INTO the dingy world of Scottish economic policy a glimmer of light penetrated at First Minister’s Questions last week, when Nicola Sturgeon at last brought herself to comment on the question of why the nation’s growth rate is so dismal. She did so only to deny that it is dismal, at least if we compare it with the growth rate south of the Border.

As a matter of fact, the picture is pretty clear that England is emerging the more strongly from a Brexit downturn, while Scotland remains threatened by recession. Admittedly we might point to the odd piece of evidence that modifies this overall prospect, but in any case I don’t really see why we should be forever choosing England as our comparator. Of all the big economies in Europe it is performing the most poorly, even more so if we look outside Europe. Scotland can do better than this sick man, and should aim to.

It is after all only 10 years ago that the SNP Government set for itself a policy first of matching and then of surpassing the UK growth rate. Originally it set off with some enthusiasm in pursuit of this goal, but in recent times the interest has faded. The Government still shows its ardour for baby boxes and bus passes, but the one success (faster growth) that might in the end allow an infinite multiplication of all such goodies is dismissed as something only for economics geeks or even – heaven forbid! – for capitalists.

When we look at Scotland’s economy we usually seek to forecast or to fix targets, and then at least we can measure how far (usually not all that far) we have achieved what we set out to do. Social policy lacks any such procedure for judging outcomes.

We had a persuasive view of this a few days ago when our most authoritative think-tank, the Fraser of Allander Institute, published its latest quarterly commentary. This independent report does other things than number-crunching, and for me the most interesting section lay not in the statistics but in a brief survey of Scottish quangos. It indicated that, however worthy the aim for each individual quango may be, they can as a collectivity confuse and perhaps in the end obstruct good government.

The director of the institute is Graeme Roy, a top graduate of the University of Glasgow who went into the Scottish civil service and at length rose to be economic adviser to the First Minister.

But when the directorship of the institute became available he decided he wanted to return to academic life, and got the job.

What I then look for amid the sober academic prose of Roy’s commentary is clues to the experience Roy gained in the corridors of power. And in this case I find plenty: ‘‘The Scottish Government’s focus on following a single, unified approach to the economy risks being blurred by a proliferation of strategies, advisory groups and discussion forums … In our latest economic commentary … we caution that a cluttered policy landscape can lead to confusion, a lack of alignment, duplication and weakened accountability.

‘‘The warning comes as the institute’s latest analysis shows that over the past 12 months, Scotland’s economy grew by just 0.6 per cent – below trend and just over one-third that of the 1.7 per cent for the UK as a whole.’’ The ‘‘single, unified approach to the economy’’ means the one adopted by Alex Salmond when he took office as First Minister in 2007. He was himself an economist by training, and beneath his trademark weakness for populist gestures there was always some sound and sensible policy. To its surprise, Scottish business found itself being seduced by Salmond’s combination of congenial measures and cocky grin. For a while we seemed set to prosper, though then the global financial crisis kicked in on us and every other nation.

When Nicola Sturgeon took over in 2014, focus was further lost. The previous cabinet had had a second economist in the shape of its finance secretary, John Swinney, but he moved sideways into education. Neither of his two replacements – one dealing with the measures, the other with the figures – has as far as I can see the slightest knowledge of or interest in economics. The same seems to be true of the First Minister. All the policies she personally promotes are social ones. Fair enough, but somebody should tell her that economic growth is the easiest way to deliver social progress. Both are impeded by the way she has allowed the machinery of government to develop. It now obscures what good economic advice may be available to her, and social policy in turn loses its edge.

Fraser of Allander’s commentary goes into detail. Across the Scottish Government and its agencies we have, rather than the single strategy of 2007 “delivering faster sustainable economic growth”, 17 strategies for different purposes, “even an Arctic strategy”. All this is overseen not only by the Scottish Government itself but also by eight other statutory bodies and by 32 local authorities. In turn they are given pointers by 18 official advisory boards.

‘‘All of these initiatives are well intentioned. But is such a structure the best way to support coherent policy intervention in a country of Scotland’s size?’’ the commentary asks. ‘‘More importantly, where is the evidence that this complex structure has had – or will have – a positive impact on Scotland’s economic performance or deliver the systems-wide reforms required to help meet Scotland’s long-term economic challenges?’’ So far the Scottish Government is completely undeterred by evidence that the quango approach does not work, on anything from football hooliganism to land reform. But it lacks a mechanism for identifying a good consequence from a bad consequence, a good idea from a bad idea. That is what economic assessment, as opposed to social gush, could offer.

The situation is all the more disquieting as the prospect of a second referendum on independence looms. We all live in the real world rather than in a politically correct paradise. When we come to vote, most of us will make our choice on an assessment of the direct material interest of ourselves, our families and our communities: that is how voters are. Unless the Scottish Government can give us a reasonable prospect of becoming richer after we leave the UK, then the referendum will be lost again. For that reason it is vital to get the economics right – as the Scottish Government is at the moment not doing.