Over centralisation - be it at Westminster, or Holyrood - is seen by many, Andy Burnham included, as ‘the’ structural impediment to long-term economic growth, and devolution the centrifugal force by which this hegemony can be broken up (“Burnham to set out economic vision in first major speech”, The Herald, June 28).
Accordingly, “growth in every postcode and hope in every heart” is now the tagline for the ten-year vision of our Prime Minister in waiting.
Ten years is an eternity in politics. A never-never land the equivalent of six UK prime ministers or two full terms of the next Trump. Many of us won’t be around to experience these aspirational benefits. So, good luck with the vision thing, Mr Burnham!
A more fundamental policy question, perhaps, is whether any correlation exists between devolution and improved economic outcomes.
Devolution is highly context specific. Partial-legislative devolution to the German Lander and executive devolution to French Mayoralties have singularly failed to deliver improved economic outcomes over the last ten years.
And, since inception, partial-legislative devolution in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland has also done little or nothing to improve overall economic performance.
Regarding Manchester, the UK city-region exemplar of executive devolution, the Institute of Government (IfG) reports mixed findings: job creation, productivity, and innovation have all outstripped the national average.
Growth, however, has been unequal, concentrated in just four of the 10 city-region boroughs. Taking busses back into public control has helped create a better integrated public transport system.
Social housing, however, has been a notable failure, and health outcomes for the population have remained patchy and disappointing.
The IfG concludes that UK city-regions can indeed work, though only under certain prescribed conditions.
Currently, these are only partially met.
In the absence of anything better, however, and on balance, further functional-devolution, Burnham-style, is probably worth a tilt north of 10 Downing Street North.
Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns.
More letters...
- Indy Scotland could not possibly fare any worse than now
- NHS is in need of massive overhaul, but SNP hasn't the courage to face it
- Grammar has so much to teach us
Will Burnham scupper indy dream?
Scotland has been a colony of England since it was removed from the international stage by the abolition of its parliament in 1707.
Contrary to remarks on the BBC’s Newsnight programme, where we were helpfully reminded this week that the UK consisted of four nations, the UK arose from the annexation of the island of Ireland by Great Britain in 1801.
Scotland had ceased to exist as an international entity in 1707 and was not a party to the 1801 union.
Wales had never been an historic nation with comparable status to pre-1707 Scotland.
Andy Burnham now seems set to put the final coffin nails in any aspirations to restoration of Scotland to its rightful place on the European map, by making it a region of his new devolved England.
Scottish nationality would become a distant memory in his new united states of Britain. London would be reduced to a regional hub and Manchester would become the power base with a hot line to Tel Aviv.
Many of my predictions over the last 50 years have been uncannily accurate. I hope events will prove me wrong this time.
Willie Maclean, Milngavie.
Can Scotland repeat Irish success?
The Republic of Ireland's latest economic growth figures, just under five percent last year, again highlight the remarkable transformation that has taken place across the Irish Sea.
While headline growth figures can be influenced by multinational investment, the broader picture is clear: Ireland has evolved from one of Western Europe's poorer economies into one of its wealthiest, with strong employment, investment and healthy public finances.
The contrast with the UK's sluggish economic growth last year of 1.3 per cent, weak productivity and lack of investment should prompt serious reflection.
No two countries are identical, but the Republic of Ireland demonstrates what a small nation can achieve when it has the powers to shape its own economic future and the advantages of membership of the European Union's single market.
For Scotland, the lesson is simple. Those who argue that our country is too small to prosper as an independent nation need only look west across the Irish Sea.
The Republic of Ireland shows that success is determined not by size, but by ambition, openness and the ability to make decisions in our own national interest.
Alex Orr, Edinburgh.
Murrell inquiry will be resisted
Given his previous predictions with regard to the demise of the SNP, it’s touching to witness Robert IG Scott's concern for the ruling party's membership, and other contributors to the party (Letters, July 2).
It’s clear to those who believe in Scottish independence that demands from the unionist community for a Murrell inquiry are mischief making. It’s obviously a matter for the organisation, and its donors, who have suffered the loss from Peter Murrell's bizarre embezzlement.
So far the matter of an inquiry has not been made an issue, to any great extent, by those directly affected.
Any attempt by Westminster to interfere will probably be met with resistance from the SNP and the Greens, who are unlikely to accept any proposed meddling into party internal affairs.
Gordon Evans, Rutherglen.
Outside EU we’re poorer
Reading the correspondence from Doug Clark (Letters, June 30) concerning his perceived dangers of rejoining the European Union, it really did bring back some of the memories of 2016.
It was essentially a greatest hits of the discredited arguments that were used by the Leave campaign 10 years ago.
He talks of a democratic deficit in the EU, whereas I think recent history shows the EU is one of the sole remaining bulwarks against authoritarianism in the world.
