OK, i’ve resisted this until now but let me quickly list the ways in which Richard Murphy is wrong in this rambling attempt to dismiss the reality of GERS buckle up (1/n)

he correctly observes Scotland generates same revenues per head and benefits from £2,600 per head higher spending but says it’s “very hard to work out” how it isn’t very hard to work, it’s clearly explained in the GERS report 2/n

i’ve taken the time to graph that higher spending by category over time (the data’s all there) most of it comes from social protection (pensions and benefits), education, housing and health — these are readily available figures 3/n

[aside: that “other” is mainly “accounting adjustments” which are balanced by revenue adjustments - if they weren’t included Scotland’s revenue per head would be an equivalent amount lower] 4/n