IT seems that I needed to be clearer in asking Michael Fry to explain why there is not already an economically conservative political party which supports independence.
I thought that Mr Fry, a political historian with close connections to the Conservative party, would be well placed to answer that.
Having read Tuesday’s article (Why Scotland should follow the (later) Irish path to economic success, July 28), I am a little puzzled by the way that he uses the term “capitalism”. I understood him to be arguing that the (economic) objective of a conservative party would be to promote this economic system, on the basis that this would promote economic growth.
The problem is that there are many economic systems which can reasonably be called capitalist. Mr Fry seems very interested in the role of institutions such as Scottish Enterprise and the planned National Investment Bank.
Now, if markets are sufficient by themselves to allocate resources, such institutions would be redundant. Mr Fry mentions “patient finance”, which can wait perhaps 20 years to receive a return.
That’s a very long time for a private institution to hold an investment, because in 20 years the world can change so much, and a large majority of investments will fail.
By commending public institutions, Mr Fry is lending some support to the socialisation of risk-bearing; and, in many cases, losses. He appears to assume that profits, on the other hand, should accrue as the result of effort, skill, and risk-taking to the owners of the business and so to private financiers. This is “last mile” enterprise, when most of the risks have been borne by society.
Now, Mr Fry may also have been thinking of the most recent Scottish Government document on economic development, which was published in June. Benny Higgins chaired a team which consisted of many academics, some with very wide experience of running organisations. It’s a measure of the seriousness with which the Scottish Government approached this work that it brought together this group at short notice.
The report sets out plans for recovery from the pandemic-induced recession. It’s a very rich document, bursting with possibilities. The two most important are steps towards developing an accounting basis for national wealth, and not simply consumption, within which there is recognition that higher education can do much more to enable graduates to contribute to national well-being.
Mr Fry suggested that Scotland after independence should follow a market-led approach to innovation. I concur, but would add – and in this agreeing with the Scottish Government’s advisers – that it is important to remember that private institutions, which have public purposes, will always have a role to play even in the most market-oriented capitalism.
Robbie Mochrie
Clydebank
I COULDN’T agree more with Harry Bickerstaff (Letters, July 30) regarding the car cavalcades in support of independence. He has explained well the seriousness of CO2 emissions and the problems that these cause.
There is no disgrace in deciding to cancel these cavalcades – in fact cancelling could actually work to our benefit. The backlash from cancelling will pale into insignificance compared to the battering we will get with going ahead and the real possibility of losing vital support.
I know it will be disappointing to a load of supporters (me too, on my motorbike), but let’s do the right thing. We will get huge plaudits if we do.
PLEASE cancel NOW.
Ken McCartney
Hawick
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