War of the professors: claim and counter-claim over Scotland's future

Published on Thursday 3 February 2011 14:35

TWO academics who support more economic powers for Scotland have hit back at claims by fellow professors that there is "a lot wrong" with the evidence behind the case for fiscal autonomy.

Writing in today's Scotsman Professors Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott claim "a significant transfer of fiscal powers to the Scottish Government is, if anything, more urgently required than previously".

They are responding to six other leading academics led by Professor Anton Muscatelli, the principal of Glasgow University, who argued that Professors Hughes Hallett and Scott were wrong to claim increased fiscal autonomy would lead to an increase in economic growth. They said that at best the case was "not proven".

In particular they claimed that a key paper on fiscal autonomy produced by Prof Hughes Hallett and Prof Scott lacks proper evidence.

The group said "no evidence whatsoever is cited in support of this assertion" and there is "no basis" for the five-year figure.

They went on to say professors Scott and Hughes Hallett suggest setting up "a whole new public finance system for Scotland" based on a "frail foundation".

In their response today, the two economists, who are a key part of the Campaign for Fiscal Autonomy led by former merchant banker and chairman of the centre right think tank Reform Scotland, Ben Thomson, said the questions over their work on fiscal autonomy is "a distraction".

They say: "The fixation of some politicians and academics about trying to disprove the economic benefits of fiscal autonomy is dangerously distracting.

• Premium - Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott: Scotland Bill lacks levers for growth

"It has led to the Scotland Bill, the forerunner to the most significant package of devolution since the Scottish Parliament was re-established in 1999, being reduced to second fiddle."

The exchanges in the pages of The Scotsman follow a grilling of Professors Hughes Hallett and Scott on 11 January by the Scotland Bill committee in Holyrood where the credibility of their arguments which have formed the basis of SNP Scottish Government policy came under severe scrutiny.

The two professors subsequently complained to the Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson about their treatment, particularly by the committee convener Wendy Alexander and Tory MSP David McLetchie and then demanded an inquiry.

However, the two are set to give evidence on the Scotland Bill to the Scottish affairs select committee in Westminster in ten days and their complaints have been met with private amusement by MPs who have warned they should not expect any less robust questioning when they come to London.One Labour MP said: "If they think they had a hard time with Wendy and the committee in Holyrood, they can expect an even tougher time here. They've gone beyond academic research and entered the world of politics and just because they are academics does not mean they have to be treated softly."

Meanwhile, committee convener Ian Davidson said: "They (Hughes Hallett and Scott] have made their opinions known and they should expect some robust questioning on the evidence to support these views."

East Lothian Labour MP Fiona O'Donnell, who is on the committee, added: "Their research has been used to oppose the Scotland Bill and support full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. All parties are agreed that the bill needs rigorous scrutiny and rigorous questioning of witnesses is part of that process. I am sure that is what people in Scotland would expect of us."