COMMON Weal released a video critiquing the Sustainable Growth Commission’s approach to independence with regard to their concept of an annual solidarity payment (ASP) that would be transferred from Scotland to the remaining UK after independence (SNP hit back at criticism of Growth Report, March 14).
READ MORE: SNP hit back at Common Weal's criticism of Growth Report
This payment, estimated at £5.3 billion per year by the Growth Commission, would comprise of £1bn for “shared services” – as in Scotland would be reliant on “buying in” government services from rUK until and unless it built up those capabilities for itself – and £1.3bn in foreign aid that would be given to the UK to spend on its foreign aid programmes until and unless Scotland built up its own foreign aid department. Finally, the ASP would contain £3bn to pay debt interest – despite the Growth Commission rightly recognising that Scotland would not take ownership of any UK public debt.
This payment would be fixed in cash terms but the Growth Commission contends it would become smaller as a proportion of the Scottish economy as the economy grows and inflation reduces the value of the payment in real terms. Crucially, because no actual debt is transferred, there’s no overall sum for Scotland to pay off. This £3bn payment would continue every year until such time as the deal was changed.
We have been criticised in the last two days for describing the payment of the ASP as lasting “forever”, but it is clear that the Growth Commission do not see this as a short-term plan. They describe the proportional value of the debt aspect of the payment over the course of at least 30 years (section B4.40 in the Growth Commission report) and the approach to “shared services” and foreign aid transfer as lasting for “a transitional or, indeed, an extended period” (Section B. 2.3).
This is the critical thing in the report. There is no timeline for the “until or unless” transition to something else. No positive mandate to encourage the development of those alternative arrangements and certainly no roadmap to getting there. Perhaps it’s the physicist in me but I am reminded of Newton’s First Law, which states that an object’s velocity will remain unchanged until and unless it is perturbed by an outside force. If no such force ever comes, then the object will keep moving as it is ... forever.
We believe that a better course to chart is for Scotland to build all of the government departments that it will need in time for independence so that we may then have full control over the policy direction of our country. If it proves to be mutually beneficial for Scotland to co-operate or collaborate with the remaining UK (or any other countries) on shared projects and programmes then we should do it. But that relationship should be on the basis of nations co-operating as equals rather than one buying critical services from the other – whatever those services may be.
The discussion over the Growth Commission’s proposals – especially as compared to Common Weal’s – has been ongoing since it was published. This is a positive thing and I’m glad to see it. Soon, the SNP will be taking that discussion to their conference where they will choose which version of a future Scotland is most appealing to them. We welcome that the SNP has considered a “soft independence” approach, where Scotland remains closely tied to the remaining United Kingdom. But we firmly believe that the democratically correct and economically more realistic approach is Common Weal’s “future neutral” approach, where Scotland is allowed the maximum space to develop the policies and relationships that it wants. We look forward to seeing the results of that discussion on the conference floor.
Craig Dalziel
Common Weal head of research
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