IF I had to roughly paraphrase the different general thrusts of capitalism v socialism, it would be “useful inequality” versus “equality”. Neither gives me sufficient comfort as to where I am now, nor where I should wish to be later, which is why I find Messrs Fry and McKenna so alternately disconcerting at different times.
They do, however, complement each other in highlighting the broad-brush operational targeted choices of independence, namely, fair, fair and fed, and fed. “We may be fed but that’s no fair”, and “that’s fair but we’re no fed”, are potential overall outcomes envisaged by No voters (Messrs Fry and McKenna please note).
It’s a much-maligned phrase used by politicians to justify their most dodgy actions, but the “middle ground” of “fair and fed” is where the divesting of UK by Scotland will be safely enabled by the Scottish Government and Holyrood Parliament.
READ MORE: Michael Fry: Independence will be won by gaining support of people from all classes
Somewhat in contrast, the UK simply wallows around its “unfair and unfed” mess born of its own cruel Tory government and its outdated Westminster Parliament.
It’s perhaps an overtly simplistic truism, but only through fairness to all citizens will all the citizens of Scotland be fed, and only through feeding all citizens will fairness be possible.
So, when it comes to the most excellent SNP conference choice of preferred guaranteed minimum income, this is just a starting point for a Scotland being developed into a fair society but is not an end in itself.
Put simply, the guaranteed minimum income is the Covid-19 resilience, is the anti-austerity 2.0 provision, is the foundation upon which social enterprise can flourish, is the engine of adaptability to changing trading environments, and is the rock upon which children can be nourished to education and life fulfilment.
READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: Shameful stats show something is seriously wrong in Scotland
However, the payments to levels of guaranteed minimum income must initially at least not show up in the price of exported product, so they must be regarded as capitalised national revenue, and as a national asset, and therefore fundable from a national bank without borrowing, ie printed money.
So, that means the Scottish Pound, where the only question is really whether to initially peg it to the euro or not. However the guaranteed minimum income and the “new” currency must be in place within three years at the latest from now, in order to mitigate/reverse UK Austerity 2.0, which strongly suggests that May 4 2022 should be the date for indyref2 (inc EU), leading to Scotland becoming an independent EU nation state, and at last allowed to feed all of its citizens without recourse to food banks.
Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow
I ALWAYS find Andrew Tickell’s contributions interesting and thought-provoking and Sunday was no exception (Concentrating on 'grown-up' issues failing for Labour and Tories, Sep 12). The one thing which really jumped out at me was his statement: “A campaign for the already converted is a campaign guaranteed to fail.”
Latest polling (Opinium) indicates that 35% of Scots are definitely in favour of independence and 33% are diehard Unionists. This, Tickell states, leaves 29% of “switherers” that we need to reach out to and show what Scotland could do when it becomes a normal independent country. (There are 3% unaccounted for).
READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: Concentrating on ‘grown-up’ issues is failing for Scottish Labour and Tories
We need to set out our aspirations, and equally importantly explain how we will achieve them. The Day of Action campaign on Saturday kick-starts this idea by focusing on pensions and showing the resources we have to fund this way of improving the lives of our poorest pensioners.
Note the use of the pronoun “we”. It’s not just the job of the SNP, or Greens, or Alba, it’s anyone and everyone who believes that now IS the time for Scotland to be a normal independent country.
Just as those of us in the independence movement quite rightly call out those who favour the Union for their constant SNP-bad message, we need to move beyond the rhetoric of Westminster-bad and show how independence will improve all our lives.
Kathleen Jack
Blairgowrie
TWO stories in yesterday’s paper (“Injuries in hit-and-run” and “Fundraiser for teenager killed in a hit-and-run”) give the impression there are rogue driverless cars operating on our streets, causing accidents left, right and centre. We’re told five pedestrians were hit by “a car” but “the vehicle” failed to stop. In the other tragic case, a young man was “struck down by a car”.
No, it was drivers who caused these collisions, so please let’s be clear about where the blame lies.
Motorised vehicles have the potential to be lethal weapons; that’s why we all need to pass a test and get licensed before we can take them on the road. Drivers need to be understand the imbalance in power when they are sharing road space with more vulnerable walkers, wheelers and cyclists. They have a responsibility to not put others at risk by, for example, obeying speed limits, and not using their phones or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs while driving.
By suggesting it’s the vehicle that caused these accidents the message is being promoted that drivers don’t have responsibilities themselves. Safer driving would mean safer streets for everyone.
Helen Todd
Edinburgh
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