Support NeoGAF

[zomgbbqftw]

They could try to renegotiate the contract or does the renegotiation of already agreed and signed contracts only apply to other public sector workers?

Did Labour put in a clause that prohibits the current Gov from attempting to do so?

Contracts can only be negotiated when they come up for renewal, afaik that doesn't happen until 2013 for Hester, at which point UKFI can, under instruction from ministers, tell him no cash bonuses, take it or leave it. If he leaves it then a new CEO will be found, but I'm not sure how easy that will be given the no cash bonuses stuff they are looking for.

 

[Speedymanic]

No.

While technically not in a recession, the UK is all but in one. Bit silly to claim it's not on a technicality.

Please find me some evidence of a growing deficit. The deficit is coming down, looking at the latest figures from here:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_253584.pdf

I can see the deficit was £145bn in 2010, while in the year just gone, 2011, the deficit was £125bn. To me that looks a lot like a £20bn reduction in the deficit, and while £12.5bn has came from the VAT rise, it does represent £7.5bn worth of spending cuts elsewhere to make up the difference.

On the Apr-Dec comparison we have an £11bn reduction in the deficit.

For all of the detailed data take a look here:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/p...ft---public-sector-finances-tables-1---10.xls

Sorry about that, I meant the national debt, which has been rising for some time and doesn't appear to be slowing down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ebt-passes-1-trillion-for-the-first-time.html

And reading the info at the link, if correct, the chancellor is going to have to borrow £5bn extra this year due to falling growth and falling GDP.

As for Peacocks going bankrupt, it's the same as Rover going bankrupt. They suck at what they do. It's tough for the employees, of course, but it does leave a big gap in the market for an enterprising group or individual to come and figure something out and make money.

Not really, they had a great Christmas compared to other stores and as herod pointed out, the administrators think the overall business is relatively solid and had a loyal base that continues to buy from there.

Nah, enterprising individuals in this economy? lol. No banks are lending, where are they going to get the capital to fill the gap left by Peacocks? As for those hundreds who've lost their jobs, considering how many other retail outlets are letting people go, it's unlikely they'll find a job straight away, which means they'll end up on JSA and that's just more of a burden on the state and will ultimately mean more borrowing if growth and GDP don't increase within the next few quarters.

 

[Speedymanic]

Contracts can only be negotiated when they come up for renewal, afaik that doesn't happen until 2013 for Hester, at which point UKFI can, under instruction from ministers, tell him no cash bonuses, take it or leave it. If he leaves it then a new CEO will be found, but I'm not sure how easy that will be given the no cash bonuses stuff they are looking for.

Were the pension contracts of public workers up for renewal last year? I thought they had been agreed in 2008-9 and weren't up for renewal any time soon.

Just find it a little strange. Both contracts were signed under Labour, but they can only renegotiate one...

Or is it a case of only choosing to force a renegotiation in one and letting the other stay the same so they can get some cheap shots in at Labour.

 

[Meadows]

So Diane Abbott quit that abortion panel because she thought it was a front for pro-life legislation. Well it turns out that of the three meetings the panel had, she fell asleep in the first, was 30 minutes late for the second, and didn't even go to the third.

http://order-order.com/2012/01/26/diane-abbott-slept-through-meeting-of-group-she-quit/

How she has stayed in her job for this long is beyond me (I'm pro-choice by the way)

 

[louis89]

Sorry about that, I meant the national debt, which has been rising for some time and doesn't appear to be slowing down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ebt-passes-1-trillion-for-the-first-time.html

From your own link:

The ONS said that public sector net borrowing, excluding financial interventions fell to £13.7bn in December, down from £15.9bn in the same period in 2010.

 

[War Peaceman]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/28/archbishop-york-legalise-gay-marriage

Ugh, disgusting man. I hope the Tories pass gay marriage legislation - one of New Labour's few achievements of undeniable merit were there actions towards the LGBT community.

 

[Meadows]

Yeah, I left the Anglican church yesterday after seeing that. I mean I never went anyway but I changed my Facebook religion from Anglican to non-denominational

Spoiler

cos im hard init

.

Anglican church has been going to shit recently, ashamed to have ever been a part of it.

 

[StealthGoblin]

What are the average salaries for London train drivers etc? They strike and get more money all the fucking time.

 

[phisheep]

Jack Straw claims MPs are left twiddling their thumbs because there's not enough government legislation.

Of course (typical bloody Labour ;-) ) his solution is for there to be more bloody legislation. About time we had some politicians who realised that not legislating is a pretty good thing for the Commons to be doing. So it can do other stuff like for example holding the government to account, or opposing the governments performance rather than its promises, or pointing up wasteful crap in the civil service or something.

 

[killer_clank]

Bit by bit, the health strategy crumbles. That bill needs to die. It's terrible. England should be rising up against it and marching in the streets it's so bad. I don't think anyone, even Tory voters would actually agree with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/28/andrew-lansley-nhs-health-reform-climbdown

 

[Dambrosi]

So...absolutely no comments about the RBS CEO's nearly £1 million share bonus, which he was forced to give up about an hour and a bit ago after the RBS Chairman decided to do the right thing and Labour threatened to force a vote in Parliament about it?

You should hear all the 1%ers queuing up to moan and cry to the BBC about it, with one dickhead toff calling it a "blow to democracy" (!?) and some political analyst basically calling the entire taxpaying public's "behaviour" "outrageous" and saying that they have no right to talk about his bonus "because they've never created a single job in their lives" (!!), neatly sidestepping the fact that, without those misinformed hoi-polloi, they wouldn't have any business to speak of. Sometimes, I wonder whether businessmen of their ilk forget their responsibility to society, encompassed by the old adage "The Customer Is Always Right" - especially when the taxpayer pays your wages.

Meanwhile, Chuka Umunna spent some time being vaguely right but also being too young to make anyone believe what he says (no, seriously, he's too young, put him back in the oven for 10 years, give him some wrinkles so he can furrow them and look more serious). Quite frankly, I'd take Brown over Umunna. Least that guy could look dour for these dour times.

Sorry, just venting on the idiots on BBC News. FWIW, I agree with Hester giving up the bonus - not because he doesn't deserve it or whatever, but simply because it doesn't look too good to be taking a mega-money payday when middle-class folks are struggling to make ends meet. I'm not saying he's showing solidarity with them or anything, but this has been a huge distraction from the important work he has to do that he could do without. Fine, he's not getting the big bucks - now let him get on with his job.

Besides which, it's hardly just him who gets paid too much in the banking sector - it's just that, in his case, the taxpayer was the one footing the bill. Regulation is needed.

Oh, and YAY to gay marriage.

 

[iapetus]

So...absolutely no comments about the RBS CEO's nearly £1 million share bonus, which he was forced to give up about an hour and a bit ago after the RBS Chairman decided to do the right thing and Labour threatened to force a vote in Parliament about it?

Labour can fuck off on this one. They set up his bonus in the first place, and weren't particularly keen on taking away bonuses from bankers when they were in power. In Hester's place I'd personally have agreed to give up my bonus only on the condition that Labour unequivocally apologised to the British people for their hypocritical accusations in this case.

I'm not actually finding myself that set against him receiving a bonus either, depending on his performance against the targets he's supposed to be meeting for the bank.

 

[J Tourettes]

What are the average salaries for London train drivers etc? They strike and get more money all the fucking time.

The basic is about £42.5k, I think.

 

[shock33]

Labour can fuck off on this one. They set up his bonus in the first place, and weren't particularly keen on taking away bonuses from bankers when they were in power. In Hester's place I'd personally have agreed to give up my bonus only on the condition that Labour unequivocally apologised to the British people for their hypocritical accusations in this case.

I'm not actually finding myself that set against him receiving a bonus either, depending on his performance against the targets he's supposed to be meeting for the bank.

Indeed, shocking stuff from Labour on this one and despite my contempt for the coalition I'm amazed they aren't being more vocal about this. Also worth noting that I think all the fannying about complaining about his bonus meant millions was wiped off the value of the shares. FANTASTIC.

The suggestion that they would force a vote on it was almost laughable until I realised they were seriously suggesting it.

 

[War Peaceman]

Indeed, shocking stuff from Labour on this one and despite my contempt for the coalition I'm amazed they aren't being more vocal about this. Also worth noting that I think all the fannying about complaining about his bonus meant millions was wiped off the value of the shares. FANTASTIC.

The suggestion that they would force a vote on it was almost laughable until I realised they were seriously suggesting it.

While the whole ordeal is a vast distraction from the serious issues facing the country, could it not be argued that Labour are trying to do the right thing? Yes, they may have set up the problem, but at least they are trying to provoke the government into fixing it. Also, I don't buy that they wouldn't have cancelled his bonus were they in power - under Brown they proved themselves very sensitive to public anger of this sort and I could envision them fumbling around at cancelling it.


I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I do think that I'd rather politicians do what is right rather than be harnessed to poor decisions to remain consistent.

Moreover, if Hester is doing a good job, then I fail to see why he should nto be rewarded. RBS is a vast entity and fixing it is accordingly a big task. I have no clue as to the efficacy of his actions, but unless the government does something to target the excessive bonus payments across the entire industry, then targeting solely RBS seems to be shooting taxpayers in the foot. It is a massive relief that he relinquished the bonus, which was to be expected - his life would have been made a misery if he hadn't.

 

[iapetus]

While the whole ordeal is a vast distraction from the serious issues facing the country, could it not be argued that Labour are trying to do the right thing? Yes, they may have set up the problem, but at least they are trying to provoke the government into fixing it. Also, I don't buy that they wouldn't have cancelled his bonus were they in power - under Brown they proved themselves very sensitive to public anger of this sort and I could envision them fumbling around at cancelling it.

