TOMORROW (August 22), the latest Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures will be released. The Fraser of Allander Institute (FAI) observes in a recent blog: “As usual, it’ll no doubt spark a frenzied debate about Scotland’s finances and the prospects for constitutional change”. However perhaps the quality of debate will be enhanced if certain aspects of the report are observed?

Most importantly, as GERS itself notes in the first paragraph of its Summary, it “estimates the contribution of revenue raised in Scotland towards the goods and services provided for the benefit of Scotland under the current constitutional arrangements.” These last five words are underpinning for GERS, so it should be recognised that its direct application is to Scotland as part of the UK.

However, instead its zealots will no doubt use the report to condemn the prospect of Scottish independence in their best authoritative “don’t even think about questioning this” manner. They see no need to excuse using a document produced under one set of constitutional arrangements to condemn independence, a quite different set of constitutional arrangements. The onus is theirs.

This will doubtless put me on the list of “GERS deniers”, but there is a difference between denying GERS and pointing to its limitations. GERS, for instance, admits: “The majority of public sector revenue payable by Scottish residents and enterprises is collected at the UK level. Generally, it is not possible to identify separately the proportion of revenue receivable from Scotland. GERS therefore uses a number of different methodologies to apportion revenue to Scotland.”

Why are we so dependent on estimates? For instance, VAT in Scotland is estimated, but most companies of any significant size now have IT systems which don’t just provide regional figures, but down to establishment level. Some of the data at least could be collected but is not. Why are GERS zealots not demanding this uncertainty be removed or at least reduced?

Regarding spending, FAI claim “on the spending side at least – most of the figures aren’t estimated”, which is true. However, it should be noted that GERS refers to “public sector expenditure for Scotland”, not “in Scotland”. As well as such as welfare payments, GERS includes services that Scotland pays for, but which are not delivered, wholly or in part, in Scotland. This includes anything not devolved, for instance defence, foreign policy, HM Treasury and so on. Their delivery will typically be focused on London and the south-east, so the economic benefit will be realised there in the form of additional VAT and income tax.

GERS also automatically assumes that the level of spend on these services accords with Scottish opinion. Being written “under present constitutional arrangements”, it does not allow for the possibility that Scotland might make other policy decisions than those for which it currently contributes to at a rate attributed by the Government in Westminster, without discussion or negotiation.

Therefore, to nonchalantly transfer the GERS deficit to an independent Scotland requires validation, and, on past form, GERS zealots won’t even try.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

THE Yes folk have been making a lot of deafening noises in city centres across Scotland over the past few weeks. Desperately unhappy at the “no thank you” outcome of the last vote in 2014, they are craving for a second bite at the apple of independence.

Just like the SNP Government, they are wholly infatuated with one thing only: seeing our grand little country separated from the grand Union. Somehow, they just can’t see how their golden delicious apple of independence has turned an unpalatable colour.

Poll after poll, over the past few months, have all confirmed the same thing: Scottish voters would decisively oppose independence in a second referendum. In fact one poll, for a national newspaper, reveals an overwhelming two to one majority of Scots do not want another ballot, they’ve just had enough of it.

For the record, the poll found that 57 per cent of voters would be likely to cast a No vote, compared to 43 per cent for Yes. Researchers questioned 1,037 people in Scotland and found support for the SNP has fallen among voters, at both Holyrood and Westminster. Interestingly, the amount of Scottish people who feel British has actually increased since the 2014 vote, with the numbers of those describing themselves as “more British than Scottish” and “equally Scottish and British” have both risen.

Instead of making hollow noises at rally marches, it’s time we shouted loudly: we’re better together. Better together means two things, a stronger Scotland and a United Kingdom. As one cliché goes, “individually, we are one drop. Together, we are an ocean.”

Donald J Morrison,

85 Old Edinburgh Road, Inverness.

I AFFORDED myself a wry smile when I read SNP MSP Christine Grahame’s letter (August 17) lambasting contributor Keith Howell for his relentless persecution of the SNP Government and asking whether he would accept if Scotland became independent. That is quite ironic coming from a Yes voter whose movement was soundly defeated in the 2014 Referendum. Did they accept defeat? No, they just moved the goalposts which are mounted on a set of well-oiled wheels so that any excuse for another Referendum could be made. Although I wouldn’t have voted for it I would have accepted the will of the people if they had voted Yes in 2014, and faced up to everything that came with it.

Robert Heeps,

3 McVean Place, Longcroft, Falkirk.

DR Gerald Edwards (Letters, August 18) says that the SNP has shown itself to be incapable of providing NHS healthcare. He offers no evidence in support of this statement.

In May of this year I had had major surgery followed by complex aftercare over a period of three months. All have been excellent.

Dr Edwards, and other correspondents who have made similar fault-finding remarks, should provide evidence or withdraw their remarks.

John Fleming,

34 Kessington Drive, Glasgow.

I WAS pleased to hear that the SNP seems to have at last seen sense and looks to be willing to scrap its ill-considered plans to integrate British Transport police into Police Scotland (“Yousaf considers plan to avoid transport police merger”, The Herald, August 20).

The proposed integration was not considered practical or effective and raised concerns about operational working and the pension fund liability to be inherited by the move, not to mention the troubled and shaky start for the management of Police Scotland.

Dennis Forbes Grattan,

3 Mugiemoss Road, Aberdeen.