Amid competing economic statistics and a warning from experts that the next Scottish Government will face a funding squeeze, Herald writer Brian Taylor deplores the state of political discourse – and argues for a focus on growth. 

Tell me this.  Did you raise a glass at the news that the UK Government registered a record borrowing surplus last month? 

Did a gentle smile crease your features at the thought that the Treasury levied £30.4bn more in January than was required for public service spending? 

I suspect not.  To be clear, sustained debt is a drain on the Exchequer.  But, still, these stats jar somewhat with the overall state of the real economy, as experienced by our citizens. 

Mostly, households are living through a period of disquiet, mild or severe.  They find life a struggle in this, the age of anxiety.  They draw little comfort even from comparatively upbeat figures. 

Sarwar’s revolt leaves Starmer reeling and Labour in freefall

What is left of the Parliament Jim Wallace helped create?

Just how do we cope with President Trump’s self-obsessed world view?

As Reform rises and parties feud, Scotland heads for a radically altered parliament

And, further, there are those in penury.  Look at the jobless figures.  UK unemployment at its highest rate in nearly five years. 

Within those stats, it should be noted that young people are bearing the brunt as firms are reluctant to hire them, deterred in part by Treasury impositions such as the Employers NI hike and enhanced rights, such as minimum wages. 

UK Ministers are now hinting that they may decelerate plans to increase minimum wages for young employees.  But that is unlikely, in itself, to bolster immediate confidence in the jobs market.

Glance too at the report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, indicating that, for the first time, most children in these islands, some 52.6 per cent, are living below an identified Minimum Income Standard, MIS. 

Lying beneath all these reports is a common factor.  Sluggish or flatlining economic growth.  We fail to match the MIS because we fall short on GDP.  Gross Domestic Product.    

It is therefore to be deplored that economic growth features so infrequently in our Holyrood election rhetoric.  Much more commonly, the talk is of other initials.  The NHS. Even FoI. 

I chanced to be chatting this week with a senior business leader who told me the problem with the standard public discourse was apathy towards the broad economy.  Neglect and nonchalance.

Yes, there was a legitimate furore over well-publicised crises. Grangemouth, Mossmorran.  But not over the stimulus and supporting conditions required for surviving firms to thrive. 

My companion said they could cope with sporadic hostility to their endeavours, should those arise.  They could muster rebuttals.  But the overall public – and thus political – attitude appeared to be one of indifference. 

If you think about it, this analysis marries with the view put forward in The Herald by Tavish Scott of Salmon Scotland.  He said few seemed willing to acknowledge the jobs and value created by his sector.  The talk was all of problems.

Now, caveats here.  It is entirely legitimate for the public – and the media – to spotlight challenges associated with commercial enterprise.  Business leaders I converse with recognise that fully. 

The concern is that the broad political discourse appears remote from arguments about economic growth.  There is endless talk about public spending.  And about revenue raising.  Far less about wealth creation. 

Another business figure I talked to this week suggested a cause for this mismatch.  Public discourse has been narrowed by the potent impact of social media.  Debate is reduced to phrases competing for attention. 

By definition, contributions to social media are anecdotal, fragmentary and opinionated.  There is little space for subtlety or for examining options.  Further, there may be limited room for empirical testing of statements. 

Now, it will be argued that every opinion is of equal value.  That is undoubtedly valid with regard to the origin of opinions.  All sources start with equal weight.  But how do we get beyond simplistic competing statements?  How do we find space to test and measure truth? 

In the coming election, we should stand by for a blizzard of argument and counter argument.  She said, they retorted.  I make no complaint.  Such is the soundtrack of political rhetoric. 

But perhaps there might also be room to recognise the fiscal – and thus economic – challenge which will confront whichever individual occupies Bute House after May 7. 

Contemplate another set of initials, IFS.  The Institute for Fiscal Studies.  They note that the next Holyrood government faces a substantial funding conundrum. 

That is because Scotland’s spending advantage in these islands is steadily eroding.  To be absolutely clear, that was always intended to happen under the Barnett Formula – which was founded upon convergence.  The long-anticipated Barnett squeeze is finally here. 

Let me quote the IFS.  “Funding increases are set to slow, while the squeeze on funding relative to England will continue.

“If the next Scottish Government wishes to maintain the more comprehensive set of public services and benefits that residents of Scotland have enjoyed relative to their counterparts elsewhere in the UK, this will require some combination of higher devolved revenues and/or marked improvements in public service productivity.”

In short, higher taxes or spending constraint.  Or both.  Ministers are adamant that plans are already in place to cope with this acknowledged challenge.  One told me they would drive efficiencies in the NHS – which would improve health care. 

No doubt drawing attention to their study, the IFS suggested that established Scottish spending programmes such as free university tuition might be in jeopardy. 

It is entirely legitimate to pose such questions.  There should indeed be a political debate in this election over, for example, the scale of benefits.  Have the SNP, as the Tories suggest, been “spending like a drunken sailor?”  Or is this valid social cohesion funded by marginally higher overall taxation?

But there are alternatives to scrapping schemes entirely.  We could change the way we spend.  For example, relieve demand on the NHS by tackling social care.  Improve supply methods through tech and stricter rules. 

And, above all, we could grow our economy – and thus bolster revenue.  Yes, some of that would accrue to the Treasury through, for example, corporation tax.  Arguably, that mismatch lessens the incentive for Holyrood to pursue growth, a point which supporters of independence will pursue in the run-up to May.

But economic growth in Scotland has a triple benefit for the Scottish Government.  It can enhance income tax revenues, which are devolved.  It can reduce pressure upon devolved benefits.  And it may help improve the nation’s health. 

Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC. 

© Herald Scotland