The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has, over recent months, been considering the potential economic impact of Scottish independence on the economies of Scotland and the rest of the UK ahead of the referendum to be held on 18 September 2014.
Its second report was published on 10 April and was critical of both the UK and Scottish governments for “failing to spell out all the possible consequences of a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum,” according to a report in the newsletter Public Service.
The Committee considered a broad range of economic questions, including defence spending and Trident renewal, monetary policy, the future of North Sea oil and possible division of the UK’s national debt.
Its chairman Lord MacGregor said: “Many of these issues could not be clarified – if there is a Yes vote – until after negotiations following such a vote.
“So we recommend in particular that the Scottish and British governments should indicate the ‘red lines’ of their negotiating stance on them before the referendum so that voters can make an informed choice.”
He said that, while the report does not take a position on whether people should vote yes or no in the poll, the public “deserve to cast their vote based on a proper understanding of the possible economic impact”.
He added: “At present they do not have the information to do so.”
Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney attacked the findings, describing the committee as “out of touch” in thinking Scotland “too small and too poor”.
In a statement he said: “All the evidence, including in this report, shows Scotland is in a far stronger financial position than the UK as a whole.
“What the Lords fail to mention is that a No vote would see Scots, within the UK, responsible for over two trillion pounds of debt and liabilities worth 145% of GDP, significantly more than an independent Scotland would face under any calculation.
“We are firmly committed to ensuring the people of Scotland have all the information they need on the opportunities of independence to take the positive step forward with a Yes vote in 2014, which amongst other things would bring an end to unelected Lords talking Scotland down.
“The only area where the Lords have hit the right note is in their view that the UK Government is failing to take the prospect of independence for Scotland seriously. We have repeatedly suggested that officials from both governments begin discussions around Scotland’s independence and the UK Government has repeatedly refused.”
The report follows one by experts in international law which stated that an independent Scotland would have to renegotiate its relationship with international organisations while the rest of the UK would continue as before.
Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle said in the report that the “overwhelming weight” of precedent suggests Scotland will become a new state while the remainder of the UK will continue to hold its previous position.
“This means that if Scotland became independent, only the remainder of the UK would automatically continue to exercise the same rights, obligations and powers under international law as the UK currently does, and would not have to re-negotiate existing treaties or re-apply for membership of international organisations.”