HMRC is refusing to give the SG information for GERS

It's strange how some memes just take on a life of their own. This is especially true when it comes to GERS. 

The current figures are so uncomfortable for many supporters of independence, who previously quoted them positively (like Pete Wishart or Angus Robertson), that they will hang on to any old rubbish to try to discredit them. 

These "FACTS" - the word obviously has to be in capitals - range from the surreal: such as the mythical whisky export duty to the downright wrong such as GERS including the costs of the London Olympics. 

Of late Kevin Hague, Fraser Whyte and myself have been picking each one apart. Here is my contribution which demonstrates that Wings Over Scotland plays fast and loose with the truth. 

But there has been one meme, pushed by Stuart Campbell, that has been difficult to disprove. GERS is hampered by the inability of the Scottish Government to get accurate information about tax and spend in Scotland because the UK government refuses to give them access to it. 

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-six-key-facts-about-gers/

Wings' main followers don't need much promoting thereafter and off they go spreading the "FACT" to the world. 

https://twitter.com/DubhglasTurner/status/768564623419248640

https://twitter.com/JimArnott/status/768716526061023232

But it's quite a claim. The Scottish Government have been trying to get information from the UK government but they are actively "refusing" to give them access. You would think if that was the case then the Scottish Government would have said something about it? 

Of course in the world of Freedom of Information we can actively find out if such a refusal actually exists. It would be a matter of record after all. 

So I asked the question two weeks ago. 



You can see a copy of the full letter here.

As ever it looks like #youcanttrustStu. There is no refusal to provide information which proves that Wings' claim was not a FACT but a LIE.  

Yeah, but, no, but
Of course you can hear the Vicky Pollard excuses starting already as Stu attempts to back out of being caught red handed. 

"Ha! The Yoons' own evidence backs up my point completely. See it says that the Scottish Government hasn't asked for information because it knew it would be refused." 

But the trouble is that's not what Stuart's article says. He is explicit that there was an actual refusal rather than an anticipated one. 

But let's humour him and examine Stuart's claim further. There is no refusal (implied or otherwise) by HMRC to provide access to important data. By law HMRC do not share individual tax data with anyone outside of HMRC, your individual tax return in the UK is confidential. But individual tax returns are entirely unnecessary for the purposes of GERS.

The Scottish Government has access to a vast database of aggregate income tax information as clearly stated in the GERS methodology document. 

Like all areas of government, including the ONS and Parliament, income tax data and projections are derived from the HMRC survey of personal incomes (SPI) this is a vast dataset covering 650,000 individuals in the UK (including 1 in 10 of those on high incomes), so more than a good enough to provide highly accurate information.  

This enables the Scottish Government (or anyone who wants to download and interrogate the data) to identify the overall level of income tax by residence due to Scotland. 

This information enables the Scottish Government to calculate, to a high degree of accuracy, the income tax raised in Scotland whilst at the same time maintaining the covenant that individual tax records are kept private. Indeed the Scottish Government notes that it has a confidence level of +/-1% based on the SPI data.


The information is more than good enough for all other areas of government including the Treasury when it comes to devising UK government tax policy and it's good enough for the Scottish Government. Furthermore with the arrival of SRIT and the S tax code then from next year the Scottish Government will be able to move from 99% confidence to 100%. 

Therefore there is no question of an explicit or implicit refusal of HMRC to provide the information needed by the Scottish Government to calculate GERS. 

Stu Campbell just made this FACT up. Again. 

Saying that it will be entertaining watching him try to wriggle out of this one. 

A Unionist tries to help out the nationalists - Part 3 - The silver bullet of growth

The SNP do a very good line in "if we only had the powers".

If we only had the powers over X we could solve these problems in Scotland, but because we're denied powers over X we cant actually solve Y, oh if only we had the powers. 

We saw this with the introduction of SRIT. The SNP gave the impression that they wanted to have a more progressive taxation system in Scotland and to stop austerity - we know that to be very far from the truth - and when the time came the SNP remained "fiscal conservatives"

We heard the "if only" chorus when GERS 2016 was released. Rather than confront the problem of the loss of the fiscal transfer the SNP jumped to their favourite line: GERS wasn't about an independent Scotland. We would do things differently, if only we had the powers. With the full spectrum of powers provided for by independence then the SNP could grow the economy out of the loss of the fiscal transfer, or so the theory goes. 

In the long run all are dead
With independence then, with the full spectrum of powers available to the SNP, we could simply grow the economy using "different economic levers" to make up for the loss of fiscal transfer. So good is this line that Nicola Sturgeon recently appointed Andrew Wilson (former MSP and centrist -for which read right winger in SNP terms) to head up a growth commission to actually come up with policies which will miraculously improve growth in Scotland.

But, back to GERS, there is a fundamental problem with this solution: growth to compensate for the loss of the fiscal transfer will take a VERY, VERY long time. 

Taking the current fiscal transfer of £9bn and the Scottish Government's target of increasing growth levels by 2.2% to 2.4% then we can trace how long it would take an independent Scotland to catch up with a Scotland in the Union.

58 years. 

Now of course that time period could be shortened by a more heroic assumption about growth or public spending cuts or tax rises which wouldn't have any impact on the economy (but no one seems to be able to point to these). Furthermore the figures take no account to the deeply damaging and painful consequences of leaving the Union, of capital flight, or the higher costs of debt due to Scotland's higher interest rates.

On this basis 58 years is a really low estimate.

Now I'm sure some could make the case that this is all worth it, suffer now for the sake of our grandchildren, or perhaps their grandchildren, but it's not exactly tempting nor it is a practical solution to a real problem. 

Furthermore the theory of growing out of the fiscal transfer suffers from one fundamental problem. 

Fairy dust economics
What are these "different economic levers" that the SNP would pull to get the extra growth to bring our rates up to the levels of small EU nations? Especially as we're anything but small. When asked what these miraculous growth giving policies are most nationalists struggle to come up with anything of substance. There is vague talk of intervention (difficult within a free and open market) or targeted tax relief, all well and good if it works and pays for itself. 

Before you know it you are into the realms of fairy dust economics that seems to believe that Scotland will grow because.... it will. 

Given that higher growth for an independent Scotland is absolutely fundamental to a nationalist case you would think that they would have an answer to this? But it's all just sadly lacking and betrays that for many independence isn't actually about a better Scotland, it's more just about ideology. 

Perhaps Wilson's Growth Commission will come up with something of substance, and I'm here to help!

Because ironically, there is a silver bullet for nationalists which can encourage more economic growth. The trouble is the SNP have backed themselves into such a corner over Brexit that they can't go near it. 

People & places
Economic growth comes largely from people, productive people in an economy. Scotland has a lot of space and not enough people. The solution then is immigration, lots of it, far, far more than we have been used to in the past. 

Furthermore the immigration needs to be directed. 

It's no good having immigration into Scotland then for those people moving out of the Scottish economy to say an EU economy or to England. Nor is it any good if they move to the densely populated central belt, that just exacerbates the issues we have in providing uneconomic public services to our rural economies. 

The solution then is to use our exit from the European Union and the requirement for the free movement of people to direct immigration to the places we need it. Think of the case of the Brains, were they living in the centre of Edinburgh then their visa expiring would not be particularly remarkable, the fact that they are living in a remote Highland community that needs all the people it can get makes it noteworthy and tragic. 

But there is a solution to this, as Michael Gove proposed during the European Union referendum and Tom Harris outlined in his open letter to Nicola Sturgeon. Scotland could take control of immigration either within or outside the UK (provided it was outside the EU) and direct immigration to our rural communities that need skilled and unskilled labour to flourish, grow and generate revenue to pay for their services. 

This is nothing unusual, the Australian visa system regularly directs immigrants to rural communities or specific areas of the country. Why can't it work for Scotland? It needs to, it's the silver bullet that deals with the problem of our size and universal provision of public services. 

Why wont the SNP fire the gun?
So what's stopping the SNP from embracing and campaigning for this policy, a policy that would at a stroke solve the problem for the Brains? Well it's simple; the European Union. This policy is incompatible with free movement of labour which the SNP have no choice but to argue for. 

In their opportunism over Brexit they've painted themselves into a corner. If the SNP had Scotland's interest at heart, rather than the SNP's, they would be embracing the opportunity that Brexit offers and arguing for a directed immigration policy to Scotland's rural communities. 

A very, very, very different Scotland
Make no mistake about it, this is the method of transforming the Scottish economy, solving the loss of the fiscal transfer and enabling the additional growth that Scotland needs if it is to take its GDP above its level within the UK. 

However at the same time we should not underestimate that transformation. This would represent a profound change to Scotland, its people and its landscape. All of this would change, radically, in a short space of time. To make this work Scotland would need immigrants in the millions over a small number of years, our rural landscape would need to be transformed with new housing and strong transport links. 

This would no longer be the Scotland of the wide green open spaces but a landscape of New Towns and a multicultural, multiethnic Scotland closer to the populace of London rather than Livingston (I've nothing against Livingston, it was just nice alliteration). 

This is nothing so simple as Scottish independence but a complete reinvention of what Scotland means in terms of people and place. It's radical, it's a huge change - nothing short of a revolution - and it's a case that works. 

The question is do the nationalists have the courage of their convictions to argue for this, in the past they have dodged the silver bullet so my hopes aren't high, but perhaps Andrew Wilson will rise to the challenge.