Monday 1 October 2007

Where do these ideas come from?

Like this one:
How can Scotland ever be rich with just 160000 people contributing to it's (sic) economy?

Get real.

That was a comment from reader Jeremy Jacobs on a previous post of mine.

This is from the BBC:

The number of unemployed in Scotland has fallen and is close to an all-time low, according to official figures.

Employment statistics equalled a previous high set in 1992 showing 2.53 million people in work, an increase of 60,000 since last year.

All in the public sector I suppose? OK, OK, except for those admirable 160,000 "contributors" of whom I am one.

Not quite:

There were 580,500 working in the public sector in the first quarter of 2007 - down 4,900 or 0.8% - compared to the same period last year.

... It compares with almost two million workers who were employed in the private sector in Scotland in the first quarter of 2007.

None of that's surprising. As I wrote here:
Mr Smith finds that the Scottish GVA per capita comes in at 96.2 against a UK index of 100. That puts us economically below London, the Southeast and the East of England, but above the other eight UK regions. Not too bad, I'd say. Smith then does something rather clever. He adjusts the regional per capita output figures to take account of the differing costs of living. Scotland's "real" GVA per capita now comes out at 101.8 against the UK's 100. So we produce a bit less than the UK average but it goes further
And none of that includes any North Sea oil.

Of course Scotland should be performing much better - as should the rest of the UK. I still hanker after a fully federal United Kingdom, ideally with defence at the UK level and all other government functions (preferably hardly any at all) dealt with by Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. But part of me is tempted to go for independence - just to show that we can do it. I'll certainly be voting SNP at the next general election unless David Cameron starts quoting Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises on Wednesday.

1 comment:

David Farrer said...

Comments made on previous template:

David Farrer
I don't think they should. And it's wasted on public sector boondoggles. And the high public sector wages make it difficult for private sector employers to get good staff.

5 October 2007, 09:02:07 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

David B. Wildgoose
Wonderful! Scotland is one of the richest parts of the UK! 
Er, so exactly *why* should the poorest parts of England (south Yorkshire, Cornwall, etc.) be forced to subsidise it?

5 October 2007, 08:33:36 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

James Higham
I think you just came in and read my latest, David and so let me say that an independent Scotland would be good and a Federalist or rather Confederalist model would be ideal. 
Reason - it would stop the Regionalism of Prescott's Common Purpose portal for EU entry and takeover - it would stymie it, in other words.  
People would be so enamoured of the new model - nationhood once more - that the socialist EU agenda of breaking Britain up into bits would not be able to go ahead.

1 October 2007, 19:43:23 GMT+01:00
– Like – Reply

DC could say something like "Society is The People NOT The State". 
But I still wouldn't vote for him, he has to little conviction, nad is too worried about offending people. That's not a sign of leadership.

1 October 2007, 11:33:27 GMT+01:00