Electoral Commission Response

Last week I wrote to the electoral commission. I enquired if recent news reports about leaked emails surrounding Business for Scotland may have implications with regards to the electoral commission's rules about separately registered campaign bodies "working together". If you're unfamiliar with the background you can read the detail here > Tugging at Threads.

The electoral commission responded publicly last week (without informing me, the "complainant") and their conclusion was unambiguous:

The Commission has found no evidence during its assessment that the SNP and BFS worked together in a way that broke the law. There is therefore no need to open a full investigation.

Fair enough. One of the roles of the electoral commission is to respond to enquiries from the public. If in the process this helps a wider understanding of electoral commission guidelines (I'll come on to explain what I think this judgment clarifies) then all well and good.

Of course there was some rather hysterical reaction to the electoral commission's findings from the usual suspects who referred to my enquiry as "nonsensical", "malicious" and "sensationalist". You can read my two emails for yourself and decide if that is fair.

I have since discovered I was not the first to raise these questions, but I presume Business for Scotland meant me when their press release referred to the "original complainant" being "a well known unionist blogger and social media troll" (translation: somebody who looks at economic data and challenges people like Business for Scotland when they blatantly misrepresent both the economic facts and the nature of their own organisation).

I of course did ask the Electoral Commission for some explanation of their judgement and received a brief email.  Their explanation fascinated me and I think may have very significant implications for how regulated bodies behave in future referendums.

Here's the reply I have sent them; I hope it speaks for itself.

---

---

Thank you for your response.

It is unfortunate that you didn’t notify me of these findings on the day that both the Electoral Commission and Business for Scotland put out press releases about them. I of course accept your apology and explanation that this was simply an oversight on your part.

I would hope that you welcome engagement with people wishing to understand the rules you enforce and I'm sure you would not want to discourage other people from coming forwards with any concerns they may have. With this in mind I would be grateful if you could confirm whether or not you consider the nature of my initial enquiry to be in any way "nonsensical",  “malicious” or “sensationalist” (these are all words used by Business for Scotland in their press release following your judgement).

Turning to the contents of your email, there would appear to be two key elements to your conclusion and I hope you will be able to offer some clarity about both;

1. The point of law: what activities might be considered to constitute “working together”?
2. The point of fact: what would constitute “reasonable grounds to suspect”?

The point of law: What activities might be considered to constitute “working together”?

I know several campaigners during the independence referendum interpreted these rules more strictly than you appear to and may have compromised their effectiveness as a result. It strikes me therefore that your assessment may provide some helpful clarity as to what would not be considered “working together”.

You state:

“Under SIRA schedule 4 paragraph 20, campaigners were considered to be working together if they had agreed and implemented a common plan or joint campaign during the referendum period to promote or procure a particular outcome”

You go on to say

“… does not amount [to] having agreed a common plan to work together as defined in the legislation”

So it is clear that you assessed this enquiry on the basis of whether or not there is evidence that the bodies involved “agreed a common plan to work together as defined in the legislation”.

Here is the full text of the relevant clause in the legislation (the highlighting is mine):

“20 (1) This paragraph applies where— (a) referendum expenses are incurred by or on behalf of an individual or body during the referendum period, (b) the expenses are incurred as part of a common plan or other arrangement with one or more other individuals or bodies, (c) the common plan or arrangement is one whereby referendum expenses are to be incurred by or on behalf of both or all of the individuals or bodies involved in the common plan or arrangement with a view to, or otherwise in connection with, promoting or procuring one particular outcome in the referendum, and (d) there is a designated organisation in respect of each of the possible outcomes in the referendum.”

The semantics of this are clearly important. I know many campaigners have interpreted “other arrangement” to mean they should avoid coordinating ongoing decisions around activity and expenditure during the campaign (for example by attending board meetings of other bodies and/or directly discussing how resources should be focused).

One possible interpretation of your assessment is that an “agreed … common plan” would have to be seen to be in place before two bodies would be deemed as working together. Can you confirm if this is correct?

If this is correct could you formally confirm that this sets the precedent that campaign bodies are free to attend each other’s board meetings (and by implication any other planning and strategy meetings) and to contribute to each other’s decisions about how to focus resources, so long as a “formal plan” can’t be seen to exist?

I may have interpreted your judgement incorrectly. It’s possible that - although your explanation refers only to the lack of evidence of an “agreed plan” - you also concluded that there weren’t sufficient grounds for suspicion that some “other arrangement” may have been in place.

It would be helpful therefore if you could clarify whether you considered the wider definition of working together which your own guidance notes describe as:

if: you coordinate your activity with another campaigner – for example, if you agree that you should each cover particular areas, arguments or voters; another campaigner can approve or has significant influence over your leaflets, websites, telephone scripts or other campaign materials

It strikes me that these are all the sorts of things that might be discussed at board level. If the above only applies if the coordination happens as part of an "agreed plan" (as opposed to as part of an ongoing decision making process) then that clearly raises the threshold for what would be considered working together. I know I would not be alone in welcoming clarity around this point.


The point of fact: What evidence would constitute “reasonable grounds to suspect”

Quoting directly from your email to me you state:

“Our assessment looked at those press reports as well as the concerns you raised about their implications [..] You referred to comments attributed to Peter Murrell, and Tony Bank [sic] about Michelle Thompson’s [sic] employment, and Ivan McKee about Colin Pyle’s exclusion from BFS meetings. While the SNP and BFS were registered with commission [sic] as permitted participants supporting a ‘yes’ outcome in the referendum, this and the contents of these emails, if correctly reported, does not amount having [sic] agreed a common plan to  work together as defined in the legislation.”

Clearly what you deem to be an appropriate level of assessment will depend on your answer to the question surrounding the point of law: are you just looking for grounds for suspicion that a “common plan” existed or would some “other arrangement” (such as active involvement in ongoing decision-making) count as potentially working together?

If the threshold for “working together” is evidence that a plan existed – something that you could put your hand on and say “there’s the plan” - then I accept that my enquiry warrants no more than the apparently cursory assessment it has received.

If, however, you interpret the question of law more broadly (to include “other arrangements” such as attending each other’s board meetings), I think it is reasonable to ask more about the nature of the assessment you carried out.

You make no mention in your assessment (or your press release) of Yes Scotland. Obviously you know Colin Pyle was Head of Development for Yes Scotland which was a separately registered campaign body. I presume this is merely an oversight on your part and we are to infer that you have also concluded that there is no evidence (or there are insufficient grounds for suspicion that) BfS may have worked together with Yes Scotland.

You state that you “looked at the press reports” and refer to “the content of these emails, if correctly reported”. This seems to imply that your assessment did not go any further than reading the press reports – could you confirm is this is correct?

This matters because your email assessment refers to “Colin Pyle’s exclusion from BfS meetings” which seems to imply that you have concluded he did not attend BfS meetings. The blog by Paul Hutcheon (the source for these press reports) concluded “It is unclear how the Pyle issue was resolved”.

I recognise that this assessment process is simply about determining whether sufficient grounds for suspicion exist to launch a full investigation, but your process documentation states that the assessment process can include “making initial inquiries of the subject of the allegation and other individuals or organisations”. I would therefore be interested to know if you deemed it worthwhile to make enquiries in particular with respect to the specific questions I raised in my second email (which you acknowledged you would be considering):

1. Did Mr Pyle attend any BfS Board meetings (before or after this email exchange)?
2. If he did, did his attendance involve interventions or knowledge transfer that might constitute “working together”?

Of course depending on the “point of law” question above, you may be signalling that it is acceptable for members of different registered bodies to attend each other’s board meetings and so these questions are not relevant. If this is the case, among those who will be surprised will be Ivan McKee himself who, if the emails are correctly reported, stated:

“Frankly struggling to see how someone in the payroll of Yes Scotland coming to a BfS meeting can be classed as anything other than ‘working together’.”

In conclusion:

• It may be simply that your judgement helps inform campaigners that the threshold for what might be considered "working together" is in fact far higher than many thought. If this is the case I am sure a lot of people will welcome this new clarity
• It may be that you carried out a wider assessment than your brief email suggests and you have in fact confirmed to your satisfaction that Mr Pyle did not attend any BfS meetings. It may be that if you had reasonable grounds to suspect that he had attended BfS board meetings this may have triggered an investigation. Again, I am sure I will not be alone in wishing to know which is the case.

I hope you appreciate that my tenacity on understanding the detail here is motivated by nothing more than a desire to ensure that the rules you enforce are as widely understood as possible and fully adhered to.

I look forwards to your response.

---

---

Oil Price and Scottish Tax Generation

It's highly frustrating when the debate on Scotland's economy is reduced to a simplistic "when the oil price recovers we'll be fine".

Take this example from Gordon McIntyre-Kemp of "Business for Scotland" (who have given up any pretence of being anything other than SNP cheerleaders as evidenced in detail here);

Labour are feverishly promoting the £7.6bn black hole scare-story to put people off FFA but it’s a myth; firstly because it assumes oil prices won’t ever recover, and even a moderate increase to $70/80 would wipe out any additional deficit.

This is nonsense.

First of all let's look at recent history.  In 2014 the average oil price was $99 and Scotland generated £2.6bn of North Sea tax revenue.  That's £2bn more than the £0.6bn assumed in the IFS forecast that leads to their £7.6bn "black-hole".  So based on recent history a $99 oil price fills about a only quarter of the back hole, leaves us still with over £5.6bn to find.

---

As an aside: if you doubt the existence of the black-hole I suggest you read Full Fiscal Autonomy for Dummies which explains that the black-hole is a long-term structural deficit difference that is simply revealed by falling oil revenues

---

Secondly let's consider whether there might be more to our North Sea tax revenue generation than just the oil price.  Of course there is;  it's profit that gets taxed which means tax revenue generation is a function of  [production volume] x [profitability] x [tax rates].

