I enjoyed a few days in Stockholm last weekend and, without really seeking them out, was able to enjoy Swedish brands, produce and hospitality throughout my stay. There was the salmon and meatballs from the Swedish ICA supermarkets (proudly stamped with the local area that had produced them), the Falcon and Mariestads beers that washed them down and the ‘fika’ (coffee breaks) at Sweden’s fiercely popular Wayne’s Coffee stores dotted around the city. The whole weekend involved walking past Saab after Saab and Volvo after Volvo, Swedish flags were everywhere from pots of jam on supermarket shelves to fluttering proudly in many a front garden and numerous people I walked past had on Fjällräven jackets or bags, or Peak Performance winter gear, all Swedish brands, naturligtvis.
Compare and contrast with Scotland where any old produce is purchased in tax-dubious Tesco with profits evaporating out of the Scottish economy to, well, either Cheshunt or Zug I suppose. Yes, Zug. The many beers drunk here each night are typically the Carlsbergs, Kronenbourg, Stella Artois, Carling and Guinnesses, so that’s more Scottish pounds falling out of our economy. The flights are on Ryanair and Easyjet, as there’s no longer a Flyglobespan to keep the travel money closer to home, while cars and clothes are barely ever Scottish-made or designed and you’d do well to see too many Saltires on a supermarket shelf, let alone a front garden.
Sure, we have Farmers’ Markets, Scottish restaurants (boasting Scottish produce), Brewdog, Innes & Gunn, staycations and Harris Tweed helping to shore up the local economy, but it all seems to be too much of a one-way battle at the moment, particularly when you realise how other countries out there in Europe have it.
We are regularly told to embrace globalisation, to suppress national pride and remember that too much protectionism is ultimately bad for us but, call me paranoid, I do wonder who is behind this particular insistence and whether that message is getting out beyond these UK borders. Looking at France, Spain, Scandinavia and Germany, their largely successful rebuffing of Americanism (do they even have Starbucks on the continent?) and their impressive championing of home produce and local brands, it makes me wonder if Scotland is putting itself at a distinct disadvantage by being so laissez-faire.
Of all Governments that could grasp this issue, one would think that an SNP Government would put things right.
Well, the foregoing of Scottish steel in the building of the Forth bridge in favour of Chinese steel certainly raises an eyebrow and suggests otherwise. I get that there are procurement rules that need to be followed and potential savings could allow Swinney’s budgets to go further than they would have if we’d bought materials closer to home but, if such a calculation has been worked out, I would have thought that a pre-emptive information strike would have been forthcoming. The Herald reports that as much as one third of the required steel could have been sourced from Motherwell. A no-brainer, surely? Seemingly not. It all seems to go against a direction of travel that was suggested a few years ago.
The SNP, in the last parliamentary term, had the thoroughly commendable idea of a Saltire scheme whereby shoppers would be rewarded with loyalty points for purchasing Scottish produce. The scheme was led passionately and eloquently by Aileen Campbell, now the Minister for Children and Young People. With a whopping parliamentary majority in the bag and a dearth of devolved issues to sustain itself for the next four years with, there is no reason why the SNP shouldn’t push this idea a lot harder than it is currently doing.
A saltire scheme can, by extension, mean more than simply buying Scottish produce. It can also signify less food miles, sustainable fishing methods, ethically robust farming methods, material quality and so much more, if the Scotland flag comes to signify these things (if it doesn’t so already, of course). Indeed, why this idea never took off before, from any party, really is beyond me.
I attended a wonderful presentation from the FD of a bank that I used to work for. The lessons shared then are lessons that Scotland should really learn today. He said that it is important to focus on the ‘marginal dollar’, or the ‘marginal pound’ in this instance. The old days of banking involved lending money if it meant getting a profit back, any profit, a philosophy that led inevitably to the credit crunch. These days, with fewer pounds available to lend and banks building up capital ratios, the decision-makers need to consider what they are
- not
spending their money on before they spend it. It’s basically opportunity cost with bells on and it is applicable here, not so much in terms of short-sighted profit making but rather in terms of building a balanced, local society and ensuring that it is sustainable alongside and in healthy competition with the rest of the UK, the rest of Europe and indeed the rest of the world.
So when you are standing on your local high street, when you know which Scots are secure in their jobs and which one’s aren’t and when you consider that other countries out there have a healthy balance between protectionism and globalised free markets, the key question you need to ask yourself when you stretch open your purse strings is this – where are my Scottish pounds best spent?
Keeping the Scottish pound local should be a top priority for all of us, and the Scottish Government should be taking the lead on facilitating that objective, from bridges to supermarket shelves.
#1 by Chris Cooke on April 5, 2012 - 8:24 am
You mentioned Tesco. When I was last in Dublin, the Tesco there gave me an itemised receipt with a wee shamrock beside every Irish product I’d bought, and a total at the bottom which told me not just how much I’d spent but also how much I’d spent on Irish products. It makes sense: as you say, it could cut down the food miles enormously.
Sadly the Scottish government has shot itself right in the foot with this one: any attempt to encourage people to buy local would be a gift to the other political parties who could point straight to the bridge steel decision.
#2 by Commenter on April 5, 2012 - 11:34 am
“it could cut down the food miles enormously”
I don’t believe ‘food miles’ are a useful gauge of ‘green-ness’. They are something that producers have latched onto as a way of encouraging people to buy their more expensive produce instead of other producers’ cheaper produce. But given that Jeff is proposing promoting buying Scottish that isn’t necessarily a problem – if people can be fooled into buying local for nonsensical reasons, who cares 🙂
#3 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 11:43 am
Well, I’m not sure that really stacks up. If you’re in your Alloa supermarket and there are potatoes from just up the road and potatoes from Israel (that have been flown to London and then driven by truck up to Stirlingshire), which of the potatoes are more ‘green’? You are correct though that local produce can be more expensive; I would hope that is a sign of quality rather than inefficiency in the supply chain, but it’s probably a bit of both depending on the situation.
As you say though, a bit like wind and wave power, you don’t necessarily need the ‘woolly’ green reasons to put into practice what is a good idea anyway.
#4 by Colin Dunn on April 5, 2012 - 3:04 pm
I think there is a problem for consumers working out the greener option, though. I remember a radio programme last year where an NZ apple producer pointed out that due to the efficiency of their orchards and the refrigerated shipping (by ship ;), their apples were less carbon intensive than ones grown in inefficient English orchards.
I do try to buy local in Tesco, but one off the problems is that much of their labelling simply states’ produce in the EU for Tesco’. Not much help.
In addition, where they do have local produce it’s often more expensive and I have a sneaky feeling that this is because they milk it as a luxury item, like organic produce.
#5 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 3:10 pm
I don’t shop in Tesco as a point of principle so I don’t know how their labelling is, Sainsbury’s is decent and my local Budgens is good too, but there’s still no replacement for buying at Farmer’s Markets or direct from Scottish (or in my case London) suppliers, if one can afford to and/or has the time.
#6 by Steve on April 5, 2012 - 4:32 pm
I believe the issue there was that British apples are stored in massive refrigerated warehouses to provide continuity of supply all year round. It’s the idea that supermarkets want to provide the same products all year round as though season’s don’t exist. (The only thing that changes with the season is the price)
Local *and* seasonal shopping is always going to be greener than ship imported products, and ought to be fresher, tastier and healthier. That’s surely to be encouraged?
#7 by Iain Menzies on April 5, 2012 - 4:13 pm
This may not be true….but i remember reading a while ago that it is more eco friendly to buy tomatoes that are grown in spain and flown to the UK than ones that are grown commercially in scotland. ON the grounds that the carbon cost of the flight is less than the carbon cost of heating the greenhouse.
The point being it depends what you are buying if its more eco friendly.
#8 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 4:33 pm
Fair enough. A fairly logical response to that though is, eat less tomatoes and eat more of what is grown here naturally 😉
#9 by Iain Menzies on April 5, 2012 - 4:52 pm
I would love to make you happy in answer to this, cos i hardly ever eat tomatoes, but i had some last night…..on my Tesco Finest Pizza…..
#10 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 12:07 pm
You mean the bridge steel myth. Since when did myth trump reality?
#11 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 8:35 am
No Scottish firms bid for the steel contracts that went to China. None! Even if there were no procurement rules to consider it would hardly be possible for the Scottish Government to accept non-existent tenders.
#12 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 9:31 am
I don’t think the Scottish Government can absolve itself of responsibility so easily, unless Scottish steelmakers pointedly didn’t want to be involved in helping to build this bridge (which I find hard to believe). Surely one of the first thoughts SNP Ministers will have had regarding this bridge is to what extent can it help the Scottish economy. If there was insufficient behind the scenes dialogue to get Scottish companies in the right places to bid or help out, then that’s not good enough as far as I’m concerned.
#13 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 9:51 am
Your determination to contrive a stick with which to beat the Scottish Government reeks of British Labour & Unionist Party propagandising. There are well established tendering procedures in place to ensure full compliance with all relevant regulations. You seem to imagine somebody from the Scottish Government should have been personally visiting firms to encourage them to tender. A more realistic view would be that firms which aren’t even aware of the tendering process probably aren’t competent enough to be considered.
Like those propagandists I mentioned you choose to focus on the the specialist fabricated steel contracts that went to China because no firm in Scotland has the capability while totally ignoring all the work that has gone to Scottish firms. I smell an agenda.
#14 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 10:14 am
From Wishaw Press:
The previous day MSP John Pentland raised the matter at First Minister’s Question Time in the Scottish Parliament, saying to Alex Salmond: “I have been informed that one bid in relation to the Forth crossing included the supply of steel by Tata from the Dalzell plant in Motherwell. That would have been a major boost for employment in my constituency and in Lanarkshire, and for Scotland’s steel industry. Will the First Minister therefore explain why Transport Scotland has said that no Scottish firms were involved? Will he meet Tata’s chief executive to discuss the Scottish steel industry’s role?”
