Less than a month ago I rather innocently, but I think entirely appropriately, wrote a blog about the lack of suitable data available to the people of Scotland that might inform their choices when a second independence referendum took place. I also sought to make the point that the Scottish government was limited in the same way. The piece was not party political: I am not a member of a party. Not did it have an axe to grind, bar the fact that I wanted to promote informed debate. But it seems that I lit a blue touch paper.
I confess I was unaware of the passion about this issue in Scotland, but I soon became aware of it. Other blogs followed (you can find them listed here). I have not changed my mind, in the slightest. I hardly need to do so. It is apparent that the data Scotland has is not designed for Scotland's needs because it treats Scotland as if it is just an extrapolated part of the UK as a whole when that is not he case, and does not in any way indicate the extent of Scottish choice over the outcomes in its economy and how these might change if it was independent. Twenty five of the twenty six income variables in the Govrnment Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) data are estimates of varying quality and are not necessarily based on actual Scottish information when it is my argument that actual data could, should, and indeed must be collected if meaningful decision making is to take place in Scotland, whether or not it is independent.
Today the debate moves forward. I am discussing this issue on BBC Radio Scotland at 12.30 this lunchtime with presenter John Beattie (who happens to be a chartered accountant) and another guest, although I am not sure who as yet. I hope we can stick to the issues, and they are simply stated.
The first is that this is about Scotland having the data Scotland needs to make decisions. It is powermongering from Westminster that denies it this data. Anyone in Scotland should be annoyed about this if they want the Scottish government to act in their best interests. I fail to see how this is a political issue. Saying that Scotland is not a part of the rest of the UK is not a nationalist claim anymore: it has its own parliament to prove the fact. But without Scottish data that parliament is being asked to govern in the dark. This would be true whoever held power there. This has to change. The assumptions in GERS are simply inappropriate now.n
Second, when Scotland has taxing powers it is shocking that data on so much of the tax paid in that country is unavailable. Again, this is not just bad for Scotland it is also a bad precedent when devolved tax powers are being discussed for many other parts of the UK. Managing tax without data is impossible. It's ludicrous that this situation has been allowed to develop and it must be addressed if proper decision making is to take place not just in Scotland but in other regions as well.
Third, when it is suggested that Scotland runs a deficit it is only right that Scotland knows how much if this is because of decisions imposed upon it by Westminster and how that situation might change if more powers were devolved or there was independence. Current data is very poor at indicating that.
And, yes, this matters in the independence debate. Of course that must be based on informed debate. And right now that is impossible. We have already seen the consequences of one referndum (the Brexit decision) based in deliberate misinformation. Surely we don't want another one?
I look forward to the discussion.
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:
Good luck with keeping it on track and based on informed options, you’ll need it.
I am aware of the task ahead!
Good Luck
For commited Nationalists and Unionists accurate data does not matter – their votes are predetermined by ideology and no amount of debate will change their minds. Accurate data is needed for those who want to make a reasoned decision – hard to say what percentage of the Scottish electorate fall into that category.
But governing Scotland does matter – whoever does it
So I will rise above the squabbling, if there is any
I disagree. For committed “nationalists” the data matters greatly, because we want to build a successful independent country and we want to be a successful nation within the UK too. The only people who don’t seem to believe it matters are committed unionists who apparently think seeing Scotland fail will achieve their aim of shutting down the independence debate.
I hope that is not true of Unionists or they really should not be standing for office in Scotland
I can’t hit reply on your comment for some reason Richard, but I’m afraid it does appear to be true. You only need to watch proceedings in the Scottish Parliament for a while to see how much pleasure the unionist parties, especially but not exclusively the Scottish Tories, take from any bad news pertaining to Scotland. You’re right, they should not be standing for office in Scotland, but this is what we’re dealing with.
“I disagree. For committed “nationalists” the data matters greatly .. ”
As you can tell by the large number of nationalists who are ‘Undecided’ until valuable data is made available and potential avenues forward have been rigorously explored and evaluated, rather than dogmatically telling everyone they are already in the ‘Yes’ camp …
Of course accurate data matters. Everyone should be given as much information as possible upon which to make an informed choice.
To suggest otherwise would be to assume that no one can change their opinion on anything, which is a ridiculous assunmption to make.
Your first sentence is of course correct.
Your second suggests you have never met or spoken to a Scottish Nationalist or a Scottish Unionist! Many of us Scots are neither – the undecided if you like.
Your academic approach, looking for an evidence basis, to Scotland’s Economy is MUCH needed. GERS has not served us well, as a basis of Decision, and has been ‘abused’ to misinform, possibly by both Unionists and Independents! Putting GERS into context has been very welcome.
Thank you
I am hoping that will be the context for debate this lunchtime
I havn’t listened to RS for 5yrs but will break that habit at 12.30pm and thanks for all your contributions on this as it is much appreciated.
I hope it is worth it
I now know I am up against Kevin Hague who has written some very silly things about me and blocked me on twitter
I am hoping we can stick to the issues
If you are right, and without special insight either into the BBC or the social media spat in which you were engulfed; it does rather suggests a tabloid-standard of editorial decision making is being used at the BBC, Pacific Quay; in a news programme. This is disappointing, but scarcely a surprising insight into the intellectual standards currently in vogue at that institution.
I am not expecting major intellectual insights to flow from this…
Which is a shame really
I am rather hoping it is also not a one sided slanging match about GERS denial, whatever that is
Everyone who disagrees with Kevin gets blocked. Although to be fair, in my case, I blocked him first, because he was aggressively retweeting me with sarcastic and dishonest remarks. He does not like being challenged.
“…and blocked me on twitter”
So what? You block people here regularly – unless I’m very much mistaken.
If they’re abusive and don’t follow the site rules I do. Of course
Hague and his supporters on Twitter have failed miserably to debate your points, which is hardly surprising since they don’t have a case to make. Every expert he listed on the radio as supposedly on his side would have to agree that GERS provides only estimates.
The estimates may be authoritative in the sense of “having the sanction or weight of authority” (Chambers). This just means they have been given an imprimatur (latin: let it be printed).
In view of his debating style, Hague might prefer “something that is authoritative gives an impression of power and importance” (Collins).
I looked at some of what they were saying
And then decided life was too short to bother
I am clueless as to why they would not want better data – unless it is to undermine effective decision making in Scotland
Ditto, Highlander
Refuse to be exposed to any BBC output, but ‘might’ listen-in to today’s broadcast.
I’m wondering what devices the BBC have to paint Professor Murphy in a bad light?
Will his microphone operate efficiently?
Will he be interrupted constantly?
Will he be permitted to make a strong case for more public investigation of GERS?
My guess is that, no matter how weak Hague’s argument is, it’ll all come out amicably in the end, with no ‘winners or losers’..
On second thoughts, I doubt if I’ll listen to today’s broadcast – I’ll read about it on Twitter.
In a nutshell you summarise the issues that are at stake. The only surprising fact is the degree to which UK and Scottish political institutions, and the media that only too meekly serve them, have been prepared to use, or at least repeat without critical or forensic scrutiny, a web of quite “deliberate misinformation” in order to influence public opinion (or at least the appearance of an often quite spuriously claimed ‘public opnion’). The programme of disinformation to which institutions of all kinds have resorted in order to deflect or distort open and rigorous scrutiny of the facts (for good or ill to whichever ‘side’ may be most affected – an outcome which is itself unknown and quite irrelevant), is simply a disgrace.
Along with others I’d just like to say thank you for your efforts in highlighting the GERS issues that need to be raised.
Given that GERS was created as a political tool to be used against any case for Scottish independence is now more relevant than ever. It was designed to ‘muddy the waters’ and make Scotland’s economy look poor.
None of us on the side of Scottish independence want information that is biased to our case, we just want fair and honest information, exactly what GERS was designed not to do.
Your wish is my wish
It should be the wish of all Scottish politcians
Well said and completely agree. Everyone interested in the debate you would think share the need more clarity on how the Scottish and for that matter all the devolved economies are performing with the wider UK one.
It’s hard, as a disinterested observer, to understand why anyone could disagree with your position. It would be interesting to see how decision making across the U.K. would change if all information of this kind was disaggregated for all the nations. It would make for better decisions in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast and I would hope in Westminster as well. And if extended to the English regions it would inform debates about regional devolution as well. Of course devolution/independence is not just about finance but everything else has to be paid for!
I think issue is that data shows that the further a region is from London the poorer is its economic performance. The UK has experienced forty years of increasing economic centralisation – marked by de-industrialisation (in the north of England, Wales & Scotland) and our growing reliance on services which are disproportionately based in London. Any genuine engagement with our current constitutional challenges would require the UK government to address this imbalance with urgency. If this was done, then the Union could still be rescued from the flames….but there is absolutely no sign of any political will to do this any time soon. So I think the prospects for the Union are quite gloomy and, from a Scottish perspective, rightly so.
I think Richard is correct. Better data would bring the today’s structural problems within the UK into the light but this would be rather inconvenient for those who prefer them to be kept in the dark. The Scottish situation is just one aspect of a UK wide problem.
I entirely agree that this is not just a Scottish issue
Scotland just lets me raise it
Good luck Richard. If you can at least get the BBC to think rather than just wheel out information without any critical analysis then it will be a start. I cannot see what anyone could object to after all it’s all about transparency unless they have information we currently do not have.
The gap in credibility is so vast here that I think it’s almost certain he’ll try and ambush you in some way Richard. I hope you keep your rhetorical wits about you because this debate really matters up here.
I will do my best
By the way, I thought this retort of yours to Hague was classic:
“I don’t care if anyone agrees with me. I’ve changed the World; I’m sorry for you if you haven’t”
Well said!
Let’s be quite clear: I was referring to the world of data, where I think I can justify that claim
Thank you for your efforts so far. We need to raise the quality of the debate to ensure that whatever decision we make is based on reliable information and you are certainly helping with your blogs so far. Good luck with JB today.
Your interventions make total sense and have been more badly needed than almost any contribution to the debate. There seems to be plenty of evidence that the GERS ‘assumptions’ are extremely shaky, as they lead to conclusions, e.g. on alleged defecit figures that bear very little relation indeed to a population share, being very much too high by that standard. They make the entire economic debate a total fog – not least as they make it impossible to show not only present realities but, worse, how these ‘realities’ would/could/should be changed in an independent country. All Scotland owes you a huge debt.
I doubt the last is true
I just write a few blogs and am heading to a BBC studio for lunchtime
But thanks
I will be listening with great interest at 12.30 albeit I would have hoped for an “opponent” for you with frankly better qualifications. I have read Hagues stuff and was far from impressed, he seems to just take GERS as gospel, then build a doomsday scenario around that. I would be more than happy to listen to a well-presented economic case for the union, but I have been waiting in vain.
I suspect t you will hear again from him
Our suspicions completely validated, all he did was reiterate his messianic belief in GERS proving Scotland is a basket case totally reliant on the UK to fund our lifestyles. Quite why anyone should reckon that is a good idea is beyond me, frankly.
Be prepared to be constantly interrupted and talked over by KH and JB. It’s what they do to prevent you from putting your point of view across. KH will be allowed to speak freely with little or no interruption. A courtesy that will not be given to you. So try not to let yourself be bullied.
I you do succeed in making valid points exposing GERS for the sham it is – be prepared to be cut off. It’s a common tactic used by BBC Scotland to terminate an interview that is not suiting their agenda. The usual excuse is claiming “technical difficulties” causing the interview to be terminated early.
Sorry to be so pessimistic but the BBC is just a propaganda arm of the British State. Have no doubt that the independence movement and the SNP are considered to be the enemy and a clear and significant threat to Westminster rule.
Thanks for highlighting what most of us have known for years.
Well that was surprising, in the sense you were allowed to fight your corner. KH was clearly defending the indefensible, but then that’s what unionist politicians do.
Well done. Your point was cohesive and precise – if a little heated at times. KH was clearly well prepared and did not resort to the usual aggressive and abusive narrative that he normally uses. Although he was clearly trying to bait you.
Was the discussion (argument) likely to engage public debate – only time will tell.
Thanks
He’s good at baiting – or should I say at being condescending?
And also talking nonsense
I hope it fuels more debate
Actually, it was fairly balanced
I would have stuck my oar in pretty forcibly if it had not been
Bit what gets me is why is he the expert?
Exactly – McWhirter tweeted afterward (words to this effect) “Why does it take a London-based economist to attack GERS”… which is a damn good point, my response being “and why did it take a pet food supplier to defend it..” If Hague is right and there are ranks of experts lining up to defend GERS – where are they?
There seems to be plenty of support here for you – people here are listening which is good.
I hope it goes well with Kevin ‘Vague’.
It was OK
He’s rather condescending; snide even. He clearly wanted to play that I am an outlier and a flat earther
But he had to conceded all the existing data does is provide information on the UK as a part of the UK – which is exactly what I said and argued was inappropriate for current needs
Hagues “successes” were; making you appear like a “lone voice” and citing Scottish Govt as backing his claim (where ARE the SNP on this..?). You were far more convincing, all Hague could do was tell us all to believe GERS. Big concession from Hague that GERS does not reflect finances of iScotland.
I don’t care if I am a lone voice
All change starts with a lone voice
And he agreed it’s role is to support Scotland as a part of the UK
But it has its own parliament already
You are most certainly not a lone voice, and Hague knows that too.
I am entirely unworried if I am
It shows Hague’s desperation and insecurity to claim that
I’m not an economist so not able to comment on the GERS figures as such, though it appears that they were originally designed by or on behalf of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Lang, in order to undermine political positions contrary to the then Tory party’s.
Having listened to today’s discussion on Radio Scotland I must say that I’m grateful to you Professor for attempting, impartially, to inject some reason and fact into the GERS debate.
I tried
And will keep doing so
Thanks for your comment
I would agree realistic data would be good.
During the Scotland Act discussions a MP asked for an independent commission to be appointed to investigate and report on what FFA would mean for Scotland. It went to a vote.
The Conservatives and the SNP voted against.
So we’re stuck with the estimates we have.
Do you have any idea what we could do to get that data then Richard? Because it would seem at face value our elected members are denying us it.
Clearly the SNP needs to change its mind
Richard, as person with little background knowledge of economics, tax, accounting etc… I’ve frequently found your blog very enlightening, it has imporved my understanding of some aspects of these things. It’s particularly nice to get your perspective when you turn your attention to Scotland and her present journey.
So, many thanks for bringing some rationality to the GERS ‘debate’; ironically I think it’s the fact that you are seen as a (suitably equipped) ‘outsider’ that has allowed you to make the case that GERS is not for for purpose.
The SNP do seem in a bit of a bind over this – though they have to continue to carry *very* broad public support, so perhaps tying themselves to the only data they have seems the best strategy, and they’d rather not rock that particular boat. It wouldn’t be the first time people have been perplexed at how long they’ll ‘keep their powder dry’.
That said, i think it’s time to now see the Scottish Government demand *all* the required data from the UK Government to establish the truest picture we can get. After all – in the words of Prime Minster Theresa May herself – “It would be unfair to Scotland, the people of Scotland at the moment that they would be being asked to make a crucial decision without the information they need to make that decision.”
Thank you for your work.
I agree with what you say
The SNP have a decision to make
Richard – 2 questions please. You speak to the SNP, are they considering changing their attitude to GERS, and, do you know of any other respected economists or related academics that might emerge as GERS doubters ?
I haven’t had those conversations. Sorry
I must confess to have enjoyed that debate yesterday perhaps Beattie should make it a weekly feature. Anyway, I take your point about the estimations in GERS, but as someone who once worked for our Armed Forces, how exactly would one garner precise information of Scotland’s exact costs in this area, given the transient nature of our forces? For example a ship can be in Portsmouth one day then in Rosyth the next, or a regiment can be in Aldershot one week then up in Fort George on exercise the following week. Also there are monies spent on Scotland’s behalf but not necessary in Scotland that we benefit greatly from, again for example the Officer Training centres in Sandhurst, Cranwell, and Dartmouth, MI5 & MI6 in London and not least of all, the EWS radars in RAF Boulmer which cover Scotland’s entire coastline and airspace…how would you work out the exact cost to Scotland for these? And there are many more. Surely a population based charge like we have now is the only sensible, workable solution?
Are these Scottish costs?
Would Scotland incur them?
If not they are London’s costs
Decision useful information makes that clear
GERS does not present decision useful information: it dumps the consequences of decisions Scotland may not make on Scotland and that’s bad for decision making and accountability
‘GERS does not present decision useful information: it dumps the consequences of decisions Scotland may not make on Scotland and that’s bad for decision making and accountability’
Exactly, Richard, exactly.
It’s the equivalent of letting a child stick its fingers in a plug socket in order for it to learn that electricity is dangerous. The problem is that it might only be able to do this once as the consequences might be fatal.
And such a person (or Government) who would allow such a thing to happen can only be called callous. And there is a surfit of callousness in this Tory Government.
The Scottish would do well to remember that the shadow of Edward long shanks still influences English establishment thinking on Scotland. It is a sort ingrained racism that sees the Scots as inferior but only because they were so visciously subjugated by us.
If they want independence then the Scots need to go it alone with their eyes wide open and not just their hearts. Please?
My point is that they are British costs, and one cannot separate them. Take RAF Boulmer for example. It is based in Northumberland and there brings no economic value to Scotland, but it covers the entire coastline and airspace of the UK. How do you apportion costs for that to Scotland? By land mass? By length of coastline? By population? You could stretch the same argument into all of the things that I have mentioned in my post. Should Scotland pay for any counter-terrorism operations in England? What about the training? Do we only pay for Scottish operatives? As defense is a UK-wide operation, it will always be an estimate.
But would Scotland choose to have Boulmer? That is the question
Let’s be clear: what it want a battle space force? I can tell you for sure that small nations do not have such things
In that case Scotland needs to know that a London based decision is a cost it is bearing
And that is what I would want a better system to show
Because then we could appraise what Scotland could do by itself
Not a great answer from you it must be said, but the question was how would you work out a more precise cost, because in certain areas you cannot, and this is one of them and you haven’t addressed that problem. Whether we decide to leave our airspace unguarded or build our own EWS at this juncture is neither here nor there (battle space force????)… it is how does one determine costs, and how much would it cost to make all the information about Scotland’s fiscal performance perhaps 1% accurate. Would it be worth it? I think not.
I think you have entirely missed the point of my answer and what constitutes decision useful information
There is no cost if Scotland decides it does not want what Boulmer does
On your last point, it seems clear that a large effort and cost is expended on the tortuous GERS methodology – implemented by all those expert statisticians. And, like it or not, we have little idea how accurate the results are. They could be accurate estimates, but we still would not have the actual data.
At some point, one assumes we will have the actual data on income tax. I don’t believe it would require huge cost to identify the real Scottish data for other main taxes such as VAT and corporation tax. The main costs will be in setting up the systems, whereas GERS incurs significant recurring cost in calculating the estimates, checking them and making adjustments to the methodologies from time to time.
I think I read GERS does not involve the number of people Kevin Hague claims – it’s less than ine FTE a year
I found that quite worrying
Income tax data shoukd get better over time
But there us no hope as yet at finding CT, VAT and NIC data as London does not permit its collection, my point at the start of this whole issue
Political demand is required
After a bit of a search – the Scottish Goverment deploys 0.8 FTE to produce the GERS statistics – quoted at para 2.9 in https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/archive/assessment/assessment/assessment-reports/assessment-report-274—statistics-on-government-expenditure-and-revenue-scotland.pdf (Feb 2014).
As you say, quite worrying.
Of course, that doesn’t include the work to produce & provide data to the Scottish Government staff –
Survey of Personal Income, NICS data and various other items produced by HMRC;
Living Costs and Food Survey, Regoinal Accounts and other items produced by ONS;
Scotland’s share of UK onshore corporation tax produced by HMRC;
etc etc.
Quite a lot of the supplied data would not be needed unless for GERS, so I wonder if HMRC or ONS passes on some of the cost.
Thanks for checking that
It is simplistic to single out one single benefit (or drawback) of independence, but if I had to do that, my choice of benefit would definitely be Scotland withdrawing from participation in British foreign policy.
Not just for a monetary reason, albeit a Scottish defence spend would save us around £1.5bn pa – a princely annual sum for a nation of 5m people, but because we would also be spared from maintaining British military presences all over the world and even within UK (N Ireland). In spite of the perennial howls of anguish we hear from British military and the Tories about how we are not funding the military enough, it is a stone cold fact the UK spends more on it’s military than any other nation in Europe. The question must be asked – why – do we need such a huge military profile?
However, the most important benefit is not even financial, substantial as that will be, it is in Scotland not being forced to participate in what is aggressive and frankly often dodgy British military adventurism – the awful Iraq war being the worst, but by no means only, example. Perhaps the knowledge that “Jock” will not be going with them in future may temper the aggression of the Brits going forward.
The UK is obsessed with militarism for two reasons –
1) It believes that militarism is necessary to preserve it’s “place in the world” and (that other jingoism) to “punch above our weight”;
2) It makes a lot of money from the international arms trade.
They talk a lot about preserving the “special relationship” with the USA, which is a bit of a joke, and has brought little benefit to the UK. In fact, I would say we have been tainted by the results of being the American poodle.
Like you, I’d prefer to have nothing to do with those elements of the UK which foster those obsessions. To put it in a nutshell, to hell with the likes of Michael Fallon.