The future of Scottish Water has come into play as part of the Budget negotiations at Holyrood.
Labour has opened the door on talks with other parties about making it into a mutual company, removing it from public ownership and control by ministers.
It would join both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, who were arguing before the May election that around £180m in capital subsidy could be released for spending on other priorities if it were freed up to borrow from the private capital markets.
The new political attraction of mutualising Scottish Water flows from last week's Budget.
With tight spending over the next three years, opposition parties are only able to propose changes to the priorities set out by Finance Secretary John Swinney if they also propose where equal amounts of spending should be cut. The Scottish National Party is against such a move to mutual status, which would remove ministerial control and hand it to customers of its water and sewerage services, while also giving financiers some control through its capital borrowing.
"That's something we've ruled out for this Parliament," said a spokesman.
However, the Finance Secretary faces pressure from the combined forces of the three main opposition parties, who can form a majority between them, now that Labour has said it is open to discussions with the others on how their alternative priorities can be funded. At the weekend, LibDem leader Nicol Stephen raised Scottish Water as the best way to fund spending priorities.
Labour's manifesto last May left it deliberately vague how it would handle the future of Scottish Water.
Public services spokesman Andy Kerr is now conspicuous for his refusal to endorse continued public ownership as the best way to run it, and a spokesman only said that the party is open to the idea in discussions with other parties.
The SNP argued that the complexity of a change of status from public ownership to mutual company would only release savings to the Holyrood Budget in the third year of the next spending round.
A Scottish Government source commented: "It is astonishing that parties which have been in government could make such a suggestion in relation to the Budget, as it shows a worrying ignorance of the budgetary and legislative process. Mutualising water would require separate legislation and a complete restructuring of the company, with no realistic prospect of a single penny being released during the coming spending period."
He went on: "One week on, none of the opposition parties have credibly answered the question of where the cuts would fall if they want to spend more in another area.
"They can't get away with this obfuscation - would it be health, schools, the central heating programme, or free personal care? Responsible opposition requires a hard answer to that hard question."
Over the past few days, the three main opposition parties have been setting out areas of the Budget where they think more money should be allocated.
Tories have said police and drugs rehabilitation should be given more resource, for the LibDems it should be for universities, while Labour yesterday reinforced its calls for skills training and modern apprenticeships to be given a higher priority.
That raises the problem for them of whether they can agree a strategy to pressurise SNP ministers into amending the Budget. Only ministers can propose amendments, though committees can put strong pressure on them to do so.
Labour also complained yesterday that the Scottish Government has failed to give MSPs sufficient detail on spending plans for next year, and the lack of information could lead to delays in scrutinising and passing the Budget Bill.
At the Finance Committee yesterday, Mr Swinney got approval for an amendment to this year's Budget which sees more than £1bn of additional funding for public sector pensions flowing through Holyrood budgets from the Treasury in London.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article