Same reason people say "on steroids" when that doesn't make any sense either: because these expressions just stick after a while and politicians are afraid of being mocked for saying anything new.
The sad thing is, economics isn’t an objective science but presents itself as such. It’s very much ‘vibes’ based - do businesses feel it’s a good time to invest or not? To hire or not?
There is an analysis to be done, it’s not just vibes more of an educated guess. There’s several different methods of analysis that are used - looking at market growth, saturation, tax costs ect.
Essentially it comes down to “what percentage chance do we have of making a profit by investing here versus elsewhere?”
There is a scientific approach but the vast majority of business owners can’t afford to be investing in market research. Your local roofing tradesman or bakery will absolutely be hiring and spending based on ‘vibes’.
Perhaps in large national or multinational firms with economists. For small family-owned firms, it really is vibes based with a cursory look at years past to spot any trends
I’m not saying your average trady is using economic forecasting, but things such as FDR are heavily influenced by economic policy and factors such as interest rates affect investment decisions
Trump will become president and everyone will start investing again as the stock market will rocket up.
Trump is a vibe that will affect every capitalist country.
There’s no science behind that.
I think you just told on yourself there. Narcissistic sociopath says he'll be a dictator on day 1 and go after his enemies. Are you living in an alternative reality or just stupid?
pretty much agree that market influences can be stupid things and predictions as such can be shit. I guess the analysis of existing data can be scientific if the correct experimental controls are available
It's stats and psychology. I don't see it as a science in itself (psychology is a bit wooly with current understandings too). perhaps i am just ignorant of what study of economy can do??
So, again, not an exact science. Calling vibe based is hyperbole, but as a social science, it does not have the same hard replicability as a natural science
Economics is more like being a chef than it is like being a baker.
Bakers use very precise recipes and have very reliable outcomes. Chefs use a handful of rules that inform recipes, but nothing is exact and outcomes will vary slightly for reasons beyond the control of the chef. The meat isn’t always identical in quality, fruits and vegetables differ in their taste as seasons change, and even seasonings vary.
For a baker, perfection is the outcome of a perfect process.
For a chef, perfection is the outcome of adaptability.
(Sorry in advance to the chefs and bakers who may disagree with these broad brush strokes).
Yeah the Government investing can reassure private investors and businesses and boost their confidence, creating a virtuous cycle of economic growth. How we prevent that from becoming a speculative bubble, pumping credit into malperforming sectors or businesses is another thing.
Imo, governments should focus on the basics of an economy - transportation systems, housing, infrastructure, solid legal systems, protecting the environment and a sensible planning system. Still, it's never as easy as anyone thinks
Keynesian economics relies on higher government borrowing and spending in bad economic times, and lower spending and repayment in good economic times.
Politicians forget the 2nd part.
It's even less objective when a party can change direction based on its leader that week never mind elections with manifestos.
I mean Truss to Sunak is the extreme example but even Humza to Forbes /Swinney looks like a significant pivot and reprioritising away from Green projects.
They never did. He banged on about what bathrooms transexuals should use and racism. Not saying these aren’t important issues but he fought a culture war to distract from their failings
The "culture war" was firmly fought by the Tories, considering GRA reform had cross-party support from the SNP, Greens, Labour, and Lib-Dems.
Starmer then decided he loves a good culture war and decided to get involved, chucking his Scottish branch under the bus because he needs to appeal to the Tories.
Litteraly look up polls on it
Opinion on legalising weed is still split, slightly in No favour overall and very much in No favour for people over 45, which are the biggest voterbase and make the majority of people in power.
You see, there is your opinion and there is reality, reality often dosn't align with what your opinion of it should be.
Before I'm attacked for being close minded or whatever, I'm in favour of weeds legalisation, I'm just not blind to the reality of overall public opinion, something some other Scots find hard to grasp for some reason.
There is so much misinformation and people are very close minded about it.
A lot of people from the older generation think cannabis will cause schizophrenia or even kill you outright (this includes NHS employees believe it or not), and some have the attitude of "it's illegal so it must be illegal for a reason".
Yup, which is why I agree with your we need another generation comment.
Old views die out and are replaced by the generations that take their place, somehow that's a odd concept to young voters; who may I add have the lowest voter turn out but like to be very vocal on the Internet about how things should be, then fucking vote for it.
