|
|
Post by research0it on Dec 30, 2022 15:35:13 GMT
It's a hugely difficult task for the uk government to dig the uk out of the economic hole it's dug for 40 odd years. The uk is on a long slow economic decline.
Do you wonder why the markets reacted so badly at the mini budget? After all cutting taxes for the rich and corporations is what conservatives do. They didn't do anything different than normal. Yet this time it was different.
So I investigated.
Since the 1980s the uk economy has changed from making and selling things to doing things
It sells financial services. Success depends on the markets having confidence that these services add value and it's all underpinned by money flowing through London, and rapidly rising London property prices. This has resulted in one of the most unequal economies on earth, ,with London almost twice as rich as the 2nd richest economic region (Scotland).
The outcome is that London is over developed and the rest of the country under developed.
Scotland is the region with the most potential. Here we have huge natural resources. Water wind coastline and topography combine to produce a region that could be a renewables king of the world and a global warming oasis. Yet we run a deficit. There are not enough high tax payers to cover the costs of our public services, despite the potential. Why? Because we're under developed. Why? Because we don't get investment.
We don't get public sector investment because the uk government can't tear itself away from the tax paying teat of London, so doesn't want to divert significant investment from London. We don't get private sector investment because investors are, say, choosing between investing in a tidal energy scheme off the western Isles, paying a steady 3%, or simply buying a mansion in London, paying 10 to 15%. What are they going to do?
The mini budget, opened a curtain and exposed the giant Ponsi scheme that the uk economy has become. They've managed to close the curtain a bit again, but long term, events will happen that will open it again and it will get more and more difficult to put back. Long slow decline is inevitable.
UK wise, does any party have the courage and means to tackle this? Tony Blair found it too difficult. He just raised more taxes from London and redistributed. Not a long term answer. Which is to develop the wealth producing regions of the uk and lessen investment in London. A painful road.
Should scotland therefore leave and do it itself? It is also a painful risky road. Will we be smart enough? Will we use the huge natural resources for the people rather than multi nationals? We will still be attached to the rUK, so London may still draw away investment.
It's a question of whether to take the chance rather than be tied to an economy that will always prioritise London and be in a long slow decline.
The only thing I would counsel to Scots is to decide on what you want the future to look like and the most likely route to get there, not on current competencies and make up of administrations in Edinburgh or London.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 31, 2022 9:53:40 GMT
50 years of decline, industrial decline was happening in the 70s after we joined the EEC.
|
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Dec 31, 2022 10:05:03 GMT
Hi vinny
I think in the 70's there was still thinking in the government that industry could be propped up.
In theory joining the EEC should have boosted industry as it should have made exporting easier. The trouble back then was that much of uk products weren't good enough.
But we are now where we are and the type of development that many areas outside London is capable of, would be unrecognisable to a 70s style industrialist.
|
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 31, 2022 10:20:49 GMT
It's a hugely difficult task for the uk government to dig the uk out of the economic hole it's dug for 40 odd years. The uk is on a long slow economic decline. Do you wonder why the markets reacted so badly at the mini budget? After all cutting taxes for the rich and corporations is what conservatives do. They didn't do anything different than normal. Yet this time it was different. So I investigated. Since the 1980s the uk economy has changed from making and selling things to doing things It sells financial services. Success depends on the markets having confidence that these services add value and it's all underpinned by money flowing through London, and rapidly rising London property prices. This has resulted in one of the most unequal economies on earth, ,with London almost twice as rich as the 2nd richest economic region (Scotland). The outcome is that London is over developed and the rest of the country under developed. Scotland is the region with the most potential. Here we have huge natural resources. Water wind coastline and topography combine to produce a region that could be a renewables king of the world and a global warming oasis. Yet we run a deficit. There are not enough high tax payers to cover the costs of our public services, despite the potential. Why? Because we're under developed. Why? Because we don't get investment. We don't get public sector investment because the uk government can't tear itself away from the tax paying teat of London, so doesn't want to divert significant investment from London. We don't get private sector investment because investors are, say, choosing between investing in a tidal energy scheme off the western Isles, paying a steady 3%, or simply buying a mansion in London, paying 10 to 15%. What are they going to do? The mini budget, opened a curtain and exposed the giant Ponsi scheme that the uk economy has become. They've managed to close the curtain a bit again, but long term, events will happen that will open it again and it will get more and more difficult to put back. Long slow decline is inevitable. UK wise, does any party have the courage and means to tackle this? Tony Blair found it too difficult. He just raised more taxes from London and redistributed. Not a long term answer. Which is to develop the wealth producing regions of the uk and lessen investment in London. A painful road. Should scotland therefore leave and do it itself? It is also a painful risky road. Will we be smart enough? Will we use the huge natural resources for the people rather than multi nationals? We will still be attached to the rUK, so London may still draw away investment. It's a question of whether to take the chance rather than be tied to an economy that will always prioritise London and be in a long slow decline. The only thing I would counsel to Scots is to decide on what you want the future to look like and the most likely route to get there, not on current competencies and make up of administrations in Edinburgh or London. A complicated question. I could mention the lack of comparative access both local and international. But Ireland isn't much better off for air, road and rail links yet it has once again recovered well from economic slumps, covid etc. I think you are right when you say the attention has been in the south of England but that is where "all the rich and influential people" live. They don't just discuss holidays at those cocktail parties and barbecues. Objectively speaking covid highlighted the possibilities of holding virtual meetings so that it didn't matter where you are physically but that doesn't stop the business done face to face in the corridors of influence and power. When I think of Scotland I think of mountains, holidays, cold seas and kilts. Never as a place to generate wealth, and I forget the huge part it played in the industrial revolution, so for me it is a problem of image and association, and I so agree that Scotland could be far better used. In my opinion it needs to find a future that attracts the best, to drop the folksy image and become what Silicon Valley became...à place of singular excellence. Its great universities should support research that attracts international attention and international money. Don't rely on England. England wants that for itself. Scotland has to break away from England and create its own destiny. Invite big names to attract development and keep your accounts strictly separate from those of England. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Dec 31, 2022 10:28:29 GMT
Hi vinny I think in the 70's there was still thinking in the government that industry could be propped up. In theory joining the EEC should have boosted industry as it should have made exporting easier. The trouble back then was that much of uk products weren't good enough. But we are now where we are and the type of development that many areas outside London is capable of, would be unrecognisable to a 70s style industrialist. Joining the EEC opened our market to rival economies, that is why instead of boosting our manufacturing industry it accelerated the decline of it. We should never have joined. It would have made more sense to strengthen our relationship with the Commonwealth and do what we can to bring their living standards and wages up to our level with complimentary trade. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Dec 31, 2022 10:30:18 GMT
Hi oracle75
I'm on the fence on the constitution. I believe it might be better if the uk saw the light and fixed itself. I don't see that as at all likely as it would take courage and real leadership that few governments show
On the other hand, the early stages of independence would be hard work. It has the potential to be worth it but would we realise that potential?
|
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Dec 31, 2022 10:34:01 GMT
Hi vinny I think in the 70's there was still thinking in the government that industry could be propped up. In theory joining the EEC should have boosted industry as it should have made exporting easier. The trouble back then was that much of uk products weren't good enough. But we are now where we are and the type of development that many areas outside London is capable of, would be unrecognisable to a 70s style industrialist. Joining the EEC opened our market to rival economies, that is why instead of boosting our manufacturing industry it accelerated the decline of it. We should never have joined. It would have made more sense to strengthen our relationship with the Commonwealth and do what we can to bring their living standards and wages up to our level with complimentary trade. Hi vinny What would have stopped the commonwealth from overtaking us and flooding our markets? The problem was poor uk products that the uk government eventuality cast to the wolves. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Dec 31, 2022 10:37:36 GMT
Although I would not want this post to turn into whether being in or out the EEC/EU is a good thing.
