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. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/government-hiding-behind-eu-rules-to-offshore-shipbuilding-contracts-say-union/
Up to a third of chemicals breaching EU safety laws have been found in toys. https://eeb.org/a-third-of-chemicals-break-eu-safety-laws/
The above two took 5 minutes of research. Readers will know of more, I’m sure.
Talking-up Scotland 
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 https://archive.ph/cRxKc 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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was not so much the EU rules that held up the Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol but the court cases of the likes of the Whisky Assoc.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This reader had a wee Google, and found this interesting article on the pro-Brexit Bruge Group blog…
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brugesgroup.com/blog/how-a-legal-mystery-reveals-the-continuing-eu-threat-to-uk-shipbuilding%3fformat=amp
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ll share that. Excellent!
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the button.
LikeLike
Bob
Thank you
There are even methods to properly discard tenders that although the lowest bid can cleverly be binned according to the rules
How
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
LikeLiked by 1 person