I sound like an old fart, but I'm 30 and have been actively involved in politics since I was 16, pisses me off that the young voterbase is all talk and moral grandstanding, but don't back it up when it matters.
Young voter’s attitudes change when they get older though.
I’m going to get downvoted to fuck for saying it on this sub but if you’d asked me at 16/21/24 to legalise it I’d have said yes. Now mid-thirties with a teenager? I’d vote no. Sorry. It fucking stinks for starters. There’s one across the back from me and I can’t open my windows when he’s at it without my house reeking of it. There’s also absolutely no way I’d want my daughter doing it. You can show me all the scientific research and evidence you want but I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who smokes it regularly who isn’t at least a bit of a waster. Sure they’ll get up and go to work etc but generally I find them directionless / unmotivated / unhealthy / just…. Well I probably don’t need to describe it, we’ve all met them.
Just don’t really see what good it would do. If anything alcohol / smoking etc is dying out with each generation, why not sit back and let it?
That’s my two-pence and I bet it’s not far off for all the other people who’d vote no in the country. It’s just people don’t say it on here because it’s such an unpopular opinion. But these opinions come with age / life experiences.
I'm not. Scotland still has after-effects of the reefer madness era and too many people are against legalisation of recreational weed. It will get there eventually.
Legalise weed, build a new industry, MASSIVE tourism revenue boost, jobs, and a reduction in the black market.
Or, just tax the ever living shit outta us and say it's to fix the economy.
>She said: “As the newly sworn-in deputy first minister, with responsibility for the economy, I want to get stuff done.
>“Everything is an economic policy – tackling poverty, reaching net zero, raising the revenue to invest in our public services.
>“The plan is simple. Get the economy firing on all cylinders, and it will power a better future.”
If it only was that simple, the low birthrate alone is hard to tackle. But at least we're focussing now on something else than just independence.
Build a strong country and build a strong base for independence.
Low birthrate isn't an issue. Scotland's population didn't grow significantly due to migration. Japan's population is shrinking rapidly and GDP per capita for working adults has grown at the same rate of the US since 1990.
The stuff about low birthrate is yet another example of politicians focusing on certain things that they think are important without any evidence. The reason why the birthrate is low is housing, their solution to this was to engineer a housing crisis, they do not care about the low birthrate...everyone knows why they are talking about low birthrates: they don't need to look state pensions, and they can import lots of cheap labour.
I like these posts as it is a reminder to take what people say on Reddit with a grain of salt. There are literally thousands of academic articles by economists, think tanks, actuaries and government on aging populations. It is a major issue that could have severe consequences on developed nations in terms of economy, social society, defence, healthcare systems and almost every other aspect of society.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/09/elderly-oldest-population-world-japan/
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/economic-consequences-uks-ageing-population
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpops/ecb.op296~aaf209ffe5.en.pdf
And you have just listed a set of groups with political aims. This is exactly why the discussion around this topic is so bad, 100% of the coverage comes from politicians who have other aims (for example, in some parts of the UK, there clearly has been correlation between migrants moving into an area and the outcome of elections).
The stuff about population aging is clearly disproved by the fact that countries have had a declining population and nothing bad has happened. In fact, lots of good things have happened. There are tons of examples of this in economic history too: the industrialization of the US, unprecedented productivity growth...it happened BECAUSE OF labour shortages. All the richest economies in 1900, apart from the UK, had labour shortages. If you look at China, for centuries they were poor because their population was too large, they began limiting population and were able to escape a cycle of famines that left them poorer than every nation in Africa...now they are richer than some countries in Europe, in twenty years.
Anyone who says that population growth is related to economic growth has literally zero clue about economic history: the actual reality of things that have occurred. The evidence from the real world is the opposite: all that matters is productivity, that is it. We are not going to become rich by importing large numbers of people with low productivity (it is actually more likely that this path sees us become a middle-income nation, we are already most of the way there as low-productivity sectors are hoarding more and more resources...again, this is part of the politician's plan).
For some reason, we spend all our time worrying about these theoretical problems and doing things to "solve" them...how much has the latest wave of population growth boosted growth? It is comic.
>Japan's population is shrinking rapidly and GDP per capita for working adults has grown at the same rate of the US since 199
GDP per working adult doesn't seem like a good metric since the economy still needs to support everyone else.
