Ireland can teach us valuable lessons on tax and prosperity

The Herald Scotland

21 hours ago

Besides, the evidence of 'over-reliance' on inward investment in Ireland is sparse. On the contrary, Ireland's success in attracting inward investment has had a transformative effect on the country's economy, by building the productivity of its workforce, its entrepreneurial flair and its supply chains. The Ireland of the time when both our countries joined the EU depended on the UK for 60% of its foreign trade; now it's well under 10%. The Ireland of today has produced two to three times as many companies worth over $1 billion than Scotland. It enjoys higher average earnings, lower overall and youth unemployment and lower poverty and child poverty levels than Scotland.
And here's where the connection to independence, which as Ewen pointed out to Jackie Kemp (Letters, July 4), he didn't mention, comes in. Ireland was able to generate these fruits from inward investment to a greater degree than Scotland quite simply because Ireland attracted much more inward investment than Scotland. And it was able to do so because, as an independent country, it was able to maintain for many years a corporation tax regime designed to make it attractive to the inward investment it decided it needed to transform its economy. That's a luxury we chose to deny ourselves in Scotland.
Martin Togneri, Linlithgow.
Read more letters
It's all about the economy
Many of us write in on all sorts of topics: unionism, nationalism, the NHS, various conflicts, immigration and so on. In terms of priorities every government over the past 20 years or more has failed on the most vital task of all: the economy.
It's a strong, healthy economy that creates the wealth needed to fund housing, health, education, transport, pensions, defence et al.
We have squandered billions with abandon on crazy bottle deposit schemes, ferries that are half-built, cycle lanes that are empty, over-management in the Civil Service and on and on.
A healthy economy depends on reasonable tax, high employment, lower red tape and entrepreneurship coupled with a social conscience.
The sooner our headlines are highlighting the economic performance of the Government the sooner we will be able to address these issues and clean up our filthy road signs, the illegible road signs, the ferries in dry dock et al.
It's the economy, first, last and always, stupid.
John Gilligan, Ayr.
Important visitors
Further to Dr Ibiyemi Omeihe's article ("Do you want thriving universities in Scotland? Then we need immigration", The Herald, July 5) she is right to emphasise what international students bring, but I think it's even more important to remember what they take home with them.
The cost of a British university degree to these students is so high, most of them will already be funded as future leaders at home – teachers, doctors, scientists, lawyers, politicians. Who knows how important the countries they are running in 25 years' time may be to us – politically, economically, scientifically? The opinions of this country's attitudes and values which they form now could influence all our futures.
Carol Primrose, Bishopbriggs.
Net zero claim is wrong
Gillian Martin, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, recently stated that "we are over halfway on our journey to net zero".
This claim is is wrong.
Net zero is achieved by a combination of reducing emissions and then balancing the remaining emissions by the removal of an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by using "carbon sinks", like forests for example.
Net zero is accounted for on an annual basis. At the end of a year you calculate your emissions and removals and if your removals are the same or more than your emissions then you have achieved net zero for that year. In following years you may not achieve net zero because of an increase in emissions or a reduction in removals, obviously.
By how much you have reduced your emissions from 1990 is not included in the formula to calculate net zero. The year was proposed by the UN so countries could compare how well they were doing in reducing emissions.
Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions in 2023 were gross 54.4 million tonnes, though this figure is not stated in the published statistics as far as I could see. The figure used is net 39.6 million tonnes which is after deducting the removals of 14.8 million tonnes of emissions estimated to have been sequestered by Scottish forests. So in 2023 Scotland removed 14.8 million tonnes of the 54.4 million tonnes of greenhouse gases it produced, which is 27.2%. To claim "halfway to net zero" we would have to have removed 50%, ie 27.2 million tonnes.
So based on the latest figures we have – for 2023 – Scotland has net 39.6 million tonnes of emissions to remove by 2045 by a combination of reductions and removals to "carbon sinks". Because of the length of time it takes to compile the emissions statistics we do not know even what has happened in the past two and a half years, let alone trying to predict emissions for the next 20 years which many people are forecasting will increase. Also trying to increase the amount of carbon sinks will be extremely difficult: we cannot double Scotland's
forests.
When net zero was first proposed it was envisioned that countries would employ direct air capture, which is using very large fans to suck in air from which CO2, the main greenhouse gas, could be extracted and this would count towards their removals to help achieve net zero. CO2 is very dilute in the atmosphere, only 429 parts per million which is a ratio of 2,331 to 1. So if you want to find one tonne of CO2 you need to suck in 2,331 tonnes of air, which uses a lot of electricity, the production of which would, they say, create more than a tonne of CO2, so that is not going to work.
Hugh McAdams, Bearsden.
Should Donald Trump press for more sanctions on Russia? (Image: PA)
Trump should get priorities right
In a review of its military support, the White House says it must 'put America's interests first', and still seems ambiguous in its attitude to Vladimir Putin's war.
But in a meeting last week with Kaja Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission, China's foreign minister Wang Yi said Beijing does not want Russia to lose the war, as the USA would then be able to focus more directly on China. That plausible (albeit surprising or even unintended) admission surely makes President Trump's priorities straightforward.
He should immediately support the pro-Ukraine Republicans in Congress, enforce with the European and other allies the maximum economic and financial sanctions against Russia, impose stronger penalties on those countries that finance Vladimir Putin by their purchase of Russia's oil, gas and minerals, and supply Ukraine with the intelligence data and hardware needed for swift military success – which many experts have thought feasible since late 2022, with the right support.
That would then allow the USA to pass the Ukraine baton safely and effectively to Europe, and to concentrate on confronting China globally – politically, diplomatically, economically and militarily – which President Trump has for years asserted is their greatest competitor and enemy.
John Birkett, St Andrews.
• On Donald Trump's visit to Scotland, nothing could deflate his huge ego more than for no-one to turn up. Let him see empty pavements. Let's ignore him and his cavalcade.
Eileen Stables, Paisley.