WHAT a breath of fresh air it was to read Gerry Hassan’s Tuesday contribution (Why Yes case needs to offer that ‘shining city on a hill’, Dec 14) and his powerful case promoting the need for a “vision” as the necessary next step, and in my opinion the long overdue obligation on the leadership of the SNP to articulate what an independent Scotland could and should aspire to, a vision that is meaningful and attractive to those we yet require to convince.
As Gerry says, quoting as he does from an article from Andy MacIver in The Herald last week, referencing the Shining City on the Hill: “Imagine what might happen if they [the undecided] get offered one.”
Imagine indeed – this should be the critical vision which could move our support beyond the current stagnation and to that critical 60%-plus.
READ MORE: Tory MSP deletes tweet after false claim about independence vote spending
Time is of the essence as we already see the supplanting of the Scottish Parliament by the direct activities of the UK Government in Scotland.
It is also worth reminding ourselves that independence is not just about a change of flag. Independence is about creating a new nation state, a nation state founded on the shared beliefs and ambitions of all those who chose to live in Scotland at this time in her long history.
Can you even contemplate what that could mean? The excitement it should engender? The opportunities? These will only be restricted by the extent of our collective “vision and ambition”.
To get us there we need leadership, a leadership inspired. A leadership with that ambition and that vision must go beyond replicating the current model, a model so tainted that it is beyond reform.
READ MORE: Westminster poll predicts SNP to win every seat in Scotland at General Election
It is to the SNP leadership that we, across the movement, look, whether we are SNP members or not! They must provide that vision that ambition and they must do it now or stand aside.
I believe Kate Forbes, Finance Secretary, has started on that journey, and it’s pleasing to see that Michael Fry, in the same issue, congratulates her in setting out initial key priorities in her Budget as tackling child poverty (some of the worst in Europe), helping business and tackling the transition to net zero.
Had she access to the funding available to a “normal” nation state then I am sure Gerry’s other key priorities would also be on her list.
There is, however, a key stumbling point in the current SNP leadership’s collective ambition, or more to the point , how we get there. It’s called the Growth Commission, devised by the Charlotte Street Partners investors and bankers. This is current SNP policy and would see an independent Scotland being dictated to by the Bank of England, possibly for years, after independence.
READ MORE: NASA warns huge asteroid is heading towards Earth this week
No “shining city on the hill” could ever be achieved with this model of “independence”. It is an oxymoron – you cannot have independence, in any meaningful sense, if your monetary policy is set by another state.
Michael Fry refers to the globally renowned Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, in his reference to the desirability of a Scottish currency on independence, as stating: “The currency would help, not hinder, the formation of the new state.”
So, to the leadership of the SNP, when contemplating and devising that vision, that “shining city on the hill”, I would ask that they abandon their adherence to the Growth Commission document. It is a document without vision and even less so any “ambition”.
The shining city on the hill is there and waiting for us fellow travellers. The journey to it may be long and difficult, but the keys to that city are our own currency, central bank and treasury from the very outset of independence.
Ian Stewart
Uig, Isle of Skye
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