HAVING attended the National Assembly at Aviemore, which was ostensibly to discuss the Sustainable Growth Commission recommendations, it was interesting to see how few of the delegates were impressed by that report.

The baseline of using the Gers figures and then trying to say how we would deal with the “deficit” seems to defeat the object of us constantly repeating that the Gers figures are a nonsense. We would be playing into the hands of the Union by essentially saying, yes, we do have a deficit after all, so we have been lying when we denied it, but it’s okay, now we’ve got it sorted.

Most on the independence side dispute those figures, so why use them? What we need urgently is accurate accounts, which as far as possible no-one on either side can dispute.

I was dubious about the Sustainable Growth Commission timeline of using the first 10 years to catch up with other small countries’ growth rate and using years 10 to 25 to close the GDP per capita gap with other small countries. That looks like 25 years to get any discernible positive effect.

The Growth Commission advocates increased public spending slightly under the level of GDP growth, even in times of lower-than-expected growth, but would this not have to come from increased borrowing, which in other parts it seems to be largely against? The £4 billion to be given to rUK to cover overseas aid, shared services and so on seems a little arbitrary. Why would we just hand money over with no guarantee that it would be spent in accordance with the social aims of an independent Scotland?

The Sustainable Growth Commission does not say why we should continue using GDP as the measure of economic progress and it seems a little optimistic in Part B to say we should approach the UK Government for greater powers on migration or taxation if we felt it would benefit Scotland’s performance in the long term. The UK Government has been totally unwilling to engage so far, on drugs policy, migration or Brexit.

It acknowledges the drag on the economy caused by inequality, but then does not address the groups who have suffered most from inequality and how they are to be included in the participation part of its remit. It focuses only on migration, which it is true Scotland will need, but it ignores marginalised groups already here such as older citizens, and those blighted by poverty and addiction, who have possibly had few chances thus far, seeming to write off groups who with a bit of investment could be contributors to the economy. The Participation Strategy should include all marginalised groups in its remit.

All in all it seems fairly right-wing market-orientated. It assumes we will replicate much of what is already in the UK. But this is a golden opportunity to do things differently. First and foremost we need to revamp the retail banking sector so that it serves the people, not the other way round. Too often the banks do not back individuals and small firms, leaving many at the mercy of more marginal lenders. That is, the poorest pay more for credit and often have to repay it sooner.

I hope the SNP will take on board members’ views and those of bodies like the unions and the Common Weal before adopting wholesale the recommendations of the Growth Commission.

Julia Pannell
Tayside

AS a 75-year-old lady I have advocated Home Rule for around 50 years (no-one spoke of independence in those days) and voted Yes for independence in the referendum. I would like to see an independent Scotland, but independence within Europe is not independence. Why do not the SNP have the courage of their convictions and have true independence? Do they not have faith in the people of Scotland to make a go of it alone? It might be hard going in the early years but is it not worth it to be a proud nation again?

I for one will not be proud to be an “independent” Scot within the European Union, just another small cog in a rather big wheel. Given the choice I think I would rather be part of the UK Government, where we at least have some control, than within the EU where we, if we are honest, have none.

Margaret Irvine
Dumbarton