First let's look at (inflation adjusted) North Sea oil tax revenues and oil price on the same chart

Notice how there's a clear relationship but particularly in recent years the revenue line declined even when the oil price held up?

Take a few seconds to think about the following graph because it tells us an awful lot. I've plotted the ratio between the two lines; the ratio of N Sea oil revenue generated (£m) to the average $ oil price in that year. So what we're able to observe here is the real terms relationship over time between $ oil price and actual Scottish tax revenue generated - it's a measure of North Sea oil's tax generation productivity

Is it just me or can you see a trend emerging here?

We shouldn't be surprised by this. As the most economically attractive reserves become depleted production moves to less economically attractive ones - profit per barrel reduces even if the $ oil price doesn't move. Combine that with production volume declines and reductions in tax rates to protect the viability of North Sea activity (and jobs) and you'd expect to see exactly what we can empirically observe; we get less bang for the oil price buck over time.

To quote Oil & Gas UK

After more than a decade of spiralling costs, over-taxation and weak regulation, the UK offshore oil and gas industry is now bottom of the league in terms of the cost of producing a barrel of oil and gas.  The UK’s difficulties have been greatly exacerbated by the sudden drop in oil price but it would be a grave mistake to believe that the price fall is the cause of the problem.  A recovery in the price, even to $100 per barrel, would not resolve matters

This might be forcing the data a little -  but based on the trend line above it would seem reasonable to suggest £40m/$ is an optimistic forward assumption (the last three years have been 44, 26 and 13 respectively).  To get the £8.2bn oil revenue we'd need (the £0.6bn the IFS already forecast + the £7.6bn "black-hole") we'd need an oil price of 8,200/40 = $205.

This is clearly an extremely crude (ahem) analysis but I think my point is made; to suggest all will be well for an FFA Scotland if the oil price just recovers to $70/80 is just ridiculous.

In case you're thinking "what about exchange rates" or "is this maybe a function of absolute oil price" here's that same productivity graph with UK GDP inflation adjusted average oil price on it

As you can see the productivity decline has happened independent of whether the exchange rate adjusted oil price has been rising or falling - absolute oil price and exchange rate are not the tax productivity drivers.


***

I suppose I'd better address the other points that Gordon McIntyre-Kemp raises in that article. This won't take long.

Secondly FFA will give the Scottish Government powers to balance income and expenditure [...] FFA is the key to rapid economic growth and prosperity for Scotland. Here are five key ways Scottish FFA can balance the books, cut the deficit, raise revenues and create jobs

Sounds great doesn't it?  Gordon's found the silver-bullets that will fix our economic woes.

1. "Refocusing the Economy on SMEs"
Sounds reasonable. But don't all government's want a successful SME sector? What's Gordon's innovative idea? "Targeted tax incentives". Fair enough, tax cuts for SMEs might work - it's hardly ground-breaking but we've got another four ideas to go

2. "Targeted Tax Incentives"
Within this idea he goes on to explain that "SMEs hold the key to rapid economic growth".  So this is the same as number one really - tax cuts for SMEs. Maybe he was rushing when he wrote these.

3. "Increasing Research & Development". 
Sounds like a great idea. I mean there are plenty of incentives for this already like R&D tax credits and patent boxing but maybe Gordon's got a new idea. Guess what? It's "targeted tax incentives". This is getting a little silly

4. "Abolishing Air Passenger Duty"
This is a targeted tax incentive - reducing a guaranteed tax take in the hope of a net gain from boosting tourism. It might work - but of course the Smith Commission recommended that this tax be devolved anyway so we'll find out soon enough; no need for FFA.

5. "Reducing VAT on Tourism"
Well this a targeted tax incentive too. We lose a guaranteed tax take through VAT on tourism in the hope that the economy net gains from the boost in tourism that could result.

I'm afraid that's it.  It's basically one idea; reduce taxes in the hope the net effect will be beneficial to the economy.

Now I'm not saying that isn't a chance that some business and consumer tax reductions could result in net economic improvement. They might be beneficial or they might be detrimental, it's a tough call. Not for our Gordon though. He concludes - with the spectacular confidence that comes from knowing you'll never be held to account -

If Scotland had FFA we would have the power to do all of the above and grow our economy at unprecedented rates, thus demonstrating conclusively that Scotland would be better off as an independent partner to the other countries of these isles but worse off by remaining a devo-lite region without fiscal autonomy. 

Gosh.

Would grow our economy at "unprecedented" rates - so by definition at rate that have never been known before.  Just by reducing some taxes.  There will be finance ministers all over Europe kicking themselves that they hadn't thought of this. "Thus demonstrating conclusively" - he's hypothesised an outcome which he admits would be unprecedented and continues as if he's proven something. Extraordinary.

There's more

Just the few policies highlighted above would make 5% growth attainable for Scotland 

Well he plucked that number out of his nether regions didn't he?

You'll forgive me if I don't waste more of my time on this - if you believe that some tax reductions will deliver 5% growth because Gordon says so then I'm afraid you're beyond my reach.

Business for Scotland & Deutsche Bank Report

As one of Twitter's self-appointed guardians of good data, I occasionally have my attention drawn to articles that are being cited as proving some point or other to do with the on-going Scottish devolution debate.  The same culprits appear regularly and no one will be surprised to hear that "Business for Scotland" have been up to their old tricks again.

I've covered before how BfS are a thinly disguised SNP construct notably lacking in members who trade with the rest of the UK (our biggest trading partner).  If you doubt that, read "Business for Scotland: Who Are They?" and "Business for Scotland & the SNP".  Their economic analysis is notoriously ropey and I have taken them to task in various public forums so can attest that they tend to crumble very quickly when robustly challenged on their numbers.  Take for example "Response to Business & Economy: The Facts" or "The £8bn Lie" or (by a guest poster in my blog) "Bank Bail-out Myths".  I could quote more examples but suffice to say these guys have form.  

Their spinner in chief is Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp and on 14/02/2015 he was at it again with this pithily titled post: "Deutsche Bank the incomprehensible contradiction and the indefensible union".

The first hint that something might be awry is the fact that he doesn't link to the source document from which he skews his conclusions.  Is he afraid his readers might actually read the report themselves and make up their own minds or does he assume nobody who reads his postings would have the basic level of intellectual curiosity to want to read it? Either way here's the actual report which I urge you to read - it's accessibly written and takes a very rational and balanced approach > "Better off on their own?".

So let's look at Gordon's interpretation and check it against the source material.

Gordon says: "Scotland’s GDP per capita is 115% of the UK average says the report, once they had added in the oil revenues that Westminster governments like to exclude when talking Scotland’s economy down".  Is it possible Gordon didn't notice that the entire indyref debate was carried out using the figures with Scotland's geographic share of oil revenue allocated? 

True to form Gordon simply omits any mention of the cost side of our national accounts.  Maybe he didn't notice that the report also says: "All in all, it must be noted that in the area of public services Scotland reports substantially higher spending than the rest of the United Kingdom [...] total per capita spending in Scotland is also about 11% higher than at the national level. The relatively higher expenditures in Scotland are not a short-term phenomenon; the difference or gap of about 10% has existed since the 1980s at least". We all know this - but Gordon seems to think is he doesn't mention this inconvenient truth we might forget it.

Gordon says: "The report also says the risks of going it alone have decreased for smaller countries, as Eurozone membership has helped to “reduce some of the fundamental disadvantages that would otherwise be faced by countries such as Luxembourg, Malta, Cyprus and the Baltic states".  Do you notice how Scotland isn't one of the examples cited - do you think the fact that we aren't in the Eurozone may be a factor here?  Maybe Gordon has forgotten that participation in the Eurozone was explicitly ruled out by the Yes campaign during the referendum - I recall the carefully reasoned position adopted was "It's our pound and we're keeping it". 

The Report also says: "a seceding region would probably have to officially apply for EU membership".  Maybe Gordon missed that bit, he doesn't mention it.

Gordon Says: "This would mean that according to Deutsche Bank, in five months when Scotland’s largest natural economic asset halved in price, our economy went from being completely unable to afford independence to being one of the regions in Europe that can make an economic case for independence."  I've re-read this a couple of times and I have no idea what the "this" is that Gordon is referring to  - but either way it's clear he's suggesting that Deutsche Bank are now saying Scotland can make an economic case for Independence.  Guess what?  No they're not.

The Report actually says: "From a fiscal standpoint Scotland's public finances thus depend heavily on oil and gas production. Proponents of independence should keep that in mind, particularly in light of the recent drop of the oil price. In fiscal 2012/13 the offshore receipts – unlike in most of the preceding years – were unable to plug the gap between expenditures and revenues excluding offshore".

So the report actually highlights that volatile oil & gas revenues (the ones that according to Gordon and his cronies are simply "a bonus") are essential to plugging the fiscal gap - but they weren't sufficient to plug the gap in 12-13.  And - as the report specifically mentions - that's before the recent drop in oil price (we know that since fiscal 12-13 and current fiscal 14 -15 Scotland will have lost a further £3bn+ of North Sea tax revenues). 

Far from arguing that Scotland can make an economic case for independence the Report actually concludes: "Objectively speaking, there are not many channels via which independence can actually generate financial advantages. One of the few, and perhaps the most obvious, is the disappearance of financial transfers to other parts of the country. Thus, only in a prosperous region (relative to the rest of the country) is it possible to maintain the fiction that going it alone would be the better option. In other words: one has to be able to afford it"

What Gordon is hoping the reader won't notice is that the Scotland is not an example where we are burdened by financial transfers to other parts of the country.  A cursory glance at GERS would tell you that.  The report itself highlights that in 2012-13 the oil revenues were not enough to "plug the gap" and that those revenues have declined dramatically since then.

