IN his article in yesterday’s National (I’d put money on capitalism solving the coronavirus crisis. Here’s why...), Michael Fry is nothing if not persistent in his advocacy of what our First Minister calls “unregulated capitalism”.

In the face of all evidence to the contrary Michael seems to think the capitalism of his (and my) youth still exists. But the truth is that the undoubted power of capitalism to drive societies forward in a constructive and beneficial manner was already stressed to the edge of collapse when the banking crisis of 2008 brought about the inevitable end.

Just as communism was hijacked by vested interest and greed, so too was capitalism. When most people have little or no access to capital of any kind, what we have is not capitalism but something which has yet to be given a name, but which sits uneasily somewhere between neo-capitalism and fiat monetarism.

The idea which Michael seems to find so attractive is what he refers to as “creative destruction”. This little phrase will be of little comfort to the millions of people in the UK who have seen their standards of living creatively and deliberately destroyed. How about the weak, the infirm and the lazy? Surely they would all benefit from a little creative destruction. Perhaps former Scottish miners, car workers and ship builders should thank their lucky stars that Mrs Thatcher had such creatively destructive foresight as to completely flatten their industries. No doubt Michael is pleased as punch about the way Scotland’s oil revenues have been creatively stolen to prop up modern London-centric capitalism, destroying Scotland’s wealth in the process.

I think capitalism is a natural response to collective effort, rewarding hard work, allowing those less fortunate to be looked after by the benefits that accrue. What Michael consistently misses is that unregulated capitalism will naturally be abused by unprincipled greed. Paradoxically, the capitalist system as it exists today is actually heavily regulated. It’s just that the regulations are not there to benefit society (which was Mrs Thatcher’s great pipe dream) but to benefit those who create, manage, store and distribute capital.

If capitalism was true to its own catechisms then the banks (having broken both natural and legislative laws) should have gone bust in 2008. After all, that is what Michael advocates for every other part of society.

The coronavirus crisis will not be solved by any monetary system but by biology and science. When a vaccine is developed it will be interesting to see whether or not the drug companies will make it available at low cost, and which countries will make sure it’s available to everyone who needs it, and which countries will allow their poor to suffer.

In Michael’s world it will be of enormous benefit to allow a few million vulnerable people to enjoy being creatively destroyed. From the ashes of all that dead weight new growth will thrive.

I can only hope that Michael’s words were hastily assembled for the purposes of getting a column written, and that he doesn’t actually believe the substance of what he wrote, because following his thinking through to its inevitable conclusion leads to a very, very grim place.

Stewart Robinson
Musselburgh

“WAR, though it devours life and property, stimulates production, while peace can bring recession”. “In the long run, all of us get richer”. Two quotes from Michael Fry’s latest homage to unrestrained capitalism.

Seldom do leading politicians, merchant bankers, or tax haven enthusiasts end up in body bags or drowning in the Med. Many who have witnessed the impact of war may find his gem of capitalist philosophy utterly repulsive. Perhaps Mr Fry could explain how we all become richer by supplying weapons to bomb hospitals and fill refugee camps? As the power of wealth flows into fewer hands, does he see “war” as a means to an end?

Iain R Thomson
Strathglass

UNTIL yesterday I could not imagine anything that could persuade me to lean towards sympathy with any position adopted by Alister Jack. Step forward the Fraser of Allander Institute. The Irish tunnel/bridge is a waste of money not because it is a huge cost; not because of the logistical building problems; not because of the associated infrastructure challenges; no, because it would end up in Dumfries and Galloway.

Jings, crivens, help ma boab! That’s like miles away from Edinburgh or even Glasgow! Do they even have cars down there? They certainly don’t deserve any money spent on them – it would mean less to spend on important places like Stirling with its university or Edinburgh with its parliament or Glasgow with its, well, everything.

I fervently believe that independence is our opportunity for a fair and equitable society but it must be for everyone. If we are to swap the inequalities of Westminster for the prejudice of the Fraser of Allander Institute then why bother?

Ian Richmond
Dumfries and Galloway