The Scottish Politics Thread

[Tichtheid]

The private sector also creates the consumer demand, people didnt know they wanted a smart phone until they were created for example. Other yes look for what the consumers want and generally who is best at quenching that demand is usually the better company. The companies that feed off the public sector still have to be paid by the taxes raised from elsewhere, you cant create tax revenue from the public sector as such, yes the employees spend their wages on private sector goods which in turn then leads to taxes being recirculated back in but in essence the wealth that is taxed comes from private enterprise and yes it is far more complicated than i could ever adequately describe here.

Smartphones are a good example in this discussion, whilst the new sleek and sexy devices we have from the likes of Apple and Samsung are from highly profitable private companies, much of the tech and infrastructure which allows them to work have come from public sector backgrounds, telecoms, the internet, WWW, cellular networks etc.

There is an interesting idea in MMT which states the the initial spend in the money cycle through the economy comes from the government, via a central bank, introducing money into the system, it flows through the conduits between sectors and is taken out at the other end via taxation.

This is obviously a very simplified version of the process.

[Biffer]

It is quite simple though in that the private sector does indeed create the wealth from where the tax is raised for the public sector to operate, equally the private sector needs an efficient public sector to support it in creating this wealth, it is symbiotic.

Whilst I agree the public/private sector relationship is symbiotic, I think it's far more complicated than "private sector - wealth creator, public - wealth consumer", there is a myriad of conduits between the private and public sectors through which money flows, eg many private sector businesses depend wholly or heavily on public sector contracts.
Elsewhere it could be argued that private sector goods and services are at the mercy of consumer demand, and it is that demand that ultimately creates wealth.

The private sector also creates the consumer demand, people didnt know they wanted a smart phone until they were created for example. Other yes look for what the consumers want and generally who is best at quenching that demand is usually the better company. The companies that feed off the public sector still have to be paid by the taxes raised from elsewhere, you cant create tax revenue from the public sector as such, yes the employees spend their wages on private sector goods which in turn then leads to taxes being recirculated back in but in essence the wealth that is taxed comes from private enterprise and yes it is far more complicated than i could ever adequately describe here.

There are shite private sector companies and there are shite public sector departments and there are equally very good ones, it just so happens that the private sector tends to weed out the shite more efficiently than the public sector (when they arent being propped by the public sector of course). Equally the companies that are heavily focused on public sector delivery are usually the ones that get the most pelters.

However, pretty much every single piece of technology in the smart phone came from publicly funded research.

[Northern Lights]

The private sector also creates the consumer demand, people didnt know they wanted a smart phone until they were created for example. Other yes look for what the consumers want and generally who is best at quenching that demand is usually the better company. The companies that feed off the public sector still have to be paid by the taxes raised from elsewhere, you cant create tax revenue from the public sector as such, yes the employees spend their wages on private sector goods which in turn then leads to taxes being recirculated back in but in essence the wealth that is taxed comes from private enterprise and yes it is far more complicated than i could ever adequately describe here.

Smartphones are a good example in this discussion, whilst the new sleek and sexy devices we have from the likes of Apple and Samsung are from highly profitable private companies, much of the tech and infrastructure which allows them to work have come from public sector backgrounds, telecoms, the internet, WWW, cellular networks etc.

There is an interesting idea in MMT which states the the initial spend in the money cycle through the economy comes from the government, via a central bank, introducing money into the system, it flows through the conduits between sectors and is taken out at the other end via taxation.

This is obviously a very simplified version of the process.

MMT although very in vogue on discussion forums on the internet is certainly not mainstream economic theory. Interesting thought experiment for sure but best left there imho.

As to the infrastructure the big private telecoms companies have paid enormous fees to the government to be allowed to provide the cellular infrastructure. It fills most people with horror the thought of the public sector getting involved in this area unless you’re part of the Corbynistas which is a very acquired taste.

[Northern Lights]

Whilst I agree the public/private sector relationship is symbiotic, I think it's far more complicated than "private sector - wealth creator, public - wealth consumer", there is a myriad of conduits between the private and public sectors through which money flows, eg many private sector businesses depend wholly or heavily on public sector contracts.
Elsewhere it could be argued that private sector goods and services are at the mercy of consumer demand, and it is that demand that ultimately creates wealth.

The private sector also creates the consumer demand, people didnt know they wanted a smart phone until they were created for example. Other yes look for what the consumers want and generally who is best at quenching that demand is usually the better company. The companies that feed off the public sector still have to be paid by the taxes raised from elsewhere, you cant create tax revenue from the public sector as such, yes the employees spend their wages on private sector goods which in turn then leads to taxes being recirculated back in but in essence the wealth that is taxed comes from private enterprise and yes it is far more complicated than i could ever adequately describe here.