I find people a bit irrational and emotional about that topic
|
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Dec 31, 2022 10:56:08 GMT
Hi oracle75 I'm on the fence on the constitution. I believe it might be better if the uk saw the light and fixed itself. I don't see that as at all likely as it would take courage and real leadership that few governments show On the other hand, the early stages of independence would be hard work. It has the potential to be worth it but would we realise that potential? Are you reaching it now? After 500 years of being part of the UK, I admire your patience. But I can't see such baked in attitudes in England changing. Sure it will be hard work. Ask your young people what they want. They have the energy. By the way I don't know what the EEC or EU has to do with the OP where it was not mentioned. Scotland would be free to make arrangements with ANY international trade block including that big new one in the Far East, or not, as THEY see fit. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Dec 31, 2022 15:15:39 GMT
It's a hugely difficult task for the uk government to dig the uk out of the economic hole it's dug for 40 odd years. The uk is on a long slow economic decline. Do you wonder why the markets reacted so badly at the mini budget? After all cutting taxes for the rich and corporations is what conservatives do. They didn't do anything different than normal. Yet this time it was different. So I investigated. Since the 1980s the uk economy has changed from making and selling things to doing things It sells financial services. Success depends on the markets having confidence that these services add value and it's all underpinned by money flowing through London, and rapidly rising London property prices. This has resulted in one of the most unequal economies on earth, ,with London almost twice as rich as the 2nd richest economic region (Scotland). The outcome is that London is over developed and the rest of the country under developed. Scotland is the region with the most potential. Here we have huge natural resources. Water wind coastline and topography combine to produce a region that could be a renewables king of the world and a global warming oasis. Yet we run a deficit. There are not enough high tax payers to cover the costs of our public services, despite the potential. Why? Because we're under developed. Why? Because we don't get investment. We don't get public sector investment because the uk government can't tear itself away from the tax paying teat of London, so doesn't want to divert significant investment from London. We don't get private sector investment because investors are, say, choosing between investing in a tidal energy scheme off the western Isles, paying a steady 3%, or simply buying a mansion in London, paying 10 to 15%. What are they going to do? The mini budget, opened a curtain and exposed the giant Ponsi scheme that the uk economy has become. They've managed to close the curtain a bit again, but long term, events will happen that will open it again and it will get more and more difficult to put back. Long slow decline is inevitable. UK wise, does any party have the courage and means to tackle this? Tony Blair found it too difficult. He just raised more taxes from London and redistributed. Not a long term answer. Which is to develop the wealth producing regions of the uk and lessen investment in London. A painful road. Should scotland therefore leave and do it itself? It is also a painful risky road. Will we be smart enough? Will we use the huge natural resources for the people rather than multi nationals? We will still be attached to the rUK, so London may still draw away investment. It's a question of whether to take the chance rather than be tied to an economy that will always prioritise London and be in a long slow decline. The only thing I would counsel to Scots is to decide on what you want the future to look like and the most likely route to get there, not on current competencies and make up of administrations in Edinburgh or London. Several things. London does not earn a penny. It is a collection point for every part that does. It is the biggest subsidy junky area in the world. It has a population of some 8 million and its welfare bill is around £60 billion. See link. A few years old and it was then £36 billion. More than the defence budget. Second Scotland has the highest inward investment in Europe and has for a few years. Third. The garbage so called Scottish deficit is just that garbage. It is based on nonsense of UK public expenditure under present constitional arrangement. Not Scotland on its own. Scotland did not contribute to the UK debt. Yet it cost the Scottish tax payer on debt interest some £3.6 billion a year. Scotland is not reliant on oil. England is along with the volatile financial sector. That is only as good as the next crash and you are still paying for the last one. Contrary to the fanny. There is as much or more left in the North sea as has been taken out. To energy rich Scotland that is a bonus. Over the last 40 years Scotland has contributed some £222 billion more to the UK treasury than it has taken out. If it had been on its own that would have been in the region of over £600 billion. Around the Norwegian welfare fund. Scotland is the only UK nation to have exported more goods internationally than it has imported every year since records began. In terms of exports per head, Scotland outperforms the UK: Scotland exports £17,455 per head per year, while England exports £8,626 per head per year. Scotland is an exporting powerhouse, whose