The First Minister replied: “I would certainly be glad to arrange a ministerial meeting. I point out that 118 subcontracts have been awarded to Scottish firms from the total of 155 subcontracts that have been awarded to date. That represents 76 per cent of total subcontracts. We can also consider that 870 of the 1041 supply orders that have been awarded for the principal contract have gone to Scottish companies.
It doesn’t seem very clear to me why the bid involving Scottish steel was rejected, given the FM didn’t really answer the question, but I take your point Peter (via Salmond’s quote above) that there were plenty of contracts that went to Scottish firms.
Also, propagandist isn’t a very nice word and should really be used more cautiously.
#15 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 10:36 am
I think if you look more closely at what Tata said you’ll find that there was no actual bid. They merely expressed an interest. I am reliably informed that there is no capacity in Scotland for the type of steel involved in the contracts that went to China. And even if there were, the companies concerned would still have to win those contracts against overseas competition without interference from the Scottish Government that would risk breaching competition rules. Rules that exist for the benefit of Scottish firms as much as anyone else.
Against the wholly unsupported accusations levelled against the Scottish Government we have the FACT that more than 75% of subcontracts and nearly 84% of supply contracts have gone to Scottish firms.
Given that all this stuff about Scottish firms being denied contracts is straight from the British labour & Unionist Party’s propaganda crib-sheet, I don’t think it at all inappropriate to refer to it as propaganda.
#16 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 10:50 am
I’m happy to say you’ve won this argument Peter (on points!), and not just because I don’t want a discussion on steel for a bridge to detract from the wider point of the post that we should protect Scottish brands and produce a
bitlot more.#17 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 10:58 am
On that we agree. Sort of. Maybe not so much a case of protect as promote. Protection tends to be a bit of a dirty word in trade. Appropriate labelling would contribute greatly to any promotional effort. I would like to see some movement on this from the Scottish Government. But I do recognise that there may be legal and political implications. Quite apart from the matter of getting all the producers on board.
#18 by Iain Menzies on April 5, 2012 - 4:18 pm
Let me quote the SNP directly:
” Scotland no longer has the capacity in what’s left of it’s steel industry to produce the steel needed for big projects like the new Forth Crossing.”
Which doesnt stack up with the giving of contracts to scottish firms.
#19 by douglas clark on April 5, 2012 - 9:38 am
Peter A Bell,
That thought had occurred to me too. However it may well be that the ‘bundling’ of the contract precluded a bid. In other words, if the contract was for all the steel, perhaps they couldn’t tender. If the contract had been broken down further, perhaps they could.
On Jeffs points, I am not aware of any motor cars being produced in Scotland since the Hillman Imp, if you exclude the Argyll. And my drinking of Tennets lager is now a virtue rather than a vice 🙂
I quite like the idea that Chris Cooke highlighted.
#20 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 9:55 am
I too like the idea of a Saltire mark. I favour anything that allows consumers to make informed choices. It is just unfortunate that the author was unable to resist turning the argument for such a labelling into a petty and ill-informed attack on the Scottish Government.
#21 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 10:08 am
Ill-informed, quite possibly. Petty, I respectfully disagree. I very much doubt I’m alone in questioning why a Scottish Government has to turn to China (and Spain and Poland I believe) for the steel to build a bridge when, as included in the post, The Herald states that Scotland could have provided up to one third of the materials.
I don’t claim to know about the intricacies of the tendering process but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable challenge to wonder why a Scottish steel bridge isn’t being built from Scottish steel. There may be simple, good reasons but, well, if there were they should be easily searchable on Google one would hope.
Maybe it’s just a Scottish Government communications issue, I don’t know.
#22 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 10:39 am
Feel free to list the Scottish firms which tendered for the contracts in question. Simply claiming that they must exist because something in a newspaper sort of says so isn’t very impressive.
#23 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 10:48 am
It all seems to hinge on what Tata’s “indirect” tendering actually means. Had a quick look, but it seems to be rhetoric ping-pong between Labour and the SNP (isn’t it always?).
Anyway, it looks like Tata and the Scottish Government are best buds after Keith Brown sat down with them recently after this furore:
http://mobile.transportscotland.gov.uk/news/transport-minister-and-tata-steel-joint-statement
#24 by MajorBloodnok on April 5, 2012 - 10:08 am
Contrary to Unionist spin, the Scottish Government is bending over backwards to ensure that every opportunity is presented to Scottish companies to bid for infrastructure work in Scoltand. The SG cannot be blamed if companies decide not to tender for these contracts – they can’t make them tender you do realise?
Scottish Government contracts are advertised through the public contracts scotland website and in my business (environment) I see quite a few of these automatically emailed to me. The Forth Replacement Crossing page is here:
http://www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/search/search_CategoryView.aspx?ID=41
As you can see there are more than 50 contracts already advertised, some of which are already let. Work has started – I saw plant on Beamer Rock on Sunday as I walked across the existing bridge, by the way.
Natually the SG has to abide by procurement law but where it can it has let as much as possible through individual contracts.
Regarding Labour’s canard about the steel – there may well be some steel still made in Scotland but is it suitable for bridge making? Not all steel is the same you know! And if the company chose to not even tender for a publicly advertised contract then it is likely that they were aware that they didn’t make the right kind of steel – that is hardly the SG’s fault.
Finally the SG is bringing forward all sorts of infrastructure projects in transport (e.g. rail), renewables, electricity interconnectors, ports and harbours – it’s actually amazing what’s going on in Scotland. You won’t find this economic activity in Tescos (or even in England) but if you lift your head from the superstore shelves and just look around you’ll see it everywhere in Scotland and this is the current SG’s doing, not Westminster’s.
#25 by David Smillie on April 5, 2012 - 10:09 am
I agree with you Jeff, but Scots are not loyal to Scottish brands as the beer market indicates. The greater concern is the massive outflow of profits from the Scottish retail sector which is now overwhelmingly English owned and controlled. Or perhaps this should be London owned /controlled since I have heard very similar complaints about the destruction of local capital pools in East Anglia and other non-metropolitan areas. New Economics Foundation has a good handle on this: ironically, they are now based in London. I found it interesting that my contacts in East Anglia were much more angrily anti-London than anyone in timid Scotland would dared to have been, an effect, no doubt, of the numbing of Scottish political unhappiness by the unionist parties here. Not to mention the useless MSM who appear not to want this kind of issue to be debated openly.
#26 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 10:27 am
A very good point David, I never even considered that. Looking at other countries and the local successful stories that keep the international brands at bay, there is a massive gap in the market for Scottish stores and brands to plug a hole that many don’t seem to care exists. Maybe this cultural awakening over the next few years will help.
#27 by Hen Broon on April 5, 2012 - 10:25 am
“EU procurement law, introduced in 2006, clearly forbid the government from discriminating in favour of Scottish firms. If any government in the EU did what Labour wants, they would find themselves in court facing huge fines. That point aside, the fact is that no Scottish firms even submitted tenders for the steel fabrication subcontracts.”
Labour’s attacks on the Forth crossing contracts come a week after the MoD announced that contracts for the next generation of Royal Navy support tankers have been awarded to firms in South Korea, instead of Scottish shipyards.
It has also emerged that a tendering process started under the last Labour government resulted in Labour-led Strathclyde Passenger Transport awarding contracts for the regeneration of Glasgow subway to a Czech firm.
The new Forth Crossing is the biggest transport infrastructure project in Scotland for a generation and is currently on time and on budget.
The main Forth Replacement Crossing (FRC) contractors have confirmed the project is currently directly employing 384 people on site, and at its peak the project will directly support 1,200 jobs.
These figures don’t take into account the number of people who will be working for the 222 Scottish firms – and that figure is expected to grow significantly over the coming years – currently working in the subcontracting and supply chain for the project.
As of 15 February, the three main contractors appointed to deliver the project have advised Transport Scotland that around £23 million of subcontracts have already been awarded to Scottish companies and around £13 million of supply orders.
The project is currently 9 months into a 6-year construction period and there are many more subcontract and supply order opportunities to come. Official figures show that 870 out of 1,041 supply orders awarded on the Principal Contract have gone to Scottish companies: 84 per cent of the total.
Accusing Labour of having a “a very short memory” Mr Keir added:
“We are only 9 months into a 6 year construction period and there are many more subcontracts from the Principal Contract to come.
“The SNP Government is committed to ensuring Scottish firms continue to benefit from the FRC. But it is utterly ridiculous that Labour – who hail themselves as the party for workers – are advocating a plan that would see hundreds of jobs lost.”
http://tiny.cc/mgcacw
#28 by Barbarian on April 5, 2012 - 10:55 am
The Scottish Government have a major issue when it comes to effective communication. The bridge is a prime example. and more recently the Consultation.
At times, the SNP still seems to operate in “Opposition” mode, since whenever there is a problem it is always the fault of Westminster or the previous Labour administration.
The general public tend to blame the current Government for issues, even if the blame truly lies elsewhere. But blaming the previous administration is a bit difficult when the SNP was the previous administration. Then they could justifiably blame being a minority government.
But now they have a majority, and that makes the job of PR much harder.
#29 by MajorBloodnok on April 5, 2012 - 11:09 am
By the way, I forgot to add the Public Contracts website is for contracts that fall below the EU procurement rules thresholds, so it won’t list everything available by any means. Note that:
New EU Procurement Thresholds apply from from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013.
Any purchase above these limits must conform to the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006.
WORKS – £4,348,350 or €5,000,000
SUPPLIES – £173,934 or €200,000
SERVICES – (estimate over 48 months) £173,934 or €200,000
Also note that the applicable Regulations were passed in 2006, before the SNP came to power…. and furthermore, 200,000 Euros worth of bridge steel isn’t that much so the SG had no choice but to advertise those contracts via the OJEU.
And I thought Scotland was famous for its engineers….
#30 by Barbarian on April 5, 2012 - 1:11 pm
And the problem here for the SNP Is that they wish closer ties to Europe. Yet we have legislation that prevents a government trying to do the best for its own population.
They can blame the rules being implemented before they came into power, but I haven’t heard a thing about them getting out of this when independent.
They really need to tighten their communications up and get this sort of infomation out BEFORE announcing contracts. At least then they can explain it proactively, rather than appearing defensive yet again when their opponents open up.
#31 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 1:55 pm
Closer ties? What does that even mean? We are part of the European Union. That’s as close as you can get.
The EU’s competition rules are not imposed by some external body. They are agreed by member states for the simple reason that it is in the interests of all member states and their people that firms be allowed to compete fairly in the market. In short, the rules benefit Scotland just as much as anyone else.
And talk of “getting out” is just nonsense. Even if an independent Scotland did leave the EU we would still have to abide by all the rules in order to have access to the single market. But we would have no say in the making of those rules. And we would have to contribute to the EU budget.
To the extent that the Scottish Government has any problems with its communications this is principally down to an almost exclusively hostile media. Typically, the anti-Scottish Government propaganda will get the headline and 80-90% of the content of a newspaper report. The Scottish Government’s response, if it appears at all, is relegated to the final paragraphs.
#32 by MajorBloodnok on April 5, 2012 - 2:18 pm
Barbarian – nice set of deliberate misrepresentations from you there. I would expect nothing less, however.
Any company tendering for contracts will be fully aware of what the tendering rules are (they’ve been around since 2006 as noted elsewhere) and there is no need for the SG to communicate that to them.
If they are unaware of the tendering rules then I would venture that they are probably unfit to supply those goods or services. That goes for polticians who don’t know what the legal rules are either, particularly ones which were passed whilst they were in the driving seat.
#33 by Barbarian on April 5, 2012 - 11:59 pm
You’re misinterpreting my point. The SG seems to be constantly on the defensive, rather than getting information out.
When the steel contract was awarded, they should have stated at the time why the contracts went overseas, rather than sticking to the cost-effective argument. Their opponents went straight in, taking the facts out of context and giving themselves a nice headline. I know how contracts work, having been involved in the tendering and monitoring of both government and private business. But it’s the voting public that need to be informed, not the companies.
And give the personal attacks a rest please. Criticise my comments by all means, but don’t start on me.
Peter
The Sun – with the largest circulation in Scotland – is supportive of the SG and the SNP. There was ample opportunity to get the facts out Likewise with Joan McAlpine’s column in the Daily Record.
#34 by Peter A Bell on April 6, 2012 - 10:14 am
The misunderstanding is all yours. The Scottish Government is, at least in comparison to its UK counterpart, a paragon of openness and transparency. But it matters not at all because the mainstream media will put a negative spin on absolutely anything.
In fact, the “steel from China” story is a perfect example. The Scottish Government, or in this case Transport Scotland, releases information showing that the vast majority of supply and service contracts awarded have benefited firms in Scotland. But this is not what is reported in the media. Newspapers such as The Scotsman and The Telegraph operate a very simple rule. Every story relating to the Scottish Government and/or the Scottish National Party MUST be spun in a negative way. Supposing only one contract had gone overseas that is what they would have seized on.
Alex Salmond and his team are not stupid. They know that they cannot possibly win a roof-top shouting war with the media arm of the British state. So why get into one?
#35 by Iain Menzies on April 6, 2012 - 8:25 pm
And you are putting your spin on it. The SNP spin (as published by them) is that Scotland cant do the steel.
#36 by Peter A Bell on April 7, 2012 - 2:01 pm
Let’s come at it from another direction in the hope of getting you to realise how foolish you are being. Answer the following.
Is there capacity in Scotland for producing the type and quantity of steel for which contracts were awarded to firms in Poland, Spain and China?
Where is this capacity?
Why did the firms which you claim have this capacity fail to tender for the supply contracts?
#37 by Iain Menzies on April 7, 2012 - 10:48 pm
No lets not come at this from another direction.
I didnt say there was the capacity.
You are saying that lots and lots of work is going to scottish firms.
What im getting from the SNP is that no one in Scotland can do the bridge.
The SNP is saying something that, if you are right, is misleading in the hope of winning votes.
Now thats expected (much like you calling people foolish on account of you being rude) but its not nice.
#38 by Alex Gallagher on April 5, 2012 - 1:42 pm
Didn’t the UK Government start the trend by buying (and therefore saving) the Scottish Banks?
#39 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 1:50 pm
Given the rumours that George Osborne might sell (some of) the RBS stake to Abu Dhabi, I don’t think this is a great example.
