English tourists ‘cancelling holidays to Scotland’ due to "ill feeling"

SCOTTISH holiday companies have been faced with cancellations from English tourists worried that there may be “ill feeling” towards them after the referendum – no matter what the result.
Companies providing holiday accommodation north of the border say dozens of holidaymakers have contacted them saying that they do not want to holiday in a country where the national feeling is one of division.
They say other English travellers have also cancelled planned breaks because they say they no longer want to support Scotland if it becomes independent.
“We have had numerous phone calls from customers stating that if we do become independent then they will no longer we willing to support Scotland and won’t be returning for a holiday,” said Amber Swinton, property manager at a company which markets holiday cottages across Scotland. “But of more concern is that people are cancelling holidays they had booked for next year irrelevant of the outcome of the vote.”
Read more: The Scotsman

This entry was posted in Politics, Scotland. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to English tourists ‘cancelling holidays to Scotland’ due to "ill feeling"

  1. TinyCO2 says:

    I think I predicted something of the sort ages ago. It’s really sad. I suspect a lot of Brits visit Scotland because we’ve got Scottish ancestors but it comes as a bit of a shock to people to realise that none of that counts with the nats. I’m not entirely surprised by the vitriol flying about because I’ve noted how often some Scots support any country but England in sporting fixtures. I don’t know anybody who wouldn’t cheer a Scot in similar circumstances.
    No matter what the result of the vote there will be hurt feelings on both sides of the border.
    I feel sorry for the No voters. It must be scary to realise you’re surrounded by such bitterness. You’ll catch flack from both sides for something that isn’t your fault.

    • scottishsceptic says:

      I suppose a good analogy is someone you know saying they want to run their own business and asking for you to invest. If it’s a good business, great, but if its a bit rotten and you doubt you’ll get your money back, then you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
      And no one likes being the damp squib that puts an end to people’s dreams.

      • TinyCO2 says:

        I actually think Scotland could be very successful as an independent country… just not with the SNP at the helm. It needs a tight hand on the budget, not a socialist free for all. Conservatism. The real thing. Not the wishy washy, give all our money away and spend it on windmills thing Cameron engages in. Ouch.
        Much of the biterness aimed at Westminster is the same most of us feel for the egocentric capital and its reluctance to share but at the same time we have to recognise that it’s the nature of capital cities. Scotland’s business capital will act in exactly the same way if you get independence.
        The other thing that the SNP will endanger Scotland with, is the attitude. It’s born out of an inferiority complex. If they hold on to it after break up, it will corrode the country in the same way Mugabe blames English imperialism to blind the Zimbawe people to the abuses he carries out in the name of ‘freedom’.

        • scottishsceptic says:

          There does appear to be a systemic problem in the UK because I think in most other countries, the capital is about twice the size of the next largest city whereas in the UK that figure is 5x. That is a huge discrepancy.
          When you then start looking at how government money is spent, you find that almost all of it goes into the SE of England. That could be a company buying paper clicks, a wireless bug supplier for MI5 – individually they are small, but in sum the benefit of secure government contracts is massive.
          Then you have the mass public spending on transport. Then you have the way government jobs are subsidised by “London allowance” so that there is no incentive for government to move elsewhere (or staff to loose their London perks).
          Then you have other factors. E.g. the “Oxbridge” club is in the SE. That is where the political elite come from and so they naturally understand the needs of that region when creating government policy. So, policy is tailored for the needs of the SE and not for the North or Scotland. Hence, e.g. the crazy idea of Thatcher’s governmetn that heavy industry was “dead” whereas the light industries around London were still viable.
          I would put that down entirely to the “advice” of academics from the SE who hadn’t a clue how support heavy industry so it would be profitable.
          Then you have the crazy notion of three massive airports around London, almost every single “British” institute is in London.
          This may sound trivial, but at one point I needed to do some research into some books held at the British Library. If I had been a researcher in London I would just pop up for the day for around £20. But being in Scotland the total cost of train with overnight stay was nearer £200. So, for obvious reasons, anyone doing research that needs the British Library is based around London.
          Then because researchers are there – you’ll get other companies who use the researchers being based around London. So, the net result of each institution can be 10s of thousands of jobs in the London area. In effect these jobs are created by government by its placement of the “British Institution”. So the fact that I cannot think of a single “British” Institution in Scotland is a very good example of how we pay for “Britishness” but it is London that gets the overwhelming benefit.
          So, what I would do, is move whole government departments to Scotland (and the north). So, e.g. GCHQ could move here and with it several thousand direct jobs. Then the service companies would locate creating several thousand more. Then you would start to get clustering as other companies came in to use the skills of people in the area. And that would create 10s of thousands of jobs.
          The economic acitivity from those would then create perhaps 2-3x as many jobs in the service sector. And by the time you have finished, this one “British” institution could have created perhaps 100,000 jobs in Scotland (perhaps 10% of the workforce). That would be a massive boost to Scotland, one which is currently denied us because those jobs are in the South and/or around London.

