I was pleased to note these headlines in an email from The National in Scotland over the weekend:
The David Simpson referred to in the articles was the founding director of the powerful Fraser of Allander Institute at the University of Strathclyde. This body is frequently seen as one of the main proponents of the notorious Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland statement these days, which I have spent so much time exposing as the farce that it is.
David Simpson's comments can be boiled down to three things.
The first is that there is no entity that can be accountable for the income and expenditure that is supposedly reflected in GERS. The Scottish government is not, and nor is the UK government in the way that the data is presented. So this stuff is, in that case, simply made up. There is no other polite way to put it.
Worse, to suggest that this has anything to do with the Scottish government is wrong: it has to balance its budget and does.
Third, in any event, the accounting used for the GERS statement is, as I have long argued CRAp, which stands for a 'completely rubbish approximation' to the truth, not least because of the inconsistent methodologies used.
What this then all means, as David argues, is that anyone using this statement to claim Scotland is running deficits, or cannot afford independence, or any other such line is simply wrong. A wholly artificial account created for a political goal cannot do anything except, perhaps, discredit those who created it.
Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland has to go. I am glad David Simpson has joined in with that call.
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 rather liked this quote from David Simpson – “Other examples of unwanted expenditure by Whitehall Departments include payments of benefits for unemployment created by UK Government policies, and expenditure incurred in pursuit of external trade treaties that disadvantage Scottish economic interests.”
Also, I see “He is currently working on an economic project aimed at identifying the “Price of Dependence””. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for collaboration?
I m not sure how to locate him….I could ask The National
He has left ‘quite a trail’ but, as you say, I guess the National would be happy to ask him –
“David Simpson is a graduate in economics of Edinburgh University and a Harvard PhD.
He worked as a research officer at Dublin’s Economic Research Institute, a lecturer at University College, London, a senior lecturer at Stirling University, and was a consultant to the World Bank.
He was the founding director of the Fraser of Allander Institute a think tank based at the University of Strathclyde, where he was Professor of Economics.” + he worked for Standard Life.
Delighted to see this, but somewhat perplexed. I have not read Simpson in the National (paywall), but I am, in the jargon, ‘trying to get my head round this’; from my recollection the Fraser of Allander (FoA) regularly trails in behind the GERS announcement without offering anything in the way of critical assessment, or that if it falls short of an endorsement, is at best Delphic on the fundamentals. I laso seem to recall Conservative MPs and MSPs quoting the FoA commentary, favourably; scarcely a position they would take, following Simpson’s line (I do not have the time to search source quotations, but I would expect they are easily found).
May we expect the FoA to take a more challneging line on the annual announcement? I think I shall wait for that shoe to drop of its own volition.
It would be good if they took note, at last
On quick reflection (which I should have done before commenting), I would question whether Simpson (retired from FoA) reflects the current economic ideology in the FoA.
Maybe not
But still good news
My understanding is that FoA compiles the GERS figures following the methodology already set out for their calculation, so it’s paid work for them simply to follow the pre-existing template, but I suspect your note that Simpson is no longer employed by them is key. He’s a free agent now and able to give his personal views (maybe he’s been reading ‘The Deficit Myth’!) Whatever the reason, GERS is now so discredited (many thanks to Richard for his role in that) outside of the Unionist camp that its future must be in question and, as such, why on earth does the Scottish Gov continue to issue it and pay the costs of its production? Surely the sensible course of action would be to refuse to commission and endorse GERS and, if the UK Gov is keen to produce it, they can do so at their cost. After all, public trust of the UK Gov in Scotland is so low that most Scots would dismiss it outright and the Unionists would lose their perennial claim that GERS must be accurate simply because it is produced by the Scottish Gov, so it cannot be denied.
You ask the right questions Ken
I am not aware though that FoA actually compiles the data – I think that is done by civil servants
The FoA just dutifully supports the statement
Richard
I am sure you know I don’t wish the address of David Simpson to appear on the comments page.
I have had a look and I don’t have his email.
Best wishes,
Sam
Thanks