I have already noted my submission of evidence to the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee of the Scottish Parliament on the quality of Scottish Economic Data. Given that I will be appearing before the committee I have now, at least briefly, read all the other submissions. Some I will ignore, not because they are not interesting but because they do not touch on the issues in which I am interested but focus instead on local economic data in Scotland. Another, from Common Weal, I will; look at separately because it is so distinct from all the others. My concern here focuses on GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) data, as did my own submission. In this respect the most important submissions in my opinion are those of Margaret Cuthbert, The Fraser of Allander Institute, The Scottish Fiscal Commission and 4-Consulting, who advised the committee. I apologise to those omitted: there is not time to review them all here.
Margaret Cuthbert provides, to me, the most amusing submission, and in some ways the most telling. She says in her summary of that submission:
Despite the appalling and verging on ignorant comment by Richard Marsh in the Sunday Herald that “GERS data is what I technically describe as crap”, GERS data continues to improve. The original quality of the data was comprehensively examined line by line in 1977 and thereafter statisticians in the Scottish Government have made considerable efforts with UK departments to work with them and obtain reliable estimates for Scotland.
In a strange way she makes my case for me. First, the review was in 2007: GERS did not exist in 1977. Second, I made the comment about 'crap' (which I carefully defined as 'completely rubbish approximations') that she says is ignorant . Richard Marsh is director of 4-Consulting. Marsh is a 'crap' (completely rubbish approximation) to Murphy, just as 1977 is to 2007. I am aware, of course, that it could be said that I am nitpicking in saying so, but I am doing so for a reason. The evidence is clear that approximations will not always do. They no more than inadvertently undermine what Margaret Cuthbert has to say here; they massively undermine GERS for reasons I have already explained.
Nor am I in the slightest bit apologetic for using the term crap, to which Margaret (who I have never met) takes offence, I suspect on the grounds that she has been invested in the GERS process. I used it to highlight an issue to draw political and public attention to the significance of a concern that requires the focus of the parliament and the Scottish media. If by doing so the issue got more attention - and the comment reached the front page of the Sunday Herald - I call that a success. I have been involved in the process of seeking change on dry technical issues for a long time. The comment was not ignorant or appalling: it served a purpose and I am unapologetic for that. Sometimes effecting change requires a lack of subtlety: that's the nature of political economics.
What is more it is a purpose Margaret Cuthbert clearly supports. As she says in her submission:
However, it is time to assess what the Scottish Parliament needs as its powers continue to grow. This is particularly the case as the fiscal settlement holds many ill-advised conditions that will now face Scotland.
The first problem is the publication of data by NDPBs and their offshoots where it is nigh on impossible to find out how the data given are derived. What checks are being made by the relevant central government departments on the quality of the data and its definitional fit with main government statistical data regarding the economy?
Second, there are departments within the Scottish government that produce statistics where it is difficult to understand what the statistics actually mean, where it is difficult to get a handle from the staff themselves on the meaning of the data, and it is therefore wide open for reporters and non-government researchers to get the wrong picture.
Third, there are departments and NDPBs which produce statistics that are equivalent to their turning a handle year after year, and where the statistics given shine no light on the performance of Scotland, particularly with relation to where the government says it wants to be going.
Fourth, and possibly due to policy groups within government, the frontline publications covering economic matters have tended to become glossies showing how well the government is doing.
And, finally, there is the personal experience that statistics collected, collated and analysed do not appear to be given due importance when the policy makers set to and devise their policies. It is difficult to find mention in the published policy documents of detail of how, in describing the creation of new policies and their implementation, the policy people have been using statistics to help define their policy, or how they are going to collect and publish statistics to monitor and evaluate their policies.
The role of both economics and statistics in the Scottish Government needs to be substantially extended. There is a need for a strong central statistics unit that is capable of fighting its corner for resources and relevant place in the decision making of policy, and the necessary schedule of monitoring and evaluation.
What can I say? We seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet, especially given the comments in my own submission, noted here. I'd almost say that, despite her comment about me, we're in harmony in saying that the data is just not good enough, because her evidence is that it clearly is not. She also agrees with Common Weal on the need for a statistics unit, which I endorse.
Let me move to the Fraser of Allander Institute then. They say:
Significant progress has been made since devolution to improve the coverage and quality of economic statistics in Scotland. Scotland is much better served than the other devolved nations (and English regions) in terms of economic statistics. However, there is work still to be done. In particular —
ï‚· There are a number of gaps — for example, we lack robust statistics on things like Gross National Income, capital investment, inter-regional trade and prices that independent governments would routinely collect.
