Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Blackleaf
|
Scots given £3billion too much by generous EnglishSUBSIDY JUNKY SCOTS
The Sunday Times July 23, 2006
Scots given £3bn 'too much'
Jason Allardyce
It's been known for years that England subsidises Scotland. But it's far worse than we imagined - England is giving Scotland £3 billion a year too much at the expense of England's poorer regions.
ENGLAND is subsidising Scotland by £3 billion a year more than it needs at the expense of less affluent English regions, according to an academic audit.
A year-long study by two economists into the structure of subsidies concludes that Scots receive 22% more per head in public spending than England and that this is not deserved because people north of the border are already WEALTHIER than people living in most English regions.
However, contrary to the claims of politicians such as Ken Livingstone, the London mayor, that inhabitants of the capital are losing out, the academics also find that Londoners receive 42% too much in public spending because they earn more than anywhere else in Britain.
The report by Professor David Bell of Stirling University and Professor Sir Donald MacKay, a former economics adviser to the Scottish secretaries for 25 years, was seized on by English politicians. Boris Johnson, the Tory shadow higher education minister, described the spending gap as “intolerable” and demanded that Gordon Brown, the chancellor, change the procedures for distributing money.
Johnson said the 30-year-old Barnett formula, under which the regional distribution of spending is calculated, should be scrapped.
The findings follow a recent poll which found that 70% of English voters believed Scotland’s share of public spending was too high. Since the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, the budget for devolved services, including education and health, has risen from £16 billion to almost £30 billion.
In the health service alone, spending is about £200 a head higher in Scotland than in England. Scots are able to use the extra money to fund free personal care for the elderly and to end upfront tuition fees and university top-up fees.
But Alex Salmond, the Scottish National party leader, dismissed calls for lower public spending. He said Scotland contributed more to the Treasury than it receives, mainly because of North Sea oil revenues.
Scots given £3bn 'too much'
________________________________________________________
Scottish Parliament 'squanders £4.5 billion'
MINISTERS are squandering £4.5 billion of taxpayers’ money every year, according to a ground-breaking audit of public spending in Scotland by two of the country’s most eminent economists.
The independent study, commissioned by The Sunday Times, reveals endemic waste in the public sector and sets out a programme of radical public service reform that would save billions, allowing ministers to slash taxes.
The landmark report, which scrutinises every part of the public sector in Scotland, also reveals that Gordon Brown is giving Scotland £3 billion a year more than it needs, at the expense of several poorer English regions.
The year-long investigation, by Professor David Bell of Stirling University and Professor Sir Donald MacKay, a former economic adviser to the Scottish secretary of state, has sparked a fierce political debate. Some leading English politicians said it was no longer acceptable for Scots to receive up to £2,000 per head a year more than their English counterparts.
In Scotland there were calls for reform to end over-reliance on the public sector and stimulate economic growth.
Bell and MacKay have identified £3.1 billion of waste on top of the Scottish executive’s own planned annual savings of £1.5 billion. The biggest misuse of funds, they say, is in health and education, where the operating costs of NHS boards and schools vary dramatically.
Their analysis proves that plans drawn up by the Scottish Tories and Lib Dems to cut income tax by up to 3p in the pound are affordable. They also called for ministers to abolish business rates to make Scotland’s economy more competitive.
More than £2 billion of windfalls from the privatisation of Scottish Water and the Forestry Commission could fund transport improvements, including a 300mph bullet train link between Edinburgh and Glasgow that would cut the journey time to 12 minutes.
Bell and MacKay argue that doubling Scotland’s budget to £29 billion since devolution in 1999 has failed to improve services. Instead, they claim, it has been used to fund pay rises for public servants.
“The most worrying feature is that we have dissipated a large part of a public spending bonanza without a commensurate increase in the quality of public services,” they conclude. “Most of what Scottish ministers term increased investment in the public sector is nothing more than increased wages and salaries without improvements in service provision.”
Murdo Fraser, the Scottish Tories’ deputy leader, described the scale of the potential savings as “startling”.
“There has been huge waste in public money and these figures throw that into stark contrast,” he said. “The frustration of the last seven years of devolution is that people have seen the amount of money going into the system double during a reduction in services available to them.”
The authors’ claim that the devolutionary settlement is “manifestly unfair to English taxpayers” was endorsed by English politicians last night. In the health service alone, about £200 per head more is spent in Scotland than in England.
If Scotland’s share were based largely on earnings, the funding gap would fall from 22% to £11% and Scots would receive less than people living in poorer English areas such as the Midlands, the northeast, northwest and Yorkshire.
Treasury funding for Scotland is calculated in part by the Barnett formula, which is based on the size of the population. The formula was intended to reduce the spending gap between England and Scotland over time but it has widened.
