I AGREE with some of Michael Fry’s article (Scotland’s economic policy is a shambles, The National, May 23) but think it fails in some areas. I agree that the Scottish Government’s economic policies are not “socialist” enough, but the SNP (of which I am a member) have to meet many different expectations when acting in government.

The economic straitjacket Scotland is in, of limited taxing and, particularly, borrowing powers, explains much of the confusion in the current policies that disturbs Michael. Taxes are confusing because raising them to finance the economy also sucks money out of the economy.

I was intrigued to see him using the Tory argument against taxing high earners. He appears not to know that, in the UK, income tax is only about a quarter of total government tax. Much more is obtained through tax on goods and services, such as VAT.

Surely he doesn’t assume that our top five per cent of earners, if taxed at a lower rate, would trickle down their largesse to us minions?

Another error comes when Michael talks about the economy of an independent Scotland.

It employs the pervasive “household budget analogy” that is also used by all the political parties when discussing macro-economic issues such as public debt. These two don’t compare.

Here are the facts: when the government runs a surplus they are taxing more than they are spending, so they are removing money from the non-government economy – that is your money. When they are running a deficit they are injecting money into the economy. The economic terms used are designed to confuse you. All countries with a sovereign currency, such as the UK, usually always run a deficit, and for good reasons.

If they try to run a continuous surplus then the money injected into the economy would have to come from private debt, which cannot be sustained indefinitely by the population. I note Michael also mentions casually in passing a “subsidy from Westminster” that we apparently get. That has been debunked in many places.

In addition, a country with its own sovereign currency, central bank and a floating exchange rate is never subject to the “bond vigilantes” he mentions. Things are very different if you are only a currency user such as Greece or an independent Scotland using the pound sterling. If you try to peg your currency to another, you may get hammered as the UK did in 1992, when it tried to peg sterling to the German mark.

Here’s an interesting question – who would an independent Scotland with its new currency (say the pound Scots) borrow its new currency from? The UK only makes pounds sterling, the US only makes dollars and Europe only makes euros. Who makes these pound Scots that we would need to borrow?

If you Google “modern monetary theory” you’ll get answers to that question and more.
Brian Stobie
via email

MICHAEL Fry attacks SNP economic policies and heavily criticises the economy-related credentials of Nicola Sturgeon, Derek Mackay and Keith Brown.

The launchpad for his argument is the proposed introduction of the 50p tax rate for those who earn more than £150,000 per year. He says: “For a Scotland probably now plunging into recession, it would be hard to think of a worse policy.”

This statement is the polar opposite of Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s view in a recent article in your newspaper, in which he questioned recent figures which indicated a possible recession in Scotland, and said there is actually a greater risk of one in England.

Forget public debates among political leaders. We urgently need one involving these two!
Dennis White
Blackwood, Lanark

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Politicians must end their obsession with league tables in education

THE Sunday night Scottish leaders’ debate on the BBC highlighted the way education is used as a weapon by politicians to the detriment of the people it is meant to serve. There is a total fixation with league tables which politicians use to beat each other with. I was not educated in Scotland and do not have children who have been or will be, so I cannot claim first-hand experience.

However, I can guarantee that the claim of a world-beating Scottish education system of the past will bear no relation to the real-life experience of many Scots, which will probably match my experience of English public education as being a life chance gone begging.

To my mind, the two major influences on the value people get from their education are whether or not parents recognise the doors that can be opened and closed by the quality of education, and whether teachers have the skills, time and commitment to treat each child as an individual and give them all the assistance possible to reach their potential in life.

Inventing ever more testing regimes for schoolchildren will do nothing to make their educational experience and outcomes better.

The real test of public education is the whole-life benefit people get from their time in education.

I would argue that the school day should be a joy that all children look forward to with hungry anticipation. The first duty of teachers should be to impart in their pupils a thirst for knowledge, and the ability to test the veracity of all they are taught.

The assessments children undergo through their school life should be to ascertain their strengths and weaknesses, and to boost the value they get from education by tailoring each child’s education to suit their needs and interests.

In short, I would say stop testing for the dubious benefit of politicians, and teach for the benefit of children.
Jon Southerington
Deerness, Orkney

I CAUGHT the end of the leaders’ debate on Sunday and was saddened by the lengths to which BBC staff in Scotland went to deflect from the real issues of this Westminster election.

Sarah Smith revealed that she was well aware of the fact she was giving undue time to matters reserved to Holyrood, and when the observers in the press room tried to clarify matters when questioned by Jackie Bird, she quickly moved on.

Shining through all this subterfuge was the attitude of Nicola Sturgeon. She answered questions honestly and in a straightforward way, and took responsibility for areas – like education – where some of the audience had concerns.

When questioned by the nurse, who was in an angry and emotional mode, Nicola patiently explained that austerity was at the root of funding problems in Scotland.

Austerity has been forced upon us by politicians at Westminster, and it is to the great credit of the Scottish Government that some of the worst effects have been mitigated by them.

What was not said was that education is delivered from local authority budgets. While broad areas of the curriculum and entitlements for pupils are universal in Scotland, funding is left to the wisdom of councillors in our local councils. Not all of these councillors put education, and its funding at the top of their agendas and, coupled with cuts in teacher and support staff numbers, it is not hard to see why there may be slippage in standards.

I would, however, be careful when making sweeping generalisations from surveys and national and international rankings. Children are individual beings who often respond to “testing” situations in ways that are not typical of their day-to-day performance.

Groups of pupils vary from year to year and changes in the way technology impacts on literacy and numeracy are evident in modern society. But to describe large numbers of pupils as being illiterate as Kezia Dugdale, Ruth Davidson and David Coburn did the other night was a disgrace. How demoralising and demeaning for pupils and conscientious teachers alike.

It is obvious that honest and open debate is being hijacked by those who are much more interested in pursuing their own agendas at the expense of the electorate.

To see the BBC, a once proud and respected organisation, descend to this level is shameful.
I Gibson
Newburgh, Aberdeenshire