I HAVE encountered John Swinney several times in my life. But my most memorable (though brief) exchange was while we were both rushing for trains in opposite directions, at Dundee station, around the early 2000s.
“How are you feeling about it all, John?” “Ach…” Most indy supporters will know a version of this conversational gambit.
Then, out of nowhere: “You wonder what it will take to raise people’s ambitions and hopes.” A shake of the head, a smile, then off up the stairs.
This came to my mind as Swinney, our soon-to-be new first minister, prepares his pact with Kate Forbes.
One of its crucial terms seems to be an approach to economics that is different from the Bute House Agreement between the SNP and the Scottish Greens.
In her speech announcing she wouldn’t be contending for the position of FM, Forbes put down her gauntlet quite clearly.
Her pre-discussions with Swinney seem to include “an understanding that economic growth and tackling poverty must again be key priorities and that a just transition to ‘net zero’ must work with, and not against, our communities and businesses.”
The dig at the Greens is obvious here.
The implication is that banal instances of circular economy (like bottle return schemes), or somewhat more ambitious eco-policies (like regulations on heating/insulation and coastal fishing), were working “against” communities and businesses.
An even deeper and more precise dig is the implication that “economic growth and tackling poverty” – which assumes that the first directly addresses the second – had slipped as a priority, under the agreement with the Greens.
Haud on.
Ferreting around in the undergrowth of coalition-era Scottish ministerial speeches on the economy, it’s hard to find any diminution in the commitment to growth.
Mairi McAllan, the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero, and Energy, spoke in February about wanting growth in “space, photonics and fintech and AI …[in] financial services, health and life sciences, advanced manufacturing, tourism and hospitality, food and drink and energy.”
The Greens’ own literature on “green jobs and enterprise” largely overlaps with this list of sectors. Yes, there are notable exceptions.
The financial sector gets little shrift. “Independent” (presumably not corporate) versions of retail, tourism, and other commercial sectors are promoted. The term “sustainable expansion” substitutes for “growth”.
But otherwise, much coincides.
The whole premise for this is patently daft. We all know that transitioning to the low carbon economy is the right thing to do, both from a moral and ethical stance.
The risks and costs from runaway climate change are enormous, and have been known for decades if not centuries.
The capitalistic argument of infinite growth only benefits the very very wealthy and screws everyone else. At the moment we’re burning resources equivalent to 2-3 earth’s, and we can only do that for so long before things start really getting pear shaped.
We have the technology available today, and much more tech in research and development, that will bring huge benefits. Green tech isn’t that costly, and in most cases is actually cheaper than fossil fuel based tech. We just need the political will to go with the social drive.
2 comments
I HAVE encountered John Swinney several times in my life. But my most memorable (though brief) exchange was while we were both rushing for trains in opposite directions, at Dundee station, around the early 2000s.
“How are you feeling about it all, John?” “Ach…” Most indy supporters will know a version of this conversational gambit.
Then, out of nowhere: “You wonder what it will take to raise people’s ambitions and hopes.” A shake of the head, a smile, then off up the stairs.
This came to my mind as Swinney, our soon-to-be new first minister, prepares his pact with Kate Forbes.
One of its crucial terms seems to be an approach to economics that is different from the Bute House Agreement between the SNP and the Scottish Greens.
In her speech announcing she wouldn’t be contending for the position of FM, Forbes put down her gauntlet quite clearly.
Her pre-discussions with Swinney seem to include “an understanding that economic growth and tackling poverty must again be key priorities and that a just transition to ‘net zero’ must work with, and not against, our communities and businesses.”
The dig at the Greens is obvious here.
The implication is that banal instances of circular economy (like bottle return schemes), or somewhat more ambitious eco-policies (like regulations on heating/insulation and coastal fishing), were working “against” communities and businesses.
An even deeper and more precise dig is the implication that “economic growth and tackling poverty” – which assumes that the first directly addresses the second – had slipped as a priority, under the agreement with the Greens.
Haud on.
Ferreting around in the undergrowth of coalition-era Scottish ministerial speeches on the economy, it’s hard to find any diminution in the commitment to growth.
Mairi McAllan, the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero, and Energy, spoke in February about wanting growth in “space, photonics and fintech and AI …[in] financial services, health and life sciences, advanced manufacturing, tourism and hospitality, food and drink and energy.”
The Greens’ own literature on “green jobs and enterprise” largely overlaps with this list of sectors. Yes, there are notable exceptions.
The financial sector gets little shrift. “Independent” (presumably not corporate) versions of retail, tourism, and other commercial sectors are promoted. The term “sustainable expansion” substitutes for “growth”.
But otherwise, much coincides.
The whole premise for this is patently daft. We all know that transitioning to the low carbon economy is the right thing to do, both from a moral and ethical stance.
The risks and costs from runaway climate change are enormous, and have been known for decades if not centuries.
The capitalistic argument of infinite growth only benefits the very very wealthy and screws everyone else. At the moment we’re burning resources equivalent to 2-3 earth’s, and we can only do that for so long before things start really getting pear shaped.
We have the technology available today, and much more tech in research and development, that will bring huge benefits. Green tech isn’t that costly, and in most cases is actually cheaper than fossil fuel based tech. We just need the political will to go with the social drive.