Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

elantan

Yep ... we really need to get back to manufacturing more IMHO ... but it needs to be the right kindve manufacturing

I personally feel we have became far to heavy in the service industry and the caring sector ... both of which need looked at

Generali

elantan wrote: »

Yep ... we really need to get back to manufacturing more IMHO ... but it needs to be the right kindve manufacturing

I personally feel we have became far to heavy in the service industry and the caring sector ... both of which need looked at

The trouble with manufacturing is that there are either no jobs or no money in it.

Labour intensive metal bashing only works if you pay your employees a fiver a day, highly automated factories don't employ many people by definition.

TBH, I don't really understand the fetishisation of manufacturing. It's dirty, dangerous, low value adding and pays badly.

elantan

I see what your saying and to some extent I agree ... I'm not talking aabout being manufacturing heavy by any stretch of the imagination, however, I would like to see us building our own wind turbines and boats etc ... we build some boats but I think we could build more ... so we would need a smallish steel industry for that, doesnt have to be huge but it would give control to our country rather than be at the risk of price increases from the likes of China or Spain etc


Nothing big ... just enough

kabayiri

elantan wrote: »

I see what your saying and to some extent I agree ... I'm not talking aabout being manufacturing heavy by any stretch of the imagination, however, I would like to see us building our own wind turbines and boats etc ... we build some boats but I think we could build more ... so we would need a smallish steel industry for that, doesnt have to be huge but it would give control to our country rather than be at the risk of price increases from the likes of China or Spain etc


Nothing big ... just enough

You can't have a small yet economic steel industry, unless you can grab a significant chunk of the specialised steel market.

We already have Sheffield companies still able to win export business, because there is expertise there.

A lot of wind turbine components come from Denmark and Germany. It's wishful thinking to believe this will all shift to Scotland.

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

I see what your saying and to some extent I agree ... I'm not talking aabout being manufacturing heavy by any stretch of the imagination, however, I would like to see us building our own wind turbines and boats etc ... we build some boats but I think we could build more ... so we would need a smallish steel industry for that, doesnt have to be huge but it would give control to our country rather than be at the risk of price increases from the likes of China or Spain etc


Nothing big ... just enough

isn't the majority of scottish ship building commissioned by westminster?

princeofpounds

I think you bring up a valid point ... we should not Base our whole economy on oil ... I spose it's a good job we don't really isn't it

It's true that it is not the only thing that matters in the Scottish economy, although it is important.


It's importance is rather underestimated however, looking at it purely from a % of GDP perspective.


It is hugely significant for Scotland's fiscal position (if one takes the SNP line on how much of that revenue should be attributed to Scotland). I'm not going to go over that ground as it is more intuitive.


However, it is also hugely significant for Scotland's balance of payments. This is a slightly more esoteric economic concept, but hugely important. Scotland runs a trade surplus of 2.7% of GDP. But without oil, that turns into a stonking 10% deficit.


Of course the Scottish government wouldn't produce these figures, so they have been estimated by ESRC research (pg 16 if interested).


http://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dp434v2.pdf


A trade deficit of that magnitude is huge.


Because the balance of payments always has to, well, balance, then Scotland faces two choices. It would either need to attract unheard-of levels of foreign investment (by selling assets, paying huge interest rates etc.) or, more likely, the currency would devalue.


A devaluation would crush the international purchasing power of Scots, preventing them from importing goods and services and thereby forcing a more sustainable balance of payments.


That explains one of the main drivers why the SNP was so keen to keep the pound sterling despite theoretically being an independence party - because they know that in an oil price slump a Scottish pound would have devalued hugely (and the SNP would be out on its ear with a terrible legacy).


Now it's not all bad. A weaker currency in Scotland would have made the country more competitive. Exports would increase and, after the painful recession, growth would be quite sustainable.


What would the country export? Probably agricultural products, hydro power, whisky, some manufacturing (an island on the edge of Europe isn't the place to do much), probably a good amount of intangible exports such as finance expertise (but we aren't talking a new London here, probably things like insurance call centres).


Scottish people would have less computers, cars, bananas, medicine and other imported goods. But employment would be higher, growth higher, the economy more robust to shocks.


The irony is that such a change might actually be quite good for the Scottish economy, if they can accept that the starting point needs to be rebased lower, in international terms.


It works at the moment and is sustainable because there is a mechanism for fiscal transfer between Scotland and rUK.


The SNP suggestion of a Sterling pound zone would probably leave Scotland in the same mess the Euro is currently in, long-term. In fact it is a very similar situation that that which caused all the problems in places like Portugal and Greece (no coincidence they are also peripheral economies in Europe).


In a way, no choice is wrong. But a choice would need to be made one way or the other, a halfway house would just build up catastrophic imbalances.

elantan

My understanding is that sterling was to be a transitional thing ... not for ever ... Sillars actively campaigned against a currency union, a lot of people seem to either forget or not be aware that there were many players in the search for independence. .. I don't agree with with being in Europe for example and would vote to leave ... but I have no issue with EFTA ... roughly the same as other coutries

And all these things really should be hammered out before the next indy ref tbh ... we don't need the distractions

Generali

elantan wrote: »

My understanding is that sterling was to be a transitional thing ... not for ever ... Sillars actively campaigned against a currency union, a lot of people seem to either forget or not be aware that there were many players in the search for independence. .. I don't agree with with being in Europe for example and would vote to leave ... but I have no issue with EFTA ... roughly the same as other coutries

And all these things really should be hammered out before the next indy ref tbh ... we don't need the distractions

The whole currency thing was appallingly handled. AFAICS the policy was to force the English into a currency union. Hmm.....

I felt it reflected the 'cake and eat it' nature of the whole campaign where the SNP tried to claim that a victorious Scotland would be strutting around the world stage demanding and getting whatever they wanted. That was never a likely outcome from a Yes vote.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The whole currency thing was appallingly handled. AFAICS the policy was to force the English into a currency union. Hmm.....

Nah, it was nothing to do with anything English. It was the best of the options available in terms of currency. As far as being torn apart by the media every single option would've been whatever it was. A currency union was the simply the easiest to present and was what the Fiscal Commission recommended at the time.

I felt it reflected the 'cake and eat it' nature of the whole campaign where the SNP tried to claim that a victorious Scotland would be strutting around the world stage demanding and getting whatever they wanted. That was never a likely outcome from a Yes vote.

I'm sure you did ( in terms of 'reflecting').. But then again, you live quite far away and rely on online newspapers for info on Scottish politics.

Mistermeaner

I'm closer and agree with our antipedian poster.

Cake and eat was order of the day - keep the pound, keep the subsidy, have none of the debt. Christ mistermeaner manor could survive as a sovereign state on the basis of snp economics.