There are shite private sector companies and there are shite public sector departments and there are equally very good ones, it just so happens that the private sector tends to weed out the shite more efficiently than the public sector (when they arent being propped by the public sector of course). Equally the companies that are heavily focused on public sector delivery are usually the ones that get the most pelters.

However, pretty much every single piece of technology in the smart phone came from publicly funded research.

Like the camera?

[Bimbowomxn]

However, pretty much every single piece of technology in the smart phone came from publicly funded research.

:lol

[Tichtheid]

A few years ago the economist Mariana Mazzucato published a fascinating book debunking a whole series of myths about innovation. Her thesis is summed up in the title – The Entrepreneurial State.

Radical innovation, Mazzucato reveals, almost always starts with the government. Take the iPhone, the epitome of modern technological progress. Literally every single sliver of technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone instead of a stupidphone – internet, GPS, touchscreen, battery, hard drive, voice recognition – was developed by researchers on the government payroll.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... innovation

[Tichtheid]

The book itself looks quite interesting, link here

https://marianamazzucato.com/entrepreneurial-state/

[Bimbowomxn]

Try this book if you want to learn something.

[Northern Lights]

Will add it to my reading list

I don’t disagree that cutting edge technology and innovation has heavy government backing, well certainly the very early stage stuff as it just isn’t commercially viable to sink the sums of money into projects that might not pay off, private sector kicks in thereafter to generate the tax revenues so governments can then spend that money on the next big thing.

As I said symbiotic, each needs each other even if both have a big dose of scepticism of each other’s ways.

Edit this was for Ticht before bimbo jumped in.

[Tichtheid]

Edit this was for Ticht before bimbo jumped in.

Did you ever read the AoD bored?

I ask because that's the only place where my "handle" was shortened to "Ticht" by other posters, or is it just coincidence?

[Bimbowomxn]

Will add it to my reading list

I don’t disagree that cutting edge technology and innovation has heavy government backing, well certainly the very early stage stuff as it just isn’t commercially viable to sink the sums of money into projects that might not pay off, private sector kicks in thereafter to generate the tax revenues so governments can then spend that money on the next big thing.

As I said symbiotic, each needs each other even if both have a big dose of scepticism of each other’s ways.

Edit this was for Ticht before bimbo jumped in.

Matt Ridley is worth anyone’s time though.

Also much of the research in the smartphone is public funded because “military”. They’re generally 10 years ahead in most communications tech.

[Biffer]

The private sector also creates the consumer demand, people didnt know they wanted a smart phone until they were created for example. Other yes look for what the consumers want and generally who is best at quenching that demand is usually the better company. The companies that feed off the public sector still have to be paid by the taxes raised from elsewhere, you cant create tax revenue from the public sector as such, yes the employees spend their wages on private sector goods which in turn then leads to taxes being recirculated back in but in essence the wealth that is taxed comes from private enterprise and yes it is far more complicated than i could ever adequately describe here.

There are shite private sector companies and there are shite public sector departments and there are equally very good ones, it just so happens that the private sector tends to weed out the shite more efficiently than the public sector (when they arent being propped by the public sector of course). Equally the companies that are heavily focused on public sector delivery are usually the ones that get the most pelters.

However, pretty much every single piece of technology in the smart phone came from publicly funded research.

Like the camera?

CMOS detectors? Yup

Also
Capacitive touch screen? Yup
GPS? Yup
Voice activation? Yup
WiFi? Yup

Many more too. I’m not saying for a second that the iPhone is a government funded thing, it’s obviously not. But it wouldn’t have been possible without government funding the basic research into the tech. There is very, very little technological innovation that doesn’t have some kind of state funding in its development.The Google algorithm started as government funded research. What the US does so well is the transition to commercialisation of technology. Almost by accident they developed an extremely efficient system of tech translation from research to industry.

[Northern Lights]

Edit this was for Ticht before bimbo jumped in.

Did you ever read the AoD bored?

I ask because that's the only place where my "handle" was shortened to "Ticht" by other posters, or is it just coincidence?

Just coincidence, my laziness in not typing out your full handle.

[clydecloggie]

However, pretty much every single piece of technology in the smart phone came from publicly funded research.

Like the camera?

CMOS detectors? Yup

Also
Capacitive touch screen? Yup
GPS? Yup
Voice activation? Yup
WiFi? Yup

Many more too. I’m not saying for a second that the iPhone is a government funded thing, it’s obviously not. But it wouldn’t have been possible without government funding the basic research into the tech. There is very, very little technological innovation that doesn’t have some kind of state funding in its development.The Google algorithm started as government funded research. What the US does so well is the transition to commercialisation of technology. Almost by accident they developed an extremely efficient system of tech translation from research to industry.

