood under the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition. In rebuttal I mentioned that the local authority, unlike the Scottish Government actually has legislative powers to borrow, an avenue deemed particularly sensible for capital costs, when interest rates are considerably lower than PFI interest rates...His demeanour suggested a lack of choice. 


This aspect of  'the only game in town' makes sense, when you look at the article in today's Guardian which pans Westminster Labour under the headline,  Labour government 'ignored cheaper alternatives to PFI'

The headline comes courtesy of the Westminster public accounts committee report which has scrutinised the use of PFI schemes in Englandshire by the Department for Communities and Local Government to provide housing and by the Department of Health to provide hospital support services.

In a quite spectacular display of dribbling amnesia, Margaret Hodge, the Egyptian born multi-millionairess (estimated wealth £50million), former Price Waterhouse senior consultant and commonly regarded as the original architect of PFI, Labour MP  oh and chair of the public accounts committee said: 

" Local authorities and health trusts used PFI because there was no realistic alternative, not because it represented best value for money."
  
" The use of PFI and its alternatives should now be robustly evaluated. Looking back at PFI procurements, the government should also do more to find out where and why PFI works best and capture the lessons. Departments should also do more to ensure they get the best out of existing PFI contracts.

" By bundling together large numbers of PFI projects, private sector investors may use the consequent economies of scale to drive up the value of their interests and generate bigger profits. We are concerned that the benefits arising from these economies of scale are not being shared by the taxpayer.

" At a time when public finances are so tight, government must use the weight of its buying power to negotiate with major PFI investors and contractors a better deal for the taxpayer."

All of which beggars the motherflipping question, what the shitting crikey were Margaret and her Labour cronies doing about it for the 13 long years they were in power?



The  vested interests were given a say, which drew the frankly terrifying response:


'The report drew a sharp response from business leaders, who warned against ministers trying to renegotiate contracts to get a better deal for taxpayers, suggesting that with constrained public finances, the role of PFI could become even more important.'

So in essence, they're saying 'shut up serfs, we are your masters and we will continue to shaft you as much as we want.' 

It's nigh on impossible to see a way out of PFI. Were the Scottish government to start by ripping up contracts, you can see the poor beleaguered banks and corporations being supported by the three Tory parties in Holyrood. I've no doubt when the likes of simpleton Andy Kerr (a former primary school classmate of mine) scrawled his big X on the legal parchments the Banks legal vultures must have guffawed under their powdered wigs at his naivety.

What gives me the twisted brain-wrong of a one-off man-mental is the conundrum, that since we bailed out the banks and we now are the majority shareholders in them we continue to pay those very same banks the PFI interest rates that are crippling our councils. Why? I mean really, WHY? Can anyone tell me why we can't legislate to stop paying these debts?


Hopefully, if the SNP are returned to power in May, we might see some sort of scrutinising committee take a proper look at PFI and the financial scams and trickery the Labour and Lib Dems signed us up to...Although finding an honest chairperson from Labour, Tory or Lib Dems after witnessing theWendy in action this week is as likely as me training Jaffa to flush after pooping...



PS last weeks post on TIME magazine has had the best part of 4000 readers, a few left comments. If anyone wants to comment or even defend PFI please get typing. 

  

Scotland an Independent nation. To be or not to be?

Over the years we've become quite accustomed to Scotland coming top of lists that should shame and embarrass us. A gander at lists on murder rates, alcoholism, drug dependency, poor health, obesity etcetera and there's always a chance that poor wee Scotland will be there or there abouts at the bottom of the pile. 

It's an optimist that doesn't get down about it. In this age of Westminster cuts, job losses, the weather, the crap 'soylent green' food that our supermarkets squeeze out at us, our cringe inducing tv, and our woeful sport, it's a brave chap that thinks Scotland could ever dare to top of any list.

Our Unionist chumrades do a lot to kick aspiration and ambition out of us. We're too wee, not smart enough, not healthy enough, don't have the creativity to make change. Take an interest in the world around us and we're accused of grandstanding or an embarrassment. There's no place in civic Scotland for the 'Big I AM', never raise your head above the parapet, don't take any risk, distrust change, avoid chance, do not pass GO, go straight to jail...


