AM2, regardless if there are a number of minor errors in ‘The Great Deception’, the argument still stands, that the GERS do not show an honest account of the total revenue taken from Scotland. Even with these errors ironed out Scotland still does better than brake [sic] even.The post reflects a common misunderstanding (wilful or otherwise, I can't say) that the errors I have identified below don't amount to much. So here is a summary. I have not included the overestimation due to double taxation treaties, because although Niall admitted that net receipts would indeed be reduced, I did not take the time to identify the monetary significance of the discrepancy.
| £ million | |
| Surplus claimed by The Great Deception | 9,632 |
| Less: fuel excise duty overestimation | -3,782 |
| Less: oil & gas revenue overestimation | -250 |
| Less: VAT on fuel and whisky overestimation | -1,548 |
| Less: company HQs outside Scotland overestimation | -2,189 |
| New "surplus" | 1,863 |
Now, the SNP said in a November 2006 press release that their planned oil fund would grow, within 10 years, to £90 billion and then produce annual investment revenues of £5.5 billion. That corresponds to a 6.111% return.
Except to hint that it would be at least half of all
Thankfully, the calculation isn’t difficult. I used monthly interest and the same 6.111% annual compound returns that the SNP assumed, reinvested over 120 months (0.4955% monthly). On that basis, the fund would grow to £90 billion only if the annual capital investment was £6.609 billion.
So that £6.609bn would have to come out of the public purse for each of the first ten years of an independent
Finally, I would stress that I have not sought to reconcile The Great Deception with GERS 2005. My objective was only to show that The Great Deception is so pitted with errors that even its broad conclusion must be rejected, and that proved easy.