Boris Johnson, the Tory higher education spokesman and MP for Henley, said the funding gap was “intolerable”. “It is becoming clearer and clearer to people that they are being short-changed. The Barnett formula is producing deeply inequitable outcomes,” he said.
Alex Salmond, the Scottish National party leader, said reducing Scotland’s budget would be “nonsensical”, and that North Sea oil revenues mean Scotland pays £4 billion more into the Treasury than it gets back. “The only change to UK accounting that anyone in Scotland should support is a move towards full fiscal independence,” he said.
A spokesman for Brown said the Barnett formula was fair and there was no plan to drop it.
The Scottish executive said its own targets to save money were “ambitious” and warned that setting them too high could compromise frontline services.
________________________________________________________
Leading article: The £4.5bn question
If the Scottish government ever needs a new slogan it should consider “Easy come, easy go”. The country’s political leaders have been guilty of breathtaking complacency about the way they spend taxpayers’ money, as shown in our exclusive report today by two of Scotland’s most eminent economists. The Scots’ generous share of public spending – up to £2,000 per head more than in England – has long been taken for granted as a kind of manna from the heavens. This in spite of increasingly obvious signals that England’s largesse can no longer be relied upon. Labour’s failure to convince the English regions that they too need devolution has left the UK with some glaring constitutional and financial anomalies that are politically untenable. The Barnett formula’s days are numbered and a new assessment of the needs of all the nations and regions of the UK is only a matter of time. If a new allocation of cash is a fair reflection of Scotland’s needs in relation to other parts of the UK, it would be hard to argue against, even if it entails a less generous settlement for Scotland.
Jack McConnell, the first minister, needs urgently to put Scotland’s house in order before London does it for him. When the inevitable reckoning arrives, it should find Scotland’s finances lean and efficient, and ready to counter any accusation of profligacy. The levels of efficiency in public services fluctuate wildly across Scotland, as illustrated in today’s report. The scope is there to make £3 billion of savings in addition to the £1.5 billion already identified by Scottish ministers. But achieving such savings would require a degree of toughness in dealing with Scotland’s unions and local authorities that has not been shown by successive first ministers. This is a task that McConnell cannot shirk. Prudence with taxpayers’ money is one of the defining virtues of good government, and it is a standard that devolution has failed to meet. Exactly what should be done with £4.5 billion of savings is a tantalising question. Ultimately, a great deal of it might have to be surrendered to the most needy parts of England. In the meantime it is up for grabs, and this prospect is an exciting challenge for Scottish politics. How this cash could be saved, and how it could be used, is one of the weightiest issues facing Holyrood. There will be those, like professors Bell and MacKay, who advocate scrapping business rates in Scotland. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are toying with using tartan tax powers to reduce Scottish income tax. A case can be made for one-off improvements to Scotland’s transport infrastructure. All these options are worthy of debate and each would increase Scotland’s competitiveness. How the parties line up on these issues will reveal their true instincts as well as their vision, or lack or it, for Scotland’s future.
Of course, all of this underlines the case this newspaper has been making for a responsible culture of self-sufficiency in Scottish government. Today’s report illustrates perfectly why the status quo, constitutional and financial, is untenable.
englishdemocrats.org.uk
|
IF Convenor
|
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
|
Firefox
|
*stirs*
*wakes up*
*reads post - looks around a bit*
*goes back to sleep cos it's Blackleaf*
|
Reluctant Hero
|
| IF Convenor wrote: | | ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ |
I was going to respond, but I think you have summed it up perfectly!
|
Morph
|
hmm, not mentioning the English devised Bartlett formula, which is used for this funding which, although even stated by the man himself, doesnt work is still used by this generous english government, or British government when it suits them
|
Babygael
|
Blockheid where dae ye git suich crape fae? Its a wonder ye havenae bin locked up! (Fer yer ain safety ah mean!)  
|
Barny Rubble
|
<<<ENGLAND is subsidising Scotland by £3 billion a year more than it needs at the expense of less affluent English regions, according to an academic audit.
A year-long study by two economists into the structure of subsidies concludes that Scots receive 22% more per head in public spending than England and that this is not deserved because people north of the border are already WEALTHIER than people living in most English regions.
However, contrary to the claims of politicians such as Ken Livingstone, the London mayor, that inhabitants of the capital are losing out, the academics also find that Londoners receive 42% too much in public spending because they earn more than anywhere else in Britain.
The report by Professor David Bell of Stirling University and Professor Sir Donald MacKay, a former economics adviser to the Scottish secretaries for 25 years, was seized on by English politicians. Boris Johnson, the Tory shadow higher education minister, described the spending gap as “intolerable” and demanded that Gordon Brown, the chancellor, change the procedures for distributing money.
Johnson said the 30-year-old Barnett formula, under which the regional distribution of spending is calculated, should be scrapped.
The findings follow a recent poll which found that 70% of English voters believed Scotland’s share of public spending was too high. Since the Scottish parliament was created in 1999, the budget for devolved services, including education and health, has risen from £16 billion to almost £30 billion.
In the health service alone, spending is about £200 a head higher in Scotland than in England. Scots are able to use the extra money to fund free personal care for the elderly and to end upfront tuition fees and university top-up fees.
But Alex Salmond, the Scottish National party leader, dismissed calls for lower public spending. He said Scotland contributed more to the Treasury than it receives, mainly because of North Sea oil revenues.
Scots given £3bn 'too much' >>>
A good point, a very good point indeed – Scotland is getting more than it’s fair share in subsidies more than the poorer parts of England. With the population of Scotland just over the 5 million mark yes it is too much, is Scotland worth that amount no! It’s only natural that the English taxpayer wonders where the money is going. It’s not spent in Scotland that’s for sure with unemployment and Incapacity benefit claimants at an all time high the people of Scotland should be asking where the 30 billions going!
If Scotland does get it’s independence will they, could they expect they same amount for the EU? 
|
Lothian Sky
|
| Barny Rubble wrote: |
But Alex Salmond, the Scottish National party leader, dismissed calls for lower public spending. He said Scotland contributed more to the Treasury than it receives, mainly because of North Sea oil revenues.
Scots given £3bn 'too much' >>>
A good point, a very good point indeed – Scotland is getting more than it’s fair share in subsidies more than the poorer parts of England. With the population of Scotland just over the 5 million mark yes it is too much, is Scotland worth that amount no! It’s only natural that the English taxpayer wonders where the money is going. It’s not spent in Scotland that’s for sure with unemployment and Incapacity benefit claimants at an all time high the people of Scotland should be asking where the 30 billions going!
If Scotland does get it’s independence will they, could they expect they same amount for the EU? |
Well if you want to know, most folk here dont want one single penny "from London". Not one penny. Convincing us we NEED subsidy is what unionism is all about. We DONT NEED IT. Do the Norwegians need subsidised by anyone? How can they possibly survive without the generous English??!!! It's a miracle!!!!
We want to ring our own till. So Blackleaf, why don't you just take a walk. Off a cliff.
|
Cado
|
Well Blackleaf - there is one answer to your complaint and those of Mr Johnston - make Scotland fiscally autonomous.
By putting that split in - it makes the accounting so much easier to assess. At present with all revenue from around the UK going to the Treasury - then it getting doled out using a variety of mechanism - whilst also using other subjective/objective comparisons (ie funding per head, funding based on wealth, funding based of quality of life, funding based on the number of sheep called Nelly living within 1 mile of an oak Tree) - lies, damn lies and statistics.
People on both sides of the discussion can easily conjure up one set of data that 'proves' there point, whilst the other side will conjure up another set of data that 'proves party A is wrong but we're right'. This is something that could go ad infinititum.
Therefore the solution is simple IMO - break things up fiscally, with Scotland being fiscally autonomous and all taxes generated here collected here etc it means all the funding in/out of Scotland will pass through the same 'node' in a fiscal system - it'll all be accounted for far easier with all the ins/outs being registered on one set of books.
This way we can all finally put this question to rest and find out what the true figures are - because with the present murky, overly complex system any leading light/Professor is able to find ANY set of data he'she want and will be able to construct a reasonable sounding argument to prove ANYTHING.
With fiscal autonomy - it'll all become clear and transparent. So everytime I here these issues coming up - I just say "Fiscal autonomy - then we'll find the answer" - since it is the only way to discover the 'truth'.
|
SLG
|
I think Blackleaf and Barney would prefer that all taxes raised in Scotland would continue to go to London for redistribution, and that Scotland would have average 'allocated' spending is reduced to a uniform level throughout the UK. In that way, the rest of the UK would benefit even more and Scotland would lose out even more.
|
Cado
|
That clears up they're starting 'view point' but all they do IMO is highlight the impossible challenge faced by unionists from their strand of unionism (Labour I'm presuming) - its an impossibility to design one fiscal system around such a large and diverse place as the UK.
What about extending the whole principal to the EU - ie common taxes across the whole EU, collected by Brussels, distributed on an 'average' basis.
Theres a thought for you Blackleaf/Barney - a single EU tax/spend structure, what are your thoughts?
|
Barny Rubble
|
| Lothian Sky wrote: | | Barny Rubble wrote: |
But Alex Salmond, the Scottish National party leader, dismissed calls for lower public spending. He said Scotland contributed more to the Treasury than it receives, mainly because of North Sea oil revenues.
Scots given £3bn 'too much' >>>
A good point, a very good point indeed – Scotland is getting more than it’s fair share in subsidies more than the poorer parts of England. With the population of Scotland just over the 5 million mark yes it is too much, is Scotland worth that amount no! It’s only natural that the English taxpayer wonders where the money is going. It’s not spent in Scotland that’s for sure with unemployment and Incapacity benefit claimants at an all time high the people of Scotland should be asking where the 30 billions going!
If Scotland does get it’s independence will they, could they expect they same amount for the EU? |
Well if you want to know, most folk here dont want one single penny "from London". Not one penny. Convincing us we NEED subsidy is what unionism is all about. We DONT NEED IT. Do the Norwegians need subsidised by anyone? How can they possibly survive without the generous English??!!! It's a miracle!!!!
We want to ring our own till. So Blackleaf, why don't you just take a walk. Off a cliff. |
Eh, Are you putting Scotland on a par with Norway? Don’t be bloody stupid! Scotland’s a third world country compared to Norway. Scotland will have to rely on handouts from the EU if they gain independence it will be just be a small “country” sucking up to the likes of England, France, and Germany. In fat Scotland would be worse off! 
|
SLG
|
Services in Scotland may be third world compared to Norway, we may have more social problems than Norway, but the economy is , if anything, stronger. Our problems are due to mismanagement Scotland will prosper as an Independent country just as Norway does.
|
Economist
|
Perhaps someone could explain to me how England can subsidise anything when England can't even support herself? Ignoring Scotland and taking Scotland's "hypothesised" deficit away, there remains a big black hole at the centre of the UK's finances.
In 2005, the UK as a whole had a deficit of £43.7bn equivalent to 3.6% of GDP. Then of course there is the national debt which stands at £525.9 billion as of 2005.
So England subsidises Scotland (or indeed anything). My arse 
Although having a deficit/debt is very usual for a country. No single country in the world has ever been in surplus for any length of time, it would be a freak of nature for any nation to consistently break even, for eternity. In fact it only seems to be Scotland that has to go through economic acrobatics to show that it can be viable. Clearly Britain as a whole and England are not viable as both have debt. Maybe we should apply to join the USA so they could subsidise us. 
Nope, thats out the window, they had a deficit of nearly $500bn in 2005, and their national debt is truly terrifying 
Scotland taking control of its own revenue and expenditures and managing its own debts (which it will have like every other nation in the world including what remains of the UK after independence) will at least get rid of the whines from south of the border that complain (ignorantly of course ) they subsidise anyone.
As the article states even North Sea Oil revenue is magicked away. When oil was first discovered in the 70's, we had to bail out a financially failing England. In the 1980's Thatcher blew it on the dole. Norway of course didn't do any of this and has built up a considerable petroleum fund to benefit future generations. Lucky Norway.
The Union is very bad for you. The sooner it goes, the better. Good riddance as far as I'm concerned.
|
Barny Rubble
|
| SLG wrote: | | Services in Scotland may be third world compared to Norway, we may have more social problems than Norway, but the economy is , if anything, stronger. Our problems are due to mismanagement Scotland will prosper as an Independent country just as Norway does. |
Scotland’s economy is zero level even the SNP know this yes, the SNP are saying they want independence but they are just vote catching. If the SNP wins the day do you think they will go for independence? No! Unless they’re banking on the EU, if this is the case Scotland will still be living on handouts. Scotland won’t have a voice in the EU it will be living off the scraps France, England, and Germany throw to Scotland!
|
azzuri
|
| Barny Rubble wrote: | | SLG wrote: | | Services in Scotland may be third world compared to Norway, we may have more social problems than Norway, but the economy is , if anything, stronger. Our problems are due to mismanagement Scotland will prosper as an Independent country just as Norway does. |
Scotland’s economy is zero level even the SNP know this yes, the SNP are saying they want independence but they are just vote catching. If the SNP wins the day do you think they will go for independence? No! Unless they’re banking on the EU, if this is the case Scotland will still be living on handouts. Scotland won’t have a voice in the EU it will be living off the scraps France, England, and Germany throw to Scotland! |
...and your figures to back up such ludcrous claims?
|
Barny Rubble
|
| SLG wrote: | | Services in Scotland may be third world compared to Norway, we may have more social problems than Norway, but the economy is , if anything, stronger. Our problems are due to mismanagement Scotland will prosper as an Independent country just as Norway does. |
...and your figures to back up such ludcrous claims?
|
garye
|
| Barny Rubble wrote: | | SLG wrote: | | Services in Scotland may be third world compared to Norway, we may have more social problems than Norway, but the economy is , if anything, stronger. Our problems are due to mismanagement Scotland will prosper as an Independent country just as Norway does. |
Scotland’s economy is zero level even the SNP know this yes, the SNP are saying they want independence but they are just vote catching. If the SNP wins the day do you think they will go for independence? No! Unless they’re banking on the EU, if this is the case Scotland will still be living on handouts. Scotland won’t have a voice in the EU it will be living off the scraps France, England, and Germany throw to Scotland! |
Barny
What is it that you want?
You pour scorn on the supposed level of funding Scotland gets through the current settlement but you pour scorn on Independence. So it must be the case that what you want is for Scotland to remain within the Union and get a lower level of funding but without the fiscal powers to be able to manage it’s own finances. And the people of Scotland are supposed to be attracted to that? Why exactly?
|
Barny Rubble
|
| garye wrote: | | Barny Rubble wrote: | | SLG wrote: | | Services in Scotland may be third world compared to Norway, we may have more social problems than Norway, but the economy is , if anything, stronger. Our problems are due to mismanagement Scotland will prosper as an Independent country just as Norway does. |
Scotland’s economy is zero level even the SNP know this yes, the SNP are saying they want independence but they are just vote catching. If the SNP wins the day do you think they will go for independence? No! Unless they’re banking on the EU, if this is the case Scotland will still be living on handouts. Scotland won’t have a voice in the EU it will be living off the scraps France, England, and Germany throw to Scotland! |
Barny
What is it that you want?
You pour scorn on the supposed level of funding Scotland gets through the current settlement but you pour scorn on Independence. So it must be the case that what you want is for Scotland to remain within the Union and get a lower level of funding but without the fiscal powers to be able to manage it’s own finances. And the people of Scotland are supposed to be attracted to that? Why exactly? |
No, what I’m saying is give Scotland independence for the simple reason England would be better off without Scotland. Scotland would be worse off, who could Scotland depend on the EU? The EU is already knocking hell out of Scotland’s fishing industry etc, etc. Scotland’s independence would mean it being a small fish in a big pool. Relying on leftovers!
|
IF Convenor
|
And the EU is able to knock hell out of the fishing industry precisely because Scotland isn't independent. The UK doesn't mind giving away something of Scotland's for some other perceived greater advantage, but can you imagine an independent Scotland doing it?
People like Barny prove themselves to be idiots by turning up on pro-independence sites like this one and trying to convince the members that they need independence by insulting them. If you really want to do some good and further the cause of your independence from Scotland, why don't you go to Unionist sites and argue against the people who really oppose your aim?
|
garye
|
| IF Convenor wrote: | And the EU is able to knock hell out of the fishing industry precisely because Scotland isn't independent. The UK doesn't mind giving away something of Scotland's for some other perceived greater advantage, but can you imagine an independent Scotland doing it?
People like Barny prove themselves to be idiots by turning up on pro-independence sites like this one and trying to convince the members that they need independence by insulting them. If you really want to do some good and further the cause of your independence from Scotland, why don't you go to Unionist sites and argue against the people who really oppose your aim? |
Are there any Unionist sites?
|
IF Convenor
|
In theory there must be... mustn't there?
Maybe you're right.
|
garye
|
Had a quick Google and can't find any.
Says alot about them
|
Barny Rubble
|
| garye wrote: | | IF Convenor wrote: | And the EU is able to knock hell out of the fishing industry precisely because Scotland isn't independent. The UK doesn't mind giving away something of Scotland's for some other perceived greater advantage, but can you imagine an independent Scotland doing it?
People like Barny prove themselves to be idiots by turning up on pro-independence sites like this one and trying to convince the members that they need independence by insulting them. If you really want to do some good and further the cause of your independence from Scotland, why don't you go to Unionist sites and argue against the people who really oppose your aim? |
Are there any Unionist sites? |
Oh, here we go a different opinion than yours and you lose it. No debate everyone has to agree with you how sad!
|
SLG
|
| Barny Rubble wrote: | | Oh, here we go a different opinion than yours and you lose it. No debate everyone has to agree with you how sad! |
Barney, you said:
| Quote: | | Scotland’s economy is zero level even the SNP know this yes, the SNP are saying they want independence but they are just vote catching. If the SNP wins the day do you think they will go for independence? No! Unless they’re banking on the EU, if this is the case Scotland will still be living on handouts. Scotland won’t have a voice in the EU it will be living off the scraps France, England, and Germany throw to Scotland! |
And that was you trying to debate the health of Scotland's economy?
|
garye
|
| Barny Rubble wrote: | | garye wrote: | | IF Convenor wrote: | And the EU is able to knock hell out of the fishing industry precisely because Scotland isn't independent. The UK doesn't mind giving away something of Scotland's for some other perceived greater advantage, but can you imagine an independent Scotland doing it?
People like Barny prove themselves to be idiots by turning up on pro-independence sites like this one and trying to convince the members that they need independence by insulting them. If you really want to do some good and further the cause of your independence from Scotland, why don't you go to Unionist sites and argue against the people who really oppose your aim? |
Are there any Unionist sites? |
Oh, here we go a different opinion than yours and you lose it. No debate everyone has to agree with you how sad! |
Sorry, why is asking if there are any Unionist forums/message boards "losing it" or "stifling debate"?
|
Economist
|
So we've got a zero economy, the SNP and others are not going to offer us independence, yet we should be "given" our independence because we're a burden to England and people "lose it" because they don't share your opinion.
I'm afraid given your above contributions, you are in a sad minority of one somewhere detached from reality. But it is quite amusing nonetheless
|
IF Convenor
|
The mistake you're making, Economist, is applying a rational standard to Fred Flintstone's sidekick. He is, after all, only a cartoon character.
|
Economist
|
|
azzuri
|
|
Wolf of Badenoch
|
Wilmaaaaaaaaaaa!!
|
Blackadder
|
The problem with being pro-Independent ... is ... whose kind of Independence you want to be with. Tory Independence (yes it exists), Liberal Independence (ditto), Labour Independence, Socialist Independence, SNP Independence, Independent Independence ... you see????
As for subsidising Scotland, well ... I suppose I could put it on one of these £2 a month direct debits. See how charitable your betters are???
|
Barny Rubble
|
<<<I'm afraid given your above contributions, you are in a sad minority of one somewhere detached from reality. But it is quite amusing nonetheless >>>
Yes and most informative.
Qui reputo teneo panton teneo nusquam.
|
Anthropos
|
| SLG wrote: | | Services in Scotland may be third world compared to Norway, we may have more social problems than Norway, but the economy is , if anything, stronger. Our problems are due to mismanagement Scotland will prosper as an Independent country just as Norway does. |
This is perhaps the serious point we ought to be debating. Now you say problems are due to mismanagement, and I would agree with you to a point, assuming you hold the political class responsible, which I assume you must because Independence would be a political change not a business change.
Firstly politicians have a role in all this, but it is a limited role: Politicians must not make things difficult for businesses, they must not impede business and should try and make things as easy for them as possible (low taxes, reasonable regulations, sensible levels of public spending etc). For our Holyrood politicians this is no small task, many of these people are not only stupid (and I don't say that for rhetorical effect, many of them literally are stupid), but they have no experience of business having spent their working lives suckling at the teat of the state.
It it is Scottish businessmen (or Scottish based businessmen) who are the actual wealth creators in a nation, not the politicians.
You say "Scotland will prosper as an Independent country just as Norway does", but this is not certain. As an independent nation Scotland may prosper, or it may not, it will depend on how effectively the above combination works. Economic prosperity is no nations God given right, it must be earned. Scotland would have to become a country where it is good to do business, it is not such a place now.
|
Blackadder
|
| Barny Rubble wrote: | <<<I'm afraid given your above contributions, you are in a sad minority of one somewhere detached from reality. But it is quite amusing nonetheless >>>
Yes and most informative.
Qui reputo teneo panton teneo nusquam.
|
Yes ... the expression ...  ... immediately springs most nimbly to mind.
|
SLG
|
| Anthropos wrote: | | This is perhaps the serious point we ought to be debating. Now you say problems are due to mismanagement, and I would agree with you to a point, assuming you hold the political class responsible, which I assume you must because Independence would be a political change not a business change. |
Independence would be a political change. But a major political change that would IMO touch all aspects of society. I also think that Independence just in itself would have many positive benefits for the economy even before we start changing some of the things you mention below.
| Anthropos wrote: | | Firstly politicians have a role in all this, but it is a limited role: Politicians must not make things difficult for businesses, they must not impede business and should try and make things as easy for them as possible (low taxes, reasonable regulations, sensible levels of public spending etc). For our Holyrood politicians this is no small task, many of these people are not only stupid (and I don't say that for rhetorical effect, many of them literally are stupid), but they have no experience of business having spent their working lives suckling at the teat of the state. |
I agree, the quality of politician representing Scottish issues at Holyrood is very lacking. We have not yet had two terms though, I'd expect the quality to get better and the selection mechanism kicks in. The small size of Holyrood limits the amount of quality as well IMO, I presume the number of seats would increase after Independence. I also think that having Parliament with full powers would attract a higher quality of politician. I have a lot of faith that we would get enough things right enough of the time to see our economy move forward at a faster rate than it is doing at present.
| Anthropos wrote: | | It it is Scottish businessmen (or Scottish based businessmen) who are the actual wealth creators in a nation, not the politicians. |
Yes, but I don't think that is where we are lacking.
| Anthropos wrote: | | You say "Scotland will prosper as an Independent country just as Norway does", but this is not certain. As an independent nation Scotland may prosper, or it may not, it will depend on how effectively the above combination works. Economic prosperity is no nations God given right, it must be earned. Scotland would have to become a country where it is good to do business, it is not such a place now. |
No, it's not certain. I think we would have to get things very wrong to make things worse. This though, is the fear that I find holds many folk back from supporting Independence. Better to stay with the under-performing, but stable status quo, than take the risk.
|
Economist
|
| Quote: | | Yes and most informative. |
For yourself maybe. Back here on Planet Earth, no they're not.
| Quote: | | The problem with being pro-Independent ... is ... whose kind of Independence you want to be with. Tory Independence (yes it exists), Liberal Independence (ditto), Labour Independence, Socialist Independence, SNP Independence, Independent Independence ... you see???? |
The process of independence doesn't have to belong to a political party, it doesn't have to belong to the SNP or the SSP or the Greens. The SNP are the only credible party offering it currently. What direction Scotland takes after independence is up to the electorate, like in any other normal independent nation.
| Quote: | | You say "Scotland will prosper as an Independent country just as Norway does", but this is not certain. As an independent nation Scotland may prosper, or it may not, it will depend on how effectively the above combination works. Economic prosperity is no nations God given right, it must be earned. Scotland would have to become a country where it is good to do business, it is not such a place now. |
I agree with SLG, I really don't think things can get much worse. They're not terrible, but they are not good. One thing that is for certain, is that Scotland most definitely WILL NOT prosper in the current set up. We have decades and decades of evidence to support that argument. In fact we've virtually tested to destruction the argument that the Union is good for us economically, and it isn't. It has managed our relative decline, since the end of the second world war.
You are indeed right about the need to become business friendly. But given the lack of policy instruments available to achieve that, I hate to say it the lack of a business-friendly approach is not really the fault of Holyrood. Ever increasing bureaucracy is caused by the three different tiers of government administering Scotland, Holyrood AND Westminster and the EU. Most of the real business incentives (corporation tax etc) are controlled by HM Treasury.
Whatever the calibre of the polticians in Holyrood, and their objectives, I think their effect is actually exaggerated by the media. Anything they do to the Scottish economy (in the devolved setting) really amounts to a little more than window dressing. I don't doubt they've been profligate, but without the powers to put a discipline on them, they can be. I really don't believe it would be the same if they actually had to take full responsibility for Scotland economy, jobs and welfare state.
|
Barny Rubble
|
| Blackadder wrote: | | Barny Rubble wrote: | <<<I'm afraid given your above contributions, you are in a sad minority of one somewhere detached from reality. But it is quite amusing nonetheless >>>
Yes and most informative.
Qui reputo teneo panton teneo nusquam.
|
Yes ... the expression ... ... immediately springs most nimbly to mind. |
Thank you Blackadder - I take it your coming round to my way of thinking. 
|
Blackadder
|
Mr Rubble, first and foremost ... I am LORD BLACKADDER to you (or master, I'm okay with that!) and second, ten thousand English pounds-worth of dynamite could not shift me to your way of thinking.
I am still waiting on your magnum opus, "Independence and how much it's going to cost Jock McTaxpayer"!
|
Barny Rubble
|
<<<Mr Rubble, first and foremost ... I am LORD BLACKADDER to you (or master, I'm okay with that!) and second, ten thousand English pounds-worth of dynamite could not shift me to your way of thinking.
I am still waiting on your magnum opus, "Independence and how much it's going to cost Jock McTaxpayer"!>>>
The latter is hard to comprehend…seeing that approx’ 72% of Scots are not in employment. Hence they rely on the £30billion handout the English taxpayers give them. Independence old chap – is just a mere pipe-dream!
|
Blackadder
|
One hopes that pipe you're smoking contains only highly taxable tobacco and not the illegal stuff. Though judging by your remarks, one suspects you are certainly not on the same planet as those of us who inhabit reality.
72% unemployed. eh? I shall leave you to the tender mercies of Babygael, IF Convener and other irate Scots over THAT little faux pas!
And one must question any "handout" from the South, since it is now a provable fact with the release of documents after the 30 year rule ... that the government of the day conspired to shaft the Scots over the issue of North Sea OIL!
Indeed, due to this act of piracy on a Le Grande scale, did not the Scots (all 5million of them) "subsidise" ... to some extent ... England (and all 50 million of them)??
