Economic growth in Scotland shrinks for first time since 2003
Economic growth in Scotland has shrunk for the first time in five years amid a sharp slowdown spurred by the global credit crisis and soaring oil prices.
At the same time, the British Chambers of Commerce yesterday warned that the outlook for the UK economy as a whole was growing worse and the Bank of England must act to stop a major downturn.
The latest edition of the closely watched Purchasing Managers Index, compiled by Royal Bank of Scotland, reflected the impact in April of record-busting cost inflation and sharply declining new business north of the border.
The survey index for overall Scottish private-sector output fell to 48.3 last month, down from 51.4 in March. A reading above 50 denotes expansion; a sub-50 score marks contraction.
In one of the most ominous reports in recent times, Scottish firms reported fast-deteriorating market conditions and weakening consumer confidence in
the face of the ongoing credit crunch, surging prices for oil, food and other commodities, and rising utility bills.
On Friday, the price of crude oil climbed above $126 a barrel for the first time, while higher energy costs hurt businesses and consumers alike, adding to the woes of economies already smarting from the housing slump and the overall global financial turmoil.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:40pm Sun 11 May 08
And in the face of this, the Labour Party are advocating that the poor pay more income tax and that we all pay more through continuing with Council Tax rising with inflation......
No Thanks Wendy
And in the face of this, the Labour Party are advocating that the poor pay more income tax and that we all pay more through continuing with Council Tax rising with inflation......
No Thanks Wendy
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 10:40pm Sun 11 May 08
[quote]$126 a barrel[/quote]
And what do we have to show for it?
$126 a barrel
And what do we have to show for it?
Posted by: Karin, glasgae. on 10:44pm Sun 11 May 08
another union dividend............
....................
another union dividend............
....................
Posted by: Astonished, Inverclyde on 10:56pm Sun 11 May 08
Shouldn't that unquestioning Wendy supporter, who heads Scottish CBI, resign ?
I bet he has to get pushed.
Shouldn't that unquestioning Wendy supporter, who heads Scottish CBI, resign ?
I bet he has to get pushed.
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 11:03pm Sun 11 May 08
Scotland eh, the only major oil producing nation to suffer as a result of [bold]increasing[/bold] oil prices.
Look out for more articles such as this over the coming days, weeks, months. Perhaps this paper might like to consider if Scotland would be suffering if it was independent and in control of it's own resources.
Scotland eh, the only major oil producing nation to suffer as a result of
increasing oil prices.
Look out for more articles such as this over the coming days, weeks, months. Perhaps this paper might like to consider if Scotland would be suffering if it was independent and in control of it's own resources.
Posted by: Alkie, NYC on 11:12pm Sun 11 May 08
Typical. A drunken, alcoholic society will soon see the fruits of its love.
A society based on alcohol will be destroyed by itself.
Typical. A drunken, alcoholic society will soon see the fruits of its love.
A society based on alcohol will be destroyed by itself.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 11:26pm Sun 11 May 08
''Economic growth in Scotland shrinks for first time since 2003''
That was only 3 hours and 20 minutes ago.
''Economic growth in Scotland shrinks for first time since 2003''
That was only 3 hours and 20 minutes ago.
Posted by: subrosa on 11:50pm Sun 11 May 08
Why wasn't this expected? Westminster knew the price of oil would rise and upped the taxes accordingly. Plus their attitude to Scottish business is too well protected by the mouthy exec of the CBI. He never stops insulting the Scottish government. Why's the man still in post?
The unions are another matter. They dance to labour's tune and can't hear another one. More fool them. It'll all come back to haunt them because their jobs aren't secure with any party in control and they know that full well. But then again, as they've done for years, they'll turn a deaf ear.
Why wasn't this expected? Westminster knew the price of oil would rise and upped the taxes accordingly. Plus their attitude to Scottish business is too well protected by the mouthy exec of the CBI. He never stops insulting the Scottish government. Why's the man still in post?
The unions are another matter. They dance to labour's tune and can't hear another one. More fool them. It'll all come back to haunt them because their jobs aren't secure with any party in control and they know that full well. But then again, as they've done for years, they'll turn a deaf ear.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]Alkie[/bold] wrote:
Typical. A drunken, alcoholic society will soon see the fruits of its love.
