| Comment | Part 2 of 2:
> If that happens, the money can then be used on healthcare, education etc.
So how much money is currently going to those things that wouldn't be going to them under a nationalised system? Also, since you've mentioned "oh my, the start-up costs!", you do realise that it would not be as expensive to set up as you think it would be? ScotRail doesn't fire all its staff when the contract changes over - the employees just get transferred to a new company. The train stock are all attached to the operation contract, they're not "owned" by Abellio, they're owned by the entity that is ScotRail, they just rebrand them. The railways and major stations like Central aren't owned by ScotRail so they're not really relevant. In the transfer from a private company to a publicly owned one, the immediate costs are really not that scary. There wouldn't be *no* costs, of course, but the tender is generally the priciest part of the contract transfer. It wouldn't be cheap, but it wouldn't be hugely expensive either.
> Surely that would supercede any ideological concerns over profiteering, wouldn't you agree?
In summary, no, I don't agree, because you're being short-sighted as fuck. Because my desire for nationalisation is not based solely on concerns about profiteering (and you were really sailing past my point if you thought it was). |
|---|