An independent Scotland?

[ronmcd]

I think he sold his family property after his parents died, but maybe I'm wrong. I'll ask him how he still has a vote, but I can't do that until Tuesday. I knew this bank holiday weekend had to have a downside somewhere.

I also wonder if he can vote in Irish elections and referendums.

It's possible he is still on the electoral register under an address in Scotland, and has it setup as a postal vote? But I thought they sent either the postal card or the normal voting card to the address someone is registered at. Dunno.

[mistermack]

Ron, I posted that extract in direct answer to your claim that Scotland was the "most attractive" area for business outside London.
I wondered exactly where you got that from, and it's straight from the SNP front page. So yes, you are quoting SNP uncritically, taking their word for it. And yes, as I showed, it's a pack of lies.
And yes, I mentioned that the page I was quoting was selling Scotland favourably. You can't get past the facts though, can you?
Change the subject why don't you, and yes, jobs have risen. That doesn't make Scotland the "most attractive" for business though, does it? It's clearly not considering the big fall in direct foreign investiment.

The same thing has happened with jobs in the UK as a whole. Jobs have increased, hours worked have decreased.

I made the point that uncertainty would impact on inward investment, you rubbished that point, and I proved that point with figures. You just made bland claims from the SNP blurb.
That's the difference.
Uncertainty WILL have an impact on inward investment. Especially if there is talk of another vote, after this one gets lost.
Not just on foreign companies, but on government. Nobody's going to authorise big government projects, if it's going to end up in the hands of an independent Scotland.
What would you do, if you were a top civil servant?

That's why I suggested there should be a fixed time, before it can be tried again. Otherwise, Scotland will be blighted.

[ronmcd]

Ron, I posted that extract in direct answer to your claim that Scotland was the "most attractive" area for business outside London.
I wondered exactly where you got that from, and it's straight from the SNP front page. So yes, you are quoting SNP uncritically, taking their word for it. And yes, as I showed, it's a pack of lies.
And yes, I mentioned that the page I was quoting was selling Scotland favourably. You can't get past the facts though, can you?
Change the subject why don't you, and yes, jobs have risen. That doesn't make Scotland the "most attractive" for business though, does it? It's clearly not considering the big fall in direct foreign investiment.

Bullshit. I linked earlier in the thread to where the most attractive area for investment came from, I didn't take it from SNP website, and the Ernst and Young report backs that up:

http://politicshome.com/uk/article/5621 ... ering.html

The Ernst and Young report echoes the findings on Channel 4’s renowned factcheck analysis which confirms that outside London Scotland is the leading destination in the UK for Foreign Investment creating more high value jobs in 2010 than were created through foreign investment in London and that foreign investment in Scotland has continued to rise at a time when it is flatlining in other parts of the UK.

Why did you selectively quote the one paragraph from the Ernst and Young report that made a marginally negative case, ie a fall compared to 2010, then ignored the report pointing out the volatility in those numbers being utterly normal in the next line? Followed by paragraphs explaining why Scotland is one of the most attractive areas for inward investment in UK?

You are desperate to nitpick here - Scotland IS one of the most attractive places for investment in UK, according to the Ernst & Young UK Attractiveness Survey. Isn't it?

Hey, maybe I can play this smear game too: you must be part of the "bettertogether" campaign, working for the labour party/tories. How else could you ever hold such views, or ever repeat the facts and reports which support that side of the argument?!(ridiculous smear, isnt it?)

[ronmcd]

I made the point that uncertainty would impact on inward investment, you rubbished that point, and I proved that point with figures. You just made bland claims from the SNP blurb.
That's the difference.

Except there is no evidence of any impact on investment because of the referendum. Where does the report say that?

Given the inherent volatility of annual project numbers, a decline
of 26% is not unusual. Secondly, the fall in 2011 was from a
relatively high level in 2010, which saw Scotland’s equal second
strongest performance (alongside 2007) in any year since
1997. Furthermore, the decline in projects in Scotland in 2011
was actually less severe than that seen in every region of England
except four: London and the South East, where projects rose;
and the West Midlands and the East of England, which suffered
smaller declines.

