A newspaper analysis of public spending that “dispelled the myth that Scots are Britain’s subsidy junkies” was based on a flawed interpretation of the data, according to a leading academic.
Iain McLean, Professor of Politics at Nuffield College, Oxford, will tell an audience in Glasgow this week that ‘Scotching the myth’, The Herald’s ‘special investigation’ last November into Scotland’s finances, was “spun”.
In a paper being presented to an economics seminar at Strathclyde University’s business school tomorrow (February 12), McLean argues that The Herald had based its report on the most favourable assumption of tax revenue north of the border including assigning all North Sea oil revenues to Scotland when the price of crude was at an all-time high.
“Be very careful about numbers spun by politicians,” McLean told Holyrood last week, “and, in this case, newspapers. [We] should accept that the picture that GERS [the Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland] has been showing for the last 20 years – that Scotland is in structural deficit – is the case for any normal year.”
Readers have left 3 comments. 1. Scotching the myth report was ‘spun’
Anonymous, Unregistered I am so very fond of that phrase 'structural deficit'; that someone can accuse a newspaper of spin whilst employing this old phrase is hilarious.
So what exactly is a 'structural' deficit? Why does every other country have straightforward deficits or surpluses, yet Scotland has a permanent 'structural' deficit?
In 1992, when Ian Lang first proposed that the GERS report be used in the argument against self-government John Major strongly warned him against it, as it was transparently obvious that such an argument was completely flawed. After all, much of the spending 'for' Scotland pre independence is done so in the name of the retention of the structure of the UK - high defence spending, high civil service spending, high HMRC spending, high infrastructure spending, high foreign office spending and extremely high 'unidentifiable' spending (£75billion and counting - Scotland's input? £7.5 billion).
GERS is worthwhile only as an exercise so long as the structure of the union is retained. To use it as an argument against self-government is spin of the highest order. 2. Scotching the myth report was ‘spun’
Anonymous, Unregistered Politics professor preaches at economics seminar! A supporter of GERS suggests that a newspaper analysis is biased. Oh dear. Who do we believe? An academic who refuses to clarify non-identified government expenditure (which is clearly biased to the South East of England) and then lectures us that Scotland is in structural deficit. Let's face it, until all government expenditure is analysed openly, any body who interprets partial information is just 'spinning' a limited picture. 3. Scotching the myth report was ‘spun’
Anonymous, Unregistered “Be very careful about numbers spun by politicians,” McLean told Holyrood last week, “and, in this case, newspapers..."
Indeed. Of course, this wouldn't be the Iain MacLean who was leader of the Labour group on Oxford city council, 1982-86 would it? Or who served as a Labour councillor in Tyneside? Or who served as a 'special adviser' to Gordon Brown at the teasury from 2002-2005 would it? For if it is, do his statements not carry the whiff of self-interest and hypocrisy?
A Scot who sporadically returns home to the old country he left behind thirty years ago to tell those who still live here to behave themselves and drop any ambitions to improve in order to protect his own self interest. Just for a change. |
Holyrood magazine 
