GOOD NEWS for Caithness - after the first few weeks of the referendum debate, it is abundantly clear that the positive approach towards Scotland's future is winning over the negative approach from the anti-independence parties, with support for independence now neck-and-neck with opposition.
Alex Salmond's leadership ratings are superb - they are strongly positive, with double-digit net approval, and all the other leaders both north and south of the border have sharply negative ratings.
Several polls show the people of Scotland are extremely positive about our future as an independent nation. If there was never any doubt the anti-independence parties are out of touch with the mood of Scotland, this poll proves it.
With independence, Scotland would be the sixth-wealthiest country in the developed world in terms of GDP per head. We pay more into the UK exchequer than we get back in return. In the five years to 2009
10, Scotland was in a stronger financial position than the UK as a whole to the tune of £7.2 billion.
Meanwhile, the troubles of the Lib Dems in the London coalition are not hard to seek. But the saddest thing is their impact on us here. The loss of Chris Huhne as energy and climate change secretary over a personal matter cannot disguise the loss of a rare ally for renewable energy development and climate change mitigation.
Inside the Lib Dems he was no radical but he was not a Tory-lite clone of Nick Clegg to whom he narrowly lost the leadership contest four years ago. Messrs Cameron and Clegg will have one less thorn in the side since his departure from cabinet.
As for Danny Alexander, he is rightly blamed for the Treasury cuts that are too deep and too focused on benefits and public services. He has left little scope for future job creation but seems to have allowed "tax efficient" deals for top quango bosses running the student loans service. As for bankers' bonuses, they rankle alongside soft tax deals for civil servants.
As for the Lib Dems' stance on the constitutional debate, the Holyrood and Westminster leaders will not discuss their long-held Lib Dem policy of federalism. They line up with the ultra-Unionist Labour and Tory parties in the no camp against independence. Scottish opinion has been trampled by them to get power in London. Now we can see how Charles Kennedy, Danny Alexander and Viscount Thurso value that platform over any progress for Scotland's needs.
THE current challenges facing the public finances in the UK and beyond are serious but without doubt Scotland can hold her own in a global economy. Of course these challenges will not disappear with independence but Scotland is well placed - indeed better placed - to meet these challenges head on. Scotland's fiscal position is stronger than that of the UK.
According to the official GERS figures, Scotland has run a current budget surplus in four out of the last five years. In contrast, the UK has been in deficit each year. Even when North Sea revenues fell by 50 per cent in 2009
10 Scotland's fiscal position remained stronger than the UK.
As a result of the financial crisis and the management of the public finances by successive UK governments, the UK has a considerable national debt; debt that Scotland will have to repay independent or not.
Wild and unfounded claims have been made over the scale of the national debt Scotland would inherit. The reality is the proportion of the UK's national debt assigned to Scotland under independence would be subject to negotiation as part of a revised constitutional settlement. If UK debt was allocated on a per capita basis, then for 2009
10 - the last year in which figures are fully available - Scotland's net debt would be 43.6 per cent of GDP compared to 52.9 per cent of GDP for the UK.
According to analysis based on GERS and produced by the Scotland Office in October, between 1980
81 and 2009/10, Scotland ran a cumulative deficit worth £41bn. That's a significant figure and often the basis for the claim that Scotland cannot afford independence. The difficulty with this calculation is it fails to consider the comparable UK position - a deficit of around £715bn. In other words, a per capita share of this UK figure allocated to Scotland would be £60bn - nearly £20bn or one third higher - than the figure estimated by the Scotland Office!
Looking more closely at Scotland's financial position, the debate would be helped if we were spared any phoney analysis.
One of the characteristics of financial management is the question of the credit rating of an independent Scotland. In the credit markets nearly two thirds of the countries deemed to have triple "A" status by Standard & Poor's have a population of less than 10 million. While Norway, with a population of just under five million, has managed to amass an oil fund worth approximately £340bn - over £70,000 per person.
Also there's a more fundamental point. Public spending in Scotland is already being cut as a direct consequence of the management of the public finances by the UK Government. We will all have to live with these consequences in the coming years whether Scotland is independent or not.
Put simply, under independence we would not escape from efforts to rebalance the public finances. However, it would be up to us to decide how best this could be achieved; and to do so in a manner which complemented, rather than endangered, Scottish economic recovery. By taking control of the levers of growth - and using the proceeds of our successes - will we be able to offer a genuine alternative to years of austerity.
That's the background to the setting of the balanced, devolved Scottish budget with 32 per cent less cash for capital investment and 11 per cent less overall than 2010 levels for the next three years. It is tough but it was agreed in Holyrood this week.
www.robgibson.org
