To me the important question is not Scotland's GDP, GVA or whatever today, but what it will be in years to come.
Gas & Oil are well past their peak, something that will not change regardless of whether Scotland becomes a protectorate or stays in the UK.
Manufacturing is growing is Scotland, but a good % of this is the "value add" to oil, which is good money but with more yesterdays than tomorrows.
To me the single most important factor in the success or failure of a country is the quality of the people there. Scotland has an education system that is better than England, indeed better than nearly all of the planet. Although about 10% of the UK population, it has a vastly disproportionate % of leaders and success stories.
But not in Scotland, itself. The problem that neither side in the debate about whether Scotland should become a protectorate has addressed is how does it keep smart people ?
If you don't solve that, pissing around with minor issues is just a waste of time.
It is easier to find problems with protectorate status than the current setup, partly of course because spotting problems is easier.
Westminster spends some money in Scotland that has little purpose other than to try and keep the Scots sweet, the fact that it has often failed doesn't mean they haven't tried.
Also some spending is because it has a lower population density which means delivering some services and infrastructure is inherently less cost effective and because some things like military bases are land hungry.
Also there is "uncertainty", Alex Salmond may turn out to be a great leader of a new country, or he may not. If you have great faith in politicians ability to improve an economy then investing in Scotland is a great idea, but waiting to see is a more likely response.
The big problem for those pushing for protectorate status is that there is no bit problem.
Scots are not subject peoples, if we look at places where racial groups are oppressed we wouldn't see a guy called "Cameron", a rather Scottish name, take over being Prime Minister from Brown who was born in Scotland who succeeded Blair who was also Scottish born, who took over the Labour Party from Smith who was also from Scotland.
Indeed if you saw that list about some 3rd world country, you'd suspect that a small ethnic group were clinging to power by oppressing the majority.
Scotland is not run all that well from Westminster, but then again neither is England. I am not aware of any policy suggestion from the Nationalists that will make Scotland a significantly better place. That's quite a trick. The Labour party has all sorts of things it wants to do to the UK economy which it believes will make the UK a better place. They may be wrong, the ideas may turn out to be mad or at least unlucky but at least they have policies to change things.
So as far as I can tell the argument comes down to competence, whether the decision makers appointed by Alex Salmond and a Scottish civil service will be better at their jobs than those appointed by Cameron or perhaps by Umunna (I find it easier to believe that the smart black guy will be the next Labour PM than a union stooge out of his depth).
Lastly look up which countries are major oil exporters as a protectorate Scotland would be. Look how few are fit to live in.
Gas & Oil are well past their peak, something that will not change regardless of whether Scotland becomes a protectorate or stays in the UK.
Manufacturing is growing is Scotland, but a good % of this is the "value add" to oil, which is good money but with more yesterdays than tomorrows.
To me the single most important factor in the success or failure of a country is the quality of the people there. Scotland has an education system that is better than England, indeed better than nearly all of the planet. Although about 10% of the UK population, it has a vastly disproportionate % of leaders and success stories.
But not in Scotland, itself. The problem that neither side in the debate about whether Scotland should become a protectorate has addressed is how does it keep smart people ?
If you don't solve that, pissing around with minor issues is just a waste of time.
It is easier to find problems with protectorate status than the current setup, partly of course because spotting problems is easier.
Westminster spends some money in Scotland that has little purpose other than to try and keep the Scots sweet, the fact that it has often failed doesn't mean they haven't tried.
Also some spending is because it has a lower population density which means delivering some services and infrastructure is inherently less cost effective and because some things like military bases are land hungry.
Also there is "uncertainty", Alex Salmond may turn out to be a great leader of a new country, or he may not. If you have great faith in politicians ability to improve an economy then investing in Scotland is a great idea, but waiting to see is a more likely response.
The big problem for those pushing for protectorate status is that there is no bit problem.
Scots are not subject peoples, if we look at places where racial groups are oppressed we wouldn't see a guy called "Cameron", a rather Scottish name, take over being Prime Minister from Brown who was born in Scotland who succeeded Blair who was also Scottish born, who took over the Labour Party from Smith who was also from Scotland.
Indeed if you saw that list about some 3rd world country, you'd suspect that a small ethnic group were clinging to power by oppressing the majority.
Scotland is not run all that well from Westminster, but then again neither is England. I am not aware of any policy suggestion from the Nationalists that will make Scotland a significantly better place. That's quite a trick. The Labour party has all sorts of things it wants to do to the UK economy which it believes will make the UK a better place. They may be wrong, the ideas may turn out to be mad or at least unlucky but at least they have policies to change things.
So as far as I can tell the argument comes down to competence, whether the decision makers appointed by Alex Salmond and a Scottish civil service will be better at their jobs than those appointed by Cameron or perhaps by Umunna (I find it easier to believe that the smart black guy will be the next Labour PM than a union stooge out of his depth).
Lastly look up which countries are major oil exporters as a protectorate Scotland would be. Look how few are fit to live in.
Comment