I WAS surprised and dismayed to learn of Highland Council’s decision to award its latest recycling contract to a French company to the loss of the valuable contribution made by Munros of Evanton, a local company if ever there was one.
Perhaps I am missing something here, but it’s puzzling there’s a belief that taxpayers’ cash is better spent out with the region/country rather than recycling it locally. “Best value”. Oh really? What about the lost wages to the local economy, the strengthening of a local contractor’s competitive assets and the cumulative detriment to the local supply chain?
Surely, in cases where it is practicable, our taxes should be spent on building homegrown enterprise within our local economy. This contract will result in around £1.5 million disappearing from the Highland coffers; gone forever into the maw of a giant corporation. This is reverse economic development and it’s going on all over the public sector; often justified by “procurement process rules”.
It’s not enough to simply use cost as the principal criterion by which contracts are judged, rather than considering more deeply the economic and social impact of cash cascading down through our local communities. I don’t buy “we are constrained by the EU procurement rules”. Aye, Jimmy, go ask your European neighbours.
Apart from flawed economic logic behind the decision to award the contract to transnational giant SUEZ, I am led to believe the waste in question will be sent to Newcastle. This is incongruous in the light of the Scottish Government’s pledge to reduce carbon miles. I wonder where that requirement featured in the Invitation to Tender.
SUEZ vs Munros points to two fundamental issues that Scotland had better start coming to terms with if it’s ever going to stand on its own two feet.
Firstly, we need a joined-up economic development policy, focused on building the wealth of Scottish society for the benefit of all. Employed wisely, public-sector procurement is the most powerful economic development tool at a government’s disposal. A contract is of far greater value to a promising enterprise than grants or loans. We have lost sight of this over the last 50 years (not helped by EU regulations). Other countries have not.
Secondly, our taxes need to be spent for the common good, and that means maximising the public spend with local businesses, not burning the cash elsewhere.
This is not a call for isolationism; far from it. It is a call for prudent housekeeping and heightened awareness that we are all in this together.
B Bryan, Inverness
WITH the connivance of the right-wing press and the BBC, the hard Brexit-loving MPs are getting away with dissembling by omission. Such as: repeating that if the EU doesn’t agree to meet our demands on trade we will walk away and pay nothing to exit. This underhand tactic to fool people into thinking it is that easy ignores the EU option of suing the UK, through the international courts, to recover the contractual commitment. Such a turn of events could double the amount already agreed.
In a recent briefing, Prime Minister May implied that leaving the single market would release money to spend on essential services. In reality, assuming there is no cost to a trade deal (which is doubtful) the freed-up amount would be around £120 million per week. Of course Boris Johnson’s £350m (which in fact was only £230m after the automatic rebate, ie £120m, is already under the control of the Chancellor) would be available for the NHS and Education if £110m was withdrawn from infrastructure and agriculture, where is where it is currently spent under EU rules.
Mike Underwood, Linlithgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here