THE publication of the Economic Recovery Advisory Group report appears to be long on vision, but in tone reminds me of the Growth Commission. It relies on cooperation between the Scottish Government and the UK Government (which is not happening so far on much) to bring “flexibility to allow different priorities to be pursued”.
Different from what? From what has been done in the past or from what the UK is doing? Does it mean Scotland could prioritise small and medium-sized enterprises rather than mega corporations? It asks for greater autonomy for Scotland. That’s going to happen, isn’t it?
What sort of “targeted fiscal measures” would “stimulate demand or incentivise behavioural change”? Is that aimed at consumers, companies or who? How to stimulate demand? Lower interest rates? Not possible. Give out more loans via the banks? Good luck with that. Or a direct payment to people, like a form of UBI?
READ MORE: Boris Johnson refuses to grant Scotland powers to help economic recovery
On first blush the jobs guarantee looks okay, but how do you prevent employers just using the system as a revolving door for relatively cheap labour? It can become just a means of government subsidising private employers. Taking a stake in businesses left struggling by coronavirus is laudable, but then what? Do we just hand that stake back when times are better? We are constantly told that public ownership is inefficient, and private enterprise is king, until it all goes pear-shaped. Maybe we should hang on to any stakes we take in companies, not even sell them back.
The proposal for the National Arts Force is good, but limited. Why do we not fully support the creative arts by having a system like France which specifically supports those workers “between jobs” at a realistic level, rather than the system the UK has, the arts being predominantly the preserve of the upper classes who do not have to take any old job just to keep going? We could also take a leaf out of Germany’s book and have dedicated job centres for different sectors, ensuring that people’s skills are actually employed after graduation or training.
READ MORE: These are the key points of yesterday’s report into economic recovery
There is little revolutionary in the proposals. It wants Scotland to have vastly increased borrowing powers, but I do not believe this is what we need. What we need is independence, when Scotland would be a lot richer anyway. As it is, we are constantly saying Scotland has no debt because we have no borrowing powers, so the ability to borrow more than the nominal £450 million would cancel one of the main arguments we have against the GERS figures, so boosting Unionist arguments.
If a devolved Scottish Government took on a whole load of debt via the banks, then the banks would end up running our economy, the way they run the UK economy, and keep millions of people just paying debts in the form of credit cards and mortgages, thus having less or perhaps nothing to spend in the real economy. We can have any attitude to debt we want once we are independent, but it will then be on our terms as a rich independent nation, not an impoverished region.
READ MORE: Scotland needs more powers to tackle coronavirus crisis, report says
I suppose in back of it all I have a problem with the group being chaired by Benny Higgins, notably associated with Buccleuch Estates, not known for their philanthropy or social conscience. The report has warm words about a resilient wellbeing economy demonstrating strong economic growth (that focus on growth again), job creation and the climate, but a wellbeing economy is at odds with economic growth as it is currently designated (an obsession with GDP).
What we need going forward is a total rethinking of the economy, not tinkering with the existing system. We need banks which are cooperatives, governments which don’t allow banks to be in charge of the economy, a resetting of values which puts people at the heart of the economy, not just obedient taxpayers. In short, much of what the Common Weal has said since its inception, which I believe resonates much more strongly with the majority of the people of Scotland.
Julia Pannell
Friockheim, Tayside
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here