Wednesday, 21 May 2014

Confusion Again at CBI ….

 

… or is it more?  Perhaps they’re fools or charlatans.

 

We’ve come to expect this after their No campaign registration and subsequent withdrawal but, if the papers are to believed, the CBI president will add to the confusion later today.

The Herald and the Guardian  report extracts from Sir Mike Rakes speech to the CBI’s annual dinner.

Herald1 CBI

The Herald’s headline sets the scare but the details in the piece are scant, very rocky and unquestioned – as usual.

Herald3 CBI

There it is.  There may be more in Rake’s speech but this is all the Herald has published.

Scare: capital will move from Scotland to rUK and any currency union will fall!  But look at the key part of this extract.

Herald3A CBI

Yes!  The details are different, very different, and the moral is NOT the same.

The Czech and Slovak economies were very different,

“By the time Czechoslovakia returned to democracy in 1989, its Slovakian lands were dominated by increasingly obsolete heavy industry, while the more efficient Czech economy was generating around 20% higher GDP per capita than its neighbour.” [Source]

unlike the Scottish and rUK economies which are very much aligned.  There is no reason, therefore, for a currency union here falling apart as Rake’s suggests.

The moral for Rakes: choose your examples well.  Not to do so will make you look like a fool and a charlatan.

 

The Guardian highlights a different issue – the economy – and again Rakes looks the fool or charlatan.

Telegraph1A CBI 20140521

Logic check!

There will be a ‘range of unknown and unforeseen consequences’.  Normally unknowns and unforeseens make it difficult to predict an outcome.  How could it be otherwise? 

But in Unionistland logic is turned upside down.  Unknowns and unforeseens lead to insights and knowledge of outcomes.

 

But he’s not finished yet.  Rakes finishes off the above quote with,

Telegraph1B CBI 20140521

Now Rakes takes us in an interesting direction.  Had he said that the case has not been made that independence will be good for its (i.e. Scotland’s)economy, I would agree with him.  Nothing is definite.  But he doesn’t say that.  Look again.

‘The case has not been made that an independent Scotland would be better for our economy .’

After independence which economy would Rakes describe as ‘our’.  There is no combined UK economy: they’re separate.  Surely he can’t be referring to Scotland.  Does ‘our’ refer to the UK economy?

 

Is he a fool and loose with his language or is he really saying that the rUK economy may take a turn for the worse once Scotland is independent?

I think we deserve to know.

No comments:

Post a Comment