ONE of the country’s biggest unions has been accused of “stifling” public debate on the potential to leverage extra cash for the Scottish public sector using existing powers already devolved to Holyrood.
The SNP Trade Union Group (TUG) highlighted criticism from the GMB of its motion to the SNP conference for a levy on profitable whisky firms, which could raise as much as £1 billion for the public purse.
Louise Gilmour, the union’s Scottish secretary said the move would be a “job killer”, but the TUG described the criticism as “very puzzling”.
TUG vice-convener and author of the motion, Bill Ramsay, told The National: “The decision of the GMB to try and stifle an open debate on leveraging extra finances into the Scottish public purse is very puzzling.
READ MORE: Impact of Donald Trump whisky tariff revealed by Scottish Government
“The profit to international turnover ratio of home produced Scottish ‘Scotch’ is, in proportion, though not in scale, with the super multinationals like Amazon, Google and Facebook.
“Less than 10% of Scotch is consumed domestically in the UK, that is the section subject to taxation in the UK.
“The rest, over 90% according to some Scotch analysts, worth close to £40bn in almost 200 markets worldwide, leaves Scotland.
“The hugely influential Scotch lobbying operation, run by the Scotch Whisky Association has heretofore ensured that a public discourse on the issue is closed down, though in an article in the Sunday Times they had no comment to make ... Given the, in my view, perfectly natural strategy of the GMB to maximise the income of its members, the decision to try and close down an open public discourse, itself well short of a concrete proposal, to enlarge the Scottish public purse seems a strange position to take.”
The TUG motion highlights past and current “financial ineptitude” by successive UK administrations, and asks conference to recognise that this, coupled to the economic promise of an independence Scottish state, “is one of the strongest arguments that can be deployed” as part of the case to vote Yes in another independence referendum.
It reads: “The latest iteration of UK Governmental financial ineptitude, the current Johnson administration, is one of the most egregious.
“Its impact on the lives of ordinary people is current and immediate in many areas, including the funding of public services at UK, devolved and local level.
READ MORE: Scotch whisky: Climate changes could halt production in whisky distilleries 'by 2080'
“In this context, it is widely accepted that the profitability of the whisky industry is among the highest of any industrial activity anywhere in the world. As the provenance of Scotch whisky as a brand and a product cannot be transferred outside Scotland, it has the potential, even in the current devolved context, to make a significant contribution to the public purse.”
The motion adds: “Conference therefore calls on the Scottish Government, in partnership with the Scottish trade union movement and civic Scotland, to look at the feasibility of raising additional revenue for Scottish public services from the significant profits of sections of the Scotch whisky industry.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel