I am going to caveat this post with the frank admission that I’ve never really known what the GERS report is, let alone how the detail stacks up.
Some SNP members tend to get very excited by what these reports shows and ‘unionists’ do appear hesitantly fearful of them but, that said, it has always looked like the kind of report that you could shake around to give whatever answer you wanted and that certainly seems to ring true every time its publication makes the news with both Nationalists and Unionists crying in rare unison ‘You see, these numbers back up what we’ve been saying’. It doesn’t really leave relative ignoramus’ like me any the wiser.
However, despite my interest in politics not extending to wading through appendices of government reports to see which side of the war of words is correct, the clear conclusion (that seems to have been accepted by both sides) is that Scotland has been running a surplus for four years in a row now, which was a very pleasant surprise for me personally I have to say. This is particularly heartening given that we’ve come through a recession in that period and (bank-saving to one side, though I have little doubt RBS and HBOS would have been safe had we been an independent EU-state), Scotland would have been just fine if standing alone or as standing as part of the UK. We have a robust economy whichever way the recessionary wind blows. Many will point to the £3.8bn deficit in this report as evidence that Scotland couldn’t make a fist of independence but that number looks positively tiny against the £96.1bn deficit quoted for the UK.
Although this kind of detail should form the backbone of any persuasive case a proponent of independence would make, a comment after an earlier post from Indy probably rings true (despite my protestations), that a groundswell of popular support for going it alone won’t come off the back of an NPV calculation for North Sea Oil or an £xbn surplus/deficit argument, but rather from Scots moving from “accepting that decisions will generally be taken for us to believing that decisions should be taken by us”. Such a belief will not generally be shaken by GERS reports, whatever they may say, or be claimed to say.
So Homecoming festivals and national sporting achievements will continue to trump GERS reports in the constitutional battle for hearts and minds but, still, if any decision on independence will ultimately be economically flimsy, it is nice to know that the numbers seem to stack up in Scotland’s favour anyway and, crucially, that fiscal autonomy for Holyrood is an even more convincing proposal than it has been before.
The Scotland Act is due to be debated at Westminster this Autumn I believe and the reasons against fiscal autonomy which one can only predict will be put forward by the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems need to be analysed in fine detail by our popular press.
A Government report showing Scotland had a significant surplus won’t be enough to swing the country in favour of independence but it could just shore up opinion enough to take a significant step in that direction.
SNP Tax
9 minutes ago
12 comments:
GERS have been shown up to be dodgy before and so it has a credibility problem. These reports are used in the media as gospel - unionist gospel when it suits them. For me not putting oil receipts in the Scottish account says it all. And then there is the tactic of putting the costs of trident in the Scottish account and various other tactics historically, I don't know if these have changed. The truth is that Britain has been a petro-economy for the last 40 years. It bankrolled Thatcher's experiments and it underwrote the expansion of The City. I was always sceptical of Salmonds arch of prosperity - all except Norway which truly is the most accurate model of where Scotland would be in an independent Scotland.
The next problem is that the current reports can't possibly indicate anything about an independent economy. Our current situtation better reflects the straight-jacket Scotland is in relative to Norway.
We are heading into a deeper slump globally and the price of oil is set to climb.
It is true that most people will not allow themselves to be informed by logic or evidence and their opinion will be formed for them by the media. It is vital then that honest appraisals of our economic prospects are researched. Opinion formers like economists and business people will influence the media and they have to be convinced. The media obviously has a unionist bias and that is why the bleeding obvious is hidden from the masses.
The truth is there for all to see - Britain is going under. It is an ugly place to live anyway. Scotland has a shed load of oil and it's worth a fortune. We have an energy surplus, we can feed ourselves and we have lots of other exports from oil technology to whisky which make the treasury a bomb. With all this we could easily raise money on capital markets if we wanted while soon Britain will lose its AAA rating.
Stripping away all the propaganda this is the truth.
I think you're quite right that dry economic reports will not play a decisive factor on any moves towards Scottish independence even if they do play a part; emotional rhetoric has always struck me as being at the forefront of any populist political debate at the moment whether that be Unionism or Nationalism.
And I also have a sneaking suspicion that the economics argument can always be twisted to suit any individual’s particular views; if Scotland’s economy is doing well it’s either because of its continued UK membership or evidence that Scotland should go it alone; if the economy is struggling then either only the UK can help it recover or only secession from the Union can save it.
I think that the
case for an independent Scotland will always owe more to emotional idealism then cold hard facts. Look at the case of the Irish Republic; for years its economy lagged behind that of Northern Ireland and yet no significant movement developed for reunification with the United Kingdom. Nationalism is not simply a result of economics.
And another thing to think about: if nationalism is treated as purely a function of economics then why do the national boundaries demanded by that nationalism not exactly coincide with the areas of greatest economic efficiency? In other words, why would an independent Scotland want to keep those areas which would be economically subsidised by the core if the raison d'ĂȘtre of the new state was economic efficiency?
Or could it be that something else instead demands that Scotland’s borders within the UK be kept the same if it ever chose to go it alone?
Oh, and for once I agree with you. Don't expect it to ever happen again.
I'd take posting this twice as an oops, Jeff. ;)
I'm not sure what concerns me more Jeanne, my habit of postings pieces up twice or our agreeing on something for once ;)
On your second point Keith, who is saying nationalism is "purely" about economics. A leading factor yes, but not the be all and end all.
So, I think the suggestion that 'Scotland' may redraw its boundaries by cherrypicking profitable areas is, well, a bit silly really.
You do get the suggestions that the line should be drawn in Northern England wherever people stop voting Labour and start voting Tory but that's a separate, and much more remote, discussion than what Scottish nationalism is.
Even 'nationalism' is, for me, too emotive a choice of word. One can dispassionately think borders should be redrawn without necessarily being a Nationalist. Not that that's important.
"On your second point Keith, who is saying nationalism is "purely" about economics."
Not I, for one; it's just interesting that – and I realise that I generalize here - the debate surrounding Scottish nationalism frequently centres around economics to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. Take the SNP white paper on independence, for example; there is virtually no mention of cultural identity when of course such matters of identity are very much a driving force behind that same Scottish nationalism that they seek to foster.
Clearly the economic arguments must take priority, but sometimes I get the impression that they are used to cover some of the less savoury aspects of the identity-based politics that constitutes so much of nationalist discourse. For if it is not solely about economics then what is it that drives Scottish nationalism?
Keith
I think that the
case for the Union will always owe more to emotional idealism then cold hard facts. Look at the case of Scotland; for years its economy lagged behind that of other small European nations and suffered from mass emigration and yet still some people inexplicably claimed that Scotland could not benefit from self determination despite an enviable suite of resources and an undeniable potential to thrive. Unionism (which is by definition British nationalism) is not simply a result of economics.
Keith
Something else to think on...
Clearly the economic arguments must take priority, but sometimes I get the impression that they are used to cover some of the less savoury aspects of the identity-based politics that constitutes so much of unionist discourse. For if it is not solely about economics then what is it that drives Scottish unionism/British nationalism?
The focus on the economics of independence is purely a result of establishment scaremongering for many years.
I for one think that a clear demonstration that Scotland, and those who live there, would benefit economically from independence would provide a large boost for the indie vote.
We're kept in place by fear. The knowledge that we've been misled for generations would provide proof positive that the unionist establishment is all about vested interest and cares not a whit for the people of Scotland's well-being.
That's a pretty strong campaigning point.
I have no doubt, however, that if the spectre of penury was revealed as risible, some other garbage to put the willies up the faint-hearted Scots would be found.
What money on an independent Scotland being flagged as a 'rogue state'?
Scotland's case is illuminated by a study of US foreign policy - I recommend everyone reads Chomsky's 'Hegemony or Survival'.
The question of the bank bailout as was dealt with under the GERS report troubled me as it contained the bailout figure as a product of what Scotland should pay as part of the UK and not the full cost of its own banks. I think it misleading in three respects: firstly the report does not show that Scotland could have bailed its banks out which is a claim that has been made by Mr Swinney, secondly outwith the report the idea that something like the bailout package is the cost at face value seems an incredibly stupid view to take as the resale value of the shares can recoup some, not all but some, of the money spent. Finally, the idea that the bailout is anything but an issue of credit, at the time and to this day although not forever I admit, is misleading. The four years of budget surplus and comparatively small deficit mean that Scotland should have a much easier time obtaining this than the rest of the UK. My concern is that the government whilst in what I believe to be the right here is not explicit enough about why, leaving it open to scrutiny from analysts (I saw one in The Times raising my first point not last week). I would feel more shaken by this if earlier in the year I was not fortunate enough to have attended a debate in which the question of the bailout was rather admirably put to rest, in my view, by Stewart Hosie.
Scotlands independence has always from its beginnings been a question of economic legitimacy, Westminster sitting on the McCrone report is perhaps one of the more obvious examples of this struggle. This is not being an economic reductionist, Scottish Independence must be shown to be something more than wish thinking. I agree with your commentary that for most of us the report is not going to be the big decision maker, Mr Churchill's attitude to statistics appears in many of the posts here after all. In short it is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. I would stress that the GERS report does not have a credibility problem and is not internally contradictory, how it is used is another matter, if I am not mistaken it is one of the most heavily vetted reports, by the treasury, in recent history.
Post a Comment