REALITY CHECK
SNP’s new blueprint for independence promises a warts-and-all analysis of the risks – and opportunities – of separation
“IF something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
That’s the conclusion the majority of Scots arrived at when presented with Alex Salmond’s economic case for independence in 2014.
The then first minister had insisted we’d all be richer, happier and healthier after a Yes vote.
More money would be spent on essential services such as the NHS. The welfare system would be more generous. There would be no need for tax rises or extra public borrowing. There were no downsides. There were no risks.
Many voters concluded that even if an honest case for independence existed, it wasn’t the one Salmond was selling. So they took a pass.
Nearly four years later, the SNP are finally about to reboot their economic case ahead of a second crack at going it alone.
The Growth Commission chaired by ex-SNP MSP Andrew Wilson will publish their long-overdue findings in the next few weeks.
The group was set up in September 2016 to boost support for independence in the wake of Brexit. Its membership includes senior figures from business, economics, politics and academia.
Wilson and his team of experts are tasked with fixing Scotland’s awful growth rates, plugging the eye-watering £13billion deficit and convincing sceptical Scots they’ve nothing to fear from breaking up the UK. Oh, and while they’re at it they have to come up with workable currency arrangements for an independent Scotland. No wonder it’s taken so long.
Yet, all the indications are that this new blueprint for indy will have more of a basis in reality than the 2014 version.
Wilson has been refreshingly honest about his mission. He’s already admitted Salmond’s sums were based on a booming oil industry that’s since collapsed and acknowledged it could take a decade to get an indy Scotland’s finances under control.
And the word from deep within the SNP is that the report is full of similarly blunt analysis of the economic risks and opportunities that would come from separation. One insider said: “We’ve said from the outset this is about stimulating more debate on what sort of country we want Scotland to be. Implicit in all of this is that we under-perform at present against our economic potential.
“Only dafties think that Scotland is some sort of utopia.”
The report itself is finished and gathering dust in a drawer in Nicola Sturgeon’s office.
It runs to more than 400 pages and is split into three parts. The first is on growth, the second on getting public finances under control and the third wrestles with that currency conundrum.
Despite speculation it will focus on New Zealand as an economic model, my understanding is the Kiwi example is included alongside 12 other small countries that have been profiled.
Meanwhile, the commission has been rechristened the Sustainable Growth Commission and already have their own website (www.sustainablegrowthcommission.
scot). The SNP stress the report contains proposals Scotland could take forward straight away.
These will focus specifically on the post-Brexit challenges to the economy while, at the same time, laying the groundwork for a separate Scottish state.
My SNP mole said: “We hope to have serious cross-party engagement in ideas for growing the economy and charting our way through Brexit, if not on the parts pertaining specifically to independence. That will be a real test of their political maturity.”
The report’s publication comes at a tricky time for the SNP as there are signs party activists are getting restless.
While its publication date is still to be confirmed, we can be certain it will appear before the party conference in Aberdeen on June 8.
But is a report that effectively rubbishes the economic arguments activists were making only a few years ago likely to impress them?
And if SNP diehards are unconvinced by this new candid approach how will the general public respond?
Wilson certainly seems to believe honesty is the best policy.