Ex-adviser condemns SNP ‘spin’ in official documents

Professor Arthur Midwinter has used his submission to the UK government’s consultation on the independence referendum to claim Scottish Government reports cannot be trusted because they have been manipulated by SNP spin doctors. Writing in today’s Scotsman, he says its “misinformation campaign on both the impact of independence or devolution-max is an insult to Scottish citizens”.

He describes the quality of Scottish Government reports as “poor” compared with those of previous administrations, and claims they “present unsubstantiated assertions as matters of fact, or make selective use of research which fits with their predisposition, whilst ignoring critical work”.

Prof Midwinter said the accuracy of such reports was crucial ahead of arguments over the fiscal position that an independent Scotland would inherit from the UK.

He cites a string of instances where he claims Scottish Government reports were guilty of “seriously misleading the public” and calls for independent watchdog the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) to instead produce economic forecasts and data in the run-up to the referendum.

The intervention by Prof Midwinter, who was for five years adviser to Holyrood’s finance committee, comes as the early shots in the referendum campaign focus on the economic arguments, with the Nationalists claiming Scotland would be the sixth wealthiest nation in the world if only it were allowed to break away from the UK.

It also follows questions raised about the impartiality of the civil service after Scotland’s most senior civil servant, Sir Peter Housden, was accused of politically partisan behaviour.

Last night, Prof Midwinter’s call for the OBR to take over economic forecasting in Scotland was taken up by Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary Margaret Curran, who wrote to the Treasury-based body formally asking it to get involved.

But the Scottish Government has rejected the demand and insisted its reports were sound and produced by civil servants and experts without political interference.

Prof Midwinter was particularly critical of Scottish Government documents for the SNP’s “National Conversation”, which provided the background for its draft bill on a referendum in the last parliament.

He also singled out the 176-page Your Scotland, Your Voice produced on St Andrew’s Day, 2009, which detailed possible constitutional futures.

And he alleged spin doctors had interfered in the annual report on Scotland’s balance sheet – Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS). He claimed the SNP wanted to make Scotland appear to have a fiscal surplus to boost its case for separation, but said the party ignored important data such as one-off capital spending, which would put Scotland well into the red.

In his submission to the UK government, he said Scottish Government documents “appear to contain considerable spin doctor input as well as conventional civil service drafting”.

Writing in The Scotsman today, he elaborates further, accusing the SNP in government of making “unsubstantiated assertions” about Scotland’s growth underperforming, and “manipulation” of growth data since devolution.

He claimed First Minister Alex Salmond, himself a former Royal Bank of Scotland economist, had made “implausible” claims about the reasons for Scotland having a lower rate of unemployment than the UK average.

He also accused SNP ministers of putting out “misinformation” about the Calman Commission report, which is the basis of the Scotland Bill that will, if it becomes law, significantly increase Holyrood’s powers, including over income tax.

Prof Midwinter said the OBR, set up by Chancellor George Osborne, was the best body to produce independent official economic data for the debate ahead of the referendum. “Since it was set up, it has shown itself to be both independent and objective and Robert Chote [who heads the body] was director of the IFS [Institute for Fiscal Studies] and has a deservedly high reputation for integrity.

“It seems to be the ideal body to carry out this work for Scottish economic data and produce reports which can be trusted.”

Ms Curran said: “This is a significant intervention by one of Scotland’s most senior academics. It raises serious concerns about the figures being put forward by the Scottish Government on the economic challenges facing Scotland and plans for separation.

“Any official figures from the civil service should be beyond repute and not subject to political pressure or fixed to suit a political agenda.”

She insisted politicians on both sides of the debate had a duty to present an objective picture about Scotland’s finances to the people of Scotland so an informed choice could be made.

She went on: “In a week when independent figures blew a hole in the SNP figures for oil and gas revenues, this is another serious blow to the economic case for separation.

“The debate ahead is so crucial. Separation would be for ever, and the people of Scotland need all the facts before them from independent sources to aid them in making this decision.

“People in Scotland need answers on plans for schools, hospitals and pensions, but no answers are coming from the SNP. A substantial separation deficit would result in radical changes to public service provision in Scotland. If this is the case, people need to know.”

A spokesman for finance secretary John Swinney said that while GERS was a Scottish Government publication, it carried the National Statistics kitemark, meaning it was prepared without any political or ministerial input.

He also defended Scottish Government reports and publications as being of the highest quality.

He insisted: “These claims, from a former Labour adviser, couldn’t be more wrong. Scotland’s budget position is a key argument in favour of independence, and one reason why we are confident of success in the referendum. Year after year, Scotland is in a stronger financial position that the UK as a whole – Scotland contributes more to the UK Exchequer than we receive in public spending.”

He went on: “On the latest figures, Scotland generated 9.4 per cent of UK tax with 8.4 per cent of the population – the equivalent of £1,000 extra for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

“There is now agreement that Scotland is in a far stronger position than the UK in terms of our fiscal position.

“On that sound basis, Scotland would responsibly manage the nation’s finances and assets under independence – and would be the sixth richest country in the OECD in terms of GDP per head.”