I’ve read a number of negative responses to the Scottish National Party’s long-awaited white paper on its plans for a post-independence Scotland, most of them negative or at the very least pointing out flaws in the logic or omission of key facts.
The mistake that all of these articles have made is to review this as a serious political proposition. Viewed as a fiction text, it’s absolutely fabulous stuff that sits squarely within the ‘fantasy fiction’ genre.
It’s got a group of heroes: Alex Salmond and his brave SNP cohorts, who are fighting to liberate their nation from its Anglo-Saxon oppressors. The latter are the villains of the piece: a venal Westminster government that is seeking to further its own nefarious economic ends by depriving poor Scots of their North Sea oil birthright and holding back their pensions.
The story: how the SNP with no regard for itself (“independence is not about this government or any political party”) intends to lead its would-be citizens out of the doldrums of UK servitude to a brighter future.
We get some back story first, with a preface from Mr Salmond highlighting how evil Westminister governments that have been “rejected at the ballot box in Scotland” impose poll taxes (yes, he references Thatcher - all the big guns are coming out) and bedroom taxes on “the most vulnerable people in our society”.
And then, via an exciting roller coaster ride through some economic statistics and pronouncements that are positively supernatural in their ability to defy gravity, we are delivered to the promised land of milk and honey. Independence.
The film version - I’m sure Mel Gibson has already been approached - will have Scots all over the land fist-pumping and tubthumping in ways not seen since Braveheart was released nearly twenty years ago.
Of course, like any fantasy fiction it has its plot holes. For example, we are told Scotland would keep the pound post-independence.
Well, the Treasury raised serious doubts about that earlier this year and stated that, should an agreement be reached, it will likely come with “a negotiated set of constraints on economic and fiscal policy” and “include rigorous oversight of Scotland’s economic and fiscal plans by the UK authorities”.
We are also told that Scotland would be a member of the European Union with the same opt-outs of the Schengen free movement area and the euro.
Again, we must ignore previous statements such as that by European Commission president José Barroso, who said in 2012 that Scotland would need to apply as an independent nation and negotiate any such concessions on its own terms.
Or what about the statements from European Parliament vice-president Alejo Vidal-Quadras, an MEP from the Catalonia region who opposes his own region’s cessation from Spain, who told The Scotsman today that Spain as well as France, which is also fighting with local politicians in a want-away region, would “surely not accept an independent Scotland”.
In the detail the plot holes are no less gaping.
Take the promise to offer a marginally higher flat-rate pension to Scots, and to put a stop to increases in the state retirement age beyond the immediate rise to 66, which our heroes claim is possible due to life expectancy being shorter above the border.
According to Hargreaves Lansdown, these promises could cost significantly in excess of £1bn. The National Association of Pension Funds has also warned that funding costs for pension schemes north of the border would rise dramatically in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, which would hit pensioners in the pocket.
How are they going to fund these promises, while also pledging not to raise taxes?
Riding to the rescue here is the fair maiden of the piece, North Sea oil revenue, which the white paper claims has been 98.8 per cent attributable to waters that would be controlled by an independent Scotland since 2011.
These figures are disputed - HMRC put out a paper earlier this year putting the Scottish share of revenues on a geographic basis at 83 per cent. How the revenue would be split still has to be agreed in any case.
The whole economic argument for independence and the hubris underlying it also ignores an Institute of Fiscal Studies report from last month, which stated that Scotland would need to raise taxes or cut spending by £2.5bn to match UK government debt targets - and by a further £3.4bn if Office for Budget Responsibility projections for oil revenue decline are accurate.
But let’s not get too hung up on the detail. It’s a cracking yarn and as a piece of fiction could be worthy of the highest of literary accolades.
Which is good, because as a piece of serious politics or economics it’s frankly laughable.
.png?source=design-system&width=126)