VOTERS are to be wooed with rival claims of an "independence bonus" and "Union dividend" in the run-up to the referendum after Alex Salmond claimed every Scot would be £1000 better off outside the UK while Danny Alexander said staying in was worth £1400.
On a day both sides hoped would prove decisive in the fight for Scotland's future, the First Minister set out plans to grow the economy and increase the country's tax take by £5 billion by 2029/30.
He said the annual "independence bonus" would be worth £1000 per person in 15 years' time.
Meanwhile, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander unveiled the UK Government's latest independence analysis paper, which claimed being part of the UK was worth £1400 per year.
The figure was based on an assessment of Scotland's finances from 2016 to 2036, the first 20 years after Mr Salmond aims to declare independence.
Both sides immediately dismissed each other's figures but Sir Tom Hunter, one of Scotland's leading entrepreneurs, expressed dismay at the direction of the debate. He said: "What has been presented to us today is farcical and how any undecided voter could pick through the claims and counter claims and make any sense of them is well beyond me. We as voters have been disrespected.
"These are elected individuals who do Scotland and the UK a disservice, this isn't some decision we can reverse tomorrow it's the biggest decision in 307 years for Scotland.
"Yet our leading politicians, officials and Treasury boffins have it that on the one hand we're £1000 per individual better off independent and £1400 better off staying put." He said Scotland would have gone bust if it was a business that had produced such widely varying projections.
Mr Alexander rejected the First Minister's "bogus bonus," saying his figures were products of "the Nationalist myth machine" and "simply not credible".
Mr Salmond said the Treasury paper was "without a shred of credibility". Referring to the ongoing row over the possible start-up costs of an independent Scotland, he said the Treasury has been "caught red-handed trying to cook the books".
The Scottish Government set out is case in a 49-page report, Outlook for Scotland's Public Finances and Opportunities for Independence.
It said an independent Scotland could increase productivity growth by 0.3 per cent per year, raising an extra £2.4bn in tax revenues by 2029/30. It also argued that increasing the employment rate by 3.3 percentage points would raise an extra £1.3bn.
Finally, it said plans to increase immigration would boost revenues by £1.5bn.
Mr Salmond said: "We project that over a 15-year period, the tax revenue addition is £5bn - around £1000 a head for every man, woman and child in Scotland, or some £2000 for each Scottish family.
"We describe that as the bonus of independence - the independence bonus. Not caused by increase in taxes, but by increase in productivity, increase in the working-age population and an increase in employment."
The UK Government's "Union dividend" emerged in a 73-page study, Scotland Analysis: Fiscal Policy and Sustainability, which takes SNP policies such as cutting corporation tax and increasing immigration into account.
It claimed an independent Scotland would suffer a series of economic disadvantages, including higher borrowing costs and a bill of at least £1.5bn for setting up new departments and public bodies, that would far outweigh the benefits of North Sea oil.
It argued that being part of the UK protected Scotland against the impact of declining oil revenues and an ageing population. The study said staying in the UK would be worth £1400 per year for every Scot, from 2016 to 2036.
Mr Alexander said: "Today we have shown that, by staying together, Scotland's future will be safer, with stronger finances and a more progressive society.
"Because as a United Kingdom we can pool resources and share risks, it means a UK dividend of £1400 a year for every man, woman and child in Scotland."
The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said the contrasting claims were largely the result of widely diverging oil forecasts, with the SNP using far more optimistic figures than the UK Government.
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