success has had nothing to do with being part of the UK, but whose future has been jeopardised due to the UK taking Scotland out of the European Union.. . In contrast, England's international trade deficit in goods is massive. To put it another way. If Scotland had been on its own in 1976. England would still be a third world basket case economy in the hands of the IMF. The sick man of Europe. Where it is now. Dragging Scotland with it. The short answer to your question. Scotland can no longer afford bankrupt England who simply cannot live within its means. Why do you think the present wankers in Westminster are desperate to destroy the SNP. They do not even have the balls to invoke FFA. Which was expected on the last indy ref and would have been accepted by the SNP. Instead they spewed EVEL. Making the Scots second hand citizens www.sdi.co.uk/news-features/news-and-feature-articles/ey-attractiveness-survey-2021www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-s-ps36bn-benefits-bill-is-bigger-than-the-uk-s-whole-defence-budget-8623674.htmlwww.economicshelp.org/blog/132993/economics/uk-imf-crisis-of-1976/ |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Dec 31, 2022 16:12:58 GMT
It's a hugely difficult task for the uk government to dig the uk out of the economic hole it's dug for 40 odd years. The uk is on a long slow economic decline. Do you wonder why the markets reacted so badly at the mini budget? After all cutting taxes for the rich and corporations is what conservatives do. They didn't do anything different than normal. Yet this time it was different. So I investigated. Since the 1980s the uk economy has changed from making and selling things to doing things It sells financial services. Success depends on the markets having confidence that these services add value and it's all underpinned by money flowing through London, and rapidly rising London property prices. This has resulted in one of the most unequal economies on earth, ,with London almost twice as rich as the 2nd richest economic region (Scotland). The outcome is that London is over developed and the rest of the country under developed. Scotland is the region with the most potential. Here we have huge natural resources. Water wind coastline and topography combine to produce a region that could be a renewables king of the world and a global warming oasis. Yet we run a deficit. There are not enough high tax payers to cover the costs of our public services, despite the potential. Why? Because we're under developed. Why? Because we don't get investment. We don't get public sector investment because the uk government can't tear itself away from the tax paying teat of London, so doesn't want to divert significant investment from London. We don't get private sector investment because investors are, say, choosing between investing in a tidal energy scheme off the western Isles, paying a steady 3%, or simply buying a mansion in London, paying 10 to 15%. What are they going to do? The mini budget, opened a curtain and exposed the giant Ponsi scheme that the uk economy has become. They've managed to close the curtain a bit again, but long term, events will happen that will open it again and it will get more and more difficult to put back. Long slow decline is inevitable. UK wise, does any party have the courage and means to tackle this? Tony Blair found it too difficult. He just raised more taxes from London and redistributed. Not a long term answer. Which is to develop the wealth producing regions of the uk and lessen investment in London. A painful road. Should scotland therefore leave and do it itself? It is also a painful risky road. Will we be smart enough? Will we use the huge natural resources for the people rather than multi nationals? We will still be attached to the rUK, so London may still draw away investment. It's a question of whether to take the chance rather than be tied to an economy that will always prioritise London and be in a long slow decline. The only thing I would counsel to Scots is to decide on what you want the future to look like and the most likely route to get there, not on current competencies and make up of administrations in Edinburgh or London. For Scotland to succeed they will need to attract inward investment to build the technologies to generate wealth and the infrastructure to support this. Remember Scotland is more northerly than England so will have more heating costs per person. There was a study briefly acknowledged by the BBC that citizens of Britain with a higher Norman ancestry still after a millenium seem to fare better. So even in England there is a sense of establishment and it has become a bolt-hole for rich immigrants not just poor ones. In bringing forth new industries it might be several years before benefits can be realised so an independent Scotland would likely need a patron to tide them over, might be EU, IMF etc. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Dec 31, 2022 16:42:45 GMT
Hi oracle75 I'm on the fence on the constitution. I believe it might be better if the uk saw the light and fixed itself. I don't see that as at all likely as it would take courage and real leadership that few governments show On the other hand, the early stages of independence would be hard work. It has the potential to be worth it but would we realise that potential? i havent heard any credible scottish politician claim independence for us would be the elysian fields of plenty and economic boom. The argument is independence is normal and natural , and the best people to govern our country is the scottish people and those we elect.
Independence isnt some vague untried route. 62 countries over many years left the british empire , including our near neighbours in ireland , and arguably all have performed far better out of london rule than in.
Wether we realise the vast potential is up to us , but if we never vote for indy we will never find out either way.
My personal opinion , at the age of fifty , and after many years of having an interest in politics , and vast research and interest into scottish history , is clearly the union with england has been an unmitigated disaster for us.
The few small gains we made , access to englands colonies and a part in their fledgling empire , were offset against the loss of our native language , much of our culture , wealth, resources and people over many centuries.
I have no doubt had the union never happened , then we would be in a far far better place today than where we currently find ourselves.
The question isnt wether we can realise our vast potential , but what does this decaying and dying union hold for us we couldnt achieve better outside of it?
The union is going to die without a doubt. The question is when not if . At the minute , it serves neither the interests of the scottish or english people , and is merely duck taped together for the delusion of grandeur of out of touch politicians in london , and holds an emotive place in the hearts of the mainly elderly who can remember the days when it offered something.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Dec 31, 2022 17:06:53 GMT
In bringing forth new industries it might be several years before benefits can be realised so an independent Scotland would likely need a patron to tide them over, might be EU, IMF etc. And how will bankrupt England be funded. When of top of its massive debt. It will have to borrow at a minimum another £100 billion a year, when Scotland goes its merry way. Just to stand still. Rely on the financial sector. As it does now. Oh dear still paying for the last one in 2007. And jings passporting. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Dec 31, 2022 17:21:36 GMT
I suspect that it does, joint assets like defense and free trade for example. That is probably why the Scots voted overwhelmingly to remain in the UK, you can't say they have not had the chance to separate.
Forget the nonsense peddled by the loony leftie SNP retards, it is in the interests of both countries, as is being acknowledged by your electorate, it would be interesting to see what the English electorate thinks.
Out of interest, do any of the English members on here feel better for being in a Union with the Scots, or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Dec 31, 2022 17:37:51 GMT
I suspect that it does, joint assets like defense and free trade for example. That is probably why the Scots voted overwhelmingly to remain in the UK, you can't say they have not had the chance to separate. Forget the nonsense peddled by the loony leftie SNP retards, it is in the interests of both countries, as is being acknowledged by your electorate, it would be interesting to see what the English electorate thinks. Out of interest, do any of the English members on here feel better for being in a Union with the Scots, or not. Hi Om15 As I've said before, you have to make a constitutional choice absent of any analysis of current administrations, looney left or not You do make a valid point about the economies of scale and I would not say that being part of the UK is totally negative or positive. The biggest negative is being tied to a slowly sinking economy that diverts most investment to one part. I do think a future is coming where it will be 2 pounds to the euro or dollar. I know that you asked for a response about how English contributors feel about being in the union, but I'll answer the other way round anyway. I rather like the English and, indeed, have a few close English friends. So if I eventually decide to support independence, a view of England and the English would not form any part of that decision |
|