They didn't exactly do a sterling job with Fred Goodwin, did they?

 

[Walshicus]

Thought experiment:
Would a law requiring x% of corporate profit to be distributed evenly among employees improve productivity?

 

[War Peaceman]

They didn't exactly do a sterling job with Fred Goodwin, did they?

I did say 'fumbling around' - they wouldn't do a good job of it, that's for sure . Again, I should stress, I was just playing devil's advocate.

 

[War Peaceman]

Thought experiment:
Would a law requiring x% of corporate profit to be distributed evenly among employees improve productivity?

No. Money doesn't motivate people. Big corporations would find other ways to avoid this (perhaps by investing the money in other ways).

I prefer limits on the maximum amount of disparity there can be between the lowest and highest paid members of staff.

 

[louis89]

Thought experiment:
Would a law requiring x% of corporate profit to be distributed evenly among employees improve productivity?

No, because for any company with a substantial amount of employees increased profits would only result in a tiny increase in any one individual's pay. Also, it would cause a mass exodus of multinational companies away from this country, damage companies' ability to hire and invest in growth and cause all sorts of other damage to this country's economy in general.

Anyway, why should it be distributed evenly? Not everyone's contribution to a company's success is equal.

 

[phisheep]

I'm not actually finding myself that set against him receiving a bonus either, depending on his performance against the targets he's supposed to be meeting for the bank.

Same here. I've got a vague feeling that his bonus was anyway only about 1/3 of what it might have been in better times. Maybe if it had been presented a bit differently there wouldn't have been so much fuss?

Labour really isn't in a great position on this with Gordon Brown still being paid out of public funds for doing what appears to be basically nothing.

Thought experiment:
Would a law requiring x% of corporate profit to be distributed evenly among employees improve productivity?

No it wouldn't. It would encourage the break-up of companies so that the profits get shared among fewer people. It would take money away from shareholders and give it to the employees indiscriminately, so reducing the returns on investment and driving investment money elsewhere.

Encouraging employee shareholding would probably be better.

 

[Walshicus]

Interesting views. I work for a Virgin brand company and every year staff up to manager grade get a share of company profit as a bonus for all meeting at least the 'basic' performance rating. It's added as a variable (depending on profit) number of weeks worth of salary, so everyone gets the same % bonus, but that increases with salary.

It's functions quite well as a performance incentive, and compared to other companies I've worked for there's definitely a better work ethic. I just wonder whether we shouldn't do more to encourage German style cooperative worker-employer relationships rather than the American style adversarial/transactional approach.

 

[Kaltagesta]

I find it a bit frustrating that, on Question Time, both the Coalition MPs were so wet on this issue. I side with Alexander:

1 - People say the bonus should be based on success, and it is. Not only did he only get half of what he could have (suggesting there is some degree of scrutiny involved. Additionally, they were shares, not cash, so the better (or worse) RBS does, similarly so will his remuneration.

2 - It's expected. Sure, the government *can* over-ride that as majority holding member of the board, but what sort of message does that send out to whoever next takes up the mantel when Hester inevitably leaves? That "here's your pay package, but we'll probably not give it all to you because The Guardian doesn't like bankers"? £1m is a lot of money, but it pales into insignificance compared to the money we've invested in RBS and that, one day, we may see returned to the tax payer when RBS is sold.

3 - In 2010, RBS lost £1.6bn. In 2011, they made £2bn. This is not a reward for failure - this is someone who, it appears, has done a good job in very difficult circumstances.

I don't think Hester is a public servant. He's not relying on the government for his job - he was doing very well before his employer was ever owned by the government. It's RBS and thus the government that needs him. He's not running a bus service in a rural town. He's not a quiet civil servant putting together agricultural statistics no one's going to read. He's doing a job that few people will ever thank him for, and instead call him greedy, despite his success (or, indeed, failure) potentially filling a £200bn+ hole in our finances. I don't think he's a public servant, rather he's performing a service for the public - and charging accordingly.

If we ever want to see RBS returned to health, we have to come to terms with the fact that the small pool of people capable of performing such a feat cost a lot of money. I'm sure you could find a Westminster Intern who'd do it for travel expenses - but unless public sacrifices are more important to you than RBS actually turning around, I'll take my chances with the guy who actually knows what he's doing. Even if the government can renegotiate (and I'm sure they can), I don't think that they should.

 

[Kaltagesta]

Thought experiment:
Would a law requiring x% of corporate profit to be distributed evenly among employees improve productivity?

Why would it, if it's universal and not based on productivity?

 

[f0rk]

Interesting views. I work for a Virgin brand company and every year staff up to manager grade get a share of company profit as a bonus for all meeting at least the 'basic' performance rating. It's added as a variable (depending on profit) number of weeks worth of salary, so everyone gets the same % bonus, but that increases with salary.

It's functions quite well as a performance incentive, and compared to other companies I've worked for there's definitely a better work ethic. I just wonder whether we shouldn't do more to encourage German style cooperative worker-employer relationships rather than the American style adversarial/transactional approach.

Loads of companies have a bonus system that works like that although it might not be written down as formally. If the company is doing well everyone will get a better bonus, you don't need to bring in your commie

Spoiler

jokes

laws for it.

 

[Meadows]

IFS: Case for UK tax cuts stronger than a year ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16829768

I agree to an extent, I believe, as per Lib Dem policy, that the income tax threshold should be increased to £10,000 sooner rather than later (it'll probably be in the upcoming budget).

I don't believe that there should be lower taxation, or a NI tax break on small businesses, but that the money that would be lost on doing that should be spent by the government on creating very concentrated city center enterprise zones which offer micro-borrowing and economic advice, particularly important for struggling high-street/off-high street independent retailers who are often pushed out of business because they aren't in tune with modern retailing and what people want/need (websites, facebook page etc).

Small businesses will get us out of this recession, so we should focus on that.

 

[Meadows]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16831453

Pisses me off that the SNP will ask for, and receive extra money from westminster (£136m in additional requests this year already) while playing up all of the anti-UK rhetoric. (Scotland already receives more than Wales and England from central government)

Hope they become independent so this can all stop.

 

[killer_clank]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16831453

Pisses me off that the SNP will ask for, and receive extra money from westminster while playing up all of the anti-UK rhetoric. (Scotland already receives more than Wales and England from central government)

Hope they become independent so this can all stop.

Huh? what in the fuck? It's barnet consequentials, as a result of increased UK government spending in certain areas, from Osbourne's new 'strategy' a couple of months ago.

 

[Meadows]

Huh? what in the fuck? It's barnet consequentials, as a result of increased UK government spending in certain areas, from Osbourne's new 'strategy' a couple of months ago.

so what are they going to do if they get full independence and don't get any of this windfall money from London any more? live off "oil wealth"? (i.e. 20 years of oil reserves)

or maybe the financial system? i.e. RBS, which Salmond seemed really keen on:

(it says "Yours for Scotland" at the bottom)

For purely selfish reasons I hope Scotland leaves the UK and we can stop the disparity in spending that means that poorer areas of England (i.e. not London) isn't as ridiculous as it is now. From a Scottish perspective I think they'd be much worse on their own, although I think that independence might be carried over on nationalist pride alone, something that the SNP seem to be keen on playing up with the scheduling of their referendum.

 

[killer_clank]

so what are they going to do if they get full independence and don't get any of this windfall money from London any more? live off "oil wealth"? (i.e. 20 years of oil reserves)

It's nothing to do with independence. We're in the UK. Scottish people pay taxes which go to the UK government. UK government increases spending. Under the barnet formula, if UK government increases spending, the devolved administrations must receive extra money as well. And vice versa if the budget is cut (as indeed it already has been hugely, this is just a tiny little increase.

What should the scottish government do? They can't exactly decline the money, it's given to them, and even if they did, that would be idiotic when the money could help limit cuts. NI and Wales will get more money too, I don't see how you could critisise the Scottish government in any way because of this.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

New Manufacturing figures out today, fastest growth in the sector since March 2011. I firmly believe that we are not going to fall into recession again with a second contraction this quarter. We've been looking at the PSF figures and our own proprietary data and we think that the UK economy was flat in October, contracted in November by around 0.3% and grew in December by around 0.2% and our January predictions give around 0.2% growth for the month.

We expect the ONS to restate Q4 growth from -0.2% to -0.1% and for Q1 growth to be around 0.2-0.4% going by current trends. We also think that the ONS is underestimating construction output growth which would add 0.1% on in Q2 2011 and 0.1% to Q3 2011. In the past the ONS has gone back and redone a lot of the data aggregation and a lot of the calculations when banks and other financial institutions disagree with their figures. I think we will see them restate their construction figures as we are not the only bank who can see the obvious discrepancy in the methods used by the ONS.

I think by the time we get the actual 2011/12 figures and not the preliminary ones, we should see economic growth in the region of 1% for the year, which would be a decent enough result. If we can grow 1% this year and 1.5% next year we can call that a decent result.

We've also been working on our economic model for the UK should the EMU break up. It's not finished yet, but basically we think the economy would contract by around 5% overnight, but trend growth would be much, much higher afterwards as the UK is no longer encumbered by poor growth in the EMU nations and our trading partners come back to some kind of health. The biggest losers in an EMU break up would be France, the biggest winners would be Spain (though we're near the top of the winners list as well).

 

[Meadows]

What should the scottish government do? They can't exactly decline the money, it's given to them.

Scottish tax contributions are lower than England's but they receive a much higher percentage of public money. If the SNP ran government wanted to show that it could stand on its own two feet it could have sent the money back.

Also on a different point, when Alex Salmond steps down the SNP will lose support rapidly, Sturgeon can't fill his boots.

 

[Meadows]

New Manufacturing figures out today, fastest growth in the sector since March 2011. I firmly believe that we are not going to fall into recession again with a second contraction this quarter. We've been looking at the PSF figures and our own proprietary data and we think that the UK economy was flat in October, contracted in November by around 0.3% and grew in December by around 0.2% and our January predictions give around 0.2% growth for the month.

We expect the ONS to restate Q4 growth from -0.2% to -0.1% and for Q1 growth to be around 0.2-0.4% going by current trends. We also think that the ONS is underestimating construction output growth which would add 0.1% on in Q2 2011 and 0.1% to Q3 2011. In the past the ONS has gone back and redone a lot of the data aggregation and a lot of the calculations when banks and other financial institutions disagree with their figures. I think we will see them restate their construction figures as we are not the only bank who can see the obvious discrepancy in the methods used by the ONS.

I think by the time we get the actual 2011/12 figures and not the preliminary ones, we should see economic growth in the region of 1% for the year, which would be a decent enough result. If we can grow 1% this year and 1.5% next year we can call that a decent result.

We've also been working on our economic model for the UK should the EMU break up. It's not finished yet, but basically we think the economy would contract by around 5% overnight, but trend growth would be much, much higher afterwards as the UK is no longer encumbered by poor growth in the EMU nations and our trading partners come back to some kind of health. The biggest losers in an EMU break up would be France, the biggest winners would be Spain (though we're near the top of the winners list as well).

good news

can't help but feel like the aerospace sector is going to take even bigger hits in the coming months with Japan and India turning down the eurofighter

 

[killer_clank]

Scottish tax contributions are lower than England's but they receive a much higher percentage of public money. If the SNP ran government wanted to show that it could stand on its own two feet it could have sent the money back.

Also on a different point, when Alex Salmond steps down the SNP will lose support rapidly, Sturgeon can't fill his boots.

Don't have the exact figures, but it's not all down to tax, Scotland was running a surplus for a while the UK as a whole wasn't.

And there are some valid reasons for slightly increased public spending in Scotland, it has a much lower population over a not massively dissimilar size to England. Simply providing public services in Scotland to a similar level simply costs more than it does in England. (And lets not get crazy here, the public spending levels are hardly ludicrous compared to England, the south east gets a similar amount and NI gets way more)

And how's it our problem how England spends its money? The south gets way more public spending than the north of England. It's not in any way Scotland's fault the north in under invested in, and entirely the fault of the UK government.

And why exclusively blame Scotland? NI and Wales also get more public spending per head.

Also on a different point, when Alex Salmond steps down the SNP will lose support rapidly, Sturgeon can't fill his boots.

Scotland might be independent then, and no one will particularly care about the SNP for any degree of time post independence. Hopefully we'd have a new and much better democracy than the shitty 2 party state we currently have.

 

[Meadows]

And why exclusively blame Scotland? NI and Wales also get more public spending per head.

Because Wales realises that being part of the UK is massively beneficial (only 20% support independence, mostly in N Wales and W Wales).

Northern Irish independence is obviously a different issue, and while they receive more public money and that bothers me, I realise that there are emotive, religious and cultural reasons for the independence movement that span far beyond those in Scotland (and some of the stuff that the army did, e.g. Bloody Sunday, was really fucked up, and I can see why people might want to leave)

 

[killer_clank]

Because Wales realises that being part of the UK is massively beneficial (only 20% support independence, mostly in N Wales and W Wales).

So does a majority in Scotland currently, although if the UK government uses the same rhetoric you do I can see that changing.

Northern Irish independence is obviously a different issue, and while they receive more public money and that bothers me, I realise that there are emotive, religious and cultural reasons for independence that span far beyond those in Scotland.

Fair enough, but you still haven't answered my point about why public spending is slightly higher in Scotland.

I dislike the barnett formula as much as you do (as indeed do the SNP), I'd much rather raise and spend our own money, but it can't be blamed for underinvestment in England in the slightest.

 

[Meadows]

So does a majority in Scotland currently, although if the UK government uses the same rhetoric you do I can see that changing.

thankfully for you I'm not in government, far too sensible for that

Fair enough, but you still haven't answered my point about why public spending is slightly higher in Scotland.

I dislike the barnett formula as much as you do (as indeed do the SNP), I'd much rather raise and spend our own money, but it can't be blamed for underinvestment in England in the slightest.

I don't really agree with your contention that Scotland gets more money because things are further apart, the NE of England is massively barren in places but receives hundreds of times less public money for transport than Scotland. I believe that if Scotland left these issues would be tackled and more money would be spent on England. However I believe that Scotland will do poorly without the UK and will run up a large deficit relatively quickly.

 

[killer_clank]

thankfully for you I'm not in government, far too sensible for that




I don't really agree with your contention that Scotland gets more money because things are further apart, the NE of England is massively barren in places but receives hundreds of times less public money for transport than Scotland. I believe that if Scotland left these issues would be tackled and more money would be spent on England. However I believe that Scotland will do poorly without the UK and will run up a large deficit relatively quickly.