#40 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 2:02 pm
They weren’t “Scottish” banks when they were paying money to the British exchequer. They won’t be “Scottish” banks when they return to profit.
These banks are City institutions. 90% of their operations are outside Scotland. 100% of their loss-making activities were in London. And ultimate responsibility for their regulation lay with the UK government.
Apart from the name, what is Scottish about them?
#41 by Iain Menzies on April 5, 2012 - 4:22 pm
Since you like to poke fun at people to dont give ‘evidence’ show me your evidence that RBS didnt make any loss in Scotland….
#42 by scottish_skier on April 5, 2012 - 7:51 pm
Is McDonalds Scottish?
#43 by Colin Dunn on April 5, 2012 - 2:59 pm
“Well, the foregoing of Scottish steel in the building of the Forth bridge in favour of Chinese steel certainly raises an eyebrow and suggests otherwise.”
I thought the problem was that no Scottish companies produce the right kind of steel.
#44 by Doug Daniel on April 5, 2012 - 4:11 pm
I “buy Scottish” as much as I possibly can (and you’re quite right Jeff, this can be difficult due to Americanisation etc). There is one simple reason for this: because we produce such great quality stuff.
When it comes to fruit and veg, freshness is all important, so you will always find locally sourced food tastes better, particularly if it’s also from a wee grocers shop, since even local produce at Tesco et al seems to have miles of unnecessary food miles. But when it comes to meat, we also stand out. I used to get a great deal on three packs of sausages and two packs of bacon at the Glasgow Farmers Market (£10 for the lot – bargain), and they absolutely beat the supermarket competition hands down. Back in Aberdeenshire, with the wealth of butchers in places like Strichen and Alford, I wouldn’t even go near a pack of supermarket sausages these days. Urgh! Same goes for cheese – nobody beats us, with the possible exception of Holland (mmm, edam), and while everyone knows how brilliant Mackies ice cream is, there really is nothing like Cream O’ Galloway (a bit expensive, but so, so worth it as a treat – and the perfect accompaniment to a film when you’re in Glasgow Film Theatre). Oh, and if your black pudding isn’t from Stornoway, I’m not interested.
Mmmmm, I’m glad it’s not too long before I have my tea, cos I’m hungry just thinking about all that lovely food. Seriously, a lot of that stuff is world-beating (especially this amazing caramel ice cream you can buy in Stonehaven – very difficult to avoid eating the whole tub in one go.) The only exception for me is beer. Quite frankly, nobody beats the Belgians when it comes to beer. We might have some very good lesser-known brands (Tennent’s lager is vastly improved by going through your liver first, if you catch my drift), but nothing to beat a lovely Belgian Trappist beer. Even Hoegaarden, which is not quite as god as it used to be 10 years ago, is still head and shoulders above anything we produce.
But this is Richard Lochhead’s area of expertise, and I think there’s a reason he’s the one cabinet minister to have been completely untouchable so far – he’s had nothing but success as Scotland’s food and drink industries have gone from strength to strength under his tutelage. I certainly wouldn’t object to even more being done, especially an effort to bring people’s attention to just how much (or how little) they buy in terms of local produce, but he’s doing well so far.
What I would like to see in Scotland is a bias against big companies. Let’s stop allowing Tescos and their ilk to build wherever they want, particularly putting their Express stores near existing small shops (Holburn Street in Aberdeen has a Tesco Express and two Sainsbury Local stores within half a mile of each other, and we already had a perfectly good Co-op there for years). Let’s favour smaller, independent shops, sourcing their produce from local suppliers (giving them a fairer price too) and giving people what they want, rather than what Head Office in London dictates that people want.
Obviously, this extends to more than just grocery shopping. Starbucks and Subway litter our streets when we already have perfectly good (and, in fact, far superior) local coffee and sandwich shops around. It’s particularly daft for Aberdeen to be moaning about the death of Union Street (and using it as a reason to destroy the Union Terrace Gardens) with To Let signs all over the place where there were once shops, because we built the Union Square shopping centre and then filled it with big name shops like Next, Apple, Hollisters and a whole heap of chain restaurants. And they wonder why no one wants to rent their over-priced units on Union Street…!
Obviously in some areas, it’s hard to buy Scottish. You can’t buy Scottish cars, you can’t really buy Scottish clothes (except for functions – assuming kilt-makers haven’t “outsourced” their work yet) and you can’t buy Scottish electronic goods. But in the areas where you can, there are actually loads of reasons to do so, not just supporting our own economy. Of course, it would help if people cared even a bit about quality – the reason people accept supermarket rubbish is because price and convenience are more important than taste. Seriously, no one is telling me they buy Wall’s sausages because of their superior quality.
#45 by Steve on April 5, 2012 - 4:36 pm
Spot on!
#46 by Colin Dunn on April 5, 2012 - 7:41 pm
“Obviously in some areas, it’s hard to buy Scottish. You can’t buy Scottish cars, you can’t really buy Scottish clothes . .”
Actually, that’s an interesting one. I was at a Transition meeting last year on the Black Isle (another plug for Black Isle brewery, by the way, though a local Cromarty micro-brewery is also to open soon on one of the nearby farms), and one of the issues that came up was wool. The chair of a farming organisation said that one of the problems that Highland sheep farmers have is what to do with the wool. No-one wants to buy it anymore, and they pack it away in huge quantities in barns, not wanting to dump it. The Scottish jumper and tweed businesses that used to use it have mostly closed down due to cheap imports, so this formerly important material is not being used, and the skils lost.
Another speaker then said we should all take up knitting, especially as we get older, as there are proven benefits to the numeracy required by it in improving mentation in older people and keeping their brains sharp. So what we need is a campaign for older people to take up knitting using the stored wool 🙂
I’m joking, obviously, but the issue is indicative of the often unexpected knock-on effect of cheap imports on indigenous crafts and livelihoods.
#47 by MajorBloodnok on April 5, 2012 - 4:24 pm
Can I just put a word in for some Scottish brewers:
Harviestoun
Black Isle
Fyne Ales
Arran Ales
Williams Brothers
Brew Dog (apart from Tactical Nuclear Penguin)
etc. etc.
To name but a few. All fairly new breweries appearing as a result of Gordon Brown’s tax changes a few years ago (so he wasnae all bad).
I’m off to the Black Isle myself this very weekend and I think I’ll call in at the brewery. They do a beer festival called “Jocktoberfest” apparently – sounds like fun.
Ah Scottish culture, music and beer – unbeatable!
#48 by Tormod on April 5, 2012 - 4:26 pm
I always try to buy Scottish produce as and when I can, as aside food security is going to be very important in the coming century an we need to keep the ability to produce good quality food.
The exotics are obviously not produced in Scotia.
The Swedish government, business and trade unions developed the economic prosperity that allowed a small population to have a huge market for it’s goods around the world.
Hmm lessons to be learned perhaps.
Saab, I just sold my 12 year old Saab to my cousin 190,000 miles and still going strong. GM ruined the essence that made Saab what it was.
#49 by Iain Menzies on April 5, 2012 - 4:27 pm
I genuinely dont know how you managed to do what you just did there jeff without a reference to Whisky…..or did i just miss it.
I dont object to what your saying, on the whole. There is alot of stuff that i would rather buy if its scottish than not. (Did i mention Whisky)
The problem is that if everyone else starts to do the same.
Take, for example Whisky. There are 5 million odd of ‘us’ and more than 100 million Japanese, and Japan tends to be a rather large market for our Whisky, on account of it being the best in the world and the Japanese having fine taste. Problem of course is that the Japanese are producing more and more really good Whisky. I still wouldnt swap a bottle of Talisker for a bottle of Yamazaki, but if the Japanese start buying whisky thats local to them….how much does that cost us in trade?
#50 by Jeff on April 5, 2012 - 5:04 pm
My post wasn’t really about exports but Scots buying produce within Scotland. I could have added whisky to the list of Scottish goods but I didn’t want to confuse old-hat ‘whisky and shortbread’ arguments with what I was trying to say in the post.
I take your point though that Scotland could get burned by other countries’ protectionism; I guess the trick is to support yourself as much as you can get away with while still having your exports purcahsed. I don’t think whisky sales look too bad these days though. I had some finest Indian whisky last year and it was proper rank.
#51 by Iain Menzies on April 5, 2012 - 5:15 pm
Fair play, i can see why you would do that.
Never tried Indian stuff, but like i say i have tried some Japanese, and it is good, not great but good.
The main problem i have with what you say, is that Scotland, and even the UK, is a wealthy but relatively small market. Much of what we can trade in volume depends on volume sales to bring in real money, So its in our interest to encourage generally open and free trade, and its difficult for those who represent us abroad to encourage emerging markets to open up if we are closing opportunities for importers.
#52 by Steve on April 5, 2012 - 4:42 pm
On procurement, I think there’s scope to be a bit more intelligent that we currently are.
Eddie Fellon did a good guest piece a while back on the “burdz eye view” blog
http://burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/guest-post-a-living-wage-nation/
in which he mentioned using procurement contracts to ensure a living wage, and the same kind of thing could apply here.
It seems to me that if the local ecomomic impacts of awarding contracts to Scottish suppliers can be legitimately factored in to procurement exercises then that would free the Government up a bit to award contracts to local companies rather than being forced into making decisions purely based on the bottom line.
#53 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 4:46 pm
Type your comment here
Not all steel is the same.
#54 by Iain Menzies on April 5, 2012 - 5:17 pm
I didnt say all steel was the same. But thats not the point the SNP are making there.
#55 by Peter A Bell on April 5, 2012 - 6:43 pm
It’s not at all clear what point you are trying to make about whatever point you think the SNP are making.
#56 by Iain Menzies on April 5, 2012 - 9:37 pm
Mostly that the SNP are playing politics.
