when the SNP’s Growth Commission tried this exercise, they included New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong
at least this latest paper recognised how ridiculous those comparisons were and has dropped them
2/n
the arbitrary nature of this list is clear when you notice
1. they have now included Iceland (the Growth Commission didn’t as it does not qualifying as an IMF “advanced economy”)
and …
3/n
2. some IMF “advanced economies” in Europe have been arbitrarily excluded from the comparator set: Portugal, Greece, Czech Republic and Slovak Republic
4/n
so this “analysis” amounts to no more than choosing a set of countries that on some measures outperform the UK and pointing at them and saying “we could be them if only we were independent”
5/n
so this “conclusion” is nonsensical - it should read “a set of countries we selected based on being better performers on the metrics we’re looking at perform better on the metrics we’re looking at”
as for “the evidence suggests” - i’ll take time to read the full paper, but i’ll wager no consideration is given to what could be achieved by remaining within the UK with all the benefits that brings (currency, scale, fiscal security, UK single market) and using devolved powers
this same type of SNP “analysis” could be used to draw the “conclusion” that “the evidence suggests” if Scotland broke away from the UK our football team would be as good as Belgium’s
OK, so reading this in detail now - may make some observations as I go …
1/?
astonishing to not that in all of the graphs shown, in none of them has the Scottish Government bothered to even attempt to show data for Scotland (instead always showing whole UK)
that surely a massive problem in a paper that’s meant to be about Scotland’s future?
2/?
examples given of “substantial parts of the institutional infrastructure that an independent country would need” are laughable, including as they do the Scottish Fiscal Commission and Scottish National Investment Bank
these are hardly HM Treasury and the Bank of England
3/
here’s SNP Finance Secretary @_KateForbes in the National (print run sent to over 1m homes is Scotland) - there is simply no economically rational way to defend this statement, as anybody familiar with the Scottish Government’s GERS report would know (1/2)
what really rubs it in is this comes on the back of this statement by Sturgeon
The last blog was a long one, so here it is summarised as a 10 tweet thread
The focus is on latest GERS 2021 figures abs what they tell us about fiscal transfers (over time) between Scotland and the UK
1/11
an implied fiscal transfer exists between Scotland and the Uk because Scotland’s deficit per person is greater that we share with the UK
it was £12 billion last year & Scotland has consistently been a large beneficiary in recent years
2/11
i do realise some people struggle with the concept of the fiscal transfer - it’s worth taking a moment to understand (and it is most certainly *not* funded by borrowing Scotland is expected to bear the cost of)
1. glad to see a point that i’ve made in various blog posts now being made explicitly in the GERS commentary: there is a lot of expenditure *in* Scotland not captured by GERS
(1/n)
sub-text here is that claims made by the likes of the Growth Commission, Common Weal and Richard Murphy that Scotland could benefit by (net) transferring several billion of GERS spending from rUK to Scotland are hopelessly wide of the mark
the fact that proportionately so much more is spent in Scotland is not at all counter-intuitive - the commentary helpfully references the well-know fact that public spending “plays a larger role in Scotland”
“the general approach of the Growth Commission is one that I absolutely agree with, but the figures of course pre-date Covid .. and we have to take account of the changes around Covid”
“the underlying approach of the Growth Commission is one that i very much sign up to”
2/9
so what is the general and underlying approach of the Growth Commission which she “absolutely agrees with” and “very much signs up to”?
it is to get Scotland’s deficit below 3% in under 10 years by growing public spending more slowly than GDP