Scotland is very well placed to be a powerhouse economy. We already have a larger economy than many other countries like Norway, Finland, Ireland, and New Zealand. Not many countries in Europe can rival our wealth of natural resources and our educated workforce. Scotland:

• has the EU's 4th biggest financial centre

• has three quarters of the EU's oil reserves

• provides the UK Treasury with one of its biggest single sources of revenue - whisky duty

• produces 30% of branded PCs in Europe

• is number 4 internationally for fund management

• has almost half of its young people in full time post-school education (compared with only a third in the UK)

And that’s just for starters. We have some of the finest food and drink products and universities to rival the best in the world. We also have a globally recognised brand and identity and a worldwide reputation for integrity – key to our success in the 21st century knowledge economy.

Scotland’s problem is not a lack of resources, but that we are controlled by a London Government whose whole economic policy is designed for the needs of the south east of England economy, not focussed on the needs of Scotland.

As a result we are tied to the long-term relative economic decline of the UK. From 1st in the world wealth league at the turn of the 20th century, the UK is now only 19th and falling.

Scotland can more than afford Independence. Peter Woods, Senior Economist at Pieda said on 23-8-97, "There is no doubt that Scotland could be a relatively prosperous independent country". And Alf Young, Economics Editor of The Herald said on 18-1-97, "Personally I have never had any doubt that Scotland could survive and indeed prosper as an independent economy".

Indeed, the late Donald Dewar, Labour’s former First Minister, acknowledged Scotland’s potential: "Quite simply, I accept entirely that Scotland could sustain Independence. I accept entirely that Scotland can have Independence if it wants it." (BBC TV's Panorama 17-2-92)

New Labour’s claim that an independent Scotland would be in serious deficit are undermined by the fact that Scotland had a fiscal surplus in twelve of the last twenty years, whereas, on those same Government figures, the UK has only had a surplus in four of those twenty years. By their own logic this would mean the London parties should argue the UK can’t afford to be independent.

This is not a serious argument, it is a cynical attempt to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

If you take away the politics and anti-SNP propaganda and look at the bare economic facts, the black hole is in the UK’s fiscal position, not Scotland’s. Even if we look at the Government's own biased figures it is clear that Scotland will be in surplus by 2003. And Scotland’s surplus is just the starting point. It is economic growth that matters. More economic growth means more wealth creation and more revenue for Scottish public services.

But to do all that we need a Government responsive to the needs of the Scottish economy, with the economic powers to act in Scotland’s interests.

One of the most depressing things about the arguments used by the opponents of Independence is that they base their case on the outcomes of their own failed record and offer this as evidence that Scotland should not move on.

For example, Scotland’s non-oil growth rate between 1968 and 1998 averaged 2.1%, compared to 2.4% for the UK. If that gap had been filled our economy would be worth £6 billion more this year delivering £2.5 billion more tax revenues. The Republic of Ireland in recent years has averaged 10% a year. If Ireland can achieve this without the natural resources of Scotland, think what Scotland could achieve with Independence. We need policies to place us at a competitive advantage to the rest of the UK and the powers to deliver these policies lies only with Westminster at present. Scotland has it all in terms of potential, what we lack is the power to deliver.

The unionist argument that Scotland is subsidised is an odd one. Firstly, if it were true, it would hardly be an advert for the UK’s management of Scotland’s economy. This argument is essentially saying that Scotland has been made poor by London management so cannot afford to be independent. The logic of this suggests that we can’t afford not to be independent.

At any rate, the claim is a false one, and always has been. Throughout the 1990’s the Tory Government produced GERS figures - Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland figures - supposedly "proving" that Scotland was subsidised, - a Tory tactic Labour have embraced and kept since 1997 - and claimed that these were objective civil service assessments, made without the political interference of Ministers.

That claim was rather undermined in 1995, when a letter came to light from Conservative Scottish Secretary of State Ian Lang to the Prime Minister John Major and Chancellor Kenneth Clarke which stated, "The booklet I have had prepared and printed, setting out the details of the Government’s expenditure and revenue in Scotland, I judge that it is just what is needed at present in our campaign to maintain our initiative and undermine the other parties."

"The SNP has done all of us a service by scotching the Tory myth that we are subsidy junkies." (Daily Record Editorial 8-4-97).

"The SNP claims that the Scottish Office figures are distorted. The Party has a point". (The Economist Editorial 26-10-96)

"The Government provokes it [the subsidy argument] by the ill-considered way in which it tries to combat the case for devolution and independence by insisting that the financial cost of standing on our own two feet could not be borne because of the advantages provided by the UK Treasury. This line of argument is counter-productive and ought to be dropped." (The Herald Editorial18-1-97)

However the Unionists will always try to say that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK and that Independence means increased taxes or spending cuts. But that is the usual anti-Scottish argument that we will always hear from parties who try to tell Scots they are too poor and too stupid to run their own country.

The old assumption that Scotland is subsidised, which was once accepted as fact, is now discredited. There is every reason to believe that an independent Scotland would flourish; indeed the question is, can we afford not to be independent?

Subsidised or not the real economic question is whether policy made in Scotland for Scotland will be better for our economy than policy made in London without any focus on Scottish conditions.

Anti-Independence commentators often talk about the Barnett formula, by which public spending is allocated to different parts of the UK, as evidence that Scotland gets a good deal.

In fact, the Barnett formula is designed to ensure that public spending goes up by less in Scotland than it does in the UK as a whole. For instance, a 10% increase in public expenditure on relevant English programmes will yield, via Barnett, only an 8.1% increase in the money which the Scottish Parliament is allocated to spend in those areas. That’s what is meant by the "Barnett Squeeze". Over the next three years, the Barnett Squeeze will mean that Scotland loses out on £2 billion in government spending increases. Devolution, which aimed to allow for divergence between the way government operates in Scotland and the rest of the UK, is in fact constrained by a formula which is designed to ensure a convergence in government spending.