Even more positively, the reduced number of projects coming
into Scotland in 2011 created more jobs on aggregate than in
previous years, and more than in any other UK region. The 47%
increase in job creation in Scotland between 2010 and 2011
represented the biggest annual boost to Scottish employment
from FDI since 2000, and was only the fifth time since 1997 that
Scotland’s FDI-driven job creation has broken the 5,000 barrier.
This surge in job creation saw Scotland’s share of FDI employment
rise for the second successive year, to reach its highest level since
the EIM’s records began in 1997.

As a result, Scotland topped the UK league in terms of job
creation from FDI in 2011 for the second year running, with
over 2,000 more jobs created than the next-highest region. The
abolition of the RDAs in the English regions and Wales has left
Scotland as the only area of the UK with an equivalent to the
RDAs, in the form of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands
Enterprise and SDI. It seems that SDI’s receptive approach to
grant funding, together with the Scottish Government’s readiness
to intervene to encourage FDI, are yielding results in terms of
projects and jobs.

[mistermack]

I made the point that the Ernst and Young report is hard-selling Scotland. They tried hard to put a gloss on it, just as you do.

Even so, a 26% fall in investment is not insignificant, or "marginally negative" as you want to portray it. It's pretty disastrous.
And you are missing the bleeding obvious, that jobs lag behind investment. You don't get new jobs, the day you commit investment funds.
The very bad 2011 investment performance has yet to be reflected in the jobs numbers.
Simple stuff.

[Santa_Claus]

Uncertainty is never good for business - and I am sure for some companies the Scottish Referendum does affect their plans. However likely that the over-riding uncertainty for most is the British / World economy (for those who don't know - it's in the shitter, and the London Govt can do little more than wait on events.....whilst keeping fingers crossed that the Market keeps on buying British Debt (the catch 22 being that once the Eurozone and the US start getting back on their feet that the UK position will look all the worse - and be an easy target for "the Market").

In any event the "uncertainty" for the Scottish Referendum is already in place, so whining about any is pointless - after the Referendum (whichever way it goes) that certainty returns - whether business likes Independence is probably a swings and roundabouts thing (for some it will be an opportunity - for some it will not be)........my bet is that overall it will be a plus for business simply because the Scottish Govt will then be able to write all the rules to give many businesses an advantage over England - the London Govt will never create a competitor on it's doorstep.

Personally I would be really radical with Scottish tax and aim for a flat tax regime - plus with manufacturing companies on zero tax! (obviously Scotland will lose the revenue from existing businesses - however IMO more than made up from the impact of new companies setting up (and the secondary taxation) but the main gain is from the effects of wider employment for the locals, including the social cost).

The future is only scary if you want it to be.

[ronmcd]

I made the point that the Ernst and Young report is hard-selling Scotland. They tried hard to put a gloss on it, just as you do.

Even so, a 26% fall in investment is not insignificant, or "marginally negative" as you want to portray it. It's pretty disastrous.
And you are missing the bleeding obvious, that jobs lag behind investment. You don't get new jobs, the day you commit investment funds.
The very bad 2011 investment performance has yet to be reflected in the jobs numbers.
Simple stuff.

So you are saying Ernst and Young are SNP apologists too?

Given the inherent volatility of annual project numbers, a decline
of 26% is not unusual. Secondly, the fall in 2011 was from a
relatively high level in 2010, which saw Scotland’s equal second
strongest performance (alongside 2007) in any year since
1997. Furthermore, the decline in projects in Scotland in 2011
was actually less severe than that seen in every region of England
except four: London and the South East, where projects rose;
and the West Midlands and the East of England, which suffered
smaller declines.

[ronmcd]

I made the point that the Ernst and Young report is hard-selling Scotland. They tried hard to put a gloss on it, just as you do.