The UK government themselves could fix the NE England funding differentials right now if they wanted to. Just divert some money from the south east.

And your second point, if Scotland has a deficit, well, so does the UK (and a fucking horrendous one at that). Being in the UK hasn't protected us from a financial collapse and loss of prosperity.

If Scotland left, how do you 'believe' anything regarding it's financial state? Why do you believe Scotland would somehow produce a massively worse deficit on top of the UK one we would inherit upon independence? It depends on the government we would elect, their policies, tax revenue and ideas, like any other country, including the UK right now.

The idea that Scotland is uniquely incapable of running its own affairs is totally ludicrous.

 

[Rourkey]

New Manufacturing figures out today, fastest growth in the sector since March 2011. I firmly believe that we are not going to fall into recession again with a second contraction this quarter. We've been looking at the PSF figures and our own proprietary data and we think that the UK economy was flat in October, contracted in November by around 0.3% and grew in December by around 0.2% and our January predictions give around 0.2% growth for the month.

We expect the ONS to restate Q4 growth from -0.2% to -0.1% and for Q1 growth to be around 0.2-0.4% going by current trends. We also think that the ONS is underestimating construction output growth which would add 0.1% on in Q2 2011 and 0.1% to Q3 2011. In the past the ONS has gone back and redone a lot of the data aggregation and a lot of the calculations when banks and other financial institutions disagree with their figures. I think we will see them restate their construction figures as we are not the only bank who can see the obvious discrepancy in the methods used by the ONS.

I think by the time we get the actual 2011/12 figures and not the preliminary ones, we should see economic growth in the region of 1% for the year, which would be a decent enough result. If we can grow 1% this year and 1.5% next year we can call that a decent result.

We've also been working on our economic model for the UK should the EMU break up. It's not finished yet, but basically we think the economy would contract by around 5% overnight, but trend growth would be much, much higher afterwards as the UK is no longer encumbered by poor growth in the EMU nations and our trading partners come back to some kind of health. The biggest losers in an EMU break up would be France, the biggest winners would be Spain (though we're near the top of the winners list as well).

Thanks for that appreciated, have to say I thought things had been pretty good final quarter (im a accountant that visits many companies each month) but i'm down south and have no idea what's going on north of Guildford. Normally the impressions I get from talking to businesses do not correlate with what I see on the news in the evening who are always so pessimistic.

 

[Meadows]

The UK government themselves could fix the NE England funding differentials right now if they wanted to. Just divert some money from the south east.

And your second point, if Scotland has a deficit, well, so does the UK (and a fucking horrendous one at that). Being in the UK hasn't protected us from a financial collapse and loss of prosperity.

If Scotland left, how do you 'believe' anything regarding it's financial state? Why do you believe Scotland would somehow produce a massively worse deficit on top of the UK one we would inherit upon independence? It depends on the government we would elect, their policies, tax revenue and ideas, like any other country, including the UK right now.

The idea that Scotland is uniquely incapable of running its own affairs is totally ludicrous.

My view is that without a wider economic umbrella to be in (the UK) that Scotland doesn't have a good enough economy to support its high spending. If a government wanted to keep that up they'd have to either have a higher rate of tax or borrow more.

The Scottish people are generally in favour of large government spending, shown by the amount of SNP/Labour constituencies, this could be either funded by higher taxation on corporations who would basically fuck off out of Scotland because it would be uncompetitive or lower spending which would plunge the poorest into even more poverty. If they tried to tax the rich more they'd simply move to England or Wales in a lot of cases, it'd be tax evasion made easy. The only avenue left to support higher spending? Borrowing or selling oil (both short term solutions)

Again, I hope Scotland leave the UK (or break the UK, however you phrase it), because for me, as someone who wants to see the best for NW England/N Wales, it would be beneficial.

Oh and watch that if the Scottish government increases benefits and dole allowances, that you'll have a lot of people from other parts of the UK moving into Scotland to take advantage of that, and then watch the resulting immigration/nationalist hysteria.

 

[Meadows]

New Manufacturing figures out today, fastest growth in the sector since March 2011. I firmly believe that we are not going to fall into recession again with a second contraction this quarter. We've been looking at the PSF figures and our own proprietary data and we think that the UK economy was flat in October, contracted in November by around 0.3% and grew in December by around 0.2% and our January predictions give around 0.2% growth for the month.

We expect the ONS to restate Q4 growth from -0.2% to -0.1% and for Q1 growth to be around 0.2-0.4% going by current trends. We also think that the ONS is underestimating construction output growth which would add 0.1% on in Q2 2011 and 0.1% to Q3 2011. In the past the ONS has gone back and redone a lot of the data aggregation and a lot of the calculations when banks and other financial institutions disagree with their figures. I think we will see them restate their construction figures as we are not the only bank who can see the obvious discrepancy in the methods used by the ONS.

