TWICE! Scottish ministers bend EU rules to protect Scottish jobs just like they do in every other country

Imagine the SNP Government had stuck rigidly to EU regulations on contracts and these ferries had gone to yards other than in Scotland?

Ministers cowardice over EU law leads to massive loss of jobs!

EU regulations are constantly being bent or broken in the interests of ‘national’ industries or, in the UK, against those interests, to break unions and to offshore contracts for lower prices or to please multinational corporations funding certain parties.

Up to a third of chemicals breaching EU safety laws have been found in toys.

The above two took 5 minutes of research. Readers will know of more, I’m sure.


8 thoughts on “TWICE! Scottish ministers bend EU rules to protect Scottish jobs just like they do in every other country

  1. I’d always been baffled what had irked McColl such that he has been pivotal to this propaganda campaign, and concluded he was miffed that he had not made the quick killing he had anticipated.
    Hell hath no fury than a “tycoon entrepreneur” whose gambit failed.

    On reading the Herald article the penultimate paragraph particularly stands out, and “Mediation could not proceed because FMEL had no legal basis for their demands for additional payment” particularly so.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Innovation ferries. Spen d £Millionsto save £Billions. Same as investment in renewables. Investment in child benefit payment. Healthy people mean less isspent on SNHS.

    The EU rules canbe negotiated. If grounds are made. MUP took five years to implement. A case was made on health grounds.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. The Tories are simply throwing mud, knowing some sticks
    The ABC ( BBC ) recent program did not give out the most crucial details
    If what i say next is a fact
    And should the critics know of such then it is shameful behaviour
    So if
    1.Caml had sent a letter of intent to accept tender or award contract to Ferguson Marine
    And or
    Requested Ferguson Marine to confirm their bid
    And or
    Requested Ferguson marine to clarify specific areas of their bid
    All of above is well within the rules and standard practice
    However both parties MUST exercise due care as to how they respond
    It is imperative at this stage that the Tendering process has been fully compliant with the rules
    However once the client in principle accepts a tender
    They are allowed to act as stated above
    The preferred bidder now also be most careful with their responses as one wrong move could result in immediate negation of their tender and being removed from any further involvement such will show as a withdrawn bid once result of tender published
    However when a tenderer is accepted in principle
    Then The Bidder or client can issue or request specifications, drawings etc.
    All so a final award sum can be achieved and contract awarded
    If this indeed the process that was being undertaken
    Prior final award of contract then the mad dogs of the media indeed are truly barking up the wrong tree
    And any contract auditor worth their salt can investigate and report accordingly
    Both Client and Tenderer are well aware of such once preferred bidder / letter of intent reached
    And more than aware that the rules at this stage MUST be duly complied with
    These conditions exist for the purpose of fairness for both parties
    For the contractor who may be bidding for other contracts has to be aware of
    The situation with the tender submitted ASAP when prferred bidder reached as it now completely alters their approach to ongoing or future opportunities
    For the client it then enables proper forward budgeting for the expected
    Contract duration

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Bob
        Thank you
        There are even methods to properly discard tenders that although the lowest bid can cleverly be binned according to the rules
        Well if the client and or their appointed tender consultant experts raise concerns about the lowest bid, Then internal investigation conducted by critical scrutiny of particular items of concern such as the price submitted cannot even cover the cost of material procurement far less plant ,labour and installation costs
        Then the client formally requests the the bidder review his submission and inform asap accordingly, if the bidder then alters his price ( he is not allowed to request additional info) and must reply within a tight time frame. Such automatically disqualifies the tender no matter the price difference between the next lowest bid
        The SG government know all this and are probably deliberately letting the critics make a fool of themselves

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.