Short-term profits are not what matter the most

READ MORE: Shipyard takeover presents Scotland with a massive opportunity

Wealth does not get created by clever individuals, as Michael implies when he asks: “If wealthy Jim McColl can’t make a success of reviving shipbuilding on the Clyde, then who can?” Shipbuilding or any other industry will flourish on the Clyde only if there is a skilled workforce with the resources to do the job backed by people who are determined to support them.

READ MORE: If Jim McColl can’t make a success of Ferguson, then why can ministers?

As George Kerevan points out, industries like this – given the support they will require to get established – are vital for Scotland’s future. The main difference between George’s approach and Michael’s is George’s ability to look forward into the longer term and see how real industry develops as a real recognition of developing needs, and, yes Michael, “wellbeing” of the community it wants to serve.

Michael’s short-termism, his eye on the short-term bottom line and his reliance on the increasingly obsolete GDP to measure economic success, is at the heart of his problem.

Michael, ditch the short-termism of your Tory friends and try to make a real assessment of what George is suggesting, and you will recognise as I do that he is right. It will not be easy, it will be most unlikely to give a short-term profit and it is likely to need a lot more public investment, but it will be very effective in the medium term of developing Scotland’s (reformed) GDP and the community’s wellbeing. Which is what is required if we want to live in a sustainable world.

Andy Anderson
Saltcoats

I READ with interest Michael Fry’s article about the nationalisation of Ferguson’s yard to enable completion of the two CalMac ferries being built there. He advocates private ownership as the ideal shipbuilding model for Scotland.

It reminded me of a trip to Finland back in 1990. We sailed from Stockholm to Helsinki on a beautiful ship which had a shopping mall, bar, dance floor and a restaurant which served a stunning buffet – we were advised to use 13 plates to make the most if it. Where was this fabulous ship built, I asked – why, in Finland of course!

Finland has the same population as Scotland. It now builds huge cruise ships for companies such as Royal Caribbean Cruises and also builds 60% of the world’s ice-breaking fleet. Although I understand it is mostly privately owned, in 2014 the government stepped in to buy 30% of the main shipyard in Turku.

Importantly, Finnish Industry Investment Ltd, formed in 1995 and government owned, has provided venture capital to the Finnish shipyards so they can develop specialised and greener ships as the way forward, and it seems to be working. We could dwell on the past, when our shipbuilding industry was snuffed out, or look to the future when the development of hydrogen-powered greener ships is within our grasp. Scotland can be inspired by Finland.

Susan Grant
Tain

I STRUGGLE to understand how a historian like Michael Fry can keep on arguing that capitalism is the best of all economic practices.

In his National column this week he argues that businessman Jim McColl is better fitted to be in charge of shipbuilding on the Clyde than the Scottish Government and generally disparages nationalisation as an adequate way to run anything.

I await Michael recommending privatisation of national government and a return to the time when only those of private means could choose a career in politics and be able to sit in parliament. It was also the case back then in the “good old days” of privatisation that only the well-off were able to vote and thus have any influence over the laws and policies that defined people’s lives.

Almost invariably Michael Fry regards regulation of business as some kind of impediment that prevents entrepreneurs achieving their goodly ends and profit as the inspiration for thriving economies. I suspect he values economies more than he does societies, that profits mean more to him than wages, and that public infrastructures are mere chance provisions that should be taken for granted. Likely these kind of assessments will elevate private education and private medicine above such arrangements as state schooling and public health.

I would argue, and I hope without disrespecting the considerable worth of capitalism in its practical diverse business activities, that history has shown the need for both public and private contributions in the development of stable and happy societies.

As I previously wrote in a letter to the National in a similar response to one of Michael’s “green light for entrepreneurs” columns, the good of the community has to be taken into account. Such is common practice when entrepreneurs or those already established in business apply for permission to set up in business in any community. Otherwise we have what is called “asset stripping” and fly-by-night folk run off with local council grants, untaxed benefits, sometimes industrial equipment, and promised jobs don’t materialise. And we won’t even mention the present situation of what are curiously called our train services!

Ian Johnstone
Peterhead