Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


A six-year, £500bn bet on the future

View Video
Download Video

Video

Alistair Darling's pre-Budget report: VAT
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 November 2008
THOSE whom the gods wish to destroy, they first load with debt. Yesterday, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, loaded the British economy with the highest level of debt ever recorded – a £512 billion mountain, stretching out to 2015.
Click here to put your questions to the Scotland on Sunday's political correspondent Eddie Barnes

That, and the total for public sector net debt smashing through £1 trillion in 2012-13, are history-making figures.

Amid the leaked cut in VAT to 15 per cent and the leaked rise in tax for the well-off, it was the numbers on debt that visibly shook MPs at Westminster yesterday.

The red-ink numbers dominated a defining Budget of this government that was designed to rally confidence and stimulate spending.

But will it? The 13-month VAT cut will put £12.5 billion into the economy. In "normal" times, a VAT reduction would be a big incentive for consumer spending.

But these are not normal times. Such are household worries about the plunge into recession and the rise in unemployment that it may well take more than a clip off prices to inspire households to spend at present.

Mr Darling's great gamble is that this Pre-Budget Report, boosting the economy by £20 billion over two years, will not only spare us the mother of all recessions but kickstart a recovery in 2010.

That is an astonishingly optimistic projection, with estimates of economic performance markedly more sanguine than those from independent forecasters. And on it is riding a rise in debt to the highest level ever proposed by a UK government in peacetime.

Over the five years from 2008-09 to 2012-13, government net borrowing will soar to £457.6 billion, against the £162.5 billion forecast in the Budget this spring – a near threefold increase.

Over the six years to 2013-14, the total climbs to £512 billion. We will not be back in balance (excluding investment) until 2015 – seven years from now. Meanwhile, public sector net debt sweeps up through the £1 trillion barrier.

If Mr Darling did not seem altogether confident in his delivery yesterday, it is because he had little reason to be.

Not only do these projections assume no more bad news for the next six years, but also that the Treasury's fateful track record in deficit forecasting undergoes a miraculous, 180- degree turn.

For the fact is that every deficit forecast in every single Budget for the past ten years has fallen well short of the actual deficit incurred.

There are many measures in this package designed to help business. In fact, the business lobby got almost everything it asked for, from a suspension of the rise in small firms' corporation tax to a £1 billion small firms' aid package.

But the half percentage point rise in National Insurance contributions will disappoint many.

For Labour back-benchers, there was a strong redistributive tone to the whole package, with help targeted at the less well-off and pensioners. That will help many householders as the recession deepens in the early months of next year.

But for middle-income families on whom the government is now relying to shake off the blues and kick-start a spending recovery, there is little comfort at all.

Indeed, they will feel like sacrificial lambs on the altar of the Chancellor's pledge to keep public spending rising at a rate of 1.2 per cent in real terms over and above inflation and to drive public spending to a new all-time record of £682 billion in 2010-11.

To maintain this public spending growth, Mr Darling is running up more new borrowing than the peak seen under the Conservatives after the 1990s recession and more than under Denis Healey, the Labour chancellor of the 1970s.

Mr Darling said total public sector debt would rise steadily from 41 per cent this year to a peak of 57 per cent of national income in 2013-14. These figures underline the damage that will be wrought on the public finances by the recession.

Tax revenues are slumping – the Chancellor pointed out that corporation tax payments from financial services were likely to be down 35 per cent this year, with stamp duty from house sales also down 40 per cent.

Supporting this debt edifice are some notably higher-than-average forecasts for economic performance in the two years ahead.

Mr Darling announced the largest ever downward revision of his forecasts for 2009 – from plus 2 per cent estimated eight months ago to between minus 0.75 per cent and minus 1.25 per cent. Independent forecasts range up to a contraction of 2 per cent next year.

Whether the package works or not will depend on whether the forecast return to economic growth takes place. Given the scale of fiscal retrenchment predicted for each year, especially in 2010 when VAT goes back up to 17.5 per cent, achieving the predicted growth of 1.5 to 2 per cent is likely to be tough.

The City has responded well so far to rather greater tax rises in future years than had been expected. But after examining the small print, and particularly when external forecasters cast doubt on the growth forecasts, both equity prices and the pound may fall back.

Mr Darling is relying on interest rates remaining very low for the next few years – probably with a base rate of about 1 per cent until at least 2011. He will need the banks to resume lending and also require the world economy to pick up.

Douglas McWilliams, of the Centre for Economics and Business Research, said: "Even when he was standing up, the explanations hardly sounded credible. After the small print was released, the Chancellor's position looked even more unbelievable.

"The headline new higher rate of tax at 45 per cent was presented as if the rich were to pay. Actually, this is expected to raise only £600 million – even on the Chancellor's over-optimistic arithmetic. Our numbers suggest it will be £400 million at best.

"But the big tax hike is for those earning more than £20,000 a year who will pay an extra 0.5 per cent National Insurance contributions and whose employers will pay another 0.5 per cent.

"Despite all this, it is to take five years before the public finances approach balance, and then only on current account. And all this depends on everything going right in the real economy.

"He will have to keep his fingers crossed – and also his toes."

Attention will swing in coming weeks to the government gilt-edged market and to sterling.

For this package is critically dependent on both UK institutional funds and overseas investors buying the truckloads of government debt that are coming on offer.

Mark Oswald, of Monument Securities, commented: "It is very bad that the public finances are expected to return to the current (very poor) levels only by 2015-16.

"Trying to offset some of the VAT cut with a rise in environment (petrol) and sin taxes (alcohol/tobacco) borders on the farcical."


The new measures at a glance

• New tax rate of 45 per cent from April 2011 for people earning more than £150,000.

• Freeze in personal tax incomes from April 2010 for people earning between £100,000 and £139,999.

• Scrapping of personal tax allowances from April 2010 for people earning £140,000 or more.

• National Insurance to increase by 0.5 per cent from April 2011 for employees and employers.

• VAT cut from 17.5 per cent to 15 per cent for 13 months, starting on 1 December.

• Public spending of £3bn on roads, schools and hospitals will be brought forward from 2010-11.

• Tax levy increased on alcohol, tobacco and fuel to counter-balance the VAT cut and hold prices at same level.

• Fuel duty to increase by 2p a litre from 1 December.

• £120 tax handed to 10p tax losers to be made permanent – with further £130 forthcoming.

• £1.20 increase in child benefit to be brought forward from April to January, taking it to £20 for first child and £13.20 for other children (up 65p).

• £60 bonus payment to all pensioners in January.

• Government net debt to increase to 57.4 per cent of the value of the UK economy by 2013-14.

• Economy predicted to fall into recession next year, with growth of -1.25 to -0.75 per cent. But due to bounce back in 2010 with growth of 1.5-2 per cent.

• Inflation forecast to fall from 4.5 per cent now to 0.5 per cent next year.

• Borrowing to exceed £511bn by April 2013.

• Personal tax allowance increased by £440 to £6,745 from next April.

• Working tax credits increased by £90.

• Air passenger duty increased from November 2009, and four bands introduced. Will cost between £12 and £85 per passenger depending on length of flight.

• Car tax to increase by £5 for each band – but penalty of up to £90 for most polluting cars limited to £30, as is bonus for "green cars".


THE PRE-BUDGET REPORT: FULL COVERAGE


Page 1 of 1

 
1

TommyKaye,

UK 25/11/2008 00:07:45
What he didn't say..... alcohol and tobacco

Alcohol duty up 8% from Monday December 1st - HM Treasury

Tobacco duty up 4% from 6PM this evening - HM Treasury

This is dirty maths I accept, but if the VAT cut is 2.5% but the duty cost is 8% and 4% respectively, it suggests that things are going up but have been hidden away.

National Insurance also up.

By the way under Labour 130,000 people are sleeping rough tonight - fantastic people eh.
2

TommyKaye,

UK 25/11/2008 00:08:52
Education Education Education:

DEBT DEBT DEBT

DEBT DEBT DEBT

DEBT DEBT DEBT
3

Forward not Back,

25/11/2008 00:10:34
Watch Labour run to the polls in the spring and then run to the IMF the following year if they manage somehow to win.
4

,

25/11/2008 00:16:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

,

25/11/2008 00:16:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

subrosa,

25/11/2008 00:21:48
# 5

Not in your life. This country's gone to the dogs. I'm taking my savings out of banks and sticking it somewhere sensible where nobody can touch it. This UK government are nothing but thieves.
7

,

25/11/2008 00:25:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 00:29:44


OMG!!

"THOSE whom the gods wish to destroy, they first load with debt"

I hate these 'spooky' bible rants, it is like something out a 'Horror Film'

Better start a 'Praying' you lot included, but I will start, you commentators better follow or you may end-up in the 'Fires' of the Devil!

Lets Pray!!

Forgive me Lord, for I have sinned, I knoweth not,....
...'Alistair Darling' was leading me into sin, I Knoweth not our Scottish Leader could of cared more

I repent 'O' Mighty One!

Amen.




9

The Strategist,

25/11/2008 00:31:26
The FTSE simply followed all the other indexes up. Wait until Tuesday to see the real reaction.

The French and Germans have come out strongly against cutting VAT.
10

Isonomia,

Lenzie 25/11/2008 00:32:19
The lunatics have taken over the UK economy - launch the lifeboats before we sink!
11

,

25/11/2008 00:34:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

SkeptikScot,

25/11/2008 00:35:32
Don't miss the massive High Street sale - starts Monday. 2.5% off everything (except food, books, childrens clothes).

Just look at some of the bargains.

*Plasma TV was £499, now just £488 - save £11

*New suit - was £199, now £194.75, a massive £4.25 off.

*MP3 players slashed from £99.99 to an eye watering £97.87

Get your bargains before stocks run out, they be flying off the shelves!
13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 00:40:55

CU Pal ~11,

Is this why our Salmond Boy, opened the new bridge?


14

,

25/11/2008 00:42:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

SkeptikScot,

25/11/2008 00:42:38
It is our duty to shop until we drop. Monuments will be errected in shopping malls to commemorate those selfless types who, though maxed out, still went over the top into a hail of special offers with faith that "Your country needs you".

On memorial day each year there will be 10 minutes silence, as future generations ponder the sacrifice of the fallen at Silverburn Retail Park and we will forever sing nostaligic songs such as "I've Forgot My Pin Number" and "Wheres My Fiscal Stimu-la-la-la-las".

Never was so much spent by so many, to save a few.
16

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 00:42:51


God! it is getting gloomier on this site by the second or was that, 2.5seconds?


17

,

25/11/2008 00:45:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

TommyKaye,

UK 25/11/2008 00:57:34
Tax raid on £40,000 earners

Cynical tax gestures herald the comeback of old Labour

A TAX rise of £3 a week for the better off was the sting in the tail of a “spend now, pain later” mini-Budget today.

Chancellor Alistair Darling announced a half penny on National Insurance contributions from 2011 plus a new 45p top rate of income tax.

Together with other tax measures, the National Insurance and income tax changes mean everyone earning above £40,000 will be worse off by at least £150 a year.

It will help repay a massive cash injection of £20billion over the next two years using borrowed money. Government borrowing will soar by an unprecedented amount — £300?billion over the next five years, including £118 billion next year.
Shadow chancellor George Osborne said state debt would hit a new record high of one trillion pounds.

The package was welcomed by the stock markets with the FTSE-100 index of shares soaring 9.84 per cent — the biggest one-day rise in history — to close up 372 at 4142.96.

Unveiling a series of giveaways to get Britons spending their way out of recession, Mr Darling gave pensioners an extra £4.55 a week, with the rise to £95.25 for a single person being brought forward to January instead of waiting until April.

Pensioners will also get a £60 one-off payment in January to spend as they like, on top of the £10 Christmas bonus and the winter fuel allowance.

Also accelerated is a big rise in child benefit — up by £1.20 to £20 a week for the first child. As widely trailed, VAT is cut from next week to 15 per cent to get the tills jingling at Christmas.

The lower rate lasts until 2010 — but petrol, cigarettes and alcohol are conspicuously excluded from the bonanza, as their duties will rise by the equivalent amounts. In another boost, the cut for basic rate taxpayers worth £120 announced earlier this year will be made permanent, at a cost to the Treasury of £3?billion a year.

Dozens of spending projects adding up to £3?b
19

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 01:04:50


Now for a Traditional Scotsman News comment,

Lets face it and Like it, or Lump it, we all Know this decrease in VAT will help many, and was a extremely clever move, just before Christmas,
One Hidden but not forgotten help this will give is on our 'Fuel Bills' at this time of the year, especially for the elderly, to whom 'Fuel Bills' are a Burden!, it is a big yes that, "Darling" did well,

Question is!


Is Charlie your "Darling"? :)


20

TommyKaye,

UK 25/11/2008 01:05:26
Income tax hike to drive wealthy from UK

David Murray are you on your way sir your Labour friends have stabbed you in the back now there is a surpsise eh

Thousands of wealthy individuals are readying to quit the UK because of the income tax hike which will bring tax levels to 45% for those earning £150,000 or more, say advisers. Non-domiciled residents, who came under tax pressure last year, may be the first to go.
Wealth advisers have said that the income tax rise, expected to be confirmed later today when Chancellor of the Exchaquer Alistair Darling announces the pre-Budget report, could have "harmful" reverberations for the economy according to senior financial advisers, triggering a mass exodus of the UK's wealthy.
They singled out non-domiciled residents as being the most likely to leave, after already coming under pressure from the UK Government last year when the Treasury announced a £30,000 levy on non-domiciled UK residents who wish to avoid paying UK tax on overseas assets.
"Many of our non-domiciled clients have been saying for some time that when income tax rates hit 45% or more then they would leave the UK for Switzerland, Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore and the US – anywhere with more favourable rates," said Malcolm Cuthbert, managing director of financial planning at advisory firm Killik & Co.
Cuthbert also said he knew of wealthy entrepreneurs who were planning to leave the country because of the tax hike.
He said: “Thousands, if not tens of thousands, will leave the UK. And more to the point, thousands won’t come over in the first place.”
However, he said that while some individuals will leave the country, other will find ways around the tax hike, such as by putting more money in pensions or venture capital trusts and enterprise investment schemes which provide tax relief.
He added: "Overall this is the wrong message for the Government to be sending out to entrepreneurs especially those looking at where they should locate their busines
21

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 01:07:57

Which comment was the worst?

The firey hell of the devil?

Or "Darling" did well?

:)

22

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 01:09:21


Not much point in being sensible, it wont change anything!

23

,

25/11/2008 01:24:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 01:43:52

CU Pal ~23,

Too many "Victor Meldrew's" and "Roy Cropper's"


25

karin.m,

25/11/2008 01:45:59


right first of all brown said no more boom and bust.
and this was all his doing (prudence dont ya know)

then a big bust happened with the banks but it was absolutely nothing to do with him (brown) at all in anyway whatsoever and couldnt have been foreseen.



then he said he wanted to sort out the worlds finances.

then we get him telling us through his chancellor that he is sorting it out?

how can he sort out a problem thats nothing to do with him and couldnt have been foreseen or controlled?


is it just me or does brown and labour have the same affect on the economy that weathermen have on the weather?
26

,

25/11/2008 01:47:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

,

25/11/2008 01:47:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

Dark Lochnagar,

25/11/2008 01:49:04
Ok, let's see if I've got this right. The pound has dropped 25% against the other major currencies so therefore anything which is imported wiil eventually have to rise by the about the same level. Broon has knocked off 2.5% VAT to stimulate spending. DOH:---
29

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 25/11/2008 01:49:12
512 billion to try to keep Labour's trotters in the trough. It's a steal of a deal.
And the English eejits get to own it all come Independence Day.
30

karin.m,

25/11/2008 01:51:22
aye lets spend our way out of debt.

probably be more succesful trying to lift ourselves out of debt by standing in a bucket and pulling on its handle.
31

,

25/11/2008 01:52:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 02:00:39


CU Pal ~31,

"If Brown became head of the SNP mob"

The Bank of Scotland, would have been saved, more the likes!, but in the least, we all have a 'Shiny New Bridge'!

:)
33

,

25/11/2008 02:02:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

,

25/11/2008 02:02:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 02:07:34

Just maybe Salmond has a 'trick up his sleeve'?

We can use the New Bridge, to escape the Fire or flood from Hell, that is in print in this article!,....

.."THOSE whom the gods wish to destroy, they first load with debt."

And not a prayer yet!

:((





36

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 02:10:34


karin ~33,

Your funny! you sound like my DYW at times, but being mature I appreciate a Woman's Humour, :))



37

,

25/11/2008 02:12:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

Edward,

25/11/2008 02:16:46
#33 & #34
And thats to do with Darling and Brown making a mess of the economy
39

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 02:17:49

CU Pal ~34,

"Has he gone into semi-retirement? "Nowhere to be seen"

Being very sensible, for a moment, your comment says Mountains! and you put the,..'Nail-on-the-Head'!

Never in the News!, or Daily Papers! is Salmond,..

..'Jack-the-Lad'?



40

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 25/11/2008 02:18:37
Of course here is the next little unionist strategy emerging ' Scotland can't afford to be indendent as it's share of the UK debt is massive'.

I really do feel for the ordinary people all over the UK being saddled with this huge debt - caused by incompetence on a breathtaking scale. How embaressing having two Scotsman at the helm of this sinking ship.

Complete idiots.
41

,

25/11/2008 02:19:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

Edward,

25/11/2008 02:22:53
How anyone in their wisdom can vote for Brown and Labour? They have made a mess. Scotland will pay through the nose for Brown's ineptitude
Cutting VAT will not make one bit of difference
Raising excise by 8% on Whisky
Raising National insurance
Cutting the Block Grant to Scotland
Raising fuel tax
Fuel cost set to increase as OPEC slash production
Is there actually a point of Scotland retaing the united kingdom, apart frm being a cash cow to the London treasury?
43

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 02:25:11


Dougie Douglas ~40,

'Ahoy there Matey' I see 'Brisbane' in sight!

Don't worry about our "sinking ship", we have travelled this far, we are survivors!

This is why we underestimate ourselves.


44

,

25/11/2008 02:27:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 02:36:04

If you are 'True' to Scotland! one would Never,...
..."underestimate"!

But rebels never do! we see the unseen, we protect, we fight the unjust, we care for our people, we aim the best, for our people, we let them prosper, we protect our people, we do them NO harm, we allow individuality!

Vote Linskaill! you Know it makes sense!

:))

46

,

25/11/2008 02:54:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

,

25/11/2008 02:54:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

,

25/11/2008 02:54:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 03:07:39


Traquir , Alba ~several,

Before I go, because I must, I will put my Mr Sensible Cap on to, comment on your comments.

The biggest problem is, unlike the 70s we have NO rival Party with Guts!

Where Are They All?

Never in the News, Never Anywhere, and this is the Problem!
Never a Word!
This is why Labour will, be here for eternity, Labour have NO Rivals, because their "Rivals" 'Sleep'!


True or False?


50

,

25/11/2008 03:11:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
51

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 03:15:58

If one does not believe in fundamentals as in my comment #49,

Yes! there will never be hope, for change.


52

,

25/11/2008 03:17:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
53

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 03:21:33

Traquir , Alba ~52,

To be fair, I agree!, now that I know the root of your comments,

Catch-up Later.

54

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

25/11/2008 04:12:14
The Traitors of Glenrothes will be happy.
55

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

25/11/2008 04:17:19
The Traitors of Glenrothes have a lot to answer for. Thier cowardice in the face of adversity will be remembered by an unforgiving nation in 2010.
56

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 25/11/2008 05:23:21
10 Years of fiscal mismanagement by pa Broon is now blowing up in his face and what does he do?
He gets his patsy, Darling Trotski to cripple the country for many years to come.
God knows how the tories are going to clear up this mess after the next election.
57

steve 1511,

aberdeen 25/11/2008 06:06:19
WERE DOOMED,DOOMED WITH BROON the gibbering eejit and his lackey darling
58

Jeeemy,

St Andrews 25/11/2008 06:21:49
Can we please get this idea that cutting VAT to 15% will increase spending in the High street out of the way now?
VAT or to give it it’s Sunday name “Value Added Tax” is what it always was a tax that raised revenue subliminally, it is on just about everything and when shopping it is unseen and unnoticed. VAT is easily the easiest and cheapest tax to collect because it is a straight forward tax on turnover, to the man in the street it means absolutely nothing.
The drop of 2.5% again means that nothing will in fact happen to improve sales, this the biggest bluff ever carried out by a Chancellor since Denis Heally introduced the Employment Premium.
This drop of 2.5% will not be passed on in reduced prices it will be used to assist the small business to survive the 6 months after Christmas, when the number of small business going to the wall will go through the roof.
59

Angleland Isover,

25/11/2008 06:48:23
They've lost everything, at rock bottom, it cant possibly get any worse so why not gamble on the only thing you've got left - other peoples futures. The last resort of the desperate man.
60

SouthernSkye,

25/11/2008 07:02:46
I'm worried, worried for the entire UK. These measures are going to make little difference. The degrees of debt Labour (at least we can drop the NuLab tag as they have started to show their true colours again) intend to force upon the UK are frightening.

Chancellors (Governments) are supposed to balance the budget. Over the years borrowing was being reduced. Now we have this!

The cut of VAT but increase of duty on road fuel is a killer. Business can claim VAT back. So, previously, they would claim 17.5% back on fuel. Now the fuel will be the same price due to the duty increase but business will only be able to claim 15% back.
This will increase the price of everything. haulage costs will increase and everything we buy involves some sort of transport.

Unfortunately the tories do not seem to be able to put together good counter statements. I see better arguements on here than the Tories come up with.
61

Captain Fantastic,

Anywhere but here 25/11/2008 07:06:09
Every government screws the economy at some point. It's just a question of degree. The star performers at it are the Labour party. I've lived through three Labour economic meltdowns - Wilson in the 60's, Wilson/Callaghan in the '70's and now Broon in the noughties. Except this meltdown is going to be even more spectacular. Forget Maggie's 3 millions, true unemployment is going to be nearer 6 million in 18 months. Which is why we just had this panic budget statement. Broon is just hoping he can stave of disaster (disaster for him, not the country)by fooling the dumb shyts that voted New Labour to do so again in a few months. This is going to be the mother of all depressions. Get your savings out the country now. They'll be worthless in two years.
62

getinnnn,

Scotland 25/11/2008 07:07:23
Time to start stocking up on spam I think
63

Royster,

25/11/2008 07:20:14
#40. Yep, There goes all economic hope of Scottish independence. Scotland will never be able to pay its share of the debt. One barrel of oil is now currently worth half of a tube of Smarties (minus the blue ones).
64

Royster,

25/11/2008 07:24:03
Labour has 'rick-rolled' the SNP to the tune of 14 billion quid. That's quite a few barrels of oil.
65

Ubi,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 07:25:13
At the risk of spreading fear and alarm, have the borrowing projections ever been right?
66

,

25/11/2008 07:30:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 07:39:57
You can't spend your way out of a recession. Browm got it wrong £500 billion times it seems.

What is heartening is reading comments supporting Brown. It's great that people can just tear up everything and start again and give Brown £500 billion of their money to do it.

The most costly second chance in history i would imagine.

How could Scotland possibly do any worse under independence, the unionists must start asking just what IS the union worth to Scotland and how much will we have to keep paying to maintain the worst economy in Europe?
68

,

25/11/2008 07:42:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

,

25/11/2008 07:44:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
70

Phil C,

25/11/2008 07:48:15
Like any gambling, the Brown/Darling strategy is very risky. It's ok to lose what you can afford to lose but here we have the government betting all our futures on a one-trick pony. I'd guess the odds of success are about 33-1.

Yes we need to strengthen our position. Yes the government have put us in a worse position than any other country. But do we still have to stand back and watch our inheritance p*ssed away by these chancers. The economy will come round when the global outlook improves. It's as well that the rest of the world have been a bit more prudent than the Westminster gambling club.

Can we please, please breakaway from these lunatics at Westminster and manage our own affairs in a smaller, more stable economy based in the real world.
71

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 07:50:17
Nice to see the English broadsheets finally ripping into Brown, the Telegraph calling him an international laughing stock...here is just a snippet:

Talking of which, have another look at Brown’s valedictory Budget speech in March 2007. It was a masterpiece of self-deluding hubris. Warning lights were flashing across the economy but not, it seems, in Downing Street.

Despite rising fuel costs, higher taxes, the turn in house prices, and millions of personal balance sheets hopelessly over-stretched by credit, he pounded a bruised electorate with examples of his administrative brilliance.

“We will never return to the old boom and bust.” Wrong. “Looking ahead to 2008 and 2009, inflation will also be on target.” Wrong.

“In 2008, alongside North America, our growth will again be the highest in the G7 — between two-and-a-half and three per cent.” Wrong. “Our fiscal discipline is the foundation of the strength of Britain’s finances.” Wrong.

“Britain’s net borrowing … as a per cent of our national income … in the future years to 2011-12 will be 2·4, falling to 2, and then falling to 1·8, 1·6 and 1·4 per cent.” Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

“The [borrowing] figure for this year and future years will be £35 billion … then 34, 30, 38, 26 and 24 billion.” Not even warm. When Alistair Darling delivers his Pre-Budget Report on November 24, he will have to admit that next year’s borrowing will be about £100 billion. It took the Prime Minister a decade to wipe out a handsome legacy, but he got there in the end.'
72

,

25/11/2008 07:52:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
73

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 07:53:05
What is staggering are the unemployment figures.

When Labour came to power the figure was 2 million.

Predicted next year to be 3 million with 2.7 million claiming incapacity benefit (not included in umemployment figures)..the total will be 5.7.

Staggerng!
74

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 25/11/2008 07:54:21
#64 Daniel Rober

I have to disagree. What is required is a boost to consumer confidence, 2.5% is simply too small a figure to change consumer sentiment andpurchasing decisions - 5% or 10% yes, 2.5 - miserly and ineffective.

This is a half-baked too-late attempt to stimulate, far better actually giving people money as they have done here in Australia>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudds-10b-golden-goose/2008/10/14/1223749999940.html

The ineptitude of the labour party really knows no depths, clearly the Aussies understand that one of the primary drivers of consumption is spreading wealth from the bottom up. Not a cent has had to be spent proping up a bank as they were properly regulated (and even though we live in the same planet as the USA too)

Don't prop up banks that have made poor commercial decisions, literally give it the poorest and have a 'trickle up'
75

yockel,

25/11/2008 07:58:03
Look on the bright side. Darling has given us until 2011 to get ourselves, our money and our businesses out of the country, that's plenty of time.

Mind you if you don't hurry there will be nothing of value left to take with you.

That goes for those of planning to stay and vote for independence too.
76

,

25/11/2008 07:59:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
77

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 25/11/2008 08:01:03
Hi Nevsky

Yip, I saw a program on telly in April last year which set out what was going to happen, very clearly.

Brown obviosuly swallowed his own hype and ignored advice that would have offered.

That is ,simply, incompetence
78

Royster,

25/11/2008 08:02:39
Looks like the union is here to stay. Now what's Alex 'Iceland is the way forward' Salmond doing?
79

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 25/11/2008 08:03:23
Whay are the scottish media not hanging these guys out to dry?
80

,

25/11/2008 08:05:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
81

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 25/11/2008 08:06:29
Royster your 'arguments' (ahem) as bankrupt as your beloved union.

Iceland is basically a city state and one example of the arc prosperity. Here's some other ways forward - Norway, Sweden, Denmark.

Surely a more valid comparison would be countries that are the same population and have the same resource profile - that ain't Iceland is it?
82

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 08:08:39
80 Royster#

Ireland and Norway seem to be doing ok in fact the UK is next to Iceland as the worst and mostdebt ridden country in Europe.

Your comparison with Iceland to the UK is spot on, unfortunately not in comparison to Scotland.

Ireland doing just fine and as for Norway..well not too many problems there.

Royster, as they are saying with regard to sterling across the world..it's SELL SELL SELL!
83

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 08:12:14
79 Dougie#

Hi there.

Brown was in charge as chancellor, knew all of the senior bankers personally, wined and dined with them and had the whole of the treasury to advise him on what was happening.

He knew exactly the gamble he was taking and he lost the most spectaculor gamble in Bitish History.

Don't worry about the media in Scotland they will continue to fawn over him but the Englaish are more astute generally, they will rip him to pieces as the imcompetant liar that he is.
84

Iain's,

Barcelona 25/11/2008 08:20:42
Back to the economics that brought Thatcher into power!

Old Labour never forgets and never learns.

The vat cut is supposed to help small businesses...they are NOT supposed to pass it on.

Regarding electrical goods, they are all going to increase in price because of the low value of the pound.
I'm glad that I live in Spain, our government may be Socialist but at least they are not STUPID!


85

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 08:22:32
84 Nevski
"Ireland doing just fine"

On what basis do you make this judgement. Look at these parts of a report in the Irish Times on November 4th :

"THE EUROPEAN Commission has said it will recommend opening an excessive deficit procedure against Ireland because of its spiralling budget deficit."

"In the summer there was a big surprise for everybody how the public finance position in Ireland deteriorated very, very rapidly," said Mr Almunia. "It is obvious now that the forecast is published that we will start the procedures for an excessive deficit procedure."

The commission is forecasting an Irish budget deficit of 6.75 per cent of GDP in 2009, which is a quarter of a percentage point more than the Government's recent forecast. It also predicts the economy will contract by 1 per cent in 2009."
86

The Glasgow Ranger,

Edinburgh. 25/11/2008 08:24:02
Increase in air passenger duty slipped in as well.
87

Rodster,

Glasgow 25/11/2008 08:25:24
Thanks to Brown and Thatcher before him iin the Uk we produce hardly nothing.
most goods for consumers , electrical , clothes , toys ,cars etc are made in Europe , China , India .
The £ has collapsed by 30% therefore does not take a genius to work out the cost of imported goods will rise by similar amount .
Therefore a 2.5% discount on these through VAT will not make these goods attractive to buy.
If it was that simple the Xmas Sales (already begun) would do the trick .
Scrapping VAT completely from Oil based products and Heating fuels would have put real money in everybody's pocket.
This is another smoke and mirrors .
Ask yourself an Ipod for example was £117.50 now £115.50 would that make you rush out and buy????
This is an unmitigated disaster, yet again a Labour Party has left UK PLC in the brown poo (pun intended!)
88

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 08:27:03
84 Nevski
PS : You should also note that as part of the measures to reduce the deficit the Irish govt. had already taken the following measures :

Removal of free health care for those over 70 meaning that now less than 30% of the population can visit a GP without having to pay.

Increasing the charge made at accident/emergency units to 100 euros

+ many more.
89

TWC,

25/11/2008 08:28:48
36 Charles Linskaill,
If you vote New Labour this is what you get, in fact while our Finances are controlled at Westminster we cannot break this cycle. (And save the Union)
Even before the latest steps to take us to £118 Billion the New Labour debt was out of control this is just a way of hiding it behind some old Labour policies(too Late). We need a big change in Scotland

64 danielrober, this is a sticking plaster over a gaping wound, only the Cash flow proposal will work.
The banks are the only answer.
90

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 25/11/2008 08:40:21
Making money cheap again will not resolve the problem.

Any extra cash the individual/family get will be used (if they have half a brain) to service/clear thier debts.

This cash will not enter the economy through retail but will be put back to the lenders which will then be lent back out with interest.

In order to help people, the cycle of debt must be broken. This can only be done by being frugal. It cannot be done by borrowing more money.

I have a horrible gut feeling this will fail and it will be the ordinary Joe/Joe-ette that will suffer.

Suicide rates will go up, domestic abuse rates will go up and every other rate will go up.
91

Rodster,

Glasgow 25/11/2008 08:40:45
Further to my post at 89, the hike in fuel duty of 2p will offset any increase and by forcing up delivery charges to retailers will make it even less likely that any price cut will be passed on to the consumer.
see times article
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/pbr/article5225998.ece
92

Grant,

Scotland 25/11/2008 08:50:32
It looks like the "Economic case for the Union" has just died.

That and the "Scotland will be economically stronger as part of the glorious and patriotic Union!"

Laughable, empty words now. Schadenfraude? Na, not a bit of it....
93

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 08:53:07
94 Grant
Your second sentence has been put in quotation marks. Who are you quoting?
94

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 08:53:56
90 George#

The UK economy is predicted to shring by 1.5% George..worse than Irelands predicted slump and they still have higher average earnings per person than in the UK.

The UK has been warned by the IMF about it's debt figures repeatedly..Brown takes no notice of this of course.

You aredesperate scouring the internet for bad news from Ireland to prove what exactly? They have scrapped the free healthcare card...so those who can afford to pay will pay and those who can't wont!

They still have means testing in England don't they? People forced to sell there homes for personal care..so what is your point?

How many banks have Ireland lost George? Has the Bank of Ireland been forced to move to Lindon and all of the jobs with it? I think not!

You must try a little harder to defend your beloved UK.
95

Donnie Murdo,

Western Isles 25/11/2008 08:58:31
Ugly George @95

He's quoting Anon Onionist.
96

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 25/11/2008 09:03:10
This Pre budget farce is to me absolute proof that the UK Government live in a fantasy world of their own making. If they think people are going to start spending they are in for a very nasty shock when they suddenly realise the absolute opposite is true. The VAT reduction will have one effect, Retailers will need to work twice as hard over christmas to reconfigure their prices, they won't have the time to sell owt and nobody will be buying anyway. Two of the main things people enjoy more of over the festives have increased in price so we are being punished for celebrating christmas and new year.Food aint affected although it is much more expensive now than it has been so it looks like a jolly Merry Christmas for absolutely nobody.
97

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 09:09:23
96 Nevski
Why do you discuss these issues by ascribing to me points I do not make. Let us deal with what you I say not what you imagine or invent that I say.

You stated clearly that Ireland is "doing just fine" in post 84.

I have provided you with clear evidence that demonstrates that this is not the case. Rather than accepting this you merely invent views that I have not voiced and ascribe them to me. And you have the temerity to accuse me of being desperate.

Still I suppose that is mild compared to your assertion yesterday when you accused me of being a BNP sympathise once again ascribing to me views which I have not expressed.

Is this your usual debating technique - refusing to accept that you have made an obviuosly incorrect point and then trying to justify it by inventing points made by others.

98

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 09:11:21
"This drop of 2.5% will not be passed on in reduced prices it will be used to assist the small business to survive the 6 months after Christmas, when the number of small business going to the wall will go through the roof."

I made exactly the same point yesterday. Although we see the big job loss figures it is the 5, 10 and 20 jobs in these small to medium businesses that are the real reason for rising unemployment. The cut in VAT is primarily aimed at keeping SMEs in business - thus reducing the chances of mass layoffs due to these sorts of business closure. There were also other measures that would assist in this aim, particulalry in improving business cash flow:

* The planned increase in the small companies' rate of corporation tax - worth £400m - has been deferred for a year

• Empty properties will be exempt from business rates over 2009/10, as long as they have a rateable value of less than £15,000 - which counts for around 70% of empty properties

• Legislation is planned to give businesses more time to pay certain backdated business rates bills issued before 31 March 2010

• UK small businesses will also get around £4bn of lending from the European Investment Bank (EIB) between 2008 and 2011, with £1bn before the end of this year

* A Small Business Finance Scheme is to be set up to support up to £1bn of bank lending, together with another guarantee facility for up to £1bn of bank support to small exporters

• Businesses in financial difficulty will be able to spread payment of their tax bills over an indefinite time period

(to be continued)
99

Queen D,

Glasgow 25/11/2008 09:12:22
It's smoke and mirrors , and if anyone believes that the wealthy will be paying for this then they are more than naive , they are stupid.
As a little aside ,it seems there is a website looking for scottish comment.
Its called biased-bbc.
Go look for the scottish version because I'm absolutely hopeless when I write web addresses.
100

jackhobbs,

glasgow 25/11/2008 09:13:11
Labour Governments always but always run out of money and then they tax everyone to the hilt. In these troubled times for private companies the 'well honed socialist supporters' in local authorities are still going on strike for more money !!! Then the real problem for Scotland is that John Swinney can now blame the Labour Party for the inevitable rise that is required in council taxation thus getting himself 'off the hook' again.
101

Rodster,

Glasgow 25/11/2008 09:15:41
Ugly George , however you dress this up UKPLC is up the swanee.
Labour have yet again screwed up the British economy after inheriting a huge surplus from previous Westminster government.
We don't live in Ireland or Australia alas we live here , although i for one am giving serious consideration in following so many of my countrymen and getting out of this corrupt and now bankrupt country that is the UK
102

Sparky,

Hamilton 25/11/2008 09:16:07
Cut in the rate of VAT. Keep hold of your till receipt from the supermarket this week and then compare it with the same items after the rate cut. I think you will find the prices are exactly the same.
Remember when Gordon Brown used the term Fiscal Prudence in every sentence.
103

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 09:17:06
100 George#

Ireland's GDP debt ratio around 30%, the UK with PFI and bailout cash around 127%.

Compared to the UK..Ireland is indeed doing 'just fine'.

I am not stating that things could not get worse for either Ireland or the UK in fact if international money dries up (and the UK is now a very high risk for lenders) things could get a whole lot worse.

The point i am making is that independent countries get along fine and in Ireland's case better than the UK for at least the time being.

Like i said your fanatic defending of a political economy that is the worst in Europe is laughable, just hwo could Scotland do any worse.

So you have no case to make i am afrad and like i said you should really consider the BNP as our natural home if it is only the union you want to defend along with your Britishness.

Politicall, for Scotlans, you make no sense whatsoever!


104

Darien,

Panama 25/11/2008 09:20:31
Scotland needs to get off this UK Titanic as quickly as possible. We are heading for financial meltdown far worse then anyone imagines - and far more severe than most other 'developed' nations. There is no British dividend, only massive liabilities. The union will end the same way it started - with a banking crisis. Lets hope Scots voters develop a bit backbone come general election day.
105

SlyFifer,

Somewhere south of Fife 25/11/2008 09:22:29
I watched this mini budget unfold and was highly disappointed that once again, this was a slap in the face for Scotland.
Tinkering with VAT then raising the excise duty on fuel and whisky will hit Scots fairly hard when the oil price begins to rise again next year. 29p a bottle might not seem too much but it sends once again all the wrong signals to consuming countries who see the UK clobber our national product with excessive taxes.
So, in the after budget analysis I waited with baited breath for the SNP response. Where were they ?. Nowhere to be seen. This is totally unacceptable. What Scotland needs is a party of enterprise who can adequately respond on Scotland's behalf and re-buff this London originated nonsense.
106

everything you do is probably a Balloon,

25/11/2008 09:25:39
109 ?

How does the rise in local tax on whisky affect exports ? And frankly if you think that is scotlands main concern then we have a problem.

I'm an onionist, and I was pleased to see that onions still remain reasonably priced.

107

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 09:29:24
107 Nevski
You are at it again - inventing points I have not made.
You accuse me of "fanatic defending" of the UK economy. On what basis do you make this accusation. I have made critical comments on these threads of Gordon Brown's handling of the economy. How on earth can you call this "fanatical defending" - that is only in your imagination.

You talk to me about my "beloved UK". I have not made any comment that could lead to that assertion.

And now you say that the BNP is my "natural home". The BNP is based on a principle of ehtnic nationalism. Please scan all my comments and try to find one which suggests any form of support for this concept. There are none.

If you actually read what I say as opposed to what you imagine I say you will realise that all I have done is point out the inaccuracies of points made by others. For having the temerity to question the validity of your assertions I am supposed to be a "fanatic" BNP sympathiser. Is that the level of your argument.
108

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 09:30:30
(#101 continued)

Clearly this budget is both economic and political. I am not saying that it is right but it is clear to me the strategy that Labour are following:

* Convince the electorate that US banks and sub-prime lending is responsible for the crisis

* Keep repeating the mantra that "the Tories would do nothing"

* Paint the Tories as being out of touch with other political parties (of all hues) in other countries

* Resort to some good old fashioned bribery - in this case for pensioners, families and those earning under £40,000 - a majority of the electorate

* Keep SMEs from going to the wall with the measures outlined in #101 - and thus slowing down the unemployment rise

Labour knows that the electoral math is in their favour. They know that if they can get up to the same polling level as the Tories - around 40% - they will win the election. The Tories on the other hand need a 9-10% lead to win overall. This budget has been designed to divide and rule - to force the Tories to take a diametrically opposing view. Labour believes it can win by appealing to its own core vote.

(to be continued)

109

Calum10,

25/11/2008 09:31:17
£500 Billion borrowed over the next 5 years. £1 Trillion in UK debt. £40,000 debt for each and every family.

What a mess!

We will paying for this debt for many a year. Some will pay with losing their jobs. Some will pay with losing their business. Some will pay with reductions in their pensions. All of us will pay with higher taxes.

What an absolute mess!
110

Ugly George,

25/11/2008 09:32:38
105 Rodster
"however you dress this up UKPLC is up the swanee"

What comments have I made that could possibly be construed as attemting to "dress" up the UK economy.

As I said in post 111 I have been critical of Gordon brown's handling of the economy on these threads.
111

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 09:34:49
114 George#

But it's all still worth paying to stay in the union George of that there is no doubt.

In fact you would sell your slippers if the union asked for it.

Just how could Scotland do any worse?
112

Alan B,

25/11/2008 09:36:25
Problem is not matter how you dress it up you simply cannot trust labour to run the economy particularly not when Brown who caused many of the problems is at the helm.

This is a political budget and not an economic one. Bringing in a political budget at a time of economic crisis is very dangerous and very high risk and will probably end in tears. But for labour and brown he might just be able to conn enough ejits to vote for him and bankrupt the rest of the country.
113

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 09:36:34
(#112 continued)

In Scotland Labour will fight an entirely different campaign. They will fight this as an opposition by attacking core SNP policies. The SNP still try to fight elections as the opposition and, as we saw in Glenrothes, that is no longer the case in Scotland. The consequence of at least one policy contributed to their downfall there. The council tax freeze may be nationally a popular move but at a local level councils are finding it hard to implement. It was easy for Labour to attack the local Lib Dem/SNP coalition for charges for local services - charges I believe are a direct result of freezing the Council Tax. If they want to avoid this issue happening again then serious consideration is going to have to be given to the block grant levels that councils receive. That in itself may have implications for funding other Scottish Government priorities. Something will have to give - and it will not be the Council Tax freeze. I would expect some other SNP policy to be delayed or even abandoned altogether to keep their flagship policy intact.

Another issue for Labour is undoubtedly independence. I have been derided here for pointing out that Labour would try to use the global financial crisis and events in countries such as Iceland for their own political benefit. Whether events in Iceland (or Hungary, Ukraine etc) have a direct correlation to Scottish independence is irrelevant (I personally don't think they do). The perception is that they do and the SNP have only themselves to blame. Salmond set himself up for a fall with his Arc of Prosperity speech. The SNP need to start making the case for Scottish independence purely in Scottish terms not on what another country has done.

(to be continued)
114

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 09:39:05
(#117 continued)

That brings us to the third area that Labour will attack on - oil. The last month or so has shown that economies who rely heavily on a particular natural resource suffer due to fluctuating commodity prices. Here in Scotland some are beginning to realise the fallacy of SNP economic policy that is built on the price of oil. The SNP were fine when oil prices were at a high level but now at the low price levels we have now their argument has been undermined. The SNP need to take oil out of the argument and make the case that economic independence is possible whether or not we have oil. That means they really do need to make a reassessment of their policies for a post-independence Scotland.

All in all the next General Election is going to be one of the most interesting elections in a very long time.
115

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 09:41:12
11 George#

Not a fanatic BNP supporter agreed but a fanatic unionist for sure.

Like i said before you have stated (even taking account of what you said yesterday) you are under no circumstances willing to accet Scottish independence.

Just how bad do things have to become before you even question the benefit of Scotland being part of this disasterous union?

Scotland is being dragged into this let's not forget because of the the South-East of England and the London markets even taking into account HBOS and RBS who were regulated under and operated within the UK framework.

London, let's not forget will benefit from the Lloyds HBOS takover..Scotland will lose probably half of i's banking sector!

Still, it's all worth it George!

116

Ugly George,

25/11/2008 09:43:17
115 Nevski
"Just how could Scotland do any worse?"

What is the cause of high national debt? - high government spending and a large public sector.

Now look at the levels of public sector employment in Scotland as opposed to the UK average. You will find that the Scottish economy is far more dependent on the public sector than the UK average. How can that be sustained?
117

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 09:45:47
"#116 This is a political budget and not an economic one."

Not quite true Alan - I would argue that it is a political and economic budget - only the economics are to save the economy from going to the dogs in the short run - with us the taxpayer pickling up the bill in the long run.

"But for labour and brown he might just be able to conn enough ejits to vote for him and bankrupt the rest of the country."

I have said as much before. Labour need less idiots to vote for them than the Tories so it is always going to be easier them to bribe/hoodwink the electorate. The problem is though that the Tories don't offer a coherent alternative - they come across as shady Blair Lite clones. The only coherent alternative I have seen is from the Lib Dems - Vince Cable has been by far the star of the front benches. The problem for the Lib Dems though is that Labour are deliberately polarising the debate to such an extent that the Lib Dems vote could be squeezed come election time. They are ceratinly not helped by the invisible man who masquerades as their leader.
118

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 09:46:32
118 Fed#

Norway is still a rich country Fed because of it's oil..30 years of investment which Scotland lost and look at the state of the country now!

Oil is not the basis of fiscal independence it is and always has been part of it. Oil is and will continue to be a huge asset for a small country like Scotland.

I completely fail to see how the oil price in any way affect the argument for independence. Oil prices rise and they fall and they will rise again.

What will you say when it reached $200 a barrel? A wise government invests when the price is high and used the accrued wealth when an economy slows..see Norway!
119

Ugly George,

25/11/2008 09:48:22
119 nevski
You are making things up again - you are referring to whether I would vote yes in a referendum if there is a Tory govt - that is not the same as "under no circumsatnces"

"Scotland is being dragged into this let's not forget because of the the South-East of England and the London markets even taking into account HBOS and RBS who were regulated under and operated within the UK framework."

Hold on here. These two banks got themselves into trouble. You say that that was under the UK regulatory framework but can you point to anybody in Scotland who called for a tightening up of these regulations in the past.
120

Alan B,

25/11/2008 09:49:12
#The Federalist

I agree with most of your analysis.
With the exception of

Salmond set himself up for a fall with his Arc of Prosperity speech. The SNP need to start making the case for Scottish independence purely in Scottish terms not on what another country has done."

I think the comparison of scotland with other countries is important. It is only by comparing yourself to the performance of others can you really judge how well you have done.

In many ways Salmond has not really started making the case for indpendence but has simply tried to portray an administration of confidence and ambition and then use that get people to support him, the snp and hopes that will transform into support for independence.

The other problem for Salmond pesuading people to independence is Salmond is someone who is a glass full positive individual. And as such politically it is about positivity.

Labour on the other hand are negative. It is all about exaggerating and misrepresenting things to associate negativity with the opposition. We heard that all through the 80s when they destroyed the tories in scotland with talk of cuts in the nhs. However in truth the only party every to cut nhs spending was labour in the 70s. We can see that with using terms like "separation" rather than argue against independence and for the union on its own merit.

So part of the problem is Salmond does not really do negative. If he did then he would be banging on about scotland being an economic disaster zone in the uk. Banging on about the recessions in scotland under brown while britain boomed.

Instead he wants to portray scotland as a rich country who can do better. That opens the way for labour to question whether a rich country should take risks. When that is then hammed up to scotland being an Albania of the west, we see the result. The advantage labour have got is fear works.
121

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 09:52:55
#122 Nevsky while we have tax and spend parties running things in Scotland - and the SNP is no different from Labour by the way - we will never ever build up an oil fund.

Stewart Hosie welcomed yesterday's pre-budget statement but then went on to say they should have done more. Now - explain to me how you can do more without actually spending more?
122

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 09:53:33
120 George#

Why would it have to be sustained? You argue that everything would remain static which is an assumption and nothing more.

So what if Scotland would be in debt initially..can it be worse that a 127% national debt to gdp ratio? I doubt it George!



123

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 09:56:29
125 Fed#

Again you are basing Scotland being in EXACTLY the same position as the UK and asking what would Scotland do?

It wouldn't be in the same position in the first place but to answer your question the best solution i have heard so far is to freeze VAT completely for a period of 1 to 2 months.

As hasbeen pointed out a small reduction in VAT will have no impact as there are 30% sales on in most high street stores anyway!
124

Alan B,

25/11/2008 09:58:44
#121 The Federalist

I believe it is overwhelmingly a political budgets because:

1)"only the economics are to save the economy from going to the dogs in the short run - with us the taxpayer pickling up the bill in the long run."
Your quote.

2)political considerations are at the heart of it.

3)if there was a conflict between the economic and political exediency then the political choice will win in this budget.

4)too many political aspects to the budget to really convince this is just about the economy.


When i say political and not economic, i am talking about it primarily being a political budget. That the overwhelming considerations are the next election and politics and not primarily about getting us out this mess. (Off course it could be the opposite an economic budget which has been dressed up with so many political gimics that mean that the severe economic problems the budget is addresses will be diverted as they discuss 45% tax rates.) It is just very unconvincing to me having it so political and almost wealth distributionist at a time of economic crisis.

125

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 09:59:25
122 Nevski
"I completely fail to see how the oil price in any way affect the argument for independence. Oil prices rise and they fall and they will rise again."

You should study the CPPR analysis from Glasgow Uni. It showed that for the last 5 years the deficit in the Scottish budget was consistently 9.5%-9.9% of GDP if no oil revenues accrue. These levels occurred before the onset of the current recession but are higher than the worst case scenario for the UK economy next year when the deficit in the UK budget might reach 8% of GDP.

This shows that there is a huge structural (as opposed to cyclical) deficit in the Scottish economy if no oil revenues accrue. The CPPR study showed that oil revenues could reduce this deficit by varying amounts from year to year but could not eliminate it in any year.

There would therefore be no amount available to invest in an oil fund unless substantial restructuring of the economy took place - higher taxation or lower govt spending.

Oil prices may rise but production is falling so rises in the price might not deal with the problem.
126

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 09:59:26
People are arguing here that Scotland would be in a worse position if independent..but i am asking again HOW could it be worse?

The UK IS the worst performing country and predicted to be the slowest to come out of recession in Europe along with Estonia!!!

There is quite simple NO financial argument for remaining within the union, it simply does not stand up!
127

Le Drapeau Noir,

Capital City 25/11/2008 10:00:28
Oh Darling, darling what have you done?He used to be ma toon cooncilor...phweckin half wit wi the auld red rosette in those days.And now????..lol ye couldnae make it up.
128

Ugly George,

edinburgh 25/11/2008 10:04:12
126 Nevski
"Why would it have to be sustained? You argue that everything would remain static which is an assumption and nothing more."

Indeed so. But what changes should be made. Are you advocating a reduction in the public sector.

"So what if Scotland would be in debt initially..can it be worse that a 127% national debt to gdp ratio? I doubt it George!"


Scotland would have to accept a proportionate share of UK national debt but its per capita GDP is lower than the UK average so how could its postion be any better?
129

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 10:04:12
129 George#

And if oil is taken into account what is the figure George?

If the fugure puts the potential Scottish economy in less defecit that the UK then where is your argument? Just what are you arguing for?

That Scotland should stay in the union because if we did not have oil we would be in the same state as the union? Come on! What kind of an argument is that.

What are the figures when oil reaches $100 and when it reaches $200..why do you fail to mention that?

Lets see the figures George and not your 'unionist' ad selective ones for a change!

130

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 10:06:14
#124 "I think the comparison of scotland with other countries is important. It is only by comparing yourself to the performance of others can you really judge how well you have done."

I would disagree.

It is only by comparing yourself to your previous performance that you can you really judge how well you have done.

Also you are right about the negatives but Salmond has been around long enough to know that this will happen yet left himself a hostage to fortune with his speech.

How he turns this around in a short time - I really am not sure - because you know and I know that Iceland is going to be thrown at him by Labour time after time after time. Labour will play on the notion that Iceland the independent country failed so Scotland the independent country will fail too. That might not be a fair assessment but it is politics - and a lot of people will quite happily swallow it or at the very least give them pause before voting.

The irony is that Labour whilst being negative will also attack any part who attacks them on the basis that they are doing down the economy. We have already seen this at play with their attack on Osborne after is talk of there being a run on the pound. If the opposition parties are going to combat this they need to be a lot more subtle and coherent at presenting an alternative.

The problem is though that the Tories seem quite keen to rush headlong in to Labour's bear-trap. If they assit in polarisinf the debate then Alex Salmond has an even harder job than before.
131

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 10:07:47
134 George#

How do you know what Scotland's share of national debt would be?

You have no idea and are taking the infantile argument that Scotland=8% of everything..rubbish!
132

Alan B,

25/11/2008 10:08:25
#125 The Federalist

"while we have tax and spend parties running things in Scotland - and the SNP is no different from Labour by the way - we will never ever build up an oil fund. "

It really depends who people vote for after independence and how well the economy performs.

To a large extent has the union created the dependency culture in scotland. Delivered a large public sector as a short term way of never dealing with our economic problems.

The scottish parliament was set up to spend money and hence none will be making the case for tax cuts in a serious way.

Within the uk with the tories seen for a long time as an english national party or an anti scottish party that has pushed scotland into the arms of labour over such a long time and helped foster the consensus that soctland was some sort of economic backwater just into higher and higher spending and taxes.

A change in culture will only come with more powers for the scottish parliament round taxation. Fiscal autonomy would really challenge the conventional wisdome that scotland only supports higher taxation.

What will tend to happen is scotland vote labour. High taxes etc produce pis poor results. And then scotland looks elsewhere. That has happened with scotland voting for the snp at the last election. To an extent scotland voting labour is more cultural than ideological as we can see from the fact that scotland voted labour when it was socialist and still when it was a mini tory party under tony and brown.
133

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 10:10:28
#128 I had my tongue firmly in my cheek when I said that - of course it is primarily political. The "economics" is all short-termist of the let's save our ar5es type.
134

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 10:11:56
135 Nevski
"And if oil is taken into account what is the figure George?"

Over the 5 years the debt as a percentage of GDP varied from 1.7% to 5.1% if oil revenues were taken into account. In two of the years the level was well over the 3% allowed by the euro stabilty pact. So even with oil revenues the picture was not great. Also oil production is falling at a rate of 7%-9% per year. What will it be in 5 - 10 years time. Malcom Webb (CEO of oil and gas UK) has stated that, unless there is a substantial rise in the level of investment, production in 2020 will be "negligible" but investment is actually falling.

135

MWM,

Argyll 25/11/2008 10:12:15
The only businesses to make money out of this will be accountants.

Small and medium businesses will have to spend a fortune sorting out the VAT implications. Many will have stock bought with 17.5% VAT. Many will have taken deposits for services to be delivered after next week ie. the tourism sector.

Another fine mess!

136

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 10:15:00
#127 Read #101 which gives my view on the VAT cut and the context of other changes.

I agree that the VAT cut won't increase consumer expenditure - but I don't believe that is the real intended aim.
137

Alan B,

25/11/2008 10:18:06
#The Federalist

"It is only by comparing yourself to your previous performance that you can you really judge how well you have done."

I agree that you need to compare yourself to your previous performance. But i still think that you need to compare yourself to the performance of others.

I mean 2% growth if everyone else is growing at 2% is decent. 2% growth while others are growing at 3% is not as you are getting relatively poorer. Economic performance can be determined by the global economic climate.

Absolute and relative perfromance are both important.

It is abit like looking at your educational system or health record and comparing with other countries to see how well they do in comparison on literacy or cancer survival rates.

Comparing your performance to others alway is an important factor in performance. There is no point in saying you played well in a game of football if you end up getting horsed. Or training hard for an athletics event improving and then getting horsed by someone else who has performed better.

If you do not compare yourself to others you will know how well relatively you are performing.

Alhtough that does not mean that you need to copy others just evaluate and learn from them and see what can be applied to your own situation to improve your own performance.
138

Ugly George,

25/11/2008 10:20:24
135 Nevski
"What are the figures when oil reaches $100 and when it reaches $200..why do you fail to mention that?"

Total oil/gas revenues for 2007/08 were £7.8bn which was down on the 2006/07 figure of £9.2bn so the picture for 2007/08 won't be great - the analysis has not been done yet/

Revenues are expected to be up this year (2008/09) because of the spike in oil/gas prices in the summer but if they remain at current levels thjen they will be reduced dramatically next year.

Also, do you really want the price of oil to hit $200 per barrel. This would probably hit economies hard and really hammer developing countries. You should bear in mind that the UK gives to other countries in the way of aid and EU contributions an annual amount comparable to total oil/gas revenues. Would an independent Scotland do the same?
139

Darien,

Panama 25/11/2008 10:22:09
Even arch unionist/BritNats like the posters on here admit things are not looking good, though many of them are as usual preoccupied by NewLab's struggle to claw back % in the opinion polls, as if that really matters given the situation. Key question for us Scots is could an independent Scotland really have done any worse? I doubt it very much. In fact, considering the severity of the position UK plc is now in, it is probably impossible to do any worse. Over the next 2-3 years the UK economy is going to become as bad as it can possibly get. We are heading for rock bottom, and more. There is no worse than what we in the UK are going to experience. It is therefore very sad indeed if some Scots really do still feel that they could possibly do worse than this on their own.
140

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 10:22:09
140 George#

Someone who studies the economics of independence has more insight than me and your 'westminster figures':

'Maurice Fitzpatrick, an accountant with Grant Thornton, who has examined the economics of an independent Scotland for the past decade, said: “There is no doubt about it. The figures point to a very rosy picture.”

Perhaps you should contact him and tell him ten years of work are wrong. Even with low oil prices Scotland would be in surplus George!

Once again you fanatic unionism is failing you and you have no argument...there are NO benefits for Scotland to remain withing the union..merely a higher level of debt!
141

Alan B,

25/11/2008 10:23:02
#139 The Federalist

I just do not understand why they delayed so long cutting interest rates and have not cut them further faster.

Interest rates take a while to work their way through the system they need to be cut by a further 1%. And they should have been cut 6months ago and deeply 3months ago.

142

Rodster,

Glasgow 25/11/2008 10:25:50
Do you all remember the 2007 Scottish election when Labour scaremongered the "you will all be £5000 a year worse off under the SNP?
Well now it is £40,000 per person and still the Unionists tell us the Union is our best bet .
You are having a laugh right??
143

Alan B,

25/11/2008 10:26:48
#133 sm753

You really are getting more moronic as you go on.
144

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 10:27:52
140 George#

I suggest you start posting you real reasons for wanting to remain within the union. Let's face it even David Cameron accepts that Scotland could go it alone and be successful.

So what are your reasons? Your financial arguments are shaky to say the least and in no way enough to make anyone a firm believer that the UK is the best solution for Scotland so what is it?

Perhaps you are just a sentimental Brit with an unblinking faith in Westminster but that is not good enough for me and not good enough for Scotland anymore i think.

145

Ananurhing,

25/11/2008 10:28:02
#113 Calum10

I admire your optimism. By the time you factor in bank bail outs, PFI, and all the other hidden debts we're looking at more like £90k+ per household, and over £2 trillion debt.

Broon's sub prime fiscal policies have been insustainable for a long time. He was warned many times over by the IMF. He chose to ignore all the signs, and continued to inflate the bubble. Now we're reaping what he has sewn. Worse still is he seems to be revelling in it. Fear and uncertainty seem to be Labour's trump card to keep them elected.

In any other country we'd be chasing Broon and Darling down the street with a length of rope and cudgels in hand.
146

Jimmy Le Pie,

25/11/2008 10:28:40
When Comrade Broon said he would do ANYTHING to save the Union, few would have dreamed that someone who classed themselves as 'prudent' and who had abolished 'boom and bust' would have saddled the UK with £TRILLION in debt.

For someone who thinks only of his own, and his corrupt party's future, we shouldn't be surprised.

Will David Marshal, ex Glasgow East MP be better off after the PBA??
147

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 10:34:55
#140 There is also another issue that makes us different from the Norwegians. The Petroleum Fund of Norway not only generates income from from taxes of oil companies and exploration license payments but also owns 64% of the partly state-owned StatoilHydro.

StaoilHydro is the biggest offshore oil and gas company in the world and is the largest operator on the Norwegian continental shelf, with 60% of the total production. The company also has production operations in twelve other countries, for example, a large area in the Athabasca oil sand field in Canada after purchasing North American Oil Sands Corporation. It also has retail operations in eight countries.

Unless we had a complete restructuring of our oil industry it is unlikely that we could generate the same revenues as the Norwegians.




Unless we had
148

The Strategist,

25/11/2008 10:35:37
#151

Not only would we be chasing Brown and Darling down the street with a length of rope and cudgels in hand but also the board members of all the banks, the Hedge Funds and the Private Equity companies.

We are far too placid in this country. We have been led to believe that these "masters of the universe" know best and everything they do is in our interest.

Self evidently it hasn't been and it is of critical importance now that we never ever afford these people the respect they thought they deserved.
149

,

25/11/2008 10:39:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
150

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 10:39:45
153 Fed#

Scotland is well behind Norway and the deal Scotland got from the oil is nothing short of the most disasterous mis-mamagement and squandering of the resources i can thik of with regard to ANY country in Europe.

Nothing to say Scotland could not have state controlled oil company though, certainly something worth looking into and with oil running down Scotland should be squeezing every penny it can for the country's benefit.

Sadly this will never happen while Scotland is part of the UK.
151

Alan B,

25/11/2008 10:39:55
#The Federalist

The other reason why comparisons with other small countries is important due to the traditional argument against independence. Scotland was too small to go it alone and would be richer within a larget union. This was repeated over and over again by labour and those labour supporting economists in the 80s but then what we found is 20yrs later the small countries have out performed the big ones in western europe.

Part of the reasoning for my support for scottish independence from an economic stand point is due to hearing the arguments for the union and then seeing over a period of time these arguments turning out to be false.

Possibly part of my contempt for labour. Is growing up in the 80s you take the political/economic argument as put and see it as the main economic argument for the union. But then when evidence suggests it was wrong and that a political party convince people to stick through the mass unemployment of the 80s for the economic health of the country, but then do not have the honour to admit the pain of the 80s and the underperformance of the economy is due to us following their wrongly analysed economic analsys.

