The invisible truth
There are some stories which persist long after they’ve been debunked, a recent example being Joan McAlpine’s supposed accusation that anyone opposing the SNP was “anti-Scottish”. However many times it was shown that she didn’t say any such thing, however often she explained what she HAD said, the lie kept being perpetuated (and will doubtless continue to be in the coming months and years) by people who knew full well it wasn’t true, because it suited their agenda to do so.
The notion that Scotland is massively subsidised by England is another such political legend, and we don’t imagine for a second that this story from today’s Sunday Times will stop the endless stream of idiots on the Telegraph, Mail and Express (both above and below the line) from continuing to assert it at every opportunity.
But at least now you can handily link them to the actual facts, even if they don’t want to hear them. The full article can be read below.
The attributing to Scotland of only 83% of North Sea oil revenues (international law points to over 90% of such resources belonging to Scotland in the event of independence) is a touch controversial, and suggests that the reality would in fact be a slight subsidy of the rest of the UK by Scotland, but this’ll serve the purpose for now.
Cos I’m a woman.
plus VAT, defence underspend, corporation taxes etc.
Don't forget the London and English figures are heavily massaged by comparison. They can borrow where Scotland cannot, London/England spends being classed as "UK" and so cutting into the Scots budget and the cost being spread throughout the UK instead, there's the bailouts and free money printing that goes straight to London, the fact that most the money being attributed to London is from the heavily corrupt and decaying financial industry that is crippling the rest of the country (and world). The list goes on.
Scotland's situation where it has healthier exports and lower spends gives it a much rosier future.
…now you can handily link them to the actual facts,…
I wouldn't be so bold as to call them 'actual facts'. They appear to me to be 'actual conclusions'. Nevertheless, nice article for rebuffing the old cliche of 'subsidy junkies'.
Then again. Maybe not.
link to bbc.co.uk