´óÏó´«Ã½

Two takes so far this month on the so-called Noughties and the first decade of devolution show Scotland has quite a good story to tell.

That's at least until recession hit. We've got another indicator from , out this morning, showing contrasting signs between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

One of the new takes on the past 10 years is a comparison of growth rates.

We're often told, mainly by SNP ministers, that Scotland's growth rate has lagged behind that of the UK. The Scottish Government's Purpose, with a capital P, is to close that gap by 2011.

One analysis of growth rates carried out for the Financial Times bears out that analysis, at least for the 1990s.

UK growth in that decade ran at 2.2% in the average year, while Scotland was at 1.9%.

And the Noughties? UK growth in the average year was at 1.7%, according to this reckoning, and Scottish average growth was 2.2%.

In other words, if you take the past 10 years, Scotland has already achieved The Purpose.

The only areas to register better average growth rates were London, at 2.7%, and East Anglia at 2.4%.

North-west England and the West Midlands had the most subdued Noughties.

That comes with a statistical health warning: a neat 10-year period, whether a decade or not, is no way to measure the economic cycle.

The other take on the past 10 years comes from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

That think tank's main interest is in poverty, of people and place. And it's been asking how 10 years of devolution has changed inequalities within the UK.

The answer is that Scotland has done not too badly.

The approach was to take 16 indicators of poverty, unemployment and mortality rates, and to compare how the three devolved nations compare with the nine regions of England.

The gap between the parts of the UK faring best and worst narrowed on most indicators but widened for early mortality, with Scotland seeing a particularly poor performance in mortality among those under 65.

It's improved, but very slowly, and it still lags behind the position occupied by much of England 10 years ago.

Scotland did well on improvements to child and pensioner poverty rates. And across the 16 indicators, it was Scotland that was most consistently above average.

So the north-south divide got smaller, though at a modest pace.

And can that be put down to the impact of devolution? Not much of it.

Scotland's biggest improvements were on issues most directly affected by Westminster's reserved powers, including unemployment and welfare payments.

And the north-east of England has a similar story of improvements to tell, without devolution to explain it.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has some recommendations worth noting.

Most of them centre around one theme: Westminster and the devolved administrations need to work more closely together, even while their policies diverge.

That goes for sharing information, evaluating how they are doing against the targets set for reducing poverty, and for discussion with devolved ministers before tax and welfare changes are imposed from the centre.

Professor David Bell, from Stirling University and a contributor to the Rowntree research, suggests Scotland may need to have some of the welfare system devolved, as changes afoot could undermine the policy choices already made on care for the elderly.

This Rowntree evidence is supposedly the source of the headline "Scotland 'the most affluent country in Britain'", trumpeted in one of our Sunday papers, together with calls to cut back on the Barnett formula block grant to Holyrood.

It's a great headline, but hard to see that it has anything to do with the report.

Then again, the headline "Scotland relatively less poor, but still dying too young" wouldn't sell so many papers or confirm so many prejudices.