Sent to the Herald: 21st June 2008. Not published.
Dear Sir,
Once more we have been treated to the annual unedifying sight of the Labour, Liberal and Tory triumvirate of British unionism lining up to take swipes at Scotland (How oil would put Scotland in the black, 21 June). However, this year the Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland (GERS) report has ditched the farcical system said by Ian Lang, in his quest to fight constitutional change in the nineties, to be “needed” in order to “maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties”.
It could therefore easily have been anticipated that unionists would be spitting the dummy at the new-look GERS 2006-2007. What intrigues me though is that the likes of Ian Gray, Derek Brownlee and Tavish Scott are always claiming that Scotland is in some sort of structural deficit within the union. If we were even to believe their preposterous assertions for a moment then it becomes obvious that their approach is effectively tantamount to them celebrating their own political failure and that of the failure of union. In any case, GERS simply gives us an insight into our existing financial status within the constitutional constraints of the United Kingdom. It is not a prophesy about independence.
I note that the unionist obsession with the price of oil comes through in their comments. Little wonder they are obsessed with this issue: OPEC recently noted the potential for oil hitting 200 US dollars a barrel. Brown and Darling must be up and down between feelings of delight and despair at the very thought. It does not matter whether a country has oil or otherwise for it to exist as a fully functioning and successful sovereign independent state. Oil and other abundant resources would simply give Scotland a head-start.
This “youse cannae afford it” rubbish has to stop. What we need to start debating is how we use independence to deal with the abysmal living standards and low life expectancy of many Scots, how we raise educational attainment, how we interact with the world and help others in aiming for sustainability, fairness and social progress. In using their arguments Messrs Gray, Brownlee and Scott would do well to remember what happened in 1997 to the aforementioned Ian Lang and the other naysayers to change.
Yours for Scotland,
