WHETHER or not it was Harold McMillan who used the phrase “events, dear boy, events” in response to the question as to what was most likely to knock a government off course, it may be that events are conspiring to come to the rescue of those of us in the Yes movement being accused of disloyalty and impatience.
Yesterday’s events may well be a harbinger in the form of the one-man politburo, or more accurately the Central Committee of Dominic Cummings, as he flexes his muscles on Prime Minister Johnson’s Cabinet.
We’ll never know if Sajid Javid would have made a good Chancellor but at least he was an elected representative of the good people of Bromsgrove, and clearly we now have a UK Cabinet that’s entirely under the control not of elected members but a professional hatchet man. Please note, Nicola: if this is “UK democracy” and their idea of “taking back control”, we in the Yes movement want none of it.
Earlier in the same news cycle we learned that the order by EDF Renewables UK of 54 steel foundation jackets for wind turbines from Indonesia is ascribed to market forces by UnionJack, the Secretary of State for North Britain.
There are many issues with this decision, but the real irony is that they will travel thousands of miles around the world to their final location off the coast of Fife, where the father of economics – none other than Adam Smith – was a celebrated inhabitant of the kingdom. Venerated by Tories and other free marketeers, with Margaret Thatcher as their champion at the head of the parade, it is conveniently forgotten that Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations wrote: “By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”
The licence for one of the country’s biggest renewable projects, the £2bn Neart Na Gaoi wind farm, allegedly came with a commitment of 1000 jobs, but now according to the GMB union perhaps only 15% of the work will come to BiFab, the local fabrication yard. And the balance? To the heavily state-subsidised yards of Indonesia, complete with emissions equivalent to 35 million cars as and when they make their way from the other side of the world.
In a story riddled with irony, the job-share Labour shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (and Northern Ireland) Tony Lloyd MP for Rochdale protests on Scotland’s behalf and UnionJack responds with the need for greater productivity and competitive pricing. How does this square with industrial strategy and Scotland’s aspiration for a green economy?
When the chief executive of EDF Renewables commented on the award of the licence, in which generating subsidy was dependent on delivering UK jobs, he claimed: “the 450MW NnG project will play an important role in decarbonising the UK electricity system and is a further example of EDF Renewables’ continuous investment and growth in Scotland.”
For how long will having our elected representatives in the Palace of Wastemonster really serve our purposes? Not only are they hitting their collective heads against a PM with a 80-seat majority, but the party of government is being driven in directions completely at odds with the interests of Scottish voters. Wonder if the good citizens of Moray, the north-east and Borders can yet see their recently elected tribunes as the political eunuchs they are, and the prospect of increasing and concerted efforts to squeeze the Scottish Government out of our every day existence?
So let’s stop kidding ourselves. What influence can Drew Hendry, the shadow SNP spokesperson (business, energy and industrial strategy), possibly have on industrial strategy and green jobs while sitting on the green benches in the Commons? He would make a far better contribution operating from Holyrood in an independent Scotland – but be quick before they have time to steal any more of our golden eggs as they stole our oil.
Iain Bruce
Nairn
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