I AM not a member of the SNP member so refrained from commenting during the recent leadership contest. Now it is over I would like to offer some observations.
I have repeatedly read how Kate Forbes is described as a social and fiscal conservative. In addition she has herself posited the notion that the SNP must be portrayed as being business-friendly to the extent that a group of her supporters have now emerged within Holyrood to argue that position as a matter of policy. Such people are most definitely the last thing that Scotland needs taking it into a hopefully independent future.
The one common denominator underlying Britain’s, and therefore Scotland’s, decline and descent into poverty and obscene inequality in the past 40 years is the obsession with our dominant economic model, crudely described as the free market, the same model the Blessed Margaret assured us had no alternative. Being socially and fiscally conservative and seeking to be business-friendly screams out that you have no intention of abandoning this model and seeking a new economic policy framework and direction, that you are committed to continuing with the underlying theories and methodologies that define it.
READ MORE: Kate Forbes: We can't risk the Highlands' future for HPMAs
What does being business-friendly actually mean? Does it imply prioritising owners and managers over their workers? Does it mean framing your policy options for the benefit of business at the expense of workers and consumers? Does it imply an acceptance of zero-hours contracts, of wage levels that force workers into food banks, of the trashing of working terms and conditions such as holiday and pension entitlements etc?
Does being business-friendly mean acceptance of the inequalities entrenched by the present economic model, of existing tax frameworks, of the need to suppress and if possible eliminate trades unions and workers’ representations? What does being socially and fiscally conservative mean for the future of our human rights, such as the right to strike for one example? I ask that because the social and fiscal conservative apologists for this economic model all assure us that such developments are good things.
Kate assured us that she would respect the will of the electorate in matters such as abortion and LGBTQ issues, but so did social conservatives Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett when they lied through their teeth to Congress to get appointed to the US Supreme Court, so should we feel comforted by social and fiscal conservatives when they take their beloved Bible in hand and swear that they will do something when they fully intend doing the complete opposite? I’m sorry, but proclaiming Christian beliefs and faith carries no assurances for me. To quote from their own holy book, by their fruits shall ye know them.
READ MORE: Glasgow cafe forced to shut 'with great sadness' amid cost of living crisis
When Unionists scream that we should be prioritising education and health before independence, they ignore the reality that such matters will only be properly solved by independence. However, that also means that with independence we must abandon the social and fiscal poison that is the cause of our current problems in areas such as health and education; a direct result of the economic model by which we have been governed for more than 40 years.
It means abandoning all Westminster theories and methodologies and adopting humane and ethical methods and policies. It means, Ms Forbes and your attendant supporters, abandoning social and fiscal conservatism and adopting whole-society priorities, which include business-friendly policies but not at the expense of civilised and intelligent government, something that is sadly lacking in your social and fiscal conservative business-friendly model that is destroying society before our very eyes.
Peter Kerr
Kilmarnock
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