 FIRST Minister alex Salmond set out yet again last week his solution to our economic ills: "Time for Plan B". He has called on the UK government to relax the deficit reduction programme and find resources for more capital spending and infrastructure works.  So far, these calls have met with little public scrutiny or questioning. all of this begs the question: were "Plan B" as straightforward and effortless as it sounds, why is it not being adopted?  "Blocked by the blind obstinacy of the London government" is the immediate retort. It is one with the added convenience of closing down discussion on two black holes that lie at the heart of the Plan B case. One is immediate: the doubts it raises over the administration's grasp of the financial crisis and events in Europe. The second is the black hole that lies ahead for the SNP in its pursuit of "independence".  The advocacy of Plan B has proceeded by virtue of the omission of some key numbers. You will find little reference in the First Minister's statements to the size and implication of the debt and deficit totals we currently face. In fact, there is nowhere in the Scottish budget a reference to these totals or to Scotland's share of these.  These are no mere abstractions but lie at the heart of the current cutbacks. For reference, the figures are as follows: the UK budget deficit this year is forecast at GBP122 billion or 7.9 per cent of GDP. The UK net public debt for 2011-12 is GBP1,046 bn or 66 per cent of GDP. and the annual debt interest charge is currently GBP48.6bn. Scotland's proximate pro rata share of this, based on its population share, is GBP11bn for the deficit, GBP101bn for the debt and GBP4.5bn for the annual interest bill.  I mention these not just because of the direct relevance to Scotland's budget situation but also because they are critical to public understanding of what we are up against and the choices that we face. Do we wish to incur more debt or pay it down? Bear a greater or lesser annual debt interest charge?  Insofar as we can make choices, let's make informed ones and not pretend that we are somehow immune from the struggle across the Western world to bring debt and deficit totals under control - never popular, I concede, in democracies that have been perverted by political appeals based on ever rising spending and borrowing.  This is the burden bearing down on us, just as similar debt and deficit burdens are bearing down on the governments of Eurozone countries, threatening default and possible expulsion from the single currency. It is this debt and deficit burden that is confronting continental Europe with the most painful and profoundly worrying problems in its post-war history. The debate in Scotland about "Plan a" or "Plan B" is an integral part of this crisis and is not somehow immune or unaffected by it.  It is to relieve the UK debt burden that the coalition government put in hand a five-year deficit reduction programme. and it is by virtue of this programme that the UK has so far successfully avoided a flight out of government bonds.  Plan a has also brought the immediate and tangible benefit of the lowest interest rates on government debt funding in living memory. Maturing debt can now be replaced at lower interest cost.  This benefit is the direct result of market confidence - so far - that the UK government will stick with the programme to bring these debt and deficit totals down. This is a critical constraint that does not apply to the SNP administration. It has no bond market breathing down its neck asking awkward questions about how a Plan B might be funded, how existing debt and deficits will be brought down and requiring assurance that budget discipline will be met - and debt honoured.  Nor in its Plan B does there appear to be any recognition of the need for action by the Holyrood administration to reform the public sector and raise productivity.  What of the criticism that the deficit reduction programme is deepening the economic slowdown by cutting public spending and reducing numbers employed in the public sector? Here there is room for genuine argument. But there is another feature of Plan a seldom mentioned in the First Minister's critique. It does allow for growth measures. These were ably spelt out last week by the Bu 