ï‚· Some of the data that underpin core elements of Scottish economic statistics rely upon apportionment of UK figures rather than bottom-up Scottish-specific data. Whilst this is understandable given resource constraints, more be-spoke estimates would be beneficial.
ï‚· Like the UK as a whole, there remain ongoing challenges in sampling and response rates to surveys. Some response rates — e.g. the Labour Force — are falling whilst for others — e.g. the Living Cost and Food Survey — the sample size for Scotland is small.
The Scottish Government should be commended for investing in a distinctly ‘Scottish' economic statistics unit in government. Further investment would be welcome however, particularly in the light of the new economic and fiscal powers coming to Holyrood.
New investment on its own will not deliver the step-change that many people would like to see. For this, other reforms — for example around how UK businesses report their activities — would be needed. At the same time, as ONS continue to make better use of administrative data it is important that data sharing and access arrangements are established to enable the Scottish Government to also benefit from these reforms.
Let's be clear about this. What the FAI is saying is that there are serious gaps in Scottish economic data, and what data there is may not be Scottish data at all, but apportionments of unknown quality from the UK, whilst many of the estimates used may be unreliable because of small sample sizes. I hate to suggest that they're agreeing with what I said, but candidly I cannot see that any other conclusion can be reached. And they do in fact imply support for many of the recommendations I make in my submission on improving data capture: I just spell it out in detail and they do not.
I also think it important to note just what the FAI say really is missing:
That being said, there are a number of important gaps.
ï‚· Gross National Income (GNI) — is arguably a preferable measure of economic prosperity than GDP. This has only been produced once — on an experimental basis — for Scotland. GNI is particularly difficult to measure and will require a much better understanding of how income is produced and distributed across the Scottish economy. Data on financial flows in and out of Scotland are largely unknown. We have for example, despite its importance in the policy landscape, very little in the way of robust data on international investment (FDI) to Scotland.
ï‚· Prices — there are no separate price indices for Scotland. This is a limitation in compiling real-terms series such as trends in earnings, poverty or changes in government budgets.
ï‚· Imports — there are only limited official estimates of imports to Scotland from overseas or the UK. In the National Accounts, rather than being measured directly they are estimated as a balancing (residual) item. ï‚· Capital investment — there is little in the way of data on investment for Scotland either in the aggregate or by sector.
ï‚· Treatment of the North Sea — the Scottish Government has invested significantly to improve its coverage of the North Sea. This has included more robust estimates of the share of revenues raised from the profits of offshore oil and gas operators, output, investment and exports. However, much less is known about the linkages between the onshore and offshore Scottish economies.
ï‚· Longitudinal data — there is very limited data on a longitudinal basis of Scottish households — particularly in terms of issues like income, wealth and spending
If I might be blunt, what that really admits is that much of the key data required to appraise the macroeconomy of Scotland simply does not exist. And to go back to my very first comment on GERS, in March this year, that cannot be by chance: someone in London decided not to supply that information. We again seem to be in remarkable agreement.
So what about the Scottish Fiscal Commission? From April 2017 the Scottish Fiscal Commission has been responsible for producing the independent and official economic and fiscal forecasts for Scotland that will support Parliament's Budget process. They say:
ï‚· In general, the statistics available for Scotland are more comprehensive than available in other countries and regions of the UK and this is to be welcomed.
ï‚· We accept that the depth and breadth of available economic statistics are to some extent limited by the surveys that are conducted in Scotland on both the household and business side. These surveys could be expanded, or the way data is collected could be changed, but this is an expensive and long-term ambition, and may have implications for burden on businesses.
ï‚· Given the information that is available, and accepting the uncertainty inherent in it, the Commission strongly encourages the Scottish Government to produce more information in certain instances which would support the Commission's activities.
ï‚· We believe more could also be gained by considering statistics that could be published by the ONS based on existing surveys, and again this is something the Scottish Government should be pursuing.
ï‚· The Scottish Government should also seek to access administrative data, such as that held by HMRC, to ensure that the statistics produced are the best quality possible given the limitations on the survey data collected.
To the first comment, I admit I just despair of the data available elsewhere. To the others, yet again it seems that the points I have made are agreed: there are poor approximations, limited surveys and limited data access available to support what information Scotland gets. I hate to say that the result might be what I define as 'crap', but I think that possible.
And so to 4-Consulting. They say in the summary to their report:
It‟s likely that Scottish Government statisticians would describe themselves as more opportunistic, but relatively powerless, statistical scavengers. It is important that Scotland takes up the challenge laid down by the Bean Review and looks at new approaches to develop the next generation of economic statistics.
Do I need add more?
In summary, I inadvertently joined this debate and seem to have helped fuel it since doing so. I do not regret that fact, if it is true. During it I have been subject to considerable criticism. That seems to be continuing, as noted above. Back in March in my first comment on this issue I made these points on Scottish economic data:
Why might the data be misstated? First, there simply isn't enough data to reliably estimate Scottish GDP. We have no figures for where sales take place in the UK, for example. VAT returns are an utterly unreliable source for this: a UK company does not submit data separately on sales in Scotland from elsewhere. The same is largely true on spending. So forget Scottish GDP data: we just don't know what it is.
Then there are tax revenues. That VAT point still stands. And the truth is Scottish Revenue are struggling to be sure who is resident in Scotland whilst on corporation tax there is no way of knowing where revenues are earned at present. And so on.
So we come to spending. The allocation of government spending to Scotland will be arbitrary: how much defence should it pay, for example? Or interest? The arbitrary areas will be too great for this number to really be reliable.
In which case what of Scottish imports and exports? Let's be blunt: no one has a clue what crosses the borders from Scotland to England and Northern Ireland. These numbers are literally made up in that case.
So two further issues, both serious. One is Westminster could pretty much manipulate this data at will. And two, nothing will be the same if Scotland leaves: a government of an independent Scotland will have a very different structure to that imposed now.
My point? Simply this: if there is to be meaningful debate on this issue then the SNP have a lot of work to do to produce best possible data.
The reference to the SNP is as the government as well as the party. What I can say now is that the submissions made to this committee suggest that I was right to make those comments in March and that, as I said then, a lot more work is needed to produce reliable data. I trust that those who have said otherwise (who did not seem keen to submit evidence, I note, despite having the opportunity to do so) will now rest their case. Let's move on and discuss what might be done about it, as I did in my submission.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I’d just add that the SNP, or any Scottish Government, also have a lot of work to do persuading the UK Government to release key data that is desperately needed.
The SNP made sensible proposals for amendment of the Scotland Act 2016 during its passage through the HoC. Given that those proposals were ignored, and treated with something approaching contempt, getting agreement on data provision may be a forlorn hope.
Your efforts have certainly moved a lot of sceptics, as you have outlined above, and it is now accepted that actual data is required in many areas, GERS included.
However, the UK Government have a vested interest in the status quo to avoid any possibility that the fiscal case for Scottish independence would be improved. They will try to argue that the cost of providing the correct data would be high. However, we already have an example to hand. I assume the identification of Scottish income tax payers will succeed. The ongoing cost of gathering the data will then presumably be low, and all the time and effort previously expended in providing a (possibly spurious) estimate for the purposes of GERS was wasted.
However, income tax data had to be provided since the Scottish Government now have (some limited) control. This is not true for the other large revenue streams, and provision of actual data on those may require greater cost.
I would be more optimistic if a data error of significance could be proven to everyone’s satisfaction. Perhaps that is the next challenge. Income tax is again the obvious example. Assuming the identification issue is resolved, any statistician worth his or her salt would be desperate to check the result against the methodology previously used in GERS, and the much vaunted (but unjustified as far as I can see) confidence intervals. Failure to check that would be ludicrous.
An error outside the quoted 95% confidence interval would not prove the case, but would give further cause for concern since the methodologies used to estimate VAT and Corporation Tax are much more fanciful. It would then strengthen the case for provision of actual data.
George,
As I understand it, Revenue Scotland will be responsible for administering only an element of standard rate income tax, with the remainder of standard rate and all of higher rate tax remaining the responsibility of HMRC. Also, as far as I understand it, the issues around defining domicile for “S” code numbers are still unresolved, so allocations and apportionments are going to affect the income tax statistics for some time, and, given the propensity of the UK bureaucratic machine for inertia, possibly for the foreseeable future.
Like you I’d expect the domicile issue to be sorted quickly, but it seems to have been dragging on for a considerable time. Perhaps someone with more current knowledge of tax than I can tell us what the specifics are?
I share your understanding Ken
I think this issue from from resolved
Hi Ken,
There does appear to be a problem defining who should be a Scottish income tax payer, which seems to be about the definition of “main residence” – but why? Surely HMRC are expert in determining main residence for the purposes of non-dom status, and that would just be extended to distinguish Scottish residence? I know Richard has had a keen interest in the non-dom topic, so perhaps he could comment.
The problem has been known since the point at which they knew the SRIT was coming into effect, i.e. well before 6 April 2016, so you’d think it could have been sorted by now.
The Scottish Government was responsible for setting ALL the income tax bands and rates (not the Personal Allowance) that apply from 6 April 2017. However, all of the income tax due from Scottish residents is administered and collected by HMRC on behalf of Revenue Scotland, and that is set to continue. There are some complications due to things like marriage allowance and the rules for tax credits, but I don’t think that causes any problems – and again HMRC are responsible.
HMRC retain responsibility for sending out all tax codes, in this case with the appended “S”, so it is their responsibility to determine who is Scottish. That was true for SRIT and remains true now. I wonder if there’s an “estimate” of how much of the tax due for 2016-17 under SRIT was not allocated properly to Scotland?
HMRC is not only responsible – it is being paid by the Scottish Government to administer the system. If they have not been getting it right, we should get a refund of the cost, plus interest on the sum overdue. Perhaps also a penalty for late payment. 😉
I don’t know if you’re aware of this already, but this subject is another where you share an unlikely confluence of opinion with your chum Merryn Somerset-Webb. She said of GERS:
“This brings me to the second most missed point in the debate so far: the fact that all the numbers everyone uses to make the financial argument are no more than rough guesses.
The Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) numbers come in a long and boring document. But the good news for those of us who have to read these things is that you don’t have to spend much time looking to realise that you don’t have to spend much time looking at them.
Why? Let’s look at the revenue numbers, since understanding the tax that Scotland will be able to pull in from 2015 onwards is pretty vital to figuring out how successful any devolution can be.
According to GERS, total revenues in Scotland from 2007 to 2011 came in at 8.3% of UK GDP every year. They fell a little in the most recently available numbers to 8.2%, but you get the idea.
GERS then adds in a number for the oil revenues that Scotland might have if it were independent and comes up with a number of somewhere between 9.3% and 9.7% every year (9.7% being the most recent number)….
I asked James Ferguson of The MacroStrategy Partnership to have a closer look at this for me for the simple reason that the numbers appear remarkably convenient: the Scottish population is about 8.3% of the UK population and the Scottish share of UK total managed expenditure is about 9.5%, so these numbers have Scotland raising and spending what looks like exactly the right amounts.
His response was pretty straightforward. He points us towards the notes to the numbers which say that, save for a few local revenues, “separate identification of most other revenues for Scotland is not possible. GERS therefore uses a number of different methodologies to apportion tax revenues to Scotland. In doing so, there are often theoretical and practical challenges in determining an appropriate share to allocate to Scotland. In certain cases, a variety of alternative methodologies could be applied each leading to different estimates.”
It is, says Ferguson, a “pretty blatant case of starting with the answer and working out the more granular line-by-line ‘estimates’ backwards”.
No economic figures are entirely accurate, but this is different: the basic revenue numbers are more or less guesswork, to which is added an so far entirely un-negotiated share of UK oil revenues.
So there you go. I’m giving you one less thing to think about: you can now happily ignore all the financial arguments for a separate Scotland on the basis that no one knows what they actually are.”
Curiously the article can no longer be found on the Money Week website, although the Financial Times (where it was first published) still carries it.
I admit I disagree with her on most things, but there have to be occasions….and this is clearly one of them
The question now is why is this even a matter for debate in Scotland?
Easy for her to arrange for it to be deleted on Money Week.
Probably done when she was on the board of Scotland in Union. I think she left when she realised they are a bit nuts.
I read the Somerset-Webb article first time round. It makes the points well. The methodology notes to GERS effectively provide support to the critics of the GERS data. I wish the defenders of GERS would actually read the methodology notes carefully, and think about it: but the rote repetition of very bad arguments must cease. It was baffling and remains baffling that there is resistance to the fair arguments made by the critics of GERS methodology’s case.
Those who were involved in producing the GERS figures may feel a need to justify the GERS method case, because they may feel they are being personally criticised. Rather, I think most critics believe they were carrying out their task diligently; but that they were, as professionals, making the best of a bad job; producing the best information they could through the ingenious use of indirect statistics, without having been given the resources to provide the real data. We understand; but they should now desist defending the indefensible.