In addition to this headline conclusion the report also reiterates other issues which were raised during the indyref but Gordon appears to continue to hope to simply ignore:

• On debt and borrowing the Report states: "Scotland would also have to shoulder a share of national debt. [...] this would result in substantial fiscal burdens" and "If Scotland had attained independence [...]  it would have to pay a premium on British bonds"

• On trade links the Report states: "The rest of Spain is by far the largest trading partner for the Basque Country and Catalonia; the same applies to the United Kingdom in the case of Scotland [...] national borders often continue to play a significant role [...] it seems exceedingly unlikely that the intensive trade relations would survive a (possibly discordant) separation without sustaining any damage whatsoever [...] borders (whether political, linguistic, cultural …) still play  an important part in a united Europe"

• On the general economic cases for independence the Report states:  "While there are few reasons, from an objective point of view, why Scotland or Catalonia should gain a substantial degree of prosperity via independence, nationalist parties cite this very issue as being one of the most important arguments.  Secession from an existing state structure harbours huge economic risks, though.

I think it's fair to say Deutsche Bank are not as convinced of the economic case for independence as Gordon suggests.  Not content with asserting that Deutsche bank are now saying Scotland can make an economic case for independence (when they have said nothing of the kind) Gordon concludes his post with this jarring non-sequitur: "However, the Scottish people have had their eyes opened, Westminster started to lose interest in the people of Scotland on the 19th of September and as a result the people of Scotland have lost faith in Westminster economics, big business and the mainstream media, and with Labour seemly locked in a Scottish death spiral, who can credibly defend the indefensible union when we ask the question again?"

Contrast this with the section of the Deutsche bank report that addresses the Scottish situation specifically - with reference to the post referendum changes the Report concludes: "If the additionally planned changes are adopted, the concessions made to Scotland should – at least from a financial perspective – actually suffice to address key demands being made by independence advocates."

So the Report actually says

• Independence appears only to make economic sense if as a result you avoid large financial transfers to other parts of the country - and notes that's not the case with Scotland
• The specific powers recommended by the Smith Commission should be sufficient to meet the demands of the independence brigade

Now why couldn't Gordon just say that?

Business for Scotland and the SNP

"Business for Scotland is an independent and political party neutral business and economic policy think tank and network"
- Business for Scotland Website (30/12/2014)

This is a remarkable statement.  In August 2014 I wrote

• Now obviously Business for Scotland is a non-political organisation - they make that very clear on their website. It's true that one of their founding Directors (Jim Mather) is the former SNP Minister for Enterprise, their CEO (Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp) is a failed SNP local council candidate and the First Minister is fond of using them for photo-opportunities and is attending their annual fund-raising dinner - but I don't think one can necessarily conclude from that that they're some sort of poorly disguised SNP campaigning vehicle designed to give the Independence case a veneer of business credibility.  I imagine Ivan McKee of Business for Scotland simply felt he should intervene out a sense of civic duty rather than because somebody suggested he should.

Throughout the campaign they tried to position themselves as politically neutral and many media outlets appeared to swallow that line.

Let's recap what we already knew about two of the founding directors

• Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp (Chief Executive of Business for Scotland - one of two remaining Directors):  is a failed SNP councillor candidate
• Jim Mather (founding director of Business for Scotland - no longer a Director): Former SNP Minister for Enterprise

Now here's a brief update on what I've since noticed about some of key individuals involved;

• Michelle Thomson (Managing Director of Business for Scotland, the other remaining Director): now approved PPC for Westminster for SNP
• Ivan McKee (erstwhile Director of Business for Scotland - he's not anymore, he should update his Twitter profile): now standing as Westminster candidate for SNP

Find out why I'm putting my name forward and hoping to be selected as a WM candiate for @theSNP here - http://t.co/UDnEZ8O3wL #GE2015
— Ivan McKee (@Ivan_McKee) December 23, 2014

• Richard Arkless (member of Business for Scotland who spoke against me at the Business Insider Breakfast indyref debate): approved potential SNP parliamentary candidate
• Sarah Jane Walls (Member of business for Scotland who appeared on TV during referendum): was operations manager for Yes Scotland and according to the Herald is an SNP member "who has set her sights on Westminster and is one of a number of candidates in the running to be the party nominee in Stirling" (with some laughable consequences)

Is it just me or is there a trend emerging here?  There may well be more, these are examples that have simply washed up in front of me.

Maybe they should update this statement on their website?

*******

For those who argue they could be party aligned but retain business or economic "think thank" credibility;

• Business for Scotland: Who Are They?
• Response to Independence & The Economy: The Facts
• £8.3bn Better Off?

Smith Commission and Corporation Tax

I try to avoid writing these posts during working hours as I have a business to run; but this morning I was forwarded a link to this Scotland Tonight interview and it irritated me so much I have to get this out of my system.


It features our old friend Gordon McIntyre Kemp, Chief Executive of Business for Scotland.  I will resist an ad hominem attack and I've said my piece about Business for Scotland and their Smith Commission Submission so let me focus instead here on the specific question being debated, that of income tax devolution.

To be absolutely clear: I'm a businessman who would benefit from lower corporation tax in Scotland but I think it's a bad idea for two reasons

• Using differential corporation tax rates to shift business activity around the country is value destructive to the UK as a whole - it simply reduces the UK's overall corporation tax take and hands money back to profitable businesses instead of targeting the less well-off in society


• Worse than that: it creates incentives for creative accounting within businesses to ensure profits are reported in low tax areas of the UK without necessarily needing to change any real economic activity.  Just look at the tax avoidance strategies of Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc. - if they'll do that across international tax borders we can safely assume they would apply similar accounting strategies within the UK

I could take apart McIntyre-Kemp's arguments one-by-one but frankly what's the point?  We know he leads an organisation who's very raison-d'etre is to campaign for independence and more powers for Scotland. That's fair enough; he and his members are entitled to think that way.  Unfortunately for them they are not in tune with the democratic will of the Scottish People.  

The Vow itself states:  "We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations to secure the defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen".  McIntyre-Kemp and his members would I'm sure accept they don't share that view

• His focus and that of Business for Scotland is not "sharing resources equitably" but rather on Scotland getting its hands on as much resource as possible


• Their concern is not "defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen" - they would be compelled to append the words "of Scotland" to that sentence

But even given that context some of McIntyre-Kemp's arguments are a little strange

• He points to discussions around possible devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland and suggests the "bit of water" which separates us doesn't make a difference.  Mr McIntyre-Kemp clearly isn't involved in the physical movement of goods if he really thinks that.


• He complains about not being able to control VAT on tourism activities - surely if its a good idea for Scotland it's a good idea for the UK?  Of course arguing to reduce taxes you don't control is easy when you don't have to live with the consequences of reduced tax revenue that might result.  The Nationalists do that a lot.


• He complains about not having control of NI whilst we're being offered full control of income tax. Let's be absolutely clear on this one: the proposed new powers allow the Scottish Government to redistribute wealth through income tax policy changes - nobody seriously argues that not having control of NI is a hindrance to that


• He moans about not having power over oil & gas taxation.  You might have noticed that Nationalists have been a little quiet about that one so it's surprising to hear this on his list. The block grant would be reduced on day 1 by the amount of oil & gas revenues transferred and it would be damaging to Scotland's economy if those revenues continue to decline.  I guess Mr McIntyre-Kemp lacks the economic pragmatism of some of his Nationalist bed-fellows.

McIntyre-Kemp suggest we need to "get serious about the powers that are needed". Maybe he and his memers should "get serious" about deciding what they will do with those we'll be getting.  

• Full control of income tax: so we can redistribute wealth, we can reduce or increase the total income tax burden.  So what are their proposals?


• New powers to make discretionary payments in any area of welfare: so we can use money raised through income taxation or saved in areas of devolved cost to help those less well off in our society.  So what are their proposals?

Instead of using his valuable airtime to make a positive case for how these new powers could be used he - with wearying predictability and embarrassing inaccuracy  -  resorts to asserting that these powers do not represent "substantially more devolution ... unless they meant substantially less" and complains "we've been promised more powers but we're not getting them".  He even argues the powers mean "effectively we can't have a labour government".

The SNP, Business for Scotland and Mr McIntyre-Kemp have become so used to complaining about what we don't have that they appear incapable of changing tack. We are getting substantial new powers; we will face tough tax and spend decisions. Making constructive recommendations around what we'll do with these powers is a lot harder than simply complaining and blaming others for all of our woes.

I look forward to seeing how the Nationalist organisations propose embracing and using these new powers - they are substantial enough to expose expose their "all things to all men" promises and to require them to stop ducking economic reality.

No wonder they're not happy.

Business for Scotland & Smith Commission part II

It has been pointed out to me that my previous post on this topic was a critique of the Smith Commission from the Edinburgh chapter of Business for Scotland (here). That's right: they made multiple separate submissions, presumably on the basis that the more they ask the Smith Commission to read the more they will help the process.

So I have now read the main Smith Commission submission (reference B00246 on SC website).  It's written by Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp who is full-time CEO of Business for Scotland and clearly has a lot of time on his hands.  So here we go again - extracts and translations follow

• "This makes Business for Scotland the largest and most active and influential business group that campaigned in the Scottish Independence Referendum. Our 3,000 members see independence as a both the optimum form of Government for Scotland and also the best way to grow Scotland’s economy, create jobs, address inequality and increase shared prosperity for the people of Scotland."
  
