EVERY year the Scottish Government publishes in GERS an estimate of what it calls Scotland’s “net fiscal balance”. Since the balance has been negative since the oil era, it has become commonly known as “the fiscal deficit”. That measure does not correspond to the measure of a fiscal deficit used by other countries. It is widely misinterpreted and provides political ammunition to Unionists.
Everywhere else in the world, including the UK, the term “fiscal deficit” means a shortfall in the revenue of a Government compared to its expenditure. If Scotland’s fiscal balance was compiled according to recognised standards of national accounting, then the expenditure side of the balance would show expenditure by the Scottish Government. Since the Scottish Government is obliged by the devolution settlement always to balance its budget, Scotland’s fiscal deficit in the proper sense of that term is zero every year.
But the expenditure side of the “fiscal balance” printed annually in GERS purports to show the value of expenditure by both the Scottish and UK Governments “for the benefit of” Scotland.
So far as I’m aware, no other country in the world publishes statistics that attempt to measure expenditures according to their supposed “benefit”, for the simple reason that such measures are necessarily arbitrary and subjective.
In Scotland’s case, the “benefits” include items like an apportionment of MoD spending in support of the Trident submarine base on the Clyde, as well as Saudi Arabia’s activities in Yemen.
Other examples of unwanted expenditure by Whitehall Departments include payments of benefits for unemployment created by UK Government policies, and expenditure incurred in pursuit of external trade treaties that disadvantage Scottish economic interests.
Not surprisingly, the meaning of this so-called “fiscal deficit” continues to be widely misunderstood.
In media discourse, it is frequently compared to the budget deficit of the UK and other governments. But, as we have seen, the Scottish Government cannot have a budget deficit.
Another misinterpretation is that the “deficit” is a reflection of poor management of the Scottish economy by the Scottish Government. This interpretation is assisted whenever a Scottish Minister either implicitly or explicitly accepts Scottish Government responsibility for the performance of that economy. The fact is that responsibility for the behaviour of the Scottish economy is a function reserved to the Westminster Government, and it is they who should be held accountable.
A further misunderstanding is that the deficit is a measure of the political generosity of the UK Government. The well-known imbalances in expenditure per head on particular public services like Health and Education between Scotland and the rest of GB are frequently cited by Unionists. But these imbalances have come about in large part as the result of the peculiarly distorting political incentives arising from the Union.
Under that political arrangement, identical economic policies have operated throughout the UK. Unable to implement the different policies that were necessary and desirable for the growth and development of the Scottish economy, successive (Unionist) Secretaries of State and their senior civil servants saw it as their job instead to maximise transfers of public funds from Whitehall to Scotland. Throughout the post-War period the personal political success of Scottish Secretaries has been measured by the amount of money they could screw out of the Treasury.
READ MORE: Richard Murphy: GERS is a con-trick intended to make Scotland look bad
But neither the political will nor the economic framework existed to ensure that the large sums of public expenditure that have been poured into Scotland in various forms over recent decades have been an efficient investment in the productive capacity of the country that would ultimately increase the long run rate of growth and development.
Yet another common misinterpretation of the “fiscal deficit” that appears in GERS is that it shows that political independence is “unaffordable”. While most informed commentators understand that a future independent Scottish Government will have very different patterns of spending and revenue than those shown in the “net fiscal balance” of today, this remains the most widespread misinterpretation of the “fiscal deficit”, enthusiastically disseminated by the Unionist media.
It is not an accident that this should have happened, since the idea of publishing a “net fiscal balance” was dreamed up by the UK Government 50 years ago with the specific intention of rubbishing Scottish independence.
It was drawn up and published by the Treasury in the wake of the 1967 Hamilton by-election to show the Scottish people that they were being subsidised by England. Andrew Hargreaves, then the FT’s man in Scotland, described to me how the Chancellor Denis Healey (below) gave an “off-the-record” briefing to reporters, spoon-feeding them statements like: “This means that income tax would have to rise by 25% if Scotland became independent."
Since in those days the Scottish media were far too deferential to query anything the Treasury told them, and most of them didn’t understand the numbers anyway, Healey’s words duly appeared verbatim in next morning’s headlines. It worked: Labour took Hamilton back at the 1970 General Election.
The economic cost to Scotland of our dependency on England is of course not measured in the so-called “net fiscal balance”. It is to be measured by the incomes, jobs and tax revenues that have been foregone as a result of the slower rate of growth of the economy because of its mismanagement under the Union.
This has happened as a consequence of Scotland being unable to choose those economic policies that suited its needs, but has had to rely instead on periodic hand-outs. As the old Chinese metaphor has it, it’s better for a man to learn how to fish than to be given a fish every day.
Meanwhile, it makes no sense for the Scottish Government to assist our Unionist opponents by continuing to confer political legitimacy upon a scientifically illegitimate statistic. It should cease its publication.
David Simpson is a former Professor of Economics at Strathclyde University and founding director of the Fraser of Allander Institute. He is currently working on an economic project aimed at identifying the “Price of Dependence”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel