Scotland and Greece

IveSeenTheLight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So I'll ask again, if your lofty rhetoric about rebalancing the economy while not enduring austerity is so achievable, why have the Greeks been unable to do it?

Hamish,
You do like to focus on the extremes where it suits you.

I am talking about rebalancing the UK economy to distribute more evenly throughout the country.

Why is it that Scotland (part of the UK economy which is reported to be doing relatively well) is being linked with Greece?

For every argument you make about Scotland being economically unstable, you reiterate to me how the UK government is failing to ensure that the economy works for ALL of it's electorate.

CLAPTON

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hamish,
You do like to focus on the extremes where it suits you.

I am talking about rebalancing the UK economy to distribute more evenly throughout the country.

Why is it that Scotland (part of the UK economy which is reported to be doing relatively well) is being linked with Greece?

For every argument you make about Scotland being economically unstable, you reiterate to me how the UK government is failing to ensure that the economy works for ALL of it's electorate.

Scotland is doing very well, as each family has a £3,000 handout that the people of Yorkshire don't get.

Rebalancing to distribute more evenly would withdraw this immoral handout and share it evenly throughout the UK: who could disagree.


Greece is being linked to Scotland because without the handouts from the English, Scotland would have a massive budget deficient that would require massive cuts in its socialist agenda or massive borrowing : what could go wrong?

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Feel free to scoff: free country and all that but HAMISH's central point is irrefutable really. A fiscally independent Scotland would be bankrupt or facing slashing public services.

The economy would have to grow at China-style rates and from current income levels that simply isn't going to happen.

This point about Scotland's economic failure (remember the stats show that Scotland was the 3rd top region out of 11 in the UK with only London and the South East contributing a higher GDP) we can accept and acknowledge, but it highlights a failure in the UK government to diversify the economy and distribute across the whole of the country.

Essentially, reading between the lines, most of you are saying: -

If you want to be a scrounger, live outside London and the South East.
If you want to contribute, move to the capital.

How would London and the South East cope with the population all upping sticks and moving there?

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

There are indeed Laffer Curve arguments to be made about taxation levels.



Yes it is "very simplistic". If you have a deficit that is too big, you have to deal with it. Relying on some warmed up version of Reaganomics to hopefully dig you out of the hole at some point in the future might work, but there is also a very good chance that the debt will overwhelm you before you even have a chance to find out.

Nobody is talking about not dealing with the debts, just considering how quickly it is addressed.

I am a fully paid up member that we should live within our means and get the deficit and debt under control, I just think there is also merit in understanding that you sometimes need to speculate to accumulate.

There's a saying that money makes money, which is borne from investing in order to accumulate greater wealth. If we ignore that and just cut, we will not grow the country.

antrobus wrote: »

Yes it is "very simplistic".

P.S. My simplistic answer was still more detailed than your simplistic increase taxes or cut spending in order to address the deficit

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Nobody is talking about not dealing with the debts, just considering how quickly it is addressed....

In the UK, we are currently in the position where we had a government that inherited a deficit of 11%, and is going to spend a whole ten years getting it down to zero. A hypothetically independent Scotland that had just seen the falling oil price knock out £3bn of revenue would struggle to maintain that sedate pace of austerity in the face of the markets.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...I am a fully paid up member that we should live within our means and get the deficit and debt under control, I just think there is also merit in understanding that you sometimes need to speculate to accumulate....

The trouble with 'speculate to accumulate' is that it involves speculating; i.e. whereas there is a hope of gain there is also a risk of loss. Personally I think that government should avoid speculating with the fate of nations.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

....There's a saying that money makes money, which is borne from investing in order to accumulate greater wealth. If we ignore that and just cut, we will not grow the country....

There is also a saying that borrowing to speculate is the fastest way to bankruptcy.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

..P.S. My simplistic answer was still more detailed than your simplistic increase taxes or cut spending in order to address the deficit

You are perfectly free to hold that opinion.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

This point about Scotland's economic failure (remember the stats show that Scotland was the 3rd top region out of 11 in the UK with only London and the South East contributing a higher GDP) we can accept and acknowledge, but it highlights a failure in the UK government to diversify the economy and distribute across the whole of the country.

Essentially, reading between the lines, most of you are saying: -

If you want to be a scrounger, live outside London and the South East.
If you want to contribute, move to the capital.

How would London and the South East cope with the population all upping sticks and moving there?

I'm not saying that everyone living outside the SE corner of any England is a scrounger. What I am saying is that London and the SE and SW of England either pay their way or put net into the pot. The rest of the regions take, netto.

You can 'read between the lines'. I prefer to use the phrase, "put words into my mouth".

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

I'm not saying that everyone living outside the SE corner of any England is a scrounger. What I am saying is that London and the SE and SW of England either pay their way or put net into the pot. The rest of the regions take, netto.

You can 'read between the lines'. I prefer to use the phrase, "put words into my mouth".

Generali,
I'm certainly not putting words in y our mouth, nor am I insinuating you label those outwith the SE and London as scroungers.

Certainly, there are many posters in here that determine that everywhere outside of London and the South east are subsidised.

My point is, if the answer lies within London and the South East and nobody can determine a solution which improves the other 9 regions of the UK, then why shouldn't everyone flood to the promised land of London and the South East?

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

In the UK, we are currently in the position where we had a government that inherited a deficit of 11%, and is going to spend a whole ten years getting it down to zero. A hypothetically independent Scotland that had just seen the falling oil price knock out £3bn of revenue would struggle to maintain that sedate pace of austerity in the face of the markets.

I accept that, hence why I am proposing that the region needs to diversify and compete for other markets in order to not be reliant on oil.

My point is that we need to promote a community and economy less dependent on oil.

antrobus wrote: »

The trouble with 'speculate to accumulate' is that it involves speculating; i.e. whereas there is a hope of gain there is also a risk of loss. Personally I think that government should avoid speculating with the fate of nations.

Instead of speculate, you could use the word investment.
I think you'll find that the UK government is investing.
The question is over the level of investment

antrobus wrote: »

There is also a saying that borrowing to speculate is the fastest way to bankruptcy.

Most successful large businesses seek money elsewhere (borrow, stocks etc) as opposed to solely using their own available funds.

Maybe you could cite the best businesses that have not borrowed money to grow?

antrobus wrote: »

You are perfectly free to hold that opinion.

Pretty plain to see that my "simple" suggestion held more options than your single view, so I'm happy to hold my opinion

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I am talking about rebalancing the UK economy to distribute more evenly throughout the country.

What's new? In the 70's Governmental departments were moved to far flung places out of London. The Government of the day can only influence so much. People start businesses so it's entrepreneurs that need to be encouraged.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What's new? In the 70's Governmental departments were moved to far flung places out of London. The Government of the day can only influence so much. People start businesses so it's entrepreneurs that need to be encouraged.

What is the best way to encourage entrepreneurs?

I'd could possibly fashion an argument that the government of today discourage entrepreneurs when comparing legislation of the 70's compared to legislation of the 10's

As for the "What's new?" query, surely you do want to have an improved society, so there should be something new, otherwise, your merely citing the failings to improve over the decades