AN independent Scotland could agree a "gradual and amicable divorce" from the UK, a leading market analyst company has suggested, but it might result in possible tax hikes and spending cuts to maintain fiscal consistency with its neighbour.
In its UK Cities and Regions Update, Capital Economics notes that if there were a Yes vote in September, it might be the SNP government that would "eschew triumphalism and offer the UK government a deal".
"It would offer complete consistency of fiscal policy and banking supervision between the two nations, including if necessary tax rises and spending cuts, and hence workable common use of sterling.
"It would also agree to pay a full part of the cost of debt servicing in return for getting most of the North Sea tax revenues. It would accept joint use of all the administrative (and, crucially, military) arms of government that are currently shared, and again would pay its share of the costs."
All the terms would necessarily be time-limited, probably with differing deadlines, but, the analysis suggests, the "underlying principle would be a plan for a gradual and amicable divorce".
It points out even if SNP supporters could be persuaded of the merits of this compromise, the international markets might not be and, consequently, they could exact punitive borrowing rates from Edinburgh.
Last night, the Treasury leapt on the report, saying it presented the SNP with an "uncomfortable reality", that independence would mean "tough choices, lower spending and higher taxes not vice versa".
A spokesman for John Swinney said: "Scotland can more than afford to be an independent nation.
"Recent figures have shown that Scotland's is in a stronger fiscal position compared to the UK over the period 2008-09 and to 2012-13 was equivalent to £8.3 billion or £1,600 per capita.
"The alternative is for Scotland to remain part of one of the most unequal nations in the developed world."
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