Letters: The Yes camp needs to explain how spending gap would be bridged

It follows that it is incumbent on those promoting such a step today to explain specifically how, for example , they would fill the gap created by the loss of the present extra public finance spending in Scotland of around £2,000 per person highlighted in the GERS figures, rather than merely pontificating hopefully that it would all be different then.

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

QUOTING the GERS report that Scotland’s fiscal deficit now stands at seven per cent, Jill Stephenson (Letters, August 23) points out, it “remains the highest deficit in Europe”. How reasonable, though, is it to compare Scotland (a region in the context of the UK) with other fully sovereign countries elsewhere in Europe, when we control at most, 60 per cent of our own affairs, always within the context of Westminster policy, and the remainder is determined in Westminster? Is it not to compare sovereignty with devolution, which, of course, are quite different things?

She then goes on to ask: “How could we possibly hold a referendum in an atmosphere where factual evidence is so denied by activists on one side?” It is clear that the fault, in her view, lies with the Scottish Government. Yet, Westminster can tell us – almost to the penny – what Scottish spending is, but most of the tax revenue side of GERS is a matter of estimation as the necessary data is not collected. One might ask, why not? After all, most large companies today have pretty detailed sales and costs at regional level, and in many cases right down to individual establishments, often in real time. Why is this not being acted on?

Perhaps, the purpose is less to shine a light on economic reality, but remains similar to when Ian Lang, then Secretary of State for Scotland, wrote in a memorandum to John Major when GERS was first published in 1992, “I judge that [GERS] is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain the initiative and undermine the other parties. This initiative could score against all of them”?

Lastly, it is clear from published data that deficit is a common feature of most UK regions. An examination of data on almost any measure of economic or financial performance would show London is invariably ahead, often significantly, of any other region in the UK.

There are two ways we can consider this. One is that London is the "goose that lays the golden eggs" and we should all be grateful. As Boris Johnson said in 2012: "A pound spent in Croydon is far more of value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde."

The other is that it clearly indicates an unbalanced and dysfunctional economy, London as the “giant suction machine, hoovering up resources in the UK”, as Vince Cable pointed out. Or, as Stephanie Flanders wrote in 2013, without London the UK economy would be very different, less focused on financial services and more on manufacturing, and policy changed to suit.

In short, we should ask how far the deficit reported by GERS (as always, “under the current constitutional arrangements”) indicates weaknesses in the Scottish economy, and how much it reflects policies at Westminster dominated by economic and social needs elsewhere?

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

WHAT do the Gers figures actually do? Surely all they suggest is that Scotland, with more natural resources per head than any other country, is trapped in a UK economic nightmare. Or do they just tell us that 300 years of a union has reduced Scotland to a cap-in-hand beggar nation?

In fact they are an insult. Scotland with nine per cent of the UK’s population, they suggest, is responsible for more than 50 per cent of the UK’s debt (and Wales is worse)? Which intelligent person could believe this rubbish?

What is the case is that lots of wealth generated in Scotland is in fact registered in London so it appears on London’s balance sheet. And Scotland is then apportioned a share of lots of “national” expenditure which has nothing whatever to do with us – like funding Trident, building aircraft carriers, paying for the House of Lords, invading the Middle East, paying billions annually for the interest on the UK’s £2,000,000,000,000-plus national debt and so much more.

There is no point in even debating these GERS figures. They are irrelevant. They bear no relationship whatsoever to any economic situation an independent Scotland would work with.

GERS is Scotland’s UK deficit.

Dave McEwan Hill, Sandbank, Argyll.

THE phrase “lies, damned lies and statistics” came to mind when I saw the different reactions to the GERS Report. The report showed total public spending of £75.3 billion but total revenue, including a geographical share of North Sea oil, of £62.7bn leaving a shortfall of £12.6bn representing seven per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

You today had a picture of a triumphant Finance Secretary highlighting the positive fact that the deficit had decreased to seven per cent from 8.1% of GDP in 2017/18 indicating that “Scotland’s economy and public finances are strong” and that “our future will be far brighter as an independent member of the EU”, dismissing the overall deficit “as not where we would want it to be”.

Other commentators looking at exactly the same statistics were not so sanguine about the health of Scotland’s economy, pointing out that if an independent Scotland wished to join the EU the deficit would have to be reduced to three per cent of GDP, meaning cuts to public services or tax increases.

Derek Mackay sees the positives in the report but others see the negatives and in particular the deficit of £12.6bn. Mr Mackay needs to explain how he intends to get from where he is to where he wants to be.

John Baird, Glasgow.

Read more: Independent Scotland would face ‘unsustainably high levels of debt’