Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Mr.Bojangles, on 31 May 2013 - 17:38, said: There is such a thing as political uncertainty. I'm willing to state that outright. Look at Syria, or Libya. I'd be pretty uncertain about investing there just now. I don't think there is any harmful uncertainty associated with this referendum, because there is far greater scope for growing the economy of Scotland in the event of a Yes vote (and the SNP are mooting the lowering of corporation tax). Scotland is also one of the most transparent places in the world to invest in, and that won't change with independence (unless Dee Gas et al are right about Salmond being a cleverly disguised Hitler). By saying that Scotland could be about to enter a period of political uncertainty if his side loses the referendum, he's opening up the idea that investing in Scotland could mean the loss of a good portion of their investment. Why would anyone want to invest in a region where they could lose their investment on the toss of a coin? I don't think Michael Moore was even remotely suggesting that people shouldn't invest in Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. I don't think he was seriously suggesting that people's investments would be at a significantly greater risk either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 sons superhero, on 31 May 2013 - 17:47, said: If negative attitudes by Moore when abroad has a consequence of reducing trade for Scotland, is this not as bad. Even if it wasn't his intention to do so. "I didn't mean it" isn't a plausible defence, is it? The point is not only is there no evidence he meant it, but there's no evidence he did it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 . Being a politician, he naturally sees this sort of position of influence as an opportunity to use the leverage of these prospective investors to get some good PR for the Better Together campaign. It doesn't mean that he's saying "don't invest if there's a Yes vote"; he's saying "help me get a No vote". What was he in America for again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 What was he in America for again? To speak to investors as part of a trade visit. If Michael Moore believes that the Union is good for trade then he should absolutely use political leverage, where possible, to engineer international support for the Union. The point is he shouldn't believe the Union is good for trade, because the evidence suggests otherwise. His problem lies with his inability to understand data and the consequences of facts; not his motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGas Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 ^^^ utterly rattled The game's up for any troll when that occurs. Even if I were a "troll" I wouldn't agree.So easy to start 'shouting "troll!" Come September next year we'll see who's game is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 To speak to investors as part of a trade visit. If Michael Moore believes that the Union is good for trade then he should absolutely use political leverage, where possible, to engineer international support for the Union. The point is he shouldn't believe the Union is good for trade, because the evidence suggests otherwise. His problem lies with his inability to understand data and the consequences of facts; not his motives. Its ok i knew what he was meant to be doing and it wasnt for "PR for bitter together" keep digging your hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Its ok i knew what he was meant to be doing and it wasnt for "PR for bitter together" keep digging your hole Believe it or not, politicians can and do multi-task. Trade visits are always a supplementary PR opportunity for domestic agendas. Everyone does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Bojangles Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I don't think Michael Moore was even remotely suggesting that people shouldn't invest in Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. I don't think he was seriously suggesting that people's investments would be at a significantly greater risk either. That's not what I said. I was saying that he was discouraging people from investing here so it would make his uncertainty argument more viable in an attempt to win the referendum instead of doing his job. It really doesn't take much more than a six year old's ability to read between the lines to understand that he was actively discouraging investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 That's not what I said. I was saying that he was discouraging people from investing here so it would make his uncertainty argument more viable in an attempt to win the referendum instead of doing his job. It really doesn't take much more than a six year old's ability to read between the lines to understand that he was actively discouraging investment. I don't think that's backed up by what he was saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Believe it or not, politicians can and do multi-task. Trade visits are always a supplementary PR opportunity for domestic agendas. Everyone does it. So how much trade did his visit get as surely his trade mission was the priority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 So how much trade did his visit get as surely his trade mission was the priority? I've already answered this question. As far as I can see it had negligible effect either way on trade or foreign investment. I've been crystal clear on this: Michael Moore is a crap trade representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I've already answered this question. As far as I can see it had negligible effect either way on trade or foreign investment. I've been crystal clear on this: Michael Moore is a crap trade representative. So moores basically shite then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 So moores basically shite then Yeah. But out of incompetence rather than malice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speckled tangerine Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I can't actually get it as it's a pdf and i'm on my phone but there's a full transcript of "Michael Moore Georgetown Speech" available via google. Might have a look at that later or perhaps not as it's Friday and I'd rather have a few pints. The hootsman did trail it thorougly, as did the English Tory press. As far as I can see it was full of doom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 The point is not only is there no evidence he meant it, but there's no evidence he did it either. I didn't say there was evidence. I'm saying that on a trade mission saying that the future may be negative may have consequences even if it was not the intention. So it is not a valid tactic if Scotlands trade is your stated goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I didn't say there was evidence. I'm saying that on a trade mission saying that the future may be negative may have consequences even if it was not the intention. So it is not a valid tactic if Scotlands trade is your stated goal. It is a valid tactic if Michael Moore is right in the following two respects: 1. That investment will be better in the event of a No vote. 2. That causing investors to have negative attitudes towards independence will make a No vote more likely. In my opinion, his calculations in both respects are wrong, but that's the premise off of which he is working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 It is a valid tactic if Michael Moore is right in the following two respects: 1. That investment will be better in the event of a No vote. 2. That causing investors to have negative attitudes towards independence will make a No vote more likely. In my opinion, his calculations in both respects are wrong, but that's the premise off of which he is working. I accept totally that you believe he is wrong in his assumptions. As the official UK assigned Scottish Minister on a trade mission, to gamble on the consequences of trying to raise overseas support for better together is a neglect of duty at least. I am confused slightly in that if the tactic is valid if points 1 and 2 are correct but you believe he is wrong, why are you debating that he was correct in using the tactic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I accept totally that you believe he is wrong in his assumptions. As the official UK assigned Scottish Minister on a trade mission, to gamble on the consequences of trying to raise overseas support for better together is a neglect of duty at least. I am confused slightly in that if the tactic is valid if points 1 and 2 are correct but you believe he is wrong, why are you debating that he was correct in using the tactic? I'm not saying he was correct in using the tactic. I'm saying it's the logical corollary of what he believes and of what he conceives Scottish interests to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I'm not saying he was correct in using the tactic. I'm saying it's the logical corollary of what he believes and of what he conceives Scottish interests to be. You know who that sounds like? Quisling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I don't think that's backed up by what he was saying. pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.