Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Surely economics is taught though, is there some kind of scale to decipher who is better qualified or is it down to their own personal 'politics' what works best?

You can take a Uni graduate of economics, or worse, PPE (which is the most common degree amongst political advisors) and they'll all think they are masters of the universe.

And they'll also mostly be incorrect in that assumption.

In general however, my experience of anyone working for politicians (and I've experienced more than I'd care to admit of both politicians and their advisors) is that they rapidly become politicized.

Thinking in 5 year terms. Thinking only as far as moving the polls for the next election. Thinking of short term political gain, and damn the consequences.

I guess that's an inevitable consequence of democracy...

When your job depends on it, you do what is needed to win, and then worry about the next one when it comes..

Leanne1812

kabayiri wrote: »

This is one thing I never quite understood about the pro-indy group.

At the moment, as part of the Union it is in the interest of the 85% of the Union which doesn't live in Scotland to help out Scotland (e.g supporting Oil jobs when revenues are depressed).

There would be no such loyalty post independence however.

Why wouldn't a future rUK government try to attract Scottish business / steer their consumers to rUK stores over the border / poach the best Scottish graduates?

The duty of the rUK government would be only to serve the interests of the rUK people who elect them, surely?

We're going round the mulberry bush again re oil....yes it would have been bad but it is irrelevant now. All I'd add is the uk as a whole have benefitted greatly from oil revenues over the years so they should absolutely be trying to support this industry.



I totally get what you are saying but could it not be turned around too. Why couldn't/wouldn't Scotland do the same with business & consumers. What annoyed me was people actually saying & thinking we'd have no supermarkets, they'd all move south. It was absurd.

kabayiri

Leanne1812 wrote: »

...
I totally get what you are saying but could it not be turned around too. Why couldn't/wouldn't Scotland do the same with business & consumers. What annoyed me was people actually saying & thinking we'd have no supermarkets, they'd all move south. It was absurd.

You certainly could try and outcompete rUK if you aimed for a low tax / small state 'lean' economy, which redirected funds towards creating skill centres in upcoming demand.

But that isn't the model offered by the SNP. They proposed to outspend even Labour in their GE manifesto.

It's difficult for a smaller player to compete with a much larger outfit. For example, Waterstones are never going to grab major market share from Amazon.

LABMAN

Leanne1812 wrote: »

Mostly in an affluent area, just west of Glasgow. They live independently at home, some with family some alone. I have great conversations with them, much reminiscing about their younger days & wartime too which is fascinating. I am half their age but it means nothing, we are all girls together having a giggle.

We discussed the referendum a great deal. I openly shared my intentions but most were more coy. One of my favourite ladies voted no and hugged me the next time I saw her and told me she was thinking of me and was sorry as she knew I would be sad. Fabulous lady.

I was actually born in that area and lived in Highburgh road for years...North Kelvinside, Broomhill, Anniesland, Milngavie or whatever you think may be posh now?


So not like 'el the wan' just maybe one or two perhaps?


Who else do you interact with? and what do they say?

Leanne1812

Waaay past bed time here for me.

Too much to do and so little time left:eek:

Thankfully hubby being an ex chef is on cooking duties Xmas day. I'm commis aka prepper/scrubber/cleaner upper

Goodnight all, thanks for the civilised chat and have a very merry Christmas.

Generali

Leanne1812 wrote: »

We're going round the mulberry bush again re oil....yes it would have been bad but it is irrelevant now. All I'd add is the uk as a whole have benefitted greatly from oil revenues over the years so they should absolutely be trying to support this industry.



I totally get what you are saying but could it not be turned around too. Why couldn't/wouldn't Scotland do the same with business & consumers. What annoyed me was people actually saying & thinking we'd have no supermarkets, they'd all move south. It was absurd.

Who said Scotland wouldn't have supermarkets? That's a ludicrous proposition. Lots of people pointed out that banks would have had to relocate which is true.

Leanne1812

Kab & Lab my eyes are closing....... I will respond just not tonight.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Leanne1812 wrote: »

re oil....yes it would have been bad but it is irrelevant now.

If the Yes campaign had won we'd now be 90 days from some really, really hard financial choices.

At the moment government officials would be choosing who would be made unemployed, who would get their pay cut, which needy and vulnerable people were going to get their benefits cut, which public services would cease to exist, etc.

Had oil not crashed when it did we might have bought ourselves a year or two before making those choices.

And that, I think, is what annoyed me the most.

The absolute lies that were spouted about the economics of an indy Scotland.

Nobody ever, ever said Scotland couldn't survive. We would.

But my God it would have been painful for the vast majority of people, and financially speaking ruined the lives of a heck of a lot of the current generations, without enough time to financially recover.

I totally get what you are saying but could it not be turned around too. Why couldn't/wouldn't Scotland do the same with business & consumers. What annoyed me was people actually saying & thinking we'd have no supermarkets, they'd all move south. It was absurd.

I never saw that.

What I saw was the people noting the facts that prices would rise for goods, taxes would rise, a lot of companies would relocate south, and unemployment would rise.

Those things are not remotely controversial. There would have been a lot of disruption.

I viewed it not as terminal for Scotland....

But as completely pointless for Scotland.

None of the things the Yes campaign were claiming about greater prosperity were economically possible. And the outcomes for ordinary people were much, much worse than was being promised.

The USA survived the Great Depression.

Scotland could survive Separation.

But why the hell would we want to inflict that pain for so little gain?

LABMAN

Leanne1812 wrote: »

We're going round the mulberry bush again re oil....yes it would have been bad but it is irrelevant now. All I'd add is the uk as a whole have benefitted greatly from oil revenues over the years so they should absolutely be trying to support this industry.



I totally get what you are saying but could it not be turned around too. Why couldn't/wouldn't Scotland do the same with business & consumers. What annoyed me was people actually saying & thinking we'd have no supermarkets, they'd all move south. It was absurd.

Find me anything that works giving Scots a better deal by being independent after the oil price collapse?

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Scotland could survive Separation.

But why the hell would we want to inflict that pain for so little gain?

Because of a hatred of the English. There can't be any other explanation.

Only being driven by hate could cause people to want to destroy their own economy.