It was always going to be tragic, for every drug misuse death has tragedy behind it. But the announcement of Scotland’s latest number of drug misuse deaths had for the past few years, seen a reduction. What would happen with the announcement of the latest provisional statistics?

The First Minister had other things on his mind. He had a speech to give at the London School of Economics (LSE). Facing the media in London, obviously. Focusing on economics, not drugs, needless to say.

Tragically the scandalous provisional figures from the police showed an increase in suspected drug deaths in 2023 of 10 per cent – up by 105 from 1,092 in 2022 to 1,197 – but still, fortunately lower than the record of 1,339 in 2020.

Humza Yousaf gave a speech about the failings of the current UK economic model at the London School of Economics. Picture: Stefan Rousseau/PA

And it is a scandal. A scandal that is identifiably owned by the SNP.

It is under SNP governments that the numbers started to soar after 2013 and it is under the SNP that the response has been lamentable. Instead of recognising it has been travelling down the wrong path of harm reduction and reorientating towards far greater rehabilitation treatment that can save lives, it has doubled down and, worse, argued if only Scotland could set its own legal policies on drugs, the results would be better.

This approach fails to answer the question why, if the law governing drug policy is the same in Scotland and England, as it is, does Scotland have nearly three times the number of drug misuse deaths than England has? Why is it the worst drug poisoning death rate in Europe?

Blaming others is also repudiated by the evidence that where the SNP does set its own policy – by introducing the minimum unit price (MUP) of alcohol – the result is to encourage young people to switch away from previously “cheap cider” towards even cheaper street drugs? The SNP had the opportunity to accept the MUP policy had failed, given there is no clear evidence MUP led to an overall reduction in alcohol consumption among people drinking at harmful levels, fewer attendances at A&E, or less alcohol-related crime.

Instead of letting MUP ride out to the oblivion of its own sunset clause, it has raised the price by 30 per cent to 65p per unit, making cheaper, but riskier drugs even more attractive.

So it was that a First Minister who proffers a poor understanding of real numbers, terms like supply and demand, or policies that add up addressed the LSE instead of taking personal charge of Scotland’s drug deaths scandal.

I can tell readers there was nothing especially new Humza Yousaf had to say, other than to confirm what we already know – he has no coherent economic plan for Scotland now nor in the future were it to be independent.

When asked about the example of Ireland in having low business taxes, most noticeably its low corporation tax of 12.5 per cent, he dismissed that as a direction he would replicate. So how, we have to ask, would Scotland’s economy fund the annual Scottish public sector deficit that is born by the UK Treasury?

If he is not going to accept public spending will have to be trimmed back, if he cannot embrace cutting personal or business taxes to encourage greater revenues, if he offers more regulation rather than deregulation, then what is left? We are left with a country that would find it difficult to borrow at anything except eye-watering interest rates just to break even, then having to borrow even more to invest in public sector-led growth.

None of these points were answered, just pat references to small countries being successful, without explaining how they have dealt with the practicalities.

There was, of course, the tired cliché about how Scotland would be better off had the UK remained in the European Union. This was evidenced by extrapolating estimates by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which were modelled using partisan assumptions that have been challenged and presenting its guesswork as fact. Nor did he seek to explain how Scotland would meet the Copenhagen Criteria for membership (Currency? Central bank? Deficit under control?) or afford the £1 billion-plus cost of EU membership with money that would already have been spent.

Control over immigration was not accompanied by mentioning it would require a hard border with England. Why migrants would prefer higher tax Scotland over lower personal taxes in England was also ignored.

Recently the Paris-based EU Tax Observatory published a report on Ireland’s tax regime that suggested it existed by rerouting business tax income away from EU countries it should be paid to and into Ireland. It backed up a similar recent report by banking finance specialist Bob Lyddon that showed how various depreciations and write-offs such as civil aircraft leasing could be used to create an effective Irish corporation tax of only 4 per cent.

Yousaf’s Scotland would have neither the prospect of low business taxes nor the ability to create new markets for tax depreciation to emulate Ireland’s parasitic shadow tax haven economy.

The day after the LSE speech, the First Minister visited a community hub for drug addiction claiming his policies were on course. Since he came to power the number of drug misuse deaths appear to have increased – real deaths, not an extrapolation of an estimate based on doubtful assumptions.

The First Minister does not have a plan for Scotland’s economy that was worthy of him addressing the LSE. Neither does he have a credible plan to reduce Scotland’s shameful and scandalous drug misuse deaths, other than to brazen-out each year’s announcement in the hope that something eventually turns up. It’s called “winging-it” and Scotland needs far better than that if he is to heal Scotland’s divisions so we can all get behind a plan for better outcomes.

- Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments

Why Humza Yousaf is a man without a 'credible plan for Scotland's economy or drug deaths crisis - Brian Monteith

Comments