“I was extremely disappointed when the Government slipped announcement just before Christmas that it was considering breaking DARA up and placing it in the private sector.Such comments are all too typical from politicians across Scotland: state ownership - good; private ownership - bad. We really need to get away from that mindset and start promoting privatisation of government jobs as the preferred option and, like our Irish friends, develop a national pride in our business people.“Now the Tories seem intent on getting in on the act.
“In a last desperate throw of the dice, the Conservatives are playing politics with the future of DARA with their announcement that they plan to privatise the agency.
“The Conservatives are a busted flush in Perthshire and across the rest of Scotland. It is little wonder that they are going nowhere fast with their latest plans.
“The excellent DARA workforce deserve better.”
A libertarian returns to Scotland
"Freedom and Whisky gang thegither"
- Robert Burns
Wednesday 19 January 2005
Even in Perth, the SNP preaches socialism
The latest publication from the Policy Institute explains why Scotland's economic prosperity depends on creating an entrepreneurial society, not on ensuring that virtually everyone works for the state. The SNP claims that independence would make us as wealthy as our Irish neighbours. That would be nice but there is another factor to consider. In Ireland 9.1% of working adults are entrepreneurs; in Scotland it's 4.6%. 47% of Irish workers know an entrepreneur personally; in Scotland the corresponding number is 21%. There's something other than national independence going on here I would think. That's why I worry when I read this sort of thing from a prominent Nationalist MSP:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Comments made on previous template:
Stuart Dickson
Monkey,
The SNP has members and supporters from all mainstream political traditions; mainly social democrats and liberals (like myself), but the occasional tartan tory like Fergus.
We are not a typical political party. It would sometimes be more useful to look at the SNP as a broad movement for self-government.
28 January 2005, 21:57:50 GMT
– Like – Reply
Monkey
Fergus Ewing is a possible ray of hope. My friend knows him personally, and apparently, in private he holds some pretty right wing beliefs.
28 January 2005, 16:23:12 GMT
– Like – Reply
Stuart Dickson
Good lad.
27 January 2005, 13:23:08 GMT
– Like – Reply
I take issue with Mr Dickson
I hereby join the que and patiently await my turn.
26 January 2005, 19:19:44 GMT
– Like – Reply
Stuart Dickson
Dear I take issue with Mr Dickson,
Please join the queue.
25 January 2005, 10:59:57 GMT
– Like – Reply
I take issue with Mr Dickson
"Scots are suffering from a collective depression. "Our situation is so grim, what's the point."
So why are the SNP trying to depress us further?
"We have a culture of dependency, and that is exactly the way the Unionists would like to keep it"
Therefore why do the SNP seem intent upon furthering this culture?
"Ah, yes...the paradoxes of Opposition. I am afraid that all official Oppositions tend to adopt "Oppositionism" - opposing for the sake of opposing. Not very constructive, but the way it works in all democracies I'm afraid"
Sorry but I just don't buy that, the SNP are responsible for the statements they make, and if they constantly come out with statements which are de facto in favour of the dependence culture which you allude to, then that is their choice.
But you cannot expect we mere voters to look at it in a different way. If the SNP wants to be a serious party then they have to raise their game.
Throughout the Tory years the SNP were more than happy to join with their socialist brothers in the Labour party in pandering to Scottish self pity, I respectfully suggest to you that they are now paying the price for that cretinous attitude to Scottish politics.
23 January 2005, 20:49:29 GMT
– Like – Reply
Paul Lewis
Neil Craig "Cutting regulations doesn't take money."
Cutting regulations was not the issue when Ireland joined the EEC. Cutting regulations may be the issue now after three or more decades of EEC/EC/EU influence.
Neil Craig "EU money largely went to farming which is noticeably not the area where Ireland is growing."
Which is immaterial really, That Ireland no longer found it necessary to subsidize the farming industry (which then, was a significant fraction of its economy) directly from its own treasury, meant that she was able to direct those funds freed up to reorganize her industrial sector. It was a subsidy regardless of how it was spent. Without the EEC/EC/EU money, it would have been so much more difficult for Ireland to make the necessary reorganization.
Don't forget Scotland's industrial base was disproportionately heavy engineering. Ireland was not exposed to the same extent to the loss of heavy industry that Scotland was. It is worth noting that English heavy industry (and Northern Irelands) has suffered to a similar extent as Scotland. These industries, were just those that were vulnerable to predation from the low cost far eastern labour markets. Something, incidentally, we are seeing in the financial sector just now.
Neil Craig "If an input of funds was what it took to encourage reform the profits we make via the Barnet Formula would make Scotland a very well reformed country indeed."
Point taken. But in my opinion Scotland is so top heavy with MSP their civil servants and associated hangers on and the huge public sector that it would be next to impossible to make the changes necessary.
Given that Ireland is still a net beneficiary of EU funding, the real acid test for the Celtic tiger will be how they fare when the subsidies dry up.
21 January 2005, 15:59:10 GMT
– Like – Reply
Stuart Dickson
Neil,
-"...but the points on which they have voted against the executive have more often been calling for more regulation/spending."
Ah, yes...the paradoxes of Opposition. I am afraid that all official Oppositions tend to adopt "Oppositionism" - opposing for the sake of opposing. Not very constructive, but the way it works in all democracies I'm afraid.
20 January 2005, 21:37:45 GMT
– Like – Reply
Neil Craig
The SNP have been committed to reducing business rates to match English levels - I don't think they have specifically promised to reduce corporation tax. I am certain Jim Mather would like to do so but I very much doubt if their activists would allow it - I would certainly like to see him say so tho'. They may be in favour of deregulation in the same way everybody is in favour of cutting waste but the points on which they have voted against the executive have more often been calling for more regulation/spending.
Paul
Cutting regulations doesn't take money. EU money largely went to farming which is noticeably not the area where Ireland is growing. If an input of funds was what it took to encourage reform the profits we make via the Barnet Formula would make Scotland a very well reformed country indeed.
20 January 2005, 19:59:32 GMT
– Like – Reply
Stuart Dickson
CA
See Policy section at www.snp.org
Or for 3rd party comment (and for the lazy) a quick Google search gave this fascinating article:
-"But there's a potential downside for the SNP too. The party's underlying core policy of boosting enterprise by cutting business tax is middling to low in voter favour."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2889089.stm
Ewing, Wilson, and now Mather have firmly embedded this in the roots of SNP economic policy over 10 years now. Few have noticed, yet. We pay much attention to liberalisation in Estonia, Finland, Ireland etc
20 January 2005, 16:20:37 GMT
– Like – Reply
CA
The SNP fail to realise that Ireland's prosperity in contemporary times is largely based on low business rates (and maybe aid from the EU).
What are the SNP's plans on business taxation? Do they plan execute the same actions as the Irish government did in the early 1990's?
20 January 2005, 14:52:16 GMT
– Like – Reply
Paul Lewis
Neil Craig "They started cutting regulation & business taxes & by 1991 had the fast growing economy which has taken them from being 1/3rd poorer than the UK to 1/3rd richer."
We ought to give credit where credit is due. The Irish could not have done as you describe without the massive injection of funds from the EU, which is the same as saying they were still dependent of the UK fifty years after 'independence'.
That avenue, funds from the EU will not be avaliable to Scotland. Not least because the EU does not have the scope nor the ability to subsidise another minor economy to the extent they subsidised the Irish Economy.
20 January 2005, 11:45:27 GMT
– Like – Reply
Neil Craig
I disagree Stuart.
Up until 1989 the Irish economy was a high inflation, low growth, mass emigration, jobs for the boyos mess very similar to us. In fact they were doing so badly they were forced to try something.
They started cutting regulation & business taxes & by 1991 had the fast growing economy which has taken them from being 1/3rd poorer than the UK to 1/3rd richer. That was it pure & simple.
Independence (1921) & EU money (1974) were virtually irrelevant as the dates clearly show.
19 January 2005, 21:03:21 GMT
– Like – Reply
Stuart Dickson
-"There's something other than national independence going on here I would think."
Exactly the opposite is true.
It is precisely because the Irish govern themselves they have the self-confidence, self-esteem and vigour to pursue a wealthier and happier future.
Scots are suffering from a collective depression. "Our situation is so grim, what's the point."
We have a culture of dependency, and that is exactly the way the Unionists would like to keep it, and indeed must keep it in order to keep their grip on power. By deadening our spirit they hope to rule us forever.
Well this particular spirit is not susceptible to Unionist deadening, and neither are hundreds of thousands like me. The heart of Scotland still thumps reasuringly. Just watch us go once we shake off the shackles of smothering centralism.
19 January 2005, 13:37:57 GMT
Post a Comment