  Translation: We're kind of hoping you haven't read Chokkablog on "Who do Business for Scotland represent" and so will take this assertion at face value.  We see no reason why we can't assert "member" numbers based on email sign-ups to a pledge even though that means as well as members of the general public with no business interests that figure is known to include a number of family pets.  Please don't ask us how many are "stakeholder members" who've paid their £100; we don't answer that question.

• "In the last week of the campaign public polls showed a dramatic shortening of the gap between the YES and NO options with one poll showing a YES lead. We understand that more extensive and reliable canvassing returns for political parties showed a sizeable and growing poll lead for YES."
  
  Translation: of the 100's of official polls only one outlier ever showed a lead for Yes and that wasn't statistically significant.  So we're going to assert a "sizeable and growing" lead based on what we "understand" was the case.  Please ignore all other polls.

• "in the face of what seemed a likely Yes vote"
  
  Translation: you might think "what seemed likely" was what the betting markets or all the other polls were saying but actually we are happy to assert based on approximately no evidence that a Yes vote seemed likely (Ed: are we getting away with this?)

• "for more powers to be devolved to an extent that can be defined as Devo Max/home rule and as close to Federalism as possible within the confines of the UK."
  
  Translation: look we know the vow only said "extensive new powers" but we've srambled around and have found the words "Home Rule" mentioned once by G Brown and once by D Alexander.  We're not going to give you the context of those quotes and we're going to simply elide them with the vow in the hope you won't notice.  We'll also just throw in the term "Devo Max" despite the fact it's not in the Vow and we can't even find any out-of-context quotes to support it.  (Ed: we're not getting away with this are we?)

• "If the Commission fails to do this, or the Westminster parties seek to water down or fail to implement the Commission’s recommendations, then the people of Scotland may decide to challenge the mandate to maintain the UK gained by the offer of extensive new powers."
  
  Translation: in case the threats in our other submission aren't clear enough; agree with our warped interpretation of what No meant or "the people of Scotland" (who we feel mandated to speak on behalf of, apparently) will revolt

• "A survey carried out by YouGov on March 24th for The Times, when compared to another YouGov survey on September 5th for The Sunday Times, demonstrates clearly both the growing support for YES 34 - 45% when compared to No change, which declined from 24% to 15% support."
  
  Translation: there were hundreds of polls carried out. We will select two from which to extrapolate wildly.

• "Increased devolution maintained steady support, falling slightly from 40% to 38%, but as previously mentioned had the advantage of not being critically scrutinised."
  
  Translation: when even our cherry-picked examples fail to support our argument for increased devolution we will dismiss this as not having had the advantage of being critically scrutinised.  Please ignore this observation when it comes to the rest of our thesis which is that this unscrutinised option was overwhelmingly supported. (Ed: this is getting silly now).
• "Assuming that the Yes supporter, given that independence is not on offer, will support maximum devolution then adding the support for increased devolution in these polls would indicate that more than 3/4 of the population at the very least (and a significant majority of  No voters) support the promised modern form of home rule, near federalism and extensive new powers on offer."
  
  Translation: If you cumulate our unfounded and logically disconnected assertions  and ignore the point we've just made about the fact that these options haven't been scrutinised (in fact they haven't even been usefully defined) then we think we can get away with claiming 3/4 of the population support home rule.  Whatever home rule means.

• "The definition of extensive new powers is the responsibility of the Smith Commission, but the starting point cannot be the previously stated promises of the Unionist parties, which lacked detail and any real commitment to extensive change. Those proposals offered the Scottish Government no more than 20-30% control of taxes raised, and given they were offered prior to the rise in the Yes vote in the polls, they were therefore effectively rejected during the campaign as not extensive enough by the Scottish voters."
  
  Translation: the vow has to be honoured but we insist you ignore any other promises made by the winning side because we assert that they were "effectively rejected"  (Ed; huh?).

• "The Smith Commission should therefore not start its consideration from the point of view of what new powers can the Scottish government justify, but from the position that all powers should be devolved unless there is a mutually agreed reason for not devolving that power."
  
  Translation: please assume the vote was Yes and work your way back from there.

Now to be fair at this point the submission does actually knuckle down to some arguments around fiscal powers that are at least relevant and on topic.  I disagree with the extent of fiscal powers they argue for for reasons outlined in my previous Thoughts on Smith Commission blog post.  But moving on;

• "With full fiscal responsibility all future debt generated in Scotland should be allocated to Scotland and all sovereign debt generated outside Scotland should be allocated to the rest of the UK. Scotland cannot exercise full fiscal responsibility when it is possible that a situation may arise where paying a population percentage of the debt interest on debts generated outside Scotland may severally impact on Scotland’s budget in years when Scotland’s accounts might be in surplus. Likewise all historical debt and share of debt interest payments should be allocated to Scotland’s accounts on a contribution basis, not a population percentage basis. In this way Scotland does not start to manage its own finances either paying interest on less debt than it actually generated, nor would it pay more than it was responsible for."
  
  Translation: we want to continue to share a currency but we don't want to participate in the wider principle of pooling and sharing that's required to make this work.  We basically want to have "accounting separation" such that we can engineer the economic conditions of independence whilst maintaining currency union.  We don't care that this argues for economic separation which clearly goes against the will of the Scottish people as expressed through the No vote.

• "The Scottish Government must have full control over oil and gas taxation, revenues and policy; this must include the ability to create a Scottish sovereign oil fund to invest for the future and also to plan for the transition generations hence from domestic oil and gas production to other sources of energy and alternative economic activity in the North East. It is also vital that the blocking of west coast oil exploration and extraction be lifted so that the west of Scotland can benefit from the reserves that potentially lie off the Atlantic coast."
  
  Translation: It's our oil and we're keeping it so please ignore the bit of the vow that says "We agree that the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably across all four nations to secure the defence, prosperity and welfare of every citizen".  Oh, and we think you're choosing not to exploit the untold wealth that lies within our grasp because you'd rather pursue deeply unpopular austerity measures than admit it's there. (Ed: really?).

• "Given that (under the current system) the Chancellor of the Exchequer sets a budget for the implementation costs of applying Government policy in England alone and then the Barnett formula sets the budgets for the rest of the UK with an element to address extra costs. With full fiscal responsibility the Scottish Government would not be forced to react to cuts in the English budget but would set spending priorities on the basis of taxation raised, and as explained with the R&D example above bespoke policies could lead to increased taxation revenues and therefore increased spending ability for the Scottish Government."
  
  Translation: we're hoping you haven't read the vow so you missed the bit that refers to "the continuation of the Barnett allocation" because we'd rather scrap it and be fully economically independent.  So please don't keep this element of the vow either (Ed: are you sure about this?).
• "Obviously the currency union will be maintained and the Bank of England will continue in its current role, but given Scotland’s greater fiscal responsibility and the more federal/modern home rule within the UK structure of the relationship then it would seem natural that the Scottish government be granted a seat on the Bank of England monitory policy committee and be represented on most regulatory bodies."
  
  Translation: although we've argued for a level of "accounting separation" (including balance sheet separation) between Scotland and rUK that is incompatible with effective currency union, "obviously" we assume it will be maintained.  Basically we just want independence whilst continuing to share a single currency; you know, like the option that was rejected by all Westminster Parties during the campaign?

• "The interlinked and interdependent nature of economic and fiscal powers means that a slow and piecemeal devolution process will not work."
  
  Translation: It's really complicated so best to rush it.

• "Playing the Westminster party game of trying to figure out what percentage of tax raising powers would slow the Scottish population’s growing support for independence would create a halfway house between what powers Scotland needs to thrive and ultimately become the worst of both worlds."
  
  Translation: Forget the Edinburgh Agreement and talk of "working together" - we don't trust "Westminster parties" and never will.

• "The Scottish Government needs to have control over immigration policy. This would, of course, require border control security and policy to be set by the Scottish Government and in the spirit of extensive/full fiscal responsibility Scotland would be responsible for the costs of its own border security. Given the need to consider interconnectivity, this would also require coastguard and maritime protection services to be fully devolved to Scotland, as many of Scotland’s borders are maritime borders."
  
  Translation: Forget all that stuff we said during the referendum about talk of borders being scare-mongering; even our version of honouring the No vote will require separate Scottish borders to be maintained.

• "We believe that, to be binding, a referendum on EU membership leading to the UK’s exit must not just generate a simple majority across the whole of the UK but have a majority in each home nation. "
  
  Translation:  Just because it's inconsistent to argue that Scotland could vote to leave the UK without the rest of the UK voting on the issue whilst arguing that the rest of the EU can't vote to leave the UK without the assent of Scotland ... that won't stop us arguing it.

• "If the power to veto an EU exit is not granted, then the UK that the Scottish population voted to stay within on September 19th will be deemed not to exist anymore."
  
  Translation: We know we can't really argue that the risk of a UK EU exit wasn't widely debated during the referendum but let's just ignore that and pretend the Scottish people weren't smart enough to make a balanced assessment of that risk.

• "We will work in good faith to suggest and define powers and policies that will help Scotland thrive within the UK, but believe that if the powers promised are not delivered the Scottish people will be extremely disappointed and may wish to revisit the independence question again."
  
  Translation: We have argued here for a wildly exaggerated version of the vow in some areas and to directly ignore it in others.  We know that what we've asked for can't possibly be delivered and we're simply preparing the ground to cry foul whatever you recommend.  We exist with the sole aim of pursuing independence - it is not a means to an end for us, it is the end itself - so we really hope we get another referendum soon because it's what we exist for.

• "We cannot have a constitutional fudge and end up with the worst of both worlds, especially give that Devo Max was not allowed to be officially on the ballot paper and so it was not fairly and democratically examined in the way that no change and independence were."
  
  Translation: We recognise this Devo Max interpretation we've spent out entire submission arguing for has not been "fairly and democratically" examined but - er - please do as we say anyway.

