Letter: Fiscal autonomy would make life worse

I suppose it was so predictable that Dan Macdonald would try to come to the rescue of his friend Ben Thomson (Letters, 3 January), who last week attempted unsuccessfully to shore up the Scottish Government's worn out and beleaguered policy of fiscal autonomy, its staging post to independence.

But like Mr Thomson, Mr Macdonald resorts to attacking me personally when they both know perfectly well that I have the full authority of the CBI Scotland council to give credit to the Scottish Government when they do well for business and criticise them when they do the opposite.

Personal attacks are the last refuge of people who are unable to support their ideologies with evidence and fact.

Businessman, Mr Macdonald, goes on to reel off a string of policy areas, including health, drink problems, drugs and negative psyche, that he believes would be better served by fiscal autonomy and Scotland leaving the United Kingdom. If Mr Macdonald's name had not been attached to the letter, one could be forgiven for thinking it might have been written by an apprentice SNP scriptwriter.

Mr Macdonald would have your readers believe that fiscal autonomy would turn Scotland into a promised land for businesses operating and people living here. It most certainly would not. The most recently available Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland data (GERS 2008/09) show that, including a geographic share of oil revenues from declining output and public sector capital expenditure, Scotland ran a public sector deficit in that period of 3 billion, a number that does not yet reflect the further deterioration in Scotland's share of the UK's public finances since April 2009.

Furthermore, that number does not include the 69bn in direct support for Scotland's two major banks or the UK's total exposure, including guarantees, of around 470bn (about three times Scotland's annual GDP) that the Scottish people would have to shoulder in full if Scotland were independent.

And, taking into account the decimated public finances of the "arc of prosperity" countries, so admired by the Scottish Government, one can only ask if Mr Macdonald has been asleep for the past three years.

Mr Macdonald is a successful businessman, and in that regard I have a great deal of admiration for him, but that does not make him right on issues of public policy such as this.

And he would do better by presenting your readers with clear, credible and convincing evidence in support of his position instead of resorting to the language of nationalist dogma and personal attacks.

Iain M McMillan

CBI Scotland

Robertson Street

Glasgow

Iain McMillan was duty-bound to defend the output of the Calman Committee of which he was a member (Letters, 31 December).Although, as other correspondents have hinted, it is doubtful if the outcome is supported by the majority of industry in Scotland.

That the committee was finessed by its London masters into arriving at its conclusions and thus begin a demolition of the Barnet formula is a firmly held view among the general public.

We already have income tax, VAT (increased to 20 per cent), national insurance, corporation tax, car tax, road tax, fuel tax (increasing), council tax, inheritance tax and more.

To waste money on the increased administration to allow the Scottish Parliament to raise 10 per cent of income tax seems totally irrelevant except as some politicalgambit whichdefies comprehension.

If fiscal responsibility is the objective the only change that would make any sense would be to give the Scottish Parliament control over all taxes. I don't believe the Scottish people trust Holyrood enough to vote for that.

As Michael Forsyth rightly states: "This is an issue for the people of Scotland to decide in a referendum."

Mike Underwood

Friars Brae

Linlithgow

HOW people like Iain McMillan, in his purported official CBI rejection of full control of financial management for Scotland, can suggest that political independence for Scotland would likely diminish the economic prospects of the country defies reason.

One would think we were riding high in our role as the junior partner in a company situation and should settle for that.

Neither are we riding nearly as high as our real economic prospects should better ensure, nor do we think that the role of junior partner is legitimately for us.

The B in CBI is not S, which would serve Scotland the better. Maybe all the handing over of financial management to organisations like the IMF is what some people prefer. Something like a debtor welcoming one of these debt management organisations whose fees simply expand the debt.

Scotland would see better how it is doing had it full control of its finances. As with individuals, losing control of one's finances is the problem, and that is the situation Scotland is in.

The regular disparity in voting preferences in Westminster elections between North and South Britain indicates how off the mark are the observations of CBI representatives regarding treatment of economic matters in Scotland. In fact, it is fair to say the CBI arouses more suspicion than respect here.

Ian Johnstone

Forman Drive

Peterhead