By Keith Aitken in Edinburgh | 16 November 2011
Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney has accused Chancellor George Osborne of trying to sabotage Scotland’s inward investment success by scaremongering over constitutional change.
The accusation, included in a terse personal letter, followed weekend claims by the chancellor that international businesses were unsettled by plans for a referendum on Scottish independence. It escalates an already intense war of words over the plans between politicians in Westminster and Edinburgh.
Speaking on the BBC’s Politics Show Scotland, Osborne claimed that he was being increasingly asked by major overseas businesses to ‘tell us what is going on in Scotland – we’re worried about making an investment in that country’.
Swinney responded that neither Osborne nor Scotland Office minister David Mundell had been willing, when challenged, to name a single company voicing such concerns.
By contrast, Swinney listed more than a dozen recent inward investments to Scotland, by firms such as Dell, Mitsubishi and Hewlett-Packard. In addition, Amazon opened its biggest UK distribution centre at Dunfermline this week – a one million square foot facility promising 750 permanent jobs and as many seasonal posts.
Swinney wrote: ‘Given that your comments are at variance with the facts… I have to put the question as to whether they were motivated by party political concerns expressed in England about Scotland’s success, with a view to sabotaging Scottish investment.’
Swinney quoted a recent Ernst & Young report, with a foreword by trade minister Lord Green, which named Scotland as the top UK destination for inward investment.
‘It would be a matter for grave concern if your negative comments about future investment in Scotland were motivated by lobbying from south of the border, complaining about Scottish success,’ Swinney wrote.
He noted that the prime minister has promised an ‘uplifting and optimistic case’ for retaining the Union: ‘To date, your pronouncement and those of other ministers do not reflect that pledge, but do raise serious questions about your government’s motivations.’