Forsooth ... it looks like a plot from my forefathers' TV series of my name!
|
IF Convenor
|
| Barny Rubble wrote: | | what I’m saying is give Scotland independence |
| Barny Rubble wrote: | | Independence old chap – is just a mere pipe-dream! |
It's good to see you holding a consistent opinion, Mr. Cartoon. I think it's time you went back to the quarry.
|
Blackadder
|
Bamm! Bamm! Bamm Bamm Bamm! 
|
Barny Rubble
|
<<<It's good to see you holding a consistent opinion, Mr. Cartoon. I think it's time you went back to the quarry.>>>
No, what I’m saying is that I want Scotland to be independent but it’s wishful thinking on my part and yours. Hence the pipe-dream.
|
IF Convenor
|
You are the dreamer, I am working to make it happen. You can thank me after.
|
Blackadder
|
If you're working to make it happen ... I hope you're wearing your dungarees!
|
Wolf of Badenoch
|
| Barny Rubble wrote: |
The latter is hard to comprehend…seeing that approx’ 72% of Scots are not in employment. |
Wonder whit brit rag ye pulled that fae,widnae be Blacheids dailymail.co.uk by ony chance wid it?
|
Barny Rubble
|
| Blackadder wrote: | | If you're working to make it happen ... I hope you're wearing your dungarees! |
|
Barny Rubble
|
| Wolf of Badenoch wrote: | | Barny Rubble wrote: |
The latter is hard to comprehend…seeing that approx’ 72% of Scots are not in employment. |
Wonder whit brit rag ye pulled that fae,widnae be Blacheids dailymail.co.uk by ony chance wid it? |
No the Blairgowrie Advertiser.
|
IF Convenor
|
I'm more of a brain worker, but I do have a full set of personal protective equipment (PPE) - hard hat, safety glasses, ear protectors, gloves, overalls, and steel-toed boots - for those frequent occasions when I have to watch others breaking a sweat.
|
Barny Rubble
|
| IF Convenor wrote: | | I'm more of a brain worker, but I do have a full set of personal protective equipment (PPE) - hard hat, safety glasses, ear protectors, gloves, overalls, and steel-toed boots - for those frequent occasions when I have to watch others breaking a sweat. |
|
Blackadder
|
Breaking a sweat??? I do wish you wouldn't use that peasant terminology ... The only time I do that is when Her Maj goes on a Crazy Day with Nursie (Bernard) in tow!
|
IF Convenor
|
Please pay attention; I do not personally indulge in any sweating, but I am often required to watch others sweat as they do my bidding.
It's one of the perks of my profession.
|
Blackadder
|
| IF Convenor wrote: | Please pay attention; I do not personally indulge in any sweating, but I am often required to watch others sweat as they do my bidding.
It's one of the perks of my profession. |
Your attention wavered didn't it? Nowhere do I intimate that you sweat. I only asked that you do not use those words.
If you do NOT sweat, one surmises that you are unemployed. Are you a professional layabout? Baldrick maintains his uncle Baldred was one.
|
Chookie
|
| Blackadder wrote: | | If you do NOT sweat, one surmises that you are unemployed. |
Oh thou poor, poor Blackadder-type person, dost not know that civilised persons CAN perspire even though such persons (not Mr Rubble, obviously) have employment?
|
Blackadder
|
| Chookie wrote: | | Blackadder wrote: | | If you do NOT sweat, one surmises that you are unemployed. |
Oh thou poor, poor Blackadder-type person, dost not know that civilised persons CAN perspire even though such persons (not Mr Rubble, obviously) have employment? |
Dost not posters actually READ other posters' posts???
This one cannot obviously follow what I, Edmund Blackadder XXVI (of that name), have written.
I KNOW that those of the peasant classes sweat ... as do certain others of higher orders ... when they want to.
I ... like the person known as IF Convenor ... choose not to! And ask that it not be mentioned.
In your own vernacular ... Get it, Tonto??
|
Chookie
|
Tonto?
For wht reason do you imply that I am after suffering from an ailment reserved for the lower orders, the peasantry and the poor bloody English?
|
Barny Rubble
|
| Chookie wrote: | | Blackadder wrote: | | If you do NOT sweat, one surmises that you are unemployed. |
Oh thou poor, poor Blackadder-type person, dost not know that civilised persons CAN perspire even though such persons (not Mr Rubble, obviously) have employment? |
Sir - Thou doth perspire when you hear the word toil…..Jester you are!
|
Blackadder
|
Methinks Mr Rubble has been away from Bedrock too long. Go home to Fred ... he misses your company ... and Betty is having an affair with Wilma. ... and Dino!!!
|
|
|
|