Would the NHS be safer in an independent Scotland?

Would the future of the NHS be more secure in an independent Scotland?

The 'Yes' campaign's claim to that effect is credited with creating the surge in support that's made the referendum too close to call.

Now the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has set out some of the facts about health spending which, on first glance, undermine the Yes campaign's assertions.

First of all, who has the "best record" on the NHS so far?

According to the IFS, between 2009-10 and 2015-16 spending on the NHS in England will have risen 4%, while spending in Scotland will have fallen 1%.

So under austerity measures the Scottish government has chosen to protect its health service slightly less than it has been protected in England.

Furthermore the IFS points out that this is not a new pattern.

Between 2002-03 and 2009-10 (covering the period of plenty when the Labour government piled money into hospitals) real terms health spending per person grew by 43% across the UK as a whole, but by 29% in Scotland.

Historically, then, Holyrood governments have given health a lower priority in terms of spending.

On to the second question then: what are the prospects for the NHS in an independent Scotland?

The IFS has looked at both the Scottish government's prediction of likely oil revenue (£7 billion a year) and the ONS's lower prediction of £3 billion a year. In either scenario, the Institute predicts the Scottish government's budget position would be weaker.

It would be harder, not easier, to protect the NHS. Adding in the eventual fall in oil revenue coupled with Scotland's ageing population, the IFS predicts "less room for additional spending" on the NHS.

However all this is about how much money is thrown at healthcare, it's not about the quality of treatment that money provides. And here, I'd like to point you to some other research, conducted earlier this year by the Nuffield Trust.

It compared key indicators of quality across the health services of all four UK nations, and its conclusion? England did move ahead in the early 2000s, but the performance gap has now narrowed.

There is little sign of one country moving ahead of the others in terms of performance. Here's a quote from that report's summary:

One final point. Since devolution the Scottish government has taken a broader view of health policy: prioritising spending on matters which have an indirect impact on health - like housing and social care.

That's spending which is not reflected in these figures but has a huge bearing on how successful the Scottish government has been at tackling its health challenges.

Statistics like the ones the IFS has analysed today therefore cannot give us the full picture.