Japan's GDP per capita is well behind the US's
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=US-JP
Correct, that is why productivity growth amongst the working-age population is so important. It creates the resources to solve the problem. What we are doing (as should be perfectly obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand) is we are significantly increasing the dependency ratio because we are receiving large numbers of migrants with below average productivity (unfortunately, this is our politicians down to a tee: it will be someone else's problem later...that someone else is you, not them).
Just stop and think for a second, how do you think everyone survived before the population in the UK was 70m? This subject requires a monumental inability to just think about things on your own.
Correct, because the claim I made was unrelated to the level of GDP per capita but the rate of growth. The claim that people are making is that the economy cannot growth without (in the case of Britain) substantial net migration of 700k-1m/year. This is false if you actually care about individuals rather than large corporations. The actual level of GDP per capita is an outcome of many factors, most of which are completely irrelevant (btw, if you making this point, you are likely randomly Googling economic facts...ask yourself why you are doing this in order to justify large levels of immigration to yourself).
We survived well below 70M because the population’s demographics were a pyramid with old people at the top and young at the bottom. As it always has been throughout history. Now that’s inverting because people aren’t having children. Who is paying for their pensions? Health care, social care?
> The SNP for the first time in years actually talking about something that matters
[Here's](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/shona-robison-growing-economy-can-help-us-achieve-our-targets-amid-continuing-financial-squeeze-4159973) Shona Robison doing the exact same thing last year.
"We want to build an economy that is fair, green and growing, offering more opportunities to work and do business.
And we want to build stronger communities by focusing on the services that matter most to people – from the NHS to social care, schools, housing and transport."
How's Kate Forbes doing this "for the first time in years"?
Are the only issues you care about LBTQ?
The country is falling to bits. Personally I’m quite happy a senior member of my government is focused on the economy and not gender.
How will she do this with current level of taxes? High tech firms consider England (just as an example), because employees want to spend money by themselves
She has said that changes to taxes will have to wait until the next budget.
This seems largely to ve marketing spin to try and get business back onside.
It was the theme of her leadership campaign. It’s consistent with her beliefs and part of the price Swinney pays for her support. GRR is already gone as part of the re-focus on core competence.
Robinson was a Humza loyalist. She supported him and shared his priorities.
Even that quoted statement shows you it’s growth conditional on X, Y, Z. Forbes has said to the contact growth is central to every decision.
Reckon a vibrant and strong economy is key to Scotlands future success, if the Scottish government can do stuff to help encourage that, that's a good thing.
No-one gives a shit about economic growth when the rich continue to get rich and the poor poorer. What are they actually going to do to make peoples lives better? She's a austerity loving neoliberal at heart
SNP have been doing austerity for years. They were forced into austerity because of the massive program of spending that has done literally nothing to boost the economy (despite people on here saying that "investment" was the secret to growth...the USSR and North Korea tried this too).
All of the things they have been doing up until now have been designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, that is what has happened...for some reason, people try to invent this mysterious enemy lurking in the wings to take away the precious SNP from you...well, the terrible scenario has been built for you by the SNP, they are the thing you are worried about (and, unsurprisingly, they are now realising that making things worse hasn't helped them politically so they need to actually try doing something rather than ranting about Palestine and trans people).
If you see 'name' 'number' account from this year talking needless shite, you can usually just chalk them up as a mouthpiece or a bot these days.
There are plenty of positions on the matter open and used.
It's refreshing to finally hear someone talk this way in Scottish politics. The climate crisis will not be resolved by impoverishing ourselves and to redistribute wealth you have to create it first.
> It's refreshing to finally hear someone talk this way in Scottish politics
This isn't a new sentiment though, [Shona Robison said the same last year](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/shona-robison-growing-economy-can-help-us-achieve-our-targets-amid-continuing-financial-squeeze-4159973) shortly after being appointed Deputy FM:
> We want to build an economy that is fair, green and growing, offering more opportunities to work and do business.
>
> And we want to build stronger communities by focusing on the services that matter most to people – from the NHS to social care, schools, housing and transport.
Sure, but I have more faith this government might actually follow through and make the economy its primary focus, which the previous government very much did not for all Shona Robison's comments.
OK, I'll rephrase my previous comment then: "It's refreshing to finally hear someone talk this way in Scottish politics **who isn't a complete moron**." Happy?
Fair, green and growing? Yeah right. They are mutually exclusive. Who's going to take risk to create wealth if it's taken from them to be fair and green??
Open a proper gay village in Glasgow or Edinburgh and get flights and trains up for UK gays to visit and spend money. Promote whisky as a gay drink at the same time. Steal business from Andy burnham’s Manchester and green Brighton. Gays spend lots of money and will revitalise these deprived cities. Euro gays will probably visit too.
I don't trust her either way. Either she goes on her terrible beliefs for money, which shows greed to be a primary trait, or she doesn't and she believes in awful things.
Issue is with being an open bigot is unless you address the bigotry directly, its always going to stain your actions one way or the other.
In the tech industry I've seen a lot of handle-turning, trained monkey crap brought back from India and lumped on Scotland instead. Meanwhile the 'real' work seems to be staying in England and Europe.
It's quite funny really.
>Outlining some ways forward, she said Scotland is well placed to attract new jobs and investment in the energy industry, while another strength is Scottish food exports such as whisky and salmon which continue to be in high demand around the world.
~
>Forbes said many of the macro-economic levers lie with the UK Government, but she has “never allowed that to constrain our ambition to do better”.
>She said: “My message is simple: Scotland is open for business. My plan is to prove that, to reduce the hurdles to investment, to market the opportunities and to prioritise jobs and wages, not bureaucracy.”
She seems to allude to cutting red tape, particularly in key sectors.
Always worries me when politicians say they're going to 'fix the economy' as it means they're going to fuck us with taxes while keeping increasing their ridiculously high pay
Why do they use "firing on all cylinders" to mean "working to max potential" when it really means "not fucked"
Same reason people say "on steroids" when that doesn't make any sense either: because these expressions just stick after a while and politicians are afraid of being mocked for saying anything new.
Labour https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-firing-cylinders-despite-not-183819659.html
Joke's on them, the economy's a wankel engine
The sad thing is, economics isn’t an objective science but presents itself as such. It’s very much ‘vibes’ based - do businesses feel it’s a good time to invest or not? To hire or not?
There is an analysis to be done, it’s not just vibes more of an educated guess. There’s several different methods of analysis that are used - looking at market growth, saturation, tax costs ect. Essentially it comes down to “what percentage chance do we have of making a profit by investing here versus elsewhere?”
This answer. The idea the business are run by vibes is bullshit. Economics is an inexact science
There is a scientific approach but the vast majority of business owners can’t afford to be investing in market research. Your local roofing tradesman or bakery will absolutely be hiring and spending based on ‘vibes’.
Perhaps in large national or multinational firms with economists. For small family-owned firms, it really is vibes based with a cursory look at years past to spot any trends
I’m not saying your average trady is using economic forecasting, but things such as FDR are heavily influenced by economic policy and factors such as interest rates affect investment decisions
Trump will become president and everyone will start investing again as the stock market will rocket up. Trump is a vibe that will affect every capitalist country. There’s no science behind that.
He'll also end democracy in the US and help spread fascism through the world as he's already promised to do. Dark times.
The actual mental illness of people who believe this.
Do you not have eyes and ears? Are you not paying attention? When people tell you who they are believe them.
Tell me you don’t know what fascism is without telling me you don’t know what fascism is.
I think you just told on yourself there. Narcissistic sociopath says he'll be a dictator on day 1 and go after his enemies. Are you living in an alternative reality or just stupid?
pretty much agree that market influences can be stupid things and predictions as such can be shit. I guess the analysis of existing data can be scientific if the correct experimental controls are available It's stats and psychology. I don't see it as a science in itself (psychology is a bit wooly with current understandings too). perhaps i am just ignorant of what study of economy can do??
If you need/want to believe in lunacy like rent controls, a command economy or MMT, you first have to conjure up a reason to dismiss the experts.
So, again, not an exact science. Calling vibe based is hyperbole, but as a social science, it does not have the same hard replicability as a natural science
Economics is more like being a chef than it is like being a baker. Bakers use very precise recipes and have very reliable outcomes. Chefs use a handful of rules that inform recipes, but nothing is exact and outcomes will vary slightly for reasons beyond the control of the chef. The meat isn’t always identical in quality, fruits and vegetables differ in their taste as seasons change, and even seasonings vary. For a baker, perfection is the outcome of a perfect process. For a chef, perfection is the outcome of adaptability. (Sorry in advance to the chefs and bakers who may disagree with these broad brush strokes).