Yup.

And let's not forget that pretty much all of the infrastructure that companies need to sell their stuff to customers (ports, airports, roads, railways, shopping centres, satellite systems, home internet access cabling, trade treaties with Japan and China, employee education etc. etc.) was put in place by the public sector.

It's why the 'business generates money, government spends it" trope and its connotations are such utter hogwash.

If Apple had to do all of this themselves, there never would have been an Apple, let alone an iPhone to get filthy rich off.

[Bimbowomxn]

“Shopping centres”


Ports and airports .....

[Bimbowomxn]

If Apple had to do all of this themselves, there never would have been an Apple, let alone an iPhone to get filthy rich off.

Amazon wants it infrastructure and growth back ....


You absolute melt.

[Biffer]

Like the camera?

CMOS detectors? Yup

Also
Capacitive touch screen? Yup
GPS? Yup
Voice activation? Yup
WiFi? Yup

Many more too. I’m not saying for a second that the iPhone is a government funded thing, it’s obviously not. But it wouldn’t have been possible without government funding the basic research into the tech. There is very, very little technological innovation that doesn’t have some kind of state funding in its development.The Google algorithm started as government funded research. What the US does so well is the transition to commercialisation of technology. Almost by accident they developed an extremely efficient system of tech translation from research to industry.

Yup.

And let's not forget that pretty much all of the infrastructure that companies need to sell their stuff to customers (ports, airports, roads, railways, shopping centres, satellite systems, home internet access cabling, trade treaties with Japan and China, employee education etc. etc.) was put in place by the public sector.

It's why the 'business generates money, government spends it" trope and its connotations are such utter hogwash.

If Apple had to do all of this themselves, there never would have been an Apple, let alone an iPhone to get filthy rich off.

Yeah, UK govt was warned off privatising the tube by the city.

[clydecloggie]

If Apple had to do all of this themselves, there never would have been an Apple, let alone an iPhone to get filthy rich off.

Amazon wants it infrastructure and growth back ....


You absolute melt.

I bow to your superior wisdom Bim. Just the other day when I was making my way to the rugby club, I was just thinking how amazing it was that Jeff Bezos had the foresight to build that road so he could one day have his delivery vans drive his wares to his customers over it. Not just that, that he personally set up the driving test infrastructure so he could hire qualified drivers. And of course inventing the postcode, so they knew where to go. All of that while solving the thorny issue of...ach, never mind. Why the man has not got a Nobel prize yet I'll never know.

[Northern Lights]

Like the camera?

CMOS detectors? Yup

Also
Capacitive touch screen? Yup
GPS? Yup
Voice activation? Yup
WiFi? Yup

Many more too. I’m not saying for a second that the iPhone is a government funded thing, it’s obviously not. But it wouldn’t have been possible without government funding the basic research into the tech. There is very, very little technological innovation that doesn’t have some kind of state funding in its development.The Google algorithm started as government funded research. What the US does so well is the transition to commercialisation of technology. Almost by accident they developed an extremely efficient system of tech translation from research to industry.

Yup.

And let's not forget that pretty much all of the infrastructure that companies need to sell their stuff to customers (ports, airports, roads, railways, shopping centres, satellite systems, home internet access cabling, trade treaties with Japan and China, employee education etc. etc.) was put in place by the public sector.

It's why the 'business generates money, government spends it" trope and its connotations are such utter hogwash.

If Apple had to do all of this themselves, there never would have been an Apple, let alone an iPhone to get filthy rich off.

See this is just nonsense from the other side and doesnt further the discussion, the government doesnt generate tax revenues they need to come from the private sector and it is not from the goodness of their heart that they develop and build these things, the majority of the development tech that is in the iPhone was originally developed by and for the military so it is not some altruistic crusade that the public sector is all good its those nasty bastards in the private sector you have to watch out for, that is the utter hogwash.

Ports and airports are largely privately owned here by the way.

[clydecloggie]

CMOS detectors? Yup

Also
Capacitive touch screen? Yup
GPS? Yup
Voice activation? Yup
WiFi? Yup

Many more too. I’m not saying for a second that the iPhone is a government funded thing, it’s obviously not. But it wouldn’t have been possible without government funding the basic research into the tech. There is very, very little technological innovation that doesn’t have some kind of state funding in its development.The Google algorithm started as government funded research. What the US does so well is the transition to commercialisation of technology. Almost by accident they developed an extremely efficient system of tech translation from research to industry.

Yup.

And let's not forget that pretty much all of the infrastructure that companies need to sell their stuff to customers (ports, airports, roads, railways, shopping centres, satellite systems, home internet access cabling, trade treaties with Japan and China, employee education etc. etc.) was put in place by the public sector.