I think by the time we get the actual 2011/12 figures and not the preliminary ones, we should see economic growth in the region of 1% for the year, which would be a decent enough result. If we can grow 1% this year and 1.5% next year we can call that a decent result.

We've also been working on our economic model for the UK should the EMU break up. It's not finished yet, but basically we think the economy would contract by around 5% overnight, but trend growth would be much, much higher afterwards as the UK is no longer encumbered by poor growth in the EMU nations and our trading partners come back to some kind of health. The biggest losers in an EMU break up would be France, the biggest winners would be Spain (though we're near the top of the winners list as well).

The UK has a 52.1 PMI which I presume is relatively good for a weak economy? How are other countries doing (if you could post a breakdown by country I'd appreciate it).

Thanks again for your insight

 

[killer_clank]

Or we could create an oil fund with the remaining oil left that goes into a pot to improve Scotland, or protect its finances in future (like Norway).

During/After the oil runs out, we can have invested tons of money into renewables, becoming the European hub of production and research, given our insane renewables capability (not to mention also taxing moving that electricity to the rest of Europe)

We can have some positivity about our future and the opportunity to truly make Scotland better, as opposed to being under depressing, stagnant and hope dispersing policies coming out of westminster (that no doubt england will reward come 2015).

 

[Meadows]

Or we could create an oil fund with the remaining oil left that goes into a pot to improve Scotland, or protect its finances in future (like Norway).

During/After the oil runs out, we can have invested tons of money into renewables, becoming the European hub of production and research, given our insane renewables capability (not to mention also taxing moving that electricity to the rest of Europe)

We can have some positivity about our future and the opportunity to truly make Scotland better, as opposed to being under depressing, stagnant and hope dispersing policies coming out of westminster (that no doubt england will reward come 2015).

annnnndd here comes the oil, didn't think it would take long to wheel that out

oil production has already peaked and is set to fall drastically in the next few years.

and what about the fact that the money for pre-existing Scottish renewables came from the UK government?

and how are you going to export electricity? and where to? you can't put wind power on a boat and ship it to china

or are you going to put it through pylons to mainland europe? you'd have to put them through England first, and we'd presumably tax you using us as a pipeline

 

[killer_clank]

annnnndd here comes the oil, didn't think it would take long to wheel that out

oil production has already peaked and is set to fall drastically in the next few years.

and what about the fact that the money for pre-existing Scottish renewables came from the UK government?

and how are you going to export electricity? and where to? you can't put wind power on a boat and ship it to china

or are you going to put it through pylons to mainland europe? you'd have to put them through England first, and we'd presumably tax you using us as a pipeline

There's still more oil than you think and if the oil price continues to increase, the more we can get irrespective of falls. No one's denying it's running out, but at least we have the opportunity to make some actual good use of what we have left.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576208384130912272.html

We've had this renewables argument before, but most of the money/investment comes from private companies, not government. even some of the government moneys come directly from Scotland, as even though energy is a reserved matter, green and climate change legislation isn't since it was never actually reserved, so its not like the UK government provides that much investment into renewables.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/12/16165108

 

[Walshicus]

The oil is there. It's not as easy to get to, and harder to extract than it was; but the price of the stuff is going up. It *will* be a factor for a good few decades yet, and there is still time for the Scots to benefit from it.

Renewable energy from Scotland has a market in England, and should we truly as a continent go that way there are perfectly viable mechanisms for the transfer of said energy. Hydrogen fuel for example.



Scotland would be ranked 5th most prosperous per capita in the OECD were it independent - it's not the backwater nation of paupers that you seem to delight in implying it is.


EDIT: Bloody hell Clank, post what I was going to post why don't you...

 

[Kaltagesta]

I read an amusing article in the Speccie the other day written by a guy from the Hebrides about how the islands - especially Orkney and the Shetlands, but to an extent the Hebridies too - has more in common with their Norsk ancestors than Scotland or what's now the UK and so, by Salmond's own definition of independence, be more than "allowed" to depart the union separately from Scotland (should the will exist). The kick here being, of course, being that they'd then get almost all of the oil reserves. The claim was that they could become the Dubai of the North!

It was somewhat in jest, however. The writer didn't really think this was a good idea, and was poking fun at the idea that the Oil could make or break both the campaign for independence, and the fortunes of an independent Scotland should that arise. It'll last another 20 years tops, and Norway's system is far different to our own. Not only that, but whilst they DO have a giant pot of money, they also can't spend it because of the inflationary pressures that would ammount - it'd have a very similar effect on the economy as simply printing the equivalent amount of money. You really need to spend it slowly to avoid that (or, rather, to stop it being a massive problem).

About the issue though, I dislike how the SNP seem to vaguely bat away practical issues like that of currency as if it's not important. It's incredibly important, and the only people who are satisfied by rhetoric alone are those that are allowing their decision to be dictated by emotion. The currency issue is a big one. Do they try and maintain some control of the pound (as it's currently a joint asset - why should it automatically be New-UKs to control?) but even a joint ownership scheme would be frought with trouble (in the case that the two finance ministers want different things, who would get the ultimate say? It's unlikely the Scottish finance minister will be able to bring as much clout to the table as the NUK one). Also, would the markets see these two currencies the same? They're already beginning to differentiate between euros from different countries. Do they create their own currency and attempt to peg it to the Pound? Possibly, but then they lose a lot of the independence that they currently claim to be lacking. Likewise with the Euro, and that's assuming they're even allowed to board the sinking ship - Spain has a history of veto'ing anything to do with separatist movements for fear of validating the Basque's struggle - they don't even recognise the Czech Republic as a country, and any new entrents have to be ratified by every member.

There are legions of problems that aren't being addressed. I Really don't think it'd be in anyones best interests for Scotland to become independent.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

The UK has a 52.1 PMI which I presume is relatively good for a weak economy? How are other countries doing (if you could post a breakdown by country I'd appreciate it).

Thanks again for your insight

Here's the overview of the manufacturing PMI releases from this morning.

Brazil: 50.6
Australia: 51.6
UK: 52.1
Greece: 41.0
Germany: 51.0
France 48.5
Italy: 46.8
Spain: 45.1
Ireland: 48.3
India: 57.5
Russia: 50.8
China: 48.8
Netherlands: 49.0
South Korea: 49.2
Japan: 50.7

A figure below 50 indicates a contraction, above 50 is growth. For employment growth in the sector a figure of about 51.5 is needed, but that's not a hard and fast rule.

Looking at the above figures, the EMU is mired in recession with the outlook looking very bad, only Germany are seeing growth, and that is from safe haven investment monies flowing from the EU into Germany. It's the same reason we're in a relatively better position, we're outside the EMU and do well out of it.

Anyway, while manufacturing may be important, services is the most important part of the economy as it accounts for 70% of all economic output, we expect the Services PMI figure to come in at 54.5 and the Construction PMI to come in at 53.0 for a composite UK PMI of about 53.7 for January.

The PMI measurement itself is actually about measuring order book growth, so January order book growth will result in February output growth so the ONS won't measure the January growth figures until February. December figures were quite positive all around which is why we think January economic output growth is about 0.2%, with the positive figures and estimates coming in now for Jan, we expect Feb output growth to be quite robust too.

 

[TCRS]

Even China is contracting. India is going crazy though. 57.5, damn.

 

[Meadows]

There's still more oil than you think and if the oil price continues to increase, the more we can get irrespective of falls. No one's denying it's running out, but at least we have the opportunity to make some actual good use of what we have left.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576208384130912272.html

We've had this renewables argument before, but most of the money/investment comes from private companies, not government. even some of the government moneys come directly from Scotland, as even though energy is a reserved matter, green and climate change legislation isn't since it was never actually reserved, so its not like the UK government provides that much investment into renewables.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/12/16165108

you didn't really tackle any of the other issues I've raised

and to Frag's point, I can't believe that you're saying, "well England would be a really good market for sustainable energy!". What madness is this, wanting independence and then relying on an energy sector that would largely be dependent on England buying it anyway. Ridiculous.

 

[Meadows]

Here's the overview of the manufacturing PMI releases from this morning.

Brazil: 50.6
Australia: 51.6
UK: 52.1
Greece: 41.0
Germany: 51.0
France 48.5
Italy: 46.8
Spain: 45.1
Ireland: 48.3
India: 57.5
Russia: 50.8
China: 48.8
Netherlands: 49.0
South Korea: 49.2
Japan: 50.7

A figure below 50 indicates a contraction, above 50 is growth. For employment growth in the sector a figure of about 51.5 is needed, but that's not a hard and fast rule.

Looking at the above figures, the EMU is mired in recession with the outlook looking very bad, only Germany are seeing growth, and that is from safe haven investment monies flowing from the EU into Germany. It's the same reason we're in a relatively better position, we're outside the EMU and do well out of it.

Anyway, while manufacturing may be important, services is the most important part of the economy as it accounts for 70% of all economic output, we expect the Services PMI figure to come in at 54.5 and the Construction PMI to come in at 53.0 for a composite UK PMI of about 53.7 for January.

The PMI measurement itself is actually about measuring order book growth, so January order book growth will result in February output growth so the ONS won't measure the January growth figures until February. December figures were quite positive all around which is why we think January economic output growth is about 0.2%, with the positive figures and estimates coming in now for Jan, we expect Feb output growth to be quite robust too.

wow, what great figures, definitely light at the end of the tunnel stuff (2nd best in the world is a fucking achievement next to the Eurozone). Can't help but think that the CON/LD coalition has been a pretty decent success, especially as coalitions are so rare.

thanks again for posting, you add a lot to UK PoliGAF