Letter: Professors' evidence needed scrutiny

The proposition made by Professors Drew Scott and Andrew Hughes-Hallett that they can only be questioned by a Scottish Parliament committee on evidence they themselves wish to be questioned on (your report, 17 January) is absolutely astounding and, indeed, destructive of the whole basis of committee work in this parliament or any other.

They are the foremost academic supporters of the concept of fiscal autonomy - that Scotland should raise all or most of its own taxes.

Their central criticism of the Scotland Bill is that, in their view, there are not enough taxation powers to be provided to the parliament. Their views have been adopted lock, stock and barrel by the SNP government.

Prof Scott was very explicit to the committee. He said that, for each 1 per cent "increase in devolved powers - meaning revenues - the level of GDP could be expected to increase by 0.6 to 1.3 per cent".

On closer questioning, it turned out that the research evidence on which this assertion was based in fact referred to increases in devolved expenditure powers, not tax raising powers.

This is a central point to the committee's consideration of the Scotland Bill, and I was surprised at the time and continue to be surprised that Professors Scott and Hughes-Hallett objected to being questioned on the extent and value of the academic research which they said supported their case.

Much of their technical evidence about the bill was helpful, but it would have been better if the time they spent challenging the committee's right to ask them questions had been able to be used instead on these other important matters.

Eminent committee witnesses may, no doubt, have views about the tone and manner of questioning, but the issue of whether or not their substantive paper (which was referred to in their written evidence) was or was not formally submitted by them as evidence is a total smokescreen.

The evidence given by the two professors last Tuesday has done an important service to the debate. It has demolished the line peddled by the SNP that there is some sort of automatic connection between tax-raising powers and economic growth.

Of course, wise use of all the powers of the Scottish Parliament could lead to growth, just as wise use of powers by the UK government could lead to growth, but equally bad use of powers at either level of government would be damaging.

As for conspiracy theories about being "ambushed" at the committee, I think most people would regard probing the basis of your key proposition as being a pretty obvious line of questioning.

Robert Brown MSP

Justice & Constitutional Affairs spokesman

Scottish Liberal Democrats

Charing Cross

Glasgow Having had a chance to review the official transcript of Wendy Alexander's hectoring approach to witnesses as chair of the special committee scrutinising the Scotland Bill, I really do not see how the public can now have any confidence whatsoever in her impartiality in this matter. She should either step aside - or Iain Gray should sack her.

It also strikes me as deeply hypocritical of her to post on her constituency website statements purporting to be in support of anti-bullying campaigns in schools when she herself is unable to conduct herself courteously in public.

Neil Robertson

Glamis Terrace

Dundee

That Hollywood parliament committees "should be conducted with courtesy" (Perspective, 17 January) can't be gainsaid.

But "emotions and sentiments" are part and parcel of economic and political discussion. Doesn't Scotland's greatest philosopher say "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions"?

Ellis Thorpe

Old Chapel Walk

Inverurie

Jim and Margaret Cuthbert (Platform, 15 January) courteously ask me to answer two questions about my recent "Scottish Perspective" on the Scotland Bill.

Their first question is: "Does he think an income tax cut, as part of a package of stimulatory measures introduced by a Scottish Government could grow the economy and increase total tax revenues?" My answer is maybe. Stimulatory measures take two forms: tax cuts and public spending increases.

If they entirely comprise tax cuts, then my original point stands: they could only generate more total tax revenue if Scotland is on the right-hand side of the Laffer curve, which I dispute.

If they include spending increases, then tax receipts would have to increase to cover the additional public spending, and then by some more, before there would be a net gain. Possible, but unlikely. As a canny man, I do not buy it unless there is some plausible modelling of the conditions that would bring it about.

Therefore their second question to me falls.

Iain McLean

Professor of Politics

Oxford University