Scotland is poor and can't afford independence

FALSE

Claim:
Scotland gets a subsidy of £1,200 per head more than the UK average. Without this, Scotland would struggle to pay for roads, hospitals, schools, etc.

Facts:
GERS, Government Expenditure Review Scotland, was an annual report instigated by Tory Michael Forsyth showing a permanent Scottish debt to the rest of the UK. But GERS had some interesting quirks. Important streams of revenue generated in Scotland, such as whisky or oil, were not counted. And expenditure that was deemed of national importance (almost always an infrastructure project in London or the South-East) had its share apportioned to Scottish expenditure.

GERS is correct in that roads, schools, hospitals, etc. in Scotland cost more per head on average than in the rest of the UK. But take into account the missing revenue, and it turns out that the money flow is in the opposite direction. Scotland receives £1,200 per head more than the UK average. But Scotland's tax contribution is £1,700 per head higher than the UK average. The UK is the world's 17th wealthiest country. An independent Scotland, without having to make a single improvement, would be the world's 7th richest country. Yet GERS has done its job as propaganda so well, that the false impression that Scotland is in hock to the rest of the UK is endemic.

And GERS is a snapshot of Scotland in the UK. It takes no account of the finances of an independent Scotland which, even if nothing else changed, would be healthier. To take three simple examples:

• Most Scottish exports are currently invisible, as they go through English ports. 
• The tax revenue generated on the high street is reported at company HQ, often in England. But Tesco in Scotland, like Tesco in Ireland, would pay tax to the local jurisdiction. 
• The costs of running the British civil service, which Scotland partly funds, would be spent in Scotland.  

Next time someone says they would like independence but we can't afford it, send them a link to this page.