"Business for Scotland" Smith Commission Submission

I've covered at length elsewhere in this blog the background to "Business for Scotland"; they are a thinly disguised SNP construct that - post referendum - seems to have given up any pretence of being apolitical.

I've observed before that one of their founding Directors (Jim Mather) is the former SNP Minister for Enterprise, their CEO (Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp) is a failed SNP local council candidate and the First Minister is fond of using them for photo-opportunities and attended their annual fund-raising dinner. We can now add to that the fact that Business for Scotland Director and spokesman Ivan McKeee - who made a very public show of outrage when I suggested in a public debate that he was aligned with the SNP - has recently announced he has joined the party.

Business for Scotland's Smith Commission submission is authored by David "an SNP and independence supporter all his life" Hood.  Before you read the following extracts you might need to be reminded that these people actually lost the argument and the vote.  Extracts follow, highlighting and translations are my own;

• "any major change to Scotland’s place within the UK requires only the domestic Scottish-based representatives of Scotland and the assent of it’s people to make it so in terms of a democratic process and decision"
  
  Translation: let's ignore the fact that the sovereign will of the Scottish people has just been shown to be to remain in political union with the rest of the UK; instead let's assert that the rest of the UK should have no say whatsoever as any major change in Scotland's relationship with the UK has nothing to do with them


• "This Commission should be viewed and conducted in line with the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement; that is, to work to remedy the fact that ‘promises and pledges’ made in the Referendum campaign period by the main UK political parties (including the ‘purdah’ period) are meaningfully delivered as a baseline foundation from which to deliberate further. Anything less than that will be an effrontery to democracy and justifiably render this Commission and its findings or recommendations void and justifiably precipitate legitimate political, legal and moral action on behalf of the people of Scotland, to deliver full independence."
  
  Translation: if you don't deliver what we interpret the vow to have meant we'll just declare your recommendations void and become independent anyway (because we didn't like the actual referendum result).


• "The ‘No’ vote that prevailed in the referendum does not sanction or mandate the UK government to consider adding a minimum level of further self governance, to the existing devolution structure. It if anything, the vote sanctioned the opposite. It was given in anticipation of a maximum level of powers and capabilities and must therefore be seen as endorsing a position as close to independence as possible"
  
  Translation: although the electorate answered the very clear and simple question "Should Scotland be an independent country" with a resounding No, you should interpret that as they really meant Yes.  Because - you know - when an electorate says no they really mean yes...


• "Everything should be devolved apart from specific, agreed, reserved items – but those items must be expressly agreed with, and by, the democratically elected representatives that are elected in Scotland, and hence must reflect the ultimate sovereignty of the Scottish people. It is not for those that populate London, Westminster or Whitehall to limit, decide or confer. Nor indeed is it within their competency. Again, anything less than a true reflection of will, that results in an express and sanctioned agreement will be a travesty of democracy, a stitch-up and a lost opportunity to produce something of profound and lasting merit"
  
  Translation: in case you missed it earlier, let's reiterate that despite the will of the Scottish people being to remain in political union with the rest of the UK we urge you to ignore that because any politicians outside Scotland are incompetent.  In fact we're already preemptively whipping ourselves into a fervour of outrage - we can't resist using words like "travesty" and "stitch-up" - because let's be honest we don't really care what you come up with; we'll cry foul if it's anything other than de-facto independence and this submission is just letting you know that.


• "The current ‘democratic deficit’ is of course debatable, depending on perspective; yet what is clear is that things on both and all sides are not as they should be and any deficit needs to be addressed convincingly and completely. If that democratic deficit is not reduced to the point that most of the Scottish people would wish it (that is, the aspirations of the overall majority of the electorate, whether they voted Yes or No in the Referendum), then it should be clear to the Commission that the only way to resolve this would be when, and how, Scotland chooses to take the step to full independence unilaterally"
  
  Translation: If the implied threat earlier wasn't clear enough let's be explicit about this - if we don't like your answer we'll just make a Unilateral Declaration of Independence.  It doesn't matter whether people voted Yes or No in the referendum; we're going to claim they're on our side either way.
  


• "There are an infinitive number of permutations that the Commission could consider whether as a starting point or end, but the simplest of all hypotheses is one where Scotland is already 
• independent, and this starting perspective prevents discourse and deliberation becoming unnecessarily complex. Looking at where there are existing and likely competing agendas, aspirations and desires between the Nations making up the UK, is a fantastic and logical place to start"


Translation: Don't go troubling yourself with any complex discourse or deliberation or worry that Independence was resoundingly rejected by the Scottish people; just pretend the vote was actually Yes so your recommendations have to be as close to independence as possible.

I can't begin to imagine how helpful the Smith Commission will find this submission from this self-styled "political party neutral business and economic policy think tank"

£8.3bn Better off?

An independent Scotland would definitively not have been £8.3bn "better off" over the last five years.  The only argument offered by the Yes camp to justify this figure is that we could have run an even higher deficit and increased Scotland's debt by a further £8.3bn.  That's like saying I could have been better off over the last five years if only I'd been allowed to run up a higher credit card debt.

This follows on from two previous posts: The £8bn misdirection and Independence & Economy "Facts": A Response which address both our First Minister's use of this fabled £8bn figure and the risible Business for Scotland's use of it within a video presentation.

Business for Scotland refused to explain how that figure was arrived at when I posted queries on their site (they take a rather censorial approach to any comments that question their analysis or seek clarification: they simply don't publish them).  They were however spurred into action when I posted that - when this figure was used by our First Minister - it represented a blatant lie.  You can follow the detail if you like here and see how Ivan McKee of Business for Scotland leapt valiantly to our First Minister's defence.

Now obviously Business for Scotland is a non-political organisation - they make that very clear on their website. It's true that one of their founding Directors (Jim Mather) is the former SNP Minister for Enterprise, their CEO (Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp) is a failed SNP local council candidate and the First Minister is fond of using them for photo-opportunities and is attending their annual fund-raising dinner - but I don't think one can necessarily conclude from that that they're some sort of poorly disguised SNP campaigning vehicle designed to give the Independence case a veneer of business credibility.  I imagine Ivan McKee of Business for Scotland simply felt he should intervene out a sense of civic duty rather than because somebody suggested he should.

It's true also that Business for Scotland's membership appears to lack any businesses involved in material trade with the rest of the UK (I looked very closely as you can see here): perhaps that's unsurprising as those are the businesses (employing over a third of the Scottish work-force) who will be most badly impacted by Independence.

Anyway: having now finally received an explanation of the £8.3bn figure I looked again at the slide in Business for Scotland's bizarre Video Presentation - I include it in all it's glory below.

Now knowing how they calculate that figure (you can follow the painful detail here): it certainly doesn't demonstrate that "Independence would have made Scotland £8.3bn bettter off over the past 5 years".  That is a blatant lie.

They arrive at that figure by saying that if our percentage of UK public spending had been the same as our  percentage of UK Tax contribution then we'd have spent £8.3bn more.  Think about that for a moment. The argument is that we (Scotland) should have been running an even higher per capita deficit than we did; we should have been increasing our debt levels even more.  This is like me saying "I could have been better off over the last five years if only you'd let me run up a bigger credit card debt". It's sheer lunacy.

For completeness: if you go back 7 years (as far as I could be bothered to go) our share of deficit generated is 8.4%, exactly in line with our share of population (i.e. this level of "deficit contribution" is consistent with us receiving a per capita share of debt incurred over that time).  The implication of spending an additional £8.3bn over the last 5 years is that our share of the deficit over that period would have been 9.5%; we'd be responsible for significantly more than our per capita share of national debt.

To believe the statement on this slide you'd need to believe that Scotland would have been "better off" if we'd have spent more, run an even higher deficit and incurred even more (hypothesised share of) debt. That's palpable nonsense.

****
For those who care about the detail (and have time on their hands) I repeat my workings below.  I wish Business for Scotland were so open: it would save me a lot of time.

Response to "Independence and the Economy - The Facts"

You have probably been directed to this post because you have watched a rather slick video from "Business for Scotland" rather hilariously titled "Independence and the Economy - The Facts".  I'd provide a link but they block even the most mildly critical comments so I'd rather not boost their traffic figures. All of the exhibits used are captured below.

For those who are unaware, I have discussed this (self)interest group at length here > Who are Business for Scotland - this video represents a new low in their attempts to mislead the public.

Let me take each of their exhibits in turn

Notice how only tax take is mentioned not public spend?  This is because public spending was of course also higher over that period - if they showed expenditure as well it would be more informative and show a far more balanced picture¹ (which is of course why they don't). This carefully selected 33 year time period includes the 80's when the main surge of Oil revenues was experienced.  The Union has been around for over 300 years; imagine what these figures might look like if we went back 60 years? (unfortunately we can't as such stats don't exist because reporting that splits Scotland from UK only starts at the point of "it's our oil").

This is true if you take a crude GDP/Capita measure.  There's a problem with this measure as has been widely commented (e.g. see this Guardian article): because so much of our GDP is owned by overseas firms (Oil & Gas, Whisky, Banking, etc.) the benefit doesn't fall to Scottish citizens.  Per the link above GNP (which factors in where the "production" is owned) is accepted by economists as a better measure. On a GNP/Capita basis (see the primary research)  iScot is behind the UK (probably - it's hard to work out).  The weakness of GDP/Capita as a measure is illustrated by the fact that Ireland ranks above Scotland on that basis (while suffering high unemployment, declining domestic demand, record business closures etc.) - hardly a "wealthy country" in any meaningful sense.

BfS have been throwing this £8.3bn figure around for a while now. They claim GERS as the source but the number doesn't appear anywhere in GERS.  They provide no further justification and have ignored several requests to explain it. Given the BfS track-record it's hard to take this number seriously. Update: since writing this post BfS have been shamed into explaining this number - and it's palpable nonsense.  Their "argument" is that we should have incurred a further £8.3bn of debt and that would have made us "better off". This is like saying I would have been better off if I'd been allowed to run up a bigger credit card debt. Full explanation here > £8.3bn Better Off? 

Can you spot the "per term" small print?  So presumably this means £875m pa.  There is no back-up for this figure of course and the White Paper doesn't help.  The IFS concluded: "The White Paper outlined specific tax raising measures and spending cuts that would together save just under £500 million a year. On top of this there is an aspiration to raise a further £235 million through, as yet unspecified, measures to remove exemptions and reduce tax avoidance".  So £875m is a stretch.  For context: Nuclear is 5% of the UK defence budget and supports thousands of jobs in Scotland; scrap it and we'll be "anti-nuclear" so it's hard to see how we'll gain membership of Nato ("anti" is not the same as "non"). The House of Lords costs Scotland about £9m p.a. so is irrelevant in these figures. Every manifesto claims it will "reduce waste"; let's see how much waste Holyrood generates.  And what about the spending side of the equation?  The IFS go on to say "The spending increases and tax cuts described in the White Paper are more numerous and more costly – around £1.2 billion a year in the short term and potentially considerably more in the longer term if full aspirations for childcare and state pensions are met". So the IFS estimate that an independent Scotland would in fact be £500m to 700m worse off. This would at least help explain why John Swinney recently had to admit that in the first 3 years of independence an iScotland would actually be increasing borrowing by billions (£2.4bn in 2018-19 alone).

Developing renewable energy capacity requires massive investment; this currently comes from rUK subsidies.  If Scotland becomes independent the rUK would look to invest in their own renewable capacity (eg. offshore wind-farms) rather than those of a foreign country.  In addition the rUK would look to source cheaper renewable energy from eg. Iceland or Norway which offer a cheaper option than subsidising Scottish renewables (and the inter-connect capacity is coming on-stream to enable this). It's a downside of independence, a downside of breaking the single UK energy market.

Looks like they were running out of ideas by this stage.  This exhibit says *if* we increase exports by 50% then we'd create jobs. Hold the front page! What will drive this theoretical growth in exports is a mystery: the White Paper mentions that we will have a "a streamlined system of overseas representation focused on Scottish citizens and priority business sectors".  That means we will only partially replace the existing international diplomatic and trade network infrastructure. *If* indeed.

Cutting Air Passenger Duty? Hardly the most "green" policy I've heard of.  Lower VAT on tourism? That's a new one (not aware of it being Scot Gov policy) - wonder how that will fit with EU membership conditions around VAT harmonisation?

Well there are a lot of small independent nations and plenty of them are struggling too so not really sure what the point of this exhibit is.  And where's Ireland? It has an even better GDP/Capita than Scotland so following the logic of these exhibits it's "wealthier" ... there again we can't really say it's thriving can we?  And are we really comparing the Scottish Economy to that of Switzerland?

This entire video insults the intelligence of the viewer.

*****

1. This is the net fiscal balance over that period sourced from the Fiscal Commission Working Group; as you can see there was a burst of net contribution from Scotland to the rUK in the 80's (we were in a Union, we shared our Oil & Gas windfall as we should have done) but since then in fact we have effectively "kept our oil" in terms of higher expenditure. Let me restate that: for the last 25 years Scotland have effectively "kept our oil" despite being in a Union with rUK.

Who Do "Business for Scotland" Represent?

According to the Scottish Government Statistical Bulletin;

• Exports to the rest of UK (from Scotland) in 2012 (excluding oil and gas) are provisionally estimated at £47.6 billion, of which £25.3 billion is attributable to service sector companies and £12.7 billion is attributable to manufacturing sector companies.

Given that the potential impact on this £47.6bn of trade is one of the big issues for business in the Independence debate I think we can agree that any "Scottish Business" voice would need to include representation from businesses involved in this trade to have any credibility.

This is why I'm amazed that "Business for Scotland" gets any airtime at all. As I show in painful detail in this post, the identified Members of Business for Scotland can be fairly summarised as;

• 30 "business professionals"
• 28 people who have Small Company directorships; businesses with no declared turnover or employee figures.  These are predominantly consultancies, property companies and service companies; I can't identify any material trading links with rUK and none can be considered major employers
• 6 People who have or have had larger scale business experience
•  A one-time retail entrepreneur who's only material company directorship now is of a Scottish co-ed school
• The founder of a £5.6m turnover domestic Scottish property preservation company (with no declared employee figures)
• The founder of an £8.7m voice and data solutions company  focused on the domestic Scottish market (with no declared employee figures)
• A Director of a £6.6m turnover software business that employs 75 staff but has only £443k turnover in the UK (including Scotland)  
• The founder of an (exclusively Scottish) property development company with a turnover of £47m and 233 employees
• The founder of an (exclusively Scottish) care home group with £22.1m turnover and 879 employees

That the directors of Business for Scotland include a former SNP MSP and someone who stood (unsuccessfully) as an SNP local council candidate is probably not relevant.

That their spokespeople have had so much TV and Radio airtime is - quite frankly - mind boggling.

*****

I became involved in the Independence Referendum debate when I realised that a Yes vote would make it harder for the businesses I'm involved with to continue to thrive whilst remaining based in Scotland. The full background is explained in my Bona Fides post and in my detailed post on Scotland's Trade with rUK where I reluctantly conclude: "The businesses I am involved with are already making contingency plans for the case of a Yes vote. Our heads tell us that we would need to relocate our stock-holding and warehousing outside Scotland to protect our businesses under that scenario"

We are not unusual businesses; current best available estimates are that 37% of jobs in Scotland depend on links to the rest of the UK¹. It's unsurprising therefore that I see many businesses with the same concerns; some speak out, more are afraid to for fear of backlash and recriminations.

But there is a body that claims to speak for Scottish Business in this debate: Business for Scotland. They are registered with the Electoral Commission as a Yes Campaigning Body and get a surprising amount of airtime.

I must confess I was intrigued by these guys; their website comes across as rather rampantly nationalist in tone and their articles and spokespeople seem singularly unimpressive.  I'm genuinely curious to understand what sort of business people are in favour of independence.  I've covered most of the arguments I've heard in this blog and whilst there are emotional and political "Yes" arguments that I can understand (without agreeing with) I haven't seen any rational economic or business arguments for independence. I wondered: are any of these businesses material contributors to the estimated 962,000¹ Scottish Jobs that depend on links to the rest of the UK? 


So Who - Exactly - Are Business for Scotland?
Well the first thing I did was ask them.  Actually the first thing I did was read some of the content in their website; this got me annoyed, so I 'engaged' with their MD Michelle Thomson on Twitter (Twitter biog:  "Property Investor, Musician, Maverick"). Let me share some highlights (I'd give links but she appears to have deleted these Tweets);

Of course she has not responded "off Twitter".   It was clear I'd get nowhere asking directly so I went and did my own digging.  If you've followed my blog you'll know I'm willing to put in the effort to seek out primary data.

I went through every one of the 64 named individuals on the member profiles section of their website and cross-checked to ensure I included all of the Directors of Business for Scotland Limited. I used Creditsafe, Google, Linked-In and Companies House to identify all of their current UK Company directorships.  In some cases they don't even name the companies that they are involved with in their profiles; I was able to track them down without too much difficulty and am pretty confident I found all of them. Having identified all of the current UK directorships held by these BfS members I then checked Companies House filed accounts and looked for the most recent declared turnover and number of employees.  For those who aren't aware: a company does not have to declare it's turnover or employee numbers if it qualifies as a Small Company²

[I have no interest in using this blog to embarrass individuals or to 'expose' company links if they choose not to explicitly declare them.  If anybody (including reputable journalists or indeed BfS themselves) would like to see the background work I would be happy to share.]

I want to be very clear about this: I am not questioning the right of any of these individuals to have a view on the Independence Referendum or to speak out .  I am merely seeking to answer the questions that the Business for Scotland MD seems so reluctant to address;

• Roughly how many Scottish Employees are represented by their members?
• Do they represent any businesses involved in Trade with rUK?

The BfS website states:
Our members are business professionals, owners, directors and entrepreneurs from all over Scotland, some have small businesses, some fairly large ones

I was unable to find *any* Limited Company Directorships for 30 of the Featured Members
I guess these are the 'business professionals' referred to; basically people who have (or have had) jobs. Again let me be clear; I am not disparaging the professional credentials of any of these people; I'm just trying to assess the extent to which they are representative of Scottish Business; I list them all below with links to their profiles and extracted quotes so you can form your own view  (where companies are referred to I have searched for them and they do not appear to be registered limited companies).

John Cooke: extensive background in public policy, public affairs and communications
Adam Davidson: owns a BoConcept franchise
Alex Grant: recently retired, formally Chief Operations Officer for the airline bmi

Rachel Holmes:  a lecturer in taxation, accountancy and finance at Edinburgh Napier University
See her car-crash select committee performance here (44-47 mins and 1:01 are particularly cringe-inducing)
David Hood: Professional market (sic) and speaker

Mark Lister: a business consultant 

Catherine McLean: independent, professional consultant

Sheila McLean: a Programme Management Office specialist working with clients on a contract basis

Ken McNeil: principal of McNeil Stevens Financial Planning

Helen MacDonough: owns a boutique hair salon

David Macfarlane: chef, innovator and author

Jill Murphy:  founding partner at ThinRedLine Design a marketing and branding company

Brian Murray:  is in favour of independence (sic)

Eunice Olumide:  recently launched her own fashion design business

Jim Osborne: early retirement six years ago

Michelle Rodger: founder Tartan Cat Communications
Andrew Richardson: accountancy practice in Elgin
Susan Robertson: writer, editor and partner in a communication consultancy 

Neil Stephen: founding partner of Dualchas Architects

Philip Stewart: owns Dundee-based Kangaroo Print and Advertising

Kenneth Wardrop: a freelance consultant

Charlie Watt: a semi-retired consultant

Dr Willie Wilson: runs a small chain of community pharmacies

Ekaterina Zelenkova: runs her own fledgling interpretation business

A few that fall into this category (no current company directorships that I can find) were slightly less straightforward

Chris Chirnside: works in Merchant Services ... also runs business networking events with his company 6 Degrees Networking. All I could find was a Singapore registered LLP called "6 Degrees Networking"; its not clear if this may be the company referred to.

Andy Lamb: Business Development Director with ECCS Group. This would appear to be two "East Coast Construction Services Ltd" Companies (SC192098, SC105462). Andy is not a Registered Director of either of them and both are small companies with no declared turnover or employee numbers

Dave McGrath: Managing Director at Richard Irvin Sustainable Energy Limited. Dave is not a Registered Director of Richard Irvin Sustainable Energy Limited (SC396527), a business which is described as "one of the north east Scotland’s leading building services contractors operating across Scotland"

Douglas Norris: leads an Ayrshire based SME employing some 80 people in Scotland. This would appear to be a company called Datec Technologies Limited (SC199369) which is a subsidiary of IL International LLC a US business. Douglas is not a Registered Director.

Ben Rogers: Digital Lead at GFI Software.  GFI Software Limited (4126587) is a company registered in Middlesex. Ben is not a Registered Director

Thomas Scott: UK public speaking champion [...] alongside his father and his uncle, Thomas set up Communication Consultants to not only train but also develop and provide mentoring to their clients. Thomas's LinkedIn Profile described him as "Scottish Director at Communication Consultants"; I was able to find two registered companies: Communication Consultants Ltd (06562502) and Communication Consultants (UK) Ltd (03009748) registered in London and Lowestoft respectively. Thomas is not a Registered Director of either of them.


27 members: Directors of small Companies with no declared turnover or employee numbers²
Again let me clear: there's nothing wrong with small companies, their voice is important in this debate.  I'm merely trying to get a handle on the nature of the businesses represented. I list them all below so you can decide for yourselves. Wording in italics is taken verbatim from their published profiles. The companies listed are all of the active directorships I have been able to find; all are below the medium company size threshold that would require disclosure of turnover or employee numbers.  I have excluded non-trading and dissolved companies.

Bruce Alexander:  Roslin-based SME dedicated to the development of novel control methods for insect-related problems - Xeroshild Ltd (SC286434)

Kenny Anderson: Construction and property entrepreneur - Anderson construction (aberdeen) Ltd (SC148028), Anderson Buchan Properties Ltd (SC212818)

Richard Arkless: LED Warehouse Ltd (SC451237) - founded 05/12, no accounts filed

Frances Barron: The Handmade Cheesecake Company Ltd (SC458241), Burns Country Larder Ltd (SC428967), The Dessert Depot Ltd (SC238553)

Ian Blackford: pretends to be semi-retired from a high profile investment banking career, but he is actually an active non-exec director of a number of companies - First Seer Ltd (SC243805), Commsworld Holdings Ltd (SC190987) (See Ricky Nicol Entry below)

Ron Dickinson: Ron Dickinson Associates Ltd (SC408405) - business consultancy

Fraser Duff: ground engineering and environmental consultancy - Terrenus Group Ltd (SC372563)

David Dwyer:  low-cost websites to businesses - Inspire IT Services Ltd (SC346614)

Eric Flannigan: Flannigan Consulting Ltd (SC478037) - founded 05/14, no accounts filed

Paul Fletcher: marketeer and senior management consultant -  Enabling Innovation Ltd (SC467138), Kelvin Consulting Ltd (SC462301)

Martin Jack: runs an event management company - Think Different Events Ltd (SC366035)

Joe Lafferty: Leadership & Team Coach - Lifetree (Scotland) Ltd (SC266149), Dundee Contemporary Arts Ltd (SC175926)

Paula Livingstone; Owner and founder of Rustyice Solutions and Apogee Internet - Apogee Internet Ltd (SC414097) is Non Trading; Rustyice Solutions Ltd (SC396764) is in Dissolution; only actively trading company Paula is a Director of is The Irvine Valley Regeneration Partnership (SC196845)

Andy Lythgoe: formed his own consultancy in 2005 -  Lythgoe Property Consultancy Limited (SC295175), Craig Health Economics Consultancy Ltd (SC364446), Ancaster Court Ltd (SC173743)

Donald MacLean:  Scottish utility consultancy - Business Cost Consultants Ltd (SC294893)

Jamie Rae: Entrepreneur Jamie Rae is founder of award-winning international recycling business REDEEM plc. Jamie exited REDEEM in Jan 2011 and currently has four active small company directorships: Hair by Andersons ltd (SC478097), Go Rental Property ltd (SC445426), Nugensis ltd (SC389487) - an IT consultancy, Spirit Aid Limited (SC214111) - a charity.

Gary H Sutherland: founder and Managing Director of two Glasgow based businesses; EmployEasily HR Services Limited, an Employment Law & HR Consultancy, and Glasgow Business Hub Limited, providers of modern, flexible meeting room spaces for hire  -  Employeasily HR Services Ltd (SC352618), Business Boost (Scotland) Ltd (SC471120), Stirling District Citizens Advice Bureau Ltd (SC126241), Glasgow Business Hub Ltd (SC422285)

Peter Syme: runs a small group of adventure travel and activity companies; three located in Scotland, one in Morocco and one in Spain. Peter has three active directorships; Liquid Life events ltd (SC269499), Perthshire Paintball ltd (SC268606), Splash White Water Rafting llp (SO302468) - across all of these the only declared figure is £300k turnover for Splash White Water Rafting, no employee figures are declared

Iain Taylor: has run ‘e-corporate’ which aims to provide legal services for the 21st century. E-Corporate Ltd (SC304621) is non-Trading; Iain is a Director of one Trading company Kircaldy Analytics Ltd (SC462702)

Malcolm Wadia: Plysim Ltd (SC412936) - engineering consultancy

Gerry Wallace: Managing Director -  GEM Lift Services Ltd (SC109290) - a Scottish regional business

Sara Jane Walls: an entrepreneur running two Glasgow businesses - The Yoga & Pilates Place Ltd (SC470684), The Residence Glasgow Ltd (SC402766)

One of the BfS members in this category deserves special mention

David Morrison:  ... for the last 20 years has managed a group of companies specialising in commercial property development and investment.  [...] David has always seen Scottish independence as a long overdue correction of three hundred years of exploitation by a Westminster government and has always been enraged at the supercilious, lying nonsense of successive governments, be they Conservative or Labour, that we are “too poor, too wee and too stupid” to be able to handle our own destiny. [...] being a hard nosed businessman, he knows the signs of a dying business and GB plc is certainly that.  Any sound businessman will tell you that if a part of a group is in terminal decline, disassociate yourself from it and concentrate on the profitable part;  so it is with Scotland.  - David is a Director of the following Small Companies: Maybeg ltd (SC470882), Begford ltd (SC470880), Broxburn Properties ltd (SC199377), Tayforth llp (SC303710), Kinburn (123) llp (SC302287), Sangobeg Developments ltd (SC156804), Tayforth Property Developments ltd (SC154787),
Sangobeg Investments ltd. (SC126408).  He is also a director of 12 other dissolved companies.

Also in this category are some of the Directors of Business for Scotland Limited itself

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp:  Gordon has worked for major blue chip companies in sales and marketing roles - aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, he has one current directorship, Intelligise Ltd (SC365240) - "management consulting activities" with net assets of £898.  The other two companies he is a director of  are both dissolved  - Creative Learning Action ltd (SC210189), Icosmart ltd (SC212158)). Gordon was a (failed) SNP local council candidate for Hyndland; nothing wrong with that, but he doesn't mention it on his profile. Gordon appears to be Business for Scotland's main "go to guy" on economic issues.

Ian McDougall: managing director of McDougall Johnstone, a corporate finance and accounting firm. Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, he has one current directorship, McDougall Johnstone ltd (SC333890) - below audit threshold size and <£41k net assets.

Michelle Thomson: 23 years of working in the financial services sector, before starting her own business in building up a portfolio of buy to let and corporate rental properties accessible through her her trading company: Your Property Shop. We have already seen from our Twitter exchanges that as MD of Business for Scotland Michelle is not a great fan of answering direct questions.  Aside from Business for Scotland Ltd, Michelle has one active directorship: Your Property Shop Ltd (SC451292) - founded 05/13 and yet to file any accounts. She is also a Director of Edinburgh Global Property Investments ltd (SC342421) which ceased trading in 2011 and was dissolved in 2013; the balance sheet suggests this business never traded materially. She is also a Director of Michelle R Thomson Consulting ltd (SC377063) which is non-trading.

Ivan Paul McKee: International businessman Ivan has worked in manufacturing for 30 years, mostly for large corporate organisations, until 8 years ago when he launched his own manufacturing consultancy and turnaround company. Ivan holds two directorships in companies registered in Scotland: EISM Properties ltd (SC464456) - incorporated 11/13, no accounts filed, Keyshift ltd (SC286042) - management consultancy activities, exempt from audit with no declared turnover or employee figures.  Ivan is also a Director of 3 companies registered in England:

• Excel Assemblies ltd (8388168) and it's subsidiary Excel (Electronic) Assemblies ltd (7046739) in Manchester - incorporated 02/13, no accounts filed
• Greenfold Systems ltd (7765371) - registered in Manchester but apparently based in Dunfermline. Exempt from audit, no declared turnover or employee numbers.  As recently reported in the Herald "The company developed out of the remnants of the former Simclar manufacturing business expects to create 65 jobs after winning £400,000 official support.  Greenfold Systems was awarded Regional Selective Assistance by Scottish Enterprise in the latest round of the funding scheme. The agency made the award after assessing ambitious expansion plans drawn up by Dunfermline-based Greenfold following a successful first 18 months in business"

  

Again: the only Registered Directorships I have been able to find for any these BfS Members above are companies that do not exceed the Small Business threshold and the preponderance of consultancies, property companies and service companies you've never heard of leads me to conclude that none are involved in material goods trade with rUK and I doubt any would be involved in the employment of any of the estimated  962,000 Scottish jobs linked to trade with rUK.

7 members: Directors of Limited Companies greater than Small Company size.

Ken Cairnduff: [founded] Internacionale and Au Naturale which by the time he sold it in 2006 had more than 150 stores and 2,500 employees. Following this he invested in commercial property development with mixed success.  Ken has two active directorships of trading companies; Kelvinside Academy War Memorial Trust (SC011734) - a co-educational day school with £5.5m turnover and 84 employees.  He is also a director of Cairnduff Developments ltd (below thresholed to declare turnover or employee numbers).  In addition he is a director of

• Four Companies in Administration: Cairnduff Developments Holdings ltd (SC392740), Cairnduff Developments Ayr ltd (SC333945), Cairnduff Developments Longbenton ltd (SC310145), Cairnduff Development Forfar ltd (SC309715)
• Three Companies in Liquidation: Razzle Dazzle ltd (SC414405), Townhouse Retail ltd (SC371544), Fun for 2 ltd (SC299265)
• One Company with Accounts Too Old: Razzle Dazzle (Scotland) ltd (NF003244)

Leslie Andrew Meikle: founder of the largest property preservation company of its type in Scotland. Wise Property Care (SC168153) appears to serve Scotland exclusively (see website) - it has a turnover of £5.6m but is exempt from audit and does not declare any employee figures.  Aside from his Directorship of Business for Scotland Ltd, he holds one other small company Directorship: The Property Care Association (5596488) which is also exempt from audit.

Ricky Nicol: CEO and founder of Scotland’s largest indigenous telecoms company, Commsworld. Ricky is a one of 7 Directors of Commsworld Holdings ltd (SC190987) and subisdiaries Commsworld Ltd (SC150343) and Fluency Commuications Ltd (SC390685).  Commsworld is "engaged in the sale, installation and project management of complete voice and data solutions for the business community" and reports an £8.7m turnover ... but qualifies as a Small Company so must employ less than 50 people.  The website states "Headquartered in Edinburgh, and with offices in Glasgow and Aberdeen" so would appear to focus on the domestic Scottish market; staff salaries are reported in the accounts at £332k so I'm guessing 10 - 15 staff outside of the Directors?

David Cairns: David is executive chairman of a growing £8m turnover software company, now headquartered in Stirling since he relocated it from Newcastle.  David Cairns of Finavon holds directorships of ScotlandIS (SC209844)  - the Trade Body for Scotland's ICT Industry and PrismTech Group Ltd (SC338033) and its subsidiary Prismtech Ltd (2664365).   Prsimtech's latest reported turnover was actually £6.6m, down from £7.6m the previous year; the "growing £8m turnover" quoted in David's profile is presumably more recent figures not yet filed at Companies House. Prismtech employs 75 Staff.   So this is exciting: have we found a BfS member involved in a business with a material number of employees that might trade with rUK!  No, we haven't; as you can see below the total UK (inc Scotland) turnover of Prismtech is £442k

   

Since I published this post Keith Steele the CEO of Prismtech (and a committed NO voter) has been in touch.  He would like it to be known that David’s and his views are their own and do not represent those of the business.  He also confirms that my assumption about published revenue numbers is correct and the business is once again enjoying healthy growth with revenues well above £9m to be reported in their next published accounts

Sandy Adam. Alexander William Adam is founder and major shareholder of Springfield Properties Plc, a £47m turnover business with 233 employees.  As is clear from their accounts, they are an exclusively Scottish property developer who work closely with Housing Associations providing Social Housing

  

Tony Banks: ...self-made millionaire businessman ... the epithet ‘one of Scotland’s top entrepreneurs’ does not sit comfortably on his shoulders. “The truth is there are no airs and graces about me,” he says. Anthony Roiall Banks is founder and owner of Balhousie Care Group - Scotland's largest privately owned provider of care in nursing homes, residential care homes and advanced specialist care centres. Balhousie Holdings Ltd has a turnover of £22.1m and 879 employees. In addition to the four subsidiaries which are consolidated into Balhousie Holdings Ltd, Tony holds five other Directorships of trading companies, all below the threshold requiring declaration of turnover or employee numbers: Arb Properties Scotland llp (SC303301), Clepington Road llp (SC303253), Tic (Angus) ltd (SC266895), Milnbank ltd (SC257927), The Entrepreneurial Exchange ltd (SC160976).

Since I first published this post I was directed to Tony Banks' book "Storming the Falklands: My War and After".  The extract below (page 153 of the e-book version) I include without comment:

There's One Director of Business for Scotland Ltd Left, not featured as a Member Profile

Jim Mather: Jim is a Director of Business for Scotland but does not appear in the member profiles and appears to have no other company directorships. To quote his Wikipedia entry he is: "a Scottish politician, former Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and until the 2011 election, the Scottish National Party Member of the Scottish Parliament for Argyll and Bute. He is credited with making the economic case for Scottish Independence, having taken the argument to the media, boardrooms and committee rooms across Scotland between 2001 and 2007".

So there you go.

To summarise the Business for Scotland Members

• 30 "business professionals"
• 28 people who have Small Company directorships; businesses with no declared turnover or employee figures.  These are predominantly consultancies, property companies and service companies; I can't identify any material trading links with rUK and none can be considered major employers
• 6 People who have or have had larger scale business experience
•  A one-time retail entrepreneur who's only material company directorship now is of a Scottish co-ed school
• The founder of a £5.6m turnover domestic Scottish property preservation company (with no declared employee figures)
• The founder of an £8.7m voice and data solutions company  focused on the domestic Scottish market (with no declared employee figures)
• A Director of a £6.6m turnover software business that employs 75 staff but has only £443k turnover in the UK (including Scotland)  
• The founder of an (exclusively Scottish) property development company with a turnover of £47m and 233 employees
• The founder of an (exclusively Scottish) care home group with £22.1m turnover and 879 employees
• 
  

I've detailed my bona fides on this blog.  I do not consider my business interests to be particularly special and it's only fair that I apply the same test to me (it will save others some work -- I know how tedious this research can be); My current active Directorships are;

• M8 Group Limited (SC242849) and its subsidiaries Petplanet.co.uk Ltd (SC197870), Greenfngers Trading Ltd (SC231986): Turnover £15.2m, 72 employees.  I have shared elsewhere that 90% of that turnover is to rUK.
• Endura Ltd (SC128821): Turnover £17.9m, 88 employees. Sales to rUK are an extremely significant proportion of that turnover

I think I have shown in this post that even the two businesses I am involved in are larger contributors to the trade and employment in Scotland that is dependent on rUK trading links than the entirety of the declared BfS membership.  As will become apparent in the debate soon; there are a lot of businesses that share the same perspective as I do: a No vote will protect employment in Scotland by ensuring our seamless trading links with rUK are maintained.

If you want to know more about why I believe that, please read > Independence & Scotland's Trade with rUK

In contrast to the rather skewed perspective offered by Business for Scotland, there is now an organisation called Working for Scotland; they adopt a "No" stance and have compiled a list of testimonials from a broader and rather more representative cross-section of Scottish Businesses, Business People and Trade Unions > What Scottish Businesses Think About Independence (and yes, I've added my voice to that list).  I've done a quick check and even excluding the banks the businesses quoted there employ over 20,000 people in Scotland and - of course - are involved in significant rUK trade.

Furthermore the Federation of Small Businesses has published a detailed survey of almost 1,800 small Scottish Businesses in which they observe (note the question was not directly asked):

• "In the comments section of this question, 134 members volunteered that they would consider or would definitely be relocating their business outside of an independent Scotland, while a further 51 stated that they would look to close, downsize, sell, or retire early. This totals 185 respondents (10%) who would consider withdrawing their business from the Scottish economy"

Bibby Financial Services (presaging a Report due to be published in August) have said

• "Over a quarter (26 per cent) of Scottish small and medium-sized businesses fear they will lose business if there is a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum and some 70 per cent have rejected the idea that independence would be a positive step for the nation."

Finally a recent Treasury report has suggested 1 in 10 Scottish jobs are at risk

You be the judge: it strikes me that the two sources above offer a rather more meaningful insight into the views of Scottish Businesses (and the impact on Scottish jobs) than "Business for Scotland"

**********

1. Professor Brian Ashcroft recently published analysis which estimates that 962,000  Scottish jobs depend on links to the rest of the UK  (Scottish Jobs and the UK) .  ONS stats show total Scottish employment (public and private sector) in March 2014 of 2.6m (ONS stats). So we can say 37% of jobs in Scotland depend on links to the rest of the UK.

2. To qualify as a small company a per the Company Act a group of companies must meet at least two of the following conditions

1. Aggregate turnover must be £6.5 million net (or £7.8 million gross) or less
2. The aggregate balance sheet total must be £3.26 million net (or £3.9 million gross) or less
3. The aggregate average number of employees must be 50 or fewer

3. Business for Scotland "Members" with no Company Directorships