´óÏó´«Ã½

The benefit of the VAT cut is that it can be implemented swiftly, and so could generate some momentum and confidence that prevents the downturn getting even worse. Politicians might be keen on that with an election looming.

The downside is that spend spend spend by consumers is what we need to be edging away from long term. In theory, infrastructure development will boost long-term productivity in the economy, unlike borrowing money for yet more imports.

The weaker pound will already be helping to bring this about.

The skills shortage is surely a red herring- there are loads of skilled people now ready and willing to take on jobs, particularly in construction. We might even get some value for money in procurement in these hard times.

The Irish have more levers to pull than the Scots, but they also have greater problems, as their economy and tax system is so unbalanced. But at least they have experienced growth and have the EU's second most productive economy to show for their previous efforts.

Douglas re-Fraser - still writing his Herald style unionist column. Plus ca change. I notice that he only mentions the possible downside in the Republic and makes little comment on details of the bank deal (which appears to have been effective - so far). It should be pointed out that it's quite normal for people to travel to the North to take advantage of cheaper food and alcohol prices there; I know I've dome it myself a few times. No mention that this is an old phenomenon or that people from the North travel to the Republic to buy petrol - for exactly the same reason.

And absolutely no mention of the fact that we have become almost 50% poorer relative to our Eurozone neighbours, thanks to the weakest of Sterling. My next trip to Dublin may be a very expensive one!

Come on Douglas you now work for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ ,a little more balanced reporting or like Kirsty Wark you will be tarnished as a Unionist Labour stooge, and like the respect that she once had you too will loose it.

Why should we not mention Iceland?

Iceland is a small, resourceful, enterprising country of around 320,000 hard-working, patriotic Icelanders. I'm sure there will be pain in the short term for Iceland, but with all of its attributes, and those of its people, it will emerge a better, stronger country in the long term.

The United Kingdom is a large, creaking, bankrupt, "beggar" economy, with a population of 60m most of whom are more interested in apportioning blame than working to resolve the problems it faces. Combine that with a collapsing currency, a discredited government, a capital that is jokingly referred to as "Reykjavik-on-Thames" a lacklustre, inexperienced opposition, a massive fiscal deficit, a rocketing national debt, a strcutural current account deficit that is the 2nd largest in the world and a private sector credit to GDP ratio that would knock yer socks off...and I think the "UK" will fare much, much worse than Iceland.

An independent Scotland certainly couldn't be any worse than any of that....take me there!!!

Oh...and on the recapitalisation of banks.....now that the Irish are doing it - I was led to believe that small countries couldn't do this kind of thing....

Douglas.....

How best to pump funds into a troubled economy - tax cuts or more spending?

Both, make a tax cuts to people and do spending more in the society i.e. roads and education and also, health!

"Little of that (technology and equipment) comes from British companies."

No manure Sherlock! That's a classic Union dividend.

Douglas

What a confused thread you have provided - it seems to lack any internal consistency.

Alex Salmond, the first minister, would rather like to have £1bn of extra money to spend, partly to be seen to be doing something in the face of the downturn, and perhaps because there's a lengthening list of public sector capital projects getting delayed by his problems in getting the idea of the Scottish Futures Trust up and running.

"to be seen to be doing something" is a rather facile assumption that he doesn't actually want to do anything.

The "idea of the Scottish Futures Trust" is "up and running". Strange that you don't recognise that the credit crunch has made both the SFT and PFI schemes more difficult to implement.

"The Nationalists' opponents reckon the case for independence has been fatally damaged by the credit crunch.

Small countries need the protection of big alliances, they say."

An odd statement to make, since the SNP position is pro euro. Apart from the FSP, Nationalists want to embrace a wider alliance than the euro-sceptic Unionist parties do.

"That vulnerability to swings against sterling, its dominant market, would also affect an independent Scotland if it were in the euro-zone."

This must be the ultimate in stupid comments by you.

If Scotland had been independent, it would have had an oil fund like Norway (and many other oil producing nations) and been in their position. However, due to Scots having been persuaded to remain in a UK which didn't have the wit to set up its own oil fund but to waste the revenues to prop up its imperialist agendas, instead of using the income to create an infrastructure to support manufacture, that opportunity has been thrown away.

You seem to be not only an unthinking Unionist, but a UK seperatist, clininging to a redundant sterling currency.

Grow up, or move on.

All of our economies in the West, US, UK, Europe, Canada, share one common characteristic: They resemble yachts upon which the bridge of an aircraft carrier has been mounted. Wonder why they have trouble staying afloat?

If we cut taxes, dramatically and immediately, especially upon income, interest, and capital gains, and; cut the size, reach and expenditure of government, dramatically and immediately, especially in the areas where government impedes business formation, the results will be dramatic and positive.

Instead, we have politicians who wish to heighten the bridge, and install more mid-level officers to 'manage the economy' and 'redistribute the wealth'.

When does common sense get an opportunity to weigh in?