I MUST be ever-present in Wendy Alexander's thoughts (December 16) these days, having been mentioned by name no fewer than seven times in the same letter! Let me see if I can return the compliment and in so doing cast some light into Labour's "black holes".
Ms Alexander accuses the SNP of traducing civil servants by attacking the basis of the Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland (Gers) analysis. Unlike her, I have been a civil servant (ie, a real one, not a special adviser) and know full well the parameters in which they work.
Gers was conceived as a political, not as a statistical, exercise. We know this because the original correspondence from the then Secretary of State, Ian Lang, was leaked some years ago - he wanted it to "undermine the other parties", saying "this initiative could score against all of them".
The civil servants involved have several times tried to pull it back from its more blatant political exploitation by Tory and Labour politicians. The economist in charge, Dr Andrew Goudie, has noted that "Gers tells us nothing about the situation under independence". So why do Ms Alexander and her even less numerate friends misuse it as the basis of their anti-independence attack?
The problems with Gers are twofold and very obvious. It publishes a non-oil headline figure and takes no account of UK borrowing. Thus, it is used by the Tories to talk of subsidies or Labour of black holes. The first is as ludicrous as taking the financial sector out of London finances while the second places the debate in an artificial context. The UK has a budget deficit this year of GBP34bn, a non-oil deficit of GBP45bn, and accumulated debt of GBP500bn.
In Wendy's looking-glass world, this UK black hole should be immediately filled by swingeing tax rises, or does her brand of logic only apply to Scotland?
Gers is also two years out of date, and merely by adjusting for this year's oil revenues, which have doubled to more than GBP10bn, and allowing for the UK deficit, the "subsidy" flows in 2007 from north to south. That is before making any other corrections - for example, the clear counting of English-only departmental expenditure as part of the Scottish total.
Wendy should stop claiming that "oil revenues are falling", since the pre-budget report shows them rising from just more than GBP10bn to almost GBP12bn over the next five years. Nor should she pretend that it is running out - Labour's internal policy documents suggest more than 30 years of supply. Of course, there is nothing new about the Labour Party systematically and cynically underestimating Scotland's oil wealth. The secret papers, recently published from the 1970s, show that this is a longestablished Labour tradition.
In these papers was the private economic advice that an independent Scotland would be richer than Switzerland. In public, Labour politicians were comparing our economic prospects to those of Bangladesh.
Ms Alexander doesn't go that far, but she does seem to have great trouble in coping with the notion that Scotland could be a normal independent successful country like our near neighbours, Norway, Ireland and Iceland. All three have lessons to teach us if we are open-minded enough to learn. One of these lessons is to use the strength of Scotland's current budget position to improve our competitive advantage and generate growth and revenue for the long term.
They pursue three very different social and taxation models but all three are among the top six economies in the world in terms of wealth per head.
They also happen to be three of a handful of western countries running an absolute budget surplus. That has happened because they are economically successful.
I have used up my seven mentions of Ms Alexander so let me close on this note. In a world of dodgy dossiers on Iraq and loans for Lords, the black hole she should really worry about is the one where Labour credibility used to be.
Alex Salmond, MP, 17 Maiden Street, Peterhead.
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