As for the Scottish Government’s acquiescence in the GERS process; it was understandable in the beginning of their period in office, when it was all they had, and they were attempting to demonstrate their managerial competence and professionalism to the Scottish public. It would not have been politically acceptable to the electorate, if the SNP had thrown its hands in the air and said, ‘this is meaningless, and hopeless’. But that was then and this is now. The Scottish public’s credulity regarding both the competence and candour of Westminster (on which Westminster has for too long relied) has waned; for good reason.
It is understandable that the GERS data is used for practical purposes, especially where Westminster resists providing the facts (for whatever reason), but I believe that the Scottish Government should have made more strenuous efforts to challenge the principles of GERS data capture, explain the problems it creates, and to seek other methods (spending money on researching the possibilities and the opportunities to do so now). Now would also be a good time to start on both these fronts.
John,
Re the Scottish Government’s acquiescence in the GERS process and at the risk of repeating myself once too often and being barred by Richard, I suggest the Scottish Government could either
(a) attach its own health warning to GERS outlining the inherent weaknesses, or
(b) ask Audit Scotland to report on the data, their sources and the methodologies underlying the resultant figures, or
(c) get GERS audited by a firm of professional accountants and see how they qualify their report, as no responsible accountant could certify GERS without qualification.
Any one of these would put the cat among the pigeons with a UK Government which is quite happy to continue with the annual charade of GERS and its bespoke-designed opportunity to attack the Scottish Government.
You’re welcome Ken
Another great piece of work Richard, GERS is wobbling, and in it’s present form, cannot survive. I would also like to say that your work on this acrimonious subject is well appreciated by many, many people.
Thank you
Appreciated
It’s a good job I was born thick skinned
Hi Ian,
Is you comment based on something recent or this Merryn Somerset Webb article in the FT from 16 May 2014?
https://archive.is/20170315134006/https://www.ft.com/content/d92b483c-dce1-11e3-ba13-00144feabdc0
It is indeed extracted from the FT article of 2014 (which is still on their website)
What gets me is that attention has been on “estimates”, so improve them. As a previous jobbing statistician I looked at “95% confidence interval” which means 5% is outside and maybe even wildly outside if it’s a normal curve, standard, peaked or flattened or even skewed. Others have looked at “non-identifiable”, and “extra-regio” and even that the figures are supplied by the anti-Indy Treasury.
And yet there it was hidden in plain view, right at the top of the GERS main webpage for methodology:
———————-
“The Basic Principles Underpinning the Methodology
The headline estimates of Scottish public sector expenditure and revenue in GERS embrace two key principles:
1. Public sector revenue is estimated for taxes where a financial burden is imposed on residents and enterprises in Scotland
2. Public sector expenditure is estimated on the basis of spending incurred for the benefit of residents and enterprises in Scotland”
———————-
I’m disgusted, too much chopping trees to look at the diseased forest, and it took a “minor insignifcant”, “failed”, “[insert derogatory term]” tax accountant of all people on this planet, to notice the real problem.
Are they back on that stuff again?
Hey ho.
To perhaps state the obvious, there is a lot of nonsense written about how difficult and costly it would be to collect data regarding how much business revenue is generated in Scotland. Whether your a retailer, an engineering company, clothing manufacturer or an oil company, whether your Head office is based in Scotland, or London, every single locations contribution, costs and profit per location is monitored and recorded.
Every oil rig is monitored on its production costs per barrel, and they will vary depending on location and difficulty of extraction. The oil and gas industry recently said that the extraction cost per barrel was now averaging £16 dollars a barrel, was that a guesstimate, I doubt it.
The point I’m making is that the information is there, its collected and its processed. It’s either not asked for, or its not shared.
The population share of oil revenue attributed to an Independent Scotland is just sheer nonsense.
Hi Ken Mathieson
Your suggestion… c) Get GERS audited by a firm of pro accountants… Would these people help? Their criticism seems self explanatory
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/public-sector/deloitte-uk-sots-devolved-governments-2016.pdf
So disappointing that Margaret Cuthbert appears to take a hostile view of your intervention. The Cuthberts did some good work in the early days in exposing the truly gross errors in GERS. Perhaps defensive as you imply.
I echo the support of Eddie Macdonald above. There are a great many people grateful for your perseverance and stamina. GERS is not for the faint-hearted. We shall be cheering you on at the committee and hoping that progress will be made at last.
I promise you that when I meet Margaret Cuthbert I will seek to build bridges.
Thanks for what you have to say
Steve,
Deloittes’ statement simply regurgitates the GERS data as it stands. They do not question the methodology and, as we’ve seen on this site a lot in recent weeks, it’s the methodology that needs forensic examination and fixing, not the role of the civil servants who have to apply that methodology.
The Deloittes’ statement would almost certainly be an uncommissioned opinion piece from which no fees would be earned. It is a different matter if they were to be appointed to audit GERS: they would be expected to certify whether GERS gives a true and fair view, and that could not be done without examining the underlying methodology and the robustness of assumptions. It is known that few of the GERS numbers derive from actual figures and that audit trail is non-existent for the bulk of them. In those circumstances, auditors will err on the side of caution, so I can’t see how they could issue a clean docket and risk suffering reputational damage.
My own preference would be for GERS to be audited by Audit Scotland as that keeps it *in house* and enables better control of fees, with the Scottish Government, civil service and interested independent specialists having input to the scoping of the exercise. This coterie could also propose changes to data collection and analysis to ensure more accurate and meaningful statements. These changes will be essential if Scotland becomes independent, but, even if that might be a long-term possibility, there is no sensible argument against more accuracy and probative audit trail now. After all, without reliable data and minimal power to amend economic drivers, how can any Scottish Government, whatever its political hue, be held accountable?
As a first step the Scottish Government should not accept GERS without themselves issuing a health warning about the quality and provenance of the numbers and the consequent dangers of relying on them for press articles, poitical statements etc.
I think for now the last para is key
The FoAI now have a partnership with Deloitte, which can give the FoAI access to business data.
https://www.sbs.strath.ac.uk/feeds/news.aspx?id=1310
What the significance of that could be, no idea.
Universities are encouraged to do such things
It’s ‘knowledge transfer’
I was thinking more that Deloitte could give an outside insight into GERS as an accounting tool, and if Graeme Roy could be convinced of the need to change the methodology of GERS to include spending FOR Scotland not made IN Scotland, i.e. the rest of the UK, Graeme Roy would be just the man to campaign for it and help make the neccessary adjustments, and in fact even get the FoAI to set up a real-time model of the Scottish economy (in project phases) with the help of Deloitte – similar but more encompassing to a model they might have had or have been working on back in the 70s via SCRI I think which I guess is now defunct. Both could make a name for themselves with such a joint project, totally independent of Government.
I think Deloitte will be engaged on microeconomic issues
Hi Ken,
Thanks for your reply. Econonics and finance isn’t an area I am knowledgeable in. I read things on this blog to try to improve that a little but the honest truth is I am a layman in this area. I thus regret to say I am unable to give a decent reply to the points you make. In hindsight perhaps I should’ve phrased my prev comment to say that in the report i refererred to above Deloitte say this:
“Commentators suggested that, under these conditions, Scotland would struggle to operate as an independent country. However, GERS data is produced for Scotland as part of the UK – it does not model scenarios for an independent Scotland in which the Scottish government would be enabled to make its own fiscal choices”.
That comment I do understand and feel is relevant.
Regards,
Steve
Hi Indyref2,
I am humbly surprised you recommend Graeme Roy. The Fraser of Allander Institute don’t exactly have a track record of political impartiality despite that being the image they want to project. There’s plenty info out there for you to search for yourself. Here though is just one piece highlighting among other things their links to Blairite Labour:-
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Fraser_of_Allander_Institute
This article below from Richard doesn’t have them covered in glory either and is another article re the long history of the FoAI looking to present GERS as credible.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/04/my-thanks-to-the-fraser-of-allander-for-agreeing-i-am-right-on-gers-now-lets-have-the-debate-on-what-to-do-about-it/
Let’s not forget the history of GERS. At the time it was created, in a leaked memo the then Secretary of State for Scotland Ian Lang wrote “I judge that [GERS] is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them.”
http://www.thenational.scot/comment/14870110.Michael_Fry__Controversial_financial_figures_are_failing_to_give_true_picture_of_taxes_and_expenditure_in_Scotland/
A vital technique in this of those looking to preserve the status quo is that the Fraser of Allander Institute present themselves as neutral despite evidence highlighting they are not. By appearing neutral this allows the likes of the BBC to make comments supporting GERS and the like by describing Fraser of Allander Institute as ‘Independent think tank’ when introducing the Fraser of Allander Institute’s latest propaganda. Among the highly commendable work Richard has done with his publications on Scottish economy is shining a questioning light on the FoAI. It will be very interesting to see / hear if anything comes from conversation between Richard and David Comerford mentioned in the above link.
Of course I am humbled to learn new things every day and interestedly wait to see what comes out this next.