The Secretary of State for Scotland has responded to the publication of the Scottish Government’s economic case for independence
Michael Moore said:
‘This document is very disappointing for anyone hoping to find out how independence would be better for our economic future. It is negative and backward looking and does not even try to answer any of the big questions that have been asked in recent months on pensions and currency.
‘This is not a plan for how independence would help Scotland. It is four chapters of contradictions with a glossy cover.
‘It is a contradiction to highlight how well our important Scottish industries are doing and blame it on the UK. Our oil companies, food companies and life science companies are doing well and they doing well inside a strong UK.
‘Being part of the UK gives Scottish companies the best of both worlds. That is why three-quarters of Scottish business leaders think independence would be bad for their business – and they are the ones who know their business best.
‘It is a contradiction to highlight the fact that Scotland does two-thirds of our trade with the rest of the UK and then propose building an economic barrier right through the middle of it.
‘It is telling that the section on financial services does not put forward a single positive that independence will bring to this vital Scottish industry. There is no challenge to our detailed analysis published yesterday that independence will restrict the choice of mortgages, insurance and ISAs and push up costs for customers.
‘Once again, the fundamental flaw in their economic plan is to advocate leaving the UK so we can then try and renegotiate our way back in to a currency union with the UK, shared banking regulation with the UK, a lender of last resort with the UK and a UK pension scheme.
‘Logic has taken a back seat in the drafting of this plan. The Scottish Government must do better than this: they must produce credible and robust answers to the big questions that Scots are asking about the economic impact of leaving the UK family. Glossy brochures are no substitute for hard facts.’