Scotland could be an independent country but it would be a much poorer one
Leah Gunn Barrett (Letters, August 25) begins the annual nationalist refrain of denigration and denial of the GERS figures before they are even published. She calls G ER S a “Westminster accounting trick”. Changed days. Only six years ago the blueprint for an independent Scotland called the figures – prepared by Scottish government statisticians – “the authoritative publication on Scotland’s finances”. Could it be that in the interim the figures annually reveal a deficit which is considerable and getting worse?
Ms Barrett bases her claims of a“false” deficit on S cotland’s contribution to Public Sector Debt Interest (PSDI) – a figure of £3.2 billion repre - senting Scotland’s share of UK debt. We get nothing back for this, she alleges! I’m not sure where she has been for the last few months as some of the billions of pounds of the UK’S increasing debt have come to Scotland. Moreover, the same day’ s Scots man includes a report of the Mo ray Growth deal to which Westminster is contributing an equal share of £32.5 million. This is just one of many such ongoing con - tributions of which Ms Gunn seems to be unaware.
However, even if her assertion did happen to be true, what about the other £10bn or so that Scotland spends in excess of what it generates? Where does that come from? I would suggest that Scotland does very well out of the Barnett formula and that it comes as no surprise that both John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon have fought hard to ensure it continues.
As to the claim that‘ London’ has conceded that Scotland will inherit none of the UK debt, this is a very different proposition from the fact that it has been conceded that legally there would be no obligation upon Scotland to repay its share. But it is also accepted that if we did not do so it would be difficult and costly for Scotland to secure loans on the international stage. No doubt that is why even some nationalists accept that we are responsible and should pay up.
I accept that Scotland could bean independent country. But it would be a considerably poorer one, certainly for the foreseeable future as even the most recent SNP blueprint concedes. A case based on fantasy economics will not persuade, which leaves only emotional appeals by those who believe that independence is more important than equality or, indeed, transcends all.
COLIN HAMILTON Braid Hills Avenue, Edinburgh