When will indyref2 happen?

[git-intae-thum]

Cairney's wee intervention the day was very interesting.....

Why say that now?

In the event of Scottish independence Westminster were obviously always going to seek a currency union in the short/medium term. 

Private polls telling them the games up?

[Crùbag]

I think their erses are knitting socks down in Westminster. Indy support is at 46 - 50% and there's only one way it's gonna go after a new Yes campaign. Add to that the unfolding Brexitshambles.

And today we have news that whisky exports are still soaring and helping out the bankrupt UK.

 

And then there's water which England seems to be running out of...

Then there's the oil which doesn't seem to be running out anymore.

[ayrmad]

We couldn't sell the whisky without the UK.

[Baxter Parp]

31 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

We couldn't sell the whisky without the UK.

Wat?

[Big Fifer]

Can someone please dissect an argument for me, as I'm not well versed enough to argue it. My mate claims that the economy in Scotland would struggle as so much of it is employed within the public sector. Why is this the case? (Or, why is it not the case?) Evidence required please.

 

ETA- the 2017 Q4 percentages were 16.6% for UK and 21.4% for Scotland

[Baxter Parp]

26 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

Can someone please dissect an argument for me, as I'm not well versed enough to argue it. My mate claims that the economy in Scotland would struggle as so much of it is employed within the public sector. Why is this the case? (Or, why is it not the case?) Evidence required please.

The thinking is that parasitical, lazy civil servants couldn't possibly contribute to society would be my guess.

[renton]

40 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

Can someone please dissect an argument for me, as I'm not well versed enough to argue it. My mate claims that the economy in Scotland would struggle as so much of it is employed within the public sector. Why is this the case? (Or, why is it not the case?) Evidence required please.

 

ETA- the 2017 Q4 percentages were 16.6% for UK and 21.4% for Scotland

The argument goes that public sector employees don't add tax revenue, as more goes out in wages from the same public revenue pot as the tax comes into.  The counter argument is that the size of the public sector is affordable so long as the necessary tax and regulatory schemes are in place around a prosperous private sector. Luckily, Scotland does quite well in terms of exportable goods - light engineering, electricity, oil, argiculture and whisky and is also well placed in terms of leading tech and financial services delivery such that we could afford to make decisions based on a larger public sector if need be, or indeed enact the types of social policies that over longer terms allow us to make different decisions altogether (for example, in terms of health service, pensions and benefits delivery)

[Baxter Parp]

16 minutes ago, renton said:

The argument goes that public sector employees don't add tax revenue, as more goes out in wages from the same public revenue pot as the tax comes into.  The counter argument is that the size of the public sector is affordable so long as the necessary tax and regulatory schemes are in place around a prosperous private sector. Luckily, Scotland does quite well in terms of exportable goods - light engineering, electricity, oil, argiculture and whisky and is also well placed in terms of leading tech and financial services delivery such that we could afford to make decisions based on a larger public sector if need be, or indeed enact the types of social policies that over longer terms allow us to make different decisions altogether (for example, in terms of health service, pensions and benefits delivery)

Also, there are things that are privatised elsewhere that are still in public hands here, like water and we haven't cut our Police service to the bone.

[ayrmad]

2 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Wat?

Come on, surely you know I'm not being serious, YTID.

[Big Fifer]

The argument goes that public sector employees don't add tax revenue, as more goes out in wages from the same public revenue pot as the tax comes into.  The counter argument is that the size of the public sector is affordable so long as the necessary tax and regulatory schemes are in place around a prosperous private sector. Luckily, Scotland does quite well in terms of exportable goods - light engineering, electricity, oil, argiculture and whisky and is also well placed in terms of leading tech and financial services delivery such that we could afford to make decisions based on a larger public sector if need be, or indeed enact the types of social policies that over longer terms allow us to make different decisions altogether (for example, in terms of health service, pensions and benefits delivery)

I've nae idea how to bold on the app on my phone so:

"or indeed enact the types of social policies that over longer terms allow us to make different decisions altogether (for example, in terms of health service, pensions and benefits delivery)"

Could you further explain what you mean by this?

[renton]

7 minutes ago, Big Fifer said:

I've nae idea how to bold on the app on my phone so:

"or indeed enact the types of social policies that over longer terms allow us to make different decisions altogether (for example, in terms of health service, pensions and benefits delivery)"

Could you further explain what you mean by this?

Well, things like abject poverty (think Glasgow effect) lead to poorer health and social outcomes, which in turn leads to increased spending on public services designed to mitigate those outcomes. The levers required to tackle that poverty in any kind of meaningful, lasting fashion are reserved to Westminster, so a benefit of Indy would be pursuing the kind of social policies that would allow us long term to reduce the demand on public services, and hence spending.

Edited May 23, 2018 by renton

[Big Fifer]

Well, things like abject poverty (think Glasgow effect) lead to poorer health and social outcomes, which in turn leads to increased spending on public services designed to mitigate those outcomes. The levers required to tackle that poverty in any kind of meaningful, lasting fashion are reserved to Westminster, so a benefit of Indy would be pursuing the kind of social policies that would allow us long term to reduce the demand on public services, and hence spending.

The argument then becomes that in order to finance this larger public sector through taxation , in some cases, I'd imagine it becomes higher, does that not drive businesses out of Scotland? I realize this is the Tory line of thought but I have to put myself in the position of my pal who is, em, mildly conservative.

[renton]

1 hour ago, Big Fifer said:

1 hour ago, renton said:

Well, things like abject poverty (think Glasgow effect) lead to poorer health and social outcomes, which in turn leads to increased spending on public services designed to mitigate those outcomes. The levers required to tackle that poverty in any kind of meaningful, lasting fashion are reserved to Westminster, so a benefit of Indy would be pursuing the kind of social policies that would allow us long term to reduce the demand on public services, and hence spending.

The argument then becomes that in order to finance this larger public sector through taxation , in some cases, I'd imagine it becomes higher, does that not drive businesses out of Scotland? I realize this is the Tory line of thought but I have to put myself in the position of my pal who is, em, mildly conservative.

Depends on how and where you apply tax. Ultimately there are a number of other factors that influence a company's decision to set up shop.  The quality of the workforce definitely plays a role, in terms of education and health. Other factors might include physical proximity to the company's chief markets, the available supply chain, and yes a favourable tax base. However, it isn't as simple as saying it could or indeed would cause an exodus.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Big Fifer said:

1 hour ago, renton said:

Well, things like abject poverty (think Glasgow effect) lead to poorer health and social outcomes, which in turn leads to increased spending on public services designed to mitigate those outcomes. The levers required to tackle that poverty in any kind of meaningful, lasting fashion are reserved to Westminster, so a benefit of Indy would be pursuing the kind of social policies that would allow us long term to reduce the demand on public services, and hence spending.

The argument then becomes that in order to finance this larger public sector through taxation , in some cases, I'd imagine it becomes higher, does that not drive businesses out of Scotland? I realize this is the Tory line of thought but I have to put myself in the position of my pal who is, em, mildly conservative.

I don't think there is a direct correlation between the proportion of public and private sector jobs and the efficiency of the economy and tax rates etc. When GNER was last in the public sector it was said to be run better and for less public subsidy than it has been in private hands.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Think youve also got to look at the kind of production/private sector employment we have in Scotland also, we produce high value commodities and our output in terms of research and financial/service sector reassures me we can sustain high public sector employment. Scotland would be a very wealthy independent country, I dont think that’s something we particularly need to worry about.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Well, things like abject poverty (think Glasgow effect) lead to poorer health and social outcomes,

Isn’t the whole point of “The Glasgow Effect” that its excess mortality above and beyond what you’d expect based on poverty. Glaswegians dying earlier than similarly skint scousers or Dundonians

[strichener]

11 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

Isn’t the whole point of “The Glasgow Effect” that its excess mortality above and beyond what you’d expect based on poverty. Glaswegians dying earlier than similarly skint scousers or Dundonians

Also, I would think that the Glagow effect is a net contributor to the public sector, given that they are unlikely to receive a state pension, require long periods in care or clog up the NHS. 
<SarcasmOn>
Perhaps the Tory Party policies that drive us to destitution are more sound economically than we give them credit for.
</SarcasmOn>

Edited May 24, 2018 by strichener

[Big Fifer]

What are we hoping/expecting to see in the growth commission tomorrow?

For me, I'll be clicking CTRL-F and searching pensions (assuming this is included) as o think this needs to be bulletproof.

[mjw]

What are we hoping/expecting to see in the growth commission tomorrow?

 

For me, I'll be clicking CTRL-F and searching pensions (assuming this is included) as o think this needs to be bulletproof.

It's a lot of shite according to Yoon twitter.

Some of whom haven't read it.

[John Lambies Doos]

Can someone please dissect an argument for me, as I'm not well versed enough to argue it. My mate claims that the economy in Scotland would struggle as so much of it is employed within the public sector. Why is this the case? (Or, why is it not the case?) Evidence required please.
 
ETA- the 2017 Q4 percentages were 16.6% for UK and 21.4% for Scotland

Nonsense, all to do with Salmond being fat with an old wife.