I HAVE been writing about Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) since 2014. I had no plan to do so, but once I had looked at what GERS was, and is, I realised it was pure and utter drivel and someone needed to talk about it.
There are so many problems with GERS that it is hard to know where to begin, but perhaps the biggest problem is that no set of accounts, which is what GERS claims to be, should be prepared for an entity that does not exist and yet that is precisely what GERS does.
What GERS is all about
It is not, after all, an account of what the Scottish Government does. Nor is it an account for Scotland, because much of the spend in it is incurred outside Scotland without Scottish consent or benefit. In fact, it is just a work of fiction that describes a Tory vision of Scotland into which they can sink as many costs as possible so that they can make it appear that Scotland is a burden which they are, inexplicably, desperate to keep control of.
READ MORE: Richard Murphy: GERS is a con-trick intended to make Scotland look bad
As a set of accounts GERS is also hopelessly flawed. The income is only that recorded in Scotland. The expenditure includes a great deal spent outside Scotland without Scottish involvement. The essential requirement of good accounting is there there be a consistency in approach between income and spending. This is not present in GERS, which is why long ago I described it as CRAp, which stands for a "completely rubbish approximation to the truth".
What isn't in GERS
Worse is what is not seen in GERS. Part of this problem is that all the tax paid on that spend for Scotland which is not spent in Scotland is not then credited as Scottish income. That’s deliberate misrepresentation, of course, intended to make the Scottish financial situation worse than it really is.
There is more than that though. For example, none of the taxes due on the massive flows of rent, interest, insurance and other financial costs that flood from Scotland to south-east England are credited to Scotland in GERS when that should very obviously be done to give a true and fair view of what tax is really due in Scotland.
As an economic tool and as a piece of accounting GERS is, in that case, total nonsense that is deeply misleading.
Why is GERS still published?
But in that case what we have to ask is why, after so long in office an SNP-led Scottish Government still produces this nonsense with which the Unionists seek to beat it each year?
Is it that the SNP-led government enjoys having to defend the indefensible? Or does it believe that reform of GERS is beyond it? Might it actually fear that GERS really is what an independent Scotland might look like? Or does it just believe it has no choice but perpetuate what Westminster once set up?
Given that we all know how bad GERS is, and that no amount of analysis of its duff data will remedy its defects or falsehoods, these questions on why GERS still exists are what really interests me now, even down to the fact that we have to go through the annual ritual relating to its publication.
I would love to be able to answer the questions I have asked, but I cannot. I genuinely bemused as to why GERS still exists when the SNP have had so long to do something about it. But in that case let me make a suggestion.
The last GERS
What I would like to hear is that this year’s GERS is the last in its current form and that next year, in anticipation of the referendum to come, the Scottish Government will publish a new estimate ,which is of the income that the Scottish Government might raise with existing tax rates if it were to have control of its own tax borders. This should then be compared with the spending Scotland might have if it took command of its own economy.
Of course, the result might be a deficit. In fact, I rather hope it is. After all, England and then the UK has run one since 1694, and that fact was the foundation of its success for many years as the Government spent into the economy to provide it with the support it needed to grow. But there could then be a mature debate on what that all means, and how it might be orderly funded when all GERS creates is petty squabbling of no further benefit to anyone. Is that too much to hope for?
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