The debate over the economic future of Scotland is ratcheting up.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies – an independent think tank – weighed into the debate on Monday with the publication of its Scottish independence: The Fiscal Context report.
The headline was as follows: a post independence Scotland would face a ‘fiscal gap’ of 1.9% – a rate more than twice that of the wider UK.
For the economically uninitiated (in all honesty, the majority of the population), the IFS gave a laymans view of what that ‘gap’ meant in reality.
They said that a future Scottish Government under independence would be faced with the choice of an 8% uplift in taxes or a similar cut in public spending in order to balance the books.
That is not what Mr Salmond and co wanted to hear exactly 10 months out from the referendum vote on September 18 next year.
Twenty four hours later, Mr Salmond and man-with-the-pursestrings John Swinney were centre stage at Dundee University setting out a major new economic paper on independence and how it could boost Scotland’s economy.
The duo have long argued that prosperity north of the border is strangled by the Westminster millstone weighing around its neck. And this was their latest opportunity to ram home that point to the electorate.
Mr Swinney used the event to lay out how he would manipulate Scotland’s increased economic powers under independence in order to leverage growth and create jobs.
He insisted Scotland was a wealthy country – he often uses the aside that Scotland is the eighth wealthiest nation on the planet per capita – and perhaps more importantly would remain so under the SNP’s stewardship post independence.
The flurry of activity comes a week ahead of the long-awaited publication of the White Paper on Scottish Independence – the definitive document on the reshaping of the nation in the event of a yes vote – which will further drill down on the SNP’s economic vision for a post-split Scotland.
The Scottish business community – and the wider public for that matter – have long been calling for more information on independence in order to inform their decision.
That information is now coming thick and fast and no matter what political viewpoint you hold, there will be an economic case to suit.
If my tuppence is worth anything, I tend to take reports of all political colours – and in the case of the IFS, none – with the proverbial pinch of salt as future economic forecasting is fraught with danger and uncertainty.
Just ask the Office for Budget Responsibility who regularly predict, revise then predict again how they see the fortunes of the UK in three or six months time, let alone after a seismic political shift such as the referendum.
Some of the IFS economic modelling gives predictions decades into the future – a timescale for which it is impossible to forecast with any accuracy at all.
As I was preparng this article, a colleague pointed out a snippet from The Courier’s archives of 25 years ago when Thatcher’s government of the day were under pressure after inflation shot up to 6.4% and mortgage interest rates rose to an eye-watering 12.75%.
Chancellor Nigel Lawson and shadow employment secretary Michael Meacher were going toe-to-toe over the future direction of the economy.
As they stood across the great divide in the House of Commons, could they really have foreseen the UK property and digital bubbles, the collapse of the banks and the greatest economnic depression for decades in the few years ahead? Of course not, they could only deal in the here and now.
The respective economic records of the SNP and their political opponents in the referendum debate can and should be scrutinised for weaknesses and strengths in their stewardship.
People can draw from that what they will in terms of the fitness of a particular party to steer the economic ship in the years ahead – independent or not.
But as for sweeping economic forecasts of how Scotland or the United Kingdom will fare in years ahead, you can place me in the sceptical camp.
I simply cannot give a huge amount of store to ‘what might be’ arguments over something so crucial.