Incidentally, why on earth are you suggesting Ernst & Young were hard selling Scotland, presumably over the other parts of UK? Their "Attractiveness" (theres that dirty SNP word again!) reports cover the WHOLE of the UK, this particular one pulls out the relevant stats and analysis for Scotland.

[ronmcd]

Uncertainty is never good for business - and I am sure for some companies the Scottish Referendum does affect their plans. However likely that the over-riding uncertainty for most is the British / World economy (for those who don't know - it's in the shitter, and the London Govt can do little more than wait on events.....whilst keeping fingers crossed that the Market keeps on buying British Debt (the catch 22 being that once the Eurozone and the US start getting back on their feet that the UK position will look all the worse - and be an easy target for "the Market").

In any event the "uncertainty" for the Scottish Referendum is already in place, so whining about any is pointless - after the Referendum (whichever way it goes) that certainty returns - whether business likes Independence is probably a swings and roundabouts thing (for some it will be an opportunity - for some it will not be)........my bet is that overall it will be a plus for business simply because the Scottish Govt will then be able to write all the rules to give many businesses an advantage over England - the London Govt will never create a competitor on it's doorstep.

Personally I would be really radical with Scottish tax and aim for a flat tax regime - plus with manufacturing companies on zero tax! (obviously Scotland will lose the revenue from existing businesses - however IMO more than made up from the impact of new companies setting up (and the secondary taxation) but the main gain is from the effects of wider employment for the locals, including the social cost).

The future is only scary if you want it to be.

Indeed, Scotland will be what people make of it if independent. The resources and potential is there to either a)muddle along roughly at the same level as we are now b)improve the country with direct control over the economy c)make things worse.

Everyone from the Economist to C4 to BBC's Stephanie Flanders after looking at the numbers have pointed out that Scotland is not actually subsidised, and could stand perfectly well on it's own, we would be pretty much the same after independence economically. If we accept that, then surely the direction Scotland goes is up to us. Why would we NOT be able to make things better? People will be able to elect the government they want, on radical or timid manifestos.

[mistermack]

Why would we NOT be able to make things better? People will be able to elect the government they want, on radical or timid manifestos.

Yeh, that's right.
A bit like Ireland and Iceland. And the SNP were hard-selling that comparison only a few short years ago.
Your above comment is ludicrously naiive.

What a marvellous job self determination does. How well the local government runs the economy.
Look how "in touch" they are with local needs.
Till they disastrously fuck it up.

But wait, it turns out, they were fucking it up the whole time.
It just took a while to show.

[Santa_Claus]

Indeed, Scotland will be what people make of it if independent. The resources and potential is there to either a)muddle along roughly at the same level as we are now b)improve the country with direct control over the economy c)make things worse.

Everyone from the Economist to C4 to BBC's Stephanie Flanders after looking at the numbers have pointed out that Scotland is not actually subsidised, and could stand perfectly well on it's own, we would be pretty much the same after independence economically. If we accept that, then surely the direction Scotland goes is up to us. Why would we NOT be able to make things better? People will be able to elect the government they want, on radical or timid manifestos.

I dunno how Salmond is selling Independence in Scotland, but IMO the above is what he should be pushing - not by claiming (pre-Referendum) to have all the answers for the future (no one can have), simply that Scotland itself is capable of finding those answers themselves.....or at least as capable as anyone from London.

Be interesting to see if the failed House of Lords reform comes into the equation - would have thought London deciding to keep the chinless wonders and inbreds in power (over Scotland) without a full democratic mandate would be an open goal......

My big fear for Scotland is that Salmond is a Tito figure - all is well whilst he is on the scene, but once he dissapears Scotland is left in the hands of the same sort of folks (greedy and dumber than rocks)who managed to sell Scotland down the river last time.

[ronmcd]

Why would we NOT be able to make things better? People will be able to elect the government they want, on radical or timid manifestos.

Yeh, that's right.
A bit like Ireland and Iceland. And the SNP were hard-selling that comparison only a few short years ago.

What a marvellous job self determination does. How well the local government runs the economy.
Look how "in touch" they are with local needs.
Till they disastrously fuck it up.

But wait, it turns out, they were fucking it up the whole time.
It just took a while to show.

I get it, you want a one world government. Who the hell would want Self Determination, what a disgusting idea. Maybe you should rule us all?

[Santa_Claus]

Why would we NOT be able to make things better? People will be able to elect the government they want, on radical or timid manifestos.

Yeh, that's right.
A bit like Ireland and Iceland. And the SNP were hard-selling that comparison only a few short years ago.
Your above comment is ludicrously naiive.

What a marvellous job self determination does. How well the local government runs the economy.
Look how "in touch" they are with local needs.
Till they disastrously fuck it up.

But wait, it turns out, they were fucking it up the whole time.
It just took a while to show.

You mean like the English were? and the Yanks?

I like the Icelandic approach to the crisis - telling the rest of the world to f#ck off by refusing to write 50 years of IOU's simply to ensure that greedy halfwits didn't lose money. Plus sticking a few folks from the Govt on trial was a nice touch! (strange that the UK has had Public enquiries for pretty much everything - apart from into how, why and by whom the Country was bankrupted). What the Icelanders did was take the long term view (for Anglo Saxons amongst us - that is the stuff that happens after next quarter) and decide to act in the interests of it's own people. Radical huh!

[mistermack]

I get it, you want a one world government. Who the hell would want Self Determination, what a disgusting idea. Maybe you should rule us all?

Good Idea.
But I would just take the obvious solution.
Put the germans in charge of Europe.

[ronmcd]

Indeed, Scotland will be what people make of it if independent. The resources and potential is there to either a)muddle along roughly at the same level as we are now b)improve the country with direct control over the economy c)make things worse.

Everyone from the Economist to C4 to BBC's Stephanie Flanders after looking at the numbers have pointed out that Scotland is not actually subsidised, and could stand perfectly well on it's own, we would be pretty much the same after independence economically. If we accept that, then surely the direction Scotland goes is up to us. Why would we NOT be able to make things better? People will be able to elect the government they want, on radical or timid manifestos.

I dunno how Salmond is selling Independence in Scotland, but IMO the above is what he should be pushing - not by claiming (pre-Referendum) to have all the answers for the future (no one can have), simply that Scotland itself is capable of finding those answers themselves.....or at least as capable as anyone from London.

Be interesting to see if the failed House of Lords reform comes into the equation - would have thought London deciding to keep the chinless wonders and inbreds in power (over Scotland) without a full democratic mandate would be an open goal......

My big fear for Scotland is that Salmond is a Tito figure - all is well whilst he is on the scene, but once he dissapears Scotland is left in the hands of the same sort of folks (greedy and dumber than rocks)who managed to sell Scotland down the river last time.

It's more likely that it's Salmond that will pull back from being the focal point of the campaign, because there are real dangers in one political party - and one man as the media like to pretend - fronting the policy. The YES campaign covers SNP, Greens, non party groups, groups from the other main parties who DO want independence, etc. It's the "YES Scotland" campaign which needs to front it, because the policy decisions about taxation and the economy and everything else will be decided not in 2014 but in 2016 when the first independent election would be held at Holyrood. I'm not even sure the SNP would be favourite to win that election, because they would bleed members into other parties.

The Herald newspaper had a report quoting Scottish Labour, saying their plan is to discredit Salmond personally, make him appear untrustworthy, because he is the most popular politician around. The problem with that - sad - plan is obvious: people wont be voting for Salmond in 2014. They wont even be voting SNP. If the YES campaign can answer the questions, and as you say show that Scotland is capable of deciding it's own path, then the comparison between an optimistic YES and negative NO will be a problem for the NO camp.