Off course now that you are older to some extent you realise that is just politics and political parties tend to be represented by people who want power and have little interest in the people and ethics.
152

TWC,

25/11/2008 10:40:53
110 everything you do is probably a Balloon,
Because the Indian & Chinese Governments can now follow the same policy and Tax Whisky in their countries and quote the UK as an example. They had been forced to cut the tax in the past.
153

,

25/11/2008 10:42:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
154

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 10:45:39
#146 Much has been made of the Grant Thornton's analysis that a surplus of $4.4 billion could be generated. The Grant Thornton's analysis is based on oil at $120 a barrel. Their latest analysis with oil at $75 a barrel puts Scotland £1 billion in the red. Obviously at $50.13 a barrel as it was this morning means the deficit would be even greater.

Relying on oil to fund the deficit is a dangerous route in my opinion - a post-independent Scotland should have to implement policies that make it a success whether or not there is oil. Oil revenues should be seen as a bonus. The issue for me is that I do not particularly trust any potential government for a post-independence Scotland - Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems do not appear to be anything but tax and spend parties.

Even taking Thornton's original £4.4 billion surplus - sounds great at first - until you realise that Norway has a surplus of £44 million in the current year.

The reason for this difference is not only the higher taxes and lower public expenditure that the Norwegians have but also the fact that they still have a substantial stake in the extraction of North Sea Oil through the state-owned Statoil.

Unless there were a radical overhaul in fiscal policy in Scotland as well as a major restructuring of the oil industry any talk of building up a petroleum fund on par with Norway's is pure fantasy.
155

Mcsnagpile,

25/11/2008 10:54:14
We are having a correction that would warm the cockles of Maggie-- back to good old Victorian values. During Victorian times the salary for a worker was about the same in China or India as UK. None of these namby pamby social services, the rod is more like it. I am going to rescue my savings, running at 2.5% interest, by buying a good old Yorkshire mill to keep the riff raff out of trouble and crime. If they are slackers and burn more than one candle per week then the workhouse. If they are really good they can get a whiff of mey merry Christmas turkey.
156

Ananurhing,

25/11/2008 10:55:31
#154 The Strategist
The board members and fund managers should be throwing themselves off the top floor of their HQs 1930s style. Instead of still collecting bonuses or being given £60k a month consultancies like Hornby the grocer boy.

I agree with your comments re our placidity. Especially in Scotland. Living proof that somewhere down the line we managed to cross breed with sheep!

157

TWC,

25/11/2008 10:57:22
160 The Federalist,
All this argument about oil has gone on and on, and I believe that in the end it will soar in price.
The Real fact is that every UK government ends up in Financial difficulty, we need a big change and that I believe is Fiscal Autonomy.
We were destined to be in deep debt even before these actions by the Government so it was about to be the same old story.
I think the recession is inevitable and I hope the people will vote Labour out.
We have a couple of poodles here who will never see the failings of New Labour until Independence is the only option for the rest of us
158

Miss H,

25/11/2008 11:04:26
People need to wait and see what happens with Iceland.

But the SNP can always point out their neighbours in Norway, Sweden, Finland and (I think?) Denmark are among the very few European countries predicted not to go into recession.

That could be of course because some of them had their banking crises back in the 1990s and came out of them stronger.

It remains to be seen if the UK is actually going to survive this.
159

Miss H,

25/11/2008 11:05:57
160 Your perception that the entire case for economic independence rests on oil is your perception.

The SNP has never ever said that.
160

Ugly George,

25/11/2008 11:06:06
150 Nevski

Lets look at some financial arguments and some moral ones.

As has been demonstrated the Scottish economy has a structural deficit of if no oil revenues are taken into accoubt. This has been in the region of 9.5% - 9.9% of GDP before the recession started. The Picture for the UK is that the worst expected deficit is 8% of GDP during the recession.

Obviously it can be argued that this deficit can be reduced if oil revenues are taken into account. But production is falling, costs are rising and investment is falling. This can all be confirmed by consulting UK Oila and Gas website.

This means that oil revenues will only be able to play a significant part in reducing the deficit if the price of oil rises substantially from its present level of $50. But what would be the effect on the world economy of a sustained high price of oil and what would it do to developing countries who already struggle with basic infrastructure. Would we be happy to say "high oil prices suit us - stuff the thirld world"

You may say that the UK currently recieves oil revenues but consider this for 2007/08

total UK oil/gas revenues : £7.8bn
UK overseas aid and net EU contributions : £5bn + £3.4bn = £8.4bn

That is why I am not happy with the thought of Scotland basing its prosperity on high prices of oil. Oil is, after all, an accident of nature. it is not as if the people of Scotland have done anything to put it there.

I do not think that these are "shaky" arguments but perfectly valid ones.

161

Alan B,

25/11/2008 11:06:53
#The Federalist

"The issue for me is that I do not particularly trust any potential government for a post-independence Scotland - Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems do not appear to be anything but tax and spend parties. "

Couple of points:

1)tax and spend has been encouraged by the structure of our political arrangements. Independence or fiscal autonomy is the best way of challenging tax and spend.

2)if you are against independence as scotlands parties are tax and spend why support fiscal autonomy?
162

,

25/11/2008 11:11:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
163

Alan B,

25/11/2008 11:13:38
#Ugly George

Surely one of the biggest arguments for independence is scotlands poor performance within the union and the fact that none of the uk parties at westminster will seriously address scotland economic performance or north south divides.

With independence we have the economic tools to make a difference. Without control of the economic tools we will continue with our relative economic decline.

Off course we do not necessarily need independence for that as the tools of economic management could be devolved. Fiscal autonomy etc would be a start. But would the uk be mature enough to allow scotland it unilateraterly consider the euro while within the uk. It is the straitjacket of the uk in reality together with the behaviour of the political parties like labour that make independence a necessity.


164

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 11:22:24
#168 Alan you answered point 2 yourself:

"independence or fiscal autonomy is the best way of challenging tax and spend."

I do believe that fiscal autonomy would force Scottish politicians to be a lot more responsible. My opposition to independence has never been on the basis of economics - I have said repeatedly that given the correct economic policies a post-independent Scotland could be a thriving economy. Any criticism of the economics is not a criticism of independence per se but of the SNP's economic policy. There is a difference. The electorate are not as discerning as I when it comes to the economics - they equate the economics of the SNP as being the same as the economics of independence.

I am no fan of independence, but if we were to go that route I sure as hell want it worked out beforehand - not try and find a path in a fog of uncertainty. If the SNP are serious about winning independence they have got an awful lot of convincing to shift the sceptics/agnostics in the electorate.

That all being said, although my objections to independence are much more in the social and political arena, I have said before that I can see the situation where I would vote YES in an independence referendum. If it seems clear to me that the opponents of independence are not prepared to even concede further decentralised powers than I would, given that "choice" have to vote for independence.

As far as I am concerned the status quo is not an option.
165

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 11:24:20
#170 "Off course we do not necessarily need independence for that as the tools of economic management could be devolved."

Exactly the point I am making.

Of course if they don't get devolved or there is no prospect of them being devolved then independence will be the only option on the table for those who support full fiscal autonomy.
166

Ugly George,

edinburgh 25/11/2008 11:24:49
170 Alan B
I have no objection to economic tools being available. In fact I would be in favour of the scottish parliament have responsibility for tax raising as well as spending if it uses them in the right manner.

As you may have surmised, my opinion is that the large public sector in Scotland has been a major contributory factor to the relatively poor performance of the Scottish economy. Apart from anything else it tends to encourage many of our most able people into public sector jobs. Obviously this has been funded by the barnett formula and I would not be happy with a situation where people merely seek to replace the barnett formula with oil revenues and then merely keep the same pattern going.

As you know, I have been critical of Gordon Brown but, in a sense, one could argue that it is not all his fault. In all recent general elections the people of scotland have voted substantially for labour and it could be argued that Gordon Brown has merely enacted orthodox Scottish political ideology on the whole of the UK. the result is that the whole of the UK now has the problems that Scotland has had for decades. Big govt, high public spending and an over-reliance on the public sector.

167

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 11:28:06
#166 Perception is everything.

The electorate perceives that the SNP's post-independence economic policy is based on oil. Now that may not be the reality but you are not helped by your own supporters who proclaim oil as being some sort of panacea to our problems.

It isn't.
168

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 11:32:24
#173 The present block grant system based on the Barnett formula is a recipe for pass the buck when it comes to taking responsibility. Holyrood blames Westminster because it says it does not have enough finances; Westminster MPs (especially in the North of England) moan that Scotland gets too much; and so on.

With full fiscal autonomy it would make the Scottish Parliament fully responsible for its actions and unable to pass the buck when things did not go well. Equally there would be no more England subsidises Scotland arguments as it would be a completely redundant argument.

That all being said, one also has to be honest regards the Scottish budget income. The Grant Thornton analysis has shown that at $120 a barrel there is budgetary surplus of £4.4 billion whilst at $75 a barrel there is a budgetary deficit of around £1 billion. Therefore any Scottish government working under full fiscal autonomy would have to ensure that it carried forward the surplus to cope with times in the economic cycle when deficits were being run. The one worry I do have is that as things stand none of the political parties particularly inspire regards their ability to carry forward any surplus. Both Labour and the SNP, given their manifesto priorities at the last election, strike me as parties who in government will tax and spend - given an income they will spend it regardless. Moreover, with our system of PR it would be likely that any government in coalition with the likes of the Lib Dems or Greens might have to throw them some kind of financial sop to keep them on board.

Therefore, the belief that full fiscal autonomy will somehow bring instant fiscal responsibility is misleading. It will take time for that responsibility to be built up as a Scottish Government learns it has to cope with the bad times as well as the good times.

(to be continued)
169

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 11:32:57
(#175 continued)

Now you might think that I am about to say we should not bring in full fiscal autonomy - but you would be wrong. Thus, crazy as it may sound, introducing full fiscal autonomy during an economic downturn may be no bad thing as Scottish politicians would have to be a lot more focussed in getting the best out of a budget limited by economic factors. It would learn to be more responsible far quicker than if such a policy were introduced during a period of surplus.
170

salmondella,

UK 25/11/2008 11:34:43
Yes it is a gamble but who cares. Your a long time deed as they say. One good thing is that the rich are going to pay more tax - is this the start of the so called return to Labour Values and the end of New Labour? If it is and this trend continues then the people who have most to fear are the NATS and the sectarian parties of the left who have boasted over the past few years that they are "the alternative party to New Labour"
171

Nevsky,

Moscow 25/11/2008 11:38:45
167 George#

You are going off the rails a bit now.

1. Where does it state that a Scottish defecit would be 9% of GDP?

2. 'It can be agrued?'. No George it is a fact that Scotland has oil and also a fact that Scotland's oil would contribute to the economy..i completely fail to see why you do not base the 'dubious' figures you quote with oil included..that is a true picture of the economy...again what are you arguing?

Very very silly argument.

3. It's just geographical that we have oil? So what, same as Norway, Dubai, Saudi..what point are you making? We should be ashamed? Is Norway ashamed?

4. You suggest that oil countries do not take advantage of high oil prices..are you nuts, what on earth are you talking about?

That is why the UK is touting all the Arab countries to prop up the economy and why Norway is cushioned from any economic downturn.

Perhaps Scotland could sell it's oil for $1 a barrel to developing countries..sound ok? Just which of the developing countries does Scotland export oil to, do you know?

Just all ridiculous arguments George, you have nothing to base any case for Scotland to remain in the union on, nothing!

The best you can do is say that without oil Scotland might be in defecit? Come off it!



172

Ugly George,

25/11/2008 11:39:30
175 the fed
"Both Labour and the SNP, given their manifesto priorities at the last election, strike me as parties who in government will tax and spend - given an income they will spend it regardless."

I agree absolutely. That is whay I meant by "orthodox Scottish political ideology"

Very few people in the Scottish political spectrum seem to have the political will or the determination to tackle this problem.
173

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 11:42:36
#167 I missed out one element of Labour's strategy but you summed it well on the day after teh Glenrothes by-election:

"162 Ugly George,Edinburgh 07/11/2008 11:52:49
59 Raymond

Actually you can see the Labour election strategy appearing. There was a report on Sky News this morning that British troops are going to leave Iraq in April.

Gordon Brown will play this as a deal he is doing with Barrack Obama thus hoping for a double whammy - no more war in Iraq and reflection in the glory of Obama."

With the timings of the changes announced yesterday - many happening either now or in January - and your notion of a deal over Iraq for April (which I agree seems very possible) - then having a General Election in April/May seems even more likely now.
174

,

25/11/2008 11:45:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
175

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 11:51:07
#178 "The best you can do is say that without oil Scotland might be in defecit?"

Actually he is saying that with or without oil Scotland would be in deficit. That can only change if we deal with the underlying structural deficit caused by issues such as our over-reliance on public sector employment.

Until political parties change the direction of their economic and social policies that is going to continue no matter who is in government. What it needs is someone to offer a genuinely radical alternative. Can the political parties change? I seriously have doubts. Labour and the Lib Dems don't seem to have many who are prepared to tackle the issue. The SNPdoes but will their voice be heard?
176

Alan B,

25/11/2008 11:51:33
#179 Ugly George

While the snp are abit too much tax and spend for my liking. In power they have cut tax. They cut business rates and have been responsible for a council tax freeze at the same time as the budget for scotland was increased by its smallest amount. 0.5% in the first yr and 1.4% over 3 yrs (and a cut in the first yr if you consider real inflation).

They also pubicly support a cut in corporation tax to 20%.

So they have publicly gone against the perceived wisdom that scotland will only vote for ever increasing taxation and won power with a small tax cutting agenda and with headline tax cuts for business like corporation tax. That is quite a big shift in the scottish political equilibrium.

Now we have the lib dems wanting more tax cuts with Scott wanting 2% lobbed of income tax in scotland.

It may even give the tories the confidence to start being more pro cutting tax in scotland. Part of the problem for the tories is by not supporting publicly fiscal autonomy they cannot back the call for lower corporation tax in scotland and end up being seen in scotland as a spending only party.
177

Marga,

Fife 25/11/2008 11:51:59
Just a reminder:

At last year's G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, George W Bush and Gordon Brown vetoed Angela Merkel's agenda item for co-operation over tighter international

It's worth repeating:

At last year's G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, George W Bush and Gordon Brown vetoed Angela Merkel's agenda item for co-operation over tighter international regulation and financial oversight of capital markets.
178

uno.who,

Livingston 25/11/2008 11:57:08
This Government is a bunch of morons .... and, sadly, they think we are too ! Kick-starting the economy my @rse ! If you're not an OAP and don't have kids, this whole sorry farce is going to cost you money. If you're struggling at the moment, how on earth is reducing VAT by £2.50 in every £100 on non-essential goods going to encourage you to spend? Food and kids clothing don't attract VAT at the moment. If you're at your spending limit now, where will you get cash to pay for reduced VAT luxuries? As for fuel ... once again we're an easy target for an incompetent chancellor. People need to get about, even if it's just to go to work .... and public transport is dire. This country is going down the toilet.

179

Alan B,

25/11/2008 12:06:41
#Marga

Do not really know if we need "international regulation and financial oversight of capital markets" as i do not think that is the heart of this current crisis.

Although i think increased transparancy would be better. Bush apparently has been talking about increasing transparancy in certain areas of the financial markets but is being threatened by them moving to london.

The core problem for the uk here is the failure of the governement to control house prices. Controlling inflation is a key economic mgt objective. This has lead to:
a)massive consumer debt (debt built on overvalued assets and not real wealth). At some time the party based on wealth was going to come to an end and the us sub prime crisis was the trigger that started the house of cards falling in the uk.
b)banks being unable to fund this huge mortgage debt out of deposits particularly with low savings ratios and thus borrowed to finance their own lending. The government failed here to ensure that banks were not too over exposed to debt as part of their financial model. Banks are not normal business and we cannot afford for them to fail as such they need to be regulated that way.


Brown said he would control house price inflation and did not. He set a new target for inflation (cpi) that did not include housing. He did not follow the eu banks method of targetting the growth of the money supply ie credit.

The art of economic mgt is to be strong enough to withstand the global economic chills and not be overexposed and suffer more than others.

The other problem for european banks is that they are too exposed to the US sub prime market. Many US banks bundled up and sold on its mortgage toxic debt. Iceand suffered badly from buying this debt.

The other problem for the uk is poor regulation by Brown and his newly set up FSA. This allowed dodgy dealing such as Nothern rock where it held 50billion worht of mortgage debt in off shore childrens health charities with the children gett
180

Alan B,

25/11/2008 12:07:20
...getting not money. In order to avoid tax, government reguations and capital requirements. It is simply unbelievable that Brown did not know that so many banks were operating such dodgy practices.
181

TWC,

25/11/2008 12:12:40
177 salmondella,UK
This is going to be a tax on all of us. We need to get control of Finance in Scotland and do it a different way, within our means.
182

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 12:16:47
#183 One thing that has already been touched upon is the effect of Darling's efficiency savings target. The efficiency gains for teh Scottish Government would have to be £516 million based on the Barnett formula. With a predicted budget of £32 billion next year that would be efficiency savings of 1.6%. John Swinney was already trying to achieve efficiency savings of 2% this year.

Something will have to give as you cannot have both sets of efficiency savings. Swinney's efficiency savings were used to part-finance his budget so it is going to mean that some of the SNP's policies are either going to be pushed down the priority list or fall off altogether so as to maintain their flagship Council tax freeze policy.
183

Ugly George,

25/11/2008 12:20:05
178
"1. Where does it state that a Scottish defecit would be 9% of GDP? "

CPPR analysis done at Glasgow UNi for years 2002/03 to 2006/07. The Scottish govt.'s own figures give the same picture. Go and check them if you don't believe me.

"Perhaps Scotland could sell it's oil for $1 a barrel to developing countries..sound ok? Just which of the developing countries does Scotland export oil to, do you know?2

Once again you do not appear to be aware of waht goes on. the price paid for oil is the price determined on the world markets so it is not a matter of who imports/exports it. If scotland gets a high price for oil the developing countries will have to pay the same price.

"The best you can do is say that without oil Scotland might be in defecit? Come off it!"

All analysis shows that it is not a matter of "might" but a definite and large defecit so why should I "come of it"


"i completely fail to see why you do not base the 'dubious' figures you quote with oil included..that is a true picture of the economy..2

I have done on an earlier post. Please go and check it before you make false assertions. So why is it "silly"

"3. It's just geographical that we have oil? So what, same as Norway, Dubai, Saudi..what point are you making? We should be ashamed? Is Norway ashamed?"

I did say that we should be ashhamed. I said that we should not hope for sustained high prices which would harm developing countries. What is wrong with that?

"4. You suggest that oil countries do not take advantage of high oil prices..are you nuts, what on earth are you talking about?"

Please check details. When oil prices spiked in the summer OPEC increased production to reduce the price. When oil prices fell they reduced production to try to increase the price. They have a stated policy of trying to keep the price in the region of $70 to $90 per barrel. It is therefore clear that they do not rty to make the price as high as possible. Some members such as the fundament
184

Ugly George,

25/11/2008 12:22:27
178 Nevski (cont)

Please check details. When oil prices spiked in the summer OPEC increased production to reduce the price. When oil prices fell they reduced production to try to increase the price. They have a stated policy of trying to keep the price in the region of $70 to $90 per barrel. It is therefore clear that they do not rty to make the price as high as possible. Some members such as the fundamentalists in Iran are known as "hawks" as this is their aim but most do not. Are you suggesting that scotland should take the same approacjh as the Ayatollahs in Iran?

Please learn more about these issues before you resort to insults.


185

Alan B,

25/11/2008 12:28:37
#The Federalist

Or ideally they would take an axe to non core spending areas. (they probably will not but should).

But your example is another good reason for fiscal autonomy. you simply cannot have the current system with 2 different sets of governments working to different agendas when the current system is so inter-related.

We can also see that with lit. The top rate tax of 43% will now become 48%. This type of situation is economically silly. In many ways the move to 45% could be the death nail of LIT.

186

Alan B,

25/11/2008 12:33:22
#Peter

"reduce spending within my business to ensure its survival"

is good for a business but not a good way to run an economy in deep doo doo. While they over spent in the good times for sure, cutting back in spending in the middle of a down turn is the wrong thing to do. Having said that, that does not means that you should necessarily try to buy your way out of this problem with massive debt.

"cut the pay of my employees by 2.5%"
Business are already doing that and well beyond 2.5%. 15% cuts and unpaid holidays are some of the mechanisms being brought in over the last few months.
187

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 12:45:07
183 AlanB
"They cut business rates and have been responsible for a council tax freeze at the same time as the budget for scotland was increased by its smallest amount. 0.5% in the first yr and 1.4% over 3 yrs (and a cut in the first yr if you consider real inflation)."

I welcome the cut in business rates but I can't accept your figures of the increase in the budget. If you check the Scottish Govt's own budget figures on their website you get a different picture. The website gives the Scottish budget for every year from 2002/03 to (projected figures) 2010/11. The rises are substantial year on year with the budget rising 70%-80% in total for those 8 years. I do not see how that is sustainable.

The problem is, as I think I've mentioned to you in the past, is that the SNP are still committed to aspects of big spending - reduced class sizes, free prescriptions etc. They also have stated that they wanted to do other things along these lines - scrap graduate endowment, more police officers. They have abolished bridge toll without explaining how a new Forth Road bridge is to be funded.

It is still very much the rhetoric of let's spend more and more.
188

salmondella,

UK 25/11/2008 12:45:16
#188 TWC - you mean -take over the commanding heights of the economy under workers control? - Don't think the wee man frae Tranent is up to it nevermind Salmond et al. By the way where is Scotlands model politician these days?
189

BIG EYE,

Paisley 25/11/2008 12:45:28
The question Unionists and other apologists for the economic disaster that is Brown and Darling have completely failed to address,never mind answer is
if the UK is best placed to get through this recession why is the pound in freefall against virtually every other currency in the world?

Mark my words, this is just the start, the pound is heading south and we are all facing economic ruin.

Higher tax means that the wealth creators, who are already fed up living in over taxed Britain will relocate elsewhere. This explains the rise in passenger tax duty...might as well squeeze the last few pounds out of them on the way out!

I never ever believed we were doomed...until now. The Union is a complete disaster as far as Scotland is concerned!
190

,

25/11/2008 12:52:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
191

,

25/11/2008 12:53:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
192

,

25/11/2008 12:54:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
193

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 12:57:35
183 Alan B
The situation with corporation tax is a good example of the problem. Ever since Irealnd was seen to be successful with this countries all over Europe have attempted to implement this policy.

That is fine but few consider the other aspects of the Irish economy which made low taxation possible. As I mentioned earlier, Ireland does not have an NHS as we know it. Only 30% of the population is entitled to free health care. That is how they have (up till recently at least) been able to keep their national debt low and have low taxes. Could any political party in Scotland or the UK for that matter introduce a similar health structure here?

To put this into perspective, the total HHS budget for the UK was something like £96bn last time I checked. Its probably over £100bn now. If the UK followed the Irish system with only 30% of people entitled to free health care and the rest having to pay through private insurance then literally tens of billions could be saved and all the UK borrowing/tax problems could be solved overnight.
194

jdships,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 12:57:52

22 Charles Linskaill,Edinburgh

" Not much point in being sensible, it wont change anything! "

Which source did you get this quote from Alastair Darling from ?
195

,

25/11/2008 13:03:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
196

Alan B,

25/11/2008 13:04:35
#Ugly George

The spending increases announced in the spending review last yrs for a 3 yr period were 1.4% with 0.5% for the first yr. That was publicly announced.

There was public argument between Swinney and Darling as Darling announced the increase as 1.8% by changing baseline figures.

I agree over the past decade spending has been increased too high too quickly for both the uk and scottish economy. Part of the reason for Brown announcing a much tighter spending round last yr was due to the over spending and breaking of his own spending rules and the fact it was as you say not sustainable.

I agree the snp apear to have 2 pesonalities a tax and spend one and a tax cutting one. The difficulty for them is trying to build a coaltion of left and right for independence. I disagreed with abolishing prescription charges but i do not think it actually cost alot of money.

While i do think they need to lose some of their tax and spend promises I welcome the fact that cutting tax in scotland is now a political option and all the parties but labour now propose cutting tax to some degree in scotland.
197

Alan B,

25/11/2008 13:15:47
#Ugly George

The proposals for cutting corporation tax to 20% is easily affordable.

Also it is not just cutting tax but redefining tax. Ireland as i understand it have higher VAT than us but lower corporation tax.

The best way also to increase tax revenues is to grow the economy. High tax rates only increase tax revenues in the short term economic growth increases tax revenues in the medium and long term.

Personally i would take an axe to non core expenditures and not health. Although we have to also remember labour threw money at teachers salaries when there was not shortage. And also gave huge and unjustifable increases to doctors (rather than patient care).

I would rather we abolished scottish enterprise and did not tax business to the same amount. Even yrs ago we were spending something like 500million on SE.

I would also look much more at the welfare state, pensions etc. If we had really boomed over the last 10yrs then welfare payments should be minimal. They are not. I would raise pensionable age to 70 to make it affordable in the long term. Allow flexibility from 60 to go part time.

Also we need to really start taking skills in the scotland seriously. Labour talked about it but it was mainly just that talk.

198

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 13:22:02
204 Alan B
I agree that the fact that cutting taxation is at least on the agenda of Scottish politics is progress. But, as I stated, the consequent reduction in public expenditure still seems to be some way over the horizon.

Already John Swinney has complained about Scotland's share of Darling's 5bn efficiency savings. Is anybody in Scottish politics going to have the courage to say that we need to control Scotland's large public sector?

I seem to remember that Jim Mather had a meeting with Scottish CBI (I think it was them - certainly members of the business community) some months ago and was asked about this very issue. His response was that he would like growth in the economy to allow the private sector to expand thus resulting in a comparative (but not absolute) reduction in the size of the public sector.

That is a bit chicken and egg in my view. The large public sector seems to inhibit growth and it is difficult to see how significant progress can be made in this way. Also, these comments were made before the start of the current recession which could further scupper these plans. Certainly the CBI members seemed to be disappointed with his response.

199

IainA,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 13:27:02
I'm mildly curious (but enough of my personality foibles), does anybody know what year VAT was introduced and what the rate of income tax was? I'm just wondering how the government managed before it started to collect an extra 17.5% (sorry 15% now) on nearly everything we buy except food?
200

TWC,

25/11/2008 13:30:50
196 salmondella,
I haven't a Bars Irn Bru what you are talking about.
I just want Fiscal autonomy not Independence, can you translate your post .
201

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 13:32:28
205 Alan B
Yes reductions in corporation tax can be made if there is a will to either increase other taxes or cut spending.

It would be interesting how this would be played politically. If such a cut had been introduced a year or so ago when RBS and HBOS were making substantial profits would there have been rhetoric from Labour (and almost certainly from the unions) that this was pandering to fat-cat bankers and their shareholders while pensioners have to pay more VAT, or people were struggling with the cost of heating bills etc.

That is where the political will and courage comes in.
202

Iain's,

Barcelona 25/11/2008 13:32:41
Has anyone else noticed that all photos and references to the politician once known as 'The Trotskyist Darling' have disappeared?

Perhaps it is because of government censorship.

Can anyone find an old photo of him so that we will know what he will look like after it all goes wrong and he goes into hiding.



203

,

25/11/2008 13:35:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
204

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 13:35:54
#206 I said earlier:

"Labour and the Lib Dems don't seem to have many who are prepared to tackle the issue. The SNP does but will their voice be heard?"

Jim Mather is one of those within the SNP who I believe could take a much more radical view on changing the Scottish Economy. Whether he gets his way though is another matter.
205

Alan B,

25/11/2008 13:37:34
#206 Ugly George

"His response was that he would like growth in the economy to allow the private sector to expand thus resulting in a comparative (but not absolute) reduction in the size of the public sector."

That is how even Thatcher did it as she was quite radical :).

Realistically controlling the growth of the size of the public sector and shrinking it as a size of the overall economy is a good general direction.

I support abit more of a radical approach but even the tories in the south are talking about sharing the procedes of economic growth between tax cuts and increased public spending.

I also do not really fully go along with your crowding out theory of the public sector. I do not think having too big a public sector is really the problem although i would happily shrink it, but lack of a decent sized private sector and encouragement for business and investment.

eg Having tax breaks for films would not cost much money but could attract scotland as a film location as per ireland with brave heart and rob roy.

Having Irish type 10% corporation tax on manufacturing during the 80s might have stopped the manufacturing decline being so pronounced. eg A 50% tax of ship building meant no ship building.

Labour have until recently been very anti business and critised anyone involved in business as being greedy. Creating wealth and employing people was a dirty word. As such scotland created a society that was adverse to wealth creation and still is to a degree.

Brown has done nothing to encourage small business in scotland and has probably been detrimental to them with complicated regulation and ever increasing taxation and employment rules.
206

Alan B,

25/11/2008 13:42:38
#IainA

The tories increased VAT to 17.5% from 15% in a bid to keep the poll tax down in the early 90s. Income tax was 25% cut from 27% in 88.

The tories also increased vat from 8% (i think) to 15% in the early 80s and reduced income tax from 33% to 27% but they also increased national insurance.

Depsite all the talk of thatcher being a tax cutter she actually just moved taxes around cutting some and increasing others. Top rate tax in 79 was 83%.
207

Alan B,

25/11/2008 13:45:00
#208 Peter

Interesting post and I agree with what you say.
208

Alan B,

25/11/2008 13:47:49
#211 Ugly George

Do not disagree.

But you will never sort out the scottish economy without taking good economic decisions over a period of time.

209

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 14:05:59
215 Alan B
"Having Irish type 10% corporation tax on manufacturing during the 80s might have stopped the manufacturing decline being so pronounced"

Possibly so but the problem with industries like shipbuilding in the eigthies was that they were unprofitable and actually making losses. As corporation tax is a tax on profits it is really only of assistance to companies which are inherently profitable. Those that are or were making losses would not benefit.

"I also do not really fully go along with your crowding out theory of the public sector"

Part of my reasoning in this is that my experience of my colleagues from University days has shown that virtually all of them who stayed in Scotland got public sector jobs whereas for those who left scotland the opposite seemed to be the case.

The example of the tax break for film makers is another interesting example. Both the films you mentioned were made well over 10 years ago and there does not appear to be (as far as I am aware) a similar level of activity in filming in Ireland now. Part of the problem seems to be here tha, if you are successful, with a policy such as this other countries notice it and follow suit. that means that your competitive advantage can be temporary as others join the band wagon.

That is also a feature of proposed reductions in corporation tax. I still agree with the principle but so many other European countries have followed Ireland's example that the same competitive advantage might not be realised. When Ireland first introduced this policy the EU had just the 15 members and virtually all of them had high rates of corporate tax. Ireland was therefore unique and became an obvious location for (mainly US) investment into the EU.

Loads of other countries have now piled in and the big countries (France and Germany) have cottoned on and are doing the same. The Tories have the same policy and Jersey and Guernsey have reduced their rates to 0% - difficult to beat that. As I said, I a
210

,

25/11/2008 14:06:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
211

Ugly George,

25/11/2008 14:07:36
215 Alan B Cont
As I said, I am in favour of reducing corporate taxes but I think it would be a mistake to think that it would do to the scottish economy what it did for Ireland.
212

,

25/11/2008 14:08:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
213

,

25/11/2008 14:08:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
214

,

25/11/2008 14:09:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
215

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

25/11/2008 14:12:19
#219

"Have you heard him speak?

Mather is a bumbling old duffer who has enough trouble finding his way to the bathroom unaided."

In complete contrast to Alistair Darling's oratory . . .
216

David MacVicar,

web 25/11/2008 14:25:39
I am pretty much in agreement with Federalist, some good posts.

I have also stated that the SNP pushing oil as a central policy is a double edged sword. Scotland is completely viable without oil because we are a resource rich (intrinsic value) low pop density country. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least have our share though instead of Extra Regio sink holes! What an embarrasment that is to any unionist argument.

A UK so strong it was required to hide all the revenues Scotland was pumping into it for decades and bury the true picture, thats what Britsh means:
Run Scotland as a region supporting supplying hte South, shaft it for anything and do this 100% of the time, if ever there could be a policy benefitting Scotland, bury it.

The state Scotland is in now overall is 100% the responsibility of Labour and Tory policies and Government. Not a good prospect for when the oil does run out within this corrupt union unpartnership. They had all the revenue and invested it ALL in the South, while repeatedly lying to the Entire UK about Scotlands financial position. END OF STORY.

Better together = South Britain needs the North (Scotland and N. England) to remain a strong political state = Lie, deceive and Lie big to hold onto Scotland at any cost.

South UK is in for major trouble ahead with burgeoning population, zero resources, reliance on imports and its own volatile Financial market and housing / service economy. People will still vote for unionist parties on mass because they are basically totally stupid and believe all the complete sewerage that people like Royster state. Obviously nobody lives in another country and talks it and self governance down unless they have a major alterior motive and interest in protecting their home territory: S.h.a.r.e.d Britain. Scotland has all resources - England doesnt.
217

David MacVicar,

web 25/11/2008 14:34:58
Note much of what I said above is certainly exaggeration but it is a mirror image of all the bile we get told about Scotland day in day out by unionists off all creeds day in day out, regionalising and belittling our home country that is Scotland, celbrating when Scotland has bad news. Time for some home truths.
218

Alan B,

25/11/2008 14:36:02
#220 Ugly George

Do not disagree with any of that.

As you will guess i was not saying that a high corporation tax was the only reason for our problems with manufacturing in the 70/80s and even since. But that a high nominal tax rate of 50% on profits is hardly the right answer when others have a tax rate of 10% and you cannot get much investment with that 50% rate. Ship bulding may have gone anyway but i am talking about the principle.

"Part of my reasoning in this is that my experience of my colleagues from University days has shown that virtually all of them who stayed in Scotland got public sector jobs whereas for those who left scotland the opposite seemed to be the case."

Is that though because of the lack of decent sized and well paying private sector or really to do with the public sector crowding out the private sector?

We also have a big problem of getting people to work in the public sector and then leave again. The whole pension thing makes people stick around alot longer than they normally would.

What we need is more investement from the private sector more business locating in scotland and more small business starting up.

You are right about countries jumping on the bandwagon. But that is why you have to lead and be responsive. The uk does not need to compete for company locations and as such is not at the forefront to cut corporation tax. Film taxes were just one area. What about taxes on flights? To encourage more direct routes. Abolish taxes on share transactions to encourage business from london? Taxes on betting duties has meant online business went to the channel islands.

The whole thing is to niche your economy and build on strengths. If we had brought in 12% corporation tax like ireland in the early 90s and had their growth we would be in a far better position now. But you cannot stand still and need to develope and improve and find the next area to exploit to give yourself a competitive advantage.

We also need to loo
219

Alan B,

25/11/2008 14:41:07
#The Federalist

Agree that Mather is good. The scottish parliament needs more like him.

He is one of the few politicians that I think is credible when he talks particulary about the economy.
220

Alan B,

25/11/2008 14:42:42
#231 cont.

...We also need to look at our specific issues. Like how to encourage small business and a business culture in scotland. How do we encourage people to aspire to run their own business. (And how do we improve the skill base.)

Scotland should have looked at englands failure in the nhs as an economic opportunity. We should have created an excess in scottish supply so that we could be carrying out many english operations, creating alot of highly paid medical positions.
221

KWC,

Edinburgh 25/11/2008 15:08:12
If borrowing to the hilt is the answer now, why was it not the answer last year or in the last decade?

This really is a last ditch ploy. Surely Brown's New Labour mandate for running the country has just run out. Even Labour supporters did not vote for a government to do a complete about turn and risk all our futures?

Who could possibly support this bunch now? If you are one of them then you are just as fickle and misguided (or should that be unguided) as they are.

222

Keith Lagden,

25/11/2008 16:59:59
Well I left Scotland for america 17 years ago, this morning the new yankee government is going to create the availablity of cash for car loans, in order to get the economy moving.

How long before these loans become repo's. I am sure the loans will go the same way as mortgages did.

223

Scunnert,

25/11/2008 19:02:04
Capitalism's Last Gasp - the birth of a Neo-Fascist New World Order.

This will end in tears.
224

PointOf View,

Scotsman 25/11/2008 22:56:23
Comeon Guy's wake up. "ew tax rate of 45 per cent from April 2011 for people earning more than £150,000"


Err,, when's that then, after the general Election, All Rhetoric, will never happen. Just trying to Pacify us all!!

However, Cig's up today Alcohol to follow shortly,, Petrol going up, in real terms AND to top it off the Liebour party's just been cought out, lying again as they plan to raise VAT to above 17.5 after the GE. They are sooo thick they accidentally leaked the document then denied it by saying it was a typo. NOT TO BE TRUSTED EVER AGAIN!!
225

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 26/11/2008 02:43:26
I told you it was going to be bad, but Broons Mess is just starting to show what will be mild hardship, when compared to WHAT YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

THE REALLY BAD NEWS HASNT COME OUT YET,BECAUSE IT WILL JUST FRIGHTEN YOUR UNIONISTS WEE MINDS.

INDEPENDANCE IS THE ONLY ACTION THAT COULD SAVE SCOTLAND AND ITS PEOPLE FROM THE DESTITUTION SOON TO BE VISITED UPON IT.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.