REGARDING Carolyn Leckie’s column (GDP is causing poverty, but Scotland can make progress, The National, November 13). The deficiency in relying solely on GDP to measure progress was beautifully summarised by Robert Kennedy, when a presidential candidate as long ago as 1968.
He said: “[GDP] counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and jails for the people who break them.
“It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armoured cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities.
“It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programmes which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
“Yet gross domestic product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.
“It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
Roddie Macpherson
Avoch
I REFER to Michael Collie’s letter in yesterday’s National on the subject of a Scottish/English trade border if Scotland were to be an independent country within the EU. Part of the solution would be to re-establish a Rosyth-continental ferry service thus bypassing England and allowing Scotland to be in charge directly of imports/exports to Europe.
The problem of trading goods between Scotland and England would remain, but with less pressure on the Border. We await to see what the UK Government comes up with as a solution to the Irish/Northern Irish border question, but if the UK actually wants to leave the EU then it has to come up with some solution. This would then have a bearing on cross-border trade between Scotland and England if Scotland were to remain in the single market or as a full member of the EU.
Susan Grant
Tain
JOHNNY McCloskey, a good Scottish Nationalist, made a timely intervention recently on Facebook when he differentiated civic nationalism from ethnic nationalism. Up to now Scottish Nationalism has been that of the civic variety, being positive in that it is inclusive, welcoming all that live in our country as being part of our nation.
However in recent times we have had a number of opinions expressed on social media about English people living in various parts of Scotland, more or less saying they should be forced out of Scotland so that we can get a better ethnic population mix. Very few have criticised this racist nonsense on social media. This uglier side of Scottish Nationalism has to be rejected.
Others have also talked about treacherous and traitorous Scots, and this does not help our cause. This form of hatred-based nationalism amounts to ethnic nationalism which ultimately leads to violence. This is not acceptable and should be rejected by all civilised people living in Scotland.
More recently there have been vicious comments made on social media about young working-class Scots who have served in the armed forces. There is no place in a tolerant Scotland for this kind of hatred. It is only by engaging with people with Unionist beliefs through democratic discourse that we can win the day.
Scottish nationalism has to be based on inclusion for all, meaning that we envision a society based on giving equal opportunities to all of our people and therefore Scotland can be transformed by socialism ensuring first-class public health, education, housing, social security and a high wage economy.
This can all be obtained. We just have to believe in ourselves as it is the people of Scotland who are sovereign. We all need to be tolerant of each other and unite to campaign for Scottish independence. We will become an independent nation again if we are outward-looking and progressive in outlook rejecting the politics of hatred.
Sean Clerkin
Barrhead
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