Ohh I know its the Daily Record but it does point out the massive difference between Scotlands tax earnings and the money spent here (or on its behalf)..
No doubt Jagz will be along (or not) to argue that the SG's own figures are wrong and cite Wings over Scotland as his source
As oil revenues fall it looks as if SNP are avoiding debate on economics of independent Scotland
On Wednesday, SNP MSP Joan McAlpine used her column in this paper to attempt to cast doubt on her own Scottish Government’s GERS figures, the official numbers that tell us how Scotland’s economy performs.
When oil was booming, McAlpine and her SNP colleagues were quick to quote GERS figures as proof that Scotland was a wealthy country, so this U-turn might seem surprising.
If McAlpine’s column represents an approved party line, it looks an awful lot as if the SNP are trying to avoid an honest debate about the economic challenges an independent Scotland would now face.
It would be like the big tobacco companies who, when faced with solid evidence of the link between smoking and cancer, focused on questioning the science and placing doubt in peoples’ minds.
When facts are your enemy, confusion and doubt are your friends.
To be fair, we’ve yet to see the leadership of the SNP suggest that we can’t trust our own government’s figures - but we’ve also yet to see them shut-down those within their own party who, like Joan, seem to be becoming GERS-deniers.
Maybe the SNP hierarchy think a bit of doubt and confusion is helpful?
So let’s look at McAlpine’s claims more closely. She incorrectly refers to GERS as “the UK Treasury’s understanding” of Scotland’s economy; she really should know that in fact they represent the Scottish Government’s understanding. So how can she suggest her own Government’s figures are “absurd”?
She relies entirely on the wild-eyed claims of one Professor Richard Murphy. He’s a chartered accountant and the self-proclaimed architect of “Corbynomics” - but let’s not worry about his CV, let’s worry about whether what he said is true.
Those hoping to foster confusion and doubt would be delighted for people like me to fill column inches explaining why Murphy is wrong.
That way they stop us talking about what the figures actually tell us. McAlpine’s advice to people being presented with inconvenient truths was hardly subtle: “throw three words at them: Professor Richard Murphy”.
Who needs to deal with facts when you’ve been taught the name of a tame professor who gives you permission to ignore them?
For what it’s worth, Murphy clearly doesn’t understood the GERS figures. He doesn’t realise that the Scottish Government compile our export data, so it isn’t “the UK Government making this up”.
Expert predicts IndyRef2 date for 2021 after correctly guessing Brexit result
He fails to grasp that it’s the Scottish Government’s Chief Economist who decides on the assumptions behind the GERS figures, so nothing is “what the UK Government decides it should be”.
I explain more of his mistakes on my blog (“Chokkablog”), but his biggest error is to claim that the figures can’t be trusted simply because estimates are used.
I asked a couple of exceptionally well qualified economics professors to comment on Murphy’s claims and you can see what they had to say on this page.
Put simply: nearly all economic statistics are estimates, but to be qualified as National Statistics (as GERS are) the figures have to be shown to be trustworthy. End of discussion.
So let’s focus instead on why some Yes supporters now want to deny the economic reality described in GERS - what are they so desperate to distract you from?
Well the figures effectively tell us four things:
Firstly they tell us how much tax revenue the Scottish economy generates from our current economic activity and the taxes we’re all used to paying: income tax, VAT, council tax and the like.
Secondly they tell us how much money is spent to deliver the public services we’re all used to receiving. So that’s things like health, education, pensions, social welfare, policing and so on.
Thirdly they show how much it costs us if we pay our population share of expenses incurred for the benefit of the UK as a whole - mainly defence, debt interest and international affairs.
Finally they show what happens if you take that revenue and subtract those costs. In the most recent year that shows we’d be in the red by £15bn – that’s the infamous £15bn “Scottish deficit”.
Of course that wouldn’t actually be Scotland’s deficit if we were independent, but all credible economists and responsible politicians (and even the SNP) use the GERS figures as the starting point to work out what an independent Scotland’s figures might look like.
So, for example, we could assume we’d spend £0.6bn less than we’re currently allocated of UK-wide costs (like defence) and we could assume we’ll generate £7.9bn a year of oil revenue.
That’s what the SNP’s Independence White Paper did last time round. They based our ability to maintain public spending on a reckless gamble about oil revenues. In fact, oil revenues this year will be approximately zero.
If you understand GERS the implication is clear: to survive as an independent country, Scotland would have to make dramatic spending cuts, cuts far more painful than any “Westminster austerity” we’ve seen to date.
Are the SNP prepared to be honest about the price we’d all pay for independence? If they allow high profile MSPs like Joan McAlpine to publicly rubbish their own figures, it’s surely not a good sign.
In the interest of honest and informed debate, let’s hope the SNP leadership condemn those who pretend we don’t know basic facts about our economy and instead face the difficult truths those facts reveal.