The general aspirations for the tax system set out in the White Paper, such as wanting ‘a simple and transparent tax system’, are admirable. But all governments espouse such goals. The question is what specific changes an independent Scottish government would implement that would make it more successful in achieving those goals than successive UK governments have been.

Not unreasonably, the White Paper postpones most such specifics, proposing ‘a more significant review of the tax system in the early years of independence’. Radical reform should not be rushed.

Nevertheless, the White Paper does name a few priorities. Three of those are tax cuts: to corporation tax, air passenger duty and employers’ National Insurance contributions. The White Paper is right to point out the economic benefits that all three of these would bring, though it does not mention the environmental downside to cutting air passenger duty. But the obvious drawback of tax cuts is the cost. Since an independent Scotland would face an even bigger long-term fiscal challenge than the UK as a whole, an independent Scotland might find itself looking for ways to increase, rather than reduce, taxes.

Part of the cost of those tax cuts would be met by abolishing the transferable income tax allowance for some married couples that the UK government is due to introduce in 2015. As its main revenue-raising proposal, however, the Scottish government wants ‘simplification’ to generate an extra £250 million annually by the end of a first term, including via ‘fewer reliefs and exemptions’. But which reliefs and exemptions would it eliminate? The White Paper names only one: ‘shares for rights’, a poorly designed scheme that invites tax avoidance and is a prime candidate for abolition. It remains to be seen which other candidates the Scottish government would identify.

The White Paper contains some admirable aspirations and some welcome proposals. But it is more specific about tax cuts than about tax rises. And postponing more a radical review until after independence does not make it any less necessary.

This piece was originally published at BBC News Viewpoints.