FINANCE Secretary Kate Forbes has hit back at a London School of Economics (LSE) report which predicting that the impact of independence on Scotland’s finances would be three times as bad as Brexit.
Forbes highlighted how it took no account of an independent Scotland’s potential for growth.
She told a special online meeting of Ayr constituency SNP branches on Wednesday: “The study takes no account of population growth and the need to attract immigrants rather than pull up the drawbridge as the UK Government is doing. It takes no account of inward investment and no account of other economic levers that we could have control over.
“Reports like these are dependent on lots of assumptions. We have said quite clearly and unequivocally that we would take a very different approach than the UK Government took to Brexit. We would want to have close links to our friends and allies. We don’t want to be independent because we don’t like our nearest neighbours. We just think we can do a better job at managing our own affairs if powers are closer to the people.”
The LSE report estimates that Brexit will reduce Scotland’s long-term income per capital by 2%. Independence, it estimates, would reduce Scottish income per capital by between 6.3% and 8.7%, although it admits that would depend on what trade barriers were imposed.
Forbes rejected that, saying an independent Scotland could be just as financially successful as Denmark or Norway, and possibly more so.
She added: “These small advanced economies have generally grown at a faster rate than the UK and have also, dare I say it, managed the last few months at times in a way that is better than the UK.
“In terms of our renewables, in terms of our offer on food and drink, our exports, our tourism, our manufacturing ... on all fronts we regularly punch above our weight.
“Whenever anyone suggest to me that Scotland could not do it, I think how on earth do all the other countries do it?
“Countries that don’t have the same level of natural resources that we do, don’t have the same number of universities per head of population as we do, don’t have the history and the heritage for innovation that we do ... how on earth do they survive without England’s support if Scotland couldn’t?”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel