My first thoughts on the Oxford Economics report, commissioned by The Hunter Foundation, were very that it is balanced and informative – a great piece of work to stimulate debate.
The report highlights the positives and negatives in relation to Scotland’s Economic growth – there is no doubt that we need a concerted effort to deliver sustainable growth opportunities.
If we want to increase our GDP by head of population we must try to generate more technical and higher-paid jobs. Scotland is held in the highest regards for our engineering capability so let us build on this – major investment in STEM education would pay dividends.
Another sector where Scotland is looked upon very favourably is financial services. Scots are seen as trustworthy and we should expand our financial districts in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
There has been a lot of talk from the UK and Scottish governments around investment in infrastructure, and there is no doubt that housing should be at the top of that list. There are so many wins in building quality affordable homes – there is a huge demand across the country. This would create thousands of well-paid jobs and hundreds of technical apprenticeships, all on an equal opportunities basis. Hundreds of small companies in the supply chain would prosper enormously.
We could work with Strathclyde University to create “Scotland’s own” carbon-neutral home, and we could lead the world if we achieve this.
On green technology there is no doubt that with the natural resources that we have in Scotland, we could be at the forefront of renewable energy.Why not set ourselves a goal of being the greenest country in the world? I am convinced this would be a huge attraction for inward investment over the next 20 years, even more attractive than a low taxation state.
The largest financial institutions in the world are all looking at the environment and social governance of every investment. We could leverage any public sector investments in renewable energy by a multiple greater than six.
The report shows comparisons with Singapore, Denmark and Ireland. I think the Irish model of the 1980s and 90s would be the easiest to follow.
We need a complete focus to try to attract some of the biggest companies in the world, but we must get our offer right. Do we have the graduates and skilled workforce ready to mobilise? Is Government red tape a minefield? Is planning consent a barrier? What is the quality of our housing stock and what is the cost? How does our taxation system compare with alternative countries or cities?
Are we a country with a transient workforce? What does quality of life look like outside of work? Do we have world-class amenities? What does our public transport look like?
A lot has been said about the advantages of low-taxation economies.It was certainly a key factor in the rebuilding of Singapore’s economy and, to a lesser extent, Ireland’s.
We could certainly improve the UK tax system to a more progressive model. Scotland has limited devolved powers on tax. I would like to see this being utilised more – even better if we had more scope in devolved taxation.
Ireland attracted some of the largest technology companies on the back of their low corporation tax offer and this proved very successful. The thing that made it very easy for them was the remit Enterprise Ireland received from its government: “Do whatever it takes to attract the 10 largest companies in the world to Ireland.” They certainly did.
A lot of serious consideration must go into any changes in the tax system – we must take a holistic long-term approach to our tax income.
I know that some Scandinavian countries are offered up as examples we may like to copy. I personally believe a hybrid of Singaporean and Irish examples would work better in the UK, and even better in Scotland.
The Scottish Government has placed its faith in the new Scottish National Investment Bank (SNIB). This could be the catalyst to regenerate the 3,500 acres of derelict land that the Derelict Land Commission has just reported on. This is a prime asset that could not only produce a significant capital gain but could also deliver a very large annual return through property rates tax.
I honestly believe that with the SNIB, working closely with the SFT and the Construction Hub, we could deliver great value on all the derelict land across Scotland – it is our greatest untapped asset.
Through this initiative we could solve many problems, create hundreds of thousands of high-quality green homes that are affordable, all for rent, at the same time creating tens of thousands of construction jobs.
There is no doubt that once the pandemic is under control and things move back to normal, unfortunately young people may be hit the hardest. This building programme would guarantee thousands of meaningful apprenticeships, even adult apprenticeships, retraining skilled workers who unfortunately lost their jobs because of the pandemic.
After reading the Oxford report, I was struck by its brutal honesty. It was very balanced – it pointed out the pros and cons of Scotland’s financial strengths and weaknesses. It highlighted that our output per head of population could be much better if more people were in work and the people in work worked that little bit harder – it would make a huge difference to our GDP.
We must work at reducing our unemployment levels, help people to get off benefits, and incentivise people to work in a more productive way.
Let’s drive efficiency in manufacturing to new levels, let’s use new technology to deliver optimum results, let’s work closer with our universities to produce graduates that have the qualification that the workplace is crying out for. It is a tragedy and a waste that so many young graduates are under-utilised and not earning what they should be.
I read with interest that there is a world shortage of microchips. Scotland once had its own small Silicon Valley – why can we not revisit this?
If you want to get ahead, you must be ready to go ahead. You must be entrepreneurial and take risks. Do not be afraid to fail and we will succeed.
Willie Haughey is an entrepreneur and owner of City Facilities Management
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel