IT’S great to start a new column at the same time as we have a new Scottish Parliament, a new Scottish Government and new policies, as Nicola Sturgeon and a second generation of SNP Ministers set about making their mark on the nation.

I’d better say right away that this column, while sharing their hopes and aspirations for a better Scotland, does not have much else in common with them. I agree with the destination of Scottish independence but I disagree with most of these fellow passengers about the route. The resulting altercations should at the least enliven the journey.

A good example came at Holyrood this week when Keith Brown, the new economics supremo, gave us a statement of his initial hopes and intentions after only a few days in the job. Perhaps inevitably, it was at this stage a matter of being all things to all men, and his speeches may become less bland once he is experienced enough to write them himself. For the mastermind who freed Scottish transport from the effects of winter, only the sky should be the limit.

But I was still given pause when, towards the end of his speech and holding forth on the Government’s general crusade against inequality, Keith summed up his overall economic aim as being “inclusive growth”. Well, what’s not to like? The new Scotland is almost obsessively inclusive, and can hardly wait for the lion to lie down with the lamb.

Economic growth may take a little longer. The old Scotland has had a poor record on growth. Once we take out the passing effects of North Sea oil it’s an even worse record than England’s, which itself is one of the weakest in Europe.

So it must be to the good if we now have a Government saying it wants growth, except that it at once compromises itself by tacking on the term inclusive. Only in the never-never land of ministerial speeches composed by civil servants can these words be brought so airily together.

As Keith pointed out, in 2015 Scotland had a growth rate of two per cent. But such an average is pretty meaningless if we try to use it as the key to a real world where the production of North Sea oil crashed while the exports of malt whisky boomed.

The economy changes all the time, with some activities going up and some going down. Only a net surplus on the whole lot indicates growth. That is an obvious thing to say, yet it renders the soothing concept of inclusive growth meaningless.

As a matter of fact growth creates inequality. Growth does not exist in the abstract, in the realm of national averages. Growth is a matter of actual companies or actual individuals excelling in what they produce, therefore doing better than other companies or individuals that are not so proficient. The good companies and individuals make big profits, while the rest make less, break even or suffer a loss. Result: inequality.

If inclusion and equality are our overriding aims, as the SNP says they are, then there are steps we can take to remedy this unwanted result. We can tax the successful till the inequality is removed (or they emigrate).

We can subsidise the unsuccessful till our economy is full of companies and individuals not much good at what they try to do, and stagnation spreads. At that point, we can say goodbye to growth.

Because I want Scotland to become an independent nation, I prefer the growth scenario to the stagnation scenario. If we seek to win a referendum at some future date, we can hardly do so on the basis that, meanwhile, Scotland’s growth rate has stayed below England’s. With independence promising only continued stagnation, it would be rational for Scots voters to forget all about it and settle instead for the status of permanent dependency on largesse from London.

That is why I say Keith Brown ought to reverse his priorities. Economic growth should not be a secondary purpose for the Scottish Government, nor even on a par with equality and inclusion. Economic growth should be far and away the first priority.

If this means we postpone for a spell the achievement of equality and inclusion, I do not see it as much of a tragedy for a country that the referendum campaign revealed to be the fifth or the 17th richest in the world (depending how you count). Using to the best purpose the time we won from the postponement, in the end the redistribution in a nation that had enriched itself meanwhile could be all the more lavish.

Actually achieving this step-change in our economic performance is something I can only deal with at length in future columns. Let me point out for now that just in the past quarter-century there have been other small European countries which liberated themselves from crumbling empires, embraced capitalism and soared ahead.

Slovakia and Slovenia achieve annual growth rates of which we can only dream, 10 per cent or more. Even old industrial countries such as Denmark or Sweden, open societies that we admire, do two or three times better than Scotland. How? Watch this space.