It's why the 'business generates money, government spends it" trope and its connotations are such utter hogwash.

If Apple had to do all of this themselves, there never would have been an Apple, let alone an iPhone to get filthy rich off.

See this is just nonsense from the other side and doesnt further the discussion, the government doesnt generate tax revenues they need to come from the private sector and it is not from the goodness of their heart that they develop and build these things, the majority of the development tech that is in the iPhone was originally developed by and for the military so it is not some altruistic crusade that the public sector is all good its those nasty bastards in the private sector you have to watch out for, that is the utter hogwash.

Ports and airports are largely privately owned here by the way.

That's not what I said, and not what I meant. The point is that the private and public sectors are interwoven to a degree that one can't exist, let alone prosper, without the other. The mutual relationship is symbiotic, not parasitic - which is how Neil and other neocons tend to describe it.

And ports and airports may be privately owned, most were not privately developed.

[Northern Lights]

Yup.

And let's not forget that pretty much all of the infrastructure that companies need to sell their stuff to customers (ports, airports, roads, railways, shopping centres, satellite systems, home internet access cabling, trade treaties with Japan and China, employee education etc. etc.) was put in place by the public sector.

It's why the 'business generates money, government spends it" trope and its connotations are such utter hogwash.

If Apple had to do all of this themselves, there never would have been an Apple, let alone an iPhone to get filthy rich off.

See this is just nonsense from the other side and doesnt further the discussion, the government doesnt generate tax revenues they need to come from the private sector and it is not from the goodness of their heart that they develop and build these things, the majority of the development tech that is in the iPhone was originally developed by and for the military so it is not some altruistic crusade that the public sector is all good its those nasty bastards in the private sector you have to watch out for, that is the utter hogwash.

Ports and airports are largely privately owned here by the way.

That's not what I said, and not what I meant. The point is that the private and public sectors are interwoven to a degree that one can't exist, let alone prosper, without the other. The mutual relationship is symbiotic, not parasitic - which is how Neil and other neocons tend to describe it.

And ports and airports may be privately owned, most were not privately developed.

So in other words exactly what we have been saying on this thread. Neil or other neocons as you describe them dont believe the entire public sector is parasitic, just the various quangos and other feather-nesters out there sucking up scarce public funds need to be seriously culled and he is not wrong, they add next to no value to either th eprivate or public sector and in many ways just gum up the interaction between the two.

[Bimbowomxn]

If Apple had to do all of this themselves, there never would have been an Apple, let alone an iPhone to get filthy rich off.

Amazon wants it infrastructure and growth back ....


You absolute melt.

I bow to your superior wisdom Bim. Just the other day when I was making my way to the rugby club, I was just thinking how amazing it was that Jeff Bezos had the foresight to build that road so he could one day have his delivery vans drive his wares to his customers over it. Not just that, that he personally set up the driving test infrastructure so he could hire qualified drivers. And of course inventing the postcode, so they knew where to go. All of that while solving the thorny issue of...ach, never mind. Why the man has not got a Nobel prize yet I'll never know.

Indeed, the tech giant Amazon would have failed if it had not been for the “postcode”.

“Sorry Jeff, we cant deliver books from those internet orders , the buyers houses can’t be found”:

[Slick]

Amazon wants it infrastructure and growth back ....


You absolute melt.

I bow to your superior wisdom Bim. Just the other day when I was making my way to the rugby club, I was just thinking how amazing it was that Jeff Bezos had the foresight to build that road so he could one day have his delivery vans drive his wares to his customers over it. Not just that, that he personally set up the driving test infrastructure so he could hire qualified drivers. And of course inventing the postcode, so they knew where to go. All of that while solving the thorny issue of...ach, never mind. Why the man has not got a Nobel prize yet I'll never know.

Indeed, the tech giant Amazon would have failed if it had not been for the “postcode”.

“Sorry Jeff, we cant deliver books from those internet orders , the buyers houses can’t be found”:

Well, yes.

[Bimbowomxn]

Sorry, you’re actually claiming that Amazon would have failed if there wasn’t such a thing as a “postcode”.

[Slick]

Sorry, you’re actually claiming that Amazon would have failed if there wasn’t such a thing as a “postcode”.

No, that's you being a dick as usual and focussing in on one tiny part of the overall point to try and be clever.

It's completely fucking obvious that if there wasn't a system in place to identify individual houses then delivery would be a tad difficult.

[Bimbowomxn]

Sorry, you’re actually claiming that Amazon would have failed if there wasn’t such a thing as a “postcode”.

No, that's you being a dick as usual and focussing in on one tiny part of the overall point to try and be clever.

It's completely fucking obvious that if there wasn't a system in place to identify individual houses then delivery would be a tad difficult.

And insurmountable to Jeff Bezos and his team.


And quite frankly the idea that we owe it all to infrastructure, considering how much is actually built by private enterprise or even directly paid for by the private sector (106’s anyone). The idea that it was public monies paying for what is now Heathrow can only be a silly bias.

[tc27]

FWIW Andre Neil is probably just as critical of the conservative government and the Labour party as he is of the SNP. BJ refused to be interviewed by him and Neil empty chaired him.

[westport]

There is a poll on how leaders are doing, both are doing crap IMO, and Sturgeon comes out better than Johnson. They have both done similar things, both crap at it. But comparing Scotland with England as far as covid goes is ridiculous it is better comparing us with countries of a similar population, there are four European countries with populations of five million.

Denmark 5,799,640 757 Covid deaths
Finland 5,545,596 369 Covid deaths
Slovakia 5,462,617 510 Covid deaths
Norway 5,436,637 294 Covid deaths.
Scotland 5,500000? 3280 Covid deaths (over 5000 if you use NRS figures)

[Northern Lights]

Bit more on this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54989613

And nicked from the end of this:

How will 2020 look in context?
There have been 54,510 deaths from all causes in Scotland in 2020 so far and there are likely to be another 8,000 deaths or so before the end of the year, judging from averages over the last five years.

If Scotland reaches almost 63,000 deaths this year, it will be the highest overall death toll since 1993.

Adjusting for population changes, it will be the highest number of deaths per 100,000 people since 1999.

So just because i am a heartless bastard, I still dont think these neverending cycle of lockdowns has been remotely the correct policy response to this pandemic. Dont remember the economy being laid to waste in '93 or '99 which had higher numbers of dead people by respective measure, been a massive policy failure across Western europe IMHO, now the darent change tack and are in fact doubling down with the weegies etc going into tier 4.

[Dogbert]

There is a poll on how leaders are doing, both are doing crap IMO, and Sturgeon comes out better than Johnson. They have both done similar things, both crap at it. But comparing Scotland with England as far as covid goes is ridiculous it is better comparing us with countries of a similar population, there are four European countries with populations of five million.

Denmark 5,799,640 757 Covid deaths
Finland 5,545,596 369 Covid deaths
Slovakia 5,462,617 510 Covid deaths
Norway 5,436,637 294 Covid deaths.
Scotland 5,500000? 3280 Covid deaths (over 5000 if you use NRS figures)

What should they have done differently ?

[clydecloggie]

Bit more on this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54989613

And nicked from the end of this:

How will 2020 look in context?
There have been 54,510 deaths from all causes in Scotland in 2020 so far and there are likely to be another 8,000 deaths or so before the end of the year, judging from averages over the last five years.

If Scotland reaches almost 63,000 deaths this year, it will be the highest overall death toll since 1993.

Adjusting for population changes, it will be the highest number of deaths per 100,000 people since 1999.

So just because i am a heartless bastard, I still dont think these neverending cycle of lockdowns has been remotely the correct policy response to this pandemic. Dont remember the economy being laid to waste in '93 or '99 which had higher numbers of dead people by respective measure, been a massive policy failure across Western europe IMHO, now the darent change tack and are in fact doubling down with the weegies etc going into tier 4.

Any idea what happened specifically in '93 and '99? Severe flu seasons? Really bad winters? Battle of Bannockburn? I can't remember.

I think unchecked spread of the virus is a very bad idea, and the only way to stop it is to halt the trafficking of the virus by human bodies. There are alternatives to a lockdown, including shielding all the vulnerable (Sweden - didn't work), mass testing and isolating all positive cases (Slovakia - probably worked).

One of the things to take into account is Scotland's peculiar population density distribution. It essentially has one area of extremely high density (Central Belt), some isolated urban areas, and the rest are extremely low-density areas. Purely from a public health perspective, those three types ideally needed completely different interventions and crucially as little traffic between each other as possible. But someone who had suggested that in March would probably have been simultaneously a genius and laughed out the building.

But yeah, the figures still look pretty bad.

[Slick]

Sorry, you’re actually claiming that Amazon would have failed if there wasn’t such a thing as a “postcode”.

No, that's you being a dick as usual and focussing in on one tiny part of the overall point to try and be clever.

It's completely fucking obvious that if there wasn't a system in place to identify individual houses then delivery would be a tad difficult.

And insurmountable to Jeff Bezos and his team.


And quite frankly the idea that we owe it all to infrastructure, considering how much is actually built by private enterprise or even directly paid for by the private sector (106’s anyone). The idea that it was public monies paying for what is now Heathrow can only be a silly bias.

You are a ridiculous person.

[Northern Lights]

Bit more on this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54989613

And nicked from the end of this:

How will 2020 look in context?
There have been 54,510 deaths from all causes in Scotland in 2020 so far and there are likely to be another 8,000 deaths or so before the end of the year, judging from averages over the last five years.