A society based on alcohol will be destroyed by itself. [/quote]
Supper time in NYC, just the one gin.....how's the weather Alkipop?
Alkie wrote:
Typical. A drunken, alcoholic society will soon see the fruits of its love.
A society based on alcohol will be destroyed by itself.
Supper time in NYC, just the one gin.....how's the weather Alkipop?
Posted by: Samoyed, Costa del Menie on 12:08am Mon 12 May 08
In figures published last week, The Scotsman’s full-rate circulation has fallen to just under 45,000; its overall figure, including bulks, was just over 50,000, while The Herald’s full-rate figure was just under 64,000. Bulks brought its total up to just over 65,000.
Serve them well.
In figures published last week, The Scotsman’s full-rate circulation has fallen to just under 45,000; its overall figure, including bulks, was just over 50,000, while The Herald’s full-rate figure was just under 64,000. Bulks brought its total up to just over 65,000.
Serve them well.
Posted by: Stevie, Bo'ness on 12:25am Mon 12 May 08
That's what happens when you put party allegiances before honest journalism. No sympathy.
That's what happens when you put party allegiances before honest journalism. No sympathy.
Posted by: Malcolm Baird on 12:37am Mon 12 May 08
Scotland needs a jolt after 50 years of Labour control at the local level. Independence will provide that jolt. Ireland became independent 80 years ago and it has at last climbed up from being a backwater. Perhaps Scotland can follow that example on a faster time scale.
Sorry to sound like Mr. Obama, but new thinking is needed.
Scotland needs a jolt after 50 years of Labour control at the local level. Independence will provide that jolt. Ireland became independent 80 years ago and it has at last climbed up from being a backwater. Perhaps Scotland can follow that example on a faster time scale.
Sorry to sound like Mr. Obama, but new thinking is needed.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 12:41am Mon 12 May 08
Some Wall Street stockbrokers are saying that oil will go up to $150 to $200 a barrel. Of course you will never hear that in the unionist press and media.
Some Wall Street stockbrokers are saying that oil will go up to $150 to $200 a barrel. Of course you will never hear that in the unionist press and media.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 12:47am Mon 12 May 08
Subrosa says
'' Plus their attitude to Scottish business is too well protected by the mouthy exec of the CBI. He never stops insulting the Scottish government. Why's the man still in post?''
I cant take that CBI guy Ian McMillian seriously. He's very camp, he's like Larry Grayson.
Subrosa says
'' Plus their attitude to Scottish business is too well protected by the mouthy exec of the CBI. He never stops insulting the Scottish government. Why's the man still in post?''
I cant take that CBI guy Ian McMillian seriously. He's very camp, he's like Larry Grayson.
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 12:49am Mon 12 May 08
What is the SNP going to do about working males in scotland, even Yorkshire and the Humber has more men in employment than in the whole of scotland?
What is the SNP going to do about working males in scotland, even Yorkshire and the Humber has more men in employment than in the whole of scotland?
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 1:02am Mon 12 May 08
8% Tiresome 11 % Boring.
Posted by: David on 1:10am Mon 12 May 08
[bold]The only oil producing country in the world poorer now. You Scots are something else![/bold]
The only oil producing country in the world poorer now. You Scots are something else! Posted by: wxalexander, canada on 2:29am Mon 12 May 08
Due to the number produced by the Grangemouth strike of a loss in DAILY revenue to the Treasury of 30 million pounds, the total daily revenue to the Treasury is 120 million pounds or 45 billion pounds a year!!. Nice to know that you only receive 30 billion a year under the Barnett formula. But don't worry, with North Sea oil declining at 8% a year it wont be long before they balance. At that point you get less or get independence
Due to the number produced by the Grangemouth strike of a loss in DAILY revenue to the Treasury of 30 million pounds, the total daily revenue to the Treasury is 120 million pounds or 45 billion pounds a year!!. Nice to know that you only receive 30 billion a year under the Barnett formula. But don't worry, with North Sea oil declining at 8% a year it wont be long before they balance. At that point you get less or get independence
Posted by: wxalexander, canada on 2:31am Mon 12 May 08
Due to the number produced by the Grangemouth strike of a loss in DAILY revenue to the Treasury of 30 million pounds, the total daily revenue to the Treasury is 120 million pounds or 45 billion pounds a year!!. Nice to know that you only receive 30 billion a year under the Barnett formula. But don't worry, with North Sea oil declining at 8% a year it wont be long before they balance. At that point you get less or get independence
Due to the number produced by the Grangemouth strike of a loss in DAILY revenue to the Treasury of 30 million pounds, the total daily revenue to the Treasury is 120 million pounds or 45 billion pounds a year!!. Nice to know that you only receive 30 billion a year under the Barnett formula. But don't worry, with North Sea oil declining at 8% a year it wont be long before they balance. At that point you get less or get independence
Posted by: Awaab Raja, EDINBURGH on 5:54am Mon 12 May 08
Alex Salmond and the SNP have constantly extolled the virtues of mass immigration into Scotland as a means of making Scotland wealthier.
However, the mass immigration of cheap labour into Scotland has not made us wealthier, [italic]italic[/italic] but instead has meant overcrowded housing, busier roads and railways and more pressure on the scarce resources of the NHS and schools.
Is this what Alex Salmond means when he constantly states that "Scotland is not full up"?
Alex Salmond and the SNP have constantly extolled the virtues of mass immigration into Scotland as a means of making Scotland wealthier.
However, the mass immigration of cheap labour into Scotland has not made us wealthier, but instead has meant overcrowded housing, busier roads and railways and more pressure on the scarce resources of the NHS and schools.
Is this what Alex Salmond means when he constantly states that "Scotland is not full up"?
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 7:54am Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote:
What is the SNP going to do about working males in scotland, even Yorkshire and the Humber has more men in employment than in the whole of scotland?[/quote]
Have you got those london stats yet 8%?
Here's a helping hand
Although not subject to Barnett, there are significant variations in identifiable spending between the regions of England:
* North East £8,177 - 111% of UK average identifiable expenditure
* North West £7,798 - 106%
* Yorkshire and Humberside £7,188 - 98%
* East Midlands £6,491 - 88%
* West Midlands £7,065 - 96%
* Eastern £6,144 - 83%
* London £8,404 - 114%
* South East £6,304 - 86%
* South West £6,677 - 91%
* Average England £7,121
Greater London accounts for approximately 15% of England's population, lowering the per capita expenditure in London to the current English average of £7,121 would mean that the rest of England's per capita expenditure would rise by around £250 per person
Instant abolition of the Barnett Formula, based on the above figures would result on an average UK expenditure of approximately £7362.
scotland only 8% of UK wrote:
What is the SNP going to do about working males in scotland, even Yorkshire and the Humber has more men in employment than in the whole of scotland?
Have you got those london stats yet 8%?
Here's a helping hand
Although not subject to Barnett, there are significant variations in identifiable spending between the regions of England:
* North East £8,177 - 111% of UK average identifiable expenditure
* North West £7,798 - 106%
* Yorkshire and Humberside £7,188 - 98%
* East Midlands £6,491 - 88%
* West Midlands £7,065 - 96%
* Eastern £6,144 - 83%
* London £8,404 - 114%
* South East £6,304 - 86%
* South West £6,677 - 91%
* Average England £7,121
Greater London accounts for approximately 15% of England's population, lowering the per capita expenditure in London to the current English average of £7,121 would mean that the rest of England's per capita expenditure would rise by around £250 per person
Instant abolition of the Barnett Formula, based on the above figures would result on an average UK expenditure of approximately £7362.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 8:05am Mon 12 May 08
Awaab Raja, EDINBURGH on 5:54am today
Awaab, yoiur statement is not really true
The SNP has advocated a stronger immigration policy, seeking an enhanced role for the Scottish Parliament in the Shortage Occupation List.
The SNP have consistently pressed the case for a Scottish green-card that is awarded to eager, qualified immigrants, who want to come to Scotland for five years or longer.
That could hardly be described as 'mass immigration'
The biggest challenge facing scotland is it's ageing population, between encouraging young families through cheaper living costs and encouraging young people to come here to study and eventually live & work, this is the right way for Scotland to proceed.
Awaab Raja, EDINBURGH on 5:54am today
Awaab, yoiur statement is not really true
The SNP has advocated a stronger immigration policy, seeking an enhanced role for the Scottish Parliament in the Shortage Occupation List.
The SNP have consistently pressed the case for a Scottish green-card that is awarded to eager, qualified immigrants, who want to come to Scotland for five years or longer.
That could hardly be described as 'mass immigration'
The biggest challenge facing scotland is it's ageing population, between encouraging young families through cheaper living costs and encouraging young people to come here to study and eventually live & work, this is the right way for Scotland to proceed.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 8:07am Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]David[/bold] wrote:
[bold]The only oil producing country in the world poorer now. You Scots are something else![/bold] [/quote]
Gordon is going to have a hard time explaining that in 2 years time
David wrote:
The only oil producing country in the world poorer now. You Scots are something else!
Gordon is going to have a hard time explaining that in 2 years time
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 9:41am Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]Wardog[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]scotland only 8% of UK[/bold] wrote: What is the SNP going to do about working males in scotland, even Yorkshire and the Humber has more men in employment than in the whole of scotland?[/quote] Have you got those london stats yet 8%? Here's a helping hand Although not subject to Barnett, there are significant variations in identifiable spending between the regions of England: * North East £8,177 - 111% of UK average identifiable expenditure * North West £7,798 - 106% * Yorkshire and Humberside £7,188 - 98% * East Midlands £6,491 - 88% * West Midlands £7,065 - 96% * Eastern £6,144 - 83% * London £8,404 - 114% * South East £6,304 - 86% * South West £6,677 - 91% * Average England £7,121 Greater London accounts for approximately 15% of England's population, lowering the per capita expenditure in London to the current English average of £7,121 would mean that the rest of England's per capita expenditure would rise by around £250 per person Instant abolition of the Barnett Formula, based on the above figures would result on an average UK expenditure of approximately £7362. [/quote] [bold]85%[/bold] of the unemployed in [bold]scotsland[/bold] are [bold]white[/bold]
34% of the unemployed in London are white
66% of the unemployed in Yorkshire and The Humber are white.
First prize for scotsland's white's!
Wardog wrote:
scotland only 8% of UK wrote: What is the SNP going to do about working males in scotland, even Yorkshire and the Humber has more men in employment than in the whole of scotland?
Have you got those london stats yet 8%? Here's a helping hand Although not subject to Barnett, there are significant variations in identifiable spending between the regions of England: * North East £8,177 - 111% of UK average identifiable expenditure * North West £7,798 - 106% * Yorkshire and Humberside £7,188 - 98% * East Midlands £6,491 - 88% * West Midlands £7,065 - 96% * Eastern £6,144 - 83% * London £8,404 - 114% * South East £6,304 - 86% * South West £6,677 - 91% * Average England £7,121 Greater London accounts for approximately 15% of England's population, lowering the per capita expenditure in London to the current English average of £7,121 would mean that the rest of England's per capita expenditure would rise by around £250 per person Instant abolition of the Barnett Formula, based on the above figures would result on an average UK expenditure of approximately £7362.
85% of the unemployed in
scotsland are
white
34% of the unemployed in London are white
66% of the unemployed in Yorkshire and The Humber are white.
First prize for scotsland's white's!
Posted by: GML, right here on 9:49am Mon 12 May 08
Awaab Raja
Population figures for 1900 and 2000:
Norway: 1900 - 2.2 million, 2000 - 4.5 million; increase 105%
Denmark: 1900 - 2.5 million, 2000 - 5.1 million; increase 104%
Sweden: 1900 - 5.1 million, 2000 - 9.1 million; increase 78%
Belgium: 1900 - 6.7 million, 2000 - 10.2 million; increase 52%
Scotland: 1900 – 4.4 million, 2000 - 5.1 million; increase 16%
England & Wales: 1900 - 32 million, 2000 - 52 million; increase 63%
Which one is way out of line with the rest, and why?
Another example of the union dividend....
Awaab Raja
Population figures for 1900 and 2000:
Norway: 1900 - 2.2 million, 2000 - 4.5 million; increase 105%
Denmark: 1900 - 2.5 million, 2000 - 5.1 million; increase 104%
Sweden: 1900 - 5.1 million, 2000 - 9.1 million; increase 78%
Belgium: 1900 - 6.7 million, 2000 - 10.2 million; increase 52%
Scotland: 1900 – 4.4 million, 2000 - 5.1 million; increase 16%
England & Wales: 1900 - 32 million, 2000 - 52 million; increase 63%
Which one is way out of line with the rest, and why?
Another example of the union dividend....
Posted by: scotland only 8% of UK, consumes 11% of social security on 9:53am Mon 12 May 08
[quote][bold]GML[/bold] wrote:
Awaab Raja Population figures for 1900 and 2000: Norway: 1900 - 2.2 million, 2000 - 4.5 million; increase 105% Denmark: 1900 - 2.5 million, 2000 - 5.1 million; increase 104% Sweden: 1900 - 5.1 million, 2000 - 9.1 million; increase 78% Belgium: 1900 - 6.7 million, 2000 - 10.2 million; increase 52% Scotland: 1900 – 4.4 million, 2000 - 5.1 million; increase 16% England & Wales: 1900 - 32 million, 2000 - 52 million; increase 63% Which one is way out of line with the rest, and why? Another example of the union dividend....[/quote] Those figures for England and scotsland are bogus!
scotslands figures are talked up to make more from the barnett formula.
Englands figures are talked down to make the per head figures appear higher from the barnett formula.
GML wrote:
Awaab Raja Population figures for 1900 and 2000: Norway: 1900 - 2.2 million, 2000 - 4.5 million; increase 105% Denmark: 1900 - 2.5 million, 2000 - 5.1 million; increase 104% Sweden: 1900 - 5.1 million, 2000 - 9.1 million; increase 78% Belgium: 1900 - 6.7 million, 2000 - 10.2 million; increase 52% Scotland: 1900 – 4.4 million, 2000 - 5.1 million; increase 16% England & Wales: 1900 - 32 million, 2000 - 52 million; increase 63% Which one is way out of line with the rest, and why? Another example of the union dividend....
Those figures for England and scotsland are bogus!
scotslands figures are talked up to make more from the barnett formula.
Englands figures are talked down to make the per head figures appear higher from the barnett formula.
Posted by: John F on 9:54am Mon 12 May 08
David 1:10am today:The only oil producing country in the world poorer now. You Scots are something else!
Unlike Britain, Norway understood that the windfall wealth from its accidental inheritance wouldn’t last forever. It prudently set up a substantial fund to invest oil surpluses to ensure that future generations would benefit once the oil was gone. The Norwegian Fund is more than a politically correct gesture to future generations:
At the end of 2005 it stood at $ 210 billion
This is equivalent to $ 45,000 each to every man, woman and child living in Norway today
Jan 2008 Norway plans an extensive review this year into the ethics of its $380 billion pension fund investments officials said on Wednesday.
David 1:10am today:The only oil producing country in the world poorer now. You Scots are something else!
Unlike Britain, Norway understood that the windfall wealth from its accidental inheritance wouldn’t last forever. It prudently set up a substantial fund to invest oil surpluses to ensure that future generations would benefit once the oil was gone. The Norwegian Fund is more than a politically correct gesture to future generations:
At the end of 2005 it stood at $ 210 billion
This is equivalent to $ 45,000 each to every man, woman and child living in Norway today
Jan 2008 Norway plans an extensive review this year into the ethics of its $380 billion pension fund investments officials said on Wednesday.
Posted by: Rab Jones, Glasgow on 10:44am Mon 12 May 08
You can tell when things are bad, when suits from the Merchant cIty are buying Breakfast bars and tea bags from Poundland.
£1.98 for a 200g jar of Nescafe in Savers, yet it's £3.77 in Tesco???
You can tell when things are bad, when suits from the Merchant cIty are buying Breakfast bars and tea bags from Poundland.
£1.98 for a 200g jar of Nescafe in Savers, yet it's £3.77 in Tesco???
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 3:02pm Mon 12 May 08
Heard on the news this morning that, due to the losses declared by the banks, the Exchequer's taken in five billion pounds less in taxes than it expected in the first quarter of this year.
Expect more tax increases.
Heard on the news this morning that, due to the losses declared by the banks, the Exchequer's taken in five billion pounds less in taxes than it expected in the first quarter of this year.
Expect more tax increases.
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (29)