Whenever we attract International attention it's for annoying the big boys, trumpeting our minor achievements and expecting some sort of acclaim...That's why I'm absolutely delighted to announce that TIME Magazine has chosen Scotland to top their list of Top 10 Aspiring Nations.

Claire Suddath writing  in todays TIME says:


" Scotland has been formally joined with England since 1707, when the two nations dissolved their parliaments and united to form Great Britain. Yet despite centuries of being under London's yoke, Scotland still considers itself a separate country and periodically pushes for independence.

The Scottish National Party (SNP), which supports full independence from Britain, formed in 1934 and won its first British parliamentary seat in 1967. In 1999, Scotland elected its first Parliament in nearly 300 years (though Queen Elizabeth II formally began the opening session — maybe to remind them who was boss?). The Scottish Parliament controls domestic policy in Scotland, while Westminster still handles everything else. Because of this, Scotland could ban smoking when the rest of Britain still allowed cigarettes in public places. The SNP won the nation's 2007 parliamentary elections and has periodically urged Scotland to take up a referendum on independence ever since. Even if passed, the referendum would not be binding unless approved by the British Parliament."

Even though some of the aspirant 'countries' are obviously tongue-in-cheek, it's fantastic to see that despite the Westmister establishment determination for the status quo and the media blindly swallowing Unionist propaganda that Scotland's claim for normality is recognised by such an influential journal as TIME.

All we need to do now is persuade those that are blinded by the hypocrisy and propaganda and show that aspiring to be Independent is normal.

Nezavisna Crna Gora - Nezavisna Scotland

Every so often I look at BBC Scotland's response to potentially damaging stories for the Labour party and their lack of reporting and being a fair sort of chap give them the benefit of the doubt. I ponder that perhaps these stories that so inflame my pro-Independence chums are not that big a story, that perhaps we're guilty of being desperate to see an institution we're all share holders in, stand up and give us some unbiased reporting on the latest Labour slip up, faux pas, blatant piece of political chicanery or outright corruption. Sadly, we've become so accustomed to being on the kicking end, that just once it would be nice to see the shoe on the other foot and our viewpoint perhaps get a bit of fair coverage.

The Rami Okasha story, where  former Secretary for the State of Scotland, Jim Murphy's senior aide actively tried to smear a member of the public for having the temerity to submit a Freedom of Information request on the whole Wendygate £995 donations, I felt was something that at the very least deserved a little bit of the notorious grilling that the beebs permanently aggrieved political journalists and morning disc jockeys dish out to their SNP counterparts. Alas not to be, never reported, nothing to see here move along please. After Baroness Dreich and Douglas Murray's deeply offensive anti-Scottish comments on Radio 4's 'Any Questions' I considered the reaction from the English audience as excellent, the majority of the Sutton Coldfield appeared to cheer Murray and Dreich inane dribblings. My thoughts were along the lines of, good let them believe the bollocks these people have just spouted, let the middle England resentment that all of us Scots are alcoholic, benefit scrounging wannabes living off English largesse flourish, let them foster that discontent and actively end the Union from the English side. Let the insults from English BBC grow to such a crescendo that eventually a Scottish voice in BBC Scotland might say enough is enough. Again not to be.
 
Which brings us neatly to the latest Iain Gray farrago. It may not quite be the smoking gun we'd want it to be, but it is something that one might expect BBC Scotland to cover following the Sunday Herald, Scotland on Sunday and Sunday Express coverage. When nothing appeared on BBC Radio Scotland morning news or their online presence. I sent a message to a BBC presenting friend asking if the item would be covered in the news. So far, sadly no reply.
 
I suppose I'm in quite an unusual position in that I have friends who are Montenegrin and I have actually visited this beautiful little country. 

My wife and I met brother and sister Milica and Branko on a beautiful beach on the Florida Keys nearly 20 years ago. We all hit it off, finding shared interests and things to laugh at in a sterile straight laced American atmosphere. Particularly a park ranger who looked remarkably like Leslie Neilson of the Naked Gun movies, who gave Milica and I a ticket for 'failure to wear appropriate swimwear in a swimwear designated area'. She was topless, I was err bottomless... Camping, imported beers, racoon dodging and shrimp gorging are some of my memories of our short time together. Their English was excellent, they had driven from Montreal to the Keys in, if memory serves me correctly, a gas guzzling late 1970's Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan, piloted by Milica's Dutch boyfriend, Johan. 

