Confused forecast

In THESE pages in October, three academics from Glasgow’s Centre for Public Policy for Regions (CPPR) chided me for suggesting that their analysis relied too heavily on the oil price forecasts of just one, very pessimistic, source – the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). Yet the briefing they recently published (your report, 7 December) about an independent Scotland’s finances is based almost entirely on the OBR’s oil price forecasts.

These forecasts are statistical outliers, far below those of more respected organisations and the industry. Even the UK government itself, hardly supportive of Scottish independence, forecasts oil prices substantially higher than those used by the OBR ($115 per barrel in 2017, for example, versus the OBR’s $97).

Further, the CPPR makes a heroic positive assumption about public spending in Scotland should we vote No next year. Its analysis assumes – unquestioningly – that the Barnett Formula will remain in place if we remain part of the UK.

This, despite increasing calls from within both the Tory and Labour parties that UK spending should move to a needs-based formula. It is estimated that such a change would lead to cuts of circa £4 billion per year from the Scottish budget.

In other words, the CPPR chooses to present a comparison between an exceptionally pessimistic forecast under a Yes vote and the most optimistic of scenarios under a No vote. I do not believe that to be balanced or helpful in terms of informing Scotland’s voters.

C Hegarty

Glenorchy Road
North Berwick, East Lothian