Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Biohazard, Sep 23, 2013.
I'm sure you know perfectly well what I meant.
Not better off than now, surely you see that? They mean better off than if they selected independence.
Which, given the costs of independence, seems entirely reasonable.
Why is it Beaker and Danny Alexander has such a strong resemblance?
A paltry average growth rate of 0.2% would leave an average earning Scot £1,000 better off in 10-15 years.
With so many factors contributing to the wealth of Scots over a long period, such a statement is rendered practically meaningless.
Hence, it's very ridiculous.
Maybe the Muppet's is actually a time machine bases, satirical comedy?
I'd disagree there. It's very easy to damage an economy and generate extra costs. Trivially easy. Some regulation here and there…extra costs are really, really easy to generate. Making a country worse off is easy.
It is significantly harder to generate growth. £1000 in a year doesn't sound unreasonable until you realise that it's equivalent to 3% additional growth. That's an extra 3% over a period of significant uncertainty, with international investors thinking "I'll leave it year or two, let iScotland settle down first…"
3% is one heck of a claim; and I've seen no justification for it. All the reasons I've seen are side effects of growth, not causes. More employment, for example, is a side effect. The cause is that someone is hiring more people; but who is that? Left unstated.
And so on.
Another big effect of independence that is completely overlooked is mass unemployment.
All public sector workers will lose their jobs overnight, some may get jobs in the new iScotland public sector but a large proportion will be left jobless.
Not to mention the jobs lost by business moving south of the border.
Up side, more jobs south of the border
An independent Scotland will need more public sector jobs, not less. Probably a lot of recruitment and TUPE transfers.
There will be large private sector losses in some regions. The job losses will be pretty quick, any improved employment due to secret SNP policies for growth will happen over a period of years or decades.
In Edinburgh, where I live, there is the expectation that 2000 defence jobs will go and an unknown (but probably large) number of finance jobs. In Glasgow the shipyards will wind down and close. Yes say it won't happen, Alex Salmond has guaranteed that it won't happen, yet the employers, employees and unions are fairly clear in their views. If employers and unions agree, then either they are drunk or they are very likely to be correct.
It's an extra 3% growth when just a simple 3% growth is hard to achieve. Really, they are forecasting 5-6% growth year on year which most Western economies find rather hard.
There is none.
The primary difference between the two reports is IMHO that one is fully referenced and shows the reasoning that leads to the numbers it uses. The other just plucks numbers from nowhere and uses them as a basis for forecasts.
Referencing and reasoning don't make one correct, but they do make clear what is going on and allow to to judge the validity of the assumptions. It is also something that can be included in a reasoned debate.
Making up numbers with no justification has no place in politics or economics.
I can think of one company who would have to move south of the boarder overnight
No, that's also the SNP. They believe the sun shines out of Alex Salmond's bottom, so when he goes to bed the sun does too.
Scotland already has a disproportionately high number of UK public sector jobs, as many as 50,000 of which can be expected to move south of the border in the event of independence. The SNP have provided no explanation for how they're going to make everyone better off when the first thing that will happen in an independent Scotland is 2% of the workforce becoming unemployed or leaving the country.
Source? Honestly if you think "all public sector workers will lose their jobs overnight" then I have to ask who's going to be doing the operations, catching the criminals and putting out fires?
The public sector would be maintained, it may have to shrink but what you've posted there is clearly scaremongering.
Source? What do these 50000 people work in? I'm asking as I haven't seen any that I'd consider "extra jobs" that wouldn't have to stay here.
The people I work with are in councils, NHS, police and the Scottish Government, none of which could be moved down south as they're all Scottish departments, boards etc.
Of course they will lose their jobs, they will no longer be employed by the UK. The majority would obviously find work in a very similar role in the new iScotland.
How this transition will work is unknown.
Also take a look at this;
Scotland currently has above the national average public sector jobs. Do you really think a iScotland will need all those workers?
You can't just look at the public sector as a whole - so much of it is local.
The jobs that will go are those that work at the UK level and those that will be created are those that work at the iScotland level. We have HMRC up here but so many of the other national bodies are based down south.
The rank and file workers are probably easy enough to find, but who is going to head up these new bodies? Many of the likely candidates will be working in rUK so what is going to tempt them up to a newly independent Scotland?
Most of them are not employed by the UK anyway.
NHS being the biggest employer is a good example.
No but you've stated "all", when that's blatantly not true, unless you think patients can carry out surgery on their own. Central government job will most likely go if linked to the UK and there's double work but "overnight"? again a vast exaggeration. Even those roles that do move down south are likely to have an allowance attached in order to keep key staff and incentives for them to move with the post.
But the NHS would no longer exist in iScotland, as the Scottish Parliament which control and pays for it would no longer exist. The new Scottish government could setup a new NHS with exactly the same mandate and staff but it would not be the same NHS that existed before.
Im simply playing with semantics, the government that controls them would no longer exist hence they would no longer be employed by said body. Unless a new body exists to seamlessly re-employ them they would be jobless.
And so they would TUPE over from the NHS to the ScotHS. In any case, they will be employed by NHS Scotland of one of the local health boards and those are discrete organisations that will continue to exist. Similar for council workers, Police Scotland, etc. That bit isn't hard.
Setting up a central bank, regulators, all of the acronyms that current Scotland doesn't have - that's harder.
ICAS estimate the tax system alone to cost £700m to set up.
Of all the examples to try to quote this was one of the worst. The Scottish Parliament controls it at present and the new body whatever they call it will control it afterwards. There will be a seamless shift. They might not even have to change the name as NHSScotland is a different marque from the NHS. A better choice would have been Defence or the Foreign Office.
Just because the Scotish Parliment is the main (but not only) funding source for NHS Scotland doesnt mean that the staff are employed by the Scotish Parliment.
NHS Scotland and the Scotish Parliment are separate entities. NHS Scotland can continue to exist without the scotish parliment*.
*I'm not saying that it can continue without funding.
Separate names with a comma.