You seemed to be defending the decision on grounds of EU Law earlier, which would be fine, but i got a leaflet in the door that blamed labour and the tories stating that Scotland couldnt do it, which i guess would be talking down scotlands steel industry.
#57 by Peter A Bell on April 6, 2012 - 10:32 am
The SNP is a political party. It is also the party of government. They are not “playing politics”. They do it for real.
You make the assumption, based on nothing more than your own prejudice and determination to ignore the facts, that there is a decision in need of defending. The reality which either eludes or is evaded is that there was no decision because there was no choice. The Scottish Government, or its agencies, cannot award contract to firms that either don’t exist or have not tendered.
That the relevant steel production capacity no longer exists in Scotland is a fact. As is the observation that this capacity was lost as a direct result of the economic policies pursued by successive right-wing Tory and Labour governments. Simply stating the facts is not talking Scotland down. Talking Scotland down would involve representing this lack as being due some innate inadequacy of our nation and people. You will find no shortage of illustrative examples if you but look to the utterances of any unionist politician.
#58 by Iain Menzies on April 6, 2012 - 8:27 pm
Nice to see you on message.
And they are playing politics. As in acting out of their own self interest not that of Scotland.
Where is the SNP plan to rebuild Scotlands steel capacity?
#59 by Peter A Bell on April 7, 2012 - 1:56 pm
You clearly aren’t interested in the facts. Merely the same old mindless lashing out at the SNP that is just about all we see from the increasingly desperate BritNats. Put your blinkers to work avoiding these:
“No Scottish firms bid to supply the huge amount of raw steel required by a project of this scale…” – Transport Scotland http://bit.ly/Hv5VEQ
“It was confirmed that Tata Steel only played “an indirect” role in tendering for the supply of steel plate for the project. Contrary to misleading speculation, there were no Scottish bids for FCBC’s steel fabrication subcontracts. Tata Steel’s plant in Motherwell manufactures steel plate, it is not a steel fabricator.” – Statement on behalf of Minister for Transport Keith Brown and Tata Steel http://bit.ly/Hv6wGy
#60 by Iain Menzies on April 7, 2012 - 10:50 pm
And what does that have to do with my question?
#61 by Peter Lynch on April 5, 2012 - 7:43 pm
Well, Scottish products can be found if you look for them. Oddly enough, in recent years local supermarkets have made a virtue of stocking local produce – M and S was doing it with my local whisky, Deanston. If we just take beer – one of Mr Brown’s positive legacies was tax breaks for small brewers. So, if you wander into Tesco you will find loads from Orkney, Alloa, Cairngorm, Black Isle, Harviestoun, Inveralmond and more. And, if you want other Scottish products you just have to persevere – you won’t get them all the time, but will especially when in season, tatties, strawberries, carrots, rasps, etc.
#62 by scottish_skier on April 5, 2012 - 7:55 pm
My local tesco and asda in Galashiels are well into the whole scottish thing; Saltires on every product and huge ones proudly displayed on the facade. I guess they have discovered it sells well…
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/11548705.jpg
I am partial to a bit of wensleydale. Is that letting the side down 😉
#63 by DundeeScot on April 6, 2012 - 1:29 pm
I actively make an effort to buy Scottish. Scottish meat, veg and alcohol mainly. Also boycott any products that display a Union flag or symbol of the monarchy.
Lidl seem to have “Proud to serve Scotland” in all their shops.
#64 by HenBroon on April 7, 2012 - 9:48 am
Going to school in the 60s, I became aware of the lack of Scottish products in every day use. My pencil had “Made in England” stamped on it, as did my ruler, my jotters, my eating utensils, my drinking cup, the bottles my milk came in, the furniture, it seemed to me that I could not lift any item that had “Made in Scotland ” stamped on it. “Sheffield steel” was on every thing, but no Scottish steel, l asked a teacher in our “current affairs” class about this, who seemed to regard me as a trouble maker from then on. We were discouraged from making such observations.
My secondary education took place under the shadow of “The Mannie” yet I would not hear of the Highland Clearances until I left school and became more aware of real life.
Their is a lot of damage to be undone in Scotland.
#65 by Peter A Bell on April 8, 2012 - 11:02 am
Type your comment here
That is what your prejudices bid you hear. But it is not what is being said. All Transport Scotland says (Not the SNP!) is that no firms in Scotland bid for certain supply contracts because no firms in Scotland have the necessary production capacity. Nothing complicated about that. It’s just the plain facts of the matter.
And, notwithstanding these facts, it remains true that the bulk of supply and service contract are being in Scotland. If there is any “spin” here it is from those, like yourself, who want to deny the reality in order to serve their own agenda. – http://bit.ly/HmLMOa
#66 by Edward Burns on April 10, 2012 - 7:40 pm
I pass the SECC frequently and I see most of the lorries delivering steel for the new stadium thing come from abroad. More foreign steel. I’ve forgotten: why was it that we closed Ravenscraig again? Please check out my website – cartoon re new Forth bridge in my April news page.