They were surprised to discover that a few years earlier we had driven through Montenegro en route to Turkey, driving a tiny Fiat Uno. Yes, we did drive it through the Paris peripherique, and no we didn't bump into any black Mercedes...

Our Montenegrin chums were confounded at the news that an Uno could drive that far but were utterly gobsmacked to discover that we'd not only stopped in Titograd but stayed the night, in what was then a featureless town almost enirely devoted to Soviet era architecture.

 
 Over the years Milica and I have kept up correspondence. Thanks to the arrival of the internet, communication is easier, photos and stories are now shared on facebook and by email. Two years ago family illness prevented us from visiting Branko in Montenegro. Milica lives in the USA these days selling exclusive jewellery for one of those companies whose shiny baubles are beyond the reach of 99% of this planets mortals. 

So when Iain Gray, Scotland's own International Man of Misery, put both his size twelves in it by erroneously inferring that Montenegro was involved in 'ethnic cleansing' and made reference to a war crimes tribunal and a peacekeeping mission, I sought Milica's opinion on this slur on her homeland.

She was not best pleased. Milica is not into politics. For your elucidation I've included some of the relevent text from her response below. For the uninitiated CG is an abbreviation of Crna Gora, the real name for Montenegro.

I took a quick gander and that lady from the Embassy had a point. I got a bit irritated when I read his retort so spoke to Mom about it and she said that all it really took was the vote. Yes there had been World Wars, but that didn't have anything to do with independence of CG? What kind of reference was that.. Didn't the rest of Europe suffer through the wars also? geez... The guy yapping on about the crimes and cleansing is an ass who should look up his info a bit better before he spews BS. Uninformed politicians are not my thing as you can see. I usually keep my opinions to myself and don't really like to talk about politics, but when someone is being stupid and since you were asking... :)


Milica goes on to illustrate something that I am sure will bring bells for those of us in Scotland and our relationship with England.

It always irritated me to get clumped in with the neighboring country. I know I don't like to be called something I'm not, which is probably a common thing and is likely what brought about the separation for Montenegrins I suppose... It was one thing to be Yugoslavian. Everyone was united as a country and yet also kept their identity. People were Yugis, and whatever else it was, and nobody really seemed to mind one way or the other, but even then, the people of Montenegro were NOT Serbian. We may have all spoken " Serbo Croation"  throughout the country but we all also spoke our own language and were proud to be who we were. 

When the country started splitting up, and Yugo was done, the Montenegrins were not going to get lumped in with Serbia. The Montenegrins were not Serbian. There is a difference between them and for some reason Serbians always liked to say that Montenegrins were the same thing, but the folks in CG don't feel that way... Obviously or they would not have voted to separate...

It was quite simple and quite fast when it came down to it. The people were ready for it. They just didn't want to do it like savages and waited out there time, then took back their name. We did have our own Royal family before the country was made one based on external war time negociations, so I still don't understand why the Serbians seem to think that Montenegrins should have remained part of their little clump, but oh well... what do I know...



I still think that guy is full of S--t though...
Really irritates me... He should research the facts and look into who was in Den Hague before before he says stupid crap. I always loved how people would write history as they pleased without all the facts... Sort of why I don't get into politics and I don't usually comment on any of it... 

Then again isn't it the winners of a war that write the history books... even if all the details were not correct, and much of what was said during that time was not completely truthful or evenly discussed about ALL sides... BUT I'm not going to get into that now :) It would turn into a long dissertation



The chances are that Iain Gray, in his ignorance intended to sympathise with the people of Montenegro being simply bracketed with other Independent countries who had achieved normalcy. His spin being that Montenegro suffered for Independence, that it didn't just take a bit of baby kissing, some fancy posters and a mere 40 days to settle the will of a people. By conflating that with war crimes, etnic cleansing and UN tribunals he misjudged a wonderful people who have witnessed horrors on their borders, suffered great privation and shown extreme generosity in opening their borders to the suffering. Most of all the Montenegrins I've met are funny and not afraid to poke fun at themselves. Iain Gray owes them an apology for trying to score cheap political points against an opponent who out thinks him at every encounter. Most important of all, when he does find a selection of words that placate Montenegro, BBC Scotland should report it.