Herald letter: Nationalism vs. Social Democracy.

IT is encouraging to see that some of your nationalist correspondents have become interested in economic and fiscal matters beyond Scotland and suggest that there should be an English equivalent to GERS (Letters, December 22 & 23).

The good news for them is that the Office of National Statistics (ONS) publishes an analysis of revenues and expenditures in the UK’s Regions and Countries. Amongst other fascinating things (if that is what floats your boat) this data shows that the largest contributors to UK revenues are the people of London and the South-east; that the South-west and East of England just about wash their faces; and that all other regions and nations of the UK are beneficiaries of redistribution from the better-off regions.

These figures also show that Scotland’s position is not so much because of low revenues but because of higher expenditure – surprise, surprise, it costs more to deliver services in the Hebrides than it does in the Home Counties. (And no-one is saying “too wee, too poor etc”.) In the end, the story of the UK and revenues and expenditure across its regions and nations is that we all have access to London and the South-east’s massive revenue-generating capacity, which stems from its historic status as an imperial capital, its high levels of economic activity and productivity, its geographic position a short hop from continental Europe, and its competitive advantage as the world capital of the financial services industry.

The political question we need to ask ourselves is whether we think such an arrangement is weakness and dependency – like Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph did, incidentally –or if we see redistribution as mutual solidarity which should be continued and indeed developed to provide more and better services where these are needed. The two sides of this argument are called nationalism and social democracy.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Herald letter: Why Labour Opposes Indy.

FOR someone who thinks he knows what is best for Scottish Labour, Kevin McKenna shows amazing ignorance of the party and how it operates (“Sturgeon is the real winner in Tory calamity in Shropshire”, The Herald, December 18).

Otherwise he would know that its policy on Scottish independence referendums– and everything else – is not in the hands of its leader, but of its members, who are free to bring resolutions to change that policy to their branches. If approved, these then go to conference to be debated. I have been a member of the Labour Party since 1977, and I have to say that I have never experienced any such resolution being debated at any level and have never heard of it happening elsewhere, so it seems unlikely that there is any groundswell amongst members to support the nationalist agenda that Mr McKenna espouses.

The reason for this is simple. As Mr McKenna also appears not to know, the Labour Party in Scotland and elsewhere makes few ideological demands on its members. However, there is one article of faith that is on every membership card, which reads: “[The Labour Party] believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone.” Not only is this a statement that reflects the advantages of co-operation and mutual support that we experience at every level of our lives, it is also a rejection of the self-interest and mean-mindedness which is at the heart of both Conservatism and nationalism.

Both Scotland and all other parts of the UK benefit from the Union as a common endeavour, most obviously by the transfer of revenues from the better off parts of the country to the least well-off. Quite simply – why would Scottish Labour wish to give that up?

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.