Likewise he bemoans an exaggerated economic stagnation, an argument used often by those on the right.
They oppose Europe’s strong social security safety net and would preferably opt for the casino-style, stock-market driven, tech-mogul dominated economy of the US, where unimaginable wealth for the very few sits uneasily with increased economic strain on the vast majority of citizens.
His other arguments are all centred on an idea that by pooling our resources with other nations we lose our sovereignty. In fact the opposite is the case and we can only look with envy at our next door neighbour Ireland.
This month it took over the rotating EU presidency, and with a population of just five million, whose international clout is magnified by its membership of what is the world's largest and most powerful bloc of nations.
The bottom line is that outside the EU we are poorer and have less influence. And there’s no arguing with that.
David Clarke, Chairman of the European Movement in Scotland, Edinburgh.
Oiling the works
The electrons from our wind turbines, solar panels, hydro stations and even our last nuclear station at Torness, can heat our homes and power our cars.
But they cannot provide the lubricants these machines need to produce that energy, nor the bitumen needed to repair the millions of potholes on our roads, nor the basic feedstocks for everyday chemicals, materials and drugs that make our modern lives more bearable than our forbears.
These essential materials are all derived from oil and gas.
No amount of material derived from biomass waste can replace these components.
Scotland now has no refining capacity to produce these basic commodities or the downstream processing to convert the raw hydrocarbons onto functional products.
The closure of Grangemouth is a failure of energy policy and industrial strategy, caused by a complete lack of engineering understanding among our political leaders.
Scotland must find ways to reverse this closure and re-establish an oil processing facility capable of supplying our chemical feedstocks.
As a by-product we might even be able to supply some gasoline, jet fuel and heating oil to supplement the energy use of our homes and cars.
Dr. Ewan Macdonald, MIChemE, MRSC, Fife.
Jaws of despair
One wonders what Nye Bevan, a driving force behind the creation of the NHS, would have made of the state of dental treatment in this country today (“DIY dental treatment emergency”, The Herald July 1).
The Scottish Government stands indicted of failing to maintain a well-functioning dental service within the NHS.
The consequence of this has led to many dentists abandoning the NHS system and going private. Thus many people find acute difficulty in finding a dentist prepared to do work on the NHS payment basis.
The Herald headline makes one ask what kind of country are we living in? What are those with limited means supposed to do?
Surely the Government cannot find acceptable that some people feel they have to resort to DIY when unable to source an NHS dentist?
It’s difficult to attach significant blame to the dentists for the current situation, in taking the route to private practice, since it is financially advantageous.
The main cause appears to be that the financial reward for carrying out NHS work hasn’t been maintained at a sufficiently attractive level.
How things have changed since the NHS launched on July 5, 1948.
Ian W Thomson, Lenzie.
Hot and bothered
Taking a break in the tropical London heat, my friend wanted to treat me to a drink at a famous hotel. He’d enjoyed previous visits while I was new to the experience.
While he was being directed to the bar, I was confronted by a doorman enquiring if I had a reservation.
In high spirits (the only spirits I would see) I explained the purpose of my visit. He informed me it was a £75 minimum spend, each, that day. Even if drinking water.
Had he mentioned a dress code, I’d have understood his reluctance to let me in, having been walking in hot weather.
I wonder if his claim was even legal. And has anyone had a similar UK experience?
John Marletta, Thornliebank, Glasgow.
Foggy recollections
Brendan Keenan’s memories of snooker commentator ‘Whispering’ Ted Lowe (Letters, July 2) reminds me of equally amusing quotes from the BBC weather department.
Who can forget Michael Fish's response to the magnetic letter F falling from the Pennines map: "I'm sorry about the F in fog,"
Then there was the first ever lady forecaster, Barbara Edwards: "I think we've seen the back of this front."
Peter Wright, West Kilbride.
Sherlock Holmes investigates…
Regarding recent thoughts on gender and grammar (Letters, July 3)…
Doctor Watson tells us, in a previously unpublished email, that Mr Sherlock Holmes had a grammatical problem, a three pipe one at that, while scrutinising the personal columns of all his daily papers.
That at least one person had lost at least one bicycle was clear, but exactly who and how many were beyond his legendary logical skills. He listed the possibilities, as equations, as follows:
They have lost their bicycle = unknown person has lost one bicycle.
They have lost their bicycle = identified non binary person has lost one bicycle.
They have lost their bicycles = more than one person has lost more than one bicycle.
They have lost their bicycles = one non binary person has lost more than one of their bicycles.
They have lost their bicycle = more than one person has lost their jointly owned bicycle.
Simple? Apparently not. Sherlock took up bee-keeping shortly thereafter.
AJ Clarence, Prestwick.
Share