Fog descends on both Scotlands

IT was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was independence with rainbows, it was separation with thunder, it was a £1000 bonus for Yes, it was a £1400 dividend for a No.

It was a Tale of Two Scotlands, as told by Alex Salmond and Danny Alexander on Calton Hill yesterday, and it was all as clear as mud.

How independence would affect the economy is the central voter concern of the referendum.

But as the SNP and Coalition governments issued their respective reports on the issue a fog of numbers quickly reduced clarity to near zero.

The First Minister used a 9am start to get his defence in early, quoting the LSE academic who said the Treasury misrepresented his work in putting an iScotland’s start-up costs at £2.7billion.

Whitehall’s economic analysis had thus been “blown to smithereens”, Mr Salmond said.

Contrast that with the “independence bonus” arriving after 15 years of higher productivity, higher net migration and higher employment.

“Each individual in Scotland being £1000 better off – that’s a £5bn bonus,” he said.

A “bogus bonus”, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury put it at his 10am gig over the road.

Backed by an image of Scotland made of pound coins and the slogan “1400 reasons... why we’re better off together”, Mr Alexander whipped out a bigger number to shame the FM.

Staying in the union meant pooled risks, lower borrowing rates and no start-up costs: “a UK dividend of £1400 a year for every man, woman and child in Scotland”.

He smiled when he said dividend but the message was stark: Yes makes you £1400 a year poorer.

What to make of it? In truth, both sides had credible arguments and both had huge holes.

Edinburgh was optimistic about debt share and vague on demand for public services; £5bn more sounds swell, but not if demand is up £10bn.

London refused to accept that extra growth after independence might help with the bills.

It would be a far, far better thing if for once politicians let the economists tell it straight.