By derekscott1953

Richard Murphy’s argument (above) demonstrates why the independence debate needs two sets of numbers, not one.

1. What is Scotland’s fiscal position inside the UK?

GERS addresses that. We may argue about some of the assumptions, and its origins in the 1990s, but Scottish Governments do not disassociate from the analysis. Maybe they should in future in order to move this debate on?

2. What would Scotland’s fiscal position be outside the UK?

That’s the estimated calculation Murphy says matters, but his articles and videos never try to provide it.

I accept if we were facing another referendum or at least a far more mature debate on Scotland’s options, we’d expect a sort of “white paper” attempting to answer that second calculation.

Professor Murphy’s evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee on 19 September 2017, during its inquiry into Scottish economic data,
as set out in the official Scottish Parliament transcript, contains the following passage.

(Murphy was being questioned by Jackie Baillie about his claim that GERS understated Scottish revenue. He was asked how large the correction might be.)

Murphy replied that, based on his proposed accounting approach, it might amount to “a couple of percentage points or so of the stated Scottish deficit”, but then explicitly qualified this by saying:

“we are using estimates and very rough-and-ready stuff that was done on the basis of blogging, not on the basis of doing a lot of deep searching. I am not pretending that I have done that.”

That is, in my view, one of the weaknesses in his argument.

He is very good at demonstrating that GERS isn’t an independence prospectus.

He is less good at demonstrating what his preferred alternative or a researched “white paper” could produce as a different, hopefully better, fiscal position for Scotland.