THE publication of the latest GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland) figures has triggered a now traditional feeding frenzy. A black hole in Scotland’s finances is heralded by Unionist politicians as validating the continuation of the Union. In fact, it supports the case for precisely the opposite.
The killer phrase for me from the GERS report is: “The report is designed to allow users to understand and analyse Scotland’s fiscal position under different scenarios within the current constitutional framework.”
GERS is therefore a measure of the public finances under the current Union, hardly the greatest endorsement for how the economy has been managed on the UK’s watch. Major economic levers required to stimulate economic growth are still currently reserved to Westminster.
READ MORE: Finance Secretary Kate Forbes reacts as Scotland's deficit doubles
It is indeed a bizarre scenario when politicians from Unionist parties, who should be ashamed of their antics, actively gloat and support a Union that has mismanaged the economy so appallingly.
GERS is a set of figures based on a measure of guesswork that indicate very little, except highlighting the negatives of the current Union. It has little bearing on the finances of an independent Scotland.
The point of independence is not to do everything in the same way as it has been done within the current constitutional framework, but to move away from this one-size-fits-all fiscal straitjacket to a tailored approach that prioritises stimulating economic growth.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
FOR more than 50 years Ken Loach has been an essential part of the social conscience element of film-making in the UK. Much of his work was shot in Scotland, at a time when the Labour Party dominated the political scene here. I feel sure that he would have hoped that the messages he conveyed would have inspired our elected representatives to implement improvements.
Did this happen? The jury is still out.
I, Daniel Blake was shown at several venues in Skye to a cross-section of people of different political persuasions, discreetly by the Yes campaign. We felt then, and still do, that this was as good a way as any of making people think about how badly our kingdom was disunited and change was needed. “Devastated, heartbroken and woken up” were some of the reactions felt by members of the various audiences.
Now he has been honoured by the right-wing Labour Party with expulsion. We have been honoured by his exceptional abilities on screen. Freedom of Scotland? Ken, I widna mind!
Sandy Coghill
Sligachan, Isle of Skye
IS Alba really in the business of trying to defeat independence? If its members support the resolution of getting rid of the monarchy, they will have handed success on a plate the Unionists.
Like many other things, retaining or rejecting monarchy is a decision for THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND to decide AFTER independence, as Alex Salmond himself was aware, and promoted, in 2014.
Perhaps some of those who left the SNP in dissatisfaction should now consider becoming independent campaigners for independence!
L McGregor
Falkirk
IN discussing the constitution and the people to whom it might apply in the event of an independent Scotland (Aug 15), Dr Elliot Bulmer invokes a range of demographic antonyms: middle-class and working-class; urban and rural etc, and notably “religious and secular”.
READ MORE: Dr Elliot Bulmer: The now and the not yet: An approach to constitution building for indy Scotland
The latter is false polarisation. Certainly secularists challenge religious privilege if it has unelected seats in government or avoids taxation and equality legislation, but we are in no way opposed to private religious belief.
With respect to Dr Bulmer, his piece might have contrasted “religious and atheist” or “secular and evangelical”.
Neil Barber
Edinburgh Secular Society
TEN days before my 80th birthday I received a letter from the UK Pension Service in Wolverhampton. I got a pleasant surprise reading the first line: “Now that you are approaching 80 you are entitled to a higher amount of State Pension.”
How could this be? Had they made a mistake in their calculations? Excitedly, full of joy and hope, I imagined some wonderful increase – maybe £5 a week? Maybe even more?
Then I read the rest of the two-page letter. My “higher amount” was to be 25 pence! I couldn’t believe it. What a cruel, mean joke. I felt so humiliated and insulted I broke down in tears.
There are around one million seven hundred and thirty-eight people living in Britain aged between 80 and 85. I suppose they must all have received this utterly ridiculous letter – which even went on to say: “If you think this decision is wrong please get in touch.”
How dare this country insult so many people annually? How dare they send out these letters which are more like an April Fools’ Day joke than anything else?
Apparently this horrible, offensive letter has its origins in 1971, when the then Tory government (Sir Keith Joseph) decided in their generosity to add this sum to the pensions of those who made it to 80 – and then never updated it.
Apparently it is now in the process of being phased out after all these years.
In the meantime, I wonder how many other people will open this letter in good faith only to be utterly appalled by its contents?
Aggrieved pensioner
via email
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 here