          • TinyCO2 says:

            Hey, I’m with you in terms of moving stuff out of London that doesn’t have to be there. Investment out of the capital is dire. I live in Warrington and 3 of the top 10 attractions are the town hall gates and another 2 are memorials to the IRA bombing. But I can see why London maintains its dominance and it’s not all deliberate planning. The movement of the BBC out to Salford has just been an exercise in spending money and after all that they start building up again in London.
            Once people get to London, no matter where they hale from, they don’t want to give it up again.

  2. scottishsceptic says:

    The problem with the BBC is that it is “just spending money”. This is the same with all government. The benefit is that government are so “quirky” with their spending, that they often want something “just for them” that is so unique and novel that it stimulates companies to produce something new.
    They are also “slow to change” – so they tend to commit to things long term. So, government spending tends to be “backbone” spending which whilst perhaps not the most profitable work, is the most reliable, so that a company is guaranteed relatively stable income whilst it can do more risky building of the business.
    And analogy might help. In trying to understand the evolution of fire-making, I was trying to understand why humans might have learnt behaviour which really amounted to walking perhaps 50miles to a fire and then finding a few burnt offerings. Whilst the food present probably outweighed the energy cost of walking to the fire, I just couldn’t see how this worked, because it did not appear there was much to be had at a fire sight. If this were their main source of food, the number of humanoids would quickly outweigh the available fire sites AND you obviously can’t live from wild fires except in the dry season. And then I realised that rather than being a main source, perhaps this was instead the only source – that this was the only reliable source of food in the dry season. So, perhaps this was the ONLY meal some hominids got for a whole month. As such, the amount of food was not so critical as that it was far more dependable in hard times than any other source.
    Likewise for government. Government contracts are probably like the fire-dead – pretty disgusting, except for small companies with just a few contracts, they will tend to live from hand to mouth and constantly being suffering feasts and then famine. And the key reason the public sector contracts are so important is because they do not respond to the economic cycle – so these contracts still keep going when all else dry up.
    And when I talk about “innovation”, I don’t mean anything very complex. A possible example is paper clips. At a time when paper clips were just one colour, I’m sure some department somewhere might just have decided that it wanted two types of paper clips so that it could file its bureaucracy in a slightly different way. Approaching some local paper clip supplier, they would in turn approach their nearest paperclips manufacturer and knowing how big the order would be, they would perhaps buy the machinery for this rather idiotic idea of having two colours of paper clips. ONLY GOVERNMENT is that arrogant as to think that it amongst all other bureaucracies needs a different kind of paper clip.
    However, once the paperclip company had two types of paper clip, there was little point hiding it – and so the other colour went into their brochure. And then other companies who also used paper clips bought so “just in case” – and then the company realised that – daft as it might sound – there’s a market for more than one colour of paperclip.
    And as a result the paper clip company becomes the market leader in paper clips. But the key is that the government in London, talked to its supply office in London who then as it needed a personal visit – talked to the nearest paper clip company and as a result the market leader in paper clips is the one closest to London and its rivals away from London start losing out.
    So, this is why moving “government” outside London often does not work. The reason is that if the person who has to authorise the purchase of paper clips remains in London, then even if almost all the workers are outside, the department still boosts the London economy. So, e.g. DVLA in Cardiff – if the computer system is specified by staff in London – then it will be a London IT company that benefits. Likewise MI5 call centre in Glasgow. The economic benefit of the 1000 jobs is much much less than the economic benefit to London of the people who designed and built the software infrastructure.

Comments are closed.