YOUR report on the SNP’s new council of economic advisers (July 10) was depressingly one-sided. You gave ample coverage to responses from Jonathon Shafi, AUOB and George Kerevan to the appointment of ex-Treasury official Nicholas Macpherson. They describe him as an “arch-Unionist”, whose appointment is the “final validation” that there will be no independence referendum under this SNP administration.
However, you fail to mention the Financial Times article that Macpherson wrote on July 8 2016. Under the headline “The case for Scottish independence looks stronger post-Brexit”, he noted that Brexit presents a “golden opportunity for proponents of Scottish independence to re-appraise their economic prospectus”.
READ MORE: Fears about Nicolas Macpherson in economic advisory role are misplaced
He wrote that by re-joining the EU, an independent Scotland would “have access to the biggest market in the world without the uncertainties that are likely to face the rest of the UK for many years to come”. And he argued strongly that “it is surely time for the Scottish Government to commit to creating a Scottish pound supported by its own central bank”. These are hardly the views of an “arch-Unionist”.
It is bizarre that The National failed to mention any of this, since you covered it all in your July 9 2016 edition under the tile “Leaving UK now a ‘golden opportunity’ – ex-Treasury top official says Scotland can thrive if it stays in EU.”
The negative, rejectionist attitude of sections of the Yes movement is symptomatic of their imprisonment in a simplistic anti-SNP discourse. We will not win by fighting the battles of 2014 all over again. And to this leftie it is disappointing that the left – more accurately, the “ultra-left” – is so well-represented among this fundamentalist tendency, displaying all the hallmarks of that infantile disorder that Lenin once excoriated.
READ MORE: Nick Macpherson's appointment by SNP to economic council criticised
Key to winning independence will be constructing new alliances, and if these include bringing on board ex-Treasury officials who, post-Brexit, are reassessing their opposition to independence, all the better. The new council of economic advisers is a breath of fresh air (no Monaco-based millionaires here), with talent and experience from those sectors of the economy that will be so important to Scotland’s future, as well as representation from the STUC and academic economists.
Prominent among these is Mariana Mazzucato, whose seminal work on demonstrating the key role played by state-funded research and innovation in technological advances gives the lie to our friend Michael Fry and his disquisitions on the benefits of unbridled capitalism.
Paddy Farrington
Edinburgh
AS usual, Isobel Lindsay (Letters, Jul 14) homes in on the real issues about the economic advisory council and asks pertinent questions about its remit and its timescale. In contrast, the letters around hers, in their desperation to defend the FM’s choices, completely miss the real issues. The FM has her strengths, but grasp of economics is not one of them.
Most of her selection are Thatcher’s children in that they have been brought up to think that a currency-issuing state’s finances work in the same way as those of a household or a business. They don’t, so it is hard to see much thinking outside this restrictive box coming from the council.
The one member whom I know does not fit this criticism is Mariana Mazzucato, but she is on record as being hostile to breaking up the UK.
Apart from the constraints this will put on the recommendations of the fairness and social justice report and Kate Forbes’ desire to see a well-being economy, there is the problem of what these ideas, largely outdated now, will look like in ten years.
I’d love to be proved wrong but I’ll not be holding my breath.
Andrew M Fraser
Inverness
THE establishment of the economic advisory council is a sure sign of our Scottish Government’s commitment and determination to bring our country to independent status, and the positive response – mirroring I’m sure the main body of Scottish “all-party opinion” – in yesterday’s issue is very encouraging, in particular the praiseworthy, measured views of Mr Jamieson (South Queensferry) and Ms Christine Smith (Troon).
John Hamilton
Bearsden
NOW that Willie Rennie has stood down there is an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to rid themselves of his “divisive referendum” mantra and to hold an open and honest debate about Scotland’s future.
I recall the Liberal Party debates of the 1970s and 1980s, when Russell Johnson among others openly contemplated the possibility of an independent Scotland having a place in a federal Europe.
READ MORE: The barrel of LibDem laughs has been well and truly scraped
I fear frontrunner Mr Cole-Hamilton lacks the imagination for such a concept but there must be a better candidate than him for the leadership. Surely they must have someone left who can take the party forward in a creative way, who has not swallowed the Unionist rhetoric parroted from Ruth Davidson by Rennie. Then again, perhaps not, given they now only have four MSPs with the liar Carmichael among them.
Ni Holmes
St Andrews
I NOTE that 24 Tory MPs rebelled against the government over the cuts to foreign aid. It appears not a single Scottish Tory MP was included in the list. What a disgusting shower of ineffective Boris Yes-men! Such a pity that they are not Yes-men to an independent Scotland.
Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes
THE National’s letter to PM Johnson was nothing short of impudence and I love it! Give us another one, do. I’m thinking maybe wee Willie Rennie deserves one as he gives up his leadership of the LibDems and takes his first steps towards the House of Lords.Anne Thomson
Falkirk
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