If Scotland reaches almost 63,000 deaths this year, it will be the highest overall death toll since 1993.

Adjusting for population changes, it will be the highest number of deaths per 100,000 people since 1999.

So just because i am a heartless bastard, I still dont think these neverending cycle of lockdowns has been remotely the correct policy response to this pandemic. Dont remember the economy being laid to waste in '93 or '99 which had higher numbers of dead people by respective measure, been a massive policy failure across Western europe IMHO, now the darent change tack and are in fact doubling down with the weegies etc going into tier 4.

Any idea what happened specifically in '93 and '99? Severe flu seasons? Really bad winters? Battle of Bannockburn? I can't remember.

I think unchecked spread of the virus is a very bad idea, and the only way to stop it is to halt the trafficking of the virus by human bodies. There are alternatives to a lockdown, including shielding all the vulnerable (Sweden - didn't work), mass testing and isolating all positive cases (Slovakia - probably worked).

One of the things to take into account is Scotland's peculiar population density distribution. It essentially has one area of extremely high density (Central Belt), some isolated urban areas, and the rest are extremely low-density areas. Purely from a public health perspective, those three types ideally needed completely different interventions and crucially as little traffic between each other as possible. But someone who had suggested that in March would probably have been simultaneously a genius and laughed out the building.

But yeah, the figures still look pretty bad.

Strong causal link to poverty and deprivation as well, in that those in the likes of East end of Glasgow have shocking life expectancy as it is and are also more likely to die from this virus. So again big policy failure by respective governments on this as well, this has arguable become worse not better under the current administration which cant as much as people will want to blame Westminster, they have had plenty of tools in the box to address this.

I'm not arguing that it should have been a free for all, I am more pissed off that they are doubling down on bad political action with even more of the same that is harming society, mental health and the economy to an alarming extent but we seem trapped in this mindset with the rest of the UK following this bonkers course of action.

Edit : No idea on those years, nothing sticks out in the memory banks over these ones.

[Northern Lights]

There is a poll on how leaders are doing, both are doing crap IMO, and Sturgeon comes out better than Johnson. They have both done similar things, both crap at it. But comparing Scotland with England as far as covid goes is ridiculous it is better comparing us with countries of a similar population, there are four European countries with populations of five million.

Denmark 5,799,640 757 Covid deaths
Finland 5,545,596 369 Covid deaths
Slovakia 5,462,617 510 Covid deaths
Norway 5,436,637 294 Covid deaths.
Scotland 5,500000? 3280 Covid deaths (over 5000 if you use NRS figures)

What should they have done differently ?

It would appear quite a lot given the disparity in the performance and maybe the public should wake up to the fact that Nicola performing well on front of a camera does not relate to actual delivery and competence.

[clydecloggie]

Bit more on this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54989613

And nicked from the end of this:



So just because i am a heartless bastard, I still dont think these neverending cycle of lockdowns has been remotely the correct policy response to this pandemic. Dont remember the economy being laid to waste in '93 or '99 which had higher numbers of dead people by respective measure, been a massive policy failure across Western europe IMHO, now the darent change tack and are in fact doubling down with the weegies etc going into tier 4.

Any idea what happened specifically in '93 and '99? Severe flu seasons? Really bad winters? Battle of Bannockburn? I can't remember.

I think unchecked spread of the virus is a very bad idea, and the only way to stop it is to halt the trafficking of the virus by human bodies. There are alternatives to a lockdown, including shielding all the vulnerable (Sweden - didn't work), mass testing and isolating all positive cases (Slovakia - probably worked).

One of the things to take into account is Scotland's peculiar population density distribution. It essentially has one area of extremely high density (Central Belt), some isolated urban areas, and the rest are extremely low-density areas. Purely from a public health perspective, those three types ideally needed completely different interventions and crucially as little traffic between each other as possible. But someone who had suggested that in March would probably have been simultaneously a genius and laughed out the building.

But yeah, the figures still look pretty bad.

Strong causal link to poverty and deprivation as well, in that those in the likes of East end of Glasgow have shocking life expectancy as it is and are also more likely to die from this virus. So again big policy failure by respective governments on this as well, this has arguable become worse not better under the current administration which cant as much as people will want to blame Westminster, they have had plenty of tools in the box to address this.

I'm not arguing that it should have been a free for all, I am more pissed off that they are doubling down on bad political action with even more of the same that is harming society, mental health and the economy to an alarming extent but we seem trapped in this mindset with the rest of the UK following this bonkers course of action.

Edit : No idea on those years, nothing sticks out in the memory banks over these ones.

Aye, that's a very good point - poor people in the UK are a fair bit poorer than poor people in other European countries - especially in Scandinavia (honourable exception being those Finnish islands which were traditionally the poorest in the 'old', pre Eastern expansion, EU) but also now in some of the smaller former Eastern bloc countries like Slovakia and Slovenia. And that is directly linked to poor health and elevated Covid death rates. Also, Scottish housing is abysmal and directly linked to high prevalence of COPD etc. - which again elevates Covid death rates.

It is a failure of government (both UK and Scottish) that the wealth gap is so ridiculous in Britain, absolutely. Especially because it was pretty deliberate policy from Thatcher onwards to increase that gap.

[tc27]

There is a poll on how leaders are doing, both are doing crap IMO, and Sturgeon comes out better than Johnson. They have both done similar things, both crap at it. But comparing Scotland with England as far as covid goes is ridiculous it is better comparing us with countries of a similar population, there are four European countries with populations of five million.

Denmark 5,799,640 757 Covid deaths
Finland 5,545,596 369 Covid deaths
Slovakia 5,462,617 510 Covid deaths
Norway 5,436,637 294 Covid deaths.
Scotland 5,500000? 3280 Covid deaths (over 5000 if you use NRS figures)

What should they have done differently ?

It would appear quite a lot given the disparity in the performance and maybe the public should wake up to the fact that Nicola performing well on front of a camera does not relate to actual delivery and competence.

Yes we are discovering the limits of daily news conferences in fighting pandemics..

They are great for polling though.

[Northern Lights]

Any idea what happened specifically in '93 and '99? Severe flu seasons? Really bad winters? Battle of Bannockburn? I can't remember.

I think unchecked spread of the virus is a very bad idea, and the only way to stop it is to halt the trafficking of the virus by human bodies. There are alternatives to a lockdown, including shielding all the vulnerable (Sweden - didn't work), mass testing and isolating all positive cases (Slovakia - probably worked).

One of the things to take into account is Scotland's peculiar population density distribution. It essentially has one area of extremely high density (Central Belt), some isolated urban areas, and the rest are extremely low-density areas. Purely from a public health perspective, those three types ideally needed completely different interventions and crucially as little traffic between each other as possible. But someone who had suggested that in March would probably have been simultaneously a genius and laughed out the building.

But yeah, the figures still look pretty bad.

Strong causal link to poverty and deprivation as well, in that those in the likes of East end of Glasgow have shocking life expectancy as it is and are also more likely to die from this virus. So again big policy failure by respective governments on this as well, this has arguable become worse not better under the current administration which cant as much as people will want to blame Westminster, they have had plenty of tools in the box to address this.

I'm not arguing that it should have been a free for all, I am more pissed off that they are doubling down on bad political action with even more of the same that is harming society, mental health and the economy to an alarming extent but we seem trapped in this mindset with the rest of the UK following this bonkers course of action.

Edit : No idea on those years, nothing sticks out in the memory banks over these ones.

Aye, that's a very good point - poor people in the UK are a fair bit poorer than poor people in other European countries - especially in Scandinavia (honourable exception being those Finnish islands which were traditionally the poorest in the 'old', pre Eastern expansion, EU) but also now in some of the smaller former Eastern bloc countries like Slovakia and Slovenia. And that is directly linked to poor health and elevated Covid death rates. Also, Scottish housing is abysmal and directly linked to high prevalence of COPD etc. - which again elevates Covid death rates.

It is a failure of government (both UK and Scottish) that the wealth gap is so ridiculous in Britain, absolutely. Especially because it was pretty deliberate policy from Thatcher onwards to increase that gap.

That just isnt true though and frustratingly so it keeps getting repeated. The GINI has actually been fairly static for a long time now and if anything has actually narrowed since peaking in 2008.

Housing is a major issue though across the UK but particularily bad in Glasgow and it just has never been seriously addressed, lots of prouncements by the SNP on these things and why people wanted to give them a shot as LAbour before them had done feck all in their heartlands to actually improve things. They have just tinkered at the edges though and continued with their one true quest which masks how poor an administration they have been.

Alex Bell in today's P&J has a pretty good column (for a Nat) highlighting a lot of this and is pretty critical of the current administration having zero answers to the big economic questions and is pretty honest in that things will get a whole lot worse with Indy if they dont get their shit together and actually get a plan for teh economy. Can post it up here unfortunately as the format they deliver their e-paper is shite.

[tc27]

Something interesting I saw today.

The Scottish government was handed competency for a raft of new Welfare powers following the SMith Commission.

It will take five years for them to be fully implemented:



I think whenever things like this come up its worth bearing in mind that the 2014 White Paper claimed a entire new state could be setup in two years at the cost of £500 million.

[clydecloggie]

Strong causal link to poverty and deprivation as well, in that those in the likes of East end of Glasgow have shocking life expectancy as it is and are also more likely to die from this virus. So again big policy failure by respective governments on this as well, this has arguable become worse not better under the current administration which cant as much as people will want to blame Westminster, they have had plenty of tools in the box to address this.

I'm not arguing that it should have been a free for all, I am more pissed off that they are doubling down on bad political action with even more of the same that is harming society, mental health and the economy to an alarming extent but we seem trapped in this mindset with the rest of the UK following this bonkers course of action.

Edit : No idea on those years, nothing sticks out in the memory banks over these ones.

Aye, that's a very good point - poor people in the UK are a fair bit poorer than poor people in other European countries - especially in Scandinavia (honourable exception being those Finnish islands which were traditionally the poorest in the 'old', pre Eastern expansion, EU) but also now in some of the smaller former Eastern bloc countries like Slovakia and Slovenia. And that is directly linked to poor health and elevated Covid death rates. Also, Scottish housing is abysmal and directly linked to high prevalence of COPD etc. - which again elevates Covid death rates.

It is a failure of government (both UK and Scottish) that the wealth gap is so ridiculous in Britain, absolutely. Especially because it was pretty deliberate policy from Thatcher onwards to increase that gap.

That just isnt true though and frustratingly so it keeps getting repeated. The GINI has actually been fairly static for a long time now and if anything has actually narrowed since peaking in 2008.

Housing is a major issue though across the UK but particularily bad in Glasgow and it just has never been seriously addressed, lots of prouncements by the SNP on these things and why people wanted to give them a shot as LAbour before them had done feck all in their heartlands to actually improve things. They have just tinkered at the edges though and continued with their one true quest which masks how poor an administration they have been.

Alex Bell in today's P&J has a pretty good column (for a Nat) highlighting a lot of this and is pretty critical of the current administration having zero answers to the big economic questions and is pretty honest in that things will get a whole lot worse with Indy if they dont get their shit together and actually get a plan for teh economy. Can post it up here unfortunately as the format they deliver their e-paper is shite.

Well, the GINI is not the be all and end all of inequality metrics, but even on the GINI the UK scores a good deal worse (i.e. reflecting higher inequality) than the Scandinavian countries that "do well" on Covid and funnily enough the most equal countries in Europe according to the GINI are our beloved exemplar friends in Slovakia and Slovenia.

Ummm...independence now! <waves flag, heads to George Square>.

[Biffer]

There is a poll on how leaders are doing, both are doing crap IMO, and Sturgeon comes out better than Johnson. They have both done similar things, both crap at it. But comparing Scotland with England as far as covid goes is ridiculous it is better comparing us with countries of a similar population, there are four European countries with populations of five million.

Denmark 5,799,640 757 Covid deaths
Finland 5,545,596 369 Covid deaths
Slovakia 5,462,617 510 Covid deaths
Norway 5,436,637 294 Covid deaths.
Scotland 5,500000? 3280 Covid deaths (over 5000 if you use NRS figures)

What should they have done differently ?

Denmark is always my go to for international comparison with Scotland - size, location, dominated by a big neighbour to the south which is the only land border (ok, there's a bridge to Sweden now), so let's look at them.,

Denmark about 65,000 cases 750 deaths, Scotland about 85,000 cases 5,000 deaths.

The profile of cases was very similar in the early part of their outbreak, and when you look at the timing of lockdown, it was also similar. But the number of cases receded more quickly and their deaths were far lower. From the limited info I can find, the differences seem to be
- the cases fell more quickly after lockdown in the first phase
- they kept the diseases out of the elderly population (I can't find decent info on how they did that)

For the first one the only major policy difference I can see is that they closed their borders, but I doubt that's the sole reason. I suspect cultural differences may have made a difference.

The second seems to be substantially because it didn't get transferred into care homes. You'd need to have a greater understanding of the health and care system than I do in both countries to really analyse why decisions were taken and when. Fwiw I understand why the it was thought to be a good idea to get the elderly out of hospitals in the early part of the pandemic, but the rush to get them away from perceived 'danger areas', i.e. hospitals, meant that it wasn't thought through wrt testing before transfer etc. I think there are two problems here, one which needs to be understood about what was and wasn't considered and done as part of the transfer processes and practices, and one which is a systemic problem about elderly care, delayed discharge etc within the health and care system in Scotland (and the UK) - I've no idea if a similar problem exists in Denmark.

In this wave, they are currently reporting broadly the same number of cases as Scotland (maybe 10-20% fewer) but kicked up to that level several weeks behind us. Their death numbers are still in single figures although given the timings of their increases, you might expect that to rise in the next two weeks. Given the low numbers though it seems that they have still managed to keep it out of the elderly population.