Thread by @iaindocherty

So I have acquired a copy of the ‘neverendum’ property investment article that has been doing the rounds in the press since Sunday. It is *very* unusual for an academic article to be trailed to the press before it is actually published and therefore available to read.

1/n

Here’s what’s actually in it…

The intro sections search for previous instances that might be comparable with Scotland and the independence/Brexit context. Aside from the breakup of the USSR and Czechoslovakia, the intro focuses on The Troubles in Northern Ireland, and Quebec.

The latter is a reasonable comparison, there having been literature on the economic impacts of the sovereignty referendum there. *But* none of this literature is mentioned. Indeed, the main reference cited is a BBC News report, from which the ‘neverendum’ term is lifted.

3/n

Indeed, this BBC report is cited again as an apparently authoritative analysis of the state of Quebecois constitutional politics. The other two references to the Quebec example are also journalistic rather than academic sources.

4/n

There are references to the housing market in NI, but the author seems completely unaware that the housing market there is really quite geographically segregated according to political affiliation/religion.

5/n

There then follows a summary section of the political context in Scotland before and after the Indyref.

6/n

“SNP had had 3 years to drive the agenda for what agreed was a once in generation decision. The result of the election appeared decisively against ind(y) with 55% voting ‘no’. No sooner was the vote over that the SNP leader declared that no voters had been tricked or misled.”

(You can make your own mind up about the choice of words in that section.)

7/n

Next is some commentary on the Scottish economy. The author notes that “GDP per capita in Scotland is generally near the average of the regions of the UK while its unemployment rate is below average.”

8/n

(I think what he means here is that the Scottish GDP average is near that for the UK as a whole, but that’s not clear from the phrasing.)

9/n

Then there is the notable sentence that Scotland’s export profile “reflects the integration of the UK and Scottish economies, the culmination of three centuries of assimilation.” Interesting choice of words again.

10/n

By this point I was wondering about the study methodology. But there is no method section in the paper. And no wonder. The data the conclusions are based on are annual summary documents from Edinburgh and Glasgow city councils and–wait for it–FIVE interviews with real estate ppl.

Even then, only four out of these five completed the investment sentiment question asked of them. We are told nothing of who these people are, or what their own political affiliations etc might be.

12/n

The numbers presented are very thin indeed and don’t do much to support the author’s hypothesis. ‘Analysis’ ends in 2017, and assertions are made about tiny numbers of large developments. Narrative would be completely upended if timeline extended to include eg Barclays/St James.

Broader overall property investment numbers correspond to the economic cycle. They do however show strong growth in overseas investment in Scotland since 2016 (which to be fair the author points to). Draw your own conclusions as to why this wasn’t the headline in the papers

14/n

The ‘killer’ table in the paper that attempts to underpin its entire argument is about a small (12.5-50 basis points) difference in yields between Edinburgh and Glasgow that emerged in 2013.

15/n

But there is only a single comparison made to try and justify this as the result of the ‘Neverendum’… between E&G and Birmingham and Manchester.

16/n

This is where the paper falls down completely for me. Even if the yield measure is a robust approach, why only two English cities? Why *these* two cities?

17/n

(An aside: if the yield numbers comparing E&G to two different English cities were in the opposite direction, would this be evidence of a ‘neverendum’ or independence dividend?)

18/n

The paper is completely blind to two critical issues: first that there has been published work on the differential regional impact of Brexit, and second that Birmingham and Manchester are the two locations outside London that will benefit most from the single largest UK/

19/n

/ infrastructure project in living memory: HS2.

20/n

(Whatever you think about HS2 overall, it is pretty incontrovertible that it will transform the commercial property markets of the inner urban zones around the new main stations… which just happen to be in Birmingham and Manchester city centres.)

21/n

So there we have it. A story all over the press that relies on the conjecture of 4/5 people of whom we know nothing, numbers that don’t provide much back up for the central assertion – and that run out before recent major investments contradicting the central argument.

22/n

It also doesn’t consider at least 2 other highly material impacts and makes no attempt to disaggregate the discrete impact of each.

23/n

To be fair, the author does point out that "Overseas investors saw investment in Scotland in pan-European terms and in this context the political risk of independence is very low.”

24/n

But did this make it into the press release? Why not explore the overseas dimension rather than hang the whole paper around the personal views of 4/5 people in the UK?

25/n

So sorry... but if I’d been #referee3 for this, I’m afraid it wouldn’t have got anywhere near a journal, never mind a newspaper.

26/26

ENDS.

*between Edinburgh/Glasgow and an English city pair (sorry)