Letter: Evidence was ignored, not disproved

IN RESPONSE to your coverage of our appearance at the Scotland Bill Committee (12 January) both Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett and myself, Professor Drew Scott, would like to make two points.

The first is to restate that we stand by the conclusion of our work that indicates how increasing the degree of fiscal responsibility can improve Scotland's economic performance. This conclusion is based on our previous review of the evidence and is buttressed by the preliminary results from our current research on fiscal "devolution" in OECD countries.

Accordingly, we believe that the Scottish Government is correct to seek access to full taxation and economic levers - measures which are notably absent from the Scotland Bill as it stands - as a means of improving Scotland's economic performance.

The second point is to record our considerable dismay that the committee established to scrutinise the Scotland Bill - a Bill that will radically alter the basis on which devolved spending is financed - chose to ignore almost entirely the dedicated evidence we submitted on that topic.

This clearly demonstrates the significant adverse economic effects that are likely to accompany the implementation of the financial measures set out in the Scotland Bill.

It is essential that its provisions are subject to the most rigorous scrutiny and its defects addressed. To assist that process was the sole purpose of our attendance at the Scotland Bill committee. The Scotland Bill as it currently stands is seriously flawed and would bring with it a deflationary bias that could have cost Scotland billions of pounds since the start of devolution - with damaging implications for the budget, public services and jobs. I think it is very unfortunate that we were prevented from sharing our views with the committee.

Professor Drew Scott

University of Edinburgh

Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett

University of St Andrews

George Mason University, Washington

YOUR readers might be forgiven for being confused by the report (12 January) of the proceedings of yesterday's session of the Holyrood committee on the Scotland Bill.

Taking the report at face value, the committee was more interested in challenging witnesses, professors Hughes Hallett and Scott, on their belief in the economic benefits of fiscal autonomy than on hearing their views on the Scotland Bill itself. Rather confusingly, convener Wendy Alexander is reported as pressing the professors for the "source of their analysis" even though the sources are clearly documented in their report, Scotland:A New Fiscal Settlement, which was available to the committee.

Either she was more interested in signalling her disapproval of their views than in engaging with them or she fails to understand the measure of economic and political argument is probability not proof.

Stephen Maxwell

Findhorn Place

Edinburgh