Today's think tank reports on the budget deficit that would be faced by an independent Scotland are unlikely to be quoted by Yes Scotland in its campaign leaflets.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has handed ammunition instead to Better Together by predicting that an independent Scotland would face a budget deficit of 5.5 per cent of GDP in its first year, compared to a deficit of 2.4 per cent for the UK.
Even if the Scottish Government implemented George Osborne's planned spending cuts in full over the coming years, it could still face a deficit of 2.9 per cent of GDP in 2018-19, at a time when the UK is predicted to have a slight budget surplus, according to the IFS.
Attributing this to the spending commitments made in the Scottish Government's independence White Paper, such as on childcare and on pensions by delaying raising the pension age to 67, it states that unless there is a sudden and unexpected boost in oil revenues, which the UK's Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR)predicts will decline, then the Scottish Government will likely have to cut spending or raise taxes.
The findings pose a problem for the Scottish Government. Ministers have never questioned the integrity of the IFS, after all. Instead, ministers have reacted to its analysis by highlighting Scotland's wealth and saying an independent Scotland's finances in 2016-17 will be similar to, or stronger than, both the UK and the G7 industrialised countries as a whole. They also take issue with the OBR's oil revenues forecast. Not a point-by-point refutation, then, but another set of figures more favourable to its position.
And so the debate has arrived once more at the same impasse, where two divergent forecasts are placed before voters, who are expected to - what? Undertake an accelerated PhD in economics in order to judge their relative merits? There is a risk that the more such statistics are traded over the next few weeks - and there are likely to be more reports such as these - the more confused voters will become.
Last week, First Minister Alex Salmond and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander offered wildly incompatible predictions of the financial impact on Scots of independence. It was one of the more farcical episodes in the campaign to date. There is a crying need for dependable information in this debate, so voters are not left having to decide how to vote based on emotional inclination or flipping a coin.
The analysis of a highly respected, independent body such as the IFS, of course, ought to provide such clarity. With the Yes and No camps unwilling to concede the smallest point to one another, the heavyweight authority of unaffiliated think tanks is likely to count for more with undecided voters than the biased opinions of politicians. At the same time, clearly, no economic forecast is infallible.
In a campaign in which there is no gospel truth, only judgments on the credibility of different views, the IFS's informed intervention is welcome, but voters may struggle to make sense of the cacophony of responses to it from either side of the debate.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article