³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The Scottish Government set out last year with its central "Purpose" - the focus of all its activities - to match UK and European growth rates.

Now, with times radically changed, it seems the goal is to avoid matching their decline.

This is the drastically altered context for the Council of Economic Advisers, set up last year by Alex Salmond soon after the SNP took power at Holyrood, to publish their first annual report.

It doesn't take the finest economic brains to share their conclusion that the outlook is "unusually challenging and uncertain", as they note the unprecedented speed at which downturn has gathered pace.

Chaired by former Royal Bank of Scotland boss Sir George Mathewson, the report puts stress on some of the issues advisers have considered in detail over their four meetings since September last year.

That includes the need to change the culture of the planning system. Legislation, which has been a long time coming, should soon begin to make an impact on that.

The report points to familiar problems with Scottish productivity, both labour and capital.

Scots are working harder, but earning less, goes the analysis.

That's seen as the "branch office problem", whereas London's headquarters operations provide jobs with more value added.

Dig deeper, read between some lines, and you can find some interesting debate going on.

On nuclear power, the economic advisers have a strong tide of scepticism running against the idea that renewables can provide for Scotland's energy needs after Hunterston and Torness are retired - at least if Scotland is to meet ambitious climate change targets.

There's a warning that "outages may become more frequent" as current plants age, and "on present trends, that will result in the burning of more fossil fuel for replacement power generation".

The economists recommend the Scottish Government should commission "an independent assessment of the full economic costs and abatement potential of the various energy options open to Scotland", and a wide-ranging public debate on the range of technological options.

The warning is that the decisions being taken in the next few years will have a direct impact on economic growth.

It looks like a pretty clear push to re-consider the veto on new nuclear, which is what the business lobby groups have also been saying.

Then there's the future of infrastructure funding.

There is a critical assessment of the constraints of devolution in capital expenditure, and the Public Finance Initiative is criticised for imposing constraints on future government spending.

But while saying they welcome other ideas, there's a vagueness about the government's plans for a Scottish Futures Trust.

From what we know if it, this would operate the same way as PFI, in imposing long-term costs on public sector budgets.

The only difference looks like the level of profit that can be extracted.

We should hear more about that next week, with Finance Secretary John Swinney due to outline his priorities for strategic transport projects up to 2020.

That plan will be dominated by the cost of the new Forth bridge, and we ought to find out what mechanism he intends to use to unlock the necessary billions.

The clearest challenge to SNP government policy from Alex Salmond's Council of Economic Advisers is on university funding.

Several of its members work in universities, so you might say this looks like a vested interest.

But they are clear that the Scottish Government has to look to Scottish students to contribute to the cost of their education, as well as alumni.

This runs contrary to ministers' proud declaration that the abolition of the graduate endowment has ensured Scottish education is free.

But at what cost to economic prospects? If the sector is limited to a fixed budget, the Council argues there are going to be compromises on the participation rate, on the level of attainment of the student population, or in quality - and potentially in all three.

So it is argued the government has to be clearer about whether it can expect Scottish universities to be world class, or if it is more realistic to focus on securing that status for individual departments.

That comes with a proposal that ministers have to find agreement with universities about future strategy and the scale of the sector, and they should be clear what they expect from universities' collaboration.

They propose a re-design of Scotland's four-year degree, into two sections of two years, alongside more localised access, similar to the initiative at Dumfries's Crichton campus.

The tone of the report is that this is one issue on which the Council of Economic Advisers could provide cover for a re-think of higher education policy.

"As countries elsewhere are finding, squaring the budgetary circle of higher participation, higher levels and higher quality is very challenging," they report.

"It calls for a greater diversity of institutions, and managing this process is extremely difficult."

The analysis is in line with a warning from Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors and principals.

The organisation reckons Scottish institutions (and Welsh and Northern Irish) are at risk of losing competitive ground as English institutions gain from the extra funding that comes with top-up fees.

With England soon to review the £3,000 cap on its fees - and with pressure on Whitehall ministers to let the market dictate levels, allowing much higher rates for prestigious campuses - it's a safe bet that this issue is going to become more prominent in the new year for Scottish Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop.