Letters II: GERs is no longer fit for purpose in terms of the indy debate

Ian Lakin says: “An indy Scotland would now require a further £10 billion of cuts or tax rises every year” (Letters, Aug 15).

One imagines Mr Lakin may be one of that subset of Scots who wake up every morning and thank the fates or their personal deity that US fracking policy and Saudi Arabian retaliation through glutting the oil market has slashed the world oil price and led to thousands of lost jobs in the Aberdeen area.

Because that at least has put a big hole in the financial sums of the nasty Nats.

Of course, it may well be the case that Scotland becomes independent under less than optimum economic conditions not of its own making.

The deep global crisis of low productive growth and stupidly easy credit is not going away anytime soon.

But while oil prices can rise as rapidly as they fall, it may be prudent to base our expectations on the lower end of the scale.

But neither Mr Lakin or the General Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) take any account of the medium to long-term dynamic of an independent Scotland.

An independent country free to make its own decisions on investment, economic growth and social justice.

Mr Larkin’s unadulterated pessimism is based on an economic snapshot of a report that deals with Scottish revenue and expenditure entirely in a devolved UK context.

Instead, it should be on the basis of a dynamic and independent new nation able to tread a different long term path from the UK.

The UK that has seen real productivity decline in favour of a runaway financial services industry that has been successful only in increasing the vast wealth gap between the richest few percent and the rest of us.

Even assuming no long term increase in the oil price which is historically unlikely, neither Mr Larkin or GERS consider that a Scotland with its own currency, its own central bank and resources from its population share of the UK state bank (the Bank of England) and the nationalised banks like RBS, might start relatively debt free.

They do not consider the full resources in taxation that would transfer to an independent Scotland rather than being accounted for through the UK treasury.

They don’t consider the extra revenue that might accrue from a simplified blank slate approach to tax regulations that inhibit tax avoidance and encourage tax compliance.

Nor do they consider the long-term effect of moving from a low wage service economy to a high wage, high skills economy.

One based on the new technologies of the digital sciences, space technologies, nanotechnology and biogenetics.

In short, as a contribution to the independence debate, the GERS report is no longer fit for purpose.

The report’s limited terms serve only the limited horizons of the “too wee, too poor, too stupid” brigade.

Scotland needs a new, truly independent, perhaps bi-annual economic report that compares the status-quo in the UK with a fully independent Scotland.

Such a report would give five year projections on how things might proceed if Scotland stays within the UK or of Scotland became independent and follows the course outlined by the Scottish Government.

Why doesn’t the Scottish Government commission its own independent panel of fiscal and economic experts to produce just such a report?

Steve Arnott, Inverness

I READ with interest the piece by Christopher Silver (Generation rent power’s today’s fringe, The National, Aug 15) and would like to correct a few aspects. It is certainly true that the Private Rented Sector (PRS) provides a significant amount of the accommodation for both performers and visitors to the Fringe but I wonder what Mr Silver’s alternative might be?

As a historic city, it is very hard to provide new housing in the central locations that guests want in order to soak up the fantastic atmosphere of Edinburgh in August. Hotel prices for a week-long stay in the city are much higher than that of rented accommodation and normally represent much poorer value for money. There is certainly a case for lobbying for increasing all types of housing in Edinburgh and that is a campaign that Scottish Association of Landlords and others in the PRS have been involved in for some time, however it is worth reflecting on the valuable role of landlords in providing the accommodation to meet the demand for tourists during the summer months.

Interestingly, Mr Silver may also be interested to know that recent legislative changes will actually make it harder for landlords to provide high-quality rented accommodation for tourists which could have a significant negative impact on the local economy. The recently passed Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill will end the right of a landlord to give notice to a tenant to vacate a property unless it is for one of a limited number of prescribed reasons. While this sounds reasonable on the face of it, and we welcome many of the measures in the new legislation, it will cause particular problems in cities such as Edinburgh. Many landlords split their properties between students and holiday lets and, as a result of the proposed changes, these landlords may decide to only take on longer term tenants, significantly reducing the supply for visitors during August and potentially making it harder for guests to visit our beautiful city. I wonder if Mr Silver might like to reflect on what might happen to the Festival and Fringe were suitable rented accommodation not available.

John Blackwood, Chief Executive, Scottish Association of Landlords

I WRITE in response to the recent articles by Robin MacAlpine and Iain McWhirter’s article in the Sunday Herald.

The real worry for MacAlpine and others of the left is that the Scotland that was imagined in 2014 is not the Scotland that will be on offer in 2017/18/19. The next Yes campaign will have to appeal to those that voted No, so appeal to the risk adverse, middle classes, MacAlpine’s depression and drift is because his vision of an indy Scotland is not going to be put on the table by the SNP (Note he singles out the pro-business, pro-tourism APD cut for particular dislike).

The Greens and wider Yes campaign will need to bring the left-wing prospectus to indyref2, while the SNP get on with the task of reassuring the soft Nos and middle classes. It might mean the SNP losing a bit of support to the Greens or the left parties but I am sure they’d consider it a “price worth paying” for independence.

Due to the Remain vote a second referendum is inevitable. On the question of Westminster disallowing [a new referendum]; Westminster would be in the ridiculous position of fighting the Scottish Government in court to prevent them leaving a union at the same time as trying to leave a union themselves.

We have the best circumstances we can hope for and if we don’t take this chance, we may never have another as good. The reasons the stars align now and we may not be so fortunate in future are:

1. Brexit, the timeline means that Westminster will be negotiating Brexit during our independence referendum campaign.

2. SNP dominance at Westminster. There is no strong WM Scottish Labour or Tory voice to support the Westminster parties during our next referendum.

3. Pro-independence majority at Holyrood.

4. Implosion of the Labour Party.

5. We are starting the campaign neck and neck we have every chance of winning.

SNP believe the Scottish people are sovereign and Scotland voted to Remain therefore Nicola cannot agree to any deal which takes Scotland out of the EU without a second referendum.

Denise Findlay, Broughty Ferry