Accessibility Page Navigation
Style sheets must be enabled to view this page as it was intended.


Scot-Buzz editor Bill Jamieson asks what Tuesday’s White Paper means for Scottish business …

All the signals look good. The latest Purchasing Managers Index survey out yesterday showed activity at its strongest level since February 2011 and new orders at a 19 year high.

And the Bank of England reports a small but heartening pick-up in lending to firms, with £3.6 billion of the £8.7 billion total net lending in the third quarter going to the business sector.

Recovery momentum is continuing to build. And with the Scottish government's mammoth White Paper on independence now published, some of the uncertainties clouding the business horizon have lifted.

Or have they?

The likelihood is that as the September 18 referendum debate looms closer the questions will build thick and fast on the implications for business. So far business organisations such as the Scottish Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses have maintained a guarded neutrality. But concerns over the full implications of independence and a separate tax and regulatory regime - and possibly even a separate currency - are certain to build.

Today we publish a blunt and forceful critique of independence from Scottish entrepreneur Ivor Tiefenbrun, a man who has built a world-renowned company, lauded for its innovation and technical expertise.

It will infuriate independence supporters who will be quick to dismiss it as just another rant from a frequently outspoken Right of Centre critic. Doesn't Ivor know any more tunes?

But for many others - particularly those struggling to build and sustain a business - it will strike a loud chord. For them, his critique raises the core concern: to what problem, exactly, is independence the answer?

The White Paper was pregnant with assurances on higher pension benefits, abolition of the so-called bedroom tax, and now a pledge on more childcare provision for mothers who wish to return to work. 

There was very little on how independence would of itself bring about better prospects and outcomes for business.

What it would certainly involve is a shedload of more paperwork and regulatory hassle for firms having to operate separate payrolls for Scots and non-Scots employees; separate accounting for trade with rUK and calculation of revenue origination, separate VAT and income tax systems, and separate regulatory agencies, not only to police these but also to oversee and enforce separate employment law.

And do we really believe, as Ivor asks, we can have an amicable one-sided divorce with no unpleasant consequences? Small wonder that the question "to what problem is independence the solution?" has real resonance for business. That little has been heard on these key issues so far does not warrant the assumption that this quietude will last.

It could well be that many firms do not see the consequences of independence as a problem and indeed could be a benefit - though the SNP's relentless increase in business rates does not augur well.

It may be that the strengthening recovery in confidence and activity has encouraged firms to believe that 'politics' need not be a worry so long as this continues.

Or it might be that many are assuming the opinion poll lead for the "Better Together" campaign is impregnable and that there is no need to concern themselves with contingency planning for their business or a "Plan B" - It 'ain't going to happen' can prove a brave assumption.

What's certain is that this battle is set to intensify in the weeks and months ahead. It will provide a vital opportunity for firms large and small to raise their concerns and for their voices to be heard.

Assuming 'nothing much will change' on independence and that there is nothing to merit contingency planning may prove a lamentable miscalculation.

Meanwhile, we need to know whether Ivor is a lone voice or, conversely, whether he has uttered out loud the fears and misgivings that many businesses have but are afraid of speaking out because they they may lose a government contract or suffer public denunciation and abuse on social media.

Do we really believe we can have "more jobs and better pensions and more hand outs with lower taxes and better education and health etc"  without much more information as to how all these are to be funded?

Is Ivor Tiefenbrun a lone voice? Or spot on the money? Let's hear your view!