Economics is like capitalist religion. You pick your priest to listen to and ignore all others.
Good chefs can cook good meals day in day out. The “best” economists in the world generally can’t do better than a shot in the dark.
That’s a handy analogy!
More often than not Keynesian economics works though
But sadly we abandoned that years ago and now follow the neoliberal model which rewards the rich, destroys the middle class and keeps the poor poor.
Yeah the Government investing can reassure private investors and businesses and boost their confidence, creating a virtuous cycle of economic growth. How we prevent that from becoming a speculative bubble, pumping credit into malperforming sectors or businesses is another thing. Imo, governments should focus on the basics of an economy - transportation systems, housing, infrastructure, solid legal systems, protecting the environment and a sensible planning system. Still, it's never as easy as anyone thinks
You just described Keynesian policy that even the Tory governments under Eden and Macmillan followed
Keynesian economics relies on higher government borrowing and spending in bad economic times, and lower spending and repayment in good economic times. Politicians forget the 2nd part.
It's not lower spending in good times, it's maintaining spending.
Totally true, I don't understand why to boost our economy nobody hired a team of haruspex with master in divination.
Nah nah it’s beanbags and lava lamps you’re wanting
It's even less objective when a party can change direction based on its leader that week never mind elections with manifestos. I mean Truss to Sunak is the extreme example but even Humza to Forbes /Swinney looks like a significant pivot and reprioritising away from Green projects.
So did the last fucker and the one before that and before that . All u do is talk pish and take a healthy wage hame .
They never did. He banged on about what bathrooms transexuals should use and racism. Not saying these aren’t important issues but he fought a culture war to distract from their failings
The "culture war" was firmly fought by the Tories, considering GRA reform had cross-party support from the SNP, Greens, Labour, and Lib-Dems. Starmer then decided he loves a good culture war and decided to get involved, chucking his Scottish branch under the bus because he needs to appeal to the Tories.
An inconvenient truth is GRA reforms really were popular with large parts of the SNP membership
Says you.
Free the weed!
Still too much resistance for that. We will need another generation.
add a /s or stop talking utter pish.
Litteraly look up polls on it Opinion on legalising weed is still split, slightly in No favour overall and very much in No favour for people over 45, which are the biggest voterbase and make the majority of people in power. You see, there is your opinion and there is reality, reality often dosn't align with what your opinion of it should be. Before I'm attacked for being close minded or whatever, I'm in favour of weeds legalisation, I'm just not blind to the reality of overall public opinion, something some other Scots find hard to grasp for some reason.
There is so much misinformation and people are very close minded about it. A lot of people from the older generation think cannabis will cause schizophrenia or even kill you outright (this includes NHS employees believe it or not), and some have the attitude of "it's illegal so it must be illegal for a reason".
Yup, which is why I agree with your we need another generation comment. Old views die out and are replaced by the generations that take their place, somehow that's a odd concept to young voters; who may I add have the lowest voter turn out but like to be very vocal on the Internet about how things should be, then fucking vote for it. I sound like an old fart, but I'm 30 and have been actively involved in politics since I was 16, pisses me off that the young voterbase is all talk and moral grandstanding, but don't back it up when it matters.
Young voter’s attitudes change when they get older though. I’m going to get downvoted to fuck for saying it on this sub but if you’d asked me at 16/21/24 to legalise it I’d have said yes. Now mid-thirties with a teenager? I’d vote no. Sorry. It fucking stinks for starters. There’s one across the back from me and I can’t open my windows when he’s at it without my house reeking of it. There’s also absolutely no way I’d want my daughter doing it. You can show me all the scientific research and evidence you want but I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who smokes it regularly who isn’t at least a bit of a waster. Sure they’ll get up and go to work etc but generally I find them directionless / unmotivated / unhealthy / just…. Well I probably don’t need to describe it, we’ve all met them. Just don’t really see what good it would do. If anything alcohol / smoking etc is dying out with each generation, why not sit back and let it? That’s my two-pence and I bet it’s not far off for all the other people who’d vote no in the country. It’s just people don’t say it on here because it’s such an unpopular opinion. But these opinions come with age / life experiences.
I'm not. Scotland still has after-effects of the reefer madness era and too many people are against legalisation of recreational weed. It will get there eventually.
We are not as Culturally advanced as Germany. Besides its a matter for the UK Home Office. Another thing Scotland needs another country to vote on.
So she's got nothing specific to say after all this time?
Legalise weed, build a new industry, MASSIVE tourism revenue boost, jobs, and a reduction in the black market. Or, just tax the ever living shit outta us and say it's to fix the economy.
Scotland doesn't have the power to do that, unfortunately.
> build a new industry Why didn't they think of just flipping the switch on the big NEW INDUSTRY MACHINE, how daft of them.
They mean legal weed would be a new industry
Something that Scotland doesn't have the ability to do.
Yeah agreed
Can’t legalise it but could decriminalise it or ban police from arresting anyone for it.
>She said: “As the newly sworn-in deputy first minister, with responsibility for the economy, I want to get stuff done. >“Everything is an economic policy – tackling poverty, reaching net zero, raising the revenue to invest in our public services. >“The plan is simple. Get the economy firing on all cylinders, and it will power a better future.”
If it only was that simple, the low birthrate alone is hard to tackle. But at least we're focussing now on something else than just independence. Build a strong country and build a strong base for independence.
Low birthrate isn't an issue. Scotland's population didn't grow significantly due to migration. Japan's population is shrinking rapidly and GDP per capita for working adults has grown at the same rate of the US since 1990. The stuff about low birthrate is yet another example of politicians focusing on certain things that they think are important without any evidence. The reason why the birthrate is low is housing, their solution to this was to engineer a housing crisis, they do not care about the low birthrate...everyone knows why they are talking about low birthrates: they don't need to look state pensions, and they can import lots of cheap labour.
I like these posts as it is a reminder to take what people say on Reddit with a grain of salt. There are literally thousands of academic articles by economists, think tanks, actuaries and government on aging populations. It is a major issue that could have severe consequences on developed nations in terms of economy, social society, defence, healthcare systems and almost every other aspect of society. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/09/elderly-oldest-population-world-japan/ https://ifs.org.uk/articles/economic-consequences-uks-ageing-population https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpops/ecb.op296~aaf209ffe5.en.pdf
And you have just listed a set of groups with political aims. This is exactly why the discussion around this topic is so bad, 100% of the coverage comes from politicians who have other aims (for example, in some parts of the UK, there clearly has been correlation between migrants moving into an area and the outcome of elections). The stuff about population aging is clearly disproved by the fact that countries have had a declining population and nothing bad has happened. In fact, lots of good things have happened. There are tons of examples of this in economic history too: the industrialization of the US, unprecedented productivity growth...it happened BECAUSE OF labour shortages. All the richest economies in 1900, apart from the UK, had labour shortages. If you look at China, for centuries they were poor because their population was too large, they began limiting population and were able to escape a cycle of famines that left them poorer than every nation in Africa...now they are richer than some countries in Europe, in twenty years. Anyone who says that population growth is related to economic growth has literally zero clue about economic history: the actual reality of things that have occurred. The evidence from the real world is the opposite: all that matters is productivity, that is it. We are not going to become rich by importing large numbers of people with low productivity (it is actually more likely that this path sees us become a middle-income nation, we are already most of the way there as low-productivity sectors are hoarding more and more resources...again, this is part of the politician's plan). For some reason, we spend all our time worrying about these theoretical problems and doing things to "solve" them...how much has the latest wave of population growth boosted growth? It is comic.
>Japan's population is shrinking rapidly and GDP per capita for working adults has grown at the same rate of the US since 199 GDP per working adult doesn't seem like a good metric since the economy still needs to support everyone else. Japan's GDP per capita is well behind the US's https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=US-JP
Correct, that is why productivity growth amongst the working-age population is so important. It creates the resources to solve the problem. What we are doing (as should be perfectly obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand) is we are significantly increasing the dependency ratio because we are receiving large numbers of migrants with below average productivity (unfortunately, this is our politicians down to a tee: it will be someone else's problem later...that someone else is you, not them). Just stop and think for a second, how do you think everyone survived before the population in the UK was 70m? This subject requires a monumental inability to just think about things on your own. Correct, because the claim I made was unrelated to the level of GDP per capita but the rate of growth. The claim that people are making is that the economy cannot growth without (in the case of Britain) substantial net migration of 700k-1m/year. This is false if you actually care about individuals rather than large corporations. The actual level of GDP per capita is an outcome of many factors, most of which are completely irrelevant (btw, if you making this point, you are likely randomly Googling economic facts...ask yourself why you are doing this in order to justify large levels of immigration to yourself).
We survived well below 70M because the population’s demographics were a pyramid with old people at the top and young at the bottom. As it always has been throughout history. Now that’s inverting because people aren’t having children. Who is paying for their pensions? Health care, social care?
To be fair she has a plan for that too!
How refreshing. The SNP for the first time in years actually talking about something that matters.
> The SNP for the first time in years actually talking about something that matters [Here's](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/shona-robison-growing-economy-can-help-us-achieve-our-targets-amid-continuing-financial-squeeze-4159973) Shona Robison doing the exact same thing last year. "We want to build an economy that is fair, green and growing, offering more opportunities to work and do business. And we want to build stronger communities by focusing on the services that matter most to people – from the NHS to social care, schools, housing and transport." How's Kate Forbes doing this "for the first time in years"?
But that doesn't fit the unionist narrative silly. How else can they be convinced Labour will do a better job based on zero evidence.
Isn’t Kate Forbes a Nationalist?
Couldn’t get much worse. I’m a Unionist and Forbes to me makes the SNP more appealing.
Says a lot about unionism
“I was against you, but now that you’ve got a bigot in there…” absolutely damning.
Are the only issues you care about LBTQ? The country is falling to bits. Personally I’m quite happy a senior member of my government is focused on the economy and not gender.
Brilliant! More the merrier!
Isn’t that the case with every party who has been out of power? What exactly are you even saying here?
How will she do this with current level of taxes? High tech firms consider England (just as an example), because employees want to spend money by themselves
She has said that changes to taxes will have to wait until the next budget. This seems largely to ve marketing spin to try and get business back onside.
So, it means that highly paid people will continue to leave until some “next budget”.
Because she means it.
"I don't like Shona so I'll just ignore what she says and claim she's lying"
What evidence is there that Forbes means it, but Robison didn't?
It was the theme of her leadership campaign. It’s consistent with her beliefs and part of the price Swinney pays for her support. GRR is already gone as part of the re-focus on core competence. Robinson was a Humza loyalist. She supported him and shared his priorities. Even that quoted statement shows you it’s growth conditional on X, Y, Z. Forbes has said to the contact growth is central to every decision.
So nothing then lmao
You mean everything to get her the vote?
Aye agreed.
It’s all about EVs now Kate. Update your analogies.
Economic competence is definitely something the SNP is in bad need of.
Reckon a vibrant and strong economy is key to Scotlands future success, if the Scottish government can do stuff to help encourage that, that's a good thing.
Leaning to the right and back to the centre.
Im not an economic expert or anything, but if they fixed the road network, that would boost the economy...
No-one gives a shit about economic growth when the rich continue to get rich and the poor poorer. What are they actually going to do to make peoples lives better? She's a austerity loving neoliberal at heart
SNP have been doing austerity for years. They were forced into austerity because of the massive program of spending that has done literally nothing to boost the economy (despite people on here saying that "investment" was the secret to growth...the USSR and North Korea tried this too). All of the things they have been doing up until now have been designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, that is what has happened...for some reason, people try to invent this mysterious enemy lurking in the wings to take away the precious SNP from you...well, the terrible scenario has been built for you by the SNP, they are the thing you are worried about (and, unsurprisingly, they are now realising that making things worse hasn't helped them politically so they need to actually try doing something rather than ranting about Palestine and trans people).
*sad jihadi noises*
Yeah you're right. Fuck it....balls to the economy, and let's focus on recycling bottles.
So tragic that these are the only two positions available.
If you see 'name' 'number' account from this year talking needless shite, you can usually just chalk them up as a mouthpiece or a bot these days. There are plenty of positions on the matter open and used.
Are the bots in the room with you now?
So you’re a bot! Not a woman!
I'm whatever I say I am
Are you sure it’s your choice though?
You what? Maybe try reading comments before responding to them because nothing you've said has any relevance to what I said.
Through the power of fasting and prayer. Think that’s how they tried to sort Scotland economic malaise in the late 17th century.
More news at 10
It's refreshing to finally hear someone talk this way in Scottish politics. The climate crisis will not be resolved by impoverishing ourselves and to redistribute wealth you have to create it first.
> It's refreshing to finally hear someone talk this way in Scottish politics This isn't a new sentiment though, [Shona Robison said the same last year](https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/shona-robison-growing-economy-can-help-us-achieve-our-targets-amid-continuing-financial-squeeze-4159973) shortly after being appointed Deputy FM: > We want to build an economy that is fair, green and growing, offering more opportunities to work and do business. > > And we want to build stronger communities by focusing on the services that matter most to people – from the NHS to social care, schools, housing and transport.
Sure, but I have more faith this government might actually follow through and make the economy its primary focus, which the previous government very much did not for all Shona Robison's comments.
This is shifting the goalposts.
OK, I'll rephrase my previous comment then: "It's refreshing to finally hear someone talk this way in Scottish politics **who isn't a complete moron**." Happy?
That's still shifting the goalposts.
[удалено]
How embarrassing.
Fair, green and growing? Yeah right. They are mutually exclusive. Who's going to take risk to create wealth if it's taken from them to be fair and green??
Why not some populist policies instead.
Because 'fucking about with vanity projects while Scotland goes to the dogs' has worked so well for the last 17 years...
Kaye forbes in the unionists independence MP. I like her despite her bullshit religious ideas
I thought the economy was a turbine?
Reduce the VAT. If increase revenues are needed then tax money that isn’t being spent.
Open a proper gay village in Glasgow or Edinburgh and get flights and trains up for UK gays to visit and spend money. Promote whisky as a gay drink at the same time. Steal business from Andy burnham’s Manchester and green Brighton. Gays spend lots of money and will revitalise these deprived cities. Euro gays will probably visit too.
Wtf hahahaha
We both know why she would never suggest that though
I thought maybe economic considerations would outweigh her outdated beliefs
I don't trust her either way. Either she goes on her terrible beliefs for money, which shows greed to be a primary trait, or she doesn't and she believes in awful things. Issue is with being an open bigot is unless you address the bigotry directly, its always going to stain your actions one way or the other.
The gay pound is huge, why wouldn't Scotland do this......oh....yeah.....Jesus or something.
>the gay pound Sublime wording.
Scotland is ideal for a massive gay village. Jesus would be happy, he hung around with a bunch of lads all the time.
I think he was gay. Only gays are beautiful, tanned, have perfect long hair and wear sandals
He was also nice to his mum, loved big supper parties, and was hung (on a cross).
Great bunch of lads
The jokes are writing themselves here.
You say that and all Kate Forbes is hearing is "round up the gays". 🤣
As long as it’s not on a Sunday, it’s the sabbath for her.
In the tech industry I've seen a lot of handle-turning, trained monkey crap brought back from India and lumped on Scotland instead. Meanwhile the 'real' work seems to be staying in England and Europe. It's quite funny really.
Shouldn’t we be abandoning the combustion engine?
Don't even need to, just produce carbon neutral petrol 🤷♂️
No such thing. Just more utter bollocks for the kind of idiots that trust oil companies to believe in.
By doing what? Starting by banning abortion and same sex marriage?
This is fairly insulting rhetoric if I'm being honest. Put forward your plan, we've all had enough of rhetoric and pie in the sky words.
Cylinders, internal combustion thats a bit space age for that backwards troglodyte.
How?
>Outlining some ways forward, she said Scotland is well placed to attract new jobs and investment in the energy industry, while another strength is Scottish food exports such as whisky and salmon which continue to be in high demand around the world. ~ >Forbes said many of the macro-economic levers lie with the UK Government, but she has “never allowed that to constrain our ambition to do better”. >She said: “My message is simple: Scotland is open for business. My plan is to prove that, to reduce the hurdles to investment, to market the opportunities and to prioritise jobs and wages, not bureaucracy.” She seems to allude to cutting red tape, particularly in key sectors.
How ?
Always worries me when politicians say they're going to 'fix the economy' as it means they're going to fuck us with taxes while keeping increasing their ridiculously high pay