Leaders: Scottish Government must bring in the experts

RESISTING the temptation to apply the obvious epithet, the critique of the Scottish Government’s case for both independence and devo-max by Professor Arthur Midwinter of Edinburgh University’s Institute of Public Sector Accounting Research, which we carry today, could be fairly described as damning.

Drawing on many years’ experience as an analyst of public spending, including time spent as the adviser to Holyrood’s finance committee, Prof Midwinter is scathing about the “spin” which he says has been applied to figures presented as facts by the Nationalist administration at Holyrood as it seeks to make the case for independence.

Indentifying a theme highlighted in these columns on several occasions, Prof Midwinter states that the Scottish Government often presents unsubstantiated assertions as matters of fact. In one ironic example, he cites claims that Scotland’s economy is underperforming as part of the case for having more fiscal powers. It’s not, he says.

As was to be expected, the claims were last night hotly disputed by the Nationalists, who argued that the figures in the Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland (GERS) publication showed we were far better off than the UK as a whole, though the SNP could not resist the temptation to play the man, not the ball, highlighting Prof Midwinter’s work as an adviser to Wendy Alexander when she was Scottish Labour leader.

This response conveniently ignores the fact that when the SNP was in opposition John Swinney, now the finance secretary, would use Prof Midwinter’s research to berate the then Labour/Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive. More seriously, it also seeks to divert attention from the issue of the need for facts to be available to voters in advance of the independence referendum.

In this respect, Prof Midwinter’s most powerful contribution is not his criticism of the SNP’s figures, important though that is, but his plea for the Office of Budget Responsibility to be given a role in analysing financial information and the assumptions being made by politicians in the constitutional debate.

This call will strike a chord not just with ordinary voters, who are no doubt baffled by the claim and counter-claim, but also with many Scottish Government civil servants who feel under pressure to produce figures that suit the SNP’s case but are unable, out of loyalty to their political masters or perhaps fear of retribution, to speak out about their concerns.

Prof Midwinter’s idea should be given serious consideration. The OBR is a body created by the coalition government to analyse independently Whitehall spending, but it must be possible to make it accountable to Holyrood in this area in the same way it is proposed that the Electoral Commission will answer to the parliament over the referendum.

Nip this arrogance in the bud

FOR the second time in a month, the accusation of being “anti-Scottish” has been hurled by the SNP at political opponents. First there were claims by Joan McAlpine, an aide to First Minister Alex Salmond, that critics of the SNP’s referendum plans were “anti-Scottish”.

Now the accusation has been made again, this time by a member of the Scottish Cabinet. Education secretary Mike Russell declared in the Holyrood chamber yesterday that support for university tuition fees was “anti-Scottish”. Hugh Henry, Labour’s education spokesman, was right to respond that “what we are seeing now is a creeping arrogance and intolerance to anyone who dares to speak against the SNP”.

In the daily political rough and tumble, remarks are made that people regret and do not repeat. But little regret was evident last month, and no more now. This is more than a scraping of the rhetorical barrel. It is deeply offensive to many Scots who are proud of their country but now find their patriotism called into question and their views branded “anti-Scottish” for the simple reason that they do not accord with positions approved by the SNP.

It is a tactic intended to stigmatise, belittle and close down debate, and those who deploy it should not be at all surprised if their victims regard it as little short of fascism.

All Scots, of whatever persuasion, have ownership of the Saltire and their patriotism should not be questioned. This pathetic attempt to intimidate opponents should be nipped in the bud, and that should start with orders from the very top.

Big Yin in the bear pit

BILLY Connolly, Scotland’s premier comedian and national icon, has walked off the stage twice in the space of a week after being confronted by hecklers.

In the past, such interventions would be grist to Mr Connolly’s mill, the sparks that further drive the engine of his unsparing humour. But last Saturday he walked off the stage during a performance in Blackpool after being abused by a member of the audience, prompted by a particularly edgy racontage about strokes. The preceding week he cut short a performance in Scarborough by half an hour after being heckled by members of the audience who, in the diplomatic account of our reporter, “had dallied too long at the bar”.

It is a curious phenomenon of our age that audiences have grown at once more sensitive to the subjects of humour and at the same time, through their noisy and disruptive interruptions for drinks, toilet and cigarette breaks, insensitive to the requirements of live performance.

Indeed, comedy performances now have become something of a bear pit.

Whether changes in audience behaviour reflect the more strident humour of the comedians, or vice versa, is moot. But we hope there will be no further need for Billy Connolly fans to be short-changed.