independent.scot

Straight answers to honest questions about Scottish independence

← All questions

The Economy

Doesn't Scotland run a huge deficit?

The short answer

Yes — on paper, and the paper deserves to be taken seriously. The official GERS figures for 2024-25 show a notional deficit of 11.6% of GDP, around £26 billion, against 5.1% for the UK as a whole (Scottish Government — GERS 2024-25).

This is the strongest card in the anti-independence hand, and you should distrust anyone on either side who treats it carelessly — whether by waving the number about as if it settled the question, or by waving it away as if it didn't exist. So let's do neither, and instead ask what the number actually measures.

What GERS actually is

GERS — Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland — is produced by Scottish Government statisticians to accredited national-statistics standards. What it attempts is genuinely hard: estimating a set of accounts for Scotland when the financial arrangements it's measuring are designed, collected and run at UK level. People disagree in good faith about how well that can be done at all — and that disagreement is worth understanding rather than dismissing.

Whatever view you take on that, what GERS measures is quite specific: Scotland's public finances as a region of the UK, under current arrangements. Most of the revenue side is statistical estimation from UK-wide data, because the UK doesn't collect most taxes separately for Scotland. And the spending side includes Scotland's allocated share of UK-wide programmes — a population share of UK debt interest, of defence as the UK sizes and locates it, of central administration — money counted as "Scottish spending" whether or not it is spent in Scotland or would be spent by a Scottish government (Fraser of Allander — a guide to GERS; The Ferret — what GERS can and can't tell you).

And no conspiracy is needed for a measuring system to suit its makers. The UK's fiscal machinery was built by the Treasury to administer a region, not to illuminate a nation's economy: revenues estimated from UK-wide data rather than counted, spending shaped by the Barnett formula — a stopgap devised in 1978 that its own author spent decades disowning. "It was never meant to last this long," Joel Barnett wrote in 2004, later calling its persistence "a national embarrassment and personally embarrassing to me as well" (Barnett formula — history and criticism). His complaint, for the record, was that it treated English regions unfairly — the point here isn't that the machinery cheats Scotland, but that nobody would build the UK's territorial finances this way on purpose. Nobody ever did. It accreted. And accounts produced by that machinery, for that machinery's purposes, are a strange thing to treat as the final word on what a country could be.

None of that makes the number wrong. It makes it an answer to a particular question: "what do Scotland's books look like inside the UK, run from Westminster?" The Fraser of Allander Institute — nobody's campaign group — puts it plainly: GERS is a useful starting point for discussing the challenges an independent Scotland would face, but it is backward-looking, based on current constitutional arrangements, and cannot tell you what the finances of an independent Scotland would look like under different choices (FAI on GERS and independence).

Some context the headline never carries

What rarely makes it into the "Scotland's deficit" headlines: almost every nation and region of the UK runs a notional deficit on the same basis. The Institute for Fiscal Studies finds that only London, the South East and the East of England are net fiscal contributors; everywhere else — Wales, Northern Ireland, the North of England, the Midlands, the South West, Scotland — depends on fiscal transfers (IFS — Scotland relies on fiscal transfers, like other regions outside the South East).

Put that next to the claim that the deficit proves Scotland couldn't manage alone. On the UK's own accounting, practically nowhere in the UK can "pay its way" except one corner of England. Either the whole country outside the south-east is uniquely incapable — or the UK economy has been run, for a long time, in a way that concentrates wealth in one place and compensates everywhere else with transfers. Scotland's GERS number is partly a description of Scotland. It is at least as much a description of that model, after three centuries inside it.

What independence actually changes

Now the honest part, because we promised straight answers.

Independence doesn't make £26 billion disappear. What it changes is who writes the budget. An independent Scotland would set its own tax system, size its own defence for its own needs, negotiate what share of UK debt it takes on and on what terms, and decide its own spending priorities — every line of the current accounts becomes a choice rather than an allocation. Some choices would improve the position; some wouldn't; and different Scottish governments would choose differently, which is rather the point.

No serious economist thinks the gap closes by itself on day one, and neither do we. A newly independent Scotland would need fiscal discipline through a transition, as every new state has. What the GERS number cannot do — and its own authors and the country's leading fiscal institutes agree it cannot do — is tell you the destination. It's a photograph of the starting line, taken under the current management.

And one more thing about that starting line. The deficit is routinely presented as an argument against independence. It is just as much a question for the status quo: these figures describe Scotland after three hundred years of the union, run by the arrangements we're told are working. If the answer to "why is the deficit so big?" is "because of how Scotland's economy and public finances have developed inside the UK" — that is not the ringing endorsement of the current arrangements its users seem to think it is.

So what's the real question?

Not whether the number is real — it is, as a description of the present arrangement. Not whether an independent Scotland would face hard fiscal choices at first — it would, and anyone who says otherwise isn't being straight with you.

The real question is the same one as ever: who should make those choices? Deficits are not exotic — the UK itself has run one almost every year for fifty years, and stood at 5.1% of GDP on the day these figures came out. Every government on Earth manages the gap between what it raises and what it spends. The question is whether the government managing Scotland's gap should be one Scotland elects, working with Scotland's own books — or whether the current photograph, taken by the current management, should be accepted as the last word on what Scotland can ever be.

Check our working