91Èȱ¬

Can't comment on this particular individuls track record at the SE, I'm sure the £'s lure south was a major factor, is that not what captains of whatever industry particulary excell, I'm guessing the really good captains find a bolt hole abroad, did I read correct he's got banking experience, now this speaks volumes alone! The simple truth is this, to get global business to locate in Scotland as a preference, remove minimum wage barriers, tear-up all collective agreements via trade unions or worker forums, apply the lowest business tax rates in the world etc etc. Let all prospective business to free regulate themselves in all matters of working conditions, health & saftey indeed promise to negate any potential malpractice litigation. But you'd have to make sure any captains at the helm and their entourage of wanabees are paid aptly paid for their services....................

Scottish Enterprise has over the years created many employment opportunities, most of them within their own organisation . It would be interesting to have figures showing how many companies, enabled or part financed by SE have survived more than a couple of years after their inception. Nowhere in Scotland I suspect is there a viable business which owes it's existence to the intervention of this organisation. There may be a few sandwich shops and two girl/man design centres, but in terms of real jobs, if there were any , the organisation would no doubt have told the world about them.

Just to point out that Bob Crawford did not stand as an SNP candidate at the Westminster election last year. He stood down as a candidate in 2009 citing changed work commitments. He was replaced by local councillor Pat Gibson. This factual error is astonishing given the author's experience was in covering Scotttish politics before joining the 91Èȱ¬. A correction to the article would be in order although I won't hold my breath.

A very good friend of mine who worked for SE at the time suggested to their board that they should fire everyone apart from a small team of about five.

That team would meet once a year to pick a list of 20 companies or individuals with good ideas and send them all a cheque for £5m. Then they'd go home for the rest of the year.

Needless to say the board didn't go along with this idea.

The problem is pretty much as Crawford says. Investing £32m in 106 businesses alongside £68m in private venture capital achieves very little. On average that's less than £1m per company.

Given we have (alledgedly) two of the bigger banks and a whole host of other financial services companies in Scotland the fact we can only drum up £68m of venture capital is shameful. Oh and I know for a fact that some of that £68m came from Norway and other overseas VCs.

This is of course why bankers shouldn't be getting bonuses. Look at the comparison. An estimated £7bn to be paid in bonuses yet all that industry could come up with to support young companies in Scotland was £68m.

That simply isn't good enough.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think Robert is being a little harsh here! I do recall, when he first joined Scottish Enterprise, that he appointed a number of very senior people into new posts, creating an expanded and bloated hierarchy in the form of an Inverted Triangle. He was the one who expanded the hierarchy from four levels, (Director, Manager, Executive, Administrator), with a number of sub levels, (senior manager and senior exec, to denote larger roles), to Managing Director, Senior Operations Directors, Senior Directors, Directors, Senior Managers etc - making the organisation very top heavy and overblown. This inverted triangle, together with a series of bureaucratic measures imposed centrally and designed to measure and control rather than deliver, effectively hide bound the organisation and limited its delivery potential. Some of the best people left, unable to cope with the management style adopted at the very top and then the organisation was attacked at every turn whenever something went wrong, either from opposition politicians or the press.

If the question is, "Can economic development work?", the answer is a very strong Yes, as long as there are a number of important pieces in place. It has a good track record of success in a number of places around the world and there are documented successes achieved by Scottish Enterprise itself.

Can it work in the current environment? Now there, as they say, is a question!!!

There are two widely understood facts that we overlook when considering all regional agencies:
1. The largest costs to companies' added value and profits are their labour costs. Labour costs are far more important to investment decisions than the capital allowances and grants that governments provide. Whilst wage rates are highest in the South-East of England and in Scotland, labour costs there are offset by the generally higher levels of education of workers in those parts. Better educated workers are cheaper to train and acquire new skills more quickly. AS an illustration of this point, our 18 million neighbours in the three northern regions of England are generally not so well-educated, have lower productivities and - consequently - lower average earnings and new business start-ups.
2. Proximity to markets is also important across almost all categories. Here we are usually at a distinct disadvantage because Scotland is further from concentrations of customers than down South - especially London, which is a very cosmopolitan city these days.
Perhaps Enterprise Agencies waste too many of their resources competing with each other in provision of grants and soft loans? Maybe if they concentrated on human development and